The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-9561 G/I/PE/TE City 'GINEERING SER VICES DEPAR Encinitas TMENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Field Complian es Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering October 19, 2009 Attn: California Bank& Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. 303 Santa Fe Drive APN 260-072-35 CDP 05-044 Grading Permit 9561-G Final release of security Permit 9561-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage site retaining control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Owner has $25,000 letter of credit with a cash deposit. Therefore a er wall and erosion merited. replaced this release of this security deposit is Letter of Credit SB06-1258, y(in the original amount of$100 75% to $25,000.00, is hereby released in entirety, 1000.00), reduced by The document Should you have any quest original is enclosed. ions or concerns, please contact Debr a Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sinc ly Debra Geisha Engineering Technician Lem ach Subdivision Engineering finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembhch, Finance Manager Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAx 760-633.2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, Californi a 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ._ N recycled Paper y City 0`f NGINEERING SER VICES DEPART Encinitas MENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormw ter Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 30, 2009 Attn: California Bank & Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. 303 Santa Fe Drive APN 260-072-35 CDP 05-044 Grading Permit 9561-G Partial release of security Permit 9561-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grading. Therefore, a reduction of the security deposited is merited. Letter of Credit SB06-1258, in the amount of$100,000.00, may be reduced by 75% to $25,000.00. The document original will be kept until it is released in entirety. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, ` Debra Geisha Engineering Technician J Lembach Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 6 - 7 0 633-2700 10C recycled paper OtY �NGINEEJUNG S ER VICES DEPART Encinitas MENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Sand Replenishment/Stormw tr e Compliian es Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 20, 2011 Attn: California Bank & Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. 303 Santa Fe Drive APN 260-072-35 CDP 05-044 Improvement Permit 9561-I Final release of security Permit 9561-I authorized the installation of all improvements shown all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Ins ect year warranty inspection. Therefore a release o h s approved plan, merited. f this remain' g security deposit one Certificate of Deposit 2300001693, in the amount of$5,000.0 entirety. The document original is enclosed. 0, is hereby released in Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact De 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. bra Geishart at (760) 633- Sincerely, Debra Geis rt Engineering Technician J Lembach Subdivision Engineering finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633.2621 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, F:nciniras, Californi. � 3 )2024-3613 TDD 760-633-27(g) 4 recycled paper City VGINEERING SERVICES D EP Encinitas �4 RTMENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Sand ReplenishmenS Operations mw ter CriSubdivsiion Engineering Traffic Engineering October 20, 2009 Attn: California Bank & Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Gil Q. Galloway MD Inc. 303 Santa Fe Drive APN 260-072-35 CDP 05-044 Improvement Permit 9561-I Partial release of security Permit 9561-I authorized the installation of all im rover all as necessary to build the described project. The Field P vents shown on a release. Therefore, a release of this security deposit is 111ehispector has a approved plan, rated. approved a 75o/a Certificate of Deposit 23000017439 in the amount of entirety. The document original - enclosed. $13,500.00, is hereby released in Should you have any questions or concerns, 2779 or in writing, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 8, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishart Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering y Le Bach finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Gil Manager Q. Galloway MD Inc. Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633.2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinit as, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 C4 4 recycled Paper T D Tr c -Ely RAT-4!C ID r7 T7, z E E`F'R, 'p T I N- 0 A T 1 R D S "_;TTFR z IN A T� T INSPECTION I VIAL INSPECTION T 4:7 FINAL INSPE p- CT T C), - ------- ---------- --- ------ AN T ONE YEAR --------- -- - - R F T F INT T 1q, HA-?"E CAREFrTLTV Ev PENALTY OF THE '--n-MPLETED PERMIT TH" 'Y' Z�f is Ile PRIN T NAME--- 'I C L INTER T lap 11 Fj;R C I T Y OF E M C ENGINEERING SERVICES I N I T A S 505 S LC DEPARTMENT ENCINITAS, � AVE. CA 92024 __ ________________ GRADING PERMIT PARCEL NO. __ ____________PERMIT NO. : 9561G JOB SITE : 260-072-3500 ADDRESS: 303 APPLICANT NAME _ SANTA FE DR PLAN NO. : MAILING ADDRESS: 303 SANTA FE PROPERTIES' CASE NO. : CITY: LA JOLLA 9580 GENESEE LLC/GIL GALLOWAY 05044 / CDF AVE STE 560 STATE: CA ZIP= 92037- PHONE NO. : 858-457-842 CONTRACTOR = ST7967 CONSTRUCTION LICENSE NO. ; 5979.67 ENGINEER SAMpO ENGINEERING PHONE NO. ; PERMIT' ISSUE DATE: LICENSE TYPE: B 60-510-150 PERMIT 12/10/07 PHONE NO.,; INSP TOR: TODD BA PERMIT ISSUED - ----- - --- UMBACH By: -- --------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS 1 • PERMIT FEE � 9561-PE __------ _______ 3 . INSPECTION FEE 290 ' 00 2 . CIS 5 • NPDES INSPT FEE 4, 746. 00 4 . INSPECTION TION DEPOSIT: 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 949 . 00 6. SEC 00 9. IN-LIEU . 00 SECURITY DEPOSIT • 00 11 - PLAN EU U DFEE�D 8 • 'TRAFFIC FEE 94, 933 . 00 00 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMT _ __-- . • 00 . 00 12 - PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: • 00 DESCRIPTION OF WORK 00 PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS LABOR LABOR AND MAINTAIN TRAFFIC AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR FOR APPROVED PLAN CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER EARTHWORK, AN LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12 W'A•T. CONTRACTOR MUST C H. STANDARDS OR 2007 APPLIES. --- INSPECTION INITIAL ------------ INSPECTOR 'S DATE -------- - INSPECTION SIGNATURE COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED 3 (&,o �g ENGINEER CERT. L / ROUGH GRADING RECEIVED 0 FINAL INSPECTION 7 INSPECTION Z3 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE T, ----------------------------------- INFORMATION IS C THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION PAWS REGULATIN AND EE TO COMPLY AND STATE T ANY PERMIT IS AT D GRADING, WITH ALL CITY THAT THE UR AND THE PROVISIONS AND STATE O THIS APPLICATION, ROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SIGNATUR DATE SIGNED l PRINT NAME &e-JA- CIRCLE ONE: TELEPHONE NUMBER ' OWNE 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: DATE: STREET LOCATION: PROJECT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: 3-� n2 Cv�Sf: 1104 very,*7f rd/ s • � . �awcc�f A/-[.r�i�►fes c U 1�fAo(mac/ �'� �c�s r�ssed Sir c�UC �i�.-d Sor t •9 r.� cu T yC/eK ;5f `odc a sacl'd/° inSt// vc cal/ 674 alrd e yLA "Il"IC°& Sc e/ e /� �A /n-5 7 a l/ih k9PC/q rirPd �e s�icoic� 4,� �- Q,� ter/ S•�iU/cc, nc Co�sf 4! 7rU �C S -3 E � /a.roc If.� �n C-1,.P. 3-io- JYCI L Aye � N ,Q `� f EltZ. Co..�DUi7 Z rr M G SEt/icE E�� il70ST 7-V �o.VOcrij F2oiy, 73 3-<3-0� Lo9xtE • �rcc� s-�r,eer g�= cE �C� nvoc�iT- EZ//�tl.C� T4/lt 'S41•� ,yam 7 �cyGo F IT Z AEI,4(S 14S a.Gyjf ^nc svcz� !' 7`pvPc/ �y�e SQGc�d �avP p0pil{, 1Sfih S S Ctver L t�f Gj 11 � is q S �/+�{ 7�Ci►Cr/ . 5."7 ��-- C�'7Gf�.rf oC'-z'SS 'f`ie GCJCSf- � D114429 '%✓C. �� cS �-1✓rind� �a CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: s�cfc 4 �„� e f� ou f ve ii:rf ill" ane tGis/S•r - N� t _ �xc7r/� �r4-Vi.JV sc�E�XiL A�vo U T %nc S rjq C L E ; -/ � ✓�L ��'S D 2it�gt �r� L lam;b. X 4E 3-Zo-ot- ELEcrX�c be1�,11CY Curdl 9 Prn�° u adP cry' rc�acr � < B sFe f ' eondx.4. -�c f-P So,�h S, 3-2/-Dl�, co,,jOuIr �. yl-�C- di9S; rt-r 7�sE rr�7- a Sn..g6 ole OA /C/o DU T 7 b ,gam- ,.v � 4�° QV�6H oCiT. Y/eel b fc� trT /S �, /QG�hV <S .-L CZ K rYtu. 4fLt� -/ / LL c-urc. Y L /fX -ZZ-cam 1'� L /AT3-lG 1 s�,q� -, eta Av frf/i�S m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS — ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: DATE: STREET LOCATION: PROJECT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: PERMIT NUMBER: 7 Z 3 z,C; TELEPHONE: 000 zo7z- � G Lri7" iS �CriC T. s c U��H rep 77yP-vc�„y S t '� y 1?>`77'�G i .!, �� Cvu,�s ( °C,� p,vr� C=� ref h'� c�, L�3 earl, �r �re�� oar creL,,� d�� vp� gill 2 • � y� «se 4 ;�LW411 L 11011111,1111 Jill, �, , n-rwwz �ALS7• (o i 09 E�_ S_ �� Vt--72 7) rgu P�ii�� nAi 09 C� C C,,Vo, ' w 14 e BE ,o S —11,111 X50„ �sn� e -Ant---x1 7 o'r's Ta s,tl�c.. -� E ��tS v ,e�v,�.0 � ° Z'/., s Jill m14 4 2 9 �, �j° k PrL� -��(.S k- / S Pll� LL- CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVI CES DEPARTMENT PROJECT NAME: DATE: STREET LOCATION: PROJECT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: PERMIT NUMBER: _ 9 a� TELEPHONE: / !3 /L )yi Tit/H3- Gu,r� � �, • Crq- ��Z 7) .� tlL"PCC t � f r b ,. 77 Teat �7r.��i IPII e Gr Y'477V ✓��- Ht tP�• s 1'�c..�• 4f" vn, zZ bfJ vvN , GiA vE- u�l� C a Zl l0 -IG, G N � /,v s 4 �(�� /W bU Pst[ti �c r�1 ts'7 ol ./0 44 4.11 116 DUE ?3 �L2 Cori1 Leo LcAD .� 3 ra P �' �. w � . bu wow 4 pi a2Wdj t /t0 �; v�2c � � �-C�,u �.2 Ci/1�D.NL 1ti14429 N 1 _E Sam o En ineerin Land Planning, nc• g Civil Engineering Surveying Mapping s June 1, 2010 Page 1 of 1 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Santa Fe Medical Office 03 Santa Fe for rCradin Grading Permit Number 95�_G, The grading e, Cardiff the a g under permit no. 9561-G pproved gradin has been performed in substantial conformance with g plan, or as shown on the attached `As Graded' _ Final Grading Inspection has demonstrated that plan h grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum Of 1% conforms to the a drainage system. to the street and/or an aproved ppropriate The Low Impact Development, Source Control and Practices I shown ev the approved Manual Part II were constructed and are /°r Treatment Control Best drawing and required by the Best Management Management covenanPar operational, together with the required ai Practice quired maintenance Engineer of Record: Dated: S Vincent L. Sam o �op�OTS��9 2� /� p , PE, PI S for Sam po Engineering, Inc. 0i No.44173 M N EXP•6-30-11 f' Verification by the Engineering 9��OF Cq�FOQ`�\P hereon and will take place onl aftepthe oabovte is fact is done b Engineer of Record oft s signed and stamped and will not to risibility: relieve the Engineering I pec or: !��_ Dated: 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 hone: 760-436-0660 fax, 760-436-0659 eering.corn info @sarnpoengin ENGINEERING SERVICES I N I T A S 505 S• ES DEPARTMENT ENCINITAS, LCAN AVE. CA 92024 PER ENCROACi .p PERMIT PARCEL NO. NO. : 9561] JOB SITE ADDRESS; 260-072-3500 APPLICANT NAME 303 SANTA FE DR MAILING ADDRESS: 303 SANTA FE PROPERTIES PLC NO. • CITY; LA JOLLA 9580 GENESEE LLC/GIL G CASE NO. : 05044 / CD AVE STE 560 ALLOWAY CONTRACTOR STATE: CA ZIP. PHONE NO. : 858-457- LICENSE ' STEPHENS 92037- 84: NO. ; CONSTRUCTION INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. NAME: PHONE NO. : 760-510-150 ENGINEER LICENSE TYPE: B PERMIT • SAMPO ENGINEERING POLICY ISSUE DATE; EXP. PERMIT EX DATE: 0/00/00 INSPEC PRON NO R: TODD BAUMBACH - PERMIT' ISSUED By: PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS 1 PERMIT FEE --- 3 • INSPECTION FEE 290 . 00 --------------"---- 5 . NPDES 2 • GIS MAP FEE --_-- 7 INSPT FEE ' 00 4 . INSPECTION ' FLOOD CONTROL FEE • 00 DEPOSIT: • 00 9. IN-LIEU 6 SECURITY DEPOSIT 11 . P UK ERGRND 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE 00 LAN CHECK FEE • 00 00 10 IN-LIEU IMPROVMNT 00 - -------- -- -- ----- • 00 12 . PLAN CHECK D --'-- DESCRIPTION OF DEPOSIT:* • 00 ENCROACHMENT WORK _ . 00 AND PRIVATE OF THE RETAINING -- - - ---- ______ CONTROL LANDSCAPING i^1ALL RETURN PRIVATE 9561- AT ALL TIMES PER IRRIGATION.IRRIGATION. CONT CONCRETE G/I A' T• C•H. STANDARDg COR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC OR APPROVED PLAN. TRAFFIC PER PLAN INSPECTION INITIAL DATE _____ INSPECTION - INSPECTOR 'S SIGNATURE FINAL INSPECTION I HAVE CAREFULLY _'---------- / PENALTY OF pE X ED OMPLETED PE --_- ---- - HA HE INFORMATION RMATIIT AND DO HEREBY ON IS TRUE.IS UNDER SIGNAT PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONE: 75^ 1. py�N TELEPHONE NUMBER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER city p ENGIIVEE�G SERVICES DEPAi . ✓ MENT E7winffas Capital!mprovement Protects District Support Services Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING ArP 'VAL � TO Engineering FROM: Q,f Q Public service counter _ counter Field Operations Private contract inspection O X10 g Permit No, L7 Name of Project �� I Name of Developer Site Location _ _(address;: _..number .street. -. . namei2:IVE J have...ins e p cted the the:Engitlepr of gracing;at•the b e " ---__, Work 1 Ct°site and have.verified-Ce rbldgi. - compacfioii"by-the-soil En' af(sfied;. 9ineer, dated rtificati"o �:o f,the that the.:ro Z``' b pad:b .plans:. ugh gradin `arid-certification of end°specifications, cha. g has:been co dated _� soil. engirreerin pter:23: Mdleted°: - - i;,j.a 9standards andspecific �~of e �Munici to acc°rdance. m.hereby - Project re- pai:code; 'vii ht the cap rov ,;. Based-: ,y observatio gUirerrments:•"- and anY other-applicatrle DfT building permit for n°and the Certifications _ concerned. the lotlsJ as no or. Other en However., this release is Phase i" ke no,eXcepbon to n9ineering concerns, not inten�otf any, but o the isstien . improve ms, includin my in so far as ce'of nlents, and 9.public road, the project grading o monUmentation;or finatheir availab(litP any. , drainage;water, sewerwtm respect to grading: other pubic improve park, and trail Prior to final inspection of nlentg, deferred advised so that I the Building Permitls) and le irrigat(onJ has been can Verity that final gal Occupan mpleted in accordance (i.e., finished �• I need to be - dance with the a precise grading, Planting further ' pproved plans and specifications. (Signature of En ginee ring/nspector) / ,7. • row ---- lSgnature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if a Reference: pprOpiateJ Building Permit No. _ lDatg� Special Note: Subiait this fo —�- ��,in-boxes.Please re colnPleted, to counter when completrd office (ember to do a final inspection staff by placinga $uiIdiitglnspection Th taff will handle the aPProPiate reductiotts fermi and Of it in aubm-tit t�gwe�S ty, if any, and coordinatio th JSG/fieId3.docl U-76 0=633_2600/PAX 760.633.2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas California 92(y24-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 regyded paper TO:17605101546 P-2 COAST G'EOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIS October 28,2009 I5 Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 References: 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECRIUCAL Proposed Medical OffcesESTIGATIOIV 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 17, 2006 2) GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Pre-Pared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 22,2007 3) FOUNDATION PLAN REVmW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast GeotechtucW Dated March 10,2008 NOTIC F T G�CAVATION VAT B ION 1) The footing excavations for theproperty line retaining walls along the south and west sides of the site have I been observed by this firm. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE . SO t1NA B 0858) 755-6622 I-ACH, CALIFOIML 92075 "AX(868) 755-9125 OCT-28-2008 05:43P FROM: TO:17605101546 P.3 Coast Geotechnical October 28,2008 W.O.P-501076 Page 2 2) Loose soils were encountered along the eastern 60 feet of the southern wall footing excavation. Approximately 1.0 foot of the loose soils were removed and recompacted for foundation support. 3) The footing excavations for the property line retaining walls are founded into terrace deposits or compacted fill with a potential expansion in the low range. 4) The footing excavations are approved by this firm provided all loose deposits are removed from the base of the excavation prior to pouring concrete. The footing excavations were not reviewed for compliance with structural plans and location. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. P-501076 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submi '0 i` U COAST GEOTEC Mark Burwell,C.E. Engineering Geoiogis COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS March 24,2009 JAN 13 2999- ��o Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: PAVEMENT SECTION REVISION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California References: Please see page 3 Dear Dr. Galloway: Asper the request of the project contractor,Jim Stephens,Stephens Construction and Development, the following alternative for the proposed concrete pavement section is presented: 6.0 inches of concrete on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive concrete. Subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. Concrete sections should be reinforced with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions, as recommended in the Preliminary Geotechnical Reports. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8822 • FAX (858) 755-9128 Coast Geotechnical March 24,2009 W.O. P-501076 Page 2 subgrade deposits could result in pavement failure. Construction joint spacing and placement should be as recommended by the project structural engineer. All of the recommendations in the referenced reports which are not superceded by this report remain applicable. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. P-501076 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. r _ Respectfully submitted �t�r COAST GEOTECHNI1r3c; ;11J�'s ,y � X11, _ .• ,f�`' Vr'('��r Mark Burwell,C.E. _ + tt�1�`dE::'° ti : Vithaya Singhanet, 'i y EXP 11-31-09 Engineering Geologis GQ1 UG4; 7 ti Geotechnical Engin CAL Coast Geotechnical March Z4,2009 W.O.P-501076 Page 3 REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 17,2006 2) GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 22, 2007 3) PROPERTY LINE WALL DACKDRAINAGE Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 12, 2007 4) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 10,2008 5) ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 24,2008 Coast Geotechnical March 24,2009 W.O.P-501076 Page 4 6) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 28, 2008 7) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated January 12,2009 8) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Remaining Column Pad Footings Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas,California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated February 2, 2009 C OA S T GEO TEC . 779 ACADEMY DRIVE SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 Fax.(858) 755-9126 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date. � 9 To: ro-" .Sender: S4;�4 ,q YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL . COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS January 14, 2010 Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 - Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Interior Concrete Sidewalk Subgrades Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California References: Please see page 4 Dear Dr. Galloway: As per the request of the city of Encinitas, we have performed field density tests on the interior concrete sidewalk subgrades. DISCUSSIONS 1) The general contractor on this project is Stephens Construction and Development. At the time of our observation and testing on January 14, 2010, the sidewalk subgrades were completed and reinforcing steel was in place. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 Coast Geotechnical January 14, 2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 2 2) As indicated in the Rough Grading Report, dated June 24, 2008, the entire site was overexcavated and recompacted to an approximate depth of 4.0 to 4.5 feet. The remedial grading was extended laterally to within 2.0 feet from the eastern and western property lines. 3) Up to 4.0 inches of additional fill was placed above the rough grade for sidewalk construction. It is our understanding that the fill was compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. Onsite materials were used for the minor fill. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing, the interior concrete sidewalk subgrades were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 2) Concrete flatwork should be protected from water sources migrating into the subgrade deposits. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. Coast Geotechnical January 14, 2010 "- W.O. P-501076 Page 3 -_ The intent is to provide an opinion,based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. In this case, the fill was already in place without observation. It should be noted that all concrete cracks. Control joints or saw cuts are typically used to help control nuisance cracking. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or _ extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. — P-501076 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitted =; COAST GEOTECHI AL Mark Burwell, C.E G%� Vitha inghanet, J � Engineering Geologist" Geotechnical Engineer, Enclosures: Table I, Table II Grading Plan Coast Geotechnical January 14,2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 4 _ REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices _ 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical --- Dated October 17, 2006 2) GRADING PLAN REVIEW — Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 22, 2007 3) PROPERTY LINE WALL BACKDRAINAGE Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 12, 2007 4) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 10, 2008 5) ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 24, 2008 Coast Geotechnical January 14, 2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 5 6) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 28, 2008 7) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Proposed Medical Offices -- 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated January 12, 2009 8) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION �- Remaining Column Pad Footings Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated February 2, 2009 9) FIELD MEMO Water Line Backfill 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 5, 2009 ENCLOSURES LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 . Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556 . TABLE I Maximum Dry Density Optimum Description Moisture ($) Soil-Type Tan to brown fine and 126 . 0 10 . 9 medium-grained sand A TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Height Content Density o Date No. Location Of Fill o Soil cf Compaction Type 1/14/10 1sw See Map S.G. 9 . 7 120 . 5 96 A 1/14/10 2sw See Map S .G. 7 . 7 120 . 4 95 A 1/14/10 3sw See Map S.G. 9 . 3 120 . 0 95 A G-501076 �A.0 WA l(N MAIN E S!lN-1 �_aPP,h,,.uA,z FE PRA*[[ WATER IIAW C � - --- NIE1Yrs PfIP pn Or QA71/IAS APPROr!"Arr(aA Roy r)' - $SAN/A iF 09W s7R1F7 rA.0 WATT MANN WY W W W '�RN r71!G I APPROAAIATE CCARON 8' ^W � KP-V*R MAW 0 O AOI .11157 s — --- _ Er�.tlsw8m1C�r,AS0ovff7iP onfNillwr - ` ma i it of7aAi AMA AC!9561–I M.'y' ADM �[y JpfAP•�P�pGB4C'1�/S(f�pYiF(01�yfyy0V15 i 617571N;W s �� 7 UU AID 'AS VAIYA c(V_ATFJN GVTIER AAO SCC1fVA' �, 61PAN 71E Y I 'AS MAN APIA 1,%S N :7j---.- ' C•o"ti (J4 4 --r,A— nJ9 EA�St L'-,i N dSI71'E AC PA6[UEN7 mm, � �� / -- — b5 aztmr-- rcy FWIYMA',{I 0) 76.7 IAAD.Sr1VIN" _ 1710 or AS4![oY II.IN 8 ' .�. •t• Pl.W1FR ( t -- _. magm '07 MP aw! O 1Y r O i X P 2 �{ i Om NI(I[ •s'W s7Nr' � I EAZSn� z A Div t 7J 001tl�IEPAm 1C ORMIAW er l� M-f1,1(E \� 1 1s an YF AOE 1 rC 17250 E I71OJ 7W 177.0 77 � �. 1� r RNM 1450 V _ ✓1 ■ �\ I ZI "• 4E M 3w3 Ar Zrl E°c-: n �3 ,r7JS a o3sw 't7h0 i 4, 05 o 1 ;t,E9 / rs or&ucwc �. Ad773 S7Kam WA ' KW 3C1YA'dPKC f0 17S1 \ 4 \ !/ 1 v: BY 17 a�u)�,ins0E 17d;5• $Y\ , a.88 . 1 7 PIC SM. PAtB1M oL Moir cc AW N-Po4 IJK 1 .Applyl _7L IN9- an o ! YASMY KRAW WU "� � 7W 1731 ]OR411 16 N -1 ii6 - - IMTY r.B 7 ry 1715 R ..1 GN OPAST-LIED WOW EENCE N!S7/7r 1q lW 1715 7P[Y PYL 17150 I l0 e, s WOW K/ANAC W L 79 1)290 E 17410 r7zol s7p91111E/P � lr, f5 1718 _r ACT to ff rCr m■oor fS 1741 APN: 60-072-02 PDPI9m fft OE On lw'fMMG ORANA(E I S o c fOP 7 W AREI •S•u(r/OP W r IN GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'(reduced) LEGEND 01 DENSITY TEST(approx.) LIMIT OF FILL (approx.) SUPPLEMENTAL TESTING 1 (Interior Conc. Sidewalk Subgrade) 01 sw DENSITY TEST (approx.) COAST GEOT mmcAL, G-501076 COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS January 16, 2010 _ Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 -- Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Interior Concrete Parking Subgrade Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California References: Please see page 4 Dear Dr. Galloway: As per the request of the city of Encinitas, we have performed field density tests on the interior concrete parking subgrade. DISCUSSIONS 1) The general contractor on this project is Stephens Construction and Development. 2) As indicated in the Rough Grading Report, dated June 24, 2008, the entire site was overexcavated and recompacted to an approximate depth of 4.0 to 4.5 feet. The remedial grading was extended laterally to within 2.0 feet from the eastern and western property lines. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 Coast Geotechnical January 16,2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 2 - 3) The interior parking subgrade was scarified to an approximate depth of 12 inches, aerated due to recent rains and compacted with a smooth drum roller. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing,the interior parking subgrade was compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 2) Concrete flatwork should be protected from water sources migrating into the subgrade deposits. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written — approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion,based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. In this case, the fill was already in place without observation. It should be noted that all concrete cracks. Control joints or saw cuts are typically used to help control nuisance cracking. Coast Geotechnical January 16,2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 3 This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. P-501076 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTECHNA) Mark Burwell, C.E ( a n Vitha hanet Engineering Geologis ., _ y g ' P. z, Geotechnical Engine`er Enclosures: Table 1, Table II Grading Plan Coast Geotechnical January 16,2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 4 REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 17, 2006 2) GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 22, 2007 ' 3) PROPERTY LINE WALL BACKDRAINAGE Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 12, 2007 4) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 10, 2008 5) ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 24, 2008 Coast Geotechnical January 16,2010 W.O. P-501076 Page 5 6) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 28, 2008 7) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated January 12, 2009 8) NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION Remaining Column Pad Footings Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated February 2, 2009 9) FIELD MEMO Water Line Backfill 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 5, 2009 10) SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Interior Concrete Sidewalk Subgrades Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated January 14, 2010 _ ENCLOSURES LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91 . Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556 . TABLE I Maximum Dry Density Optimum _Description (p C f Moisture ($) Soil Type Tan to brown fine and 126 . 0 10 . 9 medium-grained sand A TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Height Content Density o Date No. Location Of Fill o Soil cf Compaction Type 2/12/10 1sg See Map S.G. 12 . 1 123 . 7 98 A 2/15/10 2sg See Map S.G. 11 . 8 123 . 4 98 A 2/16/10 3sg See Map S .G. 10 . 8 _ 124 . 5 99 A G-501076 _ A.c wntLR MAN W SANTA FE DRII/E -- —A[aw«A2Asf4hV Nrr,Q '0A0S'5A"p1r of 1A5 APPROXINA 7 I OCA n(W 12 SANTA ff AB'IE S/!RL-I FAC HATER MAW •` APPROXIMATE LIX'ABON 8' 4CP WAER MAIN M 0105 _ 17J57 S �-arY m"r EA E W EA,mlwr foe WAIM AU ASBi-1 t 6191 • Km-ao�tes�o�anaa fW PIac&-RMOIS EAISW aft � APPR0,MA, :c�A-,'N a)/mt AAa SEEIWK � AtM IO GIMH/ r SAS MAN - OCWeE7e/AARaat�r a A/euoe 7 - -, ---— - opt --]----_----- BERM C�.�' tcGalr AC Z"71.4 --!%! r11J9 _ NdSIY1'E AC 10) 761 'IAADSGPEIG7 4 ±,* Z.. -,, B FS a PLW rL AIM AT11(R sRwaE 'T , 171 $ (G '!�6 t1RT afarK / 2 A •s. snlr. / I Ia(nt) a m1 ff 18 am, S R� t APA�11 � IV 1 � nlnwrmro nrvzo I "mr 04.30 Q mm . 03 .A ❑ rI7 J6 �a41;q►.1- - 038w \ 7z" LriG aim 5P aEAAW R rs o auaes A801E SrM�U IEIQ 'r BRA AEV SE>VU aW rM i e p 1 ID II107(E 16917) O s fl :, n rn3o f 1x173 ,4F91f1 10 PIC shpt! Bu Ate. R I SO -`I1: I .. PA�017Ai ..�'• I I iiJ9 -.i �17 IC ,. — NOT I 1764 •APNCW �ICiN.9J E am T d IIJ I IC/AMC AW( 7 C 16 N -' IialY ha \ III7.L7 a fL IatAA� Woo ma r,,B N!37!71 Na n,n rcr C fEr 150 ' e 1 slaerAl�mt ARaI e �,, AUSTAWra7-1 AGII! rGC rn9U 1m 10 In0 AO!mall Mmm aNWr .. is nr.l f�r7ze ' AP;V: 60-072-02 avm/W aeAlYArE Paa6MW fm m a1r BW l i AI 9 A I 15 h MA, 1 GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1"=20'(reduced) LEGEND o1 DENSITY TEST(approx.) ='O LIMIT OF FILL(approx.) SUPPLEMENTAL TESTING (Interior Conc. Sidewalk Subgrade) OA Sw DENSITY TEST(approx.) COAST GEOTECEMCAL, (Interior Parking Subgrade) G-501076 01 sfl DENSITY TEST (approx.) F\,-E CcN COAST GrEOTECHNICAL CONSUIXING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS October 17, 2006 Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 N- RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices - " 303 Santa Fe Drive _ Encinitas, California Dear Dr. Galloway: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated July 12,2006, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed medical offices. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for -- foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the - proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during theJ design and construction phases. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, IC ORAL COAST GEOTECHN � ", ®�,® �o4RpFESS/p,V�l 2109 EP• 5-31-08 4ayalinghanet, 782 Mark Burwell, C.E. piiFlE * Ew.1231 Engineering Geolog t EWER77FI D P.E. {x tS j, GEOLOGIST Geotechnical Engineer O 'CA 9�1 9lFpF CAtt'f0�� 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices y 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared For: Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue ._ Cardiff, CA 92007 October 17. 2006 W.O. P-501076 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP 4 INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL STUDY 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 7 - GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 8 CONCLUSIONS 11 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION 11 B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 12 C. FOUNDATIONS 13 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 14 E. CORROSION POTENTIAL 14 F. RETAINING WALLS 14 G. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 15 H. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 15 I. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 16 J. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 16 K. UTILITY TRENCH 17 L. DRAINAGE 17 M. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 18 N. PLAN RfF VIEW 18 LIMITATIONS 18 _ REFERENCES 21 APPENDICES -- APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SITE PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES • - Topo USA®5.0 ( VICINITY MAP I 4 U IL `. Elf ST�, x E d ST .. I n itas k� 4 - SUBJECT PROPERTYf - _�_s _.------ A--_ W _ f41 P Z 4 \ Ell1NAAITPL._ 4 RUBE SUMMIT COVE LN NSIEIIY PL \, s ;i AVMF-DE-MONAC.Q. _ 1 ry1a L l Data use subject to license. TM Scale 1 :6,400 ©2004 DeLorme.Topo USA®5.0. - MN(0.0'[) www.delorme.com m 1"=533.3 ft Data Zoom 14-7 Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 5 INTRODUCTION _ This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property,the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed - medical offices. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located just east of Rubenstein Avenue, along the south side of Santa Fe Drive, in the city of Encinitas. The property includes a rectangular lot that slopes very_gently to-the -at a grade of about 5.0 percent. Maximum relief on the site is approximately 6_0 vertical feet. Previous improvements included, in part, a gravel driveway, a metal shed supported on a concrete slab and a concrete _ walkway. The property is bounded along the west and east by developed commercial lots. Vegetation is limited to a sparse growth of weeds and a few trees. Drainage is generally by sheet flow to the east. PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL STUDY rA preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted on the site in 1998 by Robert Prater LAssociates. The study included three (3) exploratory borings and laboratory testing of recovered Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 - W.O. P-501076 Page 6 samples. Pertinent geotechnical data derived from our review of this report is included in this study, r where applicable. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans for the development of the site were prepared by DZN Partners Architecture. Grading plans were prepared by Sampo Engineering. The project includes the demolition of existing improvements and the construction of a two story office building above street level parking. Grading will include minor cuts and fills up to 2.0 feet for development. SITE INVESTIGATION One(1)exploratory boring was drilled to a depth of 10 feet with a hollow-stem drill rig. The depth of the boring was limited due to a broken center stem. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in the hollow-stem boring. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 °- W.O. P-501076 Page 7 LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination,in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Log. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. -- Shear Test Shear tests were performed in a strain-control type direct shear machine. The rate of deformation was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared under varying confining loads Coast Geotechnical October 17, 2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 8 in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters,cohesion and angle of internal friction. Samples were tested in a saturated condition. The results are presented in the enclosed Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been - designated as the Torrey Sandstone on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by disturbed terrace deposits and, in part, by minor fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. Artificial Fill(af) a Minor fill and disturbed terrace deposits are present in and around exterior improvements. However, approximately 4.5 feet of fill was encountered in Boring No. 3 of the referenced report, in the southeastern portion of the site. The fill is composed of locally derived slightly clayey fine d medium-grained sand. Existing fill deposits are typically in a loose condition. ✓�A��,or{ .-f Dc''��10 �R Pp..a)I Dt Terrace Deposits ER Underlying the surficial materials,poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The ` ._ — ----- ------ �Est Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 9 - terrace deposits are composed of reddish brown, slightly clayey fine and medium-grained sand. _. The sediments are in a moderately dense to dense condition. Regionally,the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil _ Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the fill deposits and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the very low range. Groundwater No evidence of high groundwater conditions were observed to the depth explored in our exploratory , boring. However, seepage was observed in the referenced Boring No. 3 at a depth of 4.5 feet along the fill-terrace deposits contact. It should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from prolonged rainfall, drainage alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground -_ does occur,it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally �r characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 10 Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.6 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation(Woodward-Clyde, 1979)and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank,Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Seismic Design Parameters. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. However,certain geotechnical conditions will require special consideration in the design and construction phases. 2) The existing fill and disturbed terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of proposed a footings and concrete flatwork in their present condition. These surficial deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill deposits in areas of proposed footings, concrete flatwork and exterior improvements. Maximum removals are anticipated to be on the order of 4.5 feet. 3) Removals should be such that a minimum of 2.0 feet of fill underlies the base of proposed) footings. RECOMMENDATIONS Building Pad-Removals/Recomnaction The existing fill and disturbed terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Removals should include the entire building pad,extending a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint. Removals are anticipated to be on the order of 3.5 to 4.5 feet below Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 - W.O. P-501076 Page 12 - the existing and proposed cut pad grades. However,removals should extend a minimum of 2.0 feet _ below the base of proposed footings.Deeper removals may be necessary depending upon conditions revealed during grading. Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all vegetation,debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, - the base of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches,moistened as required and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts, moistened to approximately 1.0 -2.0 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill and disturbed terrace deposits in areas of proposed concrete flatwork and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non-expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer. ._ TemporM Slopes/Excavation Characteristics Due to the friable nature of the terrace deposits, temporary excavations over 3.5 feet should be trimmed to a gradient of 3/a :1 (horizontal to vertical)or less depending upon conditions encountered -- during grading. The Pleistocene terrace deposits are generally weakly cemented but may contain hard concretion layers. Based on our experience in the area, the sandstone is easily rippable with conventional earth moving equipment in good working order. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with Cal-OSHA requirements. Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 13 Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non-expansive approved compacted fill deposits or extended into competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed structure should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches into compacted fill for single-story and two-story structures,respectively. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars,one along the top of the footing and one along the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes,an allowable bearing value of 1600 pounds per square foot may be used for 12 inch deep footings and 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for 18 inch deep footings. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-load forces. A _ passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill or terrace deposits I penetrated to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot may be used. �I Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 14 Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exteriorl Slabs on grade should be a minimum of a full 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket (S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on-site materials,compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Corrosion Potential Test results from the referenced geotechnical report suggest that on-site materials have a low potential for corrosion attack on ferrous metals. Sulfate content exposure is negligible based on Table 19-A-3 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Retaininiz Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active- equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an"at-rest"equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 15 be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system(Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on the order of/4 inch and '/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. _ Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.6 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.47g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.31 g. Coast Geotechnical October 17, 2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 16 _ Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - SD Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B _ Near Source Factor(N,,) - 1.3 Near source Acceleration Factor(Na) - 1.1 Seismic Coefficients Ca=0.47 C,= 0.83 Design Response Spectrum T,= 0.702 To= 0.140 Nearest Type B Fault - 4.3 km Preliminary Pavement Design The following pavement section is recommended for proposed parking/driveways: 4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 17 The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. Utilily Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect or engineer. However, in general,pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to the street, via non-erodible devices. Pad water — should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired,sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 18 _ alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts,specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction. Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 19 The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time,however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 20 or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical October 17,2006 W.O. P-501076 Page 21 SITE SPECIFIC REFERENCE 1. Robert Prater Associates, 1998,Geotechnical Investigation Medical Office Center,Encinitas, California. REFERENCES 1. Hays,Walter W., 1980,Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions,Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96-706. 3. Seed,H.B.,and Idriss,I.M., 1970,A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 4. Tan, S.S.,and Giffen,D.G., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open-File Report 95-04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1"=750,000'. 2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02. _ 3. Sampo Engineering, 2006, Grading Plan, Santa Fe Medical Offices, 303 Santa Fe Drive, Encinitas, California, Scale 1"=10'. 4. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. - APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91) Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density Moisture Content _ (pcf) B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -4 . 0 ' 126 . 8 10 . 4 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Location Density Content 00c f) o B-1 @ 4 . 0 ' 110 . 1 6 . 2 B-1 @ 5 . 0 ' SPT 8 . 2 B-1 @ 8 . 0 ' 108 . 0 7 . 0 B-1 @ 9 . 0 ' SPT 6 . 5 TABLE III Direct Shear Test Results (Residual) Sample Location Angle of Apparent Cohesion Internal Friction 0 (-Qsf) _ B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -4 . 0 ' 29 Degrees 240 (Remolded) P-501076 EXPLORATORY BORING NO. I LOG OF - DRILL RIG: PORTABLE HOLLOW-STEM AUGER PROJECT NO. P-501076 I DATE DRILLED: 08-30-06 BORING DIAMETER: 6.0 SURFACE ELEV.: 174' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB I0 o U i ?+ O W E~ w U Q W U d a W UU a x a U GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTIO 174.0 Di-----d Tan,fine and med.-grained s 0.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS NI). SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grain sand J173.0 --•---•••- 1.00 Slightly clayey I 172.0 ........... I 2.00 J 171.0 -------- 3.00 b 170.0 -- 4.00 : 110.1 6.2 En En 169.0 Dense S0 5.00 SPT 8.2 3 IIMt 0 168.0 X. C� 6.00 167.0 7.00 166.0 ;'- Sr.. I 8.00 ::......:.. 108.0 7.0 165.0 ;arx{ Dense SPT 6.5 50/10" 9.00 Boring terminated @ 10'due to broken center stem COAST GEOTECHNICAL SHEET 1 OF 1 U 0 0 CW7 a x F. a � O ss U � C) ~ aw H rrhh ^� ZO � � A A o w C a is st � 9 I b K L4 a st 8 J ` — _ 6'PVcots e l } 6 I�� !LO - - F s — � . j > 4 � a } IN - - — 5'1 ! G 1 •[rd '•INK iJ7C •ti b "rte,) r ; � �• � .St.} •/.u.°' EE�9',� �, � C �L'' �I - APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP GALLOWAY 600 500 400 300 200 100 SI 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 -500 1111 fill lill -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 *********************** * * * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1.03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P-501076 DATE: 10-13-2006 JOB NAME: GALLOWAY FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33. 0361 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2850 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 45.5 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 4.3 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999. 0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1. 1 Nv: 1.3 Ca: 0.47 Cv: 0.83 Ts: 0.702 To: 0.140 SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ROSE CANYON I 4.3 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 18.9 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS CORONADO BANK I 28.1 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 1 SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I 45.5 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 45.6 1 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS PALOS VERDES 1 66.7 I B I 7.1 I 3.00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 67.5 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 1 SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 67.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 82.2 1 A 1 7.2 1 12.00 1 SS _ SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 85.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 12.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 86.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 86.4 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 86.9 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 90.4 1 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 96.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 1 SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 103.3 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 109.1 I B I 6.7 I 12.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 114.5 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I SS SAN JOSE I 123.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 125.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 127.1 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I SS CUCAMONGA I 128.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 128.1 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I DS BURNT MTN. i 131.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS ELMORE RANCH I 133.4 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 1 SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 134.9 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS _ ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 135.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.50 1 SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 135.4 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS EUREKA PEAK I 136.3 I B 1 6.5 1 O.EO I SS CLEGHORN I 137.7 I B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 141.8 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS RAYMOND I 142.5 I B I 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT ( 143.2 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 1 DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 143.5 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 1 SS VERDUGO I 146.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS HOLLYWOOD I 149.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 DS LANDERS I 149.2 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 151.1 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 153.4 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS SANTA MONICA I 156.5 I B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 DS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 158.5 I B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS MALIBU COAST I 160.5 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.30 1 DS IMPERIAL I 160.6 1 A 1 7.0 1 20.00 1 SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 161.4 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 ( SS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 162.5 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 167.1 I B I 6.7 1 2.00 1 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- - Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED !DISTANCE! TYPE ! MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) ! (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA-DUME I 168.5 I B I 7.3 ! 3.00 I DS SAN GABRIEL I 170.1 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK ! 170.8 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS CALICO - HIDALGO I 175.2 1 B 1 7.1 ! 0.60 ! SS SANTA SUSANA ! 182.3 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I DS HOLSER ! 191.2 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 ! DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 198.3 I B I 6.7 ! 1.00 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 199.3 I B I 6.9 ! 4.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE ! 207.0 1 B ! 6.9 ! 0.60 ! SS SAN CAYETANO I 207.8 1 B ! 6.8 ; 6.00 ! DS BLACKWATER ! 222.5 1 B ! 6.9 ! 0.60 1 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 226.1 ! B 1 6.8 ! 1.00 ! DS SANTA YNEZ (East) I 227.6 1 B ! 7.0 ! 2.00 I SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND ! 233.4 ! B i 6.8 1 1.00 I DS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 237.0 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.40 ! DS RED MOUNTAIN 1 239.9 1 B ! 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS GARLOCK (West) I 244.6 1 A ! 7.1 ! 6.00 1 SS PLEITO THRUST ! 249.6 B I 6.8 I 2.00 ! DS BIG PINE ! 255.2 I B 1 6.7 I 0.80 I SS GARLOCK (East) ! 259.3 ! A ! 7.3 I 7.00 ! SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND ( 267.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS WHITE WOLF I 270.4 ! B I 7.2 I 2.00 ! DS SANTA YNEZ (West) ! 271.7 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 ! SS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 283.7 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE 1 288.2 1 B ! 6.7 1 0.70 1 SS OWL LAKE ! 288.3 1 B 1 6.5 ; 2.00 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY ! 288.6 1 B 1 7.2 ! 2.50 ! SS TANK CANYON ! 289.7 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 ! DS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 296.7 I B i 6.9 ! 4.00 ! SS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE ! 313.5 I B I 6.8 I 0.70 I DS LIONS HEAD I 331.3 I B I 6.6 I 0.02 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 338.6 I B I 6.9 ; 4.00 I DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 341.2 ! B I 7.0 ! 0.20 ; DS SAN JUAN ! 342.5 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 349.4 ! B 6.5 I 0.25 ! DS OWENS VALLEY ! 356.8 I B I 7.6 ! 1.50 ! SS LOS OSOS I 371.3 I B I 6.8 I 0.50 ! DS HOSGRI I 376.9 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 ! SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY ! 382.9 1 B 1 7.0 ! 2.50 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) ! 392.2 1 A ! 7.2 ! 5.00 I SS INDEPENDENCE 1 392.6 1 B ! 6.9 1 0.20 ! DS RINCONADA ! 392.6 1 B 1 7.3 I 1.00 I SS BIRCH CREEK I 449.0 I B ; 6.5 I 0.70 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) ! 449.4 ! B ! 5.0 I 34.00 I SS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 453.5 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 ! SS DEEP SPRINGS I 471.9 I B I 6.6 I 0.80 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 476.9 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns. ) I 484.1 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 1 DS FISH SLOUGH I 491.9 I B I 6.6 I 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK I 510.2 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA I 534.1 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 534.5 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 539.4 I B I 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 541.8 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR I 542.5 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I SS QUIEN SABE I 552.7 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS MONO LAKE I 570.5 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 571.2 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 576.4 I A I 7.9 1 24.00 I SS SARGENT I 576.5 I B I 6.8 1 3.00 1 SS ROBINSON CREEK I 601.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 617.2 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE I 626.5 I B 1 6.9 I 2.00 I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 626.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS - HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 626.8 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 642.1 I B 1 6.7 1 0.80 1 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 646.6 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 1 SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 646.6 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 1 SS GENOA I 667.5 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 694.4 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK I 733.2 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I SS WEST NAPA I 734.1 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS POINT REYES 1 751.8 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 756.7 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) I 796.0 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 812.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 816.5 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (Central) I 837.6 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) i 897.2 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 903.5 1 B 1 6.8 I 6.00 1 SS BATTLE CREEK I 927.2 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS - LAKE MOUNTAIN I 961.9 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 979.0 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1035.2 1 A 1 7.4 1 35.00 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1042.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 1 DS MAD RIVER 1 1044.9 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1048.9 1 A 1 8.3 1 35.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE 1 1055.3 I B I 7.0 i 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 1 1056.8 I B I 7.3 i 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL 1 1057.2 I B I 6.9 l 0.60 i DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1062.6 I B 1 7.0 I 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1075.9 1 B 1 7.1 1 1.00 1 DS O LO O UQ - w � M w oC/) cyi 0 w 'o LO C� O 0 O O L a � o N LO U � 7 ri O 0000or r LO V1 O _ w Q o 0 Un o Un o U? o O O - (6) uoi}eaapaooy jeajoadg - APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented _ below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing _ Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non- organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainage 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. _ 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation,rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make - excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. - Fill Placement 1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. (1) 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture _ should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. — b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material(see report)and tilted back into the hill. As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built"at grade"using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. (2) In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed,slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete.Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's"Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket(or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. (3) 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. _ 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches,paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill,unless it is similar to the inplace fill,should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) �Y COAST GEOTECHNICAL ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS March 22, 2007 t Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices DEC 10 200 303 Santa Fe Drive 7 Encinitas, California J �g- Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Dated October 17, 2006 Dear Dr. Galloway: Our review of the grading plans prepared by Sampo Engineering, Sheet 2, suggests that they have, in general, included the applicable recommendations presented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. COMMENTS 1) Additional recommendations may be necessary based on a review of actual geotechnical conditions revealed during the remedial grading phase. _. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 Coast Geotechnical March 22,2007 W.O. P-501076 Page 2 LIMITATIONS The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional principals in the fields of engineering geology and soils engineering. No warranty is provided. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. - P-501076 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitte �(�Nk. COAST GEOTEC id QppfESS/plq 2109 r Exp. 5-31-0>3 V ti``��c�PyN Slhrh,., CERTIFIED Mark Burwell, C.E ENG ENGINEERING Vithaya Singhan 782 Engineering Geolog t GEOLOGIST \� Geotechnical En EXP.12-31-e i "o; `�Fpr COAST GEOTECHNICAL D�� z - CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS June 24, 2008 JUL 2 3 — Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California References: Please see page 8 Dear Dr. Galloway: In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this report. Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The control of _ drainage from lot development is essential to the future performance of the structure. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity — to be of service is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTEC t Mark Burwell, C.E. ; Vrthaya Singhanet, P. Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer,, s` 779 ACADEMY DRIVE SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 - FAX (858) 755-9126 ROUGH GRADING REPORT — Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared for: — Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Received Solana Beach, California 92075 Coast Geotechnical June 24, 2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of soil and weathered terrace deposits along most of the site. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan, prepared by Sampo Engineering. LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Maximum Dry Density Optimum Description (p c.f.l Moisture (%) Soil Tyne Tan to brown fine and 125.0 10.9 A medium-grained sand GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by residual soil and fill deposits. Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 4 _ DISCUSSION The grading contractor on this project was GW Grading.. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) All surface deleterious material was removed in the building envelope, prior to removals. 2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits along most of the lot were removed to a depth of approximately 4.0 to 4.5 feet below grade and stockpiled. 3) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 inches, moistened to near optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling with a Caterpillar 966 rubber tire. 4) The eastern portion of the overexcavation encountered high moisture content within the terrace deposits along the base of the excavation. Cement was mixed with the wet deposits prior to placement in order to reduce the moisture content. 5) The lot was overexcavated to a maximum depth of approximately 4.0 to 4.5. The overexcavation was extended laterally to near the property lines. Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 5 6) Based on visual classification and previous laboratory testing, the fill deposits have a potential expansion in the very low range. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS _ 1) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. 2) Hand operated compaction equipment may be necessary along property line retaining wall footing excavations or the footings may be deepened into competent terrace deposits. 3) Retaining wall backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 4) The soil parameters recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for foundations and slab design remain valid. 5) The following pavement section is recommended for the proposed driveway/parking areas: 4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 6 Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. Concrete sections should be reinforced with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions,as recommended in the Preliminary Geotechnical Reports. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. 6) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand(S.E. greater than 30)to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. 7) Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should be directed away from Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 7 foundations and not allowed to pond or migrate under concrete flatwork or pavement sections. 8) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation which are _ not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion,based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Enclosures: Table I Grading Plan Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 8 REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California _ Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 17, 2006 2) GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 22, 2007 3) PROPERTY LINE WALL BACKDRAINAGE Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive _ Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 12, 2007 4) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 10, 2008 _ ENCLOSURES FIELD TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Approx. Content Density % Soil Date No . Location Elevation % 1pcf) Compaction Type 3/14/08 1 See Map 170 . 0 10 . 9 120 . 5 96 A 3/17/08 2 See Map 170 . 5 11 . 4 120 . 6 96 A 3/17/08 3 See Map 171 . 5 10 . 8 119 . 7 96 A 3/18/08 4 See Map 173 . 5 8 . 9 118 . 4 95 A 3/18/08 5 See Map 173 . 5 10 . 1 122 .2 98 A 3/18/08 6 See Map 172 . 5 8 . 0 120 . 0 96 A 3/18/08 7 See Map 172 . 5 8 . 9 116 . 6 93 A G-501076 `Mr nJl MAiI ✓d4ti .' AC wAT!RYAIN _ -- = Rrl kmlO WA TR Y='R SANTA FT DRII/E� ---- _ :MERE IflE/lrs PER aIY a'EAI'7lTAS rAFPROXWAR lOCA P(w 17' -LTl SANTA EE allf S1 W A.C.w9./FR MAIN NPROK►ovrs ov APPROXIMATE ICL"ARON 8' ✓CP YAER MAlN N 010T 17J 51 _ .... MAW EASEW NT FCR aTY I M94 Y .'all Or DWTJ :AA . mic#a M� q !Er r? Na 2=-OMM7 Or CfW AI �' `Q�l$ /E AFPm'�.iyA,� N mim aAVQ L11�11�G 5•NGE�AS IiU�'TiaP Q'LM1_J•H01161Y `--AS YAK, _ - W FU AND SDEMVX nmat�OPM4tu IM R[IXlN1Y ti SW AHaI -.. �• &WW APIBI IASS N d7aC / PAff Jn, _ :'S-� OOELIENT A0 s.T50C!W H A 3 --. CRM AC BERN o!'74 4 -i;r ,17J 9 N SSW,E AC PAWMENT 1210, cs - .'QY •�. 1710 ►,• '.✓yam 1767 (.1ADA".V1M" I� \1�' •• P"Lo P - I 6 loo'`` '.t� 29 r 1 pl a�t'w R/17 1S eff y PIAN \ 171 IK NM i(IP SDPNEI 107 � OAIY 4 12' T 1 \f I I ~ 1 y' aELX MIIK / •s•o Snr,` s I8" A pRl j l r(MJ r� an Ga1GiE SEE NO'i APANAlE'- � �1 m lnso E IIE0;7 ny W.0 7 Pl N EIP / 1 1 PENiR A r 11.50 1 7 ¢aE •' a� °\ 05 �. T n a 6uaAlc ft.r go' (1EYA AEN 9nErVA'arAa AOOW snU17IEKE 1 ED 171M(E 169.77) / zrlr P r" nl ! r 0� Br . _. rG 1751 1 TG 17[50 E 17175 Ill. m PIMA BAk9 Irl n PIC Smell FE 000 11f ,I :• PARA]MG 1 MIL M-HA 11101E — APROV • ,o Y n l ! 17 plig - 0 a -.fCiN9l .3 IM IIJI 10571E � 91S7Fr 1ETAW rulE Isn77' /''B T n17.53 R 0.rGN MASS-00" AOpD FENCE •� M E57/'JY E X11 �� n I71s RI°OE P/Lr Inso r .s � SEW R I!0 �, s TGG In510 E,M10 (�•Ino) saw ER aL4NW AREA TN I xAgwr wAw NAIL Atl m AU mXm IIIla7T n 176 PG 1716 -I T /' PERYm n0M m ary 1G1741 A1P�^•i: -60-0.'2-OZ aVMEpppp�,�� N 5•ok NXT OR N AAGE NP AREA Atli m d IECM •5•o Poe wn it 'ry CRAN GRADING PLAN SCALE: I"=20' (reduced) LEGEND 01 DENSITY TEST (approx.) LIMIT OF FILL (approx.) COAST GEOTECHNICAL G-501076 Sam o En ineerin � w-• .E U g g, Inc. Land Planning,Civil Engineering, Surveying,Mapping 1 July 22,2008 _ I City of Encinitas JUI z 3 28 Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,CA 92024 RE: Engineer's Pad Verification for Grading Permit No.9561-G 303 Santa Fe Drive,Cardiff To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code,this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Verification Letter for the above referenced property. I hereby state that the rough grading for the sloping parking garage as shown on the approved grading plan No. 9561-G is in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas Codes and Standards. r Sincerely, LBq Vince Sampo, PE, PLS e Nm 44173 w President 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 info@sampoengineering.com COAST GrEOTECHNICAL - CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS June 24, 2008 -- JUL 23L.�fi Gil Galloway -" 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California References: Please see page 8 Dear Dr. Galloway: In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this report. Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The control of drainage from lot development is essential to the future performance of the structure. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted.", COAST GEOTEC IPA. .... � _. �� F , Mark Burwell, C.E.G. , Vithaya Smghanet, PAS, Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared for: Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive ReCP-jved Solana Beach, California 92075 ,,1 .f ►t� G Coast Geotechnical June 24, 2008 W.O. G-501076 _ Page 3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of soil and weathered terrace deposits along most of the site. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan, prepared by Sampo Engineering. LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: _ Maximum Dry Density Optimum _ Description (p c.f.) Moisture Soil Type Tan to brown fine and 125.0 10.9 A _ medium-grained sand GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace _ deposits are covered by residual soil and fill deposits. Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 4 DISCUSSION The grading contractor on this project was GW Grading.. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) All surface deleterious material was removed in the building envelope, prior to removals. 2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits along most of the lot were removed to a depth of approximately 4.0 to 4.5 feet below grade and stockpiled. 3) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 inches, moistened to near optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling with a Caterpillar 966 rubber tire. 4) The eastern portion of the overexcavation encountered high moisture content within the terrace deposits along the base of the excavation. Cement was mixed with the wet deposits prior to placement in order to reduce the moisture content. 5) The lot was overexcavated to a maximum depth of approximately 4.0 to 4.5. The overexcavation was extended laterally to near the property lines. Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 5 6) Based on visual classification and previous laboratory testing, the fill deposits have a potential expansion in the very low range. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing,the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. 2) Hand operated compaction equipment may be necessary along property line retaining wall footing excavations or the footings may be deepened into competent terrace deposits. 3) Retaining wall backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 4) The soil parameters recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for foundations and slab design remain valid. 5) The following pavement section is recommended for the proposed driveway/parking areas: 4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 6 Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. _ Concrete sections should be reinforced with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions,as recommended in the Preliminary Geotechnical Reports. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. 6) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand(S.E.greater than 30)to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. 7) Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should be directed away from Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 Page 7 foundations and not allowed to pond or migrate under concrete flatwork or pavement sections. 8) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation which are not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion,based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Enclosures: Table I Grading Plan Coast Geotechnical June 24,2008 W.O. G-501076 — Page 8 REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION _ Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated October 17, 2006 2) GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 22, 2007 3) PROPERTY LINE WALL BACKDRAINAGE Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated June 12, 2007 4) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated March 10, 2008 _ ENCLOSURES FIELD TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Approx. Content Density % Soil Date No. Location Elevation % (pcf) Compaction Type 3/14/08 1 See Map 170 . 0 10 . 9 120 . 5 96 A 3/17/08 2 See Map 170 . 5 11 . 4 120 . 6 96 A 3/17/08 3 See Map 171 . 5 10 . 8 119 . 7 96 A 3/18/08 4 See Map 173 . 5 8 . 9 118 . 4 95 A 3/18/08 5 See Map 173 . 5 10 . 1 122 . 2 98 A 3/18/08 6 See Map 172 . 5 8 . 0 120 . 0 96 A 3/18/08 7 See Map 172 . 5 8 . 9 116 . 6 93 A G-501076 AP,-,W li �A.0 WAI(X VAIN - _-- ---- - - _. SANTA FE DRII/t APPROAIVAlf C(7CA71(:N�1' FUW boars 7fFfY 0f OM MS r~ MOW Q SANTA MW:SREFT �AC.WAICR VAIN V _— _ — NV n. AiWON14AfE LOCA110N 8' .. KP SCWER 40N 0 0105 i izmc usaOT roe arY HpNY SE C17Y OF DW P,Y _t 16 Y A WANG Na X61-I 6,e; Na=-003199 a CiTM FW RW NPROWi N __ KM p� 5 f�(� p Ary�pNp APPnc.;4A,-E:;,•_A r,:A !.1157!90 am q/�•(RlaID"�.NIro7 IlEpprqq �;ASYIa _ ainV?ANO SZEWYA' �. KWW APId 7955 N ECOY I(�PAff J07, OOQAYtN/Na 5 OF O7FN]AL AC BERN (a .— .CIA ,,� ,nJ9 NNSi11'f ACPAWAIENr -_ 65 Elmo _ .. v. .. -X9 W11 M1111) �76.7 IAIiDSGIPNC PRIM } } } 2( ow Y61 t7l _ Wr PUNIM Mvgm o7 1 IMF .. WX 0 .. 12' 2 / YNN: A' pRf 15 0 13 )` II COA10�E7E PAANTC I p1ANAQ' IC or w 17250 E 17100 vzlw III177o V PlhY1f1P � 1 I PUIR - n si � 11. � 1 •(1111 �;::T -e .A •I 11 ( / O rs a N.Im ,1 97' flF1'A�- a � ACV SOEMIK(RKC A60W SWa7 Lm , 1 , IO 171M(E=27) v 1W 1764 °' O eY fc 175!, \ \` PI ( n 172.50 E 17LI /3 171. PRYA 5vu" I PVC SIM. _ r R I .l0 -,IS 1 Pmm wt N-NM NON A~aI ,o -._III 17E1 . " 1 _ O Y Tw 1711 %G 17l 6 94ORY/E7AW WAIL I707Y I,I B r R nr 1715 171.5 R AD?SW C-I e' N d5'19'Jr \71 NCE ICV O<PPf!7250 lG7�'(7MSS-1/[p WOW fENCf �� f CAIOI BY 11720 E ) SI09IAN RR afAN.511C ARfA SNWL 11 1710 s, TV s NASONPY 1ETANNC WA!! TC 17290 f 17010 AOT IV 6C MaV O WMIT rW 176 fC 1718 -1 /1'r'I`d; f'( ( C 1 I' P(A/S9L'N TRW of arY 771 171.1 Fj> 0!2-01 0P6NM:fOR aPNUff 5 e TLN N ANAfI BW AW NOT 70 BE MOO 15�'W a'9 C FW wnwrr GRADING PLAN SCALE: l"=20' (reduced) LEGEND 01 DENSITY TEST (approx.) LIMIT OF FILL (approx.) COAST GEOTECHMCAL G-501076 COAST G-EOTECHNICAL ' CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS March 22, 2007 Gil Galloway 1423 Summit Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 D EC o zoos l °S Subject: GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Medical Offices 303 Santa Fe Drive Encinitas, California Dated October 17, 2006 Dear Dr. Galloway: Our review of the grading plans prepared by Sampo Engineering, Sheet 2, suggests that they have, in general, included the applicable recommendations presented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. COMMENTS 1) Additional recommendations may be necessary based on a review of actual geotechnical conditions revealed during the remedial grading phase. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 Coast Geotechnical March 22,2007 W.O. P-501076 Page 2 LIMITATIONS The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional principals in the fields of engineering geology and soils engineering. No warranty is provided. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. P-501076 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitte --- : � � t�Q < < : COAST GEOTEC �W° �� 2109 t Q�OEESS/oi, EXp• 5-31-08 c�PyP SING,yA �Fy� CERTIFIED t1 F� ti Mark Burwell, C.E ENGINEERING Vithaya Singhan b 782 Engineering Geolog t GEOLOGIST Geotechnical En Exp.12-31-e, 1 y s�gcFr ��G; N I Sampo EneineerinE, Inc. Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying,Mapping -" s DRAINAGE STUDY FOR CDP 05-044 303 SANTA FE DRIVE CARDIFF, CA 92007 APN: 260-072-35 11 /ii �I NOV 1 7 2006 f --- October 6,2006 j.n. 05-112 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 N i Sampo Engineering, Inc. W� ►E Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying,Mapping s j.n.05-112 October 6,2006 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR: Grading Plan , CDP 05-044, Cardiff, CA,APN: 260- 072-35 Criteria: 1. Use the current County of San Diego Hydrology Manual"Rational Method". 2. Design for a 100-year frequency storm using the County of San Diego 6 hour and 24 hour precipitation isopluvials. 3. Runoff coefficients are based on soil type"D". "C"factors have been weighted based on the individual"C"factors for different surfaces(i.e. concrete=0.95),and the areas of the individual surfaces. 4. Times of concentration(Tc)are determined from the urban overland flow formula. 5. Refer to the attached drainage map for basin areas and locations. Introduction: 1. The subject property is located on the southerly side of Santa Fe Drive approximately 175'east of the intersection with Rubenstein Avenue, in Cardiff, CA. The property is currently undeveloped but has improvements of sidewalk, curb, gutter,driveway and utilities to the site from City of Encinitas Improvement Plan 9561-I. The property descends slightly from the west to the east and has a catch basin along the easterly property line constructed from City of Encinitas Grading Plan 6770-G. The existing catch basin connects into the public storm drain in Santa Fe Avenue This project proposes to implement a combination of storm water Best Management Practice methods,mechanical and structural,to reduce to the maximum extent practicable the quantity of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. 2. This project proposes to construct a new medical office above street-level parking on the subject property. The proposed medical office/street-level parking will include flatwork,retaining walls,and planter areas. Parking and surface runoff from concrete and driveway areas will be directed into grass-lined swales located along the southerly and easterly side of the property and ultimately into a mechanical filtering and separation device for post-construction BUT purposes.A small portion of surface runoff at the northwest portion of the property will be directed into planter/landscape areas for BMP purposes 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 info@sampoengineering.com /—'d ,,AL,(-OtdAy 05-1/-Z glp,(0 /�S 1AJ -------------- THF-7 c- -70 ...........I '9 -7 min , I/oo 7. y-Y(2,5 )(S,� ) 5 A(LEA (S A fy) ► n • T/00 7, ..3(o IAJ too = (0, 2 /g'/O(, TcI - 1, 1. l -,95 ioO • 1 min . (2•o� I/3 �� Z = ►ST�Nc-F - _ _ � S � o Yc Lc-,IT\/ _ Ups wSr.cIM�� ' M I✓� . TC — Tr + Tc..2 2 .2 min . :. T� < 5m1�. vs� 5min . Tloo = �, yy�z.5 ) 5,0) Sys _ 6.59 /A//, //Z C ►va = (o.F�� 1 �� .Sq o. lp D.7 7 C1=S 6-AuLWA% 0 5- /1 2 M P3 A rZC A -`�5)4- 7 b, s 7214/ 7) tr1 1 (1 a • TG C SM lr l 05E 6 -7. quo = (0, 51 b. 0-7 C,PS GC NM40 L.- \/OL111 "}F J> G1�t.—Cu L-AMO V, X 2 1 s1 3o S IT+- VOL.UME A c eE mi3UTAre-Y To = V =� ,'�51} a•Z j(o. �( = 220 +3 500 Tt-Z 7"' NE-It FLUB '= V L x'3'1 meNaN I CAL, DFVIcE . (; ;Yo op- -CO L- A�tAJ) G ;L A (O"K(o)(O.-Z)(0,cgcy) �-- O,o 1 C FS _ F2,F _ a -■3 W_ a a T. ' !--- ___ AIM 9 ■■■■.■■■ p CCU .. CC�C ��IO�'3 �iQ�QICIC::7:i��=: ■�■C■�ZZA ■■.■■■ ..........goo _/� DG'L'Z3'.� 1111i1111= UNION?■m mm zi 0 EM= Mogan mp'11■111111■■■■�■■..1"ISM ■�■ �■ ► i11111■11 ■■■ ■■..� `�- g � 1111111111CI11I■■■■■■ LLJ 10: �-••---see 1111111111CIIIIIIINNE s. co rAm ��•�..��.��.��:iii::iisii....�� CC:CC�:�::s�%�Cr.�.��C.��.0 i'i■�.�C��CC::::'.::��siiiiisC■i■� VAN&AI—WAO FF ��■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■CCU �OII�i��/A �'��■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■CCU OVA � 11111■■■■■■■■■■■■..m MII FA/III/I/III W/�/�■�■��1111111111■■■■■■■■■■ /I1■F/W/■!I�!/■■l�i�■■■■■■ 111111111■■■■■■■■■■■ ''/.IIIII�/—i�I■��I��■�■■ 1111111111■■■■■■■■■■ _ III/%'/./II//AN/■/Imomms■■■■■■ 1111111111■111■■■■■■ . Ili■/I■/Ir/�■■I��■■■■■■ 11111111111111■■■■■■ .. ��■■��■■ 11111111111111■■■■■■ //II/Iii/�I�I■�i��■■■■■■ 11111111111111■■■■■■ N%A/Av/A��I��■■��1��11111111111111■■■■■■ //1�/!I/�!■I!■�■■■�I��IIIIIIIIIIIIII■■■■■■ ■/II/l�I��'��■■��I��IIIIIIIIIIIIII■■■■■■ 500 g� 70 h h o �o o� e h h o ^y p. 400 60 F- LU w LL z w 300 50 Q �O G �O i U) 1 G ,y0 Fw- W 1 �� z 0 200 O 40 M w i z G U1 3 G OAO o 3 J U. 100 G�OU 30 g - cr G°�6o > 0 0 20 .oat 1 go 000r, C.p,95 10 0.00000000000 00-00 0-� 0 EXAMPLE: Given: Watercourse Distance(D)=250 Feet Slope(s)=0.5% T= 1.8(1.1-C) Runoff Coefficient(C)=0.70 3V—S Overland Flow Time(T)=14.3 Minutes SOURCE:Airport Drainage,Federal Aviation Administration,1965 F I G U R E Rational Formula-Overland Time of Flow Nomograph 3-5 HazMatlCounty Hydrogeology ManuaUOverland Flow.FH8 �a \ >~ a $ v o LLJ (D Of 0 a 0 W �o 02 o P yl (7) z Imperial County Ln I 1 , o ' / 1 , ♦'' N w 1 ' N - N M ^ 'M ♦ i N CcC ♦ ,♦ 1 fV - y LO i i♦ ,♦ i 1 , it � O N i t 1 `� I I I ♦ 1 1 .� 1 ♦ J 1 1 1 \ 'M - fh 1 Ifl O ♦ �+ , i 1 / IN __ / 1 \ •ah Oc p•r ---• !"1 �i r �r�nni'%\ j \\` /�(� - - ' 3 alto i %' _ i ♦ ^ r ^'r _ �r^ , r - \� r J�t � 1�rl Jr_` eY .Jq i i //�� i i♦ .�'1'Pr -�� ln- ri- 1 1' ♦ JG�. �_- / IU' 1\ `` a"i ' •r- ' f i /' r 5% mow `? i J if LO x'°dirl j It \ o` \ 3 _ \ V /Q ' ' - `♦ / 'fit s \ �b _Iff s- � O ♦ \ 1 / to \ ---- r f l \ I - \rte i ♦ O (b ' \ �N. to - N E \, \`\` j 1 \ A •� 0� J • yp y y j \ ♦ \ /� Gg��1 r7 •Q m tm� C ♦ �` O `\ - r .`` M "N �O %----- 1 W O cj \` V ``\ `` \\ `w L� 1 -I %% U; M i ®G B fic pac 1 1 1 1 g _ o r -5 O � � Cos A z `V '�• '� N W Co N N 1: O W s r� 8- ° W rte+ N o V x L D a �+ m l0 C O O � 8a F- o Ovii U z Imperial County 1 "55 i i 1 I 1 ca 0 I♦7 In / I 1 1 1 - 1 ♦ / rD 1 1 1 1 1 7 i N♦ `I 0f \ j j / 1 �� " V 1 1 ! r ' ' • tl 1 ' 1 � ♦ __ � 1 / 1 1 / I % N 1 1 _ i / i '' ♦ 1 / j 1 1 1 ♦ `` 1 1 I� 1 f' i♦''♦� ' 5 �i♦ / f O % I \ %% f I `11 1 1 1 / '�� ".._' ',�' .. ----- `\ I M I / 1 1 I I 11 -- i ------- —' --- `\ to 1 ' ♦ / 1 1 R/ 1 ! 1 ' / O 1 i'I -\-`"1 j %' ' 4 ' 1` ``�O•�O % I �•- ♦ / `\ 1 1, `.__— : O.�`� _vim ' ♦' _ — %1 s t 1 1 / 1 1 Q `�`�� ` ♦ i; i' 111 ""(�J�`_/ i l ��•, `` \`\ `t I' � 1\ -_- ' 111 ♦ i ,V-/'1CQb M I/ / �i- �V I / i 11 y i r t i `` \ 1 ��/ � OI' I / i %• ," 1 I O-'--�� -1 �/ ! 1 F �D I - � O � C` 1 / / )4l, `\ 11 1 1 11 % vi��1 \� t7 UI �Q _ —'\. I /♦' T / `� � j 1 i ;i 101 � i� � //i / '�� --� ��< 1 IT UqOi in �_ .,� / UUU��\/�� °—S I , ` 1-J�[11y' of �' 1 '�~I 1 _ 1♦--. `/ cr 1 1 i 1` ` V` / ' i r� 1 � � i 1 t• / � \ 1d 1 5 It `� _ \tea�' 1♦ / ' ' V) C) m W O O IA•� O -�\ i _pAp � cli [NC ` 1 1 1 101 1 1 \`_♦/—\\`O ' O t Ocea 1 1p r / r f / r REVISIONS Q DATE I REFERENCES I DATE MASONRY RETAIN V6 e7ALL PER SDRSD C-11 ALE FL BENCH MARK CITY OF ENCINITAS VERTICAL CONTROL STATION °MC -480 PT NO 1046 25° CITY OF ENCINITAS BRASS DISC IN NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE DROP INLET ON NORTH SIDE OF SANTA FE DRIVE WEST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 5 AT THE NORTHEAST RETURN INTO SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ENCINITAS ELEVATION: 171.227' LAW.• NGVD 29 SCALE 1' =10' E PLANNING & BUILDING owVLSr Bxrrer VLS' APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED POST - DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP FOR : DATE : SANTA FE MEDICAL OMCES -C R.C.E NO.: 44173 303 SANTA FE DRIVE SIGNATURE DATE VINCENTL SAMPO EXP. 6/30/07 BY DATE: DATE: SHEET Z OF Z ENGINEER OF WORK CASE N0. 05 -044 U Z Z �^ w w Z_ C� z , w; O Q' c N 0 a ° <TC 174, X48 6" P.CC.1{ II f, ?fCHA111CAL FACILI FOR B,'. ?P S76 CURB [r• 1REARVENT OF STC 011� IVAJTP. USE x IE 169.75 lE 169.65 ' 17256 VO.RISENTRY VS50 ORIAPPROVEO 0 % 120.72 EQUIVALENT USE IYA�'RlIGHT,.SOtiD '> X X ; , - D fENCE N 8579 ° E �1ti ✓ I2 X 12' RIVAIE ENCE >�� CATCH BASVV BY NDS' IF OUT 169.55 { 71% 1753 MASONRY RETAINING WALL TG 172801E 17010 \ fG 173.8 PER SDRSD C -1 APIN, 260-072-02 CONSTRUCT 24° FADE OPENING FOR DRAINACE E PLANNING & BUILDING owVLSr Bxrrer VLS' APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED POST - DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP FOR : DATE : SANTA FE MEDICAL OMCES -C R.C.E NO.: 44173 303 SANTA FE DRIVE SIGNATURE DATE VINCENTL SAMPO EXP. 6/30/07 BY DATE: DATE: SHEET Z OF Z ENGINEER OF WORK CASE N0. 05 -044 U Z Z �^ w w Z_ C� z , w; O Q' c N 0 a f, ?fCHA111CAL FACILI FOR B,'. ?P S76 TYY 1734 1REARVENT OF STC 011� IVAJTP. USE x IE 169.75 lE 169.65 FG 177.6 VO.RISENTRY VS50 ORIAPPROVEO IY 119 1735 EQUIVALENT USE IYA�'RlIGHT,.SOtiD ?06 17306 FG 172.05 STAND PIPE (FG 171.6) ROVOVABLE LID. IE IN 169.63 {% 73_5 TOP OF PIPE 172.50 IF OUT 169.55 { 1720) FG 171.8 I { STORM411ATER CLEANSING AREA { {{ NOT TO BE MODIFIED 47THOUT {{ PERMISSION FROM THE CITY {( {{ (I E PLANNING & BUILDING owVLSr Bxrrer VLS' APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED POST - DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE MAP FOR : DATE : SANTA FE MEDICAL OMCES -C R.C.E NO.: 44173 303 SANTA FE DRIVE SIGNATURE DATE VINCENTL SAMPO EXP. 6/30/07 BY DATE: DATE: SHEET Z OF Z ENGINEER OF WORK CASE N0. 05 -044 U Z Z �^ w w Z_ C� z , w; O Q' c N 0 a ,- I REVISIONS DATE I REFERENCES I DATE P4' t76�� e ' P,ETAININGG VIALL 'SD G —t 1 BEGIN GRASS-LINED6' SWALE FL 174.0 BENCH MARK CITY OF ENCINITAS VERTICAL CONTROL STATION 'ENC -48° PT NO. 1048 25° CITY OF ENCINITAS BRASS DISC IN NORTHEAST CORNER OF CONCRETE DROP INLET ON NORTH SIDE OF SANTA FE DRI K WEST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 5 AT THE NORTHEAST RETURN INTO SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ENCINITAS ELEVATION.. 171,227' DATUM.• NGW 29 SCALE 1� =10' �<{ 'y qwE A x 17 IE 169.75 ff 169.65 \ , 120.72' 17256 17200 -N N7306 " DIA P RFORA STAND PIPE a - _ jENCE T{U 1735 FG 172. 6 TOP D PIPE 1725D 937/ E L 12 X 12 RIVATE N \� CATCH LASW BY NDS' (FG 172. 0) FG 171.8 TVV 175.3 MASONRY RETAINING WALL TG 172.80 /E 170.10 PER SDRSD C -1 COTNSTRUCT 24 ° WIDE STORF,lWAIER CLEANSING AREI FG 173.8 A `P IN, 260-072-02 NOT TO BE MODIFED INTH0UT OPENING FOR DRAINAGE PERAIISSION FROM THE CITY BMP AREA NOT TO BE MODIFIED W1THOUT PERVISSION FROV THE CITY �vBY DPAWBY CHECK BY APPROVALS PLANNING &BUILDING 999 vas 08 1 As PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED SIGNATURE DATE VINCENT L SAMPO ENGINEER OF WORK DATE R.C.E NO.: 44173 BY: . 6 30 EXP. L 1 DATE EQUIVALENT USE Vt'A RTI ]iV 1735 REMOVABLE LID. I (FG 171.6) IE IN 169.6J 1 I E OUT 169.55 I { {I I I I I it I I II it ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I DRAWING NO. SANTA ff MEDICAL OMCES I -G 3013 SANTA FE DRIVE 9Y: I ( SHEET .l OF Z DATE : CASE N0. 05 —D44 U z a z� � a= w w z_ z ° ui Ri c 0