The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-9601 G N I W _E Sam o Engineering, Inc. Land Planning, Civil Engineering Surveying,Mapping s DRAINAGE STUDY FOR GOLDSTEIN RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN HILLCREST DRIVE ENCINITAS , CA , APN: 254-102-59 j f PARCEL 29 PM 17716 u l.. FEB 2 1 2006 QR�FE �0NN�A ��Q��G�r1T L. F2 February 21, 2006 U No.44173 p m m j.n. 03-114 � Ex#: 9 C It �OF CA1-1F� 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 info @sampoengineering.com February 21,2006 j.n.03-114 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR: Goldstein Residence Grading Plan, Hillcrest Drive, Encinitas, APN: 254-102-59 Criteria: 1. Use the County of San Diego current Hydrology Manual "Rational Method". 2. Design for a 100-year frequency storm using the County of San Diego 6 hour and 24 hour precipitation isopluvials. 3. Runoff coefficients are based on soil type "D". "C" factors have been weighted based on the individual "C"factors for different surfaces (i.e. concrete= 0.95), and the areas of the individual surfaces. 4. Times of concentration(Tc) are determined from the urban overland flow formula. 5. Refer to the attached drainage map for basin areas and locations. Introduction: I. The subject property is located on Hillcrest Drive in the City of Encinitas. The property is a panhandle lot that is currently vacant. The current owner of the subject property also owns the lot in front of the subject property. The front lot is fully developed with a single-family residence, asphalt driveway, pool, flatwork, and planter areas. Both properties will share the existing driveway along the panhandle of the subject lot. 2. The subject property currently descends in an easterly and westerly direction from a ridgeline that is located near the easterly end of the panhandle. From the ridgeline the property descends in a westerly direction at approximately 8 percent toward the Hillcrest Drive right-of-way, and the property descends in an easterly direction toward the easterly property line at a grade of approximately 10 percent. All of the proposed development will be located east of the ridgeline, and the existing driveway and planter area along the panhandle will remain in place west of the ridgeline. The grading plan design for the project maintains the historical drainage patterns to the west and to the east. 3. This project proposes the construction of a new garage, accessory structure, flatwork and landscaping on the subject property. In addition, the existing driveway will be lengthened approximately fifty feet to the east. Storm water from a portion of the proposed development will be directed into grass and landscaped swales to private catch basins that will outlet the runoff into two infiltration basins located at least 30 feet west of the easterly property line. The basins are designed to maintain the pre-development peak runoff rate from the site. The remaining runoff will sheet flow to toward the easterly property line as it does currently. A ten-foot wide grass and landscaped BMP area will also be constructed along the entire westerly property line. 0-31 )353-75-4 = 0'3"37 Ac- ,i Up-e�aQ OV&L.ANO 9�� - �,�'Cr�l 0,35 ►o�� - �,� { A SNtACC_ or< -rsrE ARIA Sp �945 G S M)AJ f3 017 AC) mtpfn OF -T4C- ---------- 5Jr.ALL AF-c-A qjqo 5� W ........... --------------------------- -------- -------- ... ---------- 15 f 4 I to t J i r'a rJ iii r L t 70 4. a. cif Iii ii Iii Z2 Pe 02'-/4 Az/ 't,.jf, 7Z� -r ,O ev EE� �1=r��"r -�ax� t si►v cALC5, Thom5!N All � xtstt "�' ► ��oo " C>>E,,� Gds ,'j"�' �.q rn�o.J V �-7 C� 6os c it C asrN VOL, 20l -� x 4 w(pe x 3`Deiep ; i - AIC-) � , LY. (} w V- F-- 500 d 70 y o\° h h O ^y 400 60 I— w W LL Z w 300 U 50 �O W O' 1 G' O w v0 200 1 'Oti Z O g 1W— O 40 Z G' a0 LU A oel QV G � O 100 �jO o LL G 30 Z G w O 0 1 C�OZO 20 1 x080 C C 0.95 10 EXAMPLE: 0 Given: Watercourse Distance(D)=250 Feet Slope(s)=0.5% Runoff Coefficient(C)=0.70 T= 1.8(1.1-C) Overland Flow Time(T)=14.3 Minutes 3VS SOURCE:Airport Drainage,Federal Aviation Administration, 1965 F I G U R E Rational Formula-Overland Time of Flow Nomograph 3-5 HazMat/County Hydrogeology Manual/Overland Flow.FH8 ONE INS -�,U . 0■■ INE��-��5�_�i-.�� O■■■■■11111111111111��-AI��,! MEN ME ME MEN FA ME t■■ MIN ME A IEl t■■■■■11111111111111�MMI 0��-F-►-�,�►� - 0000■■■■■■■111111111��MINE �.��wl FAKA ■■■■■■■■■■IIIIIIIIII��AMEN X111101 Ii■IAN/i■1I/ ■■■■■■■■■■■111111111_�MM_�_�MI MIMM M�_�_/�/�/I�'�I/III/ffirA� m--■■■■■■■soon■■uu�■�� ■ ��ter.■�■�►�WM■►A M YA =iE ii�iiii iiiiiiiiii s��_�_�_� -��•■�rA2-.i��.rw■ --rrr........■....■rrr�rr—rrr—ir../ J .�� r�i..Y --rrr...-....■.....��r...—i r.I�—�� MU FA rr'I i—I�—A.AWA r-i r.r. � --rrr........■.....�i.i.rr.r�ir.w_—�i•��.��—�. . ir.r. EWAN Wam ---0000■.0002■.■■..■ ...-....2.rI.-..0.2022.2.I /A Immommus �� RUE ---0000■■..222.■■■■22222.-■.��r��2�r� •r��..■►�rAM.�AWi..■2-■2■...-.-mom �--rrr.-.-..t��..�■rrr—rrr-�r�iYr■r. ■rr■�—� ��rr.r—ir.r. �--rr..---..........rr.-r..I r•�r�ir.r.rl— rr�.�I M.Al _�_--rrr...-....■..■■.rerY�r�r�r-�.rr r.��r■�rr�r.�rrr—rr-r—iY ��-rlrrr.---...■■.....rrr�rr��rrr��.Y_.-�—�. �. Y.r��_�_��i_Y_Y i HE HE BE-.you :° ��.� ��r �• �_�_�_ man-=�'��:�®��_�x--12•J'-=G'O'i'-•.5�� MEN rAw - �iiii=iii■iiiiiiiiii n�i■�� '„� I ��■ � � i�� =iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii �■ ��i/� �r ■�i �� - . �� ---......... i......�G� -�-� --......... ...... nor -now r--r r.-.. ...uo■e-�'�. .rte -■ ___--w �■■. m.m f`.===■■=.��/•LTG S .rr��.■rA.�i■� r.S= n • - - .�' A EE * ti a O rO W z z lO _ `V) }1�^� _ •� 63 W g n V Q iONU C N q CU V Z s� V) s �- o you/ 0 !" \� N 1 0 p 1 . Imperial County % 1 / I _o/ I _ 1 YY / `\\ 1 to • -- -M I b - C� N M ' 1 / / 1 i A VU 1 , s / ♦ t I let 16 / A Y 1 < '�„` .. � t \-i �_ ,,7•boy 1 �.w to ,1y/ / / - 1 1 I tvi • �/ 3i all t°J►rr� �\ ° i -` 1 1 Fi•"3 __. E `\ % / 1 to 41 10 E U ell If I C 1 t y It Got It \ `t ! i j � ♦ � to \ 1 ---- -4 � I� 1- t E zi ` a?Jtl Ct 'll U tip LU C \ a to \ \I 0 j M 00 a 1• I 1 ; { ' pay 1 1 1 / 9 $U ' •1 / u 9 A " vJ O 1 U ft cm _ OD 0 'F W '- N 1�\ Cj Q w a = Q o g o N cV � g w j ...1 V y W� cv �? a- Uj Z d ` p CD m w aim m � O U z ' Imperial County LO I 1 Uil 16 1'\ �' �' ♦\\ ., C 1 ; stn 'n /_ YI Vll I =I ``♦ `\ � \ Ui co \ , ` N / l t 1 `r .may /�- /� '� -_ ; 1 '♦ `;11 / /< rya�' `I '1 ' 1 j \,♦ ``♦ rwr i �' O'er /' _1 i � `\O `•O_• /b'ia•- / 11� ', i i'��(�� `♦♦1♦` cl i'i0 -_ .S ' ' ----1 !91 1 ; 1%� ♦, ``` �I`\ O 'Yl`yi i i _,tp°i i -.♦ ,' / \ 1 � ��jam•_ .'��U.'/ `r4 I^♦ ,° \ 44 ,r-: g Oc6 per` __ - ; �� Ic.♦ `1Ljp�d /; i� JI Y11 /N I ' I �� `\ ` �i i\1 H i E %' `\ ♦ 1 ' ♦d'I 1 r. I //�\ 1 1 �-^_.` i G/ i i . i ` _- ` ,' ♦, `\` \i ' o �';11 E/' ry. P /�' `\ \ \` E / r' \ \ \ C3 \ \ \E ; ``♦ 1(1 ` .7`_._�``•. Q / /� ' \ .._/ �:E .. -'1 �.O`._� it ' i \ ♦+� '4._- ` '`♦If) \rte\ . \ � jloj'ci`-..i_ !.1 �0 0 -�'- i ao. i Ic - ` (``�_ I' `r i1✓ `\ �'� i 7 i�i' _L�` _ /o°o''/' = ' U\i j a_Ti // ``_' 1 ' i �' ,.' /-' f '. h/ 1 1/ i1_ N � ��1,p�, j \\♦` `` r _ / 1 t! c / � 1 � ��\ •\ \ 1 rl r I / \ 1%ILD -Fs E �/♦ _- \°aa/�/~ 1` �lJ / ' ' '-'�' co i ' 8 p a A W N 1 �•,,_,/ `♦O ° 1 Imo` - `I /''�. 1 i� O* ea / P � / 1 / 1 I � � i r T 8 Pacific Coast Land Consulting Engineering Geologic Services Mike and Linda Goldstein 293 Hillcrest Drive Leucadia, CA 92024 F F 9 21 2006 January 25, 2006 F.N. 2024.06-02 440 Sandalwood Court • Encinitas • CA 92024 Tel (760)473-4117 • Fax(760) 753-2904 Pacific Coast Land Consulting Engineering Geologic Services Mike and Linda Goldstein January 25, 2006 293 Hillcrest Drive F.N. 2024.06-02 Leucadia, CA 92024 Subject: Subsurface Investigation New Construction 293 Hillcrest Drive Leucadia, CA 92024 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, Pursuant to your request a soil investigation for the proposed building has been completed. The purpose of the investigation is to provide foundation recommendations and parameters for the structure. The site is feasible to grade and construct the desired improvements on. Soil conditions encountered were favorable. Should you have any questions, please contact this office. Best Regards, �7797Vr-)MT Tfc STOC /�Pi�E TP "Z) s .tir`EOrF�� su�Ti�Sc � �R USiC ,�S CWC F/LL I-- �Y- - Pac' is Coast L d a SCY'�2A- Ralph K. Jeffe President C.E.G1183, R.G. 3815 440 Sandalwood Court • Encinitas • CA 92024 Tel(760)473-4117 • Fax(760) 753-2904 lA PROPOSED STRUCTURE Two proposed structures are to be built in the rear yard of 293 Hillcrest Drive in the community of Leucadia, in the City of Encinitas, California. The first structure, a garage, will have a pad elevation of 147.6 fl and will be separated from the new residence by a breezeway. The new residence will have a pad elevation of 14915 ft. The garage will be approximately 36 feet by 24 feet. The new residence will be approximately 36 by 47 feet. 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS The structure is located in the back yard area of an existing residence. The residence appears to be around 40 years of age or more and was constructed on natural ground. A detailed review of soils reports at the City off Encinitas is beyond the scope of this report and investigation. A review of the site and grounds was conducted during the investigation and there are no signs of significant distress or earth movement that would indicate settling or land sliding. The existing ground descends gently to the east at a slope of approximately 1 vertical to 6 horizontal. 3.0 REVIEW OF PROPOSED GRADING PLANS Plans for grading were prepared by Vincent L Sampo, Registered Engineer. These plans were reviewed prior to performing a subsurface investigation. The plans indicate that minimal grading is anticipated to be done in conjunction with the construction of this building. Fills are anticipated to be less than approximately 3 feet in thickness. Cuts are anticipated to be approximately 1 foot in thickness. The quantities of soil to be moved as indicated on the grading plans are cut; 10 cubic yards, and fill 350 cubic yards. 250 cubic yards of soil exists as stock piled material onsite and 100 more yards are to be imported. The structure is to be built on a pad to be constructed that will be approximately level with the existing back yard at about an elevation of 147 to 149 feet. To create the pad a slope is proposed at 4:1 (Horizontal to Vertical) ratio that has a maximum height of four(4) feet. 4.0 INVESTIGATION Two test pits were excavated to a depth of 32 inches and 26 inches in depth. The test pits were then logged and backfilled. The material exposed appeared to be terrace deposits consisting of light tan to brown silty sand . The material exposed in the pits was devoid of clays and other fine grained soils and is considered non expansive. Both test pits were excavated within the proposed grading area. The logs of the test pits and soil types encountered in the footing excavations as well as the location of the excavations are shown in the appendix of this report. Representative samples from the test pit were collected for laboratory testing. 1 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K. JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. 5 0 REGIONAL EOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS The site is located in an area of California,which is prone to ground shaking from regional earthquakes. Numerous faults including the San Andreas, Ellsinore, San Jacinto and several off shore faults will produce earthquakes of sufficient magnitude to cause serious ground shaking at the site. The closest mapped active or potentially active fault to site is Rose canyon Fault Zone. This fault is capable of producing a magnitude 7.0 earthquake. Given the nature of faulting in southern California it should be considered likely that the site will experience shaking due to a seismic event during the design of the proposed structure. Distance to Active Faults Rose Canyon 12 km Elsinore Fault 30 km San Jacinto 82.5 km Other seismic related factors that could possibly impact a site include: surface rupture, liquefaction, dynamic dry settlement, tsunamis, seiches or flooding and landsliding. Based on our review of maps and a review of the site it is our opinion that the possibility of the above listed factors is remote. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The proposed improvements are feasible for this site without any detrimental effects on other sites nearby from an engineering geologic perspective. The proposed grading plans are feasible to construct. The recommendations for grading should be followed by the contractor during the grading procedures. Foundation recommendations should also be followed. 6.1 Laboratory Testing On site soils and stockpiled fill are non-expansive. The onsite soils and imported fill soils have a maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557-91 of 131.0 lbs/cubic ft @ an optimum moisture content of 9.0%. 6.2 Grading Recommendations In general the contractor shall adhere to the grading guidelines as attached in the appendix of this report. The following steps are a general summation of those guidelines as they affect this proposed work. 1. All unsuitable topsoil and fill are to be removed prior to placing any fill. 2. A fill key is to be constructed along the toe of slope measuring approximately 10 feet by the length of the slope(see the site plan in the appendix of this report). 3. All areas of cut are to be over-excavated to a depth of at least 2 feet. 2 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K JEFFERY R G.,C.E.G. 4. All soils to be compacted are to be moistened properly to near optimum moisture content as determined by the maximum dry density test results as shown in the appendix to this report. 5. Prior to placement of any fill the exposed key way bottom shall be reviewed by an engineering geologist or a geotechnical engineer and approved to receive fill. Prior to placing any fill in the key way the bottom shall scarified to a depth of approximately 4 inches. 6. Soils shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. Soils shall be compacted in thin horizontal lifts not measuring any thicker than 6 inches in an un-compacted state. 7. As fill elevation rise, the existing fill suitable natural soils shall be benched into, in a stair step manner. 8. The soils shall be tested for compaction as the fill is placed. 6.3 Foundation Recommendations Samples collected from the test excavation revealed that the soils, which this structure is to be built on, are non expansive. It is acceptable to construct a slab on grade. The recommendations presented below should be considered minimums for the building foundation. The project structural engineer or other design professionals may provide actual recommendations. Recommendations for the foundation and slab are as follows: ❖ Allowable Bearing Capacity of Compacted Fill....... 2000 psf ❖ Minimum Depth of Footings in Compacted Fill 18 inches* *The embedment of the footings should be verified by this office. Footings need to bear on firm competent material. The field verification may require deepening of the footing. ❖ Minimum Width of Continuous Footings in Compacted Fill 15 inches ❖ Minimum Footing Reinforcement 2 #4 rebar, 1 top and 1 bottom 4e Minimum Thickness of Slab on Grade 4 inches ❖ Minimum Slab Reinforcement #4 rebar at 24" on center each way ❖ The slab shall be underlain with 2 inches of sand, a plastic vapor retarder and then an additional 6 inches of coarse sand or gravel that shall have no expansive characteristics. The vapor retarder should consist of a minimum of a 10-mil product. In order to prevent punctures to this retarder it may be necessary to place either two layers of 10-mil plastic 3 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K JEFFERY R G,CE G. or to overlay the gravel with a light non-woven filter fabric. The vapor retarder should be properly lapped or otherwise sealed at all splices and properly sealed at all penetrations. ❖ All standing water, excessively wet soils or mud, and loose soils shall be removed from the footing excavations and within the slab area. 6.3 Seismic Design Considerations Seismic design considerations are presented in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The seismic design considerations are as follows: Seismic Design Zone 4 Seismic Source Type B Soil Profile Type S, Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.56Nv Near Source Factor Na 1.0 Near Source Factor Nv 1.0 6.4 Miscellaneous Considerations The slab concrete should have a maximum water/cementitious materials ratio of 0.5. This will help to minimize the potential for shrinkage cracks and moisture vapor migration through the floor slab. It should be understood that by nature concrete cracks and the appearance of a few finer cracks may appear in the slab and that this will not necessarily indicate a problem. Additionally, if the slab is to be covered with moisture sensitive floor coverings the slab should be tested for the level of moisture vapor emission. Each type of flooring has a manufacturer's recommended maximum allowable level of moisture vapor emission. If the slab tests above the maximum levels specified by the flooring manufacturer, it may be necessary to seal the floor slab prior to placing some types of flooring. The most moisture sensitive flooring types are typically vinyl and wood. Other types may also be susceptible. 7.0 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS This is a limited investigation for the purpose of providing design parameters for a small additional building at the rear of the property. A detailed investigation into the fill depths and qualities is beyond the scope of this investigation.No indications of distress or other signs of detrimental soil movement other than those noted herein as being relatively minor were noted at this site. The site is believed to lie on fill placed during original mass grading of the site. It is assumed that this fill was observed and tested under the observation of a qualified engineer at that time. It is beyond the current authorized scope of services to evaluate the soils placed during the original mass grading of the site. This investigation was conducted solely to provide foundation recommendations for the proposed studio and to evaluate the near surface soils in area of proposed improvement. 4 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,CE.G. This site was not graded nor constructed by Pacific Coast Land Consulting Inc, Ralph K. Jeffery, and/or any combination of these entities. As stated in the original contract, none of these entities assumes nor accepts any liability whatsoever for work done on this project, not done by these entities. Soils investigations and geologic studies are considered and inexact science and soil conditions have been known to vary from location to location and with depth. The recommendations contained in this report are considered to be both practical and appropriate for the soils encountered. Typically risk of damage due to soils movement decreases with increased foundation depths, slab thickness, and steel reinforcement schedules. However costs can also increase dramatically with such increases. Additional recommendations are available both more and less stringent than those provided herein. The recommendations provided herein are considered minimums. If more restrictive recommendations are desired we should be contacted to provide such. Other professionals could come to differing recommendations and opinions.No warranty or guarantee is implied nor given as a result of this work. S Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. APPENDIX A: TEST PIT LOGS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G Pacific, Coast Land Consulting Engineering Geologic Services Test Pit Logs Test Pit 1 0.0'-12"TOPSOIL Silty Sand, medium brown, soft to firm moist to wet. minor organics 12"-32" TERRACE DEPOSITS Sand, light tan to tan, dense- V dense damp, coarse grained, Test Pit 2 0.0'-24"STOCKPIL ED FILL. FILL Silty sand to sand , Light tan to tan, loose moist clean material appears to be derived from Terrace deposits very similar to the onsite n Sample taken for laboratory testing. native soils. Laboratory Testing Maximum dry density test, ASTM D1557-91, Test Pit 2 � 0-24 " 131.0 1bs/ft3 @9.0 omc 440 Sandalwood Court • Encinitas • CA 92024 Tel (760)473-4117 • Fax (760) 753-2904 . ," rnh(vn to gineering, Inc l--;N.,,j° ► MAXIMUM "�-� ►'U. U��, r TA i tdro,,,gym. t •�••�.,«.��.. -�.,..!'-N.�,,,w1.« {•,. wet°e�i►G�1 [34.5- � �?S `�?� �•, Twe „•..«w.i,«.� °_'I•••j...,i," .•.�«. �..I WK Sol!* o. its "NO STANCAM AS t f { � .•..• •... ,.�.w....t«. ... oTNft C jj, ..f.., lob , ..�_ ,.•.«,... .,,t° -f wN t,,.. M,uonn, too Z«+o . . ,w VojU fie. ry 2,8 as •M•.,�v WA TBR +s 20 • CONTEAIT(psrpso off WOW) 26 30 APPENDIX B; SITE PLAN Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K. TEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. I _ EW r �. as " � �� ,�' Ali �. ��1�11►�P" I Ni 0 owl N®R IN! Amin Lit■"■ � WEl � � �! "I'slowra Pool- APPEND Cr STANDARD GRA DING SPECIFICATIONS Pacific Coast Lan RALPH K. F gRY�COn5Uitjng JEF G -AD ftG`AND BART I GENC Hwp GU�ELINES A. These guidelines Present general on the fill,nstallo PProved grading 1 procedures and r geotechnical n °f subdrains Pans, including re equuements for e report ca e Part the e w vation p The tion of areas to be fl e and grading as provisions co of the earth during the hereafter ' °rk and reCOmxnendations d, Placement of course of in the case of c grading guideline contained guidelines, or the reC grading may result in °pct. Evaluatio meS and �,°old supersede the mmendations contained recd ns Performed the B. The ntained • mmendations by the consultant contractor ' m the geotech ' which could supersede is responsible mcal report Persede these With prov�slons for the satisfactory co geologist (gent of the P10ject plans ands completion testing nical consultant specifications. °f all earthworks in g services, and geotec ) or their represen pro soil engineer accordance ,mical consultation during tatives should nd en the duration Provide observation Band oration of project. IL EARTQRK oBSERv ATIpNS AND TESTING A. Ge- technjcal Consultant Prior to the commencement nm2encement of grading, g geologist) should be g' a Qualifies geotec and testing the fills for conformance for the p finical consultant approved grading plans, and orm ce W1th the recom endation observing earth en procedures d/or work grading codes f the geotechnical report,The geotechnical consult and ordinances' Port, the made that the ant should provide testin work is being p the g and observation so that determination assist the consultants wor accomplished as s Y may and keep them apprised of specified It is the responsibili may be the y schedule their personnel accordingly anticipated work schedule of the contr and changes, to All cleanouts,prepared ges, so that and documented b ground to receive fill, ke fill. It is the y the Project engineerin y excavations, and subdr such Contractors responsibili g geologist and/or soil en sins should be areas are read h'to notify ineer observed y for observation. fY the engineerin Prior to placing an B• Laborato g geologist and soil engineer Y and Field g when Maximum d Tests accord �' density tests to Bete ante with American Stan rmine the degree �1• lord Testing g of compaction g Materials test should be performed method ASTM designation D_ in 1557_ andom field compaction tests should be ,signations D-1556-91, D-293 •sign height 7 or D-2922 performed in accordance ght or every 1ppp cubic yards of& D`3017, at intervals ofaWith test method AST Placed. These criteria would ately en 2 � )feet vary depending on l Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.]EFFERY R.C,CEG. the discretio ditions and the o f the geo sr2e°f the C. Contra tec ctor's Res finical c°nsl Project- The loC °nsibrli a�O the g. �or�t rig, site pr nd frequency°f governin ractor9 with p 6 n, and earth testing w°uld be at ga comp Ic,tto thgsatis f It rs the C Iron by ge ork perfo should the fill . action of °ntract, 1 oteC ed ° also re accord, the soil resPO rc consult the Project It is the s mO�e all a rr o with thnglnecer, �br7ity to Preparsc and Stag°euld be cord Ordinances mplish° � Onsibrl2ty n e h mater aMMendat* ' S read' moigr°und soda oval by�Y Of urPnlent sho d ahPp o°rk in acoprdcontractor t nsrdered unsat sfaCtl engirree hdition� Xceiye Placement u/d be v d 9--a ding ° pr°�i °rY by Th ' , and urrsatisfac ' and pro rded b drag plans rth apPlicabde adequate soil en nactr Material t0 c clinlati Y the C Sint. le grad' a equi grneer efial' i °nditio c COndi • ontractor rent w mg gut Pment an accePtab nsuf11 ns such as tons. I f With du ateria delines d metho conditionse'a h� refit support questionab, r the opinion consid apparatu codes or ds to n f ns ant w11 equipment le Weathe pinion o ation fort and CO agency nec 1 r 17rr ' etc. r, a the h fill mpaction �g co 'Y'essar3', stop work e Cont ac o� resul��gssive oversgeotech . material rate ter and to Ponding o w°nbactor sh until conditior a tithe CO ndac quality o f o� or del consul , rol rneasu es ha'Ve b Sion offhe contra or°Perly grad atrsfactory is expected o that is not been rnsta graded areas1 ld twee e �faces to rf3'the such trine as Per,, M asures for co good dr. f,E 1,�P�Tj tint drainage��l�ro a�e �N erosion rnamate �getation prior t should including btO be re rush, For ohe soil g fill. Existing ed and trees thick grasses, fllPlacement engineer or"ginerin 11, soil ad o f OJr. org�c deb Pon rake soil con g geOlOgist as urn° colluVi rem v ' and other ted as part drtions, these being unsuitab', •°r rock trust h round struct oftlre comp cted�errals may rn Place Should ials �nd Other struc��euch as cess Its should be approsed � coin be I exte by the soil not located°OI.' cisterns V ed by the P 1 t fills. An rld be °er oX such a depth Soft,ror to gracli gr g shads t gineer Y ca�ateddpwhntoatsur�espongy, highlberemO ids' septic t f�ground andrng cannot ad ed' oortoth edina, ppro equat erwise pac• . ved by the soil ove Pacific engineer c "04St L 2ALPyK IEFpt-hd CO7strltih9 2 a.� Cep before compaction and filling operations continue. Over-excavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned, should be recomputed to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. C. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about six (6) inches in compacted thickness. D. Existing ground, which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill, should be over-excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the onsite soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, discing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described in Item III, C, above. E. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least two (2) feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to one-half(1/2) the height of the slope. F. Standard benching is generally four feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed four feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of four feet in thickness. G. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades are attained. 3 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K JEFFERY R.G,C E G. IV. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. B. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock-derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. C. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken offsite or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative. D. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the material to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. E. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed six(6) inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. F. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layers should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. 4 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPII K.JEFFERY R_G,GE-G G. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion should be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill should be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. H. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of three (3) feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill cor i being evelo should g toped. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1, s ecific material types, a hi her minimum relative compaction, and special grad* , may be I. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1) An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal)parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2) Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3) Field compaction tests will be made in the outer(horizontal) two (2) to eight(8) feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4) After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent 5 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R._GC.E.G. to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after to 5) Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction r grid rolling. to rip, water, mix, and recompose , the contractor will be responsible Additional testing should be performed top verify materials necessary to achieve compaction. 6) Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed b the compliance with the ordinances of the controlling y accordance with the reco project civil engineer m recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering agencies, and/or in geologist. V. SUBDR�N INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdr Found in accordance with the approximate all be changed or modified without approval of the alignment ain locations or materials should not engineering geologist may recommend and e direct of change in subant.The soil engineer and/or material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of construct be recorded by the project civil engineer. line, grade and drain constructed subdrains should VI- EXCAVATIONS A. Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading b t If directed by the engineering y he engineering cut areas should be performed gd/or remedial grading cut geologist. geologist, further excavations or over-excavation and refilling of shoulfill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, should be observed by the engineering geologist g slopes should o performed. When d the b portion of the slope. g g gist prior to placement ement of materials for construction slope B. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes contractor when cut slopes are started. p and should be notified b y the C. If, during the course of grading, are encountered, g g, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope b should be based on in_gi g y g an d -grading evaluations b the need engineering r c p geologist, or stabilizing, Previously or not. g geolo ist whether anticipated D. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling Additionally, short-term stability of tempo r °pes should to excavated ary cut slopes is the contractor responsibility.agencies. 6 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G. C F G E. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. VII. COMPLETION A. Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. B. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. C. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. D. This report is intended for design purposes and may be used in preparation of construction bids. E. Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty. It is often-odiffa>ttto define, in precise terms, the subsurface environment of a given site area. This is especially true with only limited exploration. Hence, geotechnical engineering is often described as an inexact science or art. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are partly based upon the evaluations of technical information gathered, partly on experience, and partly on professional judgment. The conclusions and recommendations presented should be considered "advice". Other consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Although some risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems would usually result if more restrictive criteria were adopted. Final decision on matters presented is the responsibility of the client and/or the governing agencies.No warranties in any respect are made as to the performance of the project 7 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K JEFFERY R.G,C.E.G. Pacific Coast Land Co Engineerin nsultin0 g Geologic Services Final Grading e 293 Hillcr g port est Drive Leucadia, CA 92024 April 30, 2006 F.N. 2024.06-02 440 Sandalwood Court • Tel (760)473-4117 . Encinitas • CA 9202.,4 Fax(760)753-2904 Pacific Coast Land Consulting Engineering Geologic Services — Mike and Linda Goldstein 293 Hillcrest Drive April 30, 2006 Leucadia, CA 92024 F.N. 2024.06-02 Subject: Final Grading Report 293 Hillcrest Drive Leucadia, CA 92024 — Dear Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein, Pursuant to your request the grading for the proposed building pad has been completed. The foundation recommendations and parameters for the structure as presented in the referenced report remain the same. The grading proceeded as anticipated. The soils types encountered were the same as identified in the referenced report. The site is now suitable to apply for a building permit from a soils engineering perspective. Should you have any questions,please contact this office. Best Regards, Pac' is Coas ult' c' �t�,oFSS��ti� Ralph K. Jef s Lill ac �,u a c F President �F OF CAUFO�� R.C.E. 35007��` 5� C.E.G1183, R.G. 3 ,� oo1 I, EX �r �s cM� yTr 13�' 440 Sandalwood Court • Encinitas • CA 92024 Tel (760)473-4117 • Fax(760) 753-2904 F.N.2024-06.02 1.0 INTRODUCTION APRIL 30,2006 The purpose of this report is to present the as graded conditions encountered while preparing and grading the site at 293 Hillcrest Drive in Leucadia. The site location is shown in figure 1. Pacific Coast Land Consulting, Inc. dated January 25, 2006 titled prepared a preliminary report: Subsurface Investigation New Construction 293 Hillcrest Drive Leucadia, CA 92024 tA aA SKY LOf Ax s 10909 3` 9 .c �W 9` M� 8 7, N L��SS + 1 $ o o CA 5t E G S c — Figure 1 Site location 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site consists of an approximately 2-acre lot. The front portion of the lot is occupied by an existing home. The site was graded to construct two level building pads for the proposed new -- structures: a garage and home gym/office. 1 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 2.1 Plans and Procedures ■ Grading plans The grading plans were prepared by Sampo Engineering ■ Jurisdiction The site is with the jurisdiction of the City of Encinitas ■ Pre-grade Meeting A pre-grade meeting was held on Tuesday April 18, 2006. In attendance was Mike Goldstein, Mr. Tony Johnston from Valiston Company Inc., (the grader), Mr. Todd Baumbach; a representative from the City of Encinitas, a representative form the general contractor Greeren Construction, a representative from Sampo Engineering; the civil engineer, and a representative from this firm. ■ Equipment used onsite: Cat CP-323c Vibratory Sheepsfoot Compactor Cat D-4G- XL Bulldozer -' 3.0 GRADING The rough grading of the pads was accomplished by terracing the building pad area. Unsuitable topsoils were removed from the areas to receive fill by the excavation of a fill key at the toe of the proposed slope and benching out of the relatively thin profile of topsoil as grading proceeded. No unsuitable soils, other than the topsoils, were encountered during grading. No landslides, faults, or other geologic hazards were encountered during grading. 3.1 Grading procedure Prior to excavation of the key all stockpiled soils were removed from the area.The project geologist reviewed key excavations and benching procedures. All topsoils or otherwise unsuitable soils were removed to firm competent terrace deposits. Surfaces to receive fills were scarified, moistened, and reviewed prior to placing any fills. Upon approval of the bottom of the key, the fill was moistened as needed then spread in shallow lifts of less than 6 inches in loose thickness. Compaction of the soils was accomplished using a vibratory steel wheeled roller. Compaction tests were taken at frequent intervals. The soils on site were properly compacted this was confirmed by using the sand-cone method of testing. Tests were taken at frequent intervals in both elevation and area. As the fill elevation was increased benching of the thin layer of topsoils was done to meld the fill to the underlying terrace deposits and to remove the thin veneer of the topsoil. The benching was accomplished with each lift. The benching procedures created flat surfaces to receive the fill placed during the grading operations. 2 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 Since the lot was cut fill transition lot the cut portion was over-excavated to depth of three feet below pad elevation. This included the area on the fill side of the cut/fill transition line where the Planned depth of fill was less than three feet. Some import fills were brought into the site. These materials were substantially similar to the onsite soils, in classification color and makeup. Approximately 90 cubic yards were imported. The total volume of compacted soils was about 300 cubic yards. 3.2 Fill Slopes Planned fill slopes are very flat (4:1 Horizontal to vertical). The slopes proposed were overbuilt then cut back to the proposed grade. Maximum slope height on site is just less than five (5) feet. Maximum fill depth is less than 5 feet including the depth of removals of the topsoils. 3.3 Field Compaction The site was tested for compaction using A.S.T.M. method D1556-90 Eight tests were taken for the 300 cubic yards of fill material placed or about 1 test for every 37.5 cubic yards of fill placed. The tests were compared to appropriate maximum density tests as determined by A.S.T.M. D-1557-90. The following table presents the results of the fill testing. All tests passed. The test locations and key way locations are presented on the Grading Map figure 2. TABLE OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT Onsite: silty Sand light to medium reddish brown. Import: silty Sand light tan to pale brown....... •....."""""'••••-•131.61bs/cft @ 9.0%omc ••••••••••-••••••••........129.61bs/cft @ 7.0% omc COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Date 4/20/06 4/20/06 4/21/06 4/21/06 4/21/06 4/22/06 4/22/06 4/22/06 Max. Dry 131 131 131 131 Density 131 131 129.6 129.6 Lbs/cft Elev. 142.6 144.5 142 144 146.9 147.4 148 149.5 Moisture % 10.5 8.7 7.6 10.9 10.7 7.8 7.5 7.8 Compaction% 99 99 95 93 98 96 91 91 3 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.C. F.N.2024-06.02 LEGEND APRIL 30,2006 0 Limits of over-exacavation Fill key 0 Denisty test location Qt2 Terrace deposit 2 Q Limits of fill placement (= Proposed structures 140.4 Elevation in key bottom u Key Bottom 1 14 R z. 1 �W pad elev.147.6 07 h Qt2 pad elev 149.5 '' 8 0 r area of over cavation Density Test Location Map Goldstein Residence April 30, 2006 Figure 2 Density Test Location Map 4 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 4.0 SITE GEOLOGY The site is underlain by terrace deposits identified as Qt2, the second lowest terrace deposit in the area. These deposits correlate with the Baypoint Formation. These materials consist of moderately dense silty sands and easily identified by the reddish coloring. The soils make an excellent fill material because they are relatively easily to compact and mix well. The terrace deposits are mantled by thin poorly developed topsoil, which is sandy in nature. No faulting joints, fractures, or other significant geologic features were noted in the exposed terrace deposits. No landslides or other forms of geologic hazards were encountered onsite. No clayey soils were encountered. The site geologic map is shown in figure 3. ••�;.w S, L.... i 9 ~��'� ,: gn NO'SCa ® Leucad i .x� r ^� _:�.:.. .. k' is. Figure 3 Geologic Site Location Map 5 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The site as graded is free from geologic hazards and is considered suitable for the proposed construction. The previous conditions for seismic parameters and foundation recommendations generally remain in effect. These have been repeated herein for convenience. - Based on the foregoing reviews and test data, the following opinions are proffered. 1. On the basis of our reviews and field density tests, it is our opinion that the structural fill has been properly placed and compacted to the minimum 90 percent of the maximum density in the areas shown on the enclosed Compaction Map. 2. The compacted fill has been constructed in accordance with the Grading Codes of the City of Encinitas Department of Building and Safety, and the recommendations contained in the above referenced report. Representatives of Pacific Coast Land Consulting, Inc provided review and testing of the fill for the site improvements. 3. This report applies only to the area tested and reviewed, it does not describe the remaining portions of the site, or imply that future erosion and small failures will not occur in other areas at the subject site. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS — All structures should be designed in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations Seismic design considerations are presented in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The seismic design considerations are as follows. Seismic Design Zone 4 Seismic Source Type B Soil Profile Type Sc Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.56Nv Near Source Factor Na 1.0 Near Source Factor Nv 1.0 6.2 Foundation Recommendations Conventional foundations may be used. All foundations should be designed following the criteria in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as a minimum. General guidelines for the design and construction of foundations are presented below. These are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. Recommendations are provided 6 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 below for conventional foundations. Design criteria for post-tensioned foundations can be provided upon request. Design: The following foundation design parameters have been developed based on the assumptions that: ■ All footings are founded in properly compacted fill, ■ Prescribed setbacks from descending slopes or certified compacted fills are maintained, ■ Primary loads on the foundations are applied vertically, and • Wall loads on continuous footings are or the order of 1500 pounds per lineal foot or less, with column loads not exceeding 30 kips. Samples collected from the test excavation revealed that the soils, which this structure is to be built on, are non-expansive. It is acceptable to construct a slab on grade. The recommendations presented below should be considered minimums for the building foundation. The project structural engineer or other design professionals may provide actual recommendations. Recommendations for the foundation and slab are as follows: Allowable Bearing Capacity of Compacted Fill.......................................2,000 psf Minimum Depth of Footings in Compacted Fill ............ .18 inches* ........................ *The embedment of the footings should be verified by this office. Footings need to bear on firm competent material. The field verification may require deepening of the footing. Minimum Width of Continuous Footings in Compacted Fill........................15 inches Minimum Footing Reinforcement..............................2 #4 rebar, 1 top and 1 bottom Minimum Thickness of Slab on Grade...................................................4 inches Minimum Slab Reinforcement.............................#4 rebar at 18"on center each way The slab shall be underlain with 2 inches of sand, a plastic vapor retarder, and then an additional 6 inches of coarse sand or gravel that shall have no expansive characteristics. The vapor retarder should consist of a minimum of a 10-mil product. In order to prevent punctures to this retarder it may be necessary to place either two layers of 10-mil plastic or to overlay the gravel with a light non-woven filter fabric. The vapor retarder should be properly lapped or otherwise sealed at all splices and properly sealed at all penetrations. All standing water, excessively wet soils or mud, and loose soils shall be removed from the footing excavations and within the slab area. 7 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 6.3 Concrete and other Recommendations The slab concrete should have a maximum water/cementatious materials ratio of 0.5. This will help to minimize the potential for shrinkage cracks and moisture vapor migration through the floor slab. It should be understood that by nature concrete cracks and the appearance of a few finer cracks may appear in the slab and that this will not necessarily indicate a problem. Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially unnoticed to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix,placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete undergoes chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best,to control. Concrete while seemingly a stable material also is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time Additionally, if the slab is to be covered with moisture-sensitive floor coverings, the slab should be tested for the level of moisture vapor emission. Each type of flooring has a manufacturer's recommended maximum allowable level of moisture vapor emission. If the slab tests are above the maximum levels specified by the flooring manufacturer, it may be necessary to seal the floor slab prior to placing some types of flooring. The most moisture sensitive flooring types are typically vinyl and wood. Other types may also be susceptible. This consultant or another can be contacted to provide consulting services to determine the level of moisture vapor emission from the floor slab. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. This may not be practical for interior slabs however it is an effective method for exterior concrete. Again in no instances should water be added to the mix from the plant or exceed a ratio of .5 (water to cement). These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. One a similar note in an effort to mitigate the natural tendency of concrete to crack fiber mesh may be used an additive. For all reentrant corners 2, # 3 bars 3 feet in length should be placed at 6-inch increments away from the corner and tied into the reinforcing pattern. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control joints be placed in two direction spaced the numeric equivalent of two times thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers). As a practical matter this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. 8 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 6.4 Construction Review It is required that all footing excavations and grading be reviewed by this office. A review will be performed to determine if the intent of the report has been adequately carried forth. This office should be notified at least two working days in advance of any reviews of this nature -- so that staff personnel may be made available. 6.4 Drainatze Recommendations Good irrigation practices are very important to the performance of any site. A well thought out - and planned drainage system is important because buildup of water can cause many problems including triggering latent or concealed problems and contributing to mold. A comprehensive drainage system should be designed and incorporated into the final plans. In addition, any pads or slopes must be maintained and planted in a way that will allow this drainage system to function as intended. The following recommendations provide the basic criteria for the drainage system on site. The site should be well drainage. 6.4.1 Structure drains e The roof should be fitted with gutters and downspouts, which are to be tied via a tight- line system to an enclosed suitable outlet. No drains or downspouts are permitted to empty into soils adjacent to the foundation. Drains and down spouts should empty to a tight-line subsurface drain, which empties to the street or other controlled egress point. 6.4.2 Surface drainaee All surface yard drains should be treated in the same manner. Numerous surface drain inlets should be used in landscaped areas. In planter areas the drain inlets should consist of birdcage style inlets. In areas where drains are impractical, yard gradients should be directed away from the house at not less than 5%. On hard-scape surfaces such as concrete patios, drains should also be installed. These drains should be treated in a similar fashion as landscaped area and empty to the street via a tight-line. Drainpipes should be 3 or 4-inch abs or PVC schedule 40 or similar. In no instances is the black (corrugated) flex pipe suitable for drainpipes. All inlets should be fitted with an appropriate grate. Inlets for the drains shall be spaced such that there is sufficient capacity for water collection during heavy down pours. As a suggestion drains should cover about 200 square feet of collection area. Several curb outlets may be useful in accommodating the drainage plan. 9 °- Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 6.4.3 Pad Drainage Positive pad drainage should be incorporated into the final plans. All drainage from the roof and pad should be directed so that water does not pond adjacent to the foundations or flow toward them. All drainage from the site should be collected and directed via non-erosive devices to a location approved by the building official. No alteration of this system should be allowed. Planters placed adjacent to the structures should be designed to drain away from the structure. Care should be taken to not saturate the soils (i.e. leaking irrigation lines or excessive landscape watering). 6.4.3 Landscaping It is recommended that a landscape architect be consulted regarding planting adjacent to the development. Plants surrounding the development should be of a variety that requires a minimum of watering. It will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the planting. The landscape architect should review alterations of planting schemes. 6.4.4 Irrigation �- An adequate irrigation system will be required to sustain landscaping. Any leaks or defective sprinklers should be repaired immediately. To mitigate erosion and saturation, automatic sprinkling systems shall be adjusted for rainy seasons. A landscape irrigation specialist should be consulted to determine the best times for landscape watering and the maximum amount of water usage. 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL DISCLOSURES Owners and Buyers should be informed that any proposed buildings, appurtenant structures and improvements may be subject to City or County building permit requirements and could be subject to geotechnical review and possibly special foundation requirements. Positive drainage should not be blocked by homeowner improvements. Homeowners should be aware of the potential problems that could develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, pools, spas, paved walkways, patios, gazebos, or other improvements. Ponded water, incorrect drainage, water flowing over slope faces, leaky irrigation and water systems, overwatering or other conditions that could lead to ground saturation should be avoided. It should be the homeowner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot as well as proper irrigation, landscape maintenance and control of burrowing animals. In order to be effective, the maintenance should be conducted on a routine 10 Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. F.N.2024-06.02 APRIL 30,2006 schedule, and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. Plans for construction of any proposed underground structures such as pools and spas should consider geotechnical conditions. This is due to the potential of ground water conditions and/or expansive soils underlying portions of the site. 8.0 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS This is a limited investigation for the purpose of providing a report on the grading procedures and compactions tests. This site was not graded nor constructed by Pacific Coast Land Consulting Inc., Ralph K. Jeffery, Chris Lillback, and/or any combination of these entities. None of these entities assumes nor accepts any liability whatsoever for work done on this project, not done by these entities. Soils investigations and geologic studies are considered an inexact science and earth conditions �- have been known to vary from location to location and with depth. The recommendations contained in this report are considered to be both practical and appropriate for the soils encountered. Typically risk of damage due to soils movement decreases with increased foundation depths, slab thickness, and steel reinforcement schedules. However cost also goes up dramatically with such increases. It is possible to provide much more rigid recommendations, however the cost could go up dramatically and such recommendations would be beyond the standard of practice in the industry. Other professionals could come to differing recommendations and opinions. No warranty or guarantee is implied nor given as a result of this work. 11 -- Pacific Coast Land Consulting RALPH K.JEFFERY R.G.,C.E.G. t5y'- I. "5 Ica ,.CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION 1J W E -NND TESTING INCORPoR.-k'rED DI 9 261 South Pacific Drive.San Marcos.Califomin 92069 PP DEC 1 2005 SERVICES J 1 November 2004 PL--S -(r-t r pt Michael and Linda Medley Goldstein 293 Hillcrest Drive APR7ro)R2tRM4 Leuc—a la,-CA-9n24 C CES ES Subject: Preliminary Soils Report G 7-y' Reference: Goldstein Residence, APN 254-102-59, Parcel 2, PIVI 17716 Encinitas, CA Dear Michael and Linda: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject property. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory tests, and engineering analysis. The soil, foundation, and geologic conditions are discussed and information regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of the future development is presented. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & TESTING, INC. LIJ rn 0/05 C George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION A\D TESTING I\('ORPOR.ITED GIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 2 of 10 Figure 1 ti C loom ,E m POW!St "N"s I 02Mti'�.. +Pa�IY� 'H Giauous St'� ManQwutcom.Inc.:02001 NA ,..: -'---.. WGS84 117017'4511 W I 1 } II l•.. 7 7 • ,,nn FZ IL •�,�-�{ r "" • awl I 7�T,N' r •� WGG84 117017145" W TN MN ° 1/z 13s° 0 1000 FEET 0 v Printed from TOPO! 011999 Wikdfk -CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION F AND TESTING INCORPORATED GIT Project No. 04011 04.1 1 November 2004 Page 3 of 10 Purpose and Scope The purpose of our geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical Conditions at the subject site and provide conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the design and construction of the proposed development. The scope of our studies included the following: Discussion of preliminary project plans and review of geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the general site vicinity. • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory test pit. • Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. This report includes, foundation design parameters, soil bearing values, and other geotechnical related design /construction considerations. Project Description The project site consists of a rectangular lot with the western portion developed with an existing residence. As depicted in the preliminary grading plan prepared by Five*lyy mpo, Engineering Inc. minor grading Is proposed consisting of 10 cubic yards of cut an yards of fill (presently stockpiled on site). Topographically, the site is gently sloping to re a flat. At the eastern portion of the lot to be developed there is a minor descending gradient towards the east. Graded slopes are to be 4:1 to the east with (6) six feet in elevation difference, and 2:1 at the -° southern edge of the lot approximately (2') two feet in elevation difference. The elevation at the site range is approximately 150 mean sea level. Subsurface Investigation On October 27, 2004, field reconnaissance was conducted at the project site. An exploratory test pit excavated by others was observed. The test pit was logged and a soil sample was retrieved from the test pit for laboratory testing. Laboratory and Tests Results An expansion index tests was conducted on the on the insitu material to determine it'fs expansive potential. The tests were conducted in accordance with UBC 18-2. The results of the test yielded a numerical value of 13. This value is considered low and its potential for the soil to expand need not be considered. A soil Classification was conducted and the soil type at the subject site is fine to medium grained silty sands. FaUlting and Selsmlcity Our review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the general site indicate that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Evidence for active faulting on the site was not observed during our investigation. There are also a number of faults in the Southern California area, which are active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are limited to: the NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Offshore), the CORONADO BANK Fault, the ELSINORE-TEMECULA -I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING INCORPORATED CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 4 of 10 and the Rose Canyon fault. The nearest known fault is the Rose Canyon fault, which is 4.1 miles from the subject site SEISMIC ANALYSIS The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act, Quaternary faults have been classified as "active"faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). Deterministic Analysis— Deterministic seismicity was evaluated with the Eqfault computer program (Blake), which utilizes a digitized map of known active earthquake faults and a catalog of the Maximum Probable and Credible Earthquakes for each fault. The deterministic analysis was performed for all active faults within _. a specified radius of 100 miles from the Site. The data generated is included in Appendix B. Based on the deterministic analysis described, 9 faults were located within 50 miles of the site. The site is subject to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault (approximately 4.1 miles from the site), with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.4342 g's. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval. The Maximum Probable Earthquake IS commonly adopted as the design earthquake for residential construction. Effective Ground Acceleration - The effective ground acceleration is associated with that part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural deformation. The effective ground acceleration is referred to as the Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA), and is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the analysis, the site is Subject to a Probable RHGA of about 0.3g. Liquefaction - Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, usually taking place within a saturated soil medium exhibiting a uniform fine-grained characteristic, loose consistency, and low confining pressure when subjected to impact by seismic or dynamic loading. Based on the shallow depth to formation and absence of groundwater, the Site is considered to have a very low risk of soil liquefaction. Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture - Breaking of the ground is not likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the project limits. Due to the generally active seismicity of southern California, however, the possibility of ground lurching cannot be completely ruled out. In this light, "flexible"design for on-site utility lines and connections should be considered. Landslides -At the time of our investigation, there was no evidence that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist that would result in a geologic hazard. It should be noted that landslides are low risk within the soil characteristics of this formation eXposed at the site. Seiches and Flooding -At the time of our investigation, there were no nearby-contained bodies of water that could produce seiches ("tidal"waves in confined bodies of water), which may affect the Site. No seichie or flooding potential was Identified. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING [\CORPOR.ATED CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 5 of 10 Earthquake Design Parameters Earthquake resistant design parameters may be determined from the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), Chapter 16. Based on the proceeding analysis and our characterization of the site, the following design parameters may be adopted. Seismic Zone............. ..................................................................................................... Soil Types.................................................... ..........4 Sc Seismic Source Type................................................................... SSeismicCoefficient, Ca....................................................................................................0.40Na Neismic Coefficient, C..................................................................................................... Near Source Factor, Na........................................................................................ ear Source Factor, N......................................................................................................... .1.0 1.14 Ground Water and Surface Water Evidence of near-surface groundwater or seepage was not encountered during our investigation. Water seepage was not observed in the exploratory test pits and therefore, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to building design of construction. It is anticipated that site development plans will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and discharge of surface run-off. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface - stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors, which may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. Conclusions and recommendations Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed ✓ development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Minor grading will be required to level the lot and construct the proposed slopes. During the grading operations, it is important that a cut/fill transition does not exist within the building pad. If grading operations consist of creating a fill pad, then a representative of this office must be present to verify compaction of the fill soils. The s i nderlain by a relative r well as potential minor areas of alluvium and fill This ..�a+ems et as present condition, for the support of s&_fft�;�a►;t ersrtfiiti�;E3 ;;�- ra- -- d_re u ire _ in its an re lacement as comnarta Bents and will require removal P , __ed fill. Terrace deposits underlying the surface soils were found to consist primarily of dense silty sands. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should begin with the removal from the areas of the site to be developed of all existing vegetation and deleterious matter detrimental to the proposed development. It is recommended that existing topsoils, colluvium and fill underlying proposed settlement sensitive Improvements (fills, exterior slabs and street included) be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill (with the exception of the organic topsoil) provided they are free of organic material, deleterio s debr s ized CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING INCORPOR A]ED. GIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 7 of 10 Concrete As a minimum, the concrete used for foundation construction should have a 28-day compressive strength of 2,500 psi. The concrete should be mixed and placed in accordance With ACI specifications. Adding excess water of convenience to the concrete should be avoided. Proper curing techniques and a reduction in mixing water will help reduce cracking and concrete permeability. In order to further reduce shrinkage cracking and slab permeability, consideration should be given to using a concrete mix with a design maximum water cement ratio of 0.50. Appurtenant Structures Appurtenant structures such as patio flatwork and site walls should be designed and constructed in consideration of the design parameters and guidelines presented above. Environmental Issues Evaluation of potential environmental and/or health issues such as, but not limited to, the presence or absence of hazardous waste or toxic materials and/or other substances or conditions which may of may not fall ese categories was not included within the scope of this investigation. In addition, ndtech Test g and Inspection does not practice or offer services relating to hazardous aste or 'c material. Should you desire an evaluation relating to these or similar Issues, we suggest that u contact appropriately licensed and experienced professionals for advice and/or recommen tions. Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions The findings in this report have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or Implied. This report is presented with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or representative, to insure the recommendations in this report are carried out in the field. Additionally, It is the responsibility of the aforementioned person that the information in this report is brought the attention of the "design team", consisting of architects, engineers, etc., such that all information can be Incorporated into the building plans. The findings in this report are applicable as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether the changes are due to natural processes or the works of man on this property. 'CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION A\O TESTING I\ZCORPORAI'EOF GIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 3 of 10 B-1 Jackhammer Dimension of Pit: 3+3+10 Date Lo ed 10-27-04 Surface Elevation: 143+/- Ground water depth, n/a Lo ed B : GAG DEPTH SYMBOL FIELD DESCRIPTION and (FT) CLASSIFICATION 1 Surface Conditions: topsoil / .0'— 1.5' To-soil/ 2 Silty sand, orange brown, moist loose Formation Dense Silty Sand, tan, moist, 3 4 5 'CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION A\'D TESTING INCORPORATED 61T Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 9 of 10 EQFAULT Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0778 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2958 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 6)Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi(1999)Hor.-Holocene Soil-Uncor UNCERTAINTY(M=Median,S=Sigma):M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE(km): 3,0 -------------------------------------------- (ESTIMATED MAX.EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE I---------w------------ ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST.SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) 1EARTHQUAKEI SITE (INTENSITY I I MAG.(Mw)I ACCEL.g 1MOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Off hoe)6 1)19 6( 15.5)146 9 1 1X0.283 1 IX CORONADO BANK 1 19.1( 30.7)1 7.4 1 0.203 1 VIII _. ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 26.4( 42.5)1 6.8 1 0.094 1 VII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 26.4( 42.5)1 7.1 1 0.117 1 VII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 39.2( 63.1)1 6.8 1 0.057 1 VI PALOS VERDES 1 39.9( 64.2)1 7.1 1 0.071 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.0( 67.6)1 6.5 1 0.041 1 V SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 49.3( 79.3)1 7.2 1 0.058 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 50.8( 81.7)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(L.A.Basin) 1 51.6( 83.0)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 52.6( 84.7)1 6.8 1 0.039 1 V - CHINO-CENTRAL AVE.(Elsinore) 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.7 1 0.042 1 VI ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 54.7( 88.0)1 6.8 1 0.037 1 V WHITTIER 1 57.2( 92.0)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V COMPTON THRUST 1 61.3( 98.6)1 6.8 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-BORREGO 1 64.4(103.6)1 6.6 1 0.026 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 64.5(103.8)1 6.7 1 0.038 1 V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 64.9(104.5)1 6.7 1 0.028 1 V SAN ANDREAS-San Bernardino 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.3 1 0.041 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Southern 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.4 1 0.045 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 74.5(119.9)1 6.5 1 0.023 1 IV PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 75.4(121.4)1 7.0 1 0.029 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Coachella 1 75.5(121.5)1 7.1 1 0.031 1 V SIERRA MADRE 1 78.2(125.8)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V CUCAMONGA 1 78.5(126.3)1 7.0 1 0.033 I V SUPERSTITION MTN.(San Jacinto)1 79.8(128.4)1 6.6 1 0.019 1 IV BURNT MTN. 1 80.2(129.0)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(West)1 80.8(130.0)1 7.0 1 0.032 1 V CLEGHORN 1 82.7(133.1)1 6.5 1 0.017 1 IV " EUREKA PEAK 1 82.9(133.4)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV ELMORE RANCH 1 83.5(134.4)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(East)1 84.3(135.7)1 6.7 1 0.023 1 IV SUPERSTITION HILLS(San Jacinto)( 84.6(136.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV -- LAGUNA SALADA 1 85.4(137.5)1 7.0 1 0.025 1 V SAN ANDREAS-1857 Rupture 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN ANDREAS-Mojave 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.1 1 0.026 1 V RAYMOND 1 86.2(138.8)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 88.0(141.6)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV VERDUGO 1 88.9(143.0)1 6.7 1 0.022 1 IV HOLLYWOOD 1 90.7(145-9)1 6.4 1 0.017 1 IV LANDERS 1 90.7(145.9)1 7.3 1 0.029 1 V HELENDALE-S.LOCKHARDT 1 92.7(149.2)1 7.1 1 0.024 1 IV _CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AN D TEST ING I NCOR POR A'I'ED 61T Project No: 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 10 of 10 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.9(151.1)1 6.4 1 0.013 1 III SANTA MONICA 1 95.1(153.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 96.1(154.7)1 7.3 1 0.027 1 V MALIBU COAST 1 97.6(157.0)1 6.7 1 0.019 1 IV EMERSON So.-COPPER MTN. 1 98.4(158.4)1 6.9 1 0.019 1 IV JOHNSON VALLEY(Northern) 1 98.8(159-0)l 6.7 1 0.016 1 IV f}if}ff}fifif}fffffiff}ff}ffff}fff}f ffifffffffffffffifffff}ifffffff}1f}fi}fi}ff -END OF SEARCH- 49 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.1 MILES(6.6 km)AWAY. _ LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION.0.4342 g CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP Test 1100 Ruh 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 •'Ou p 0 SI -100 400 300 -200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Soo CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION A\I) TPSTI\G INCORPORATED CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 10 of 10 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.9(151.1)1 6.4 1 0.013 1 III SANTA MONICA 1 95.1(153.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 96.1(154.7)1 7.3 1 0.027 1 V MALIBU COAST 1 97.6(157.0)1 6.7 1 0.019 1 IV EMERSON So.-COPPER MTN. 1 98.4(158.4)1 6.9 1 0.019 1 IV JOHNSON VALLEY(Northern) 1 98.8(159.0)1 6.7 1 0.016 1 IV -END OF SEARCH- 49 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.1 MILES(6.6 km)AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION:0.4342 g CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 1100 Test Run 1000 9100 800 700 Soo 500 400 300 200 100 ;SST° 0 q, SI -100 400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 800 _(CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TFSTING INC'ORPORA"FFD CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page g of 10 EQFAULT Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0778 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2958 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 6)Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi(1999)Hor.-Holocene Soil-Uncor UNCERTAINTY(M=Median,S=Sigma):M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION w_ FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE(km); 3.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (ESTIMATED MAX.EARTHQUAKE EVENT 1 APPROXIMATE I------------_-----_------ ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST.SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) (EARTHQUAKE( SITE JINTENSITY ---I (MAG.(Mw)IACCEL.g JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 4.1( 6.6)1 6.9 1 0.434 1 X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Offshore) 1 9.6( 15.5)1 6.9 1 0.283 1 IX CORONADO BANK 1 19.1( 30.7)1 7.4 1 0.203 1 VIII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 26.4( 42.5)1 6.8 1 0.094 1 VII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 26.4( 42.5)1 7.1 1 0.117 1 VII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 39.2( 63.1)1 6.8 1 0.057 1 VI PALOS VERDES 1 39.9( 64.2)1 7.1 1 0.071 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.0( 67.6)1 6.5 1 0.041 1 V - SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 49.3( 79.3)1 7.2 1 0.058 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 50.8( 81.7)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(L.A.Basin) 1 51.6( 83.0)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 52.6( 84.7)1 6.8 1 0.039 1 V CHINO-CENTRAL AVE.(Elsinore) 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.7 1 0.042 1 VI ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 54.7( 88.0)1 6.8 1 0.037 1 V WHITTIER 1 57.2( 92.0)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V COMPTON THRUST 1 61.3( 98.6)1 6.8 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-BORREGO 1 64.4(103.6)1 6.6 1 0.026 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 64.5(103.8)1 6.7 1 0.038 1 V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 64.9(104.5)1 6.7 1 0.028 1 V SAN ANDREAS-San Bernardino 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.3 1 0.041 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Southern 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.4 1 0.045 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 74.5(119.9)1 6.5 1 0.023 1 IV PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 75.4(121.4)1 7.0 1 0.029 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Coachella 1 75.5(121.5)1 7.1 1 0.031 1 V SIERRA MADRE 1 78.2(125.8)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V CUCAMONGA 1 78.5(126.3)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V SUPERSTITION MTN.(San Jacinto)1 79.8(128.4)1 6.6 1 0.019 1 IV BURNT MTN. 1 80.2(129.0)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(West)1 80.8(130.0)1 7.0 1 0.032 1 V CLEGHORN 1 82.7(133.1)1 6.5 1 0.017 1 IV -- EUREKA PEAK 1 82.9(133.4)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV ELMORE RANCH 1 83.5(134.4)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(East)1 84.3(135.7)1 6.7 1 0.023 1 IV SUPERSTITION HILLS(San Jacinto)( 84.6(136.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA 1 85.4(137.5)1 7.0 1 0.025 1 V SAN ANDREAS-1857 Rupture 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN ANDREAS-Mojave 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.1 1 0.026 1 V RAYMOND 1 86.2(138.8)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 88.0(141.6)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV VERDUGO 1 88.9(143.0)1 6.7 1 0.022 1 IV HOLLYWOOD 1 90.7(145-9)1 6.4 1 0.017 1 IV LANDERS 1 90.7(145-9)1 7.3 1 0.029 1 V HELENDALE-S.LOCKHARDT 1 92.7(149.2)1 7.1 1 0.024 1 IV N i w_ E Sam o Enginet-ring,Engineering, Inc. Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping S February 26, 2008 Page 1 of 1 E E 3 2 7 2008 Engineering Inspector City of Encinitas _.___.____i 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Grading Plan No,9'6O1- J. CDP 04-131 Gr ding Plan. 293 HillCrest Dr. Encinitas, CA Dear Engineering Inspector, The grading under permit no. 9601-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan, or as shown on the attached as-graded plan. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or comments. Sincere] Vince Sara PE PLS Q S T Ll�. President O2 m Na 44173 rn Exp.6.30-M CAl 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone: 760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 info(&�sampoengineering.com 0— Oio you, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION --7 I. S I : N (I A I I It U f I L 1. 261 South Pacific Drive. San MarcOm.California 92069 DEC �j 1 1A 1 November 2004 PL--S c D L)C-- C k-Usl CyN I)A OAS S_ Michael and Linda Medley Goldstein 293 Hillcrest Drive 'Project No..0401104.1 Leuca—d—la, 24 Subject: Preliminary Soils Report Reference: Goldstein Residence, APN 254-102-59, Parcel 2, PM 17716 Encinitas, CA Dear Michael and Linda: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject property. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory tests, and engineering analysis. The soil, foundation, and geologic conditions are discussed and information regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of the future development is Presented. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & TESTING, INC. 0?,OF UJ w m rn 5 "'FOPCAUf JC C AUf George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564 (Y)NSTRCCTIO\INSPECTION CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 2 of 10 Figure 1 p 100m w M y� Roeq�aecx 0 an«u�' !• a � � NII°nt •ICY s � � tNUi■�a � gg R ►.,p.•b St Nom~ � ?!•t■ i a zia M.■al.a..o•1.r■.;a s wn A Pa1b�' a oauftm a+ pa WGS84 117°17'45" W `i'�; •I14a =-:,;fir I•�I� � ■•i �••'`-- a `,� 1 ,Oyu Ar. • .. •!'4�!.�dh -f`t, 1 �I• ■!'1 �!,i, Ln Ap 4 !;� ■tits .�:'• J 1 L lT] '- -_--1 __��- 1■ Tom--_ _it. ��'1—rY�M' /yam WGS84 117417'45" W TN IMN ' Ill")13 0 1000 FEET 0 v Printed from TOPO! 01999 WW& -,CONSTRUCTION MPECTIO\ CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 3 of 10 Purpose and Scope The purpose of our geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the design and construction of the proposed development. The scope of our studies Included the following: Discussion of preliminary project plans and review of geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the general site vicinity. • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory test pit. • Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. This report includes, foundation design parameters, soil bearing values, and other geotechnical related design /construction considerations. Project Description The project site consists of a rectangular lot with the western portion developed with an existing residence. As depicted in the preliminary grading plan prepared by S mpo, Engineering Inc. minor grading is proposed consisting of 10 cubic yards of cut an 50 yards of fill (presently stockpiled on site). Topographically, the site is gently sloping to re a Ively flat. At the eastern portion of the lot to be developed there is a minor descending gradient towards the east. Graded slopes are to be 4:1 to the east with (6') six feet in elevation difference, and 2:1 at the southern edge of the lot approximately (2') two feet in elevation difference. The elevation at the site range is approximately 150 mean sea level. Subsurface Investigation On October 27, 2004, field reconnaissance was conducted at the project site. An exploratory test pit excavated by others was observed. The test pit was logged and a soil sample was retrieved from the test pit for laboratory testing. Laboratory and Tests Results An expansion index tests was conducted on the on the insitu material to determine A expansive potential. The tests were conducted in accordance with UBC 18-2. The results of the test yielded a numerical value of 13. This value is considered low and it*s potential for the soil to expand need not be considered. A soil classification was conducted and the soil type at the subject site is fine to medium grained silty sands. Faulting and Seismicity Our review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the general site indicate that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Evidence for active faulting on the site was not observed during our Investigation. There are also a number of faults in the Southern California area, which are active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are limited to: the NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Offshore), the CORONADO BANK Fault, the ELSINORE-TEMECULA -,C'O\STRL'CTIO\1\SP[CTIO\ CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 4 of 10 and the Rose Canyon fault. The nearest known fault is the Rose Canyon fault, which is 4.1 miles from the subject site SEISMIC ANALYSIS The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act, Quaternary faults have been classified as "active"faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). Deterministic Analysis— Deterministic seismicity was evaluated with the Eqfault computer program (Blake), which utilizes a digitized map of known active earthquake faults and a catalog of the Maximum Probable and Credible Earthquakes for each fault. The deterministic analysis was performed for all active faults within a specified radius of 100 miles from the site. The data generated Is Included In Appendix B. Based on the deterministic analysis described, 9 faults were located within 50 miles of the site. The site is subject to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault (approximately 4.1 miles from the site), with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.4342 g's. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is commonly adopted as the design earthquake for residential construction. Effective Ground Acceleration - The effective ground acceleration Is associated with that part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural deformation. The effective ground acceleration is referred to as the Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA), and Is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the analysis, the site Is subject to a Probable RHGA of about 0.3g. Liquefaction - Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, usually taking place within a saturated soil medium exhibiting a uniform fine-grained characteristic, loose consistency, and low confining pressure when subjected to Impact by seismic or dynamic loading. Based on the shallow depth to formation and absence of groundwater, the site is considered to have a very low risk of soil liquefaction. Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture - Breaking of the ground is not likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the project limits. Due to the generally active seismicity of southern California, however, the possibility of ground lurching cannot be completely ruled out. In this light, "flexible"design for on-site utility lines and connections should be considered. Landslides-At the time of our investigation, there was no evidence that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist that would result in a geologic hazard. It should be noted that landslides are low risk within the soil characteristics of this formation exposed at the site. Seiches and Flooding -At the time of our investigation, there were no nearby-contained bodies of water that could produce seiches("tidal"waves in confined bodies of water), which may affect the site. No seiche or flooding potential was identified. -CONSTRUCTION[\SPGCTION l\u ,. ?.I\I, I.( n R P,)R V 1 1 1, CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 5 of 10 Earthquake Design Parameters Earthquake resistant design parameters may be determined from the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), Chapter 16. Based on the proceeding analysis and our characterization of the site, the following design parameters may be adopted, SeismicZone................................................... Soil Types................. .. 4 Seismic Source Type........................ ................................................................................ Seismic Coefficient, Ca.............................. """' B Seismic Coefficient, Cv....................................................................... NNearSource Factor, Na.............................................................................. ear Source Factor, N................................. ......................... 1.0 ........................................................................1 1.14 Ground Water and Surface Water Evidence of near-surface groundwater or seepage was not encountered during our investigation. Water seepage was not observed in the exploratory test pits and therefore, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to building design of construction. it is anticipated that site development plans will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and discharge of surface run-off. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations In ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors, which may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed ✓ development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Minor grading will be required to level the lot and construct the proposed slopes. During the grading operations, it is important that a cut/fill transition does not exist within the building pad. If grading operations consist of creating a fill pad, then a representative of this office must be present to verify compaction of the fill soils. The subiect ite is underlain -9soiL4maximum depth well as potential minor areas of alluvium and fill This ma to i is cQ et as present condition, forth d unsuitablerin�s an re lacement as compacted ants and will require removal P � �d fill. Terrace deposits underlying the surface soils were found to consist primarily of dense silty sands. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should begin with the removal from the areas of the site to be developed of all existing vegetation and deleterious matter detrimental to the proposed development. It is recommended that existing topsoils, colluvium and fill underlying proposed settlement sensitive improvements (fills, exterior slabs and street included) be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill (with the exception of the organic topsoil) provided they are free of organic material, deleterious debr s a ized �1 .(ONSTRCCTIOX[WECTION '\;) I I .i\,. \( K i K 1 1 1 i 1 CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 6 of 10 material. Rocks with a maximum dimension greater that 6 inches should not be placed in the re-compacted fill. Area to receive fill and/or surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill should be about 6 to 8 inches of loose thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by our representative consultant. Preparation of the building pad for the slab-on-grade and garage slab-on-grade should consist of cutting the pad level down to suitable native soils including five foot perimeter extension of the pad beyond the proposed improvements (with exception to the west perimeter bounded by the pool deck). Once the pad has been cut engineered fill may be placed as described above. Engineered fill beneath the slab-on-grade(s) shall be of uniform thickness and relative compaction of 90 percent or better. Soil Design Criteria Conventional Foundations: Allowable Bearing Capacity For Continuous Footings........................................ psf Minimum foundation embedment.............................................. ........................18 inches Minimum width for continuous footings single story........................................... inches Minimum width for continuous footings multi story.............................................18 inches Coefficient of friction against sliding ........................................... ................................0.35 Passive earth resistance on the side of footing.................................................. 350 psf/it Slab-On-Grade Interior Slab-0n-Grade: The concrete slab-on-grade floor for the proposed structure should have a minimum thickness of at least five inches and be reinforced with at least#4 bars at 24 inches on center. Slab-on-grade within living areas should be provided with a two inch poorly graded sand blanket over the subgrade soils, with a 10 mil visqueen barrier between the sand and concrete. Additionally, sand between the concrete and the visqueen barrier for concrete curing may be used in addition too, but not in lieu of the previous. It is also our opinion the slab-on-grade concrete utilized In these moisture sensitive areas should be designed with a 0.50 water to cement ratio. Exterior Slab-On-Grade: Exterior slabs such as driveways, patios and walkways should have a minimum thickness offour inch s. Walks or slabs up to five feet in width should be reinforced with at least#3 bars at 24 inches on center and provided with weakened plane joints. Reinforcement recommendations for wider slabs should be provided by the architect or engineer. Slabs between five and ten feet should be provided with longitudinal weakened plane joints at the centerlines. Slabs exceeding ten feet in width should be provided with a weakened plane joint In accordance with American Concrete Institute Standards. CONSTRL'CTIO\INSPECTION 1 A U I P I f l A,. !A, u H P,,H l:i :l CIT Project No. 0401104:1 1 November 2004 Page 7 of 10 Concrete As a minimum, the concrete used for foundation construction should have a 28-day compressive strength of 2,500 psi. The concrete should be mixed and placed in accordance with ACI specifications. Adding excess water of convenience to the concrete should be avoided. Proper curing techniques and a reduction in mixing water will help reduce cracking and concrete permeability. In order to further reduce shrinkage cracking and slab permeability, consideration should be given to using a concrete mix with a design maximum water cement ratio of 0.50. Appurtenant Structures Appurtenant structures such as patio flatwork and site walls should be designed and constructed in consideration of the design parameters and guidelines presented above. Environmental issues Evaluation of potential environmental and/or health issues such as, but not limited to, the presence or absence of hazardous waste or toxic materials and/or other substances or conditions which may of may not fall ese categories was not Included within the scope of this investigation. In addition, ndtech Test' g and Inspection does not practice or offer services relating to hazardous aste or c material. Should you desire an evaluation relating to these or similar issues, we suggest that u contact appropriately licensed and experienced professionals for advice and/or,recommen ations. Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions The findings in this report have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. This report is presented with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or representative, to insure the recommendations in this report are carried out in the field. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the aforementioned person that the information In this report is brought the attention of the "design team", consisting of architects, engineers, etc., such that all information can be incorporated into the building plans. The findings in this report are applicable as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether the changes are due to natural processes or the works of man on this property. .CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION GIT Project No. 0401104,1 1 November 2004 Page 3 of 10 B-1 Jackhammer Dimension of Pit: 3+3+10 Date Logged 10-27-04 Surface Elevation: 143+/- Ground water depth: n/a Logged By: GAG DEPTH SYMBOL FIELD DESCRIPTION and (FT) CLASSIFICATION Surface Conditions: topsoil / .0'— 1.5' Topsoil/ 2 Silty sand, orange brown, moist loose Formation Dense Silty Sand, tan, moist, 3 4 5 C'O\STRI'C'TI01 INSPECTION CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 9 of 10 EQFAULT Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0778 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2958 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 6)Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi(1999)Hor.-Holocene Soil-Uncor UNCERTAINTY(M=Median,S=Sigma):M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE(km): 3.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (ESTIMATED MAX.EARTHQUAKE EVENT 1 APPROXIMATE I-----------_-------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST.SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKEJ SITE (INTENSITY ---I I MAG.(Mw)I ACCEL.g JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON---==-----------===1=====____=====I==========I==========I=====____ NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Offshore)6.6)1 1 9.6( 15.5)14 9 1 1X0.283 1 IX CORONADO BANK 1 19.1( 30.7)1 7.4 1 0.203 1 VIII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 26.4( 42.5)1 6.8 1 0.094 1 VII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 26.4( 42.5)1 7.1 1 0.117 1 VII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 39.2( 63.1)1 6.8 1 0.057 1 VI PALOS VERDES 1 39.9( 64.2)1 7.1 1 0.071 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.0( 67.6)1 6.5 1 0.041 1 V SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 49.3( 79.3)1 7.2 1 0.058 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 50.8( 81.7)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(L.A.Basin) 1 51.6( 83.0)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 52.6( 84.7)1 6.8 1 0.039 1 V CHINO-CENTRAL AVE.(Elsinore) 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.7 J 0.042 1 VI ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 54.7( 88.0)J 6.8 1 0.037 1 V WHITTIER 1 57.2( 92.0)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V COMPTON THRUST 1 61.3( 98.6)1 6.8 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-BORREGO 1 64.4(103.6)1 6.6 1 0.026 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 64.5(103.8)1 6.7 1 0.038 1 V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 64.9(104.5)1 6.7 1 0.028 1 V SAN ANDREAS-San Bernardino 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.3 1 0.041 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Southern 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.4 1 0.045 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 74.5(119.9)1 6.5 1 0.023 1 IV PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 75.4(121.4)1 7.0 1 0.029 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Coachella 1 75.5(121.5)1 7.1 1 0.031 J V SIERRA MADRE 1 78.2(125.8)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V CUCAMONGA 1 78.5(126.3)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V SUPERSTITION MTN.(San Jacinto)1 79.8(128.4)1 6.6 1 0.019 1 IV BURNT MTN. 1 80.2(129.0)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(West)1 80.8(130.0)1 7.0 1 0.032 1 V CLEGHORN 1 82.7(133.1)1 6.5 1 0.017 1 IV EUREKA PEAK 1 82.9(133.4)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV ELMORE RANCH 1 83.5(134.4)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(East)1 84.3(135.7)1 6.7 1 0.023 I IV SUPERSTITION HILLS(San Jacinto)) 84.6(136.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA 1 85.4(137.5)1 7.0 1 0.025 1 V SAN ANDREAS-1857 Rupture 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN ANDREAS-Mojave 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.1 1 0.026 1 V RAYMOND 1 86.2(138-8)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 88.0(141.6)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV VERDUGO 1 88.9(143-0)1 6.7 1 0.022 1 IV HOLLYWOOD 1 90.7(145-9)1 6.4 1 0.017 1 IV LANDERS 1 90.7(145-9)1 7.3 1 0.029 1 V HELENDALE-S.LOCKHARDT 1 92.7(149.2)1 7.1 1 0.024 1 IV ONSTRLCTIO\INSP[CT10V' CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 10 of 10 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.9(151.1)1 6.4 1 0.013 1 III SANTA MONICA 1 95.1(153.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSJ 96.1(154.7)1 7.3 1 0.027 1 V MALIBU COAST 1 97.6(157.0)1 6.7 1 0.019 1 IV EMERSON So.-COPPER MTN. 1 98.4(158.4)1 6.9 1 0.019 1 IV JOHNSON VALLEY(Northern) 1 98.8(159.0)) 6.7 1 0.016 1 IV -END OF SEARCH- 49 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.1 MILES(6.6 km)AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION:0.4342 g CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 1100 Tcvt Run 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 •ty,tpe \ 0 SI -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 10 of 10 BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.9(151.1)1 6.4 1 0.013 I III SANTA MONICA 1 95.1(153.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 96.1(154.7)1 7.3 1 0.027 1 V MALIBU COAST 1 97.6(157.0)1 6.7 1 0.019 1 IV EMERSON So.-COPPER MTN. 1 98.4(158.4)1 6.9 1 0.019 I IV JOHNSON VALLEY(Northern) 1 98.8(159.0)1 6.7 1 0.016 1 IV ##f#ff#f##R#R#RffffifR#R##}yR#fR#R#}R#1fifR#}R#R#yR###yR#Rfffff#}R#R#fRRf#f1fR#f -END OF SEARCH- 49 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.1 MILES(6.6 km)AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION:0.4342 g CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 1100 TCst Run 1000 900 sw 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 -64ysy 0 SI -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 N(O\STRCCTIO\1WECTION CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 9 of 10 EQFAULT Version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0778 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2958 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 6)Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi(1999)Hor.-Holocene Soil-Uncor UNCERTAINTY(M=Median,S=Sigma):M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE(km): 3,0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (ESTIMATED MAX.EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE I----------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST.SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY ----I I MAG.(Mw)I ACCEL.g JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 4.1( 6.6)1 6.9 1 0.434 1 X NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Offshore) 1 9.6( 15.5)1 6.9 1 0.283 1 IX CORONADO BANK 1 19.1( 30.7)1 7.4 1 0.203 1 VIII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 26.4( 42.5)1 6.8 1 0.094 1 VII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 26.4( 42.5)1 7.1 1 0.117 1 VII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 39.2( 63.1)1 6.8 1 0.057 1 VI PALOS VERDES 1 39.9( 64.2)1 7.1 1 0.071 1 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.0( 67.6)) 6.5 1 0.041 1 V SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 49.3( 79.3)1 7.2 1 0.058 1 VI SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 50.8( 81.7)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(L.A.Basin) 1 51.6( 83.0)1 6.9 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 52.6( 84.7)1 6.8 1 0.039 1 V CHINO-CENTRAL AVE.(Elsinore) 1 53.6( 86.3)1 6.7 1 0.042 1 VI ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 54.7( 88.0)J 6.8 1 0.037 1 V WHITTIER 1 57.2( 92.0)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V COMPTON THRUST 1 61.3( 98.6)1 6.8 1 0.044 1 VI SAN JACINTO-BORREGO 1 64.4(103.6)1 6.6 1 0.026 1 V ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 64.5(103.8)1 6.7 1 0.038 1 V SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 64.9(104.5)1 6.7 1 0.028 1 V SAN ANDREAS-San Bernardino 1 68.7(110.6)) 7.3 1 0.041 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Southern 1 68.7(110.6)1 7.4 1 0.045 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 74.5(119.9)1 6.5 1 0.023 1 IV PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 75.4(121.4)1 7.0 1 0.029 1 V SAN ANDREAS-Coachella 1 75.5(121.5)1 7.1 1 0.031 1 V SIERRA MADRE 1 78.2(125.8)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V CUCAMONGA 1 78.5(126.3)1 7.0 1 0.033 1 V SUPERSTITION MTN.(San Jacinto)1 79.8(128.4)1 6.6 1 0.019 1 IV BURNT MTN. 1 80.2(129.0)) 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(West)1 80.8(130.0)1 7.0 1 0.032 1 V CLEGHORN 1 82.7(133.1)1 6.5 1 0.017 1 IV EUREKA PEAK 1 82.9(133.4)1 6.4 1 0.016 1 IV ELMORE RANCH 1 83.5(134.4)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE(East)1 84.3(135.7)1 6.7 1 0.023 J IV SUPERSTITION HILLS(San Jacinto)1 84.6(136.1)1 6.6 1 0.018 1 IV LAGUNA SALADA 1 85.4(137.5)1 7.0 1 0.025 1 V SAN ANDREAS-1857 Rupture 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.8 1 0.046 1 VI SAN ANDREAS-Mojave 1 86.2(138.8)1 7.1 1 0.026 1 V RAYMOND 1 86.2(138.8)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 88.0(141.6)1 6.5 1 0.019 1 IV VERDUGO 1 88.9(143.0)1 6.7 1 0.022 1 IV HOLLYWOOD 1 90.7(145-9)1 6.4 1 0.017 1 IV LANDERS 1 90.7(145-9)1 7.3 1 0.029 1 V HELENDALE-S.LOCKHARDT 1 92.7(149.2)1 7.1 1 0.024 1 IV ' Recording Requested By: \ City ofEO{indaS ' ` ) |x�ORIGINAL n+rH/� DC*uwEwT ) m*s�'-'EouRosoom wmna/ zoos When Recorded Mail To�� ' oocuwEmrmuweeR ) u�s�o* 000e^»g4rzs City Clerk ' `�no.so'/ ��w' « oouwryREooRoER City ~ ) 5O5 South Vulcan Avenue ) TIME 3 4 Pm Encinitas, CA ' ) 8F COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING/DRAINAGE Assessor's Parcel No. 254-102-59 P ' ct N Plan No.: -------- A. Michael Goldstein and l.iodu Medley Goldstein, husband and wife as 'o�d [n000tx, / ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner mfreal property which is Qornrnon|y hnmvvn as 293 Hillcrest Avenue - ("PROPEF|TY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment Awhich is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of .04-131 CDP by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit ofCITY, tmdOthe following: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made 8 part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future ovvnere, ancurnbnencera, aucoeaoomo, heiro, personal nepreaentaUmea, 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 incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party. F. Failure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: O NER Dated �-2 3-a 6 A� Michael Goldstein Dated 1— 23 --04 Linda Medley Goldstein (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CITY OF ENCINITAS Dated//-//Q6 by (Notarization not required) Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services ATTACHMENT A TO PROJECT NO. 04-131 BA, MIN, CDP APN 254-102-59 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 17716 IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JULY 3, 1996. ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING/DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. 04-131 CDP OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from any grading or drainage runoff associated with the PROPERTY or the plans, design, construction or maintenance of OWNER' s improvements, OWNER unconditionally waives all present and future claims against CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees, and agents. This waiver does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or deliberate, wrongful act of CITY. 2. It is further understood and agreed that all of OWNER'S rights under §1542 of the Civil Code of, the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the United States are hereby expressly waived. 9 1542 reads as follows: 1542. Certain claims not affected by general release. A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. 3. OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs of defense thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or OWNER's agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, OWNER shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs. OWNER' s obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the plans, specifications and design of the improvements; but does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans, specifications or design that is a result of a change required by CITY to the OWNER's proposed plans, specifications or design so long as such change is objected to, in writing, by OWNER, and the writing is filed with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the commencement of work. OWNER's obligation herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the construction of the improvements; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction of the improvements; alleged injury to persons or property; and any alleged inverse condemnation of property as a consequence of the design, construction, or maintenance of the improvements. By approving the improvement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting or approving the improvements, CITY shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of OWNER who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials, employees and agents, harmless as provided above. OWNER's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the CITY's intentional wrongful acts, CITY's violations of law, or CITY's sole active negligence. 4. OWNER hereby agrees not to develop in any manner the PROPERTY except as authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among other things, but without limitation, this shall prohibit the alteration of land forms, removal of vegetation and the erection of structures of any type, except as permitted or authorization by CITY. 5. This Covenant does not Preclude OWNER taking emergency, protective measures as approved by CITY. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Ct�a`r'�*1 i Q, County of 3a.-t I PS o On TO-NICaf!j -)3 Q before me, /iJQ#I c H V eLd0*PQ P-7 10,1. I*c ate Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Pub c") ' personally appeared H 1Clcge( Qlct 0eir, 4-%Q L,KdQ �7 Pd1 e,,, Co ciS4eir3 Name(s)of Signer(s) I ' l 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 acknowledged 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), 4cy VON NEUMANN or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, Gornmision#13507 Z executed the instrument. Z .mss. NOWY Public-Ca:+iarnia > san Diego County WITNESS my hand and official seal. Ids j C.crrnn.empires Jul 11,20rk. Signature of No ry Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document tor apipr-ib: Title or Type of Document: gold -hl t4u k1s r Document Date: – 3—OCp Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: I�r Co 4-a, Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee _ El Trustee El Guardian or Conservator - �`. ❑ Guardian or Conservator - ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ©1994 National Notary Association•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184-Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIO\ 261 South Pack DriN-e,firm liiarcos.California 92069 DEC r 1 November 2004 n a�RbirES JAS Michael and Linda Medley Goldstein 293 Hillcrest Drive Project No. 0401104.1 Leucadia, CA 92024 Subject: Preliminary Soils Report Reference: Goldstein Residence, APN 254-102-59, Parcel 2, PM 17716 Encinitas, CA Dear Michael and Linda: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject property. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory tests, and engineering analysis. The soil, foundation, and geologic conditions are discussed and information regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of the future development is Presented. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & TESTING, INC. �QQROFE Q- ��p� G,q G) 64 rn * 6/ 0/05 IVI OF CAL George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION V h f, I I 1 1,"1, f I l 11 R P,,R.%:I :, CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 2 of 10 Figure 1 « p 100m m _ R•avatd Pod*St WOW s 0 AW°�8t �•r 5 �yA• i st $..,•�� A atop" Z a AM'M•Qt"t=M.IM:•2M to A P•MYS C O/waYr st WGS84 117017'45" W 36 6 it---9-1 a t �; •ti 4 r� •r• ti• Q 0 rl- U) 1 M � 1• r Y a � r11 •. WGS84 117°17'45" W TNtJMN 1/2 13%0 � ��00 FEET 0 v Printed from TOPO! 01999 Wildflc CO\STRUCTIO\f\'SP[CTIO\ CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 3 of 10 Purpose and Scope The purpose of our geotechnical Investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the design and construction of the proposed development. The scope of our studies included the following, Discussion of preliminary project plans and review of geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the general site vicinity. • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory test pit. • Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. This report Includes, foundation design parameters, soil bearing values, and other geotechnical related design /construction considerations. Project Description The project site consists of a rectangular lot with the western portion developed with an existing residence. As depicted in the preliminary grading plan prepared by Sampo, Engineering Inc. minor grading Is proposed consisting of 10 cubic yards of cut and 250 cu yards of fill (presently stockpiled on site). Topographically, the site is gently sloping to relatively flat. At the eastern portion of the lot to be developed there is a minor descending gradient towards the east. Graded slopes are to be 4:1 to the east with (6) six feet in elevation difference, and 2:1 at the southern edge of the lot approximately (2) two feet in elevation difference. The elevation at the site range is approximately 150 mean sea level. Subsurface Investigation On October 27, 2004, field reconnaissance was conducted at the project site. An exploratory test pit excavated by others was observed. The test pit was logged and a soil sample was retrieved from the test pit for laboratory testing. Laboratory and Tests Results An expansion index tests was conducted on the on the insitu material to determine it's expansive potential. The tests were conducted in accordance with LIBC 18-2. The results of the test yielded a numerical value of 13. This value is considered low and it's potential for the soil to expand need not be considered. A soil classification was conducted and the soil type at the subject site is fine to medium grained silty sands. Faulting and Seismicity Our review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the general site indicate that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Evidence for active faulting on the site was not observed during our investigation. There are also a number of faults in the Southern California area, which are active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are limited to: the NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD(Offshore), the CORONADO BANK Fault, the ELSINORE-TEMECULA CO\STRL'CTIO\1\SPECTIO\ �.\O �. Ii \1, I\1 11R,oKH IiU CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 4 of 10 and the Rose Canyon fault. The nearest known fault is the Rose Canyon fault, which is 4.1 miles from the subject site SEISMIC ANALYSIS The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act, Quaternary faults have been classified as "active"faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). Deterministic Analysis— Deterministic seismicity was evaluated with the Eqfault computer program (Blake), which utilizes a digitized map of known active earthquake faults and a catalog of the Maximum Probable and Credible Earthquakes for each fault. The deterministic analysis was performed for all active faults within a specified radius of 100 miles from the site. The data generated is included In Appendix B. Based on the deterministic analysis described, 9 faults were located within 50 miles of the site. The site is subject to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault (approximately 4.1 miles from the site), with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.4342 g's. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is commonly adopted as the design earthquake for residential construction. Effective Ground Acceleration - The effective ground acceleration is associated with that part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural deformation. The effective ground acceleration is referred to as the Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA), and is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the analysis, the site Is subject to a Probable RHGA of about 0.3g. Liquefaction - Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, usually taking place within a saturated soil medium exhibiting a uniform fine-grained characteristic, loose consistency, and low confining pressure when subjected to impact by seismic or dynamic loading. Based on the shallow depth to formation and absence of groundwater, the site Is considered to have a very low risk of soil liquefaction. Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture - Breaking of the ground is not likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the project limits. Due to the generally active seismicity of southern California, however, the possibility of ground lurching cannot be completely ruled out. In this light, "flexible"design for on-site utility lines and connections should be considered. Landslides -At the time of our investigation, there was no evidence that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist that would result in a geologic hazard. It should be noted that landslides are low risk within the soil characteristics of this formation exposed at the site. Seiches and Flooding -At the time of our investigation, there were no nearby-contained bodies of water that could produce seiches ("tidal"waves in confined bodies of water), which may affect the site. No seiche or flooding potential was identified. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 5 of 10 Earthquake Design Parameters Earthquake resistant design parameters may be determined from the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition), Chapter 16. Based on the proceeding analysis and our characterization of the site, the following design parameters may be adopted: Seismic Zone.............. ..................... SoilTypes....................................................... ................................................................ Sc Seismic Source Type............................................................. Seismic Coefficient, Ca..................... B Seismic Coefficient, C�......................................................... .............................. .0.40Na Near Source Factor, Na....................................... 0.56Nv ................................................ 1.0 Near Source Factor, N,........................................................................ ............... . ................................1.14 Ground Water and Surface Water Evidence of near-surface groundwater or seepage was not encountered during our investigation. Water seepage was not observed in the exploratory test pits and therefore, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to building design of construction. It is anticipated that site development plans will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and discharge of surface run-off. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors, which may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Minor grading will be required to level the lot and construct the proposed slopes. During the grading operations, it is important that a cut/fill transition does not exist within the building pad. If grading operations consist of creating a fill pad, then a representative of this office must be present to verify compaction of the fill soils. The subject site is underlain by a relatively thin layer of topsoil (maximum depth of 2 feet) as well as potential minor areas of alluvium and fill. This material is considered unsuitable, in its Present condition, for the support of settlement sensitive improvements and will require removal and replacement as compacted fill. Terrace deposits underlying the surface soils were found to consist primarily of dense silty sands. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should begin with the removal from the areas of the site to be developed of all existing vegetation and deleterious matter detrimental to the proposed development. It is recommended that existing topsoils, colluvium and fill underlying proposed settlement sensitive improvements (fills, exterior slabs and street included) be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill (with the exception of the organic topsoil) provided they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized CMSTKCCTIO\I\SPUTIO\ CIT Project No. 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 6 of 10 material. Rocks with a maximum dimension greater that 6 inches should not be placed in the re-compacted fill. Area to receive fill and/or surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill should be about 6 to 8 inches of loose thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by our representative consultant. Preparation of the building pad for the slab-on-grade and garage slab-on-grade should consist of cutting the pad level down to suitable native soils including five foot perimeter extension of the pad beyond the proposed improvements (with exception to the west perimeter bounded by the pool deck). Once the pad has been cut engineered fill may be placed as described above. Engineered fill beneath the slab-on-grade(s) shall be of uniform thickness and relative compaction of 90 percent or better. Soil Design Criteria Conventional Foundations: Allowable Bearing Capacity For Continuous Footings........................................ psf Minimum foundation embedment..................................................................... .1$ inches Minimum width for continuous footings single story............. ..............................12 inches Minimum width for continuous footings multi story................... Coefficient of friction against sliding .................. . . .......................................................0.35 Passive earth resistance on the side of footing.................................................. 350 psf/ft Slab-On-Grade Interior Slab-0n-Grade: The concrete slab-on-grade floor for the proposed structure should have a minimum thickness of at least five inches and be reinforced with at least#4 bars at 24 inches on center. Slab-on-grade within living areas should be provided with a two inch poorly graded sand blanket over the subgrade soils, with a 10 mil visqueen barrier between the sand and concrete. Additionally, sand between the concrete and the visqueen barrier for concrete "curing" may be used in addition too, but not in lieu of the previous. It is also our opinion the slab-on-grade concrete utilized In these moisture sensitive areas should be designed with a 0.50 water to cement ratio. Exterior Slab-On-Grade; Exterior slabs such as driveways, patios and walkways should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Walks or slabs up to five feet in width should be reinforced with at least#3 bars at 24 inches on center and provided with weakened plane Joints. Reinforcement recommendations for wider slabs should be provided by the architect or engineer. Slabs between five and ten feet should be provided with longitudinal weakened plane joints at the centerlines. Slabs exceeding ten feet in width should be provided with a weakened plane joint In accordance with American Concrete Institute Standards. CON'STRI'CTION INSPECTION v�o I. .i;v,, Iy, nRr"R.%:, 1t CIT Project No. 0401104:1 1 November 2004 Page 7 of 10 Concrete As a minimum, the concrete used for foundation construction should have a 28-day compressive strength of 2,500 psi. The concrete should be mixed and placed in accordance With ACI specifications. Adding excess water of convenience to the concrete should be avoided. Proper curing techniques and a reduction in mixing water will help reduce cracking and concrete permeability. In order to further reduce shrinkage cracking and slab permeability, consideration should be given to using a concrete mix with a design maximum water cement ratio of 0.50. Appurtenant Structures Appurtenant structures such as patio flatwork and site walls should be designed and constructed in consideration of the design parameters and guidelines presented above. Environmental Issues Evaluation of potential environmental and/or health issues such as, but not limited to, the presence or absence of hazardous waste or toxic materials and/or other substances or conditions which may of may not fall into these categories was not included within the scope of this investigation. In addition, Landtech Testing and Inspection does not practice or offer services relating to hazardous waste or toxic material. Should you desire an evaluation relating to these or similar Issues, we suggest that you contact appropriately licensed and experienced professionals for advice and/or recommendations. Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions The findings in this report have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or Implied. This report is presented with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or representative, to insure the recommendations in this report are carried out in the field. Additionally, it Is the responsibility of the aforementioned person that the information in this report is brought the attention of the "design team", consisting of architects, engineers, etc., such that all Information can be incorporated Into the building plans. The findings in this report are applicable as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether the changes are due to natural processes or the works of man on this property. CO\STRUCT10\1\SPECTIO\ CIT Project No, 0401104.1 1 November 2004 Page 8 of 10 B-1 Jackhammer Dimension of Pit: 3+3+10 Date I-oqqed 10-27-04 Surface Elevation: 143+/- Ground water de the n/a Logged B : GAG DEPTH SYMBOL FIELD DESCRIPTION and (FT) CLASSIFICATION 1 Surface Conditions: topsoil .0'— 1.5' Topsoil 2 Silty sand, orange brown, moist loose Formation Dense Silty Sand, tan, moist, 3 4 5 C I T Y OF E N C I N . T A S �� ENGINERR$NG SERVICE;S. DEPhKTMENT 3 ` 505 S. VULCAN' AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. : 960iG PARCEL NO. 254-102-5900 PLAN NO. : . 9601-G JOB SITE ADDRESS: 293 HILLCREST DR, CASE NO. : 0413;1/ CD) APPLICANT NAME MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN MAILING ADDRESS: 293 HILLCREST DR. PHONE NO. : 760-845-33: CITY: ,ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP%: 92024 CONTRACTOR : CHRIS GREEVEN DBA GREE N CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO. : LICENSE NO. : LICENSE TYPE: ENGINEER : VINCE S.AMPO PHONE NO. : PERMIT - ISSUE DATE: 4/12/06 PERMIT EXP . T3AT : PERMIT ISSUER BY : _ INSECT ODD BAUMBACH ------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---__------- --- - --_ 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 3 . INSPECTION FEE 1 , 262 . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT 25 , 235 .00 5 . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 180 . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00 ------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------ PERMIT ISSUED TO GAURANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND 'EROSION CONTROL . CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W'.A.T.C.H . STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. LETTER DATED APRIL 10 2006 .APPLIES . INSPECTION -- -- ------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR'S ST 'NATURE f INITIAL INSPECTION . COMACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED._ R{�I3GI GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION _ .... ------------------------------------------------------------- - - -- I HERESY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ TH' 'APPLICATION AND STATE THAW THE IPiFORMATION IS :CORRECT AND AGREE TO C0XPLY,::WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STAT ANDY S PERMIT' ISSUED PURSUANT TO 'THRADIG AND CONDITIONS OF N , AN6 THE PROVISIONS , SAW .REGULATING EXCAVATING G AND IS, APPLICATION. SIGN W13 RE' DATE SIONED r 'I PIt PtT NAME TE MIONE °NUMBER .< ; CIRCLE CANE': 1 . OWNER 2-. AGENT 3 . OTHER- . ' t�u� EAIS G 40 WIDE EASEMENT FOR GAS , PIPELINES ND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES GRANTED TO THE' AN DIEGO GAS AD ELECTRIC COMPANY,RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1951, IN DRAINA GE MAP BOOK 4254, P46E 352, OF OfflCA\L RECORDS �y POST—DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS NEW WATER SE?H TO PARCEL 2 FOR PER WS-09 A e �� 1I PROTECT EXISTING fL 14 GOLDSTEIN RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN APPROX. <- � 1 GAS I IN PLACE I L C DRIVE WATER 139.05 (4JMB CMu W LL DI T 0 5 10 20 MAIN � � � — o P1LA LEUCADIA, CA � r ASTER CAS TE OPEN E TRENCH METERmX7�� G PARCEL 2, PM 17716 RESURFACING PER CITY OF C ppVEME i _ o ENCINITAS w END WALL L� STANDARD Z \ \ P11 TE APN. 254- 102-59 RE FG 1430 0 0 191 25 3 EG PINE C u WALL RE 148.5 WALL o - ' FG 148.0 OD . CE , PAL 1W 140.41 \\ 3 _ P- FG 138.4 33142 P , ENSRNG 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR PLPE AND PIPELINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES - GRANTED TO THE SAN DIEGUITO IRRIGA17ON - BASIN DISTRICT RECORDED DECEMBER 23 1953, Ml fL 1 �� EXISTING 25' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ROAD A ROXIMATE PURPO L ATTON SAND PURPOSES INCIDENTAL THERETO _ BOOK 5472, PACE 339, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF JAMES F. HURLBERT, ET UX, p POWER LINES \\ - DIRT — A 141 7 A 1✓ RECORDED JANUARY 1, 1952, IN BOOK 4342, �2q 30 A PACE 18, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS DIRT o ` X 4.1 — DIRI 150.44 -19 1467 — X0. 55 ¢09 1 u MA''TCH LINE 150.3 5. 79\IN• H � O . WOOD FEN `= so 2% � � 0. 9 FS �� ,= T 141.01 F 15 .0 N 74'49 4 A �� X44. FG 139.2 _7 1 / ", a RG 0. \\ � J 2 J 5 gRiCK EDGING APPROXIMATE o 11 _ � m IOCAPON CAS#VE 49.98 - 4.49'14 E yo \ r c _ o j � APPROXIMATEPALtE PA ME 3. . -IN. r i 15D -� � LO ON DRY WELL NT /�� AC �c 211.1556 . POOL DECK z ROXIMAjE CL OF EXISRN ASEMENT FOR THE OVE Z X�1 l\ 1RANSi11S§0N AND DISTRSU17ON OF ELECTRICITY ND\NCID£NTAl PURPOSES (,WAN D TO THE SAN j c N 74' - , - - _ a r DIEGOIS',AND ELECTRIC COMPAN, RECORDED 49.94 _ 1949, IN BOW\3099, PA 129, OF ; �ORDS. rn BRICK EDGIN IC \ APP IE I e PAVERS CE x PROTECT EXI DIRT I BRICK EXIST UNITY RI RS � � CY ' � � 6 PAS IN-PL E \\ _ h e X �.8 L� GU' WIRE l NEW PROPERTY LINE PER \ d o x BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT NO- 2 J J -10 2 J J J \ 04-131 BAl IN/CDP \ � x PP0R01 PA O PER 1(,' +49.96 LIXn1",y \\ OUTE j 4"l j` 4'o- E zli \ = PLASTIC PIPES 'C5> X 1497 ` \ \ \ \ 142.0 SD/ - - ��,nl LOGAjS L vappROXiMA RM DRAIN ,.. . - BASIN 2 - S D ,,,. .� t4 \ D ' \ �� ` A a,024 AC, C = -0 78` POOL ECK • 48.4 �y hog — 6. 59 IN• HRs x WOOD FE E " EXISTING AND DISEIRBU RON\OF ELECTRICITY AND �� i LOCAIIONPO RH D DIEGO G S AND ELECIRIFCOMI AN�REC�OED No — Oo 12 CFS 14E X POWER LIN MARCH 19, 1959, IN BOOK�?557, PAGE 363, N 1419 yK 6.1 i OFROAL RECORDS �sOO6 - ,A �� o 8 -�X FENCE U Z_ d IS Q�QFE$$/®Ao. z •�z . l� w W xyG O Z No.44173 Exp 30-07 CITY OF ENCINITAS DRAWING NO. z 2 DRAINAGE MAP (POST-DEWLOPMENT) FOR. 0 qr� ' �Q l�GiLDSU AA PY UST m �Cau 293 FXIlOWESFDR/VE 9601—G PARL�L 21 CA � APN 254--102-,% CASE NO. 04-131 BA/MIN/LDP SHEET 2 OF 2 °-®� 1 EXISfiNG 40 WIDE EASEMENT FOR GAS PlFaINES AND INCIDENTAL PUTO.Z"S GRANTED\ COMPANY,\OCORDED OCTOBE�\4,951, IN DRA/NA GE MAP BOOK 4254, PAC 352, OF OTFIG;41 RECORDS \ PRE-DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS N NEW WATER SER TO PARCEL 2 FOR PER WS-09 \ cAUnoI PROTECT EXISTING G FL 14 GOLDSTEIN RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN APPROX. i '"� GAS LIN IN PLACE 1 =10 r 293 HILLCREST DRIVE LOC 139.05 (4)MB \ AA TER CMD W,LL DI i s MAIN �{ A PILA R �� LEUCADIA CA \ 0 5 10 20 ASTER GAS >F OPENE 1 TRENCH ME�RX''� - G PARCEL /� PM 17716 RESURFACING PER CITY OF C ppVEM i P 2 END WALL / L� ENCINITAS STANDARD N w \ _ APN: 254— 102-59 RE/FG 1430 DETAIL a \ PIL TE AA \ 8 25 �n FG 1 5 PINE 3 PLAN s . I Jg>g G D WADI \ FG 480 !h'ALL 1 . 4,OCD ..ENC PAL 140.41 X2 F G 138.4 \ / 33842' PPS rT EXIS77NG 20' W1D£EASEMENT FOR PIPE AND FL 149.87 PIPELINES AND INCIVENFAL PURPOSES J y GRANTED TO IRE SAN DIEGUITO IRRIGABON \ \ XXX r A ROXIMAIE m DISTRICT, RECORDED DECEMBER 23, 1953 IN FL 1 .49 fXISDNG 25' W1Df EASEMENT FOR ROAD BOOK 5472, PAGE 339, OF OFI1CIAt RECORDS PURPOSES AND PURPOSES INCIDENTAL THERETO, P = ATiOPOWER LINES \ X 141.7 g �\ IN FAVOR OF JAMES F. HURLBERT, ET UX, DIRT RECORDED JANUARY 1, 1952, IN BOOM 4342, l�2% DIRT �- PAGE 18, OF OFROAL RECORDS 148.7 DIRT �� ° \ X 44.1 ¢0.9 150.44 9 \\ BASIN MA CH LINE WOOD FEN 2% o `� � 3 A -�> - 0. ' 07 r5 0 T 141.01 N T 11 AC / / WOO \ X44.3 FG 139.2 1 49'14 -_ , C 0. 40 � _ 4 RE 14 .. O r�J8- 02 E-) 9 FG 149. �o FG 7 A �` Ep01NG APPROXIMATE \\ _ �\- BRICK C _ ' . 36,I ./HR• LOCA710N GAS OE � • � � \` 49.98 4'49 �� h°� ` Q109, 0. 66 IFS s C L APPROXIMATE PE A ) 1 MEN 3/ 15D AC i5. J LoGA ON DRY WILL q pp 22 /G 4g S6 J 03 ROXIMAaE Ct OF EXIS1/N ISEMENT FOR THE ✓ '' /� CK WOO� POOL DECK z 1 ]RANSMISSIOiY AND DISTRIBUD OF EECTRIGTY p MS OVERN Z �\ AND`INCIDENTAL PURPOSES GRANTED TO THE SAN S 14 g 14 y�F U 49.94 ;ter DIEGO'GAS AND ELECWC COMPAN?\RECORDED \ AUGUST 2, 1949, IN BOOK-JO99, PA 129, OF Am c BRICK EDGING ICI 29 - £ I \ \\ APPRO VA 7E LI 6FACIAL RECORDS / Q ` AVERS CE - PROTECT fXi 7N j DIRT ILE \\ v BRICK PAVERS_ x UnLITi Rl RS \r6 PALM IN PL E \ 2 CYX 145.8 \ 5 o \ \ GU WIRE `5 U - NEW PROPERTY LINE PER L ti BOUNDARY AQJUSTMENT N0. i 0 - 3 BA r 8 102-6) o L POOL PALM r TG 49.96 \ f N r x - E 7ING� DR \ OUTLET 1 PROPER LINE PrASTIC PIPES X 149.7 \ ` 1420 OXIM \ \ �i A L000 S1) Qd 1 c /'\' - APPR $ ORM DRAIN X p B I SI #� �i ° \ 33, 0 149.8 SDI 111. /�i APOUL"DEcR 01 A C X x POOL ECK ` \X T48.4 i _ WIN XFE E EXIS17NG EASfMENT,FOR THE IRNSMISSION SAN- too — "6.59' IN, R• X AND DISTRIBUTIOMQF ELECIRIG]Y AND \ �x APPROXI TE INCIDENTAL PURPOSES`fvRAN1F0 TO ]HE LOCATION O D DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, RECORDED x Q100 0. 09 S 14 E X POWER L1N MARCH 19, 1959, IN BOOK 57, PAGE 363, OF b\ otRGAt RECPS �JENCE \ WOOD x U Z TTO Z �q� w w x No.44173 ® m Z_Lu EV:6- 0-07 CITY OF EN CI N I TAS DRAWING NO. W cI I�" �Re� DRAINAGE MAP (PRE—DEVELOPMENT) FOR: w FCA�F GOLUM Aca MY WT 9601—G 2 293 HILLCREgS,T DRIVE U) PA254-102-59 PM 117716 APN• CASE NO: 04-131 BA/MIN/CDP SHEET 1 OF 2 -® Z