The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-9274 G/CN , I ENGINEER-IN SERVICES DEPARTMENT city 0� Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 7, 2006 Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company 3350 Whiteford Road P.O. Box 3709 York,PA 17402-0136 RE: Baker, Harold 124 Seeman Drive APN 259-310-40,41 Grading Permit 9274-G Final release of security Permit 9274-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 661113773, in the original amount of$118,811.00, (reduced by 75% to $29,702.75) is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geish ay Le bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Baker,Harold Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 ( FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 Tj�l recycled paper NGINEERING SER VICES DEPAR TMENT City 01E \` r Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 7, 2006 Attn: Union Bank of California 200 West D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Harold Baker 90 & 120 Seeman Drive APN 259-310-40 &259-310-41 Grading Permit 9274-GI Final release of security Permit 9274-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release in the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 021910562 in the amount of$7,430.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc ely, ebra Geish y Le ach T clinician finance Manager Engineering Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Harold Baker Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper �. city Of NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering September 29, 2005 Attn: Union Bank of California 200 West D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Harold Baker 90 & 120 Seeman Drive APN 259-310-40 & 259-310-41 Grading Permit 9274-GI Final release of security Permit 9274-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. This CD was replaced with a 25% CD; therefore this one can be released in entirety. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0219105806 in the amount of$29,702.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sint ely, — Debra Geis art ay mbach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Harold Baker Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 1 FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 AD, recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1c v?1, _> Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep]enishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering August 18, 2005 Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company 3350 Whiteford Road P.O. Box 3709 York, PA 17402-0136 RE: Baker, Harold 124 Seeman Drive APN 259-310-40,41 Grading Permit 9274-G Partial release of security Permit 9274-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 661113773, in the amount of$118,811.00, may be reduced by 75%_to $29,702.75. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. 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 Geishart Ja em ach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Baker, Harold Debra Geishart File All YECyCled paper !-1L 0 f-1I C1 1 NA L CA- D:JC l.1 M tip I.. VAa` HE,— A H-L)0 r JUN 14 2005 Recording Requested by: ) DL-C;(_JMEN I-NPVBER 2u05-049 8541 U ,Y SM;I I1 Cvl1NT r RECORDER City Engineer ) C.'OUNIY RECOHDER'S OFFICE When Recorded Mail To: ) TIME 3 48 PM City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor' s Parcel Work Order 9274-G Number: 259-310-40 Project 04-203 CDP A. Harold L. Baker Jr. , Trustee of the Harold L. Baker, Jr. Family Trust initially created September 13 , 2004, ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows : See Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof . B. In consideration of 9274-G, OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , or any other applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties . D. OWNER agrees that OWNER' s duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant . E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney' s fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant . G. Upon OWNER' s satisfaction of OWNER' s duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant" . H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACC PTED AND AGREED: OWNER H rold L. Bak J Trustee Date Harold L. Baker, Jr. Family Trust (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CIT CI T Dated �-� by (Notarizati,6n not required) Peter Cota-Robles, Director of Engineering Services CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNGiWLEDGMENT No.5907 State of �. i County of ` On 61 1 before me, �'� l� < ❑ �� DACE NAME,TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G.,"JANE DOE,NOTARY PUBLIC- per onally appeared NAME( OF SIGNER(S) personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their A. signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), e or the entity upon behalf of which the " r' person(s) acted, executed the instrument. C�rnr.E�il��r WIT E my hand and official seal. Co--- aN-- RCISOR_ Commission 4 1543211 Notary Public -CdNomia rr ft sm �`i...wiu SIGNA E OF NOTARY �0 n OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY; CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACKED DOCUMENT ❑ INDIVIDUAL_ ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER ' TITLE(S) TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT l� ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ❑ TRUSTEE(S) { ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: t' DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES) , —_-_-- ---_.-----------___ —_ ___-- SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION-8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184-Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 ATTACHMENT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY APN 295-310-40 PARCEL A OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED APRIL 15, 2004 AS DOCUMENT 2004-0327366 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE NORTHERLY 111.08 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY, APPROVED APRIL 19, 1891, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS SAID ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM M.A. PRINCEHOUSE, ET AL, TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1764, PAGE 57 OF DEEDS. TOGETHER WITH THE NORTHERLY 111.08 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 90.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD. THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 111.08 FEET LYING PARALLEL WITH AND MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO A LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH 890 38' 01" WEST AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 8891 RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON DECEMBER 17, 1981 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR STREET PURPOSES IN MAY 23, 1969, AS DOCUMENT NO. 96110, AND JUNE 5, 1969 AS DOCUMENT NO. 101186 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. HflLcl DUC JIM N-1 HE C1 !'ED GDN !,J�4 14 20()5 Recording Requested by: H '�-OUN I Y F�FCGRDER City Engineer J - When Recorded Mail To: I NE 48 City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 S1 COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor' s Parcel Work Order 9274-G Number: 259-310-41 Project 04-202 CDP A. Bryan Bagley and Lindsay Duff, Co-Trustees of the Bryan Bagley and Lindsay Duff Trust U/D/T dated February 3, 2003 , ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property -( "PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows : See Attachment "All which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of 9274-G, OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , or any other applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same . C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties . D. OWNER agrees that OWNER' s duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant . E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney' s fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant . G. Upon OWNER' s satisfaction of OWNER' s duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant" . H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCIfPTED AND AGREED: OWNER dray Du Co- rustee Date l �_ ryan agley, o Trustee Date Bryan Bagley and Lindsay Duff Trust U/D/T dated February3, 2003 (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CITY O CI T Dated �� t'. � by (Notarization not required) Peter Cota-Robles, Director of Engineering Services CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOS— ACKNOWLEDGMENT No.5907 State of L County of j / On before me, DAafE NAME,TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G.,"JANE DOE,NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared &y 7 NAME(S) F SIGNE (S) ❑ personally known to me - OR - proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the CONIGUaa.$11 person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Comm4Mon� f+ !74L-OWY PubMC-Caf00 WI my hand and official seal. SIGNAT F NOTARY' OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE(S) TITLE ORTYPE OF DOCUMENT ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: DATE OF DOCUMENT .i t� SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTITY(IES) — -- SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION-8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 ATTACHMENT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY APN 295-310-41 PARCEL B OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED APRIL 15, 2004 AS DOCUMENT 2004-0327366 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY 111.08 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY, APPROVED APRIL 19, 1891, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS SAID ROAD IS DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM M.A. PRINCEHOUSE, ET AL, TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, DATED FEBRUARY 28, 1930 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1764, PAGE 57 OF DEEDS. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LAND LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY 111.08 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 90.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD. THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PORTION LIES PARALLEL WITH AND MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO A .LINE WHICH BEARS NORTH 890 38' 01" WEST AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 8891 RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON DECEMBER I7, 1981 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR STREET PURPOSES IN MAY 23, 1969, AS DOCUMENT NO. 96110, AND.TUNE 5, 1969 AS.DOCUMENT NO. 101186 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Recording Requested By: ) "' City of Encinitas ) Tr'r OR{GiNAt_OF THIS DOCUMENT When Recorded Mail to: ) WA-'IRECORDED ON _UN 14 2005 City Clerk ) c;D i,MF_NT NUMBER 2005-0498523 :E� I J -MIT-1 i "RUNTY RECORDER ; City of Encinitas ) IU,C;(-(-)]-)NTY RECORDEP'S CiFFICE 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) TIME 3 47 PM Encinitas, CA 92024 ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY ) 1SPACE E EASEMENT FOR CITY HIGHWAY AND SLOPE RIGHTS Assessor's Parcel No. 259-310-41 Project No.: 04-202 CDP 9274-G Bryan Bagley and Lindsay Duff Co-Trustees of the B an Bagley and Lindsay Duff Trust U/D/T dated February 3 2003 hereinafter called GRANTOR(S), do(es)hereby grant, convey and dedicate to the City of Encinitas, State of California, hereinafter called GRANTEE, the right of way and incidents thereto for a public highway upon, over and across that certain real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE, Together with the right, but not the obligation, to extend and maintain slopes and appurtenant structures beyond the right of way over and across that certain real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT `B"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE, The Grantor hereby further grants to the Grantee all trees, growths, (growing or that may hereafter grow), and road building materials within said right-of-way, including the right to take water, together with the right to use the same in such a manner and at such locations as said Grantee may 9274-G, 04-202 CDP, Easement for City Highway and Slope, Bagley, Seeman Dr and Encinitas Blvd, 4-13-05 1 deem proper, needful, or necessary, in the construction, reconstruction, improvement, or maintenance of said highway as shown in said Exhibit"A". The Grantor, for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's dedicated property conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said highway and slopes as shown in said Exhibits"A"and `B". s Duff,Co- ste u 3 b RnM °A T "rrr `rust U/D/T dated February3,2003 agley, 'o-Tru t e Date B an Bagley and Lindsay Duff Trust U/D/T dated February3,2003 ignature of wners to a notanze . Attach the appropriate acknowledgmen 9274-G, 04-202 CDP, Easement for City Highway and Slope, Bagley, Seeman Dr and Encinitas Blvd, 4-13-05 2 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE aCKNOWLEDGMENT No.5907 State of ❑fL _ �� County of On before me 4;�_^ DATE NAME,TITL OF OFFICER-E.G.,"JANE DOE,NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared /,/W,; VSer, �I ; .❑ NAME(S) F SIGNER(S) ❑ personally known to me - OR - proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence t to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed W� the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their lit�.: signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), c A. IUxii or the entity upon behalf of which the -CallIll person(s) acted, executed the instrument. iot WITN y hand and official seal. 77 3 SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. 3 �t CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF HED DOCUMENT L ❑ INDIVIDUAL yy ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE(S) TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ' ❑ GENERAL ATTORNEY-IN-FACT NUMBER OF PA ' GES ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR i 17 OTHER: � X. DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: '31 NAME OF°ERSDN(S)OR ENTITY(IFSI cY NX 'Ail -- -- SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED A30VE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•8236 Remmet Ave..P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant to the City of Encinitas, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned agent on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas adopted on November 9, 1994 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: By: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas 9274-G, 04-202 CDP, Easement for City Highway and Slope, Bagley, Seeman Dr and Encinitas Blvd, 4-13-05 3 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, those parties concerned, desire to have the Deed of Trust recorded (dd/mm/yy) `-f U as File/Page No. 05-- 25 t j jc J and modification of Deed of Trust recorded i-i , as File/Page No. n-t),,- , subordinated to Easement for City Highway for PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY("DOCUMENT"hereinafter). Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE hereby waives the priority of said Deed of Trust in favor of said DOCUMENT to the same extent as if said DOCUMENT had been executed prior to said Deed of Trust. r BENEFICIARY STEE/ BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE BY: ,j Title:.` r ;-y (; � %: ,✓`� Title: DATED DATED Signatures to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgments . 9274-G, 04-202 CDP, Easement for City Highway and Slope, Bagley, Seeman Dr and Encinitas Blvd, 4-13-05 4 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT K� State of California County of 1;C1 V1 LLZ ss. �I On � CC,( �� C , before me, �r f�rd ate _ u ''� � f Name and Title of Officer e. ' _ ( g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") per appeared �C� 2. 2'l , f� /. , - ��I Cie Vt.t Names)of Signer(s) 3 personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence suStE FRiEDtMAW to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are _ Commission#1443327 subscribed to the within instrument and -s - Notary Public-California acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed �- son Diego County the same in his/her/their authorized My Comm.Expires Oct 3,2007 capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) ' acted, executed the,in rument. ' j I� fiVVI ESS my ha a official. Place Notary Seal Above ((( Ignature of Notary fublic r OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document h and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document- Description of Attached Docume Title or Type of Document: Uti <7 ?' Document Date: _ Number of Page T. h cSigner(s) Other Than Named Above: rh �; F; Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Individual -------- Corporate Officer—Title(s): — - "thum[D Partner—–_ Limited General Attorney in Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other: Signer Is Representing: Ave r) b'x 2e07- 3-2a0 2 F u. 'uo S9r' gpr,rd, Ca T I F-,e!-800-876-6827 I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas accepts and consents to the making of the foregoing Subordination Agreement and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. DATE: -�' BY: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas 9274-G, 04-202 CDP, Easement for City Highway and Slope, Bagley, Seeman Dr and Encinitas Blvd, 4-13-05 S EXHIBIT A A PORTION OF THAT LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT RECORDED MAY 6, 2004 AS DOC# 2004-0411432, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO BRYAN BAGLEY AND LINDSEY DUFF, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE BRYAN BAGLEY AND LINDSEY DUFF TRUST, UDT DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2003, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND, NORTH 000 46' 22" EAST, 12.01 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A 738.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 240 34' 36" WEST; THENCE, LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 280 59' 20" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 373.39 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 30.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY TO WHICH A RADIAL LINE BEARS SOUTH 04° 24' 44" EAST; THENCE, EASTERLY AND NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 840 41' 30" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 44.34 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINATION ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND, SAID POINT OF TERMINATION BEARS NORTH 000 53' 46" EAST 15.59 FEET FROM THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT 25.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 8891 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON DECEMBER 17, 1981 AS FILE NO. 81-395389. GARY K. PIRO DATE R.C.E. 24000 ENO. 21000 ,I 11,EXF'.12-31-05 S7 cIv I1 ti �� OF CAl-x��F N S 4°34'36" W(R) co m x yWo� 6� 0- 'mod z O F ►� d7 41 JI' °o 10 tid N cn N / o N m H~ - N O L=i v' O m O . O t7 b o q � o � b O - � N O Yb oy 92 r 0 y > ° ~ � y C) ti o — b cn I r z ze ~ 0 0 co CA m Z w/ co I n C ti co tT7 y +' p8A ACA Lh SEEMAN DRIVE -)Rla3_ii4L yt� rn E? :1 Hlv(l _ X AXV O �9 J�VIIV�VIJ�SJ0,LNI0d dHJ OZ .LHHH ZL 6I `ISJA1 ,,ZZ 9f ,,00 HJAOS `HNI7 A-MFIISHM QIVS JNO'Id H LfIOS `HDNjl4l `ONINiVIJdS dO LAIIOd�!1?I.L HH, WO'dd lHHH ZL'61 ISVH «ZZ M7 o00 H.INON SUVHH INIOd MVS `CNVI QIVS d0 HNI'I ATtIH.LSHM M41 O.I. IHHd S£.£8£ d0 HuNvislcl Jwv NV «ZZ of IN d0 g'IONV IV_dlXHD V HOfIO-dHL UAldf1D QIVS ONOTV A-MUSHM HjNHH.L `.LSVH «Sf7 ELI oSO HlflOS SdVgg HNII "IVIQVVd V HDIHM OZ A'M9H.L?ION HAVJNOJ `HAWaD SfUCfVll LOON OO*OZL V HO ONINNIOHg HH,L OZ .LHHd SZ_6Z AO HDNVLSIQ JdV NV AZ 8V o£8 HO gIONV 'f"LNH3 V HOfIO2IH.I. `HAIMJ QHVS ONOTd A_MHlSHMHlflOS `HDNHHl `ISV9 «bI 90 068 H.LflOS S?IVHg T01 TVICF" V HDIHM O.I. A'RIg.LSgtYMI'dON HAVDNOD `gAWfI3 SflICr" .LOON OO*OZ INHJNVI-NON V HO ONINNI099 HHl OZ 1UH3 50'6 `ISVH «917 <£S o00 HI'HON `CLWI QIVS 30 HM"I AlUaLSVH HH1 ONOTV AJUM1 -dON `HJNHHL `68£S6£-I8 'ON H T H SV 1861 `LI 2IH8WHHHQ NO VIN2IOHITdj HO H.LV.LS `A.INf10D OOHIQ NVS d0 'dAGWO3JH A.LNf10j HH.L AO gJIHHO HH.L M QTHA 1688 AHAIMS do GWDHH NO NMOHS SV HAlMD SfUGV-J L003 OO,SZ .LVH.L HO SQNII^NHl A'I2 M411ION MU L OXJ ,LHHH b9'tZ JSVg «9b £S o00 H.LWON S dVHg .LNIOd mVS `QNV'I QIVS HO aMl A'MHJ SVH MUL OZ Ml f£'bb 30 HDNVLSIQ JdV MV «0£ It ob8 10 TIONV 'IVdLNHD V HJf101aHL HAIM QIVS ONO'IV AlW H,L'dON C[NV ATtIH.LSVH `9DNHHS `LSVH «bb bZ ob0 RUIOS SdVHg HNII 'IVICF" V MMM O.I. A'MUSHMHL-dON HAVDNOH `gAIMJ QNfIOdWOD SfIIQV?I .LOON 00.0£ V do ONINNIOHg HH.L OZ LHHj 6£'£L£ Ho HDNV.LSIQ D2IV NV ,OZ 69 o8Z JO TIONV Td2I.LNHD V HOflo&lL EIAIMD C VS ONO"V A-MRLSVFI `HNII A-MUSHM QIVS ONIAVH"I `HDNEI L `ML M «9£ Jti£ oJ7Z H.LflOS S2IVHH 9M'l 'IVIQV'd V HJIHM OZ A-MM4 WON gAVDNOD `HA2M SflICF" LOON 00'8£L V 30 DWV HH.L NO ONIHg JLNIOd QIVS `JAJAlAlIJ,YB d0 .LAIIOd JMU HILL OZ LHHI I0-ZI `.LSVFI «ZZ l9b o00 HINON `QNV'I MV S do HNIZ A"RIH.LSHM allj ONO-IV A'I2IHH LION `HHNHHI `QNV'I QIVS 30 2IHNHOH ISgAU41floS HHL .LV OXIINNIOHg HNI'I ClElMJSHQ-DNIMOTIOd HHI NIHIIM ONIA'I `£00Z `£A-IVf12Igg3 QH,LVQ L(M `.LSf"dl HHf1Q AHSC II QNV AT IOV9 NVA-dg HH.L 3O SHH,Lsfixi-OD `AHmu AHSCLKI l QNV AH'IOVB NVAIIH O.L `vmuoH1IVD HO g.LV LS `OOHIQ NVS do WE[(IXODHW A,LNflOD HH L d0 ED HHO HH,L NI `Z£tl i I J70-170OZ#30Q SV 170OZ `9 AVW GICIWODHN QHHQ NI U9MDSHQ QNV'I lVH,L do NOI.LWOd V lN2lw2lsVH S ,LIRlHX3 HnrxQ Ndwgas �2I)�"t'1,9oa6a S 90'6 ll H F 0 00tVN o cl 11 \ W Oa w O II II II d' 0 W1 o rn cl� 11 o a �., F CIO 11 � - W ll WW ll M oz 1 uu M � ti In. O N Ml - 0 N O R N LO cq Q M l M N M 0 N z 1 '08 0 W° tm oa 3 \ Z9 II q °cz m Q" C aa�n � m .ZL'61 d w Io'z1 / a g N N C4� W46 La Mmte COMPIMY at Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 25 0 LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619)462-9861 ® Fax: (619)462-9859 April 19, 2005 Job No. 04-4659 TO: Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Addendum to: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation .Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development, Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd., Encinitas, California In accordance with your request, we are providing this addendum to the above Geotechnical Report, which is dated August 23, 2004. Page 10 of the document, under the Site Preparation section, states that "soil removals are expected to extend to a depth of about 8 feet below the existing grade". This statement is a typographical error and is invalid. After scraping off the mulch layer, the typical soil removals in the proposed building areas are expected to range from 1 to 2 feet in depth. It should be noted that a minor sliver of fill is located at the northwestern portion of the property as indicated on the Plot Plan attached to original report. These fills may extend to a maximum thickness of 6 feet. If any improvements are planned for this fill area we recommend removal and recompaction of the fill materials as well. This addendum report should be placed with the original report and become an integral part of that document. If you should have any questions after reviewing this addendum, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C.W. La Monte Company Inc. ' •��y � 12/3/05 1v�P- Q Nth. 405 * ; Cl' d W. La Monte, � R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 C W, Mon* Soil and Foundation Engineers REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California Job No. 04-4659 August 23,2004 PREPARED FOR: Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, California 92024 PREPARED BY: C-W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. 4350 Palm Avenue#25 ♦ La Mesa, CA 91941 ♦ 619-462-9861 ♦ Fax 619 462-9859 Molat6e Pt Wti 1 'In Int UqWY Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE,SUITE 25 ® LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619)462-9861 ® Fax: (619)462-9859 August 23, 2004 Job No. 04-4659 TO: Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California In accordance with your request, we have performed a soils investigation for the proposed residential project. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations contained herein are adhered to. The proposed building site is overlain with about 1 to 2 feet of loose topsoil materials that require mitigation. Remedial work may either include removal and recompaction of the loose soil or a deepened foundation system. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C.W. La Monte Company Inc. EV- IMI" � !z-31-05 Cliff W. La Monte, ©tcw� * ' R.C. . 25241, G.E. 0495 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................... 1 SCOPEOF WORK ............................................ ............. FINDINGS.............................................................................................. 3 SiteDescription.................................................................................................................3 Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................3 GroundWater...................................................................................................................4 ExistingConcrete Slab..................................................................................................... 5 TECTONIC SETTING........................................... ............................... SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.............................................................. 5 Uniform Building Code Design Information............................................................... 5 Maximum Bedrock Acceleration...................................................................................6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS............................................................................ 6 CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................ 9 EarthWork and Grading................................................................................................ 9 General ............................. . . FillSuitability..................................................................................... 9 Observation of Grading ....................................................................... 9 SitePreparation.................................................................................. 9 Compaction and Method of Filling...................................................... 10 Excavation Characteristics.................................................................. 10 TemporaryCut Slopes....................................................................... 11 SurfaceDrainage .............................................................................. 11 ErosionControl .............................................................................................................. 11 FOUNDATIONS............................................................................................................ 11 General .......................... Dimensions and Embedment.............................................................. 12 Deepened Foundations...................................................................... 12 SoilBearing Value............................................................................. 12 Lateral Load Resistance ..................................................................... 12 Foundation Reinforcement................................................................. 13 Anticipated Settlements..................................................................... 13 Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes .............................................. 13 Foundation Excavation Observation.................................................... 13 Foundation Plans Review................................................................... 14 ConcreteSlabs-on-grade...............................................................................................14 Interior Floor Slabs............................................................................ 14 Moisture Protection........................................................................... 14 Interior Slab Curing Time................................................................... 14 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................ 15 Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures................................................... 15 PassivePressure ............................................................................... 15 Active Pressure for Retaining Walls..................................................... 15 Retaining Wall Foundations ............................................................... 15 Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation ............................................ 16 Backfill............................................................................................ 16 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................... ........ LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION.................................... 16 CONSTRUCTION NOTES ...................................................................... 18 F LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................... 18 ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure No. 1 Site Location Map Figure No.2 Plot Plan Figure No. 3 Test Excavation Locations APPENDICIES Appendix"A"-Standard Grading Specifications Appendix "B"-Unified Soil Classification Chart REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential project. The project site is a vacant lot located at the northwest corner of the Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. intersection in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, CA. Figure Number 2 (attached) provides a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property. The property is a vacant, irregular-shaped parcel of land, approximately 1.5 acres in size. Generally, the site topography consists of level terrain with a relatively short perimeter bluff. It is our understanding the property will be divided into 2 separate lots, which will each receive a new single-family residence. We anticipate the structures will be a maximum of two-stories in height, will be of conventional construction materials and founded on shallow foundations with raised wooden and concrete slab-on-grade floors. Site development plans were not available at the time of our investigation. However, we anticipate site grading for the residences will be minimal as required to provide positive drainage. No new artificial slopes are planned. An existing concrete slab is located at the northwesterly portion of the property. This slab may be incorporated into a new garage structure. Restrained masonry retaining walls, up to 8 feet in height, may be used in the proposed garage construction. To aid in the preparation of this report, the client provided us with a Topographic Survey Map. This plan was used as the basis for our Site Plan preparation and mapping and is included herewith as Figure Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and his design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. - SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this investigation was limited to: surface reconnaissance, research of readily available geotechnical literature pertinent to the site; subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to • Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed grading and construction. • Based on laboratory testing, empirical observations, and our experience with j similar sites is the area, identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. • Describe the general geology of the site including possible geologic factors that could have an effect on the site development, and provide seismic design parameters established in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (Tables 16-J, Q, R, S, T and U). • Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. • Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading. • Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Provide design criteria for the design of earth retaining walls. • Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, logs of the test trenches and a summary of our laboratory test results. We did not evaluate the site for hazardous materials contamination. Further, we did not perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 2 i FINDINGS Site Description The project site is a vacant lot located at the northwest corner of the Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. intersection in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, CA. The property is somewhat rectangular shaped lot with a curved southerly boundary conforming to the alignment of adjacent Encinitas Blvd. The lot has about 400 feet of frontage along Encinitas Blvd. And is about 212 to 176 feet deep. Refer to the attached Plot Plan (Figure 1) for a layout of the site. Generally, the site topography over the easterly portion of the property consists of relatively level mesa-type terrain. A steep,cut slope is located along the southerly boundary, parallel to Encinitas Blvd. The slope is approximately 20 feet in maximum height. The angle of the slope ranges from 0.5:1.0 (Horizontal to Vertical) to 1.0:1.0. At the west end of the mesa area, a natural sandstone bluff descends to terrain sloping moderately the west. The bluff is approximately 15 feet in maximum height and is on average about at a 1.0:1.0 slope angle. Elevations on the property appear to range from about 285 feet (MSL) at the extreme southwest corner to about 328 feet (MSL) at the east end of the lot. Most of the mesa top area is covered with a thin veneer of mulch material. Vegetation consists of a light growth of grasses and weeds and shrubs and a few clusters of trees. Existing improvements include an asphalt-paved driveway located along the northerly property boundary. The driveway approaches an isolated concrete slab located at the northwesterly portion of the property. The slab is located on a relatively level cut and fill pad. The resultant west facing fill slope is a maximum of 6 feet in height. Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain with localized areas of artificial fill and Quaternary-aged sedimentary terrace deposits with associated surficial deposits consisting of residuum and topsoil. These soil types are described individually below in order of increasing age. Also refer the attached Test Excavation Logs, Figure No. 3. Mulch: The easterly mesa top is mantled with a thin layer of organic mulch material. The mulch is relatively continuous over the ground surface and is approximately 4 to 8 inches in thickness. ' Artificial Fill (Qaf): A minor sliver fill was placed west of and adjacent to the concrete slab at the northwesterly portion of the property. The fill was placed Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 3 to produce a level pad area and has generated a fill slope approximately 6 feet in maximum height. Refer to Figure No. 1 for the approximate location of the fill soils. The fills are assumed to be derived from on-site excavation and consist primarily of silty sand materials. The fills are undocumented and therefore, are not suitable to support structures and improvements in their present loose condition. Topsoil: The site is overlain with veneer of natural ground topsoil materials. The encountered topsoil is approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in thickness and consist primarily of dark brown to brown, loose to medium dense, silty sands. The topsoil not suitable to support structures and additional fills in its present loose condition. Residual Soils : A isolated area of residual soil was encountered at the southeasterly portion of the site. The encountered residual soil profile is about one foot in thickness and consists of dark brown, firm to stiff, sandy clays. The residuum is low to moderately expansive. Terrace Deposits (Qt): The site is underlain at depth by competent sedimentary terrace deposits. Typically, the encountered formation consists of reddish brown, very dense, silty sands. The upper surface of the terrace is moderately cemented. The terrace materials are outcropped in the southerly cut slope and westerly bluff. Ground Water No groundwater was encountered in our test excavations at the time of our investigation. However, during periods of prolonged precipitation we would anticipate temporary perched groundwater at the topsoil-terrace contact. If such groundwater develops it is anticipated to be occasional and temporary. Further, it should be kept in mind, that any required grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 4 Existing Concrete Slab As described previously an existing concrete slab is located at the northwesterly portion of the lot. Visually, it appears the slab may be over 10 inches in thickness (we did not verify this opinion). An excavation was placed adjacent to the south end of the slab. The excavation exposed a perimeter foundation about 24 inches deep, which extends down to competent natural ground. Based on these findings it is our opinion the slab may be incorporated into the new construction if appropriately located. TECTONIC SETTING No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by `a series of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north-westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is located about 7 kilometers east of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. However, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered the most significant nearby fault with respect to the potential for seismically induced ground shaking (due to its closer proximity to the site). Therefore, we recommend the structure be designed for at least a 6.9 earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Uniform Building Code Design Information Seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, are presented below in Table. These design factors are based on subsurface soil and bedrock conditions and distance of the site from known active faults. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 164 Soil Profile Type Sc 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.56 Nv 16-5 Near Source Factor Na 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1.2 16-U Seismic Source Type B Maximum Bedrock Acceleration Based;upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site ts� estimated to be 0.40 g. For structural design purposes, we recommend a dampin ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS General: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed development. Ground Shaking: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity. Landslide Potential and Slope Stability: As part of this investigation we reviewed the Publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan and Giffen, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in an area classified as 3-1. The 3-1 is a general classification assigned to areas Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 6 generally susceptible to slope movement. Slopes within the 3-1 classification are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. It should be noted that that this reference, typically classifies most hillside or sloping terrain, (that is not underlain by landslides or landslide prone formations) within the 3 category. Therefore this classification can be considered somewhat favorable, within the limitations presented above. The site is capped with cemented and stable terrace bedrock materials and the site topography is gentle to moderate. Therefore, the potential for deep seated landslide failure is considered low. The existing cut slope and bluff are at relatively steep slope angles. The terrace materials comprising the slope face typically possess high soil strength characteristics with favorable geologic structure and are considered inherently stable. However, the subject cut slope has been excavated to an angle considerably steeper than the original natural-topography. Due to this steep angle natural weathering and erosional processes (the col 0*0d actions of wind,water,temperature,plants,seismic shaking and gravity) are acdoLem and magnified. Occasional sloughing, mass wasting and minor surficial slope failures are anticipated due to the steep angle of the slope. The actual rates of;weathering processes are highly unpredictable, but can be accelerated by prolonged severe precipitation and climatic conditions. These potential problems will result most commonly in periodic maintenance issues involving cleaning and removal of detritus. It is our understanding the proposed structures will be setback at least 20 feet from the top of the cut slope and bluff. This distance in our opinion is an adequate distance, and slope stability should not be an issue for the proposed development. Liquefaction: The materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and groundwater conditions. Flooding. The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500- year floodplains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Tsunamis and Seiches: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Based on the project's bayside location, the site is considered to possess a low risk potential from tsunamis. Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. Due to the sites location and distance from large bodies of water seiche hazard is considered to have a relatively low risk potential. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 7 CONCLUSIONS In general, our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. . The most significant findings and geotechnical conditions that will influence site development are summarized below. Detailed recommendations follow this section of the report. • The project area is generally underlain by competent Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The formational soils were generally overlain by a relatively thin veneer of surficial soils consisting of natural topsoil, residual soil, and man- placed fill. The Quaternary-age materials are generally competent; however, the surficial topsoil, residual soil, and man-placed fill materials are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support fill and/or settlement- sensitive improvements. As such, the existing topsoil, residual soil, and fill mafe�ibl will need to be removed from areas to support fill and/or settlement- serutire;improvements and, where necessary to achieve planned site grades, be Is*d.as properly compacted fill. In lieuA0� e above described removal and recompaction grading operation, the sitey also be developed with minimal grading by placing the structure on a deepened foundation system. Foundations shall penetrate the loose topsoil and-residual clay section and be embedded in the competent terrace deposits at depth. Additional slab reinforcement and thickness will be required if this option is selected. Refer to Foundation and Floor Slab sections of this report. • A thin layer of moderately expansive, residual subsoil was encountered at the southeasterly portion of the property. Either penetrating the clay with foundation excavations or removing and mixing the material with the more abundant non-expansive on-site soil can easily mitigate this condition. • An adequate setback is required from the top of existing steep slopes. In our opinion 20 feet is an adequate distance. If structures are located closer to the slope a deepened foundation may be necessary. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 8 RECOMMENDATIONS Earth Work and Grading General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of C.W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. Fill Suitability On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The on-site materials, for the most part, posses a very low to low expansion potential. Any potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the GeoteehriiCl Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a potential .' rt source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that approp g can be accomplished. The type of material considered most desirrabl �t is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or cla ' Observa,gq ding ✓: Observatio � es g by the soil engineer is essential rva Cari during the grading operations.obse r ange from continuous to an as-needed basis, based on the project situation. Tlus 'aofivs the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated b our investigatic y a 'Mow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual fiLld conditions'' �A , and to determine that the grading proceeds in with accordanc with the recommendations contained herein. g e Site Prepir`ation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the all vegetation and deleterious materials from the portion of lot that will be graded and that will receive improvements. This should include all root balls from the trees removed and all significant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off-site. The existing mulch cover should also be removed from building areas. The removed mulch may be stockpiled and used for landscaping purposes as needed. After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should begin with the removal all existing loose fill and topsoil material in areas that will support settlement-sensitive Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 9 improvements or receive fill. As the project is presently planned, soil removals are expected to extend to a depth of about 8 feet below the existing grade. It should be noted that thicker removal areas might be encountered in localized areas. The removals should extend laterally a minimum of 5 beyond the perimeter of proposed buildings or to a distance equal to the depth of removal (whichever is greater). The loose soil shall be removed to expose competent natural ground as determined by our field representative during grading. All removal areas should be approved by a representative of our office prior to the placement of fill or improvements. We recommend a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted material under pavement areas. Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Please note the above earthwork recommendations do not apply or will be significantly modified if it is opted to construct the building on a deepened foundation system that extends down to firm natural ground in lieu of the grading alternative. Compaction and Method of Filling All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557-91. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots,vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum width. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocs or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath all pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and. the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix A. Excavation Characteristics The on-site topsoil materials are likely to be excavated with easy to moderate effort using large excavating equipment. The underlying terrace deposits are moderately Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 10 cemented and will be difficult to excavate with light equipment. No significant amounts of oversize materials are anticipated during site excavations. The Temporary Cut Slopes We anticipate temporary slopes placed in bedrock may be cut at a minimum inclination of 0.5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) for heights of up to 10 feet. The surficial topsoil, fill, or residual soil overlying the bedrock should be inclined at a 1.0:1.0 slope angle. Actual safe slope angles should be verified by the geotechnical consultant at the time of excavation. It should be noted that the contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides where friable sands or loose soils are exposed. The contractor's "responsible person', as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as. part of the contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local,,eta .. v;A safety regulations. Surface Paid dr ` kP e designed to collect and direct surface water away from the propos it d toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas, a minimums one percent should be maintained. The ground around the propos be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the build" ' pp ding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to build'. y,at a gradient of at least two percent. Erosion In- . ate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction fa .prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, po n.dS died building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management Practicer( Mi )"erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local and federal governing agencies. FOUNDATIONS General Based on the findings of our investigation, it is our opinion the proposed structures may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings founded Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 11 in properly recompacted fill or firm natural ground. The predominant on-site soils are non-expansive and therefore no recommendations for heaving soils are required. Dimensions and Embedment Conventional shallow foundations may be utilized in the support of the proposed structures when founded on properly recompacted fill soils. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. The table below is provided below, which suggests minimum foundation dimensions: Number of Floors Width of Footing Embedment Depth Supported by (Inches) Below Undisturbed The Foundation Ground Surface (Inches 1, , 12 12 2 15 18 3 18 24 Isolated pad footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. A tie beam is r s the garage door openings. Deept .0 ations Deep, may be used in lieu of the previously described removal and reco `T.`g operation. Footings supporting the structures should extend throu fill, topsoil and residual soil and be embedded at least 6 inches into th ;; ce materials. It is estimated the deepened foundation excavations shall a approximate depth of 2 to 3 feet below the existing grade to reach ent. The excavation may be backfilled with a two-sack cement slurr the design bottom elevation of the footing. The minimum fotnmensions, provided above, also apply to deepened foundations. S 2000 psf may be assumed for said footings when founded a minimum o ches into firm natural ground or properly compacted fill. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third, when considering wind and/or seismic loading. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.45. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 12 355 pounds per cubic foot, only for embedment portions in firm terrace deposits or recompacted fill. A passive resistance value of 200 pcf should be used for embedment portions that extend through in-place topsoil. These values assume the footings are poured tight against undisturbed, natural ground soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Foundation Reinforcement t It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least four No. 4 steel bars; two reinforcing bars shall be located near the top of the foundation, and two bars near the bottom. Alternatively, two No. 5 steel bars may used; one bar near the top of the foundation and one near the bottom of the foundation. The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to normal, post construction settlement or heaving, resulting from variations in the subsurface soil conditions. This recommendation does not supersede reinforcement required for structural considerations. Anticipated Settlements Basel-brt sour- experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should exile �tlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inches under proposed structt� ods. It sh : ;nized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and fo' ' " atii k due to shrinkage during curing and/or redistribution of stresses and sQ� n_ j nay be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessi,e've movements. Found i i s #back from Top of Slopes We. t a minimum horizontal setback from the outer edge of the fgotin to: gent slope face be provided. In general, In general we recommend a ` e` om the southerly cut slope and 15 feet from the westerly bluff 1 e£b ilo etback distance from the top of slopes may be modified by using deepened footir gs.' Footing setback is measured from competent soil and should neglect any 160se or soft native soils that may occur at the top of a natural slope. Plans for any footings that will not comply with the specified setbacks should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for specific review and approval prior to construction. Foundation Excavation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify compliance with the Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 13 foundation recommendations presented herein. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. Foundation Plans Review The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. Concrete Slabs-on-grade Interior Floor Slabs Concrete floor slabs, placed on recompacted fill shall have a minimum thickness of four inches and be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18- inch centers, each way. If the slab is placed on undisturbed topsoil (deepened footing option), we recommend a five- inch thick slab reinforced with No. 4 reinforcing bars placed at 18- —in 61 - centers, each way. A e.inforcement should be placed on concrete "chairs" or spacers, to within the r leith rd of the slab. Moisture Protection Where the concrete on-grade floor slabs will support moisture-sensitive floor coverings, it should be underlain by a moisture barrier. The slab shall be underlain with two inches of clean sand overlying a 6 mil Visqueen moisture barrier, overlying the native or imported sand material. Joints in the Visqueen sheeting should overlapped at least 12 inches. Interior Slab Curing Time Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing can be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor-covering product. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 14 Exterior Concrete Flatwork On-grade exterior concrete slabs for walks and patios should have a thickness of four inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on center each way. Exterior slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. Where slabs abut foundations they should be doweled into the footings. Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures Passive Pressure Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.45. h : assive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of unds per cubic foot, only for embedment portions in firm terrace deposits or Teq, s pacted fill. A passive resistance value of 200 pcf should be used for -place topsoil. These values assume the ment portions that extend through in frig gs are poured tight against undisturbed, natural ground soil. If a combination passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by t � ird. Aetlive Pressure for Retaining Walls 'dive soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth r g structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the Lure of a fluid weighing 30 and 45 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These p ores do not consider any other surcharge and assume proper drainage and 'Jackfill material. ng Wall Foundations g walls associated with the structure should be supported by foundations minimum dimensions as recommended in the "Foundations" section of this 4 -4659 August 23, 2004 Page 15 Watero Subdrain Observation They 'tect shall provide specifications for retaining wall drainage and Ala waterp't etaining walls that are not properly waterproofed and drained are potentia y s lect to cosmetic staining (such as efflorescence), surficial spalling and decompositioi- and/or excessive moisture emissions (and resulting problems) into interior space areas. Waterproof seals should be provided for utilities directed through the retaining walls. The Geotechnical Consultant or firm responsible for special inspection should be requested to verify that waterproofing has been properly applied. Since this is not a special inspection requirement, this observation will not be performed unless the Geotechnical Consultant or special inspection firm is specifically requested to do so. Backfill All wall backfill soils shall consists of select sandy materials (such as the on-site sandst And should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backf' until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FIELD INVESTIGATION Five wally excavated test excavations were placed on the site, which were placed S ped Ma ly in areas where structures will be located and where representative soil condi. ` were expected. Our investigation also included a visual site rests ' ,,ssance and observation of existing outcrops. The excavations were visually inso d and logged by our field geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. 3. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix B). LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests and evaluations performed is presented below: CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 16 Classification System, MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the test excavation logs. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory rd with on the he Standard Test D-1557, Method A. The resu lts of this test are presented following page. Sample Location T-2 @ 15 to 2.0' Sample Description Red-Brown, silty sand (SM) Maximum Density 126 pcf Optimum Moisture 9.5 % DIRECT SHEAR DATA: Sample Location T-2 @ 15 to 2.0' Angle of Friction 31 degrees arent Cohesion 100 psf EI�A ` , DEX: Expansion Index testing on a remolded sample was perfoxme ; xepresentative sample of the existing clayey subsoil. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample was brou ht to near optimum moisture content. The specimen was then compacted in 4-mc Mmeter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom; a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 psf). The sample was saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported below as the total vertical displacement. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 17 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample Location TE 1, 1' to 2' Initial Moisture Content 12.0 % Initial Dry Density 110 pcf Final Moisture Content 51.5 % Expansion Index Classification Low to Moderate CONSTRUCTION NOTES It is the responsibility of the Owner and/or Developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of Personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of other is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. LIMITATIONS e recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Appendix Chapter 33 of the{Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to ver` compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to# kw design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those antpated prior to start of construction. Thearecommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate the of project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soh conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 18 brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. site This office should be advised of any changes in the scope or coop tained herropos are grading so that we may determine if the recommendations appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations s should be modified appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or ernment Codeproperties. may soccur. Due to changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Go such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. In the performance,of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill-ordinarily.exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar ,conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subs ace cQntlitigns may vary from those encountered at the locations where our bo ' and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and reco ` based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be reppo f� ' : data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be respond f ',,interpretation s by others of the information developed. Our services sessional consultation and observation only, and no warranty 11- 3A ofer, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with 09 ed or to be performed b us, or our proposal for consulting or the w©r�C�pt'�o, m p y Y p P other services, pr by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. It is th responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the . infgrr tiers nd recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the. sou -t= engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the pro Vs plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patters,which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 19 N o N 3A1 d d 31S _ O z .z�•a�n a.sv.�. `H (� N LL� X M 1 X pn n R \ l cnv N O� M r� x In ri X v C4 C-A U5 s a i ID z Mx n Mx Mx "� $o� 4 n a e1' ` n X nic � O cv N N nx 4ox t �. X �x N M ui N • 1`+,1 X "' O� O x M 17x 04 IL �ij X X _ N NX. M x N M M M MX N N N X to N. In N s fq N in Mx X Mx MX Mx .6?.1 MX M MX + W N N {1 h M hx X X 1 M n ui 1 - M M OR M N N rn X uQ 1 Mx M Mx nx M M y X X jVy V N d^ _� Mx Mx N MX NNSx �N � Lo Ln e7x �C M N N t0 x nX vi X N In I. yn ' MX ( I i rM �Sr£ N Y I M x s "X X ,:I C4 � e j m ri ai ri 1 r�� M pNj M •t MN,� X X X 3 N X j M tn ts 104 � ! ! K 1 - ► 1 0 � �x / ! o r X w � a H � ° mwN,, r, SITE LOCATION MAP Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California 1 r „ H X14 , all f a it. Z9 MN 0 9 9 MIL 13 0 1000 Q 1000 2000_' 3000 4000 FEE Printed from,TOPO1 01997 ?'du x (ww ,tO . :carry), -W. L Monte Qomt)aLny Inc. Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 04-4659 F�- igure No. 2 ^ now SAMPLE n4 TEST EXCAVATION NO. I � zd ,%] [ y n ,�� M *3 P Elevation:f 326' Date: 8/2/04 Excavation Method:Hand Excavat 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown,slightly moist,loose, silty sand. 1 CL- RESIDUAL SOIL SC Dark brown,slightly moist to moist, firm to stiff,clayey sand-sandy clay. 2 SM TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) 3 Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 4 Excavation Bottom 5 6 7 SAMPLE n TEST EXCAVATION NO, 2 5 bzd 00 r. Elevationf szss' Date:8/2/04 Excavation Method xana Excavated SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown slightly moist loose silty sand. 121 2 3.8 SM TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 Excavation Bottom 4 5 6 7 Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas BIN Encinitas California Soil and Foundation Engineers PROJECT NO. 04-4659 FIGURE NO. 3a AMPLE o o TEST EXCAVATION NO. 3 x y K .. in Elevation:f 326 Date: 8/2/04 Excavation Method:Hand Excavated o k y SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown,slightly moist,loose, silty sand. 2 TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) SM Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 4 Excavation Bottom 5 6 7 SAMPLE z o o TEST EXCAVATION NO. 4 Elevation± 324' Date:8/2/04 Excavation Method Hand Excavated SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown slightly moist loose silty sand. 2 SM TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 Excavation Bottom 4 5 6 7 - Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas California Soil and Foundation Engineers PROJECT NO. 044659 FIGURE NO. 3b VIEW AMPLE � d R ., TEST EXCAVATION NO. 5 Md oo ZElevation::k 317' Date: 8/2/04 Excavation Method:Hand Excavated d y SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL(Qaf): j SM Brown,slightly moist,loose, silty sand a little gravel and concrete debris 2 SM TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) 3 Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 4 Excavation Bottom 5 Slab Footing Depth Approximately 24 inches 6 7 Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas California SO11 and Foundation Engineers Encinitas, NO. 044659 FIGURE NO. 3c Appendix "A" STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which C.W. La Monte Company Inc. is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record. GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist is the Owner's or Builders' representative on the Project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils reports. B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material,rate of placement,and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site. This removal shall be concluded prior to + placing fill. B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer, as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. The Soils Engineer must approve any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may r prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved by the Soils Engineer. D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer and/or governing agency. E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or un-weathered bedrock materials,the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 2 COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks. f 3. The Soils Engineer shall supervise the distribution of rocks. C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable should not be used in the compacted fill. E. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. F. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor should re-work the fill until the Soils Engineer approves it. H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D-1557-91,the five-layer method will be used.) If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition,the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. L All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to-one vertical,in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. J. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or similar materials, unless otherwise specified in the soil report. K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. 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,or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion or by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 3 CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer,and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. GRADING CONTROL A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placement. These criteria will vary, depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests may also be conducted on the surface material to receive fills as determined by the Soils Engineer. E D. All clean-outs, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS GA. The Contractor shall provide necessary erosion control measures, during grading and prior to the completion i and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. D. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a qualified soil engineering firm. These materials shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to completion of grading operations. E. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with section 1541 of Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA. FOUNDATIONS NEAR TOPS OF SLOPES A. Foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, et cetera, when located seven feet and further away from the top of slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended soil bearing value. If proposed foundations and footings are located closer than seven feet from the top of slopes, they shall be deepened at least one foot below an imaginary plain projected from a point seven feet horizontally inside the top of the fill slope and parallel to the face of the fill slope. 1 Appendix "B" UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOI L DESCRIPTION I. COARSE GRAINED: More than half of material is larger than No.200 sieve size. GRAVELS: More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size but smaller than 3" GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel sand mixtures,little or no fines GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures (Appreciable amount of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel sand, clay mixtures SANDS: More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand,gravelly sands,little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands,poorly graded sand and silty mixtures (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand and clay mixtures IL FINE GRAINED: More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,sandy silt 1 or clayey-silt with slight plasticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, Less than 50 gravelly clays,sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,elastic silt Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays greater than 50 OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils r, Wrk 1A MORk C004=Y Soil and Foundation Engineers REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California Job No. 04-4659 1 August 23,2004 � JAN 1 F � s PREPARED FOR: Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, California 92024 PREPARED BY: C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. 4350 Palm Avenue #25 ♦ La Mesa, CA 91941 ♦ 619-462-9861 ♦ Fax 619 462-9859 r, C, W,� La Monte Company, Int Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE,SUITE 25 ® LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619) 462-9861 ® Fax: (619) 462-9859 August 23, 2004 Job No. 04-4659 TO: Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California In accordance with your request, we have performed a soils investigation for the proposed residential project. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations contained herein are adhered to. The proposed building site is overlain with about 1 to 2 feet of loose topsoil materials that require mitigation. Remedial work may either include removal and recompaction of the loose soil or a deepened foundation system. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C.W. La Monte Company Inc. Ex IT3U 5 lt3iM! No. 495 iiiiM►►►► Iz e25, OrEgc hM�C'�' Clef f6oyd W. La Monte, CA.�� R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 1 ......................................... SCOPE OF WORK ................................... 2 ............................................... FINDINGS.................................... .......................................................... SiteDescription.................................................................................................................3 Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................3 4 GroundWater............................................................ Existing Concrete Slab................................................................................................... 5 TECTONIC SETTING................ ................................................. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS....... ............•••••""""""""" 5 .................... Uniform Building Code Design Information.............. ................................................5 ...................................... Maximum Bedrock Acceleration ......•••"•""" GEOLOGICHAZARDS ............................................................................ CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................. Earth Work and Grading .............................................9 ................................................... General ............................................................................................. Fill Suitability................................................................................................. ............... 9 Observation of Grading •••••••••.•' SitePreparation.... ........................................................................ 9 Compaction and Method of Filling........... ................................... 10 Excavation Characteristics. •••••.•••••••••""""....""""""" 1 ........................ Temporary Cut Slopes ................................ 11 ....................................... SurfaceDrainage .............................................................................. ErosionControl ..............................................................................................................11 FOUNDATIONS .............. 11 ......................................... ....................................... General . ....................................... ...... ......................................... Dimensions and Embedment..... ..................••"•"""""'"" ................... Deepened Foundations.. ................................................... 1 Soil Bearing Value............................................................................. 12 Lateral Load Resistance ........... ......................................................... 12 Foundation Reinforcement ...............................'••"""""""""" 1 ................................................................ 13 Anticipated Settlements.......... Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes .............................................. 13 Foundation Excavation Observation ........................"""" .................... Foundation Plans Review...... ....... ..................•'•""""""" . .................. Concrete Slabs-on-grade .............. 14 ................................... ....................................... Interior Floor Slabs............................................................................ 14 Moisture Protection.... ..... ...................................................... 1 Interior Slab Curing Time................................................................... 15 14 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ... .... .......................•.............""""""' Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures...................................................15 Passive Pressure .. ....... .......................................................... 15 X Active Pressure for Retaining Walls ................................. 15 .................... Retaining Wall Foundations ............................................................... 15 Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation ............................................ 16 Backfill.................... .......................... 16 .............................................. FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................ 16 LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION.................................... CONSTRUCTION NOTES ....................................................... 18 LIMITATIONS ................. ........................................................ ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure No.1 Site Location Map Figure No.2 Plot Plan Figure No.3 Test Excavation Locations APPENDICIES Appendix"A"-Standard Grading Specifications Appendix"B"-Unified Soil Classification Chart REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential project. The project site is a vacant lot located at the northwest corner of the Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. intersection in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, CA. Figure Number 2 (attached) provides a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property. The property is a vacant, irregular-shaped parcel of land, approximately 1.5 acres in size. Generally, the site topography consists of level terrain with a relatively short perimeter bluff. It is our understanding the property will be divided into 2 separate lots, which will each receive a new single-family residence. We anticipate the structures will be a maximum of two-stories in height, will be of conventional construction materials and founded on shallow foundations with raised wooden and concrete slab-on-grade floors. Site development plans were not available at the time of our investigation. However, we anticipate site grading for the residences will be minimal as required to provide positive drainage. No new artificial slopes are planned. An existing concrete slab is located at the northwesterly portion of the property. This slab may be incorporated into a new garage structure. Restrained masonry retaining walls, up to 8 feet in height, may be used in the proposed garage construction. To aid in the preparation of this report, the client provided us with a Topographic Survey Map. This plan was used as the basis for our Site Plan preparation and mapping and is included herewith as Figure Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and his design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. SCOPE OF WORK N The scope of this investigation was limited to: surface reconnaissance, research of readily available geotechnical literature pertinent to the site; subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: • Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed grading and construction. • Based on laboratory testing, empirical observations, and our experience with similar sites is the area, identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. • Describe the general geology of the site including possible geologic factors that could have an effect on the site development, and provide seismic design parameters established in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (Tables 16-J, Q, R,S,T and U). Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. • Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading. • Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Provide design criteria for the design of earth retaining walls. • Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, logs of the test trenches and a summary of our laboratory test results. We did not evaluate the site for hazardous materials contamination. Further, we did not perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 2 FINDINGS Site Description The project site is a vacant lot located at the northwest corner of the Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. intersection in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, CA. The property is somewhat rectangular shaped lot with a curved southerly boundary conforming to the alignment of adjacent Encinitas Blvd. The lot has about 400 feet of frontage along Encinitas Blvd. And is about 212 to 176 feet deep. Refer to the attached Plot Plan (Figure 1) for a layout of the site. Generally, the site topography over the easterly portion of the property consists of relatively level mesa-type terrain. A steep cut slope is located along the southerly boundary, parallel to Encinitas Blvd. The slope is approximately 20 feet in maximum height. The angle of the slope ranges from 0.5:1.0 (Horizontal to Vertical) to 1.0:1.0. At the west end of the mesa area, a natural sandstone bluff descends to terrain sloping moderately the west. The bluff is approximately 15 feet in maximum height and is on average about at a 1.0:1.0 slope angle. Elevations on the property appear to range from about 285 feet (MSL) at the extreme southwest corner to about 328 feet (MSL) at the east end of the lot. Most of the mesa top area is covered with a thin veneer of mulch material. Vegetation consists of a light growth of grasses and weeds and shrubs and a few clusters of trees. Existing improvements include an asphalt-paved driveway located along the northerly property boundary. The driveway approaches an isolated concrete slab located at the northwesterly portion of the property. The slab is located on a relatively level cut and fill pad. The resultant west facing fill slope is a maximum of 6 feet in height. Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain with localized areas of artificial fill and Quaternary-aged sedimentary terrace deposits with associated surficial deposits consisting of residuum and topsoil. These soil types are described individually below in order of increasing age. Also refer the attached Test Excavation Logs, Figure No. 3. Mulch: The easterly mesa top is mantled with a thin layer of organic mulch material. The mulch is relatively continuous over the ground surface and is approximately 4 to 8 inches in thickness. Artificial Fill (Qaf): A minor sliver fill was placed west of and adjacent to the concrete slab at the northwesterly portion of the property. The fill was placed Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 3 to produce a level pad area and has generated a fill slope approximately 6 feet `. in maximum height. Refer to Figure No. 1 for the approximate location of the fill soils. The fills are assumed to be derived from on-site excavation and consist primarily of silty sand materials. The fills are undocumented and therefore, are not suitable to support structures and improvements in their present loose condition. Topsoil: The site is overlain with veneer of natural ground topsoil materials. The encountered topsoil is approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in thickness and consist primarily of dark brown to brown, loose to medium dense, silty sands. The topsoil not suitable to support structures and additional fills in its present loose condition. Residual Soils : A isolated area of residual soil was encountered at the southeasterly portion of the site. The encountered residual soil profile is about one foot in thickness and consists of dark brown, firm to stiff, sandy clays. The residuum is low to moderately expansive. Terrace Deposits (Qt): The site is underlain at depth by competent sedimentary terrace deposits. Typically, the encountered formation consists of reddish brown, very dense, silty sands. The upper surface of the terrace is moderately cemented. The terrace materials are outcropped in the southerly cut slope and westerly bluff. Ground Water No groundwater was encountered in our test excavations at the time of our investigation. However, during periods of prolonged precipitation we would anticipate temporary perched groundwater at the topsoil-terrace contact. If such groundwater develops it is anticipated to be occasional and temporary. Further, it should be kept in mind, that any required grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 4 Existing Concrete Slab As described previously an existing concrete slab is located at the northwesterly portion of the lot. Visually, it appears the slab may be over 10 inches in thickness (we did not verify this opinion). An excavation was placed adjacent to the south end of the slab. The excavation exposed a perimeter foundation about 24 inches deep, which extends down to competent natural ground. Based on these findings it is our opinion the slab may be incorporated into the new construction if appropriately located. TECTONIC SETTING No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north-westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is located about 7 kilometers east of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley,San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. However, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered the most significant nearby fault with respect to the potential for seismically induced ground shaking (due to its closer proximity to the site). Therefore, we recommend the structure be designed for at least a 6.9 earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Uniform Building Code Design Information Seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, are presented below in Table. These design factors are based on subsurface soil and bedrock conditions and distance of the site from known active faults. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type Sc 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.56 Nv 16-5 Near Source Factor Na 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor NV 1.2 16-U Seismic Source Type B Maximum Bedrock Acceleration Based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site is estimated to be 0.40 g. For structural design purposes, we recommend a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS General: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed development. Ground Shaking. A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity. Landslide Potential and Slope Stability: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan and Giffen, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in an area classified as 3-1. The 3-1 is a general classification assigned to areas Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 6 generally susceptible to slope movement. Slopes within the 3-1 classification are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. It should be noted that that this reference, typically classifies most hillside or sloping terrain, (that is not underlain by landslides or landslide prone formations) within the 3 category. Therefore this classification can be considered somewhat favorable, within the limitations presented above. The site is capped with cemented and stable terrace bedrock materials and the site topography is gentle to moderate. Therefore, the potential for deep seated landslide failure is considered low. The existing cut slope and bluff are at relatively steep slope angles. The terrace materials comprising the slope face typically possess high soil strength characteristics with favorable geologic structure and are considered inherently stable. However, the subject cut slope has been excavated to an angle considerably steeper than the original natural topography. Due to this steep angle natural weathering and erosional processes (the combined actions of wind,water,temperature,plants,seismic shaking and gravity) are accelerated and magnified. Occasional sloughing, mass wasting and minor surficial slope failures are anticipated due to the steep angle of the slope. The actual rates of weathering processes are highly unpredictable, but can be accelerated by prolonged severe precipitation and climatic conditions. These potential problems will result most commonly in periodic maintenance issues involving cleaning and removal of detritus. It is our understanding the proposed structures will be setback at least 20 feet from the top of the cut slope and bluff. This distance in our opinion is an adequate distance, and slope stability should not be an issue for the propose( development. Liquefaction: The materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and groundwater conditions. Flooding: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500- year floodplains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Tsunamis and Seiches: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Based on the project's bayside location, the site is considered to possess a low risk potential from tsunamis. Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors,bays or reservoirs. Due to the sites location and distance from large bodies of water seiche hazard is considered to have a relatively low risk potential. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 7 4 CONCLUSIONS In general, our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. . The most significant findings and geotechnical conditions that will influence site development are summarized below. Detailed recommendations follow this section of the report. • The project area is generally underlain by competent Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The formational soils were generally overlain by a relatively thin veneer of surficial soils consisting of natural topsoil, residual soil, and man- placed fill. The Quaternary-age materials are generally competent; however, the surficial topsoil, residual soil, and man-placed fill materials are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support fill and/or settlement- sensitive improvements. As such, the existing topsoil, residual soil, and fill material will need to be removed from areas to support fill and/or settlement- sensitive improvements and, where necessary to achieve planned site grades, be replaced as properly compacted fill. In lieu of the above described removal and recompaction grading operation, the site may also be developed with minimal grading by placing the structure on a deepened foundation system. Foundations shall penetrate the loose topsoil and residual clay section and be embedded in the competent terrace deposits at depth. Additional slab reinforcement and thickness will be required if this option is selected. Refer to Foundation and Floor Slab sections of this report. • A thin layer of moderately expansive, residual subsoil was encountered at the southeasterly portion of the property. Either penetrating the clay with foundation excavations or removing and mixing the material with the more abundant non-expansive on-site soil can easily mitigate this condition. • An adequate setback is required from the top of existing steep slopes. In our opinion 20 feet is an adequate distance. If structures are located closer to the slope a deepened foundation may be necessary. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 8 RECOMMENDATIONS Earth Work and Grading General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of C.W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. Fill Suitability On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The on-site materials, for the most part, posses a very low to low expansion potential. Any potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a potential import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type of material considered most desirable for import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or clay binder. bservation of Grading Observation and testing by the soil engineer is essential during the grading operations. This observation can range from continuous to an as-needed basis,based on the project situation. This allows the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the all vegetation and other deleterious materials from the portion of lot that will be graded and that will receive T-ements. This should include all root balls from the trees removed and all _giant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off-site. The ..sting mulch cover should also be removed from building areas. The removed mulch may be stockpiled and used for landscaping purposes as needed. After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should begin with the removal all existing loose fill and topsoil material in areas that will support settlement-sensitive Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 9 ,improvements or receive fill. As the project is presently planned, soil removals are expected to extend to a depth of about 8 feet below the existing grade. It should be noted that thicker removal areas might be encountered in localized areas. The removals should extend laterally a minimum of 5 beyond the perimeter of proposed buildings or to a distance equal to the depth of removal (whichever is greater). The loose soil shall be removed to expose competent natural ground as determined by our field representative during grading. All removal areas should be approved by a representative of our office prior to the placement of fill or improvements. We recommend a minimum of 2 feet of properly compacted material under pavement areas. Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Please note the above earthwork recommendations do not apply or will be ?gnificantly modified if it is opted to construct the building on a deepened )undation system that extends down to firm natural ground in lieu of the grading alternative. Compaction and Method of Filling All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557-91. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris,roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum width. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath all pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix A. Excavation Characteristics The on-site topsoil materials are likely to be excavated with easy to moderate effort using large excavating equipment. The underlying terrace deposits are moderately Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 10 cemented and will be difficult to excavate with light equipment. No significant amounts of oversize materials are anticipated during site excavations. The Temporary Cut Slopes We anticipate temporary slopes placed in bedrock may be cut at a minimum inclination of 0.5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) for heights of up to 10 feet. The surficial topsoil, fill, or residual soil overlying the bedrock should be inclined at a 1.0:1.0 slope angle. Actual safe slope angles should be verified by the geotechnical consultant at the time of excavation. It should be noted that the contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides where friable sands or loose soils are exposed. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Surface Drainage ainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the proposed structure and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed building should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the building without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Erosion Control In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management Practice (BMP) erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local and federal governing agencies. FOUNDATIONS General Based on the findings of our investigation, it is our opinion the proposed structures may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings founded Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 11 -in properly recompacted fill or firm natural ground. The predominant on-site soils are non-expansive and therefore no recommendations for heaving soils are required. Dimensions and Embedment Conventional shallow foundations may be utilized in the support of the proposed structures when founded on properly recompacted fill soils. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. The table below is provided below, which suggests minimum foundation dimensions: Number of Floors Width of Footing Embedment Depth Supported by (Inches) Below Undisturbed The Foundation Ground Surface Inches 1 12 12 2 15 18 3 18 24 Isolated pad footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. A tie beam is recommended across the garage door openings. Deepened Foundations Deepened foundations may be used in lieu of the previously described removal and recompaction grading operation. Footings supporting the structures should extend through any loose fill, topsoil and residual soil and be embedded at least 6 inches ato the dense terrace materials. It is estimated the deepened foundation excavations shall extend to an approximate depth of 2 to 3 feet below the existing grade to reach the required embedment. The excavation may be backfilled with a two-sack cement slurry poured to the design bottom elevation of the footing. The minimum foundation width dimensions, provided above, also apply to deepened foundations. Soil Bearing Value A bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for said footings when founded a minimum of 12 inches into firm natural ground or properly compacted fill. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third, when considering wind and/or seismic loading. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.45. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 12 X55 pounds per cubic foot, only for embedment portions in firm terrace deposits or recompacted fill. A passive resistance value of 200 pcf should be used for embedment portions that extend through in-place topsoil. These values assume the footings are poured tight against undisturbed, natural ground soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Foundation Reinforcement It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least four No. 4 steel bars; two reinforcing bars shall be located near the top of the foundation, and two bars near the bottom. Alternatively, two No. 5 steel bars may used; one bar near the top of the foundation and one near the bottom of the foundation. The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to normal, post construction settlement or heaving, resulting from variations in the subsurface soil conditions. This recommendation does not supersede reinforcement required for structural considerations. Anticipated Settlements 1 on our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should fence settlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inches under proposed structural loads. It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and/or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes We recommend that a minimum horizontal setback from the outer edge of the footing to the adjacent slope face be provided. In general, In general we recommend a 20-foot set back from the southerly cut slope and 15 feet from the westerly bluff top. The building setback distance from the top of slopes may be modified by using deepened footings. Footing setback is measured from competent soil and should neglect any loose or soft native soils that may occur at the top of a natural slope. Plans for any footings that will not comply with the specified setbacks should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for specific review and approval prior to construction. Foundation Excavation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify compliance with the Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 13 ;foundation recommendations presented herein. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. Foundation Plans Review The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. Concrete Slabs-on-grade Interior Floor Slabs Concrete floor slabs, placed on recompacted fill shall have a minimum thickness of four inches and be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18- inch centers, each way. if the slab is placed on undisturbed topsoil (deepened footing option), we recommend a five- inch thick slab reinforced with No. 4 reinforcing bars placed at 18- inch centers, each way. All reinforcement should be placed on concrete "chairs" or spacers, to within the middle third of the slab. Moisture Protection here the concrete on-grade floor slabs will support moisture-sensitive floor coverings, it should be underlain by a moisture barrier. The slab shall be underlain with two inches of clean sand overlying a 6 mil Visqueen moisture barrier, overlying the native or imported sand material. Joints in the Visqueen sheeting should overlapped at least 12 inches. Interior Slab Curing Time Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing can be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor-covering product. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 14 Exterior Concrete Flatwork On-grade exterior concrete slabs for walks and patios should have a thickness of four inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on center each way. Exterior slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. Where slabs abut foundations they should be doweled into the footings. Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures Passive Pressure Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of he footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.45. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 355 pounds per cubic foot, only for embedment portions in firm terrace deposits or recompacted fill. A passive resistance value of 200 pcf should be used for embedment portions that extend through in-place topsoil. These values assume the footings are poured tight against undisturbed, natural ground soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Active Pressure for Retaining Walls The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 30 and 45 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These do not consider any other surcharge and assume proper drainage and ,;ackfill material. Retaining Wall Foundations Retaining walls associated with the structure should be supported by foundations with the minimum dimensions as recommended in the "Foundations" section of this report. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 15 Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation The project architect shall provide specifications for retaining wall drainage and waterproofing. Retaining walls that are not properly waterproofed and drained are potentially subject to cosmetic staining (such as efflorescence), surficial spalling and decomposition and/or excessive moisture emissions (and resulting problems) into interior space areas. Waterproof seals should be provided for utilities directed through the retaining walls. The Geotechnical Consultant or firm responsible for special inspection should be requested to verify that waterproofing has been properly applied. Since this is not a special inspection requirement, this observation will not be performed unless the Geotechnical Consultant or special inspection firm is specifically requested to do so. Backfill All wall backfill soils shall consists of select sandy materials (such as the on-site sandstone's) and should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive • clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FIELD INVESTIGATION Five manually excavated test excavations were placed on the site, which were placed specifically in areas where structures will be located and where representative soil conditions were expected. Our investigation also included a visual site reconnaissance and observation of existing outcrops. The excavations were visually inspected and logged by our field geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. 3. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix B). LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests and evaluations performed is presented below: CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 16 ..Classification System. MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the test excavation logs. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557, Method A. The results of this test are presented on the following page. Sample Location T-2@ 15 to 2.0' Sample Description Red-Brown, silty sand (SM) Maximum Density 126 pcf Optimum Moisture 9.5 % DIRECT SHEAR DATA: Sample Location T-2@ 1.5' to 2.0' Angle of Friction 31 degrees Apparent Cohesion 100 psf EXPANSION INDEX: Expansion Index testing on a remolded sample was ,)rmed on a representative sample of the existing clayey subsoil. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to near optimum moisture content. The specimen was then compacted in a 4-inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom; a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 psf). The sample was saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported below as the total vertical displacement. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 17 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample Location TE 1, 1' to 2' Initial Moisture Content 12.0 % Initial Dry Density 110 pcf Final Moisture Content 23.5 % Expansion Index 51 Classification Low to Moderate CONSTRUCTION NOTES It is the responsibility of the Owner and/or Developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of -1�rsonnel other than our own on the site; the safety of other is the responsibility of , Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the. earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 18 ' ,brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing recommendations mmendations should be modified appropriate for the proposed changes or or recommendations by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that face conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and us. We will be recommendations are based solely on the information ecommendationsybut shall not be responsible for those data, interpretations, responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. It is the responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patters, which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report. Job No. 04-4659 August 23, 2004 Page 19 / DENSE1 TREES I I H®2 TAI UP R ND P IN F ND LEGEND �_ __ D C Ca. RE DED F -- -- 370 OF DEEDS 3 �- x330.6 Approx. Test Excavation 28• Location 0 . 327.4 I 326.4 1 X 326.4 I4 330.2 X X 325.9 i x x326.6 Existing Topographic \ ' x Contour 1 305 ` x325.8 326.6 1 `1 x329.6 N Geologic Unit 1� 1 326.2 326.4 37.6 A4PH Q t — Terrace Deposits 1 Qt — Artificial Fill Qaf �. 32&3 325. X 327.9 w Q 326.4 ' 35 x 325.6 x Z.8 N 26.1 \\ x32 Q x 325.5 Ld x325.3 x326. 321 111 8 U X 25.1 x 326.5 325.1 )R:25.00 L-36.83 I \ 324.6 T-22.67 X 6x642 '4 t I I ASPH HV-1 i JOB NO. 04-4659 FIGURE NO. I r � J SITE LOCATION MAP Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California Lis ��' ! ! ` _ ll `` I *11 `V� I ■ � 4 'k } a slow ! + �� s 1 13A ■brit iR! • ■� 1 S a ..+r J 1 ■ N l�l 0 1/2 1 MIL 130 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 FEE Feinted fmm TOPO!01997 Wildflower Productions(www.ta corn) C.W. La Monte Company Inc. Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 04-4659 Figure No. 2 AMPLE z o o TEST EXCAVATION NO. C y Elevation:f 326' Date: 8/2/04 Excavation Method:Hand Excavated y SOIL DESCRIPTION v MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown,slightly moist,loose, silty sand. CL- RESIDUAL SOIL 2 SC Dark brown,slightly moist to moist, firm to stiff,clayey sand-sandy clay. SM TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) 3 Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 4 Excavation Bottom 5 6 7 ^ SAMPLE TEST EXCAVATION NO. 2 Elevationf 325.5' Date:8/2/04 Excavation Method gland Excavated d SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown slightly moist loose silty sand. 121 3.8 TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) 2 SM Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 Excavation Bottom 4 5 6 7 Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas California Soil and Foundation Engineers PROJECT NO. 044659 FIGURE NO. 3a ^ AMPLE TEST EXCAVATION NO. 3 y" �?'n 0 y P Elevation:t 326' Date: 8/2/04 Excavation Method:Hand Excavated zc y SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown,slightly moist,loose, silty sand. 2 TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) SM Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 4 Excavation Bottom 5 6 7 ^ SAMPLE v TEST EXCAVATION NO. 4 TV PE�-] ►.� °' °- rte-] M Elevationf 324- Date:8/2/04 Excavation Method t[and Excavated SOIL DESCRIPTION MULCH 1 SM TOPSOIL Dark brown to brown,slightly moist loose silty sand. TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) 2 SM Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 Excavation Bottom 4 5 6 7 Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas California Soil and Foundation Engineers PROJECT NO. 044659 FIGURE NO. 3b AMPLE d o o TEST EXCAVATION NO. 5 tz °a, c y Elevation:f 317' Date: 8/2/04 Excavation Method:Hand Excavated 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION FILL(Qat): 1 SM Brown,slightly moist,loose, silty sand a little gravel and concrete debris 2 SM TERACE DEPOSITS(Qt) Reddish brown,slightly moist, dense to very dense,silty sand. 3 Excavation Bottom 4 Slab Footing Depth 5 Approximately 24 inches 6 Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas California Soil and Foundation Engineers PROJECT NO. 044659 FIGURE NO. 3c Appendix"A" A STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which C.W. La Monte Company Inc. is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record. GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist is the Owner's or Builders' representative on the Project. For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils reports. B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread, mix,water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material,rate of placement,and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. SITE PREPARATION %11 vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site. This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill. B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer, as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. The Soils Engineer must approve any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth,the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved by the Soils Engineer. D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer and/or governing agency. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluvium, or un-weathered bedrock materials,the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 2 1t MPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The Soils Engineer shall supervise the distribution of rocks. C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable should not be used in the compacted fill. E. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. F. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor should re-work the fill until the Soils Engineer approves it. H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general, ASTM D-1557-91,the five-layer method will be used.) If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition,the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. 1. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. J. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or similar materials, unless otherwise specified in the soil report. K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. 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,or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion or by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials, and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 3 i `ICUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer,and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. GRADING CONTROL A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placement. These criteria will vary, depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests may also be conducted on the surface material to receive fills as determined by the Soils Engineer. D. All clean-outs, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A. The Contractor shall provide necessary erosion control measures, during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. D. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a qualified soil engineering firm. These materials shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to completion of grading operations. E. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with section 1541 of Title 8, Construction Safety Orders. issued by OSHA. FOUNDATIONS NEAR TOPS OF SLOPES A. Foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, et cetera, when located seven feet and further away from the top of slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended soil bearing value. If proposed foundations and footings are located closer than seven feet from the top of slopes, they shall be deepened at least one foot below an imaginary plain projected from a point seven feet horizontally inside the top of the fill slope and parallel to the face of the fill slope. Appendix "B" UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOI L DESCRIPTION I. COARSE GRAINED: More than half of material is larger than No.200 sieve size. GRAVELS: More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size but smaller than 3" GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel sand mixtures,little or no fines GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures (Appreciable amount of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded grave[ sand, clay mixtures SANDS: More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand,gravelly sands,little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands,poorly graded sand and silty mixtures (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand and clay mixtures II. FINE GRAINED: More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS Ml. Inorganic silts and very fine sands.rock flour,sandy silt or clayey-silt with slight plasticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, Less than 50 gravelly clays,sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous tine sandy or silty soils,elastic silt Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays greater than�0 OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils h a' DRAINA GE ANAL YSIS FOR 04-203 CAP P APN 259-310-40, 4 Prepared for: p ! j JAN 13 2005 L. Baker 'I!FFRi NG SERVUS CITY OF FNC!^+iiAS Prepared by: PIRO ENGINEERING 930 Boardwalk, Suite D San Marcos, CA. 92069 January 2005 WO. Baker ;v`RpFESSlp�;9� c r ENO_ 24000 � EXP.12-31-05 i Jj�V CIVIL OF CAV -- J Gary K. Piro,RCE 24000 1/4/2005 Z:\Docs\Projects\BAKER\BAKER-DRAINAGE-12-29-04.doc • S Project The project consists of the grading of two adjacent residential adjacent lots, which are relatively flat in grade, in preparation for house construction. Grading will be minimal to accommodate the building pads and drainage from the lots. The drainage will be carried in swales to private storm drain systems consisting of catch basins and p.v.c. pipe which ultimately drain to the streets. Drainage Calculations: According to the County Hydrology Manual the rational method of analysis should be used to determine basin drainage flows because the overall drainage basin is less than 0.5 square miles. With this method, flow is dependent upon the runoff coefficient'C',the time of concentration as well as the acreage of the basin. 'C' is used to express the percentage of rainfall,which becomes surface runoff. Pipe and inlet capacities will be analyzed using the 100-year frequency storm. Location: 117°15'00" 33°5'00" For 100-year frequency storms From the 100-year 6 hr. & 24 hr. precipitation maps; P6=2.50", P24=4.50" P6/P24=0.56,Use P6=2.50" Runoff Coefficient: From San Diego Hydologic Soil Maps, Property is Soil Type `C' From Table 3-1, For Low density residential, C=0.36 Tc: From Table 3-2, Ti=9.2"/hr. (LDR) Use Tc=Ti+Tt=10 min. From Figure 3-1,I100=4.2"/hr Using Rational Method Q=CIA Using largest drainage area for Northerly lot to be conservative A=0.30 Acres Q100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.30)=0.45 cfs 2 Storm Drain System: Check capacity of flat grate inlets using BPR-Chart 3 Assume minimum size of grate is 12" X 12" and minimum ponding is 0.5' Perimeter ignoring bars: P=2(0.83)+2(.83)(0.5)=2.49' To allow for clogging: Pe(effective)=2.49/2=1.25' Area of opening: A=(0.83)(0.83)(0.5)=0.34 From Chart 3, Discharge per foot of effective Q=1.2 cfs For 0.5' ponding over 12"X 12" grate Q=(1.2)(1.25)=1.5 cfs Storm Drain Capacity: Use n=0.012, Minimum grade of 1% 6"-0.61 cfs, 3.10 fps 10"-2.35 cfs,4.34 fps 12"-3.86 cfs, 4.91 fps Northerly Lot: Al=0.30 ac. Q 100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.30)=0.45 cfs 6"-0.61 cfs, 3.10 fps Al+A2=0.30+0.12=0.42 ac. Q100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.42)=0.64 cfs 8"-1.33 cfs, 3.76 fps Al+A2+A3=0.30+0.12+0.07=0.49 ac. Q100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.49)=0.74 cfs 8"-1.33 cfs, 3.76 fps Al+A2+A3+A4=0.30+0.12+0.07+0.21=0.70 ac. Q100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.70)=1.1 cfs 8"-1.33 cfs, 3.76 fps Southerly Lot: A5=0.28 ac. Q100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.28)=0.42 cfs 6"-0.61 cfs, 3.10 fps A5+A6=0.28+0.19=0.47 ac. Q100=(0.36)(4.2)(0.47)=0.71 cfs 8"-1.33 cfs, 3.76 fps 3 �+ W Q n t- rl OR w 00 00 cn cli A o p o 0 o c o c o c o 0 0 0 0 0 C" av�i to a P- w o �o N �n oo v o a w oa v rG00- C.? •� en v, v v .n �n �o io r• [� ao 00 � 6 0 0 o a c o 0 0 o c ci o 0 0 to U Ww in N co yr 00 t� [� Oa0 0000_ cc OG0 N N vl C en e+f '�Y d' in �O r O R Q O C C O O G? O O O O O O O O O =} •� 'off DO d .33 O �s .� 4 tV N c �Cn v v vNi vii n o°0 00, cn m a O G C O O C O O O O O O O o o 4•0 a .° � a c W� o o .n o %n o o v► o o va CX F�f O .-r N N en tt' ct vi �O 00 00 a0 Q\ O� �i 43 N O z Z en w Wmm W � o A9 � 1 m a� macaaa � o :� '" �. O v ea+� U a Y ."� � 7mt m m � 7J 'l7 m � a. � ►� ae' s a a r Z 0 a c a oam H � � � �b � 45 Pig 914 04 UO Von San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3 Date: June 2003 Page: 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land-use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3-2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length(Lm))of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial Ti values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a detailed study. Table 3-2 MAXIMUM OVERLAND.AND FLOW LENGTH(Lm) &INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION Ti Element* DU/ .5% 1% 2% 3% 5010 100/0 Acre LM T; LM I Ti LM T; Last Ti LM Ti Natural 50113.2 70 12.5 85110.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9 LDR 1 50112.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.51100 8.0 100 6.4 LDR 2 50111.3 701 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 i 7.4 100 5.8 LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6 MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 100 53 MDR 73 50 9.2 65 8.4 801 7.4 95 7.0 100 6.0 100 4.8 MDR 10.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 801 6.9 90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4.5 MDR 14.5 501 8.2 65 7.4 801 6.5 90 6-0- 100 5.4 100 4.3 IiDR 24 501 6.7 65 6.1 751 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5 HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 10012.7 N.Com 50 5.3 .601 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 G.Com 50 4.7 601 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 100 2.4 O.PJCom 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 901 2.6 100 2.2 Limited L 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 29 90 2.6 1100 1 2.2 General L 50 3.7 6Q 32 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 1.9 *See Table 3-1 for more detailed description 3-12 Et1tfAT10N AE f1'f.91.3�8. 5 Feet Tc sm Tc = Time of amcenwadonl Qmu-) L : yVaSenOUMO Dlsbnee Ow" 4000 AE a Chmqp in elevation along effective slope line(see FRW*3-5)i�l s000 Tc H NimWes d 240 2000 3 100 hww, 00 2 120 100 90 3U0 N 70 400 �! 300 ` 90 200 � 40 L �N No" Feat 30 N i 100 4000 2D 18 3000 is 0S 30 � 14 2000 `� 12 40 Iwo 1600 `♦ 10 30 1400 8 1200 8 1000 7 900 ON 6 700 600 SOD 4 Apo 3 300 5 300 AE L Tc SOURCE CaMwda Division of WgbNap(1941)and KWAh(19") F I G L R E Nomograph for Dailam MOMM of 'time of Conce*dHan ITC)or ifrc d'firma(M for Ndkmcd VkdWdmds 3.4 f ..Cr • t � WARMVMM 16► �- -��M-MMFAMUMF/_ mwm�� VAMP"I VA m w4mqblRb- FA �� WANK w 1 - - - - - i - 1 ` � >:��i�isil�ii•�I AWf/MWA* �t�f/ifl►'v ImRmfwr Amt mmt� . .......... son MOM�� l�trltl�l��1I11.t!f al��.�f�t!'f>♦t�f\t\�7f[itmilt liiil��>•�!1 �i��i•r�AjF_Artrwr AirAwmwAw •rau►tf re��a��ui•s _ NEB/�II �i/rii�� i�I1i111111111I11N it�i��ir�>rall�rj��/�Irii�w�iill{1{iii�ffiltili{i•�is non fftiffisrrrr.Ir��rf■ �ifrJilllflllliiffff/lEitl!)!i• ��I'lL�/�E/it rf/�i t/it•/�1ii11f1lliifff/jfit�fl� mom ffff♦ / ►r�,it��wf,rift•/f•t•r�llilllllilifffftlfl/it■ ••- ��i�irs taii�ir�es�r Rio may®uiieveaiioinsv�aa�� ws ;a��rwtra�r,��.tt�s, la�.att�l�+n■tatttsa>.aaoo�=�>• - M wwai��ws�w�s�_�iri.wr.l�wi��aw�ir`ww[�wi►�_��wiiiii�ii�wfwiiii�►!'a� - iis��ilf�/0_�1•t��_�/tt•t�{ii{011i{{E��i{'li�� _��I_X111_�t tl-It��J•/Ir�t�It��tttt�ll.ltlltll tt/tatl��ta trr ��l��.A�r .�tw ��a'w�/�f•�sl/a��/i��Alltl!!ltli aaaaltl.�i1 ! MMMf♦M1. /rI�r.�r�IC�1.1•r��1•�lillllllil�/�llf�/��! �Gai�ii�%Trisis�i'iisi��i�w►Ti■Q�i��r�9�iiG�{�',___�i■ iiiiiiiiiiiGii�iG� Tiff-i,lirrij%Li��iF,m–Fzm— r/ift ifs l•f•i•1i1111111�/f�tliffiftfii !•��WJW NF.nwJ !►.��/��i 1i>i�liltlilillflll��l��■ ttanaE..s/trlwrJtf�til�ll ttl��tltla�r�/�t�tt��ttet��f��/uultuuaua=iltta�l�t 0;=L�!�iP,?.C`7i:.GEG�GCG�.�.�nC®R�®®RI�Q11Q:iQQQRCI:1�[CIDRRQRi[ Moir��.��r�`��,��t��l•Illlifll11i111f[[f[/1• i•>i'�//�l si"it��fi•,ii•►'isir�l i•fAiii tii•i•�I�tt��{1{�/ltltiis�= MMW.ffArAW irarar i•ii<A •' MOM -'!tl■!��[�if1lt��i�i�i p ig AFAIffr AW,:AW"PFm=rmw �nnni®nf��i9 9iii f/.rfF��i��I•�� Run iil{111iiill/imm=I111 111I111I1[n[ME• r/r1/Eif,A EA MWAM - ., ri it r/i•r/ffffir�f•iffftEr� mom �fi•ft•fi•IIIIiIillf fff[1i11ftir r/)%'%S-',a_r-��f♦f♦f♦��IIIIIli1111i��[ift��0 rjF/r/WiIWAMVJ l•mwld it momMI NNIMEN,111l1'1'11t KIM i/an" IN OWN U x $ z SS-- Sl.9tt •� p ........... ---------------- c UD.Ltt lk • Jt ✓ r t �N SL.at S.•. f• J 4. ,DC.ltt .P.LtL in � 1-5 z GO CD 1p .4z Jp ie ra - -- Ct W'W 1A, M011te compem Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 25 ® LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619) 462-9861 0 Fax: (619) 462-9859 April 19, 2005 Job No. 04-4659 TO: Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Addendum to: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 2-Lot Residential Development, Northwest Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Blvd., Encinitas, California In accordance with your request, we are providing this addendum to the above Geotechnical Report, which is dated August 23, 2004. Page 10 of the document, under the Site Preparation section, states that "soil removals are expected to extend to a depth of about 8 feet below the existing grade". This statement is a typographical error and is invalid. After scraping off the mulch layer, the typical soil removals in the proposed building areas are expected to range from 1 to 2 feet in depth. It should be noted that a minor sliver of fill is located at the northwestern portion of the property as indicated on the Plot Plan attached to original report. These fills may extend to a maximum thickness of 6 feet. If any improvements are planned for this fill area we recommend removal and recompaction of the fill materials as well. This addendum report should be placed with the original report and become an integral part of that document. If you should have any questions after reviewing this addendum, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C.W. La Monte Company Inc. W. Up- ,. Exp.05 ,M too. 406 M Clif W. La e u * '�',°°4c»�►4 }' `(jr tf R.C.E. 25241 G � , ' IAR0 CN(;7NCCK1N (; LI VANC COMMUNIE- 00751G-N 930 COS; CA P2O79 TEL (760 O 74 37 % L:P/ROENGROCS CC/V1 l JUN 1 2006 City of Encinitas Date: August 4, 2005 Engineering Services Permi ENGINEERING SERVICES 505 South Vulcan Avenue CITY OF ENCINITAS W �• 3041 (B) Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Grading Certification for Grading Permit Number 9274-G To Whom It May Concern, The grading under permit number 9274-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached as-graded plan. Very truly yo s, Gary Piro, R.C.E. 24000 oeROFESS/®,�y Piro Engineering �+ z a7 No. 24000 Q l�lF F'CAl\F��\ PIRO CNgNCCKIN(' IIVI BLC COMMUNICg OCSI�-N ,950,30A R Z?WA Z K AllTEO, SAN MARC05, CA 92078 TEL: (760)744-3700,FAX(760)744-3750, E—MA/L:P/ROENGR DCS COM City of Encinitas Date: August 4, 2005 Engineering Services Permits W.O.: 3041 (B) 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit Number 9274-G Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the Bagley and Baker lots. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approed plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. VII. The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Lot Pad Elevation Per Plan Pad Elevation per field measurement Baker Westerly (lower) Pad 317.50 feet 317.52 feet Baker Easterly(upper)Pad 325.00 feet 325.08 feet Bagley Pad 324.50 feet 324.58 feet VIII. Construction of line and grade for all drainage devices have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan with the exception of the following: a. The drainage outlet on Encinitas Boulevard has not been constructed. b. The drainage outlet on Seeman has been eliminated per city inspector. c. The drainage inlet grates for the private 6-inch and 8-inch drains have not been contructed. d. The"splash wall" at the northwest corner of the Baker lower pad has not been constructed. e. The earthen berm between Baker and Bagley will be constructed during "fine grading". f. The"grass lined swales" on Baker and Bagley properties to done be during "fine grading". VIX. The location and the inclination of all manufacture slopes and walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance wih the subject grading plan. X. The construction of earthen berms at the tops of manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Very truly yours, pE ESSIp�q Gary Pir , R.C.E. 24000 _ aim � N0. 24000 cw �,QTF Oz CA;�Y` PIRO CN(;7NCCR1N(; 111/AB1C COMMUNIZE 005l,�"N 930 COS, G4 92078 TEL (760, 0 74 37 % L: 1/R0E1VGg0C5 COM l JUN 1 2006 City of Encinitas Date: August 4, 2005 Engineering Services Permil s ENGINEERING SERVICES W.O.: 3041 (B) 505 South Vulcan Avenue CITY OF ENCINITAS Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Grading Certification for Grading Permit Number 9274-G To Whom It May Concern, The grading under permit number 9274-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached as-graded plan. Very truly yo s, Gary Piro, R.C.E. 24000 QRpFESS1®, Piro Engineering �� l Cl) No. 24000 �l9jF c CAI\F��\`r CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: [VD• seP a� �rI✓e c�cecj r0I �CWIrS �ln YatsYtS cr.,� �.� u�vi/4r� . •ro�r,c c,;.� 7S'ac�. Qii0 S7(r cef G.y2Ch c0,V 7'>,,V Irk x _17- c�� /Kr�c'/ Sim• /J�f{-� �`p Cfnusur/ -f-a I`�c>/-P , .S�U,�ic� � �'r�/✓ , /3c- IR-�Lam`) A-S GvQs 3'28-c� r9Xi0'Drr� rsrT. Z /4.�'. W r,5 W,�2E CAI.,)r77-eWT-/A SACx"0oN 7b. > D� ,gE Yc'ST�e rJ,g� �GoryG Sri OeG l�/�v rS So S CAI 56E 7Z/E S�z T�ca�• i4• Q�rrr� l,r�s 7b �r r�dv�-lt h6f L7rr �eCS �' <,vitL ir- oAI 3 -31-o6 w ri�v! C� 8 3oa,1 12 ,J Ir Awe OL oC�✓ t�OQCs �/'/ -D(o Con7f�a n✓ re r/n+. ate/ iraS (� /�•<. ei�,, /Dew S'ftl5 Z-7-061 �C� a'�' 57/72= /D,e A- �r9E-�iNfL E -golf 5 G /ud�v Swo%S corn /ef� 4l cficrr:-�s�e f rq Q--7, I� �j C�a d l� ems. f 9r�nr/ �/a�// /i�_ij• qaA-cl Gf K ^ —lci(2r f Q/x� Qom— rctc(trG/ C'es-t- rece l ye '77 ha m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:- STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: 7-Z2-o6- SSpv;, er el lore v�tfl ,��r•� Arai•) /�ncs. .P ec t A Sly" on �, CS Si�Q Q CL) _� f n JyWc • nP vVII 04 e at. 7'25-oS tchc�.L'� /�'Va �S�w�r � S i Q �Qnd �rnm `Qqhs 7-ZB-oS oBSE�� Bf}CGf�ll. � Ct�,�,or9c�,A1 © SrLiGh G12r?i�c1 72A CE�r761 g•y-o rc w s eSan nadr cti-69,�� D-2 S fedcc y. T Co►�rv! o,�, a-5-o5 rtes con�cc da a 8-8 off- c i9fo `�o2K P�eY (7LO 9 ole6 2 ew r la�rra Co�,nQ�fru�s ,n �asPry,��,z 'usT No Gs�,,v6 V� i�od �ac'rl� •e5 �4Yyl� ..ASLCCI�Et� efZ'. ¢�► �s /� �' - �C>QrQn cc ,(x�i, te,•j iwb �G�r �lP e-4017,7 C°»n c�it►�s amt a�P /*' . AI 7 41,cS C, /�l„4,v h'I . -me 9 .05 Bo MM 7b D25 c W 5 . CT� cry 11v . So Cnx CbuC.E� m4rL'� A1Q5 F77i2,rq S All 1O,Qov&w c T lop 77C 4-,fAl Ftu2T,//E,V_V�Cny�� *FIER Fve,"f 2q�1E1� !n5 l OF CU,�b BBL► cSCC�1i!€ SPt/c IIIII �'� mom�w ,o Ufa n i Ct�-c� 4N& `iv n- 7DP rel 2 `oS To 1) 2F' r P d aye c a �occr. m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: � -� -O� �� sSEb. 3�m C� s iT�'. •SEE �,t�awT Fv,e /T�•h�5 �p-Z/-05 �D/Y►Q C�e�lr/i� Q�'7A� 9!U /!�1l� . .�v4ev oFF 4 -2 7-057 C r lie u9 t t/ivaq f w o .S oloe -fhb /has fi � o�It� R s4i o /t a xa'a av1 aid now r feep /'+5 �� / /'10t,�! b..e iri �hrpu fi to �h 8 •• f/ /c�S, 317• o ec/ -1b e o />czd hoc,J/h 3 7.$ /eu. is not- c'/one e,d ate' �/ tia " 3Z<SV •e/ECi• Gv�s r� a "as ha•o1 0."� 7-!0 oS /71 oS f Sou�he�/y � c%se8-�- �7►cin�faS B[ud. pli rCG�iO �SCA-nG im�UA�y is ,�jGi (�i's+L�r�h�- /n �L'r-c�, OL C�.,t. P. f►Lc wo�� z ?tow t�e s�ores. 7-8-os- �n,,owzT com.,m& 1.v Scow cY , aZ3co c` Iar/por*�`- Cc f73�c(� /2:iL'lG I/! Qi-�,�/ 90 P !.t!�b -/8 -OS' Ea✓yliwvi� Aan��/etec/ .�•�P, 7e- cr,is beA an d e,F' D -ZS o Scemay D�,�e c%e fa Syae' X45 u,Lr- 7-L/-aS ri•cia �fOrn-r dra�:� Cah fihue5. Iyl o y /99,h9 �hes m14429 C I T Y G P E N I N I T A S ENGINEERING "SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S .` VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS , CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. _ _ ;`4 -__ ----___--__ '_________ PARCEL NO. ,259 31Q .4Goo � xs � < � PLAN NO. : 9274•-G JAB �I DRE:i 0 4 & 120 aE N DR. CASE NO 04202 L At�E�+ F# I fig/ MA s n PC #$ a- IW`l r.+ A ..rttteee `mow sit t LC��FF //y�M A � y - 6, 4 �J►W tJ i PLA '° PO a t+{�wri x u � { m *sf DE /}'yyy '+p�ya • i /{y ; NtDEr�Y1 gl } k `E/YY�27� I.' a V7I* -AiT.s' �� t:fOd I� �>�M4. c t�•`x'�1. Po 1>.Sfl 2 7g7 `r fl r, -------------------- 'Q, DESCRIPTION, QR W©RI€ c� _ QED C ,��,�. - {-".. t ;✓�''u � a ,r ,� ° � ,� � r .:vk �� - � mss: ��.'� .�, �.,-s � k.i,' .a r � fi a q a r � x fi r `s t Ax ry g ^r.' �{'a { >3i�* ��„y� � 3.1^�"C`i.t $i_. .• s�-�`z `�"E" j•.4 3k u , a�c+�tTY� ��. �' '�- � �r�.�p s'v-*A'�T � �A � � r # � - � r � a �'�}^��'✓,°}7�rF:J � £ , >� _ .y. i8 r 1 r X��''�5 •T+. Ir Lt r J �V {J tc Report of Field Observation and Relative Compaction Tests Results Proposed Two Lot Single Family Residetial Development NW Corner of Seeman Drive and Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA Job No. 04-4659 fc August 4, 2005 Prepared for Mr. Larry Baker 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Prepared by: C. W. La Monte Company, Inc. 4350 Palm Avenue, Suite 25 La Mesa, California 91941 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.............................................................................................1 SITEDESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................1 SOILCONDITIONS...............................................................................................................2 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................2 SITE PREPARATION..................... 2 .......................... FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING..............................................................................3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS......................................................................................3 Uniform Building Code Design Information.......................................................................3 Maximum Bedrock Acceleration.........................................................................................3 LABORATORYTESTS.........................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................4 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................4 Foundations .........................................................................................................................4 General.............................................................................................................................4 Dimensionsand Embedment...........................................................................................4 SoilBearing Value...........................................................................................................4 LateralLoad Resistance...................................................................................................4 Foundation Reinforcement..............................................................................................5 Anticipated Settlements.................. 5 ............................................... Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes........................................................................5 Foundation Excavation Observation...............................................................................6 ConcreteSlabs-on-grade......................................................................................................6 General.............................................................................................................................6 SlabReinforcement ........................................................................................................6 InteriorSlab Curing Time................................................................................................6 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................7 Attachments Figure No. 1 Plot Plan Figure No. 2a Field Density Test Results Figure No. 3 Laboratory Test Results Appendix A Wet Weather Maintenance FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING A representative of C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. while present during the grading operations performed observations and field density tests. The density tests were taken according to A.S.T.M. Test 1556-90 guidelines and the results of these tests are shown on the attached Table 1. The accuracy of the in-situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than C.W. La Monte Company Inc. representatives. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which, together, we based our opinion as to whether the work essentially compiles with the job requirements, City of Encinitas grading ordinances and the Uniform Building Code. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Uniform Building Code Design Information Seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, are presented below in Table. These design factors are based on subsurface soil and bedrock conditions and distance of the site from known active faults. SEISMIC DLJIGN PAR-JNIF_'['F.RS' UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor 4 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type SC 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.56 N,, 16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor N, 1.2 16-U Seismic Source Type B Maximum Bedrock Acceleration Based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest portion of the Rose Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site is estimated to be 0.40 g. For structural design purposes, we recommend a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening. LAgpRA TpR V TE Z7, STS soils used in thed o situ deterrminatio The results o f t mpacted Ells ns Were Performed ese demsitytests etermines�as anted n to M. Test on re ntative to Presented A.S.T. Prese The Expansion Index he degree of relative l ' Were used l n�091, Method Ales of the Potential o f compaction of the conjunction withgh guideline. Potential. fOUndafion sods foundation soil compacted fill. field was visuall was evaluated b 1. Y classified as Y UBC "-I- Possessing a ry lobe expansion CONCLUSIONS Based on field w expansion La Monte corn°bservatio La se Inc. n and the density Y of Encinitas ny Inc., that the test results RECpM ante grading was performed bas pal fessional opinion MENDATIONS l y In accordance W h t[�'. Based o he folio n our °bservatio wing recommendation and testing concerning during the subject FOUddat- Wing the proposed develo grading operations Pment. we offer the General Based on the supported b findings of our i are antici Y Conventional invest- supported therefore,paoed tO Contin , it is Our o possess UOUs and isolated s Pinion the Special a very low expansive Proposed consider Dread footings structure In consideration and design for oft Prev Y be ��mensio b he The on-site mate ns and Em ed heavin ailing soils rlals Conventional shallow fo merit g soils will be r and grade.ings supporting the undations required. Conti structures should utilized in inches, res nu°us and isolated be embedded support°f t Width Pectively. Tw footin s dried at least he Pro per the Uniform B° story structu ssrhould have a ast l2 inches posed structures. wilding Code, quire an lg dee�mum n idth o below finish pad Soil Bearing footi 1 S 2 inches and 24 A bearing Value g and lnc Of 12 i g Capacity of2000 h minimum riches ' be increased by one hind Y compacted fill or r for said fo or firm natural otm Lateral Load ' when considering wind grounds when founded a Lateral loads Resistance and/or This n mini nu seismic loading. g capacity may footing and thegainst foundations g' Coefficient offrictlopOin may be resisted b resistance g soil, and by the y faction n between co Passive between may be considered concrete and soil my rbe ire against the the bottom ofthe ered an e equivalent to be equal to considered to ng• The quivale be 0.45. fluid weight Of 350 pounPassive per cubic foot. This combination assumes the footings by one-third. °f the passive Pressure es are poured tight and friction against undisturbed is used, the friction soil. Ifa FOundation Reinforce n value It es recommen ment may be reduced two reinforcing that continuo bottom, Alterng bars shall us footings be rei re- foundation ativel be located near nforced n and one y, two No• S steel the top of the fou with ndation,i least four Na Prevent darn ar near the bars may be ndation, and two steel bars- in the mage due to bottom Of the f used; one bar wO bars near the subsurface Post construction undation The near the t�; required for structuralconditions n settle steel reinforcement Of the This reco meat and heaving, resulting ent will help Antic' does not supersede g from variations Based on ted not reinforcement settlement experience With ment in the magnitude th the soil types on less than .5 inches.subject site, the soils should It should be reco foundations due gnized that experience cracks minor hairline to shrinkage cracks nor vertical be anticipated.S dh ing curing ands normally occur in movements. cracks °r redistribution °f Concrete slabs and are not'Or stresses and Foundations Y an indication of Some Soils corn Setback from To excessive "relaxatio prising a compacted p of Slopes footings ' eVen thou fill slope face gs when located gh ON Placed and re subject to design Foundations loo Within down slope Within ns an seven feet from compacted. For creep and/or lateral seven feet from d footings o f m the top Of slo his reason found foundation es in the top of slo proposed structures, alts require special foundations and provides a sa feet to "daylight" Pe, shall be deepened so the et Cet a when located on footing from the to mmende ground bottom embed P of s10 d foundation embed in the slope face T°utside edge of the meet depth of Pe' the angle of the sle ments, he table 12 inches. pe face based on the below and a minim. distance of the in required Foundation Distance TABLE 1 From Top of S/ope S/ope Ratio 0 1.5:1 21 70.. ?:1 4' 54" 54" 6' 40" 42,. or " 30', �� more 30 18" 24" 18" Foundation Excavation Observation All foundation reinforce elation excavations g steel should be observed and formwork in order to verify the General Contractor compliance with the foundation placing recommendations and square. All loose Presented herein. concrete. All footing excav or unsuitable material should beateions should be excavated Concrete oved ce neat, level Si Slabs- prior to the placement of °°' rade General Concrete floor underlain b slabs, if used additional t y two inches shall be a mini two inc °f clean, washed mum thickness inch of clean sand' of four ' thickness inches and Slab Reinforce g 6 mil visgUeen shall be The slab ment overlying an centers should be reinforced Within the middle way' The reinforce with a mini middle third ment should be of#3 reinforcer of the slab. Placed g bars placed Interior Slab on Concrete "chairs" or s t 18-inch Followin Curing Time pacers, to degradation g of floor �erincrete floor slabs Placement gradation of rings, sufficient drying installation adhesive materials place y ng time must be standardized and loosenin ment of floor allowed emissions are testing g of the coverings Prior to covering Within the limits gCOan be performed to finish floor to may result in g product. mmended determine materials. Prior to by the manufacturer if the slab Site of the moisture Drainage Consid specified erations floor- Adequate measures other improvements be taken to to be directed away s are in place. Properly finish- direction y fro Drainage waters from the site for this m foundations m this site after the additions and subsurface and area or into floor slabs and and adjacent surface properly designed and footings, onto the Properties are the bearing soils drainage will natural recommendation the fo ensure drama approved draina drainage ation could in Up ons, footin ge that ge facilities. Proper structure or other improvements result in a lift gs and no Waters will see p or under floor slabs. k the level of on the mining and Failure to observe In addition site. differential rve this construction toppropriate settlement of the erosion-Control finished Prevent surfacer measures constructed build pad or runoff waters from shall be cut or pavement m enterin taken at all times fill slopes. or running g footing excavations during pes. g uncontrolled Planter areas and over the tops' POnding on newly- footings Planter boxes Of newly_ install�d,i and floor shall be n gravel slabs. Planter sloped to Foundations ' With the boxes shall be drain away from footings direction of subsurface constructed m the found gs, and f7 slabs and surface flow With a subsurface drams' to an adequate drainage facility,away from the ' PLOT PLAN 11 327.4 I !i G N I' I; liE iI I I I, I I I I I I i I j I it i 'L j ; I: I 0 z a / / kn o - N`d W3:l N S - a w ° 3ni�Ja a ®iHOiuva -- o 11 11 • . � ,� ti ILI N W r x M X 22 ', a Sr u,.• X v o N a i 8135 3Q�X M N x p Sl M x Cl Li mu M V • V V I 1 v I X X I i m rb m LLa NOV �h —100' is a au I f. I I i �rk _ • a °, 00_* t s1 Hula M�,a a \ .00'B t N NINNYJJ I ' I I P�•�` I p , i i – cs o �, `cP ' � � ., 15.00•--� � � -.� �_. �� j � � ' j i - cc I f i • 3,� i , •� � I '/ fl i e z ; ° a ol 45 U U U a O ! C14 C5 Con _ o Nobel s oav)av3a ,sz d o Q 4_4 'C Li I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Project: Proposed Baker Residence 124 Seeman Drive, Encinitas, California TA_ B I - ( I , i I2 I ; ii i is I i i I 1 I i i i • , I I j � I I I i I � I I i I . SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Project: Proposed Baker Residence 124 Seeman Drive, Encinitas, California TABLE 1 >:>.:>:::;;:> :::`<:.<'><::: :.............Lz3 ±(!11?1C' +T ' ' 5 ....... . Tab_gi.::::::::::::::::..._..::::::.:.... ............ .....XXX w.(.......�.................... ......................................ry............................:.::.:.................. Test No. Date Location Elev. feet or Soil Type Moisture D Max. %Relative Fill Thickness (%) Density Density Compaction (pcf (pcf) 1 6/27/2005 See Figure 1 2' 1 8.0 118.4 127.0 93.2 2 6/28/2005 See Figure 1 4' 1 7.9 117.8 127.0 92.8 3 6/28/2005 See Figure 1 6' 1 8.2 119.2 127.0 93.9 4 6/29/2005 See Figure 1 2' 1 8.9 120.3 127.0 94.7 5 7/6/2005 See Figure 1 8' 1 7.0 119.9 127.0 94.4 6 7/6/2005 See Figure 1 4' 1 8.0 117.0 127.0 92.1 7 7/8/2005 See Figure 1 FG 1 8.1 120.7 127.0 95.0 8 7/8/2005 See Figure 1 FG 1 8.3 119.2 127.0 93.9 9 7/8/2005 See Figure 1 FG 1 8.7 120.0 127.0 94.5 10 7/8/2005 See Figure 1 2' 1 8.0 118.2 127.0 93.1 11 7/12/2005 See Figure 1 FG 2 10.2 121.7 130.0 93.6 12 7/12/2005 See Figure 1 FG 2 10.5 120.3 130.0 92.5 13 7/12/2005 See Figure 1 FG 2 10.0 119.1 130.0 917 14 7/12/2005 See Figure 1 FG 2 10.4 121.4 130.0 93.4 15 7/12/2005 See Figure 1 FG 1 8.0 119.2 127.0 93.9 16 7/13/2005 See Figure 1 10' 1 9.0 116.8 127.0 92.0 17 7/13/2005 See Figure 1 12' 1 8.2 117.9 127.0 92.8 18 7/18/2005 See Figure 1 14' 1 8.2 120.8 127.0 95.1 19 8/1/2005 See Fi re 1 FG 1 8.0 120.2 127.0 94.6 TABLE 2 :. .:'.:..' Soil Typ Description USCS Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Density Class (%) (pco 1 Tan fine sand SP 9.5 127.0 2 Tan/Brown fine clayey sand SG 10.0 130.0 Job No. 04-4659-FC Figure No. 2 f MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE 145 29 140 SOIL TYPE 2 135 SOIL TYPE 1 130 ` a. I \ 125 ` v c 120 \ 115 � 110 105 100 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Soil Moisture(%) Optimum Maximum Soil Type Description Moisture(%) Density(Pc f) ( f) 1 Brown fine sand 9.5 2 Brown medium to coarse sand 127.0 10.0 130.0 PROJECT: Proposed Baker Residence C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. 124 Seeman Drive Encinitas,California Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 04-4659-FC Figure No.3 APPENDIX "A" Page I WET WEATHER MAINTENANCE AT RESIDENTIAL SITES* Southern Californians, unlike other residents of the nation, are unaccustomed to heavy rainfall. Whenever unusually wet weather occurs, San Diegans, particularly those living on slopes of filled land, become concerned (often unduly)about the conditions of their building site. They should not be, generally. The grading codes of the County of San Diego, and the various incorporated cities in the County, concerning filled land, excavation, terracing, and slope construction, are among the most stringent in the state, and adequate to meet almost any natural occurrence. This is the opinion of the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, whose membership help prepare and review the codes. In 1967,the local Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors compiled a list of some precautions that homeowners can take to maintain their building sites. This updated pamphlet reiterates those precautions. Everyone is accustomed to maintaining his house. Everyone realizes that periodic termite inspections are a reasonable precaution, and that hornes require a coat of paint from time to time. Homeowners are well used to checking and replacing wiring and plumbing, particularly in older homes. Roofs require occasional care. However, the general public regards the natural ground as inviolate. They ought to realize that Nature is haphazard in creation of all land, some of which becomes building sites. Nature's imperfections have been largely compensated through careful engineering design and construction and enforcement of rigorous building and lot development ordinances. It is only reasonable to assume that an improved building site requires the approximate same care that the building itself does. In most instances, lot and site care are elementary steps that can be taken by the homeowner at considerably less cost than building maintenance. As a public service, engineers in private practice of the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors have compiled this pamphlet of pertinent Do's and Don'ts as a guide to homeowners. The CCCELS respectfully advises that, in offering these guides, it accept no responsibility for the actual performances of home sites or structures located thereon. *Pamphlet prepared by the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors 4350 Palm Ave., Suite 25, La Mesa, CA 91941 —(619)462-9861 APPENDIX "A" Page 2 DO'S Do clear surface and terrace drains with a shovel, if necessary, and check them frequently during the rainy season. Ask your neighbors to do likewise. Do be sure that all drains have open outlets. Under the right conditions,this can be tested simply on a dry day with a hose. If blockage is evident,you may have to clear the drain mechanically. Do check roof drains gutters and down spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on you location, if you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may wish to install them because roofs and their wide, flat space will shed tremendous quantities of water. Without gutters or other adequate drainage, water falling from the eaves ponds against foundation and basement walls. Do check all outlets at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself, causing erosion. Do keep drain openings(weep-holes)clear of debris and other material that could block them in a storm. Do check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. Do watch hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any irrigation is required. Over-saturation of the ground is not only unnecessary and expensive, but can cause subsurface damage. Do watch for backup in interior drains and toilets during a rainy season,this may indicate drain or sewer blockage. Do exercise ordinary precaution. Your house and building site were constructed to meet certain standards that should protect against any natural occurrences, if you do your part in maintaining them. DONT'S Don't block terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the tops of cut slopes on sloping ground. These are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. Generally, a little shovel work will remove any accumulation of dirt and other debris that clogs the drain. If several homes are located on the same terrace, it is a good idea to check with your neighbors. Water backed up in surface drains will tend to overflow and seep into the terraces, creating less stable slopes. Don't permit water to gather above or on the edges of slopes (ponding). Water gathering here will tend to either seep into the ground, loosening fill or natural ground, or will overflow on the slope and begin erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. Don't connect roof drains and roof gutters and down spouts to sub-drains. Rather, arrange them so that they will flow out onto a paved driveway or the street where the water may be dissipated over a wide surface. Sub- drains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during heavy rain. Overloading the sub-drains tends to weaken the foundations. Don't spill water over the slopes, even where this may seem a good way to prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion and, in the case of fill, can eat away carefully engineered and compacted land. 4350 Palm Ave., Suite 25, La Mesa, CA 91941 —(619)462-9861 APPENDIX "A" Page 3 Don't drop loose fill slopes. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide with heavy moisture. The sliding may clog terrace drains below, or may cause additional damage by weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that no loose fill is dumped above your property. Don't discharge water into French drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other ways of disposing water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and, if the drains are located close to slopes, may cause slope failure in their vicinity. Don't discharge surface water into septic tanks (leaching fields). Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different purpose, but because of their size will tend to naturally accumulate additional water from the ground during heavy rain. Overloading them artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as sub-drains and French drains, and is doubly dangerous because their overflow can pose a serious health hazard. Don't over-irrigate slopes. Naturally, ground cover of ice plant and other vegetation will require some moisture during the hot summer months, but during the wet season, irrigation can cause ice plant and other heavy ground cover to pull loose, which not only destroys the cover, but also starts serious erosion. Planted slopes acquire sufficient moisture when it rains. Don't let water gather against foundations, retaining walls, and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand ordinary moisture in the ground and are, where necessary, accompanied by sub-drains to carry of excess. If water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through them, causing dampness and leakage inside the basement, more important, the water pressure can cause heavy structural damage to walls. Don't try to compact backfill behind walls near slopes by flooding. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of compacting fine-grained soil, but will also undermine or tip the wall. Don't leave a hose and sprinkler remaining on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season. This will enhance ground saturation and may cause damage. Don't block swales that have been graded around your house or the lot pad. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street or other positive outlet. By all means, do not let water pond above blocked swales. 4350 Palm Ave., Suite 25, La Mesa, CA 91941 —(619)462-9861