The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-287 G ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city 0 of Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services EncinitGs Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering May 29, 2007 Attn: INSCO Insurance Services, Inc. 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: Finkbiner, John and Judi 140 Range Street APN 254-054-60 Grading Plan 287-G Partial release of bond Permit 287-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a partial release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 727090S, in the amount of$33,504.00, can hereby be reduced by 75% to $8,376.00. The document original will be kept until it is fully exonerated. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geish ay L bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Client Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 Aso� recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering November 7, 2007 Attn: INSCO Insurance Services, Inc. 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: Finkbiner, John and Judi 140 Range Street APN 254-054-60 Grading Plan 287-G Final release of bond Permit 287-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has finaled the project. Therefore, a final release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 7270905, (in the original amount of$33,504.00), reduced by 75% to $8,376.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. c Sincerely, Debra Geishart v J em ach Engineering Technician F nance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Finkbiner,John and Judi Debra Geishart File Enc. TOAL ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS,LAND PLANNERS,AND LAND SURVEYORS 139 Avenida Navarro, San Clemente,CA 92672 Tel: (949)492-8586•Fax: (949)498-8625 RAYMOND R.TOAL,RCE 16889 OLAV S.MEUM,L.s.4384 MICHAEL A.ROTH,L.s.6211 CALEB O.RIOS,RCE 57587 ? I ADAM L.TOAL,RCE 59275 tot! f October 22, 2007 f City of Encinitas Planning and Building Department 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 FINAL GRADING ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR GRADING PERMIT NO. 287G Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal code, this letter report is hereby submitted as a final grading report for the subject project. As supervising grading engineer on the project, I hereby state all grading, lot drainage, and drainage facilities on the site have been completed and installed in conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas Codes and Standards. I have inspected the site and found the improvements to their proper line and grade in conformance with Section 23.24.450 through 23.24.500. All building pad sizes, elevations, drainage and berming have been completed in substantial compliance with the approved plans and any approved revision thereto. An"As-Built" grading plan has been completed by me or under my direction and has been submitted to the City for review and approval. Q�pFtiSSIONq�F QUO PLEB Rips ycZ Caleb Rios, 15787 W No.57587 CR/ch ac Exp.12-30--07 FGC12962 CN�� sTgTf OF CA�\�� PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. �� 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 1YiAll p 2 � i! TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 Judi& John Finkbiner __J 140 Range Street Leucadia, CA 92024 April 3, 2006 Work Order 401028 Attention: Judi and John Finkbiner Subject: Geotechnical Update Letter, Geotechnical Foundation Inves- tigati6n, Proposed Addition, 140 Range Street,Leucadia, California, 92024 Reference: Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Proposed Addition at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA 92024, by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., dated January 5, 2005 (Work Order 401028) Gentlemen: Presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s(PSE)update letter for the proposed addition at 140 Range Street. Based upon PSE's review of the referenced report,the current site geotech- nical conditions are consistent with those as previously reported. All work should conform to the current City of Encinitas' grading codes and the recommendations presented in PSE's January 5, 2006 report. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact the undersigned. Respectfully sVqmitted PACIFI S E G,INC. tic Z w 2314 m B . 1i 6/30/07 a° By: 104tA_1 F Y, G JO A. XIANSON, CEG 990 an g f T '' PC Vr Vice tr94ident Dist: (2) A dresse JAC/JAH:bm:401028,April 3,2006 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL:(714)220-0770 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 TEL:(909)676-8195 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(909)676-1879 FAX:(714)730-5191 ❑ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 0 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-03,&0- -- ----------. Judi & John Finkbiner %01AN 2 2007 140 Range Street Leucadia, CA 92024 - — J .._--January 5, 2005 Work Order 401028 Attention: Judi and John Finkbiner Subject: Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Proposed Addition at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA 92024 References: See Appendix A Gentlemen: Presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) geotechnical foundation investiga- tion for a proposed addition located at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, California. The purpose of this investigation is to characterize site geotechnical conditions as they relate to the proposed addition (Figure 1). 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work has been performed as a part of this investigation: ➢ Review of available pertinent geotechnical literature (references). ➢ Excavation, logging and sampling of two (2) hand dug auger borings within the footprint of the proposed addition. (Table I—Appendix B) ➢ Laboratory testing. ➢ General discussion of site geology. ➢ Limited seismic hazards evaluation. ➢ Preliminary grading recommendations. ➢ Preliminary foundation design recommendations. ➢ Preparation of this report summarizing our findings. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL:(714)220-0770 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 TEL:(951)582-0170 FAX:(714)220-9589 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(951)582-0176 FAX:(714)730-5191 Work Order 401028 Page 2 January 5, 2005 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately 9800 square foot lot is located in the City of Leucadia and can be accessed by Range Street (Private Drive). Three (3) existing structures are located on the parcel and several low height retaining walls are also present onsite. The proposed addition will extend the north-central structure in a westerly direction(Figure 1). 3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION It is assumed that grading will be required to create a level building pad for the addi- tion. A four- (4) foot retaining wall exists in the area of the proposed structure. Based upon conceptual architectural elevations, the proposed addition will be approximately four (4) feet higher than the existing structure. It is understood that the proposed addi- tion will be supported by a slab-on-grade foundation system with shallow foundation elements. 4.0 GEOLOGIC SUMMARY Based upon review of published geologic data(references), the site is blanketed by un- documented artificial fill, which is underlain by marine terrace deposits of Quaternary age. The terrace deposits in turn, overlie the middle Eocene Santiago Formation. Ex- posures on the sea cliff to the west of the lot show a faulted sequence of bedrock. These faults likely project beneath the parcel and are shown as capped by the marine terrace deposits (Abbot, P.L., et al., 1985). The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon/Newport Inglewood Fault Zone, a Type B fault located approximately 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) northwest of the site. Owing to the relatively dense character of the underlying terrace deposits, liquefaction is not con- sidered a significant hazard. Ground shaking from large seismic events generated along offsite faults is possible, as with most areas in the seismically active southern California area. For structural design purposes, the parameters presented in Table 4.1 should be utilized for design of post- PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ,50'ZR U I I --------------------- -------- --i-- z 00 Ln I I ^O 0 I I T V ^o 1 i ____ I zF° o W I a I I ILL zvCX w Cl) I I zoa Q r—"' Z I I WZJM A co 0 I f .aUp� Z Z I I <« et Li I I I I I I li 1 \I I I 1 Z I I I I I f I I m I I w 1 I I I �' :1. •�.''+ �'•�\.; `\I d' O1 I \ 1 \ ..i•. �\. ,\ \I O c I AC v� R I I � I I �0-M iN I I I i ---- ------ ------- I I I N I I 1 I I I I w I -- ----------- _ ,00'Z8 _ --1—===-----------------3.6 ,44 SlN -------------- I----------� Work Order 401028 Page 3 January 5, 2005 graded lots. The site occurs in Seismic Zone 4, and therefore the Seismic Zone factor "Z" is 0.4. These parameters are meant to be consistent with UBC (1997). TABLE 4.1 UBC(1997) Seismic Parameters Soil Profile Type Ca C, Na N, SC 0.40Na 0.56N„ 1.02 1.22 Groundwater was not encountered at the time of PSE's subsurface investigation. It is unlikely that groundwater will be encountered during grading operations or building construction. 5.0 SITE PREPARATION AND COMPACTION 5.1 Unsuitable Soil Removals As a general guideline, removals of undocumented artificial fill will range be- tween four (4) to six (6) feet and should be accomplished a minimum five (5) feet outside of the footing perimeter. Localized areas may require deeper re- movals, depending upon conditions encountered during grading operations. Care should be taken when performing removals in close proximity to the exist- ing structure. 5.2 Existing Site Improvements To the best of PSE's knowledge, existing underground improvements are not present within the proposed building addition footprint. Given the proximity of the adjacent structure and other possible improvements, care should be taken during grading operations. Accordingly, it should be the contractor's responsi- bility to protect adjacent improvements in these areas during grading and build- ing construction. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 4 January 5, 2005 5.3 Grading Compliance Grading should conform to the grading ordinance of the City of Leucadia and the attached PSE earthwork specifications. Field observations will be required during removals and grading by qualified geotechnical personnel. This should include full-time observation and testing of fill soil placement by field techni- cian(s) and periodic observation by the soil engineer and/or geologist. 5.4 Site Preparation Prior to grading, the site must be stripped and cleared of existing vegetation, trash, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials should be re- moved and wasted offsite. 5.5 Removal Excavation Treatment Once removals of undocumented artificial fill to competent terrace deposit ma- terials are completed, the removal bottom should be scarified to a depth of eight (8) inches, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or slightly above (ASTM:D 1557-91) and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative com- paction, prior to placement of compacted fill. 5.6 Compacted Fill Placement Fill should be spread in thin lifts (six to eight inches), the moisture content ad- justed to a minimum of optimum moisture or slightly above and the materials rolled and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum den- sity as determined in accordance with ASTM:D 1557-91. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finish grades are achieved. 5.7 Soil Material Suitability Excavated materials, which are approved by the soil engineer, may be utilized in compacted fill provided that trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. It is anticipated that excavated materials will shrink three (3) to five (5) percent when used as compacted fill. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 5 January 5, 2005 5.8 Soil Expansion Characteristics The onsite materials are considered to possess a low expansion potential. Pre- liminary foundation designs are provided to accommodate these conditions. However, as-graded conditions should be confirmed upon completion of grad- ing operations. 5.9 Import Soils Import soils, if needed, should have very low to low expansion potential proper- ties. The soil engineer should be notified at least 72 hours in advance in order to sample, test and approve or disapprove materials from borrow sites. Import ma- terials should not be delivered for use on the site without prior approval from the soil engineer. 5.10 Compaction Testing Fill should be tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the required com- paction is achieved. 6.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Laboratory testing indicates the existence of onsite materials possesses low expansion potential. Final expansion potential determinations for the subject lots will be depend- ent on the post-graded soil conditions. For preliminary design purposes, the following conventional slab-on-grade foundation design parameters and recommendations are presented. Prior to construction, the foundation plans should be reviewed by PSE. At that time, finalized recommendations/comments will be presented. 6.1 Preliminary Foundation Design Criteria Foundation systems may be preliminarily designed based upon the following values. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 6 January 5, 2005 Allowable Bearing: 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Lateral Bearing: 300 lbs./sq.ft. at a depth of 24 inches plus 100 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.35 Settlement: Total=3/4 inch Differential =3/8 inch in 20 feet The above values may be increased as allowed by code to resist transient load- ing conditions, such as wind or seismic. 6.2 Conventional Slab-On-Grade Foundation Systems Conventional foundation systems may be preliminarily designed in accordance with Section 6.1 and Table 6.1. 6.3 Retaining Wall Design For preliminary and budgetary purposes, the following information and design recommendations for retaining walls or other structural walls are presented. 6.3.1 Retaining Wall Foundations Foundations for retaining walls may be preliminarily designed in accor- dance with recommendations of Section 6.1 and the following: 6.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients Level Backfill Ka= 0.33 Kp = 3.00 Ko = 0.50 Equivalent fluid pressures can be calculated utilizing a soil unit weight of T= 125 lbs./ft.3. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 7 January 5, 2005 6.3.3 Other Design Considerations Retaining wall design should consider additional surcharge loads, where appropriate. 6.3.4 Waterproofing and Drainage Systems Retaining walls should be waterproofed to accommodate anticipated ir- rigation water and backfilled with free draining material (SE>20) to within twelve (12) inches of grade and compacted to project specifica- tions. Native soils shall be utilized in the upper twelve (12) inches. Drainage systems including, as a minimum, a four- (4) inch diameter perforated drain line surrounded by three (3) cubic feet per lineal foot of three-quarters- (3/4) inch to one (1) inch crushed rock wrapped with a suitable filter fabric, should be provided to all retaining walls to relieve hydrostatic pressure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 8 January 5, 2005 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL N.T.S. F�T TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE 2•� SWALE NATIVE S140p� BACKFILL H/2 MIN 12 IN. MIN. j 1 NATIVE OR SELECT BACKFILL I: SELECT BACKFILL DRAIN LATERALLY, OR PROVIDE WEEP HOLES I E.I. 20 1 AS REQUIRED TO DRAIN I.' . AND L : ; SE220 1. I. I OR AS MODIFIEDti ` 4' BY A SPECIFIC REPORT 1� 4 INCH PERFORATED PVC,SCHEDULE 40,SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE,PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU. FT. PER FT.OF 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT O 6 INCH PERFORATED PVC SCHEDULE 40,SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE, PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU FT OF 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRIFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 9 January 5, 2005 TABLE 6.1 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Foundation Category I II III Footin De th Below Lowest Adiacent Grade One-Story Interior 12 inches 12 inches 18 inches One-Story Exterior 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches Two-Story Interior 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches Two-Stor Exterior 18 inches 18 inches 24 inches Footin Width One-Story 12 inches 12 inches 12 inches Two-Story 15 inches 15 inches 15 inches Footing Reinforcement One-Story No.4 rebars, one(1)on top, No. 4 rebars, two (2) on No. 5 rebars, two (2) on one(1)on bottom. top, two (2) on bottom OR top,two(2)on bottom. No. 5 rebars,one(1) on top, one on bottom. Two-Story No.4 rebars, one(1)on top, No. 4 rebars, two (2) on No. 5 rebars, two (2) or one(1)on bottom. top, two (2) on bottom OR top,two(2)on bottom. No. 5 rebars,one(1) on top, one on bottom. Slab Thickness 4 inches(actual) 4 inches(actual) 4 inches(actual) Slab Reinforcement No. 3 rebars spaced 18 No. 3 rebars spaced 15 No. 3 rebars spaced 1 inches on center,each wa inches on cent way. inches on center,each way. Under-Slab Requirement 2 inches of clean sand over 2 inches of clean sand over 2 inches clean sand ove 10-mil Visqueen, underlain 10-mil Visqueen, underlain 10-mil Visqueen, underlain with 2 inches of clean sand. with 3 inches of clean sand. with 4 inches of clean sand. Slab Subgrade Moisture Minimum of 110 percent of Minimum of 130 percent of Minimum of 140 percent o optimum moisture prior to optimum moisture 24 hours optimum moisture 48 hour placing concrete. prior to placing concrete to prior to placing concrete to a depth of 12 inches a de th of 12 inches. Footing Embedment Next to Swales and Slopes If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five(5)feet horizontally of the swale,the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that at least seven(7)feet are provided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slo e. Garages A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance,ty- ing together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be , embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6)inches deep. Footing depth, width and reinforcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness,rein- forcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 10 January 5, 2005 7.0 OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Positive drainage away from structures shall be provided and maintained. 7.2 Utility trench backfill shall be accomplished in accordance with the prevailing criteria of the City of Leucadia. 7.3 Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code re- quirements. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. By: ZZ, : B Y ANDRES BERNAL, RCE 62366 JO A. ANSON, CEG 990 Project Engineer Vice ident OF ES S/0N Dist: (4) Addressee n f CD C 62366 � }}� u-3 r AB/JAH:bm:401028,January 5,2005 EP. 17t - 5 lr y urn lk- OF Crt PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX A PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 January 5, 2005 REFERENCES Abbott, P.L. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985 Eocene Lithofacies and Geologic History, Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologist Guidebook, On the Manner of Depo- sition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, dated April 13, 1985. Uniform Building Code, 1997, International Conference of Building Officials, 3 Volumes: Whit- tier, California. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX B PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 January 5, 2005 Work Order 401028 Date Excavated 1/04/05 Excavated by JAH Equipment John Deere 505 w/24" bucket TABLE I LOG OF TEST PITS Test Pit No. Depth (ft.) USCS Description HA-1 0.0-6.5 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED (afu): SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, red brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 6.5 - 10.5 SM-ML TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, red brown, medium dense to dense. @ 7.0 ft. becomes SILTY SAND, medium dense. @ 9.0 ft. becomes slightly coarser. @ 10.5 ft. becomes yellow brown to reddish brown. TOTAL DEPTH 10.5 FT. NO WATER, NO CAVING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - HA-2 0.0-5.5 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED (afu): SILTY SAND, reddish brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 5.5 - 6.0 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, reddish brown, medium dense to dense. TOTAL DEPTH 6.0 FT. NO WATER, NO CAVING PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. EE'NEEk(NG SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS January 11,2006 Judi Finkbiner 140 Range Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: 140 Range Street Dear Judi: Staff reviewed your proposed development of a single-family home and conversion of the existing single-family home into an accessory unit this afternoon. In regards to the eastern property line, which has a legally accessible right-of-way that runs alongside the property line, staff has determined that this can be used as the frontage for development. According to EMC 30.04, the definition of frontage "shall mean the length of any one property line of a premises, which property line abuts a legally accessible street right-of- way". The definition does not specify that a property has to have legal access to the right- of-way in order to be considered the frontage. The definition of Front Lot Line also states "on a comer or reverse corner lot, the front lot line is the shorter property line abutting a street". Staff considers your property to be a corner lot because of the two private right- of ways. Please note that the southerly property line that contains an easement, also known as Range Street,will be considered a street side yard setback. If you have any questions, please call me or any other Planning Staff members at (760) 633-2710. Thank you, O Ryan Loomis Junior Planner _ r HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULICS STUDY For Finkbiner Residential Project ; 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA '` DEC 13 2W6 Job No. 12962 [S November 15, 2006 Prepared for: Mr. & Mrs. John Finkbiner 140 Range Street Leucadia, CA 92024 Prepared by: Toal Engineering, Inc. 139 Avenida Navarro San Clemente, CA 92672 Tel: (949)492-8586 OFESS/o Fax: (949) 498-8625 `��G��B Rioq�Fy s � m ° No 57587 fx EXP. 12-30-07 J'�9J CIVIL �Q FOF CA kF Caleb Rios 587 Exp. 12-07 Table of Contents Narrative 1 12"Storm Drain Inlet Capacity 2 Discharge Pipe Capacity Calculation 3 Post-Development Drainage Map Exhibit"A" Calculations for Rainfall Intensity Attachments Narrative The following hydrology/hydraulics study was prepared for the proposed residential improvements at 140 Range Street in Leucadia, California. The rectangular site is bordered to the North, West, and South by residential developments and to the East by a commercial (automotive repair) development. Range Street is a private street which runs along the Southerly 15' of the project within a roadway easement. Under existing conditions,runoff on the Westerly %2 of the project site surface flows in an Easterly direction over the site before being blocked by a planter wall running the full width of the property; this wall essentially forces excess runoff in a Southerly direction onto Range Street. Runoff over the Easterly%2 of the project surface flows in an Easterly direction across the site and onto the aforementioned automotive development's property. Additionally, the site receives run-on from a 6,000 sq. ft., off-site landscaped area immediately West of the project. There is no known on-site drainage system, however the project owner has not experienced any drainage problems on the site. The proposed residential improvements consist of demolition of an existing building and shed, construction of a new residential building and a single car garage, and the installation of site appurtenances including concrete walkways and patios, a swimming pool/spa, site walls, landscaping, and drainage improvements. The proposed drainage plan will capture all site run-on from the Westerly lot, and all site runoff within the improvement areas of the project lot, and discharge the collected storm water onto Range Street. This system will alter the existing drainage pattern by eliminating the potential ponding area at the midpoint of the lot and by limiting project runoff flowing onto the Easterly lot to only that portion dedicated for Range Street. Additionally, two 10' long segments of perforated pipe surrounded by gravel wrapped in filter fabric will be provided on the drainage system for water quality purposes and runoff reduction using on-site infiltration techniques. After discharge onto Range Street, the storm runoff will follow natural drainage patterns and surface flow along the street in an Easterly direction toward Coast Highway 101. The project site and proposed drainage system are shown more clearly on Exhibit "A". Hydrology calculations herein were performed using the San Diego County Rational Method. The hydraulic calculations on the following pages demonstrate that the proposed 12"atrium drain inlets (for interception of the run-on from the Westerly lot) and the 6"drain pipe (for discharge of all collected site runoff) are adequate for this residential project site. 1 Hydrology & Hydraulic Calculations for 12" Drain Inlet The San Diego County Rational Method is used to determine the runoff from a peak storm event: Q=C * I * A Where: Q=flowrate in cfs (cubic feet per second) C=0.50 (Coefficient of runoff for off-site area; single-family development w/soil type C) I=4.2 in./hr(from County Design Manual using Tc=10 min. and P6=2.5 inches; pertinent calculation sheets from the County Design Manual attached herewith) A=0.035 acres ( 1/4 of the 6,000 sq. ft. (0.14 acre)tributary run-on area to the West) Q =0.50 * 4.2 * 0.035 QPeak=0.07 cfs Drain Inlet Sizing Calculation: From the calculation above QPeak=0.07 cfs or 33 gpm(gallons per minute). A 12"atrium grate has a collection capacity of 66.3 gpm (NDS Drainage Products Catalog) Since 66.3 gpm>33 gpm, the provided inlet(s) are sufficient for capture of runoff from the design peak storm event. Additionally, there are no sump areas or enclosed areas where runoff will pond immediately adjacent to the building. Secondary drainage inlets are provided additional on-site collection downstream of the 12"drain inlets discussed and sized above. 2 Hydrology & Hydraulic Calculations for 6" Pipe The Orange County Rational Method is used to determine the runoff from a peak storm event: Q=C * I* A Where: C=0.60 (Coefficient of runoff for off-site area; multi-unit development w/soil type C) I =4.2 in./hr(from County Design Manual using Tc=10 min. and P6=2.5 inches) A=0.25 acres (The tributary area to the on-site drainage system shown on Exhibit"A") Q=0.60 * 4.2 * 0.25 Qioo=0.63 cfs Capacity of a 6" Pipe: Using Manning's Equation to determine the capacity of a 6"PVC pipe flowing full: Q = (1.49/n) * R21* S112* A Where: n=0.011 (Manning's number for PVC) R=(A/P; Area of pipe/Wetted perimeter; flowing full R=((pi * D2)/4)/(pi * D) S =0.02 (typical slope of 6"drainage system) QmAx=0.96 cfs Since QM,x>Qioo••••••The proposed 6" drain pipe will handle the design peak storm event. 3 U_ U_ t d d C)co ° CD rn a°, Q Z98 C) et o if 'ON I ° 11 CIS w w Q = w CL '� Z a 0 W COD '� w O Z z CD LU to ty W C) �W m h� qZ �V �= r. o e Q c C LL► o g a �n o a4= al ° o`c LL cr CO LLJ LU ;p tai, `^zr:. �'` °N A 0 U o UL O 2 a $Q °� a ap`� W— �N a TjN0) h a O ►— Q a h — — ? �o c 0 obi _ of y a J z Z m ¢ e W y So Q q � � y x qq �� r a _ p ••t y10 ( coa- LAJ j ■ � . 1 a z �z� d2 *(�'..,•. � �=o,.�,» u.nw..w,_- ,wow �..... , • > , �v✓ A' I..l._ �A !\y i� - .. 3 w rc* 1 m a� P; }}r �[ 4 w cn Lm _ u:Qo low,tw. ZZ� Z.U.. co uj gg 46- °m� l I i; 00 " c,,Cyb, �! ` • ti, o 9 I SSA I I I ( I I L _ >,r O 04- CI i 0 t . O to ? i-r- O CJ u-0 -0 ill1 r- .Q O C1 r C CI b t0 > In r t0 C ? y r-- S: ^ V C X L. y_ V O C- al O rxI 'a CJ V- •� u bQ C:. -1 �O 0 ps C] 4) C 0 L L r 4 CJ Z y �V N 4, C) d t0 N.,c. OW. aI > c- o .c o_ IcL OJ V t E +J C 4J CJ ij •.. C W r- O C 'r' 1 p N r C 0 ICU y • O G1 4j N C1 .. C rd 4-1 L O O O N r-- O nD t CJ O d J-1 r .0 C m \ 4J 4J 4J•— C) r.0 b iJ CJ C b C L" -p = Ll.i-tt r- � = C rJ _V _OOi C -0 V = gyp r M V- OW _C .>r .O __ do N �4- C V L tJ V 0 N.r. C E C V O- O N CJ C, O C.i-i CJ L = Cl Q. +J 4J i L') L r L L C +�1] O r- y '° c L a n o.+s CD N C E a�i n .� ra°". C> 4A f- Q) C r0 d b e0.r � ''' s' � L {V s y E u ,o -� �,. O Q •-• C i J r t* N tD Q) r V C C) N C1 Z C L CJ R7 4J r- O O 4J Q1 y 4 {� O yJ � 4J iJ y +a �c y L 1L . 4 J W al c y ., b o 4J N . 0 4- it 0 p o O _ V w iJ d O +J C V q N a. d 4-S ►-� ^ _ _ N M d Ln Q O ,^- ^ ^ ^ �.� N e7 qd z 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) c.� C),Ln o to o u) o ,O o Ln to Ln Ln -rr OVI Cm D C `•_'- _•- �_^—__ '/ /. •=/ _- _ to N td r. -_.1. _ _ T ._ _ -- - - -� �''1 'CT Z 1 u •P' '.�� ,:,try --• _� - r �- _1��. 1 t i ' I t"� LLJ Z N T- 936 T. tt � � � --�--_ ,, 1 •I jf ( 11 1• •1'•I •111 I I N = ca• •.�.- 1 _ _ _ ._T• — — —_ _ --- O _ L O y _/— .1-.- _ I I •T '• I.'i WTI 1 1 1 qd I Ill I l i 1 ..I PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC, 0 I 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 � TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 Judi & John Finkbiner 140 Range Street Leucadia, CA 92024 April 3, 2006 Work Order 401028 Attention: Judi and John Finkbiner Subject: Geotechnical Update Letter, Geotechnical Foundation Inves- tigation, Proposed Addition, 140 Range Street, Leucadia, California, 92024 Reference: Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Proposed Addition at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA 92024, by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., dated January 5, 2005 (Work Order 401028) Gentlemen: Presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) update letter for the proposed addition at 140 Range Street. Based upon PSE's review of the referenced report, the current site geotech- nical conditions are consistent with those as previously reported. All work should conform to the current City of Encinitas' grading codes and the recommendations presented in PSE's January 5, 2006 report. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully s itted PACIFI S E G' INC. p _ to z B ' 2314 '< '' � 6/30/07 .7 By:A. an ge f J ` JO A. ANSON, CEG 990 Vice r ident Dist: (2) A dresse JAC/JAH:bm:401028,April 3,2006 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS TEL:(714)220-0770 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FAX:(714)220-9589 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAX:(714)220-9589 TEL:(909)676-8195 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY FAX:(909)676-1879 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)730-5191 � � C� i� i► 41r � (�1 0 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. I 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 ��•`� TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 tl i �� u '. Judi & John Finkbiner ___._--_._ 140 Range Street Leucadia, CA 92024 March 17, 2006 Work Order 401028 Attention: Judi and John Finkbiner Subject: Geotechnical Firm of Record, Proposed Addition, 140 Range Street, Leucadia, California Reference: Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Proposed Addition at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA 92024, by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., dated January 5, 2005 (Work Order 401028) Gentlemen: Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) will be providing geotechnical testing and observation ser- vices during construction of the proposed addition. Foundation construction and earthwork will be conducted in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the referenced report. Upon completion, PSE will prepare a report summarizing our testing and observation services. If you have any questions or require additional information,please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. By: JOHN A HANSON, CEG 990 Vice sident Dist: (2) Addressee JAH:bm:401028,March 17,2006 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY TEL:(E-H DQUA TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY FAX:(714)220-9589 TEL:(909)676-8195 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(909)676-1879 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)730-5191 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 �- TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 Judi & John Finkbiner 140 Range Street Leucadia, CA 92024 January 5, 2005 Work Order 401028 Attention: Judi and John Finkbiner Subject: Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Proposed Addition at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA 92024 References: See Appendix A Gentlemen: Presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) geotechnical foundation investiga- tion for a proposed addition located at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, California. The purpose of this investigation is to characterize site geotechnical conditions as they relate to the proposed addition (Figure 1). 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work has been performed as a part of this investigation: ➢ Review of available pertinent geotechnical literature (references). ➢ Excavation, logging and sampling of two (2) hand dug auger borings within the footprint of the proposed addition. (Table I—Appendix B) ➢ Laboratory testing. ➢ General discussion of site geology. ➢ Limited seismic hazards evaluation. ➢ Preliminary grading recommendations. ➢ Preliminary foundation design recommendations. ➢ Preparation of this report summarizing our findings. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL:(714)220-0770 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 TEL:(951)582-0170 FAX:(714)220-9589 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(951)582-0176 FAX:(714)730-5191 Work Order 401028 Page 2 January 5, 2005 is 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The approximately 9800 square foot lot is located in the City of Leucadia and can be accessed by Range Street (Private Drive). Three (3) existing structures are located on the parcel and several low height retaining walls are also present onsite. The proposed addition will extend the north-central structure in a westerly direction (Figure 1). 3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION It is assumed that grading will be required to create a level building pad for the addi- tion. A four- (4) foot retaining wall exists in the area of the proposed structure. Based upon conceptual architectural elevations, the proposed addition will be approximately four(4) feet higher than the existing structure. It is understood that the proposed addi- tion will be supported by a slab-on-grade foundation system with shallow foundation elements. • 4.0 GEOLOGIC SUMMARY Based upon review of published geologic data (references), the site is blanketed by un- documented artificial fill, which is underlain by marine terrace deposits of Quaternary age. The terrace deposits in turn, overlie the middle Eocene Santiago Formation. Ex- posures on the sea cliff to the west of the lot show a faulted sequence of bedrock. These faults likely project beneath the parcel and are shown as capped by the marine terrace deposits (Abbot, P.L., et al., 1985). The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon/Newport Inglewood Fault Zone, a Type B fault located approximately 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers)northwest of the site. Owing to the relatively dense character of the underlying terrace deposits, liquefaction is not con- sidered a significant hazard. Ground shaking from large seismic events generated along offsite faults is possible, as with most areas in the seismically active southern California area. For structural design purposes, the parameters presented in Table 4.1 should be utilized for design of post- PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. .9079 J ------------------------------T--T--.; z O � C� I I I I I I Ir z N° Ln I I I I -------------- I I waQN o I I J ! I I LL. �uox o I. 1 z ;:a ca u ao In 0 o i z tn a I I i r-- I �� ----------- I I ! I I I 1 l I Z I I 1 m I I I I 1 cn x I I ! I w I I WI I I �Io ` ` \ •. \ < N LLJ \\X\`I O LLJ z � I I I 0'P7 J I I I I I LN I I I 1 I I I I Z I ! E5 I ! I � I m E= I I _—al- I w I I — -- -— ————————- 00'ZB ---i—= ---- ----- I I 3.601 SIN Work Order 401028 Page 3 January 5, 2005 • graded lots. The site occurs in Seismic Zone 4, and therefore the Seismic Zone factor "Z" is 0.4. These parameters are meant to be consistent with UBC (1997). TABLE 4.1 UBC(1997)Seismic Parameters Soil Profile Type Ca C,, N. N,, Sc 0.40Na 0.56N„ 1.02 1.22 Groundwater was not encountered at the time of PSE's subsurface investigation. It is unlikely that groundwater will be encountered during grading operations or building construction. 5.0 SITE PREPARATION AND COMPACTION 5.1 Unsuitable Soil Removals • As a general guideline, removals of undocumented artificial fill will range be- tween four(4) to six (6) feet and should be accomplished a minimum five (5) feet outside of the footing perimeter. Localized areas may require deeper re- movals, depending upon conditions encountered during grading operations. Care should be taken when performing removals in close proximity to the exist- ing structure. 5.2 Existing Site Improvements To the best of PSE's knowledge, existing underground improvements are not present within the proposed building addition footprint. Given the proximity of the adjacent structure and other possible improvements, care should be taken during grading operations. Accordingly, it should be the contractor's responsi- bility to protect adjacent improvements in these areas during grading and build- ing construction. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 4 January 5, 2005 • 5.3 Grading Compliance Grading should conform to the grading ordinance of the City of Leucadia and the attached PSE earthwork specifications. Field observations will be required during removals and grading by qualified geotechnical personnel. This should include full-time observation and testing of fill soil placement by field techni- cian(s) and periodic observation by the soil engineer and/or geologist. 5.4 Site Preparation Prior to grading, the site must be stripped and cleared of existing vegetation, trash, debris and other deleterious materials. These materials should be re- moved and wasted offsite. 5.5 Removal Excavation Treatment Once removals of undocumented artificial fill to competent terrace deposit ma- terials are completed, the removal bottom should be scarified to a depth of eight (8) inches, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or slightly above (ASTM:D 1557-91) and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative com- paction, prior to placement of compacted fill. 5.6 Compacted Fill Placement Fill should be spread in thin lifts (six to eight inches), the moisture content ad- justed to a minimum of optimum moisture or slightly above and the materials rolled and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum den- sity as determined in accordance with ASTM:D 1557-91. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finish grades are achieved. 5.7 Soil Material Suitability Excavated materials, which are approved by the soil engineer, may be utilized in compacted fill provided that trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials • are removed prior to placement. It is anticipated that excavated materials will shrink three (3) to five (5) percent when used as compacted fill. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 5 January 5, 2005 5.8 Soil Expansion Characteristics The onsite materials are considered to possess a low expansion potential. Pre- liminary foundation designs are provided to accommodate these conditions. However, as-graded conditions should be confirmed upon completion of grad- ing operations. 5.9 Import Soils Import soils, if needed, should have very low to low expansion potential proper- ties. The soil engineer should be notified at least 72 hours in advance in order to sample, test and approve or disapprove materials from borrow sites. Import ma- terials should not be delivered for use on the site without prior approval from the soil engineer. 5.10 Compaction Testing Fill should be tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the required com- paction is achieved. 6.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA Laboratory testing indicates the existence of onsite materials possesses low expansion potential. Final expansion potential determinations for the subject lots will be depend- ent on the post-graded soil conditions. For preliminary design purposes, the following conventional slab-on-grade foundation design parameters and recommendations are presented. Prior to construction, the foundation plans should be reviewed by PSE. At that time, finalized recommendations/comments will be presented. 6.1 Preliminary Foundation Design Criteria Foundation systems may be preliminarily designed based upon the following ivalues. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 6 January 5, 2005 • Allowable Bearing: 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Lateral Bearing: 300 lbs./sq.ft. at a depth of 24 inches plus 100 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.35 Settlement: Total = 3/4 inch Differential = 3/8 inch in 20 feet The above values may be increased as allowed by code to resist transient load- ing conditions, such as wind or seismic. 6.2 Conventional Slab-On-Grade Foundation Systems Conventional foundation systems may be preliminarily designed in accordance with Section 6.1 and Table 6.1. 6.3 Retaining Wall Desi!n For preliminary and budgetary purposes, the following information and design recommendations for retaining walls or other structural walls are presented. 6.3.1 Retaining Wall Foundations Foundations for retaining walls may be preliminarily designed in accor- dance with recommendations of Section 6.1 and the following: 6.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients Level Backfill Ka= 0.33 K = 3.00 Ko = 0.50 Equivalent fluid pressures can be calculated utilizing a soil unit weight • of'y= 125 lbs./ft.3. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 7 January 5, 2005 • 6.3.3 Other Design Considerations Retaining wall design should consider additional surcharge loads, where appropriate. 6.3.4 Waterproofing and Drainage Systems Retaining walls should be waterproofed to accommodate anticipated ir- rigation water and backfilled with free draining material (SE>20) to within twelve (12) inches of grade and compacted to project specifica- tions. Native soils shall be utilized in the upper twelve (12) inches. Drainage systems including, as a minimum, a four- (4) inch diameter perforated drain line surrounded by three (3) cubic feet per lineal foot of three-quarters- (3/4) inch to one (1) inch crushed rock wrapped with a suitable filter fabric, should be provided to all retaining walls to relieve hydrostatic pressure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 8 January 5, 2005 • RETAINING WALL BACKFILL N.T.S. F�TT PROVIDE DRAINAGE O2 SWALE NATIVE BACKFILL H/2 MIN 12 IN. MIN. 1 NATIVE OR SELECT BACKFILL 1: SELECT j.` BACKFILL DRAIN LATERALLY, .'. OR PROVIDE WEEP HOLES I .'• I' E.I.<_20 ... 1 AS REQUIRED 1: AND TO DRAIN I' I..: : SE220 *OR AS MODIFIED rLr4 BY A SPECIFIC REPORT 1O 4 INCH PERFORATED PVC,SCHEDULE 40,SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE,PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU.FT. PER FT.OF 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 2O 6 INCH PERFORATED PVC SCHEDULE 40,SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE,PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU FT OF 314 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRIFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 9 January 5, 2005 TABLE 6.1 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Foundation Category I II III Footing Depth Below Lowest Ad'acent Grade One-Story Interior 12 inches 12 inches 18 inches One-Story Exterior 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches Two-Story Interior 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches Two-Story Exterior 18 inches 18 inches 24 inches Footing Width One-Story 12 inches 12 inches 12 inches_T Two-Story 15 inches 15 inches 15 inches Footing Reinforcement One-Story No.4 rebars,one(1)on top, No. 4 rebars, two (2) on No. 5 rebars, two (2) on one(1)on bottom. top, two (2) on bottom OR top,two(2)on bottom. No. 5 rebars,one(1)on top, one on bottom. Two-Story No.4 rebars, one(1)on top, No. 4 rebars, two (2) on No. 5 rebars, two (2) on one(l)on bottom. top, two (2) on bottom OR top,two(2)on bottom. No. 5 rebars,one(1)on top, one on bottom. • Slab Thickness 4 inches(actual) 4 inches(actual) 4 inches(actual) Slab Reinforcement No. 3 rebars spaced 18 No. 3 rebars spaced 15 No. 3 rebars spaced 1 inches on center, each way. inches on center,each way. inches on center,each way. Under-Slab Requirement 2 inches of clean sand over 2 inches of clean sand over 2 inches clean sand ove 10-mil Visqueen, underlain 10-mil Visqueen, underlain 10-mil Visqueen, underlain with 2 inches of clean sand. with 3 inches of clean sand. with 4 inches of clean sand. Slab Subgrade Moisture Minimum of 110 percent of Minimum of 130 percent of Minimum of 140 percent o optimum moisture prior to optimum moisture 24 hours optimum moisture 48 hour placing concrete. prior to placing concrete to prior to placing concrete to a depth of 12 inches a depth of 12 inches. Footing Embedment Next to Swales and Slopes If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five(5)feet horizontally of the swale,the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that at least seven(7)feet are provided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slope. Garages A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance,ty- ing together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam,should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6)inches deep. Footing depth, width and reinforcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness,rein- forcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 10 January 5, 2005 is 7.0 OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Positive drainage away from structures shall be provided and maintained. 7.2 Utility trench backfill shall be accomplished in accordance with the prevailing criteria of the City of Leucadia. 7.3 Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code re- quirements. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned. • Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. By: L��" i�.� B : Y ANDRES BERNAL, RCE 62366 JO A. ANSON, CEG 990 Project Engineer Vice Vxei6dent V�pF E S S/p� S 6F,Q�LI� Dist: 4 �< < � � Addressee C 62366 (C:) F l y AB/JAH:bm:401028,January 5,2005 �� 9=30-ZJ5 �rl� Cr • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • APPENDIX A • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 January 5, 2005 • REFERENCES Abbott, P.L. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985 Eocene Lithofacies and Geologic History, Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologist Guidebook, On the Manner of Depo- sition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, dated April 13, 1985. Uniform Building Code, 1997, International Conference of Building Officials, 3 Volumes: Whit- tier, California. • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • APPENDIX B • • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 January 5, 2005 Work Order 401028 Date Excavated 1/04/05 Excavated by JAH Equipment John Deere 505 w/24" bucket TABLE I LOG OF TEST PITS Test Pit No. Depth (ft.) USCS Description HA-1 0.0-6.5 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED (afu): SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, red brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 6.5 - 10.5 SM-ML TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, red brown, medium dense to dense. @ 7.0 ft. becomes SILTY SAND, medium dense. @ 9.0 ft. becomes slightly coarser. • @ 10.5 ft. becomes yellow brown to reddish brown. TOTAL DEPTH 10.5 FT. NO WATER, NO CAVING - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - HA-2 0.0- 5.5 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED (afu): SILTY SAND, reddish brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 5.5 -6.0 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, reddish brown, medium dense to dense. TOTAL DEPTH 6.0 FT. NO WATER, NO CAVING PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. S-7 6, PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 JUDI & JOHN FINKBINER 140 Range Street Encinitas, CA 92024 March 29, 2007 Work Order 401028 Attention: Judi and John Finkbiner Subject: Project Grading Report for Single-Family Residen��,, 140 Range Street, City of Encinitas, California ") References: See Appendix A MAR 3 4 20 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Finkbiner: Presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) grading report for single-family resi- dence, 140 Range Street, City of Encinitas, California. Cut and fill grading operations were utilized to develop the subject lot under the testing and ob- servation of PSE during March 2007. Data and test results developed during grading are summa- rized in the text of this report on the enclosed 1/8 inch = 1 foot precise grading plan(Sheet 2 of 5) prepared by Toal Engineering, Inc. Also presented herein are foundation and slab design rec- ommendations, based on field and laboratory testing of as-graded soil conditions. Cuts, fills and processing of original ground covered by this report have been completed under PSE's testing and observation. Accordingly, the work is considered to be in compliance with the City of Encinitas grading code criteria, the 1/8 inch= 1 foot precise grading plan and the refer- enced geotechnical reports. Slopes are considered surficially and grossly stable and will remain so under normal conditions. To reduce exposure to erosion, landscaping of graded slopes should be accomplished as soon as possible. Drainage berms and swales should be established and maintained to aid in long-term slope protection. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL:(714)220-0770 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 TEL:(951)582-0170 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(951)582-0176 FAX:(714)730-5191 Work Order 401028 Page 2 March 29, 2007 1.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 1.1 Geologic Units Geologic units encountered during the grading of the subject lot consisted of un- documented artificial fill and Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits (Map sym- bol Qt). 1.1.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (No Map Symbol) Undocumented fill encountered on the site consisted of light reddish brown, loose, dry to slightly moist, silty sands. The thickness of this unit was less than six (6) feet thick. Complete removals of this unit were ac- complished. 1.1.2 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol Qt) Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits were encountered on the subject lot. This unit consists of silty sands that are light brown to reddish brown, fine- to medium-grained, slightly moist to moist and medium dense. Highly weathered portions were removed prior to fill placement. The ter- race deposits are locally massive. 1.2 Structure The terrace deposits were observed to be massive. Exposures on the sea cliff to the west of the lot show a faulted sequence of bedrock. These faults likely project beneath the subject lot and are shown as capped by the marine terrace deposits (Abbot, P.L., and others, 1985). 1.3 Subdrains Due to the lack of defined canyons and the relatively flat relief across the site, no subdrains were recommended within the subject lot. 1.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during grading of the subject site. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 3 March 29, 2007 1.5 Corrective Grading Corrective grading such as stabilization fills or buttresses were not required. 1.6 Conclusions From an engineering geology viewpoint, the building pad for the subject site is suitable for its intended residential use. 2.0 SOIL ENGINEERING AND PROJECT GRADING 2.1 Compaction Test Results Compaction test results are presented in Table I. Approximate test locations are shown on the enclosed 1/8 inch= 1 foot precise grading plan (Sheet 2 of 5). Compaction testing was conducted utilizing the Campbell Pacific Nuclear Test Gauges (ASTM:D2922 and D 3017). 2.2 Removal Excavations The removal of unsuitable material to marine terrace deposits was accomplished in fill areas during grading. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the exposed surface was scarified, moisture conditioned at or near optimum moisture and compacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density(ASTM:D 1557-91). 2.3 Fill Construction Fill consisting of the soil types indicated in Table I was placed in thin lifts [ap- proximately six (6) to eight (8) inches], moisture conditioned at or near optimum moisture and compacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density(ASTM:D 1557-91). This was accomplished utilizing heavy earth moving equipment. Each succeeding fill lift was treated in a similar manner. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 4 March 29, 2007 2.4 Field Observation During this grading, removals, excavations, cleanouts and processing in preparing fill areas were observed by this firm's representative prior to placement of fill. Based on those observations, fills are supported by marine terrace deposits. 2.5 Compaction and Depth of Fill Compaction testing was performed for approximately each one (1) to two (2) feet of fill placed. The approximate maximum vertical depth of fill placed during grading is on the order of six (6) feet. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The subject site is scheduled for the construction of a one- to two-story single-family residential structure utilizing a conventional slab-on-grade foundation system with shal- low footing elements. 4.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Materials encountered during the grading of the subject lot and utilized for compacted fill ranged from "very low" to "low" in expansion potential. Sampling of the post-grading soil conditions was conducted to determine the expansion index per LTBC Standard No. 18-2. That evaluation revealed "very low" expansive materials on the subject building pad. Laboratory test data are presented in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1 EXPANSION EXPANSION SAMPLE INDEX POTENTIAL LOCATION. (UBC TABLE 18-1-B) House Pad 1 Very Low House Pad 3 Very Low Garage Pad 6 Very Low Based on the data presented in Table 4.1, the following foundation design criteria are pre- sented. 4.1 Foundation Desi n Criteria Foundations for structures may be designed based on the following values: PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 5 March 29, 2007 Allowable Bearing: 20001bs./sq. ft. Lateral Bearing: 300 lbs./sq. ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 100 lbs./sq. ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs./sq. ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.35 Settlement: Total = 3/4 inch Differential = 3/8 inch in 20 feet. The above values may be increased as allowed by code to resist transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic. 4.2 Conventional Slabs/Foundations Conventional foundation systems should be designed in accordance with the pa- rameters presented in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 6 March 29, 2007 TABLE 4.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUND TION DESI N PARAMETERS Expansion Potential Very Low to Low Soil Category I Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Finish Grade One-Story Interior 12 inches One-Story Exterior 12 inches Two-Story Interior 12 inches Two-Story Exterior 18 inches Footin Width One-Story 12 inches Two-Story 15 inches Footing Reinforcement No.4 rebar One-Story one(1)on top one(1)on bottom No.4 rebar Two-Story one(1) on top one(1)on bottom Slab Thickness 4 inches(actual) Slab Reinforcement No. 3 rebar spaced 18 inches on center, each way Under-Slab Requirement 2 inches of clean sand over 10-mil Visqueen,underlain with 2 inches of clean sand Slab Subgrade Moisture Minimum of 110 percent of optimum moisture prior to placing concrete. Footing Embedment Next to Swales and Slopes If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five(5)feet horizontally of the swale,the foot- ing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adja- cent to slopes should be embedded such that a least seven(7)feet are provided horizontally from edge of the foot- ing to the face of the slope. Garages A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six(6)inches deep. Footing depth, width and reinforcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness, reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 7 March 29, 2007 4.3 Seismic Design Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code require- ments and the parameters presented in Table 4.3. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. It is approximately three (3.0) miles northwest of the subject site. TABLE 4.3 Seismic Design Parameters Recommended Values Seismic Parameter (1997 UBC) Sc Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.4 Seismic Coefficient G 0.40 Na Seismic Coefficient C„ 0.56 N„ Near Source Factor Na 1.02 Near Source Factor N„ 1.22 Seismic Source Type B 4.3.1 Seismically Induced Liquefaction or Dvnamic Settlement Based upon PSE's observations during grading and the competency and density of the compacted fill and supporting marine terrace deposits, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction or dynamic settlement is considered to be very low. 4.4 Moisture Barrier Slab-on-grade foundation systems should be underlain with a moisture barrier to minimize the potential for moisture migration from the subgrade soils through the slab. It is recommended that the moisture barrier should also be placed below the garage slab. Minimally, it is recommended that the moisture barrier should con- sist of a 10-mil polyvinyl membrane. Care should be taken during construction so that the 10-mil polyvinyl membrane (see Under-Slab Requirements Table 4.2) is not punctured or violated. Further, it is recommended that the polyvinyl mem- PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 page 8 March 29, 2007 brane should be overlapped or glued at the joints to further reduce the potential of moisture vapor migration. 4.5 Deepened Footings and Setbacks for Residential Structures It is generally recognized that improvements constructed in proximity to properly constructed slopes can, over a period of time, be affected by natural processes in- cluding gravity forces, weathering of surficial soils and/or long-term(secondary) settlement. Most building codes, including the Uniform Building Code (UBC), require that structures be set back or footings deepened, where foundations of residential structures are to exist in proximity to slopes, the footings should be embedded to satisfy the requirements presented in Figure 1. Consideration of these natural processes should be undertaken in the design and construction of the other improvements. FIGURE 1 FACE OF FOOTING TOP OF SLOPE FACE OF STRUCTURE H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FT. FI TOE OF MAX. SLOPE H2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT. MAX. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 9 March 29, 2007 4.6 Backyard Improvements Future improvements not indicated on the precise grading plan such as future pat- ios, slabs, pools and perimeter screen walls can be constructed; however, the de- sign and siting of all such future improvements should be reviewed by a soil engi- neer. 4.7 Retaining Wall Design Retaining walls should be founded on compacted fill or bedrock. Foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.1. 4.7.1 Rankine Earth Pressure Coefficients The following earth pressure coefficients are presented for"select" onsite soils for level ground. Level Backfill Ka= 0.33 K = 3.00 Ko = 0.50 Equivalent fluid pressure can be calculated utilizing a soil unit weight of Y= 125 pcf. Restrained retaining walls should be designed for "at-rest" conditions, utilizing Ko. 4.7.2 Retaining Wall Backfill Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining materials (SE_> 20) within one-half(1/2) the height of the wall, measured horizontally from the back of the wall and compacted to project specifications. The upper twelve (12) inches of backfill should consist of locally derived soils. Drainage systems should be provided to walls to relieve potential hydro- static pressure (Figure 2). PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 10 March 29, 2007 FIGURE 2 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL N.T.S. F�qT TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE 2; SWALE NATIVE S�010 f BACKFILL H/2 MIN. 12 IN. MIN. NATIVE OR SELECT�� BACKFILL I SELECT BACKFILL DRAIN LATERALLY, OR PROVIDE WEEP H HOLES E.I.S20 1 AS REQUIRED AND 1* TO DRAIN SE�20 I. � 1 n - d d * OR AS MODIFIED BY A SPECIFIC REPORT 1� 4 INCH PERFORATED PVC, SCHEDULE 40, SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE, PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU. FT. PER FT.OF INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 4.7.3 Inspection Footing excavations for retaining walls should be observed by the project soil engineer or their representative. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 11 March 29, 2007 4.7.4 Additional Loads Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall design to ac- count for the influence of construction loads, temporary loads and possible nearby structural footing loads. No backfill should be placed against con- crete until minimum design strengths are achieved. 5.0 NON-STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FLATWORK The following additional design recommendations are for non-structural concrete flat- work to be constructed outside the proposed structures (Table 5.1). TABLE 5.1 Recommendations for Non-Structural Concrete Flatwork (Low to Medium Expansion Potential Soils) Mimmuln; Private 1Patios/ 5 eclfications Dn ewa s Sidew atlks. ' Walk a s Thickness 4 inches 4 inches 4 inches Crack Deep tool at 10 feet Deep tool at 6 feet Deep tool at 8 feet each Control on center, each way spacing (maxi- way(maximum) mum) 120% of optimum 120% of optimum 120% of optimum Preparation ade moisture to a depth moisture to a depth moisture to a depth of Preparation of 12 inches of 12 inches 12 inches No. 3 rebar on 6-inch x 6-inch 6-inch x 6-inch Reinforcement 18-inch centers No. 10 x No. 10 No. 10 x No. 10 both ways welded wire mesh welded wire mesh 5.1 Chemical Testing Soluble sulfate testing has been conducted on the subject site. Laboratory tests indicate those soils possessed "negligible" sulfate concentrations in accordance with Table 19-A-4 (UBC 1997). Determination as to the need and specification for sulfate resistant concrete and cathodic protection for metal construction mate- rials should be provided by engineers specializing in corrosion. Test results are presented herewith in Appendix B. However, post-construction soil amendments or the importation of soils could introduce potentially detrimental sulfates into the PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 12 March 29, 2007 near surface materials. It is recommended that sulfate resistant concrete, designed in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC for a "moderate" sulfate expo- sure, should be utilized in all portions of the structures in contact with soil. 5.2 Fences and Screen Walls Block walls, if used, should be embedded a minimum of two (2) feet below the lowest adjacent grade. In the vicinity of descending slopes, the foundations should be embedded to provide for a minimum horizontal distance of seven (7) feet from the face of the slope to the outside edge of the bottom of the footing. Construction joints [not more than sixteen (16) feet apart] should be included in the block wall construction. The surficial slope soils are subject to weathering and associated creep. The depth of the creep-affected zone is dependent on many factors including slope gradient, height and soil type as well as maintenance and irrigation levels. For the subject site-specific conditions, it is the opinion of PSE that the depth of the creep zone for the subject tract is on the order of three (3) feet (vertical). Walls at the top of the slopes need to be designed to withstand the effects of these phenomena. This includes designing the walls to support an active force associ- ated with the creep-affected soils. The homeowners should be advised that im- provements constructed in the rear yard in proximity to the slopes should account for these potential movements. 6.0 OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Site DrainaLe Positive drainage away from structures should be provided and maintained. Roof, pad and slope drainage should be collected and directed away from the proposed structures to approved disposal areas. It is important that drainage be directed away from foundations. This is especially true in patio areas and greenbelt areas. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 13 March 29, 2007 The recommended drainage patterns should be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure. 6.2 Service Utility Trench Backfill Service utility trench backfill should be accomplished in accordance with the pre- vailing criteria of the City of Encinitas. 6.3 Seismic Design Seismic design should be based upon current and applicable building code re- quirements. 7.0 HOMEOWNER CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES During and upon completion of mass grading of the subject site, representative soil sam- ples were tested for expansive soil characteristics and soluble sulfate concentrations. The results of these tests are presented in Table 4.1 and Appendix B, respectively, of this re- port. In addition, certain lots contain manufactured slopes within or adjacent to the build- ing pad area. All of these conditions should be considered in design, construction and maintenance of homeowner improvements. The homeowners should be advised of cer- tain responsibilities they must accept in consideration of these factors. Suggested infor- mation to educate the homeowners regarding these responsibilities is presented in Ap- pendix C. We suggest that this information be provided to the homeowner as part of an information packet during the sales process. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 Page 14 March 29, 2007 This report presents information and data relative to the mass grading and/or placement of compacted fill at the subject site. A representative(s) of this firm conducted periodic tests and observations during the progress of the construction in an effort to determine whether compliance with the project drawings, specifications and Building Code were being ob- tained. The presence of our personnel during the work process did not involve the direc- tion or supervision of the contractor. Technical advice and suggestions were provided to the owner and/or his representative based upon the results of the tests and observations. Completed work under the purview of this report is considered suitable for the intended use. Conditions of the reference reports remain applicable unless specifically superseded herein. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Reviewed by: E� ,° RICHARD A. TIPTON, j F Y , G Civil Engineering Associate a eotec ca Services Reviewed by: JOHN HANSON, CEG 990 Vice P sident Dist: (4) Addressee RAT/JAC/JAH:bm:401028,March 29,2007 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX A PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 March 29, 2007 REFERENCES Abbot, P. L., Eisenberg, L. T., 1985, Eocene Lithofacies and Geologic History, Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists Guidebook, on the Manner of Depo- sition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, April 13, 1985. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2006a, Review of Rough Grading and Foundation Plans, Pro- posed Construction at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, California, dated October 5, 2006 (Work Order 401028). Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2006b, Geotechnical Update Letter, Geotechnical Foundation In- vestigation, Proposed Addition, 140 Range Street, Leucadia, California, 92024, dated April 3, 2006 (Work Order 401028). Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2005 Geotechnical Foundation Investigation Proposed Addition at 140 Range Street, Leucadia, CA 92024, dated January 5, 2005 (Work Order 401028). PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX B PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 'iestl�merica MALYTICAL TESTING CORPORATION 17461 Denan Avenue.Suite 100, Irvine,CA 92614(949)261-1022 Fax:(949)260-3297 Pacific Soils Engineering.Inc. Project ID: 401028 7715 Convoy Court Sampled: 03!22/07 San Diego.CA 92111 Report Number: IQC2874 Received: 03/27/07 Attention: Ron Buckle\ INORGANICS Reporting Sample Dilution Date Date Data Analyte Method Batch Limit Result Factor Extracted Analyzed Qualifiers Sample ID:IQC2874-01 (EI-1 Bldg NE-Soil) Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0 7C28045 0.00050 0.011 1 3/28/2007 3/28/2007 Sample ID:IQC2874-02(EI-2 lots 3+4-Soil) Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0 7C28045 0.00050 0.011 1 3/28/2007 3/28/2007 Sample ID:IQC2874-03(EI-3 Garage Lot-Soil) Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0 7C28045 0.00050 0.010 1 3/28/2007 3/28/2007 TestAmerica-Irvine,CA Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager The results pertain only to the sample.%tested in the lahorworv. This report.shall not he reproduced, except in Jill,withaul written permission/rom 7estAmcrica. IOC2874 <Page 2 of 5> APPENDIX C PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 March 29, 2007 OWNER MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS General Owners purchasing property must assume a certain degree of responsibility for owner improvements and for maintaining conditions around their property. Of primary importance are maintaining drain- age patterns and minimizing the soil moisture variation below all lot improvements. Such design, construction and homeowner maintenance provisions may include: ♦ Employing contractors for owner improvements who design and build in recognition of local building codes and specific site soils conditions. ♦ Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, driveways, patios and other hardscape improvements. ♦ Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the im- provements via subdrains into approved disposal areas. ♦ Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. ♦ Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Watering should be done in a uniform manner, as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. ♦ Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all structures with downspouts that are designed to carry roof runoff directly into area drains or discharged well away from the foundation areas. ♦ Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one-half the mature height of the tree. ♦ Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively uniform moisture conditions. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 March 29, 2007 Sulfates Owners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain inorganic fertilizers, soil amend- ments and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relating to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds into soils oth- erwise containing "negligible" sulfate concentrations and increase the sulfate concentrations to potentially detrimental levels. In some cases, concrete improvements constructed in soils containing high levels of soluble sulfates may be affected by crystalline growth or mineral accumulation,which may, in the long term, result in deterioration and loss of strength. Site Drainage ♦ The owners should be made aware of the potential problems that may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, swimming pools, paved walkways,patios or other hardscape improvements. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, overwatering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. ♦ No water should be allowed to flow over the slopes. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that would prevent pad and roof runoff from being directed to approved disposal areas. ♦ As part of site maintenance by the resident, all roof and pad drainage should be directed away from slopes and around structures to approved disposal areas. All berms were constructed and compacted as part of fine grading and should be maintained by the resident. Drainage patterns have been established at the time of the fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. No alterations to these drainage patterns should be made unless designed by quali- fied professionals in compliance with local code requirements and site-specific soils conditions. Slope Drainage ♦ Residents should be made aware of the importance of maintaining and cleaning all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains and any other drainage devices, which have been installed to promote slope stability. ♦ Subsurface drainage pipe outlets may protrude through slope surfaces and/or wall faces. These pipes, in conjunction with the graded features, are essential to slope and wall stability and must be protected in-place. They should not be altered or damaged in any way. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 March 29, 2007 Planting and Irrigation of Slopes ♦ Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a well- established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. ♦ It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the resi- dents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the resident's risk. ♦ The resident is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly in- stalled irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. ♦ Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap. Overwatering with consequent wasteful runoff and serious ground saturation must be avoided. ♦ If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for seasonal and natural rainfall conditions. Burrowing Animals ♦ Residents must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. Owner Improvements Owner improvements (pools, spas, patio slabs, retaining walls, planters, etc.) should be designed to account for the terrain of the project, as well as expansive soil conditions and chemical characteris- tics. Design considerations on any given lot may need to include provisions for differential bearing materials, ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock structure, perched (irrigation) water, spe- cial geologic surcharge loading conditions, expansive soil stresses and long-term creep/settlement. All owner improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals utilizing ap- propriate design methodologies, which account for the on-site soils and geologic conditions. Each lot and proposed improvement should be evaluated on an individual basis. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401028 March 29, 2007 TABLE I Soil Type Laboratory Maximum Density ASTM:D 1557-91 (All Soil Types) Optimum Maximum Moisture Dry Density Soil Type & Description (% dry wt.) lbs./cu.ft. A - Reddish Brown Silty Sand 10.1 126.3 LEGEND Non-Designated Test - Indicates test taken in compacted fill. Test Location - See Plan Elevation - Indicated by approximate field elevation (feet) above mean sea level. TEST TYPE N - Indicates test by Campbell Pacific Nuclear Test Gauge (per ASTM:D 2922-91 and D 3017-88). eb:401028,March 29, 2007 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 0 0 N N U ca a, O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 wn O � O F F 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z m F d d d d d d d d d d d d d c, Vl �t L A M M M M M M M M M M M M M b O N 00 [- 00 00 ON 00 00 00 00 U [- 00 c� b � � O ►.r W > O O O O v v O v 00 V) N 00 p C'4 l� E"y C O . O C O Q O t» G O cu m o aw wa as as wwa r% a.a a� (L) v U(L) O) U U U (U a, U cn U) H L w O Ey = O O O O O O p p p N N O N Sr yUr � CC3 3 � PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. LEGEND DRIVEWAY HARDSCAPE EXISTING CONTOUR -100- PROPOSED CONTOUR 100.00 SPOT ELEVATION #3 0 15" O.C. PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVING = =4`= PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 4" PERFORATED STORM DRAIN r<` BMP LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING SCREEN WALL 77-7-7-777 PROPOSED SCREEN WALL ° PROPOSED RETAINING WALL • DS DOWNSPOUT F.F. PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR PAD PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION FS PROPOSED FINISHED SURFACE FG PROPOSED FINISHED GROUND TG TOP OF GRATE INV INVERT OF PIPE TC TOP OF CURB P.L PROPERTY UNE L.A. LANDSCAPE AREA TW TOP OF WALL TF TOP OF FOOTING TP TOP OF PILASTER FP OUTDOOR FIREPLACE LOT 14 A.P.N.: 254 - 054 -47 SURFACE TEXTURE /PAVERS PER LANDSCAPE PLANS - - - -- - - -- - (B) - - - -- 777777777777, ,j 17�7, SEE SOILS REPORT ° FOR SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS -?,N 2 a 8 - SEE SOILS REPORT ENGINEER FOR OVEREXCAVATI N REQUIREMENTS Proposed 5' Wide easement for waterline purposes to San Dieguito Water District. �5 IUZI1114*4 aN_1S CS1011 tx= ALL ON -SITE LANDSCAPE AREAS (AND AREAS SHOWN UNPAVED ON THIS PLAN) ARE INTENDED TO BE LANDSCAPE AREA BMPs FOR FILTRATION AND INFILTRATION OF SITE RUNOFF. THESE AREAS SHALL NOT BE PAVED OR ALTERED WITHOUT A PERMIT. LOT 13 A.P.N.: 254 - 054 -48 ry w ,v 5 72.00 INV DETAIL 1 DRIVEWAY /HARDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPED BMP AREA (TYP.): TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND NOT MODIFIED WITHOUT CITY PERMIT. 8 INSTALL '" WATER SERVICE AND METER FOR 133 & 137 EDGEBURT DRIVE PER W.A.S. STD. WS -01. 9 BOUNDARY NOTE: THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP MAY BE ADJUSTED RELATIVE TO THE PLAT UPON COMPLETION OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY REVISIONS I APPROVED I DATE I REFERENCES ' VERIFY VALUES W/ SOILS ENGR. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT 4' CLR. BACKFILL PER SOILS REPORT H"" WATER PROOFING COMPOUND PER a c 4} ARCHITECTURAL PLANS MIN. 4 CU. FT. OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK PER LINEAL FOOT OF PIPE H/3 WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC - FILTER FABRIC. VERIFY SELECTED 0 I TYPE W/ SOILS ENGINEER. INSTALL SUBDRAIN (ALL SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE CONNECTED 10 THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.) 4" SCH. 40 PERFORATED COLLECTOR PIPE W/ PERFORATIONS LAID "DOWN" (BELOW SLAB ELEVATION) SUBDRAIN PER PACT S ENGINEERING, DETAIL SOILS REPORT DATED JULY 12, 2006 N.T.S. FRAME & COVER BROOKS PRODUCTS FINISH SURFACE NO. 3RT OR EQUAL 6 " SAND BACKFILL £ 45' BEND 2000 PSI CONC. CAP WHERE CLEANOUT IS AT END OF LINE 6" PIPE SIZE PER PLAN UNDISTURBED SOIL DETAIL (DOT AREA DRAIN & CLEANOUT - N ❑T TO SCALE DRIVEWAY HARDSCAPE MIN. THICKNESS (A) 4" MIN. 4" MIN. REINF. (B) #3 0 15" O.C. #3 0 15" O.C. EXP. JT. SPACING (C) 10' MAX. 6' MAX. Proposed 5' Wide easement for waterline purposes to San Dieguito Water District. �5 IUZI1114*4 aN_1S CS1011 tx= ALL ON -SITE LANDSCAPE AREAS (AND AREAS SHOWN UNPAVED ON THIS PLAN) ARE INTENDED TO BE LANDSCAPE AREA BMPs FOR FILTRATION AND INFILTRATION OF SITE RUNOFF. THESE AREAS SHALL NOT BE PAVED OR ALTERED WITHOUT A PERMIT. LOT 13 A.P.N.: 254 - 054 -48 ry w ,v 5 72.00 INV DETAIL 1 DRIVEWAY /HARDSCAPE SECTION NOT TO SCALE LANDSCAPED BMP AREA (TYP.): TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND NOT MODIFIED WITHOUT CITY PERMIT. 8 INSTALL '" WATER SERVICE AND METER FOR 133 & 137 EDGEBURT DRIVE PER W.A.S. STD. WS -01. 9 BOUNDARY NOTE: THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP MAY BE ADJUSTED RELATIVE TO THE PLAT UPON COMPLETION OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY REVISIONS I APPROVED I DATE I REFERENCES ' VERIFY VALUES W/ SOILS ENGR. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT 4' CLR. BACKFILL PER SOILS REPORT H"" WATER PROOFING COMPOUND PER a c 4} ARCHITECTURAL PLANS MIN. 4 CU. FT. OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK PER LINEAL FOOT OF PIPE H/3 WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC - FILTER FABRIC. VERIFY SELECTED 0 I TYPE W/ SOILS ENGINEER. INSTALL SUBDRAIN (ALL SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE CONNECTED 10 THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.) 4" SCH. 40 PERFORATED COLLECTOR PIPE W/ PERFORATIONS LAID "DOWN" (BELOW SLAB ELEVATION) SUBDRAIN PER PACT S ENGINEERING, DETAIL SOILS REPORT DATED JULY 12, 2006 N.T.S. FRAME & COVER BROOKS PRODUCTS FINISH SURFACE NO. 3RT OR EQUAL 6 " SAND BACKFILL £ 45' BEND 2000 PSI CONC. CAP WHERE CLEANOUT IS AT END OF LINE 6" PIPE SIZE PER PLAN UNDISTURBED SOIL DETAIL (DOT AREA DRAIN & CLEANOUT - N ❑T TO SCALE SCALE: Proposed 5' Wide easement POR: LOT 3 ADDITIONAL NOTES for waterline purposes to CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER UNES FOR 133 A.P.N.: 254- 054 -45 San Dieguito Water District. & 137 EDGEBURT DRIVE WITHIN EASEMENT. Proposed 5' Wide I 1. PAD ELEVATIONS BASED ON 4" SLAB OVER 4" SAND. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PAD S S easement for gas ELEVATIONS WITH SOILS ENGINEER AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. S) S 6 S 6S purposes to SDG&E. •mss G? c9d CONNECT SUBDRAIN p p 2,SO poOT �sOST TO DRAINLINE (TYP.) I 2. WHERE EXTERIOR /INTERIOR UTILITY TRENCHES ARE PROPOSED IN A DIRECTION THAT PARALLELS Gy�c 1 r 61.50 INV ANY BUILDING FOOTING, THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCHES SHALL NOT EXTEND BELOW A 1:1 PLANE 6 Sy cF PROJECTED DOWNWARD FROM THE BOTTOM EDGE OF FOOTING. WHERE THIS OCCURS, ADJACENT ,..'- 5 SETBACK ! " �? 6'L o FOOTING SHALL BE DEEPENED OR UTILITY CONSTRUCTED AND BACKFILLED PRIOR TO BUILDING O N '1624° E 0.07' �, > o o h°�' CONSTRUCTION. _ W - �_.- 4 3. FOR FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DESIGN SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS - ®- - - _, - - - - c - . ` .- „I , ' ' 4. RETAINING WALLS ARE BY OTHERS UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. AL _ r s { i f i (_ Xi a t. F1 DEEPENED FOOTING ( .I y 5. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY PACIFIC SOILS 10 103 ; ? ~ PER1 AIL HEREON o I o I I,y ENGINEERING, INC. (WORK ORDER 401028), DATED JANUARY 5, 2005 AND ALL ADDENDUMS SHALL lr '- 2 �% BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS PLAN. :'! 71.90 TG •67.5 • {, t °t •62 ,.,I r , S.A 5 a 6�' I I 70.75 INV.F. =68.7 r: s •6 I F.F. =68.84 1 �2 F. 64.0 SAWCUT LINE ° ! OUTLET 6" PIPE THRU WALL PAD 50 I 10 _ 7 PAD= • 3 1., (TYPICAL) I r ;: 2" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL �ppp I 1 3 I I I bS.lt , 60 8 .0 _. r'%r ONTO 3' x 3' RIP -RAP AREA. 60 a ..,n 63 8O "4 64.00 TG 6P� -60.97 INV / 60.80 FG). LOT 4 & P lit. LOT I - 1 { QLOCK 29, AP 524 °`'' "`4 { 4 6260 INV 61 !NV 5> �°�_: T 1 /r f / EROSION CONTROL MEASURE (e.g. BONDED FIBER MATRIX, VEGETATIVE COVER, 2q, _ __ ,r. 60.70° _ - - - 20 ACK I z o _ - ;,,_ -- _ _ -__ -- _ _ __ __ JUTE MATTING} MUST BE IMPLEMENTED °WHERE APPLICABLE TO PREVENT` SOIL TG- 0�` '' �� tr: �¢4 >I - ?p p 11 /1f CONSTRUCT 3' WIDE GRASS EROSION ON SITE. SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (e.g. SILT FENCING, FIBER 67 F?�k� S I r 'r' =` ROLLS, DETENTION BASINS MUST BE IN PLACE TO PREVENT ERODED SOIL ,,1 66675 INV .: ri SWALE. SEE DETAIL HEREON. ) ° ` ° ,{ ' FROM LEAVING SITE. MATERIALS MANAGEMENT BMP MUST ALSO BE FOLLOWED I I / i 7250 TG ., s °a j. s y, - I' Irr %;, 5! r TO ENSURE NOT CONTACT OF RAINWATER WITH MATERIALS THAT MAY � r I � r � - CONTRIBUTE TO WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION DOWNSTREAM (e.g. CONCRETE 67.85 TG OR STUCCO WASHOUT AREAS, COVERED STORAGE AREAS FOR HAZARDOUS 6 .60 INV 1 rk l;,t f b`� F (`-AWC UN GAS LINE TO BE RELOCATED t31 SDG &E MATERIALS, PLACEMENT OF PORTABLE TOILETS OVER A PERVIOUS SURFACE). YI /�. o O • ° 8 :(TYRI ,L) LyJ INSIDE PROP. 6' WIDE SDG &E EASEMENT. r'r 60.55, .-� MAINTAIN 3' MIN. SOIL SEPARATION w BETWEEN GAS LINE AND DRAIN LINE. ' Z W 3 go ;> _ \ o 7 0 3.2 NV 4 I i f ' W 5 �� F I " I \ o : E - . a 3 r' Ism ' q , I / r rn POST - CONSTRUCTION BEST MMAGEMENT PRACnC (� NOTE. ° ,M \ p °. _ • °. S \s , i a) ,A �( in LANDSCAPED BMP AREA (TYP.): 68.50 TG ; x . I 1 f .r I - , s�:50`TG� € ) . fi� ��_- �; �� .; - W TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND NO DIRECTLY CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS AREAS (DGIAs) SHALL BE ALLOWED. 3 6T-20 INV 4„ 69 , A =.. fi _.. o I ,)A r, r a Z DCIA MEANS STORM RUNOFF GENERATED AND CONVEYED VIA IMPERVIOUS \" 1 66.00'INV 6+ ,•� � _ p NOT MODIFIED WITHOUT CITY PERMIT. X •0000 AREAS, SUCH AS ROOF, ROOF DRAIN, DRIVEWAY, AND STREET. BMP z IN G.F.F. =73.50 _ 73 67 TWQI: �. EXIST. RIESIDENCE i 3 a MEASURES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN. MOST COMMON I - 67.00 IF v ` TO REMAIN ri MEASURES ARE DESIGNATED TURF AREAS, PAD 72.83 8 Wild ex£stin 'T m WHICH RECEIVE ROOF DRAINS AND t t RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS AREAS. TURF AND LANDSCAPED AREAS THAT ARE I SPA .•. 0.5 ncrei xis i ) I i ; % _! :: f 69.2 I (''`�.. lL DESIGNED FOR BMP 's SHALL BE DELINEATED ON PLANS AND A NOTE PLACED TG - Proposed 6' Wide ON PLANS PROHIBITING MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF THE BMP LANDSCAPED Ih0 5 67.10 INV.. ) ' • .c� cP3 Ir r easement for gas •c�'o0 c' r r purposes to SDG &E. y ; I I Ls s T3 8 1 _..._� rf1 03' LEGEND o . , 1 '. �' �'['. /f�Jf�' 60.20 TG CONS 59.55 INV 6 COMPACTED FILL #r - Q fc !,'f 1 £ p , `5,.rz �r (D- lF0 tFf - t�?�r,� tA} Piro K'' �Y (�� 61.67 IV - 2U-w TERRACE DEPOSIT 58.33 TF 1� 4 YA ►•... -_,. -. r _ 4 :.;,- .,., OUTLET s PIPE THR RACKET WHERE BURIED y'•y ,,.,; ._s q U WALL 3 INS (BRACKETED D ) ❑ c - - , f Y2" ABOVE STREET GRADE 7 - - L__" (� NV). 0- IN - LfiOATiON f3T 5950 I AP`P-RB'�I`I�`AT� = -__ . _.I.._. : � a..� . �.,�,. _ ,� .�._. � �. r m..�� ; -. ��3-, ` � _., _..: ,� } w ®_ -� yr��. •� � ��f � _.__ �_ . _.._e � _ ,s._ __ _ -�• - -- _ G E LO G I C CONTACT 12 I i )_ ( SIN INSI .9 I_. .`RANGE STREET:I {,n r e PNALT _J4� EXSST r, IN - RIYEI- APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND ELEVATION -I PRi X, L&, ;ATIO I O JOIN EXISTING ASPF�ALT. ' To REMOVED M �o � -- so OF REMOVAL BOTTOM JF ,, ,. , � u tidy . _ t. . ,3 OUT r__ ,, ; . - ,. , N 74-1 T50' E 120.07 CAP AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER SERVICE LINES FOR 133 & 137 EDGEBURT 15' Wide easement for roc DRIVE AT MAIN PER W A.S STD WS -08 ty LOT 2 UPON COMPLETION OF NEW SERVICE LINES. and public utili purposes A.P.N.: 254- 054 -02 MAP NJ 8859 DATE BENCH MARK SCALE I SPECIAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION: OC 145 LOCATION: STANDARD DISC ON LA COSTA AVE. BRIDGE OVER RAILROAD HORIZONTAL 1 8 " =1' RECORD FROM: COUNTY RECORDS VERTICAL 1/8" =1` ELEVATION: 59.368 DATUM: USC & GS �-5' SETBACK 1 vay ' LOT 1 A.P.N.: 254- 054 -16 DESIGNED BY 1 DRAWN R FCKFD BY M.F.B. I M.F.B. C.R. APPROVALS PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED DATE : BY: BY: R.C.E. NO.: 57587 ENGINEER NAME EXP. 12 -30 -07 DATE: DATE: CON APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ow Co COMPACTION TEST AW to LIMITS OF REPORT IN 11 INSTALL 6" SCHEDULE 40 PVC P 0 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING INC 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 12 CONSTRUCT 3' WIDE X 6" DEEP TELEPHONE: (858) 560 -1713, FAX: (858) 560 -0380 W.O. 401028 DATE: 3 -30 -07 � Y OF= ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPAR MENT DRAWING NO. GRADING PLAN FOR: PRECISE GRADING PLAN 140 RANGE STREET 287 -G FINKBINER RESIDENCE BUILDING PERMIT NO: 06 -1229 APN: 254-054 -60 SHEET 2 OF 4 3' -0' MIN. FINISH GROUND --- .�_ -2- 3' -4' rk< GE ❑TEXTILE LINING, LANDL❑CK TRM 450 OR EQUAL 4 DETAIL 12 3' WIDE GRASS SWALE NOT TO SCALE SCALE: Proposed 5' Wide easement POR: LOT 3 ADDITIONAL NOTES for waterline purposes to CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER UNES FOR 133 A.P.N.: 254- 054 -45 San Dieguito Water District. & 137 EDGEBURT DRIVE WITHIN EASEMENT. Proposed 5' Wide I 1. PAD ELEVATIONS BASED ON 4" SLAB OVER 4" SAND. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PAD S S easement for gas ELEVATIONS WITH SOILS ENGINEER AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. S) S 6 S 6S purposes to SDG&E. •mss G? c9d CONNECT SUBDRAIN p p 2,SO poOT �sOST TO DRAINLINE (TYP.) I 2. WHERE EXTERIOR /INTERIOR UTILITY TRENCHES ARE PROPOSED IN A DIRECTION THAT PARALLELS Gy�c 1 r 61.50 INV ANY BUILDING FOOTING, THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCHES SHALL NOT EXTEND BELOW A 1:1 PLANE 6 Sy cF PROJECTED DOWNWARD FROM THE BOTTOM EDGE OF FOOTING. WHERE THIS OCCURS, ADJACENT ,..'- 5 SETBACK ! " �? 6'L o FOOTING SHALL BE DEEPENED OR UTILITY CONSTRUCTED AND BACKFILLED PRIOR TO BUILDING O N '1624° E 0.07' �, > o o h°�' CONSTRUCTION. _ W - �_.- 4 3. FOR FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DESIGN SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS - ®- - - _, - - - - c - . ` .- „I , ' ' 4. RETAINING WALLS ARE BY OTHERS UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. AL _ r s { i f i (_ Xi a t. F1 DEEPENED FOOTING ( .I y 5. ALL RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY PACIFIC SOILS 10 103 ; ? ~ PER1 AIL HEREON o I o I I,y ENGINEERING, INC. (WORK ORDER 401028), DATED JANUARY 5, 2005 AND ALL ADDENDUMS SHALL lr '- 2 �% BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS PLAN. :'! 71.90 TG •67.5 • {, t °t •62 ,.,I r , S.A 5 a 6�' I I 70.75 INV.F. =68.7 r: s •6 I F.F. =68.84 1 �2 F. 64.0 SAWCUT LINE ° ! OUTLET 6" PIPE THRU WALL PAD 50 I 10 _ 7 PAD= • 3 1., (TYPICAL) I r ;: 2" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL �ppp I 1 3 I I I bS.lt , 60 8 .0 _. r'%r ONTO 3' x 3' RIP -RAP AREA. 60 a ..,n 63 8O "4 64.00 TG 6P� -60.97 INV / 60.80 FG). LOT 4 & P lit. LOT I - 1 { QLOCK 29, AP 524 °`'' "`4 { 4 6260 INV 61 !NV 5> �°�_: T 1 /r f / EROSION CONTROL MEASURE (e.g. BONDED FIBER MATRIX, VEGETATIVE COVER, 2q, _ __ ,r. 60.70° _ - - - 20 ACK I z o _ - ;,,_ -- _ _ -__ -- _ _ __ __ JUTE MATTING} MUST BE IMPLEMENTED °WHERE APPLICABLE TO PREVENT` SOIL TG- 0�` '' �� tr: �¢4 >I - ?p p 11 /1f CONSTRUCT 3' WIDE GRASS EROSION ON SITE. SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (e.g. SILT FENCING, FIBER 67 F?�k� S I r 'r' =` ROLLS, DETENTION BASINS MUST BE IN PLACE TO PREVENT ERODED SOIL ,,1 66675 INV .: ri SWALE. SEE DETAIL HEREON. ) ° ` ° ,{ ' FROM LEAVING SITE. MATERIALS MANAGEMENT BMP MUST ALSO BE FOLLOWED I I / i 7250 TG ., s °a j. s y, - I' Irr %;, 5! r TO ENSURE NOT CONTACT OF RAINWATER WITH MATERIALS THAT MAY � r I � r � - CONTRIBUTE TO WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION DOWNSTREAM (e.g. CONCRETE 67.85 TG OR STUCCO WASHOUT AREAS, COVERED STORAGE AREAS FOR HAZARDOUS 6 .60 INV 1 rk l;,t f b`� F (`-AWC UN GAS LINE TO BE RELOCATED t31 SDG &E MATERIALS, PLACEMENT OF PORTABLE TOILETS OVER A PERVIOUS SURFACE). YI /�. o O • ° 8 :(TYRI ,L) LyJ INSIDE PROP. 6' WIDE SDG &E EASEMENT. r'r 60.55, .-� MAINTAIN 3' MIN. SOIL SEPARATION w BETWEEN GAS LINE AND DRAIN LINE. ' Z W 3 go ;> _ \ o 7 0 3.2 NV 4 I i f ' W 5 �� F I " I \ o : E - . a 3 r' Ism ' q , I / r rn POST - CONSTRUCTION BEST MMAGEMENT PRACnC (� NOTE. ° ,M \ p °. _ • °. S \s , i a) ,A �( in LANDSCAPED BMP AREA (TYP.): 68.50 TG ; x . I 1 f .r I - , s�:50`TG� € ) . fi� ��_- �; �� .; - W TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND NO DIRECTLY CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS AREAS (DGIAs) SHALL BE ALLOWED. 3 6T-20 INV 4„ 69 , A =.. fi _.. o I ,)A r, r a Z DCIA MEANS STORM RUNOFF GENERATED AND CONVEYED VIA IMPERVIOUS \" 1 66.00'INV 6+ ,•� � _ p NOT MODIFIED WITHOUT CITY PERMIT. X •0000 AREAS, SUCH AS ROOF, ROOF DRAIN, DRIVEWAY, AND STREET. BMP z IN G.F.F. =73.50 _ 73 67 TWQI: �. EXIST. RIESIDENCE i 3 a MEASURES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN. MOST COMMON I - 67.00 IF v ` TO REMAIN ri MEASURES ARE DESIGNATED TURF AREAS, PAD 72.83 8 Wild ex£stin 'T m WHICH RECEIVE ROOF DRAINS AND t t RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS AREAS. TURF AND LANDSCAPED AREAS THAT ARE I SPA .•. 0.5 ncrei xis i ) I i ; % _! :: f 69.2 I (''`�.. lL DESIGNED FOR BMP 's SHALL BE DELINEATED ON PLANS AND A NOTE PLACED TG - Proposed 6' Wide ON PLANS PROHIBITING MODIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF THE BMP LANDSCAPED Ih0 5 67.10 INV.. ) ' • .c� cP3 Ir r easement for gas •c�'o0 c' r r purposes to SDG &E. y ; I I Ls s T3 8 1 _..._� rf1 03' LEGEND o . , 1 '. �' �'['. /f�Jf�' 60.20 TG CONS 59.55 INV 6 COMPACTED FILL #r - Q fc !,'f 1 £ p , `5,.rz �r (D- lF0 tFf - t�?�r,� tA} Piro K'' �Y (�� 61.67 IV - 2U-w TERRACE DEPOSIT 58.33 TF 1� 4 YA ►•... -_,. -. r _ 4 :.;,- .,., OUTLET s PIPE THR RACKET WHERE BURIED y'•y ,,.,; ._s q U WALL 3 INS (BRACKETED D ) ❑ c - - , f Y2" ABOVE STREET GRADE 7 - - L__" (� NV). 0- IN - LfiOATiON f3T 5950 I AP`P-RB'�I`I�`AT� = -__ . _.I.._. : � a..� . �.,�,. _ ,� .�._. � �. r m..�� ; -. ��3-, ` � _., _..: ,� } w ®_ -� yr��. •� � ��f � _.__ �_ . _.._e � _ ,s._ __ _ -�• - -- _ G E LO G I C CONTACT 12 I i )_ ( SIN INSI .9 I_. .`RANGE STREET:I {,n r e PNALT _J4� EXSST r, IN - RIYEI- APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND ELEVATION -I PRi X, L&, ;ATIO I O JOIN EXISTING ASPF�ALT. ' To REMOVED M �o � -- so OF REMOVAL BOTTOM JF ,, ,. , � u tidy . _ t. . ,3 OUT r__ ,, ; . - ,. , N 74-1 T50' E 120.07 CAP AND ABANDON EXISTING WATER SERVICE LINES FOR 133 & 137 EDGEBURT 15' Wide easement for roc DRIVE AT MAIN PER W A.S STD WS -08 ty LOT 2 UPON COMPLETION OF NEW SERVICE LINES. and public utili purposes A.P.N.: 254- 054 -02 MAP NJ 8859 DATE BENCH MARK SCALE I SPECIAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION: OC 145 LOCATION: STANDARD DISC ON LA COSTA AVE. BRIDGE OVER RAILROAD HORIZONTAL 1 8 " =1' RECORD FROM: COUNTY RECORDS VERTICAL 1/8" =1` ELEVATION: 59.368 DATUM: USC & GS �-5' SETBACK 1 vay ' LOT 1 A.P.N.: 254- 054 -16 DESIGNED BY 1 DRAWN R FCKFD BY M.F.B. I M.F.B. C.R. APPROVALS PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED DATE : BY: BY: R.C.E. NO.: 57587 ENGINEER NAME EXP. 12 -30 -07 DATE: DATE: CON APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ow Co COMPACTION TEST AW to LIMITS OF REPORT IN 11 INSTALL 6" SCHEDULE 40 PVC P 0 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING INC 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 12 CONSTRUCT 3' WIDE X 6" DEEP TELEPHONE: (858) 560 -1713, FAX: (858) 560 -0380 W.O. 401028 DATE: 3 -30 -07 � Y OF= ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPAR MENT DRAWING NO. GRADING PLAN FOR: PRECISE GRADING PLAN 140 RANGE STREET 287 -G FINKBINER RESIDENCE BUILDING PERMIT NO: 06 -1229 APN: 254-054 -60 SHEET 2 OF 4