Loading...
2006-106 G City OfENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering September 15, 2008 Attn: Washington Mutual Bank 6985 El Camino Real Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92009 RE: Darryl and Gina Franklin 3358 Wildflower Valley Drive APN 264-091-86 Grading Permit 106-GI Final release of security Permit 106-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0092-0001789238-0 in the amount of$41,158.75. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc y, Debra Geishart L ba Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Darryl and Gina Franklin Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633 2700 �40 recycled paper µ` w C I T Y O F E N C I N I T A S ENGINEER,ING, SERVICES DEPARTMENT X65 s. VULCAN AVE. CINITAS , CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. ; 1'=?601 PARCEL NO. 264-091-8600, PLAN NO. JOB SITE)ADDRESS : 335.;8 WILDFLOWER VALLEY DR CASE NO _ APPLICANT NAME, DARRY'L AND GINA FRANKLIN MAILING ADDRESS: 1361 SHOREBIRD LANE PHONE N�^_< , 1 s-9S 1 iSt3 = CITY : CARLSBAD STATE ; CA ZIP : 9201=- CONTRACTOR : INTERWEST PACIFIC LTD PHONE NO. LICENSE NO. : 575110 LICENSE TYPE: A ENGINEER MIKE SMITH PHONE NO. : 760 -931-94$5 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 6/271/06 PERMIT EXP. PERMIT ISSUED BY : INSPECT.OR': 'ODD BAUMBACH ------------------ ------ PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ------------------- -- 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: , 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE 6 , 939 . 04 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5 , PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT 164 _. 635 .00 7 . FLOOD" CONTROL FEE 1 , 596 . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE 832 .00 IESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- G BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND ?MATERIALS FOR TE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL. RAFF I C CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W .A.T; C.H . NE 15 , 2006 APPLIES. ------ DATE ----- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE - 7-// oG. Z -1- -D7 o _ Z- 42 FINAL INSPECTION U 7, - -A I HEREBY A.CKNOWLEDGE THAT I ,HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE I,NFClRM'r.' .N IS.,C{7RRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE TAWS R'EWLATING CAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS QF• < A T IT I6 D URSLTANT TO THIS APPLICATION . DATE SIGNED ` t SAME TELEPHONE NUMBEF CIiOI;E oNE L OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE: 7~11-o6 re- Cor, Symms / ems dsctrssc�. 7- 13-,9,(, v -4cn j-l�-Ob �cr7�s Sfar7�g� ��fa �r S1Si5 Sact,�o 4� S/�. �✓ n°w, dri`- 7-18-G� Cum rt ��4E 7u r3� /7aF10 ALa� 7 %'-A�v /L)rf aS2cT v�E�T S'1 y 1 S LgG- 12E-T. "4LLS r L IAK, ,A( � Tt c o,•r n rvuES 7Z BF CcrT /A/ 7l Cj�0oQ7iAlG lXbS7Z-1 7"aJ)24/ hi ra/ -Oufe l our 7-2 f-vb � Co-,A rtes• �fe►c! QS� A y • 0,61 Z 4,ac k-S' e-L's► 7 05 Cv �n'�/tc�Z,L_ iar c.r �"� A ivcri ASr7,vCa. r� �E �-n A J-Zb-oe-, A� c2e�,+s e up;P . 0)44 Jc� un h'l `may e u e but ow 7`a •G-� yhrUtic l-•, r oG/�. Ca-//mod Ue-5 f et rc --'tA,:rejo . -Z�-Gao ,, ,�- �-66 8 •-Z-CC, F{a ew C ah ""es- zf-a ct ocZ cam' cthc-f as Z7 rUt #� l-P(ftr- orrr►t�S�d� �=3-oo Br�CLIL�I CO-,�hctfS• e rc> t �(.� P U+�.rwl' S~�� *J/P���c, �c�[T>oJUg vim'— ��1.•► ��-(� S P� . �._�-o�, Tb� m /�,•� cf t�s,r5 �cal��r. S� �orc;.�� QCC L o d E m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: & U(a ExPC4-7— Co"77,u uG5 . 8 l j 0,6 A o v G_ �5L c ac T 5;A- If 10 l.r;?6C, /lc��Fe sTiF.CB� G�l�'a yG 5::� i}►c.v kc-cle 74v 9D s r hocre i-nlb %7� r0C 7)- C/ Q 4C7-7 ry , 8 vin Bf' k� ix,'OIZJC 44c t— O/' , S o� �3��lCj�-/L� �� •�.��-+N� ��.ns G�•4L� cv�/YY�,c.��. 12&-77WIAtC, w rftcf-- 9lf Ll6 Ekp04 co N 77 N ue�. I (r, t_irrLf-7 a C' 1-02o,LC At St . ec Ti7�t� yl3Ob Ato Ac 71o, , 9525-10L G.Ve LAST - 2 w rekS o n X�u **-W rva7 a�n�C ct l _ o.wo1fXW5 +Ae t/E i Rocl�u jQ.4-cnUj CIC5 /V6rl- ICIMAt/4 7}4497 Z /JIC y . III/• on 4h (,t/ <l.G Lu o u/d `eel -/Vj oho 9 Z7 C,( C/feU S C oA-177wur7 ?a t5c.-.i7A-lC s ry cu 7 �/ t°�iLl.,�nrr2C!�� .b�73h fi fit /nfU rvcx . /Af5 arzTz•til -r,ct.y � � �y ,off, , q�z g AWA o U l ino�T .a-r r� <i�s�CZ� w/4'v� PF'-c'� �t rf� . C- 3 cf�fzt:l. C(i��y Cr �C o Z m14 4 2 9 ,�. �' .: CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE: t /S/TLrD :507'E-- c: je 77v`c /U -!ei---C)6, nNi;r-d /r /Z`` /�x. Sz c�`� C' 6c;.ffV,71 t i /Z" b/� t se �) �� y7-7�✓� US,,dC, ,A-- 3-500 pSZ.--' ►t rte/,� A-W-E 011c- �LCti� e4-Z tf,� Cci N S�u v7cxZ �Z71� /l�6/a/c�, �'i.v.rss►t�r�� iO Ztj-CL 45at.S / 6L"g . Gc�. nrut�5 t.r 6 �S Epl .,�?� E7/1r t7- . /O°25-x. ,-bqeto/ w aCL 5 lq,, c4pper- CCIL Se g r-ov T• USI A&2 sr --to Ed:r.C+,(( r-`Gl�ir'1P�"• pt)U/ C l�n�Ji�fi►� w� qroCf/r,q 4 Cti o�s >�-Z-aCv Gu0,dL eGSC r„6V G PWL-- - l49k-iW~j Cc,,►C� 4c--'tyd Ai /I /ZfAt& . 1- t-cf- l.�+.gLC �oTiw/ Fi6,ml h Nc37- -vr/ew B �vlcs EN6tn> S�i�S fGt�c=�� 5 © a FT" P- SL oS7 /267SiimE7-1-3 PEE- 7fZ Q-rO t roLlf-e SC,Cxc;L,y 67" Act- T"-le 7v rem-5,136F , orr,/ Z -3 S k-jc U PuiL LuCliA Z)P)"s ;? -J/, hGSfP.. /l-2-f -06 y4ma7-, -hrues -& hock tV. e to o S ii , u i r br'. CAS f titer � , t /1-y IXo f�OC /g 7/�fC. P/PF�Pc -foe- JcU n nr r`' vc�77n rlo .SZvt�C 7 �� TLS p /��7�`h�tf//�•�, lN.'I GZ.S /�/E39-,Q. Tf-/E Del 0 2 i"�-1 lc:t�r'�1Zt�j m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: �lb U`' �Di1lc. �G`TPG7C/� rhor"/olllll l /;z fry . fZ /2 -06 f-&17.),11b t,6butL-,l( 71Vc:(a7 , ceole.,'- -h-ucks ock.-c-1 f►,��ci' chow C �77G $U&-Z, -7-D CL��� u�r' ��'r i✓fr m Fir G.� 577,.e_ 12--Z7-ok, J'�i°ac v oo art-m-sr /�'j-_ �+,t LL- F Lx, At-, at, I.A- C-A c C e((S C ea;r1 t S+cLc , v S p ecS , - 'o� f/vS Z 7� ���'t S C�STt>'►� 16�-7Lci W tTt4-s logy o g- i-V C,ci v*l -il e o.C -fy bock 4 A. /1t'�u�kt� STv.o �, 3 7v �G ('�z. m $ . C'vrrl-►k�, y��� i s S o,fR�! AS rc�fP r, s n--yo? Sur p,;oe is sn2rf /la . -�ZA-o,/'o aES 4 4O 7�/C Eixts r ey eT..o , ba, rug �� z j- a �� tip• �::., t ig o7 poaT- cotinNuEs- Arprc,v.-zo i4aul Oro,.-Vc awnf . 1 Z 3 l �/ motor ��cT�� ...SltouGc? 13C- Div/SM 12i je:E41; &7alLq z to v7 2,eG"IC3 C F�ZT �9-a•/J 50/L S /Zc-7 7w &W051a.,J Co-v772dc- t-r j&4'3!,ew- Eul " 1o,+o //j O.�l `-7�u�i� o'c .ii � d► - Z � O� ovL� TNT Cuci�T ,� ��,o c`�t<.��� c•vws ��rc/q� �c('L/ f400si 14 (p/z40 06 146u-,)e (axe, b'e-c v, V e S i nt U f d er g t b Cftu DA drO Nu4 hoc I{� �Cwi-. S A- 4 C4AfJL4C--vUeA-v 6 (2-6L`D R d+-►ua MCA 4-k 6t pe- bc�t. _ - .fro 4-� L4141 uukrfe jtv c: s� m14 4 2 9 access u=As `f 'r h n„ --4- CCW N•Coi &r J erF �-►-� ihuolulec� � S CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE: to 3o o b C-Azo hQ �S o1cc0 aS ICE' uuhei t �° (��' -[-here- ) . ' so Z IN?S n co t P � p/L en t,.3 r cj VAX G � xN nAp-l- sks <U klS k-C, a,-d T- 5 tic/ -Its s F—:.7U L 8 06 OgeYL L-jjc3-1- Z w�� -T7 ha tle lx� m a AIL,ntv /�FHu t�ril V I S!Zl S /!J(o ll G k- /JA 'C 12 JAiSp LL-.,M oAJ AL& Lvo. A'ccLz0rn7 �& , n® e& ?p AO U/LA f u= E� w t c h was De,,9&"ev b ue rvG / 14 ) beeq A �Du .GJ-IUST 1 SCE a tom. Tao S t -ob A t c aJi �ti tl i.-Jft 777NG o-,,s t e :�i1n .X c "Oil m14429 WIN"i _15 .wa. .......... February 5, 2007 MS 06-178 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION 3358 WILDFLOWER VALLEY DRIVE (DWG. NO. 106-G) To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced site as the Engineer of Record for the subject property. I hereby state that the rough grading for this project has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas Codes and Standards. Certification was performed on January 29, 2007. The following is a list of pad elevations as field verified and depicted on the approved grading plan pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 (B): Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Location Per Plan Per Field Measurement PAD 214.4 214.4 Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and/or retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, T ith Inc. `� ' ,��` �• Michael Smith, PEI;- President r 7`.1.75.1�r t�rda fncrn r.s. ,S'rruf> G C;:Irlsbacl, t:,.rt 92(lf? `" 760 951.1 8,700 mrke(Othemapsmtih.com Ciremele Surveying Inc. 5525 Mission Rd Suit D Bonsall, CA 92003 Phone: (760)806-7985 Fax: (760)806-7986 January 31, 2007 Public Works Director City of Encinitas Encinitas, CA Re: Pad Certification for APN 264-091-861n Encinitas California. Dear Sir, On January 29, 2007, field measurements were taken at the above mentioned site, please referance Drawing No. 106-G. The pad elevations for the above parcel are as follows: Pad Desian Grade Actual Pad Elevation House Pad 214.4 214.4 Note: A portion of the pad is stepped down to a 213.7 to accomodate the step in the finished floor. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, eO LAMO S o- Cl SG 9 'SG Chris D. Ciremele `' V�QNo LS r�0 L.S. # 5267 * EXA 12 m Expiration Date: 12/31/07 �i'p� ��0�CALIFdP�P u g Y � AN ��i k? -- WAP, A - f s L� i I I alt September 12, 2008 -- S 06-17 I City of Encinitas 8 g Engineerin Services Permits SEP 1 2 200 505 S. Vulcan Avenue -- Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION- 3358 WILDFLOWER VALLEY DRIVE (DWG. NO. 106-G) To Whom It May Concern: The grading under Permit Number 106-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved Grading Plan or as shown on the attached"As Graded" Plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved Grading Plans and that swales drain at a minimum of 1%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Mana ement Practice Manual Part I1 were constructed and are operational. .= Engineer of Record: Michael H. mith � t` • �P 130 09 Dated: September 12, 2008 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector S°' gnature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility. Engineering Inspector: Dated: 115,I euuia Ench2a r, ,Suite 1, C,'a.rlsF�ac1 CA 92008 ?60-9,31 mikeothemapsmtih com 'J SEP 2 2008 , FINAL REPORT OF CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND FIELD DENSITY TESTING Landscape Area Expansion Franklin Family Residence Wild Flower Valley Drive Rancho Santa Fe, Ca JOB NO. 08-5590-FC-Y July 18, 2008 Prepared for: Mr. Darryl Franklin Energistics, Inc. 1361 Shorebird Lane Carlsbad, Ca. 92011 Prepared By: C.W. LA MONTE CO. INC 4350 Palm Avenue, Suite 25 La Mesa, CA. 91941 (619) 462-9861, Fax (619) 462-9859 C.W. LA MONTE CO. INC Soil and Foundation Engineering Services July 18, 2008 JOB NO. 08-5590-FC-Y Mr. Darryl Franklin, PE Energistics, Inc. 1361 Shorebird Lane Carlsbad, Ca. 92011 SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT OF FIELD DENSITY TESTING Landscape Area Expansion Wild Flower Valley Drive Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. Dear Sirs: In accordance with the contractors' request C. W. La Monte Company, Inc. has prepared this report to summarize our observations of the fill placed for the landscape area expansion which was tested by our firm July 9, 2008 at the above subject site. We hereby present the results of density tests performed in the fill that was placed and compacted to the east of the existing retaining wall for the landscape area expansion operations. Scone of Work Services provided by C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Performance of laboratory Maximum Dry Density and optimum moisture determinations on the soils encountered in the earthwork to verify proper compaction. • Performing field density testing of the placed and compacted backfill. • Preparation of this report. General Site Information The property is accessed from the westerly side of the lot which fronts along the east end of the cul-de-sac for Wild Flower Valley Drive overlooking portions of the Rancho Santa Fe area in the city of Encinitas. The rear yard landscape soil was added to enhance the yard for the residence under construction. Job No. 08-5590-FC-Y Page 2 Plan Reference In order to augment our understanding of the designed configuration of the project, a grading plan for the site is provided as Figure No. l of this report. This Figure No 1 is a modification of the plan to include the location of our field density tests from field measurements. Field Observations Tests and observations were provided by a representative of C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INCORPORATED. The presence of our field representative at the site was to provide to the client a source of professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based upon the field representative's observations of the contractors work and did not include any superintending, supervision, or direction of the actual work of the contractor's workers. Materials used in the landscape fill consist primarily of brown to tan sands and some gravel. These materials meet or exceed the fill soil specifications referred to in the approved plans. The site is underlain at depth with competent bedrock material. An approximate 2:1 compacted fill slope was constructed to bring the site up to the final yard grade per plan. • The soils utilized in the grading operation were from local soils and consisted primarily of a mixture of brown to tan fine to medium sands, gravel. Field Tests Field density tests were performed in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1556 guidelines. Maximum density determinations were performed in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557, Method A guidelines. The relative compaction results, as summarized on Figure No. II, are the ratios of the field densities to the laboratory Maximum Dry Densities, expressed as percentages. • The rear yard backfill materials were tested and found to be compacted to at least 90 percent of the Maximum Dry Density. Laboratory Tests The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the predominate soils encountered in the earthwork were performed in our laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Figures No. 2. Conclusions Job No. 08-5590-FC-Y Page 3 It is the opinion of C. W. La Monte Company Inc. that the landscape expansion and slope addressed by this report have been constructed substantially in accordance with the recommendations and the construction plans for the project. These opinions are based upon our observations of the construction and earthwork operations, the results of the density tests taken in the field, and the maximum density tests performed in our laboratory. Limitations The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site on July 9, 2008. As limited by the scope of the services that we agreed to perform, the conclusions and opinions presented herein are based upon our observations of the work and the results of our laboratory and field tests. Our services were performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice in the region in which the earthwork was performed, and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the described work with applicable codes and specifications. With the submittal of this report, no warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services performed by our firm, and our performance of those services should not be construed to relieve the grading contractor of his responsibility to perform his work to the standards required by the applicable building codes and project specifications. The firm of C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY, INC. shall not be held responsible for fill soils placed at any future time, existing un-compacted fills or subsequent changes to the site by others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage and/or water erosion altering the strength of the compacted fill soil. Professional opinions presented herein have been made based on our tests, observations and experience and they have been made in accordance with the generally accepted current geotechnical engineering principals and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should any questions arise concerning this report, do not hesitate to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 08-5590-FC-Y will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, �Oe '�'� O40fE �I Exp. 11110, e- C.W tAMONTE CO INCO ORATED a 12/31/09 Ir 123�o i as oc u No 495 m n Cliff Q". La Monte '� 4tIfI, '► c�°Te,c to * 1� RCE 25241, GE 495 �c CAI�p 9th OF CA tAOQ� CWL/cwl �y w _ V r iclf / I /f, La CA FA LU its Et CL �i ' �•�` ��� ��% / , r / i�l Sul ;sF'1y+ ` r F" a :� J4 ��, Q k�l, w /•� � �s r I , r a 1 � , , T SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Franklin Residence Landscape Fill Wild Flower Valley Drive Rancho Santa Fe, CA TABLE 1 Test No. Date Location Elev. (feet)or Moisture Dry Max. %Relative Fill Thickness Soil Type o(/6) Density Density c c Compaction 1 7/9/2008 See Figure 1 FG 1 9.2 120.3 128.0 94.0 2 7/9/2008 See Fi re 1 FG 1 9.4 122.0 128.0 95.3 TABLE 2 Soil Type Description Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Density (%) cf 1 Brown Medium to Coarse Sand 9.0 128.0 Job No. 08-5590FC Figure No. 2 MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE 145 -- - r --I - 2.9 r7 z.�- ; 140 � -- -� , - 25 135 SOIL TYPE - _ t 130 . w - --' - } v i]. 125 c 120 -- fi 115 4r 110 105 - - - 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Soil Moisture(%) Soil Type Description Optimum Maximum Moisture (%) Density(Pct) 1 Brown Medium to Coarse Sand 9.0 128.0 Franklin Residence Landscape Fill C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. Project: Wild Flower Valley Drive Soil and Foundation Engineers Rancho Santa Fe, CA Job No. 08-5590 Figure No. 3 T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC Project No. TE-1161 February 1, 2007 Darryl Franklin 1361 Shorebird Lane Carlsbad, CA 92011 Subject: Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground Proposed Single Family Dwelling and Swimming Pool 3358 Wildflower Valley Drive Lot D-3 of Wildflower Estates Permit No. 106GI Encinitas, California References: 1.) "Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground" prepared by North County Compaction Engineering, Inc. dated October 19, 2001 2.) "Update Letter and Retaining Wall Design Criteria, Existing Building Pad" prepared by North County Compaction Engineering, Inc. dated January 9, 2006 3.) "Proposed Swimming Pool Location and Updated Recommendations" prepared by North County Compaction Engineering, Inc. dated August 21, 2006 Dear Mr. Franklin: In response to your request, the following report has been prepared to indicate results of soil testing, observations, and inspection of earthwork construction at the subject site. Testing and inspection services were performed from July 11, 2006 through January 26, 2007. Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%). Therefore, we recommend construction continue as scheduled. SCOPE Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to current standard practices and to determine the degree of compaction of placed fill. Grading and stormwater management plans were prepared by The Mapsmith Company of Carlsbad, California (Michael Smith, RCE #65090). P.O. Box 301061 * Escondido, CA 92030 * (760) 740-0826 EAX (760) 741-6568 T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC Project No. TEA 161 February 1, 2007 Page 2 Grading operations were performed by Interwest Grading of El Cajon, California. Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of earthwork construction covered in this report are indicated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch". Grading operations were performed in order to modify the existing building pad certified in Reference No.l to accommodate the newly planned dwelling and swimming pool. Should the finished pad be altered in any way, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. The site was graded in accordance with the recommendations presented in the above referenced soils report. The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans. Actual pad size and elevation may differ. Finish grade operations are to be completed at a later date. LABORATORY TESTING Representative soils samples were collected and returned to the laboratory for testing. The following tests were performed and are tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three. 1. Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density (ASTM D-1557) 2. Expansion Potential Test (FHA Standard) SOIL CONDITIONS Native soils encountered were gravelly-sands and clayey-sands. Fill soils were generated from on-site excavation. Retaining wall backfill soils were imported (non-expansive silty-sands). The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. I lowever, cut areas located within the building area were over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and brought to grade with compacted soil Over excavation was carried a minimum of 5 feet beyond the exterior building perimeter. Hence, no consideration need be given this characteristic. On-site soils were found to have an expansion index ol'51 and are classified as being "low to moderate" in expansion potential. T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC Project No. TE-1161 February 1, 2007 Page 3 Fill soils were placed, watered, and compacted in 6 inch lifts. During earthwork construction, areas where fill was placed were scarified, watered, and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%). To determine the degree of compaction, field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1556 or D-2922 at the approximate horizontal locations designated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch". A tabulation of test results and their vertical locations are presented on the attached Plate No. Two entitled"Tabulation of Test Results". During grading operations, all fill soils found to have a relative compaction of less the ninety percent (90%) were reworked until proper compaction was achieved. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils are placed in accordance with current standard practices regarding grading operations and earthwork construction. Therefore, as economically feasible as possible, part-time inspection was provided. Hence, the following recommendations are based on the assumption that all areas tested are representative of the entire project. 1.) Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined building areas have adequate strength to safely support the proposed loads. 2.) Slopes may be considered stable with relation to deep seated failure provided they are properly maintained. Slopes should be planted with light groundcover (no gorilla ice plant) indigenous to the area. Drainage should be diverted away from the slopes to prevent water flowing on the face of slope. This will reduce the probability of failure as a result of erosion. 3.) In our opinion, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur due to the following on-site soils conditions: A). Groundwater was not encountered at the time of grading. 13). Loose compressible top soils were removed to firm native ground and recompacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of maximum dry density. Q. The dense nature of the formation underlying the site. D). On-site soils possess relatively high cohesion characteristics. T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC Project No. TE-1161 February 1, 2007 Page 4 4.) During grading operations, retaining walls were constructed, backfilled, and compacted with non-expansive imported materials. The swimming pool retaining wall and lower cut bank retaining wall footing excavations were inspected by our firm and to be excavated into native bedrock. All other retaining wall footings were poured prior to our site inspections. Therefore, verification of daylight requirements and foundation bearing soils were not documented. 5.) Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade, will have an estimated allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot. 6.) Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non-expansive soil having a swell of less than two percent (2%) and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%). 7.) Unless requested, recommendations for future improvements (additions, recreation slabs, additional grading, etc.) Were not included in this report. Prior to construction, we should be contacted to update conditions and provide additional recommendations. 8.) Completion of grading operations was left at rough grade. Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be contacted to provide finish grade and drainage recommendations. Drainage recommendations should include a two percent (2%) minimum fall away from all foundation zones. 9.) Expansive soils conditions observed during grading operations will require special recommendations to reduce structural damage occurring from excessive subgrade and foundation movement. Recommendations set forth will reduce the probability of future damage and should be strictly adhered to: All continuous footings should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade and reinforced with one #5 bar, top and bottom. Steel should be positioned 3 inches above bottom of footing and 3 inches below top of footing. T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC Project No. TE-1161 February 1, 2007 Page 5 Interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars on 18 inch centers each ways. Slab reinforcement should be placed near the center of slab and extended through joints to provide a tension tie with perimeter footings. Garage slabs should be free floating. Slab underlayment should consist of visqueen installed at mid-point within a 4 inch sand barrier (2 inches sand, visqueen, 2 inches sand). Sand should be tested in accordance with ASTM D-2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. They should be watered to insure they are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of five percent(5%). Prior to pouring of concrete, Terra Technology Engineering, Inc. should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth. UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection is required and/or requested, an additional cost of$190.00 will be invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a "Final Conformance Letter". If foundations are constructed in more than one phase, $140.00 for each additional inspection will be invoiced. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or his representative to carry our recommendations set forth in this report. San Diego County is located in a high risk area with regard to earthquake. Earthquake resistant projects are economically unfeasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable and we assume no liability. This report covers soils testing, observations and inspection of earthwork construction from a soils engineering standpoint of view. Geologic conditions and/or hazards at the site were not surveyed. if requested, geologic stability of the site should be evaluated by a certified engineering geologist. Therefore, we assume no liability for geologic hazard. T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC Project No. TE-1161 February 1, 2007 Page 6 We assume the on-site safety of our personnel only. We cannot assume liability of personnel other than our own, It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construdtiion operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with regulations governed by CAL-OSHA and/or local agencies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, , OFESS/4 4�0 R' RF eS, Terra Technology Engineering, Inc. GE 713 m L 9/30/07 x' Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regli President Registered Civileir; Geotechnical Engineer 713 RKA:paj cc: (4) submitted TERRA TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING, INC. Soil Testing and Inspection Services Approx. Sole Proposed Single Family Dwielling and iir " �, 1" = 40' Swimming Pool a nh 2 � t ¢'`• Wildflower Valley Drives Iq Encinitas, California 3 � � a� 1 4g� LSa�oS3 2' t_ yiypp yypp� - �iC G 1 �-j> �•/ 5\ NNN 25 `-' L_ N tip° Si 00 AL Ln O N�i I h t m J (!1 Z N N p w 8� I �7 I wi U Z @ C W N CL 0 ca is 4 y N _ ks im- N ® c 6 c G NOTE: Compaction tests are delineated in red TEST LOCATION SKETCH PROJECT NO. TE- 1161 PLATE NO. ONE T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test# Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location %Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Type Compaction l 11/01/06 See 222.0 11.7 110.3 X 93.3 2 Plate 222.0 10.6 108.3 X 91.7 3 One 222.0 11.5 109.4 X 92.6 4 11/02/06 224.0 11.6 110.0 X 93.1 5 224.0 11.0 109.1 X 92.3 6 224.0 10.7 116.3 X 98.4 7 11/07/06 225.0 12.1 112.1 X 94.9 8 225.0 10.9 111.3 X 94.2 9 225.0 11.7 110.3 X 93.3 10 11/09/06 205.0 11.1 111.5 X 94.4 11 11 205.0 12.2 110.5 X 93.5 12 11/10/06 207.0 10.9 110.3 X 93.3 13 11 207.0 11.1 111.5 X 94.4 14 01/10/07 208.0 13.2 112.8 X 95.5 15 01/11/07 219.0 RFG 11.3 115.8 X 98.0 16 219.0 RFG 12.6 114.7 X 97.1 17 219.0 RFG 10.1 115.2 X 97.5 18 01/22/07 212.0 12.2 118.0 V 92.1 19 213.0 11.8 120.0 V 93.7 20 213.0 12.1 117.8 V 92.0 21 212.0 10.8 120.3 V 93.9 22 213.0 12.4 116.3 V 90.8 23 01/24/07 212.0 12.2 119.3 V 93.2 24 213.0 11.9 121.2 V 94.6 25 212.0 12.7 117.0 V 91.4 26 212.0 13.2 117.5 V 91.7 27 213.0 12.0 119.0 V 92.9 28 01/26/07 209.0 09.4 125.4 X1 92.8 29 210.0 RFG 07.9 126.8 XI 93.9 30 210.0 RFG 08.6 129.2 XI 95.7 31 214.0 RFG 09.0 117.9 V 92.1 32 215.0 RFG 10.1 120.6 V 94.2 REMARKS: RFG = Rough Finish Grade PROJECT NO. TE-1161 PLATE NO. TWO T E C H N O L O G Y ENGINEERING, INC TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPT. MOISTURE (LB. CU. FT) (% DRY WT) Brown Beige Gravelly Clayey-Sand V 128.0 09.5 Beige White Silty-Sand (Import) X 118.1 12.1 Olive Grey Gravelly-Sand (Non-Spec. Class II Import) XI 135.0 07.8 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE NO. V X Condition Remold 90% Remold 90% Initial Moisture (%) 9.6 11.7 Air Dry Moisture (%) 7.1 3.4 Final Moisture (%) 18.5 20.3 Dry Density (PCF) 115.2 106.2 Load (PSF) 150 150 Swell (%) 5.1 1.8 Expansion Index 51 18 DIRECT SHEAR SAMPLE NO. V Condition Remold 90% Angle Internal Friction 28 Cohesion Intercept (PCF) 200 PROJECT NO. TEA 161 PLATE NO. THREE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. CE-6379 January 9,2006 MAR 2 3 2006 John McInnes Architect 933 South Pacific Coast Highway „ s Laguna Beach, CA 92651 - Subject: Update Letter and Retaining Wall Design Criteria Existing Building Pad Lot No. D-3 of Wildflower Estates (Tract No. 99-014) Encinitas, California Reference: 1.) "Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground"prepared by North County Compaction Engineering,Inc. dated October 19, 2001 2.) Overlay Site/Grading Plan prepared by McInnes Architects Dear Mr. McInnes: Per your request, we are providing herein retaining wall design criteria for the subject building pad certified in our above referenced report. Our site inspection of December 20,2005 revealed that the existing building pad remains as certified in our above referenced soils report. It is our understanding,the existing building pad will be enlarged by excavating and retaining the existing cut slope. We further understand a second retaining wall will be constructed on the fill slope portion of the pad. It should be noted that the lower portion of the fill slope contains low strength highly expansive soils and the cut slope to be retained contains low to moderate expansive soils. Therefore,we recommend that granular imported soils be utilized for backfill materials. P.O. BOX 302002 * ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 * (760) 480-1116 FAX(760) 741-6568 WORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. CE-6379 January 9, 2006 Page 2 Retaining Walls On-site clay soils should not be utilized for backfill of retaining walls. Therefore,the following retaining wall criteria is based on the assumption that compacted imported,non-expansive sands utilized for backfill will have a minimum angle of internal friction of 30 degrees and a cohesion intercept of 100 pounds per square foot. Retaining walls should maintain at least a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical)wedge of imported backfill measured from the base of the wall footing to the ground surface. All retaining walls should be provided with drains behind and at the base of the wall to assure a well drained condition. Miradrain 6000 and/or its equivalent is recommended. Drains should be constructed in accordance with the manufactures specifications. Prior to hauling retaining wall backfill soils on site,we should be contacted to inspect and/or test them to assure they meet the above specifications. All retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of ninety percent(90%)of maximum dry density. For static conditions, an allowable equivalent passive fluid pressure of 354 psf, increasing 354 psf per foot in depth may be assumed. Allowable active pressures may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 39 pcf for unrestrained walls. These values assume a vertical, smooth wall, and a level, drained backfill. Should these conditions not be met,we should be contacted for new values. Allowable active pressures for restrained walls may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 39 pcf,plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of 811. H=height of retained soils above top of wall footing in vertical feet. Allowable active pressures for retaining walls with 2:1 inclinations of sloping surcharge may be assumed to be equivalent to a pressure of fluid weighing 56 pcf. The coefficient of friction of concrete to soil may be assumed as follows for resistance to horizontal movement: Cut slope retaining wall= .41 Fill slope retaining wall= .21 NOTE: Coefficient of friction assumed that retaining wall rooting will be founded in native clay soils. WORTH COUNTY COMPAL"MON E14GII4EERI14G, INC. Project No. CE-6379 January 9, 2006 Page 3 In addition to retaining walls to enlarge the existing building pad,the newly planned building footprint will be traversed by a transition from cut to fill upon completion of remedial grading operations. Therefore,to reduce differential settlement across the dwelling,we recommend the cut side of the transitional area be removed 1 foot below the bottom of the deepest proposed footing and brought back to grade with properly compacted fill. This will allow the entire dwelling to bear on a compacted fill mat. The removal area should extend under and a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed structures. We should be contacted to supervise all remedial grading operations. All foundations for the proposed dwelling and/or detached structures should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in our referenced report"Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground"dated October 19,2001. Foundation set-backs from top of slopes should be a minimum of 8 feet. If this cannot be achieved, footings near or on adjacent slopes should be founded at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the bottom outside edge of footing to the face of the slope is a minimum of 8 feet. (Including retaining wall footings.) Seismic Design Considerations (Soil Parameters) A.) Soil Profile=SD (Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code) B.) Type `B' Fault(Rose Canyon) C.) Distance= 11 km (California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology [maps], in conjunction with Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 Uniform Building Code) i NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, IIYC. Project No. CE-6379 January 9, 2006 Page 4 Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. y��P�E R. RFC�y Lu GE 713 m ��. 9130/07 Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regli sj0tfvFlt��`:Y~� President Registered Civil �P�� Geotechnical Enginee RKA:paj cc: (4) submitted NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. October 19,2001 Project No. CE-6379 Phillip G. DeCarion Trustee of The DeCarion Living Trust 2521 Bayshore Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 D V E,0 ,Lois F Subject: Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground JUN 2 1 2006 DeCarion Subdivision, Parcel No.'s 1 thru 4 Wildflower Drive, Tract 99-014 ENGINEERING SERVICES Encinitas, California CITY OF ENCINITAS Dear Mr. DeCarion: In response to your request,the following report has been prepared to indicate results of soil testing, observations, and inspection of earthwork construction at the subject site. Testing and inspection services were performed from May 23, 2001 through August 24, 2001. Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%). Therefore, we recommend construction continue as scheduled. SCOPE Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to current standard practices and to determine the degree of compaction of placed fill. Grading plans were prepared by San Dieguito Engineering of Rancho Santa Fe, California. Grading operations were performed by Greg Whillock of Vista, California. Reference is made to a previously submitted report entitled, "Report of Geotechnical Investigation", Rancho de May Subdivision, Tract 88-351 RPL,Encinitas, California and prepared by Southern California and Testing, Inc. (SCT)and dated May 24, 1989 . Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of earthwork construction covered in this report are indicated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch". P.0. E30X 302002 ' ESCONDIDO,CA 92030 ' (760)480-1116 FAX(760)741-6568 NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION' ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. CE-6379 Page 2 Grading operations were performed in order to create four(4)level building pad to accommodate the proposed single family dwellings. Should the finished pads be altered in any way, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. The site was graded in accordance with recommendations set forth in the soils report by SCT. The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans. Actual pad size and elevation may differ. Finish grade operations are to be completed at a later date. LABORATORY TESTIN G Representative soils samples were collected and returned to the laboratory for testing. The - following tests were performed and are tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three. 1. Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density(ASTM D-1557) 2. Expansion Potential Test(FHA Standard) 3. Direct Shear Test (ASTM D-3080) SOIL CONDITIONS Native soils encountered were gravelly clayey-sands, clayey-sands and silty-clays. Fill soils were generated from on-site excavation. The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. However, cut areas located within the building area were over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and brought to grade with compacted soil. Over excavation was carried throughout the realm of the building pad. Soils at finish grade on Parcel No. 1 were found to have an expansion index of 120 and are classified as being"very high" in expansion potential. Finish grade soils on Parcels No. 2, 3 and 4 were found to have an expansion index varying between 47 and 70 and are classified as "low to moderate"in expansion potential. Fill slope shear keys were approximately 15 feet wide, a minimum of 3 feet in depth,and. inclined into the slope. During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were scarified, watered, and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent(90%)of maximum density. Subsequent fill soils were placed, watered, and compacted in 6 inch lifts. Benches were NORTH COUNTY COMPACnON ENGINEER NG, INC. Project No. CE-6379 Page 3 constructed in natural ground at intermediate levels to properly support the fill. To determine the degree of compaction, field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1556 or D-2922 at the approximate horizontal locations designated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch". A tabulation of test results and their vertical locations are presented on the attached Plate No. Two entitled"Tabulation of Test Results". Fill soils found to have a relative compaction of less the ninety percent(90%)were reworked until proper compaction was achieved. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils are placed in accordance with current standard practices regarding grading operations and earthwork construction. Therefore, as economically feasible as possible, part-time inspection was provided. Hence,the following recommendations are based on the assumption that all areas tested are representative of the entire project. 1.) Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined building areas have adequate strength to safely support the proposed loads. 2.) Slopes may be considered stable with relation to deep seated failure provided they are properly maintained. Slopes should be planted with light groundcover (no gorilla ice plant) indigenous to the area. Drainage should be diverted away from the slopes to prevent water flowing on the face of slope. This will reduce the probability of failure as a result of erosion. 3.)In our opinion, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur due to the following on-site soils conditions: A). Groundwater was not encountered at the time of grading. B). Loose compressible topsoils were removed to firm native ground and recompacted to a minimum of ninety percent(90%)of maximum dry density. C). The dense nature of the formation underlying the site. D). On-site soils possess relatively high cohesion characteristics. MORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. CE-6379 Page 4 4.) Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be founded at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the bottom outside face of footing to the face of the slope is a minimum of 8 feet. 5.)Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non-expansive soil having a swell of less than two percent(2%) and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%). 6.) Unless requested, recommendations for future improvements (additions, pools, recreation slabs, additional grading, etc.)Were not included in this report. Prior to construction, we should be contacted to update conditions and provide additional recommendations. 7.) Completion of grading operations was left at rough grade. Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be contacted to provide finish grade and drainage recommendations. Drainage recommendations should include a two percent(2%) minimum fall away from all foundation zones. 8.)Expansive soils conditions observed during grading operations will require special recommendations to reduce structural damage occurring from excessive subgrade and foundation movement. Parcel No. 1,Very High Expansive Soils: Recommendations set forth will reduce the probability of future damage and should be strictly adhered to: Continuous footings having a minimum width of 15 inches founded a minimum depth of 30 inches below lowest adjacent grade will have an allowable soils bearing pressure of 1000 pounds per square foot. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two#5 bars,top and bottom(total of 4 bars). Steel should be positioned 3 inches above bottom of footing and 3 inches below top of footing. Interior slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and reinforced with #4 bars on 18 inch centers each ways. Slab reinforcement should be placed near the NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION' El`IGII`IEERII`IG, INC. Project No. CE-6379 Page 5 center of slab and extended through joints to provide a tension tie with perimeter footings. Garage slabs should be free floating. Slab underlayment should consist of visqueen installed at mid-point within a 4 inch sand barrier(2 inches sand, visqueen, 2 inches sand). Sand should be tested in accordance with ASTM D-2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. They should be watered to insure they are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of five percent(5%). Prior to pouring of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,INC. should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth. Parcel No.'s 2,3 and 4, Low to Moderate Expansive Soils: Recommendation set forth will reduce the probability of future damage and should be strictly adhered to: Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade will have an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot. Continuous footing should be reinforced with one#5 bar,top and bottom. Steel should be positioned 3 inches above bottom of footing and 3 inches below top of footing. Interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with#3 bars on 18 inches centers each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed near the center of slab and extended through joints to provide a tension tie with perimeter footings. Garage slabs should be free floating. Slab underlayment should consist of visqueen installed at mid-point within a 4 inch sand barrier(2 inches sand, visqueen,2 inches sand). Sand should be tested in accordance with ASTM D-2419 to unsure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. They should be watered to insure they are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of five percent(5%). NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. CE-6379 Page 6 Prior to pouring of concrete,North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,INC. should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendation for compliance to those set forth. UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection is required and/or requested, an additional cost of$170.00 will be invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a "Final Conformance Letter If foundations are constructed in more than one phase, $120.00 for each additional inspection will be invoiced. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or his representative to carry our recommendations set forth in this report. San Diego County is located in a high risk area with regard to earthquake. Earthquake resistant projects are economically unfeasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable and we assume no liability. We assume the on-site safety of our personnel only. We cannot assume liability of personnel other than our own, It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with regulations governed by CAL-OSHA and/or local agencies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, E S S 101V North County R. 19 COMPACTION ENGINEERING,INC. O GE 713 , a Exp. 9/30/05 2&-e l.C,r� CNN��'� �Q Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regli OF CA0FO``'� President Registered Civil 3 Geotechnical Engineer 000713 RKA:paj cc: (4) submitted NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL TESTING WILDFLOWER DRIVE PARCEL NO. 3 NO SCALE ENCINITAS , CALIFORNIA TIEST T 156 .PAR •• ' ,� ��• ``'`� �':: . , :•;� �.,� . .� ` 2 FT I;ST• TEST LOCATION SKETCH PROJECT No. CE-6379 PLATE No. ONE 'B ' NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test# Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location %Dry Wt. LB Cu.Ft. Type Compaction 1 05/23/01 See 231.0 17.8 113.8 I 90.6 2 Plate 233.0 16.1 114.7 I 91.3 3 One 231.0 17.6 113.6 I 90.5 4 233.0 16.4 113.2 I 90.1 5 05/24/01 235.0 17.4 116.1 I 92.5 6 237.0 17.5 113.7 1 90.5 7 235.0 15.4 115.4 I 91.9 8 237.0 14.3 113.4 1 90.3 9 239.0 15.0 116.8 I 93.0 10 241.0 16.8 114.6 I 91.3 11 239.0 14.9 116.7 1 92.9 12 241.0 14.7 117.2 1 93.3 13 05/25/01 242.0 13.1 123.1 II 97.6 14 243.0 15.3 120.4 II 95.3 15 242.0 13.6 118.0 II 93.6 16 243.5 15.3 119.4 II 94.7 17 242.0 15.6 117.0 II 92.8 18 243.0 14.7 116.4 II 92.3 19 05/29/01 245.0 15.6 114.9 I 91.5 20 246.0 14.0 115.6 I 92.1 21 247.0 14.1 114.6 II 90.5 22 248.0 12.3 116.1 II 92.1 23 05/30/01 247.0 13.4 117.5 III 92.0 24 1. 248.0 14.8 115.2 III 90.2 25 05/31/01 250.0 13.7 121.2 III 94.9 26 251.0 12.6 123.0 III 96.3 27 250.0 14.1 121.9 III 95.5 28 251.0 14.8 120.2 III 94.2 29 06/01/01 252.0 15.1 117.5 III 92.0 30 11 253.0 13.5 121.8 III 95.4 31 06/01/01 252.0 14.6' 115.4 III 90.4 32 253.0 14.3 121.0 III 94.8 33 253.5 16.1 119.2 III 93.4 34 254.0 15.3 116.1 III 90.9 35 253.5 16.2 117.4 III 92.0 36 254.0 15.6 115.8 III 90.7 PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. TWO NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test# Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location %Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Type Compaction 37 06/04/01 See 255.5 16.8 115.9 11I 90.8 38 Plate 256.0 14.7 119.0 III 93.2 39 One 229.0 15.5 114.9 11 91.1 40 231.0 15.2 113.7 11 90.2 41 233.0 15.9 116.3 11 92.3 42 06/05/01 255.5 14.9 118.5 III 92.8 43 255.5 13.6 121.9 111 95.5 44 06/06/01 235.0 14.6 116.2 11 92.2 45 236.0 12.3 117.4 11 93.1 46 255.5 16.3 114.9 111 90.0 47 255.5 15.2 117.2 III 91.8 48 06/07/01 235.5 16.4 113.5 11 90.0 49 11 RFG 16.0 113.9 11 90.3 50 06/08/01 213.0 17.8 107.1 IV 90.4 51 215.0 18.8 106.7 IV 90.1 52 213.0 18.6 107.6 IV 90.8 53 215.0 15.6 110.1 IV 92.9 54 06/11/01 216.0 17.7 110.3 IV 93.1 55 217.0 16.7 111.6 IV 94.2 56 216.5 17.3 111.4 IV 94.0 57 217.0 16.9 110.0 IV 92.9 58 06/12/01 219.0 15.0 116.0 1 92.4 59 221.0 16.1 113.1 1 90.1 60 219.0 16.7 113.2 1 90.1 61 221.0 17.4 114.0 I 90.8 62 06/13/01 222.0 16.6 114.6 I 91.3 63 225.0 15.9 113.6 1 90.5 64 222.0 16.1 115.5 1 92.0 65 225.0 16.3 114.8 1 91.4 66 06/14/01 202.0 14.1 118.6 V 92.6 67 11 204.0 15.4 118.2 V 92.3 68 06/15/01 205.0 12.6 120.1 V 93.8 69 207.0 14.1 119.4 V 93.2 70 205.0 12.6 121.7 V 95.0 71 207.0 12.5 122.8 V 95.9 REMARKS: RFG=Rough Finish Grade PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. TWO (page 2) NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test# Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location %Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Type Compaction 72 06/1801 See 207.0 15.5 116.3 V 90.8 73 Plate 208.0 12.3 121.0 V 94.5 74 One 209.0 15.0 117.6 V 91.8 75 11 210.0 15.2 115.7 V 90.3 76 " 233.0 17.1 111.5 VI 92.9 77 `< 235.0 18.0 112.8 VI 94.0 78 06/19/01 211.0 12.5 119.5 V 93.3 79 212.0 14.8 118.4 V 92.5 80 211.0 14.7 117.2 V 91.5 81 `< 212.0 15.3 118.2 V 92.3 82 06/20/01 213.0 16.2 116.6 V 91.0 83 215.0 14.6 119.8 V 93.5 84 `< 213.0 14.8 118.8 V 92.8 85 215.0 13.4 118.1 V 92.2 86 06/21/01 215.5 12.7 116.5 V 91.0 87 215.0 14.8 115.4 V 90.1 88 215.5 15.7 120.5 V 94.1 89 215.0 14.7 118.8 V 92.8 90 215.0 15.8 120.8 V 94.3 91 237.0 17.1 112.0 VI 93.3 92 239.0 19.2 110.3 VI 91.9 93 237.0 116.6 111.8 VI 93.1 94 239.0 17.3 110.9 VI 92.9 95 06/22/01 241.0 14.4 114.5 VII 92.3 96 `< 242.0 16.7 115.3 VII 92.9 97 241.0 17.2 115.1 VII 92.8 98 242.0 16.7 113.8 VII 91.7 99 06/25/01 243.0 18.0 112.4 VII 90.6 100 245.0 16.4 114.1 VII 92.0 101 243.0 19.7 110.8 VII 89.3* 102 245.0 19.7 110.4 VII 89.0* 103 245.0 15.4 113.0 VII 91.1 104 245.0 14.0 115.8 VII 93.3 REMARKS: *Test No. 103 is a retest of Test No. 102 and *Test No. 104 is a retest of Test No. 101, respectively PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. TWO (page 3) NORTH C0URW COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test# Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location %Dry Wt. LB Cu.Ft. Type Compaction 105 06/27/01 See 255.5 14.7 114.3 IX 94,8 106 Plate 255.5 14.0 115.8 IX 96,0 107 One 256.0 15.1 116.3 IX 96,5 108 256.0 13.8 117.9 IX 97.8 109 06/28/01 212.0 14.0 120.6 VIII 90.6 110 214.0 11.8 125.7 VIII 94.5 111 212.0 14.2 121.2 VIII 91.1 I12 214.0 12.6 125.9 VIII 94.6 113 06/29/01 216.0 14.1 121.3 VIII 91,2 114 218.0 12.5 123.7 VIII 93.0 115 216.0 11.9 122.8 VIII 92,3 116 218.0 11.8 122.4 VIII 92.0 117 07/02/01 220.0 14.0 120.4 VIII 90.5 118 222.0 15.6 120.7 VIII 90.7 119 221.0 12.5 122.9 VIII 92.4 120 223.0 13.9 124.2 VIII 93.3 121 222.0 13.6 119.8 VIII 90.0 122 223.0 13.9 120.7 VIII 90.7 123 223.0 14.4 120.0 VIII 90.2 124 225.0 12.4 120.1 VIII 90.3 125 07/03/01 226.0 19.1 111.2 VIII 83.6* 126 227.0 16.5 110.7 VIII 83.2* 127 226.0 15.3 121.3 VIII 91.2 128 227.0 13.4 120.8 VIII 90.8 129 07/05/01 215.5 13.5 119.8 V 93.5 130 1. 11 215.5 13.6 120.8 V 94.3 131 07/09/01 226.0 13.9 124.2 VIII 93.3 132 227.0 14.4 119.7 VIII 90.0 133 226.0 12.9 124.4 VIII 93.5 134 227.0 12.5 126.2 VIII 94.8 135 07/19/01 228.0 14.4 116.3 VII 93.7 136 229.0 13.8 116.1 VII 93.6 137 228.0 14.8 116.6 VII 94.0 138 230.0 13.4 117.8 VII 95.0 REMARKS: *Test No. 127 is a retest of Test No. 125 and *Test No. 128 is a retest of Test No. 126,respectively PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. TWO (page 4) .r WORTH COUWTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test# Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil rPercent of Location Location %Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Typpaction 139 07/24/01 See 247.5 15.5 114.0 VII 91.9 140 Plate 247.5 14.7 115.6 VII 93.2 141 One 246.0 15.2 115.3 VII 92.9 142 248.0 14.0 116.0 V11 93.5 143 247.5 13.1 116.7 VII 94.2 144 247.5 13.2 115.2 VII 92.9 145 07/26/01 247.0 15.3 114.9 VII 92.6 146 247.5 15.0 115.0 VII 92.7 147 247.0 15.5 114.6 VII 92.4 148 247.5 13.8 117.4 VII 94.6 149 08/01/01 231.0 14.0 116.0 VII 93.5 150 231.5 15.1 116.1 VII 93.6 151 231.0 13.8 116.2 VII 93.7 152 08/24/01 233.0 RFG 12.3 114.3 VII 92.1 153 233.0 RFG 13.1 115.1 VII 92.8 154 233.0 RFG 12.8 113.3 VII 91.3 155 217.0 RFG 11.3 116.3 V 90.8 156 77 217.0 RFG 12.1 118.2 V 92.3 157 217.0 RFG 11.8 118.6 V 92.6 158 249.0 RFG 13.4 114.2 VII 92.0 159 249.0 RFG 14.1 113.1 VII 91.2 160 249.0 RFG 12.6 114.7 VII 92.5 161 08/21/01 257.0 RFG 13.5 109.6 IX 90.9 162 257.0 RFG 15,1 118.2 III 92.6 163 257.0 RFG 14.3 119.3 III 93.4 REMARKS: RFG=Rough Finish Grade PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. TWO (page 5) NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS OPTIM[7M MOI T RE/MAXIM M DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPT. MOISTURE (LB. CU. FT) (%DRY WT) Beige Brown Clayey-Silty- Sand I 125.5 11.0 Red Tan Silty-Clayey-Sand II 126.0 11.7 Beige Brown Clayey-Silty-Sand III 127.6 10.4 Beige Silty-Sandy-Clay IV 118.4 12.7 Brown Beige Gravelly-Clayey- Sand V 128.0 09.5 Tan Red Gravelly-Clayey-Sand VI 120.0 13.5 Brown Beige Gravelly Clayey- Sand VII 124.0 11.6 Orange Brown Silty-Gravelly- Sand VIII 133.0 10.0 Dark Brown Silty-Sandy-Clay IX 120.5 13.3 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE NO. IV V VI VII D( CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% INITIAL MOISTURE(%) 10.3 12.6 9.6 13.6 11.2 13.4 AIR DRY MOISTURE(%) 6.3 9.1 7.2 7.2 5.7 8.9 FINAL MOISTURE(%) 18.7 25.5 18.5 20.1 24.1 27.9 DRY DENSITY(PCF) 114.8 106.6 115.2 10.8 111.6 108.4 LOAD(PSF) 150 150 150 150 150 150 SWELL(%) 4.7 10.3 5.1 .89 7.0 12.0 EXPANSION INDEX 47 103 51 9 70 120 PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. THREE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION' ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR AMPLE NO. V v IX CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 900/0 ANGLE INTERNAL FRICTION 24 28 39 20 11 COHESION INTERCEPT(PCF) 230 200 100 180 370 PROJECT NO. CE-6379 PLATE NO. THREE (continued) NAP,(" h ` A, - November 17, 2008 City of Encinitas 501 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92007 ATTN: TODD BAUMBACH —ENGINEERING INSPECTOR RE: FRANKLIN—GP DWG. NO 106-G; RESOLUTION NUMBER PC 99-61 SPECIAL CONDITIONS LETTER. Dear Todd, Pursuant to the note on Sheet one of City of Encinitas Drawing Number 106-G, this letter is submitted to certify the satisfaction of conditions SCA, SCB, SCC, and SCD of the above mentioned resolution. It should be noted here that these were never conditions of Mr. Franklin's grading plan. These conditions were placed on the underlying development, and each condition was required to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit. The permit that was issued to construct the underlying pad that Mr. Franklin's grading plan modified for the purpose of fitting his specific house and site planning. By virtue of the fact that the underlying grading was permitted, the conditions were accepted as being satisfied at that time. Mr. Franklin's project has no connection to the requirements of the conditions specified in the above resolution except to remain consistent with the previous rough graded development, and the easements that were recorded as a part of the underlying map. I can certify that so far as I can tell by a review of the recorded maps, and documents, and a walk around Mr. Franklin's lot that conditions SCA, SCB, SCC, and SCD have been satisfied. This certification only pertains to Mr. Franklin's property(Parcel 3, PM 18642) and does not apply to any other parcel of PM 18642, or any other parcel within the Wildflower development. Nt Verb, ly yours, 4chael H. S , RCE 65090 Ul 10964 Caminito Tierra San Diego, CA 92131 760 822-8348v mikeaa themaasmith com NAPSWITH October 29, 2008 City of Encinitas 501 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92007 ATTN: RUBEN MACABITAS/ENGINEERING DEPT. RE: FRANKLIN—WILDFLOWER VALLEY DR. —TREATMENT SWALE CALCS Dear Ruben, The purpose of this letter is to re-address the Storm Water Treatment calculations for the above mentioned site. These treat swale sizing calculations were originally submitted and approved on May 41h, 2006. I am resubmitting these identical calculations to preclude the need to find the original calculations in the City's file. This project is considered a priority project due to the 7628 sf of concrete driveway surface being proposed. Please see the attached treatment swale calculations. If you have any comments or concerns, or if you require any calculations,please feel free to contact me at the number noted below. Very truly yours, Michael H. S ith, RCE 65090 71; i r 535Nolth Hwy. 101, Suite D Solana Beach, C9 92075 858-259-2510v themap mithta cox net Grassy Swale Design Spreadsheet I (in/hr)* A(acres) C Given: Q=CIA 2 0.141 0.95 Design flov Q= 0.2679 cfs Residence time(req) 9 minutes *-2.0 Whir -intensity for flow based BMP's Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters: d 0.25 feet t 3 feet w 1 feet ss1 &ss2 25 ft/ft A 1.8125 sq ft Find Qmax of channel: Find Velcoity in channel Q= (1.49/n)*A* R^(2/3) *s^.5 V=Q/A Therefore: n 0.2 V= 0.147807 fps s 0.01 ft/ft(long. Slope) r 0.446154 ft Q= 0.78842 cfs Required Length of Channel: L=vt Therefore: L= 79.81572 L= 100 S Height Qpeak= Peak flow rate, cfs d 1 SSl 1 SS2 w Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet ere «y 4 Recording Requested By: ) THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON NOV 07,2008 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2008-0582295 City Engineer ) GREGORY J.SMITH,COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME: 10:27 AM When Recorded Mail to: ) City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPt'. ,L"v-1 uaL UNLY PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 264-091-86 Project No. 106-G W.ONo.: N/A THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain private storm water treatment facilities, the legal description and/or plat of which is set forth in Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof, is entered into by DARRYL L. FRANKLIN AND GINA B FRANKLIN TRUSTEES OF THE FRANKLIN FAMILY TRUST DATED MARCH 25 2004 hereinafter referred to as "Developer") for the benefit of future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities (hereinafter referred to as " Owner(s)", which shall include the Developer to the extent the Developer retains any ownership interest in any land covered by this agreement. WHEREAS, this Agreement is required as a condition of approval by the City of Encinitas (herein referred to as "City") of a development project and pursuant to City of Encinitas Municipal Code Section 24.16.060 and Section 24.29.040; and WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property as described in Exhibit "A" that will use and enjoy the benefit of said storm water treatment facilities(s), said real property hereinafter referred to as the "property"; and WHEREAS, Property use and enjoy the benefit of certain facilities for storm water treatment and pollution control, said facilities described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm water treatment system be maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer to establish a method for the periodic maintenance and repair of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and WHEREAS, there exists a benefit to the public the private storm water facilities be adequately maintained on a regular and periodic basis in compliance with Exhibit "C", the City of Encinitas Municipal Code and other related City policies and requirements; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the land, binding upon each successive owner of all or any portion of the property. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AS FOLLOWS: 1. The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive owners of all or any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. The private storm water facilities shall be constructed by the Owner, its successors and assigns, in accordance with the plans and specifications identified in the Plan. 3. The cost and expense of maintaining the private storm water treatment facilities shall be paid by the owner of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest or each such owner. 4. In the event any of the herein described parcels of land are subdivided further, the owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created parcel shall be liable under this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of expenses shall be computed to reflect such newly created parcels. 5. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following: reasonable improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private storm water treatment facilities in proper working order as determined by applicable City policies and requirements and to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and maintaining drainage structures, removing debris, perpetually maintaining adequate groundcover and/or other erosion control measures within the private property in order to prevent sedimentation, and other work reasonably necessary and proper to repair and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes and to prevent sedimentation in storm water runoff. The private storm water facilities shall be maintained regularly as necessary to keep the facilities in proper working order, with a minimum maintenance frequency of twice annually. In the event a maintenance schedule for the Storm Water BMP facilities (including sediment removal) is outlined on the approved plans, the schedule will be followed. 6. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation for the construction of improvements imposed as a condition of the development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities as herein set forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 2 7. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water treatment facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment facilities to the condition existing prior to said damage. 8. Any liability of the owners for personal injury to an agent hereunder, or to any worker employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the owners for damage to the property of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne, by the owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance. Owners shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. By this Agreement, the Developer does not intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury or property damage other than that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement. 9. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless City, City's engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs, including costs of defense and attorney's fees, to the agent hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor, any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising out of or in any way related to the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the private storm water treatment facilities. 10. Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's approval of the plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a review, inspection acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, City's engineer and its consultants, and each of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility or liability therefore. 11. The Owner, its successors and assigns, shall inspect the stormwater management/BMP facility and submit to the City an inspection report annually. The purpose of the inspection is to assure safe and proper functioning of the facilities. The inspection shall cover the entire facilities, berms, outlet structure, pond areas, access roads, etc. Deficiencies shall be noted in the inspection report. 12. Chapter 11.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code outlines in detail the nuisance abatement process and the City's authority to require correction of any property maintenance violation that is deemed a public health or safety hazard or threat. The City is authorized to collect sums as appropriate for recovery of the costs for abatement of any property maintenance violation should the property owner fail to voluntarily comply. 3 13. The Owner, its successors and assigns, hereby grant permission to the City, its authorized agents and employees, to enter upon the Property and to inspect the stormwater management/BMP facilities upon reasonable notice whenever the City deems necessary. The purpose of inspection is to follow-up on reported deficiencies and/or to respond to citizen complaints. The City shall provide the Owner, its successors and assigns, copies of the inspection findings and a directive to commence with the repairs if necessary 14. In the event the Owner, its successors and assigns, fails to maintain the stormwater management/BMP facilities in good working condition acceptable to the City, the City , its agents, or its contractors, may enter upon the Property and take the steps necessary to correct deficiencies identified in the inspection report and to charge the costs of such repairs to the Owner, its successors and assigns. In the event the CITY pursuant to this Agreement, performs work of any nature, or expends any funds in performance of said work for labor, use of equipment, supplies, materials, and the like, the Owner, its successors and assigns, shall reimburse the City upon demand, within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof for all actual costs incurred by the CITY hereunder. If said funds are not paid in a timely manner, City reserves the right to file an assessment lien on the real property with the County Recorder of County of San Diego. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City is under no obligation to maintain or repair said facilities, and in no event shall this Agreement be construed to impose any such obligation on the City. 15. This Agreement imposes no liability of any kind whatsoever on the CITY and the Owner agrees to hold the CITY -harmless from any liability in the event the stormwater management/BMP facilities fail to operate properly. 16. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to the end and intent that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent purchaser of all or any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 9 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. 17. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners and consent of the City. 18. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 4 19. If the Property constitutes a "Common Interest Development" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an Association as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(a), anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the following provisions shall apply at and during such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a "Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), and (ii) the Common Area of the property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and controlled by an Association: (a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the "agent" as referred to in Paragraph 7 above. The Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, shall receive no compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair shall be assessed against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property pursuant to the Declaration. The assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. (b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in favor of the Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the Agreement in its entirety. No individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common Area (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Property except as may be allowed by the Declaration. (c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which reduces or limits the Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration. 20. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners. 21. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all or any portion of the property referred to herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement This day of d LTD �'Z-- 2008. D e o er: arryl L. ranklin Gina B. Franklin Signature of DEVELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement. 5 State of California ) u CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE County of CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT R On Oqr before me, pErZ— (here insert name and itle of the officer) w personally appeared � ,-L a L C `I L• �Yitl�+ �. ,% A4- T3 �rL st+.r IG L t r`► f who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) i /are subscribed to x the within instrument and acknowledged to me that h"/they executed the same in hit/their ; authorized capacity(ies), and that by VL,4 fir/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity - upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. 3 I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the J. M.SODER COMM. #1640589 Z State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. i Notary Public•California o x San Diego County WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Comm.Expires Feb.22,2010 f Signature x (Seal) OPTIONAL INFORMATION Although the information in this section is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this acknowledgment to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document. x Description of Attached Document The preceding Certificate of Acknowledgment is attached to a document Method of Signer ificatlon s titled/for the purpose of Prove me on the basis of satisfactory evidence: 4 O form(s)of identification O credible witness(es) h Notarial event is detailed in notary journal on: containing pages, and dated Page# Entry# The signer(s) capacity or authority is/are as: Notary contact: ❑ Individual(s) El Attorney-in-Fact Other - ❑ Corporate Officer(s) ❑ Additional Signer(s) ❑ Signer(s)Thumbprints) _ Title(s) ❑ ❑ Guardian/Conservator F ❑ Partner-Limited/Gen ❑ Trustee(s) ❑ Other: represen g: � Name(s)of Person(s)or Entity(ies)Signer is Representing 4 � ®Copyright 2007 Notary Rotary,Inr.925 29th St,Des Moines,IA 50312361'2 rn Form ACK03m 10/07.^ To re-order,call toll-free 1-877-349-6588 or visitt us on the Internet at http://ww.notaryrotary.com Exhibit `A' Legal Description of Real Property APN 264-091-86 PARCEL 3, OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16642, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY FEBRUARY 28, 2001. 6 E X H I B I T B 1 of 2 PLAT OF STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES X APN 264-091-86 GRASS TREATMENT SWALE - REAR YARD 1 " = 20 ' WD? To CM T BERMS W. NO. 106-G FOR IALET LON TIM. 21 S 2099 -- 7- 1 • . FL �— 209.79 0 FL ti \ I � 1 \ i -- 209.61 r3, F Y 10.44 " &1 FL 210 Fm i ,1, dop GNP � . - - _ _ � dop dog — 208.0 FL S 0,36.,W 20 62. S01•4 aw I I � E X H I B I T B 2 of 2 PLAT OF STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES X APN 264-091-86 GRASS TREATMENT SWALE - FRONT YARD 1 " = 20 ' an57 TO Cm T OCROAS X. A10. 106-G FQ4 INLET LOC4TIMS. 2 S 6 W O a Iq TREES LBM cu ��I / 7 j f 000 214.5-- f Fl EXHIBIT "C" Maintenance Type Minimum Required Frequency Storm Water Best Management Practices; Grass Inspected monthly, repaired as needed swales Drainage Facilities, inlets, storm drain outlets Inspected monthly, replaced and repaired per manufactures' recommendations Inspection and repair (as needed) of irrigation As needed sprinkler system for BMP landscaped areas 8 SEP 2 2008 �::✓ �iifuG SF�1!ICES t, INi?N' J FINAL REPORT OF CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND FIELD DENSITY TESTING Landscape Area Expansion Franklin Family Residence Wild Flower Valley Drive Rancho Santa Fe, Ca JOB NO. 08-5590-FC-Y July 18, 2008 Prepared for: Mr. Darryl Franklin Energistics, Inc. 1361 Shorebird Lane Carlsbad, Ca. 92011 Prepared By: C.W. LA MONTE CO. INC 4350 Palm Avenue, Suite 25 La Mesa, CA. 91941 (619) 462-9861, Fax(619) 462-9859 C.W. LA MONTE CO. INC Soil and Foundation Engineering Services July 18, 2008 JOB NO. 08-5590-FC-Y Mr. Darryl Franklin, PE Energistics, Inc. 1361 Shorebird Lane Carlsbad, Ca. 92011 SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT OF FIELD DENSITY TESTING Landscape Area Expansion Wild Flower Valley Drive Rancho Santa Fe, Ca. Dear Sirs: In accordance with the contractors' request C. W. La Monte Company, Inc. has prepared this report to summarize our observations of the fill placed for the landscape area expansion which was tested by our firm July 9, 2008 at the above subject site. We hereby present the results of density tests performed in the fill that was placed and compacted to the east of the existing retaining wall for the landscape area expansion operations. Scope of Work Services provided by C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Performance of laboratory Maximum Dry Density and optimum moisture determinations on the soils encountered in the earthwork to verify proper compaction. • Performing field density testing of the placed and compacted backfill. • Preparation of this report. General Site Information The property is accessed from the westerly side of the lot which fronts along the east end of the cul-de-sac for Wild Flower Valley Drive overlooking portions of the Rancho Santa Fe area in the city of Encinitas. The rear yard landscape soil was added to enhance the yard for the residence under construction. Job No. 08-5590-FC-Y Page 2 Plan Reference In order to augment our understanding of the designed configuration of the project, a grading plan for the site is provided as Figure No. 1 of this report. This Figure No 1 is a modification of the plan to include the location of our field density tests from field measurements. Field Observations Tests and observations were provided by a representative of C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INCORPORATED. The presence of our field representative at the site was to provide to the client a source of professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based upon the field representative's observations of the contractors work and did not include any superintending, supervision, or direction of the actual work of the contractor's workers. Materials used in the landscape fill consist primarily of brown to tan sands and some gravel. These materials meet or exceed the fill soil specifications referred to in the approved plans. The site is underlain at depth with competent bedrock material. An approximate 2:1 compacted fill slope was constructed to bring the site up to the final yard grade per plan. • The soils utilized in the grading operation were from local soils and consisted primarily of a mixture of brown to tan fine to medium sands, gravel. Field Tests Field density tests were performed in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1556 guidelines. Maximum density determinations were performed in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557, Method A guidelines. The relative compaction results, as summarized on Figure No. II, are the ratios of the field densities to the laboratory Maximum Dry Densities, expressed as percentages. • The rear yard backfill materials were tested and found to be compacted to at least 90 percent of the Maximum Dry Density. Laboratory Tests The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the predominate soils encountered in the earthwork were performed in our laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Figures No. 2. Conclusions Job No. 08-5590-FC-Y Page 3 It is the opinion of C. W. La Monte Company Inc. that the landscape expansion and slope addressed by this report have been constructed substantially in accordance with the recommendations and the construction plans for the project. These opinions are based upon our observations of the construction and earthwork operations, the results of the density tests taken in the field, and the maximum density tests performed in our laboratory. Limitations The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site on July 9, 2008. As limited by the scope of the services that we agreed to perform, the conclusions and opinions presented herein are based upon our observations of the work and the results of our laboratory and field tests. Our services were performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice in the region in which the earthwork was performed, and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the described work with applicable codes and specifications. With the submittal of this report, no warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services performed by our firm, and our performance of those services should not be construed to relieve the grading contractor of his responsibility to perform his work to the standards required by the applicable building codes and project specifications. The firm of C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY, INC. shall not be held responsible for fill soils placed at any future time, existing un-compacted fills or subsequent changes to the site by others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage and/or water erosion altering the strength of the compacted fill soil. Professional opinions presented herein have been made based on our tests, observations and experience and they have been made in accordance with the generally accepted current geotechnical engineering principals and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should any questions arise concerning this report, do not hesitate to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 08-5590-FC-Y will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, �p � �o40fESS/p�,I ��► Exp. W. C.W A,ION150 N , INCO PORATED 12/31/09 E �4= +� Ca C�� S V .� 140, 49 i �"'�� * � at v NO. 495 m Cliff . La Monte o� ,A RCE 25241, GE 495 '� Q� `� 0rEC11111-' CAIN �OF CAL�E��' C WL/cwl Cd u rl T u Q rn 3 Alf l;-Y, \\ /•` � `, i 1 rte( it f to %i/ice ,' ,a _� r 1' +/ _ •^ 1•�. I 1 X11 ' �I j'I�� � i/ / � ' / � � � I� � � N .. fe i i d �w ie LO �r P4 Z d k l 1I lY J 1. ` �. O 1 W aO j 1 !•1� .� Vj i V PLO Oki*6 LAY 04 0 Z . �" N Cd R / s~ o Q, aft, E t14 O If m t 4 O ' r SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Franklin Residence Landscape Fill Wild Flower Valley Drive Rancho Santa Fe, CA K TABLE 1 Elev. (feet)or 'Moisture Dry Max. Test No. Date Location Soil Type 1 o Density Density Compaction Relative Fill Thickness (/o) c c 1 7/9/2008 See Fi re 1 FG 1 9.2 1 120.3 128.0 94.0 2 7/9/2008 See Fi re 1 FG 1 9.4 F 122.0 128.0 95.3 TABLE 2 pn �... ;, a�4 rah Soil Type Description Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Density 1 Brown Medium to Coarse Sand 9.0 128.0 Job No. 08-5590FC Figure No. 2 MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE 145 - -- - 2.9 T--r z7- - - - 140 }� - fi - - - 135 SOIL TYPE 130 -- _ -t - a. -- - _ 125 - - a.. i - r- - c 120 - • -� i - 115 }- r r 110 - - 105 --- - '- - - --- 100 -+ - - : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Soil Moisture (%) Soil Type Description Optimum Maximum Moisture(%) Density(Pcf) 1 Brown Medium to Coarse Sand 9.0 128.0 Franklin Residence Landscape Fill C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. Project: Wild Flower Valley Drive Soil and Foundation Engineers Rancho Santa Fe, CA Job No. 08-5590 Figure No. 3