The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-9576 G �)�Z- � " 3 City GINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT -=; - �`' Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering November 23, 2009 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Erwin, William and Julie 843 San Dieguito Drive APN 258-232-11 Grading Permit 9576-GI Final release of security Permit 9576-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit depositore Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the Account# 8097001104 in the amount of$6,249.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, / i' V ay Lembach Debra Geishart Finance Manager Engineering Technician Financial Services Subdivision Engineering CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Erwin, William and Julie Debra Geishart File Enc. 0-633-2700 recycled paper TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 76 �� = NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City O� Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering November 2, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Erwin,William and Julie 843 San Dieguito Drive APN 258-232-11 Grading Permit 9576-GI Partial release of security Permit 9576-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account#8097001096 in the amount of$18,747.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or conceals,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Siwqely, Debra Geis ay mbach Finance Manager Engineering Technician Financial Services Subdivision Engineering CC: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Erwin, William and Julie Debra Geishart File Enc. ARCI TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper T y C' F F 7 zs EN-21NEERING SERVICED DEPARTMENT 505 S . VUT,CTkFf AVE . GFADTNC� P EF�l I T PEF.miT flin— 957 C,G I LTLN N(' ; '-- pZ.RCET NO . °11 _Ir I-, :_,F. 1,,U 414 JOB SITE ADDRESS : 643v WIN IT T E ER 7S APPLICANT NRIAE ST ? D IN E MAILT�,,G ADDRESS , asst 4- -7lj STRT E 71 T F –k- cllr-Y -. o�!T G F. 3_3 T L F R LICENSE N ` - ENGINEER B,:)B CFA MTT TSSU7- DATE ' f I IN c;p E c,� _T FEE_ 2 DF�_S F A N ji FERMI 2 A T!4SPECTON D"'�F-(_DSTT ' q SpE,M; TiON FEE 4 J, I IN — 6 , SECURITY ,r 2k E c� r'F. FF FIT TFAF FEF 7 F L7p SCR T F'-T, CF. T 7 3k RRANTEE BOTH FERF'OfF.-MANCE N C, PERMIT !Z,-STJP-'D TO Tj F, V�t DRZ�T' 1�ZKn ERPTHWORK , G E ONTRO1 L P - T AT A!,T ME S TI F R, tit 7LAT F F I' p- Tl AFFI: i. F. 9 T A N!D A RD,S 7 C'I T Y 2� Tt � 2006 PPT TF ------ ''ATE 9 ilp T S I GN 1;-'T' R INSPECTION I 1;.T T /0 114_ 114IT Z4 "F.F CT COMPACT ION T.(EPORT RECETVED / 7-7 ENGINEER CERT - RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING iNSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ------------------------ --- --- ----------- ------------------------ I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THE -APELl,"'RTION A_l',2, Sqj_ JzZA= THE T _T' TON IS -OR !NFORMAT. RECT AND AGREE To COMPLY WITH ALL C I TY 'ORDINAN'-ES AND pROV,SIONS AND CONDTTIC14S LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING , P-ND THE ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION . DATE Sir'3NED) SIGNATURE PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONFi 1 . 101WNER 2 , AGENT CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: - PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: !� ri p4, �C— CGS G✓Ct ire �. Q e�� t'�rci..�i . ��i tlt�� rhr/v��.., �icf nr�97z/✓�• Brli w:rC c H-z.� �;.. � P�-�t��+,7r� �rr��T`• WE9� �EZUm 19CT .-e f of vec / c,Lf Yh dQcc' 4. " X- 4,w Cur-/ tz/d d� L4. `,, C C'/7✓f tol/J� /� /frj CIE Ul%E�- /-t: L U/1l/✓Q�/�/� IAJ � 1�C7. �t�Z-� SercS �ntGiNa �'-�n/t- XE?atriir�r��G /00 y ej.- lUrn o/�Co /�f un-, L�b►wry S �" �•.r C��v�s�/ ` C:j t /e�GO/M�4�}t� /N 8l�� ")llVE1O�JE Cd U�AlI.J�r7� Cf--CO'-�V�7" k'rLrn cci � ! 7F • /4t7 Cam'-% [E7VEZ� TVlJs .S G�i� C.EulLS �'acfC�N 6-)2jq-40,/K,• 1 �►, cam/' 0!/u'. 5'ita,vm Cyr / $ 9 oc�.,�c S r�uclu/ ,�1 a%',Ors Cy r r r►s•r Z: SEV c nNtJ,M ��mg-1,j m s E��'rx,l�-r7' j 'g Jc-Z7 7v A- �` w s row c u C ter► ctv�2 - , ► (. 44- ChccLlr � _ � �•I- ,,-� a r'c ve y c{r�%eu,c�. r-5 t-e-cxf Curt C r�2tP• 2 a 4z> �lcrs �, t- e7r� Llf( r'�Se .Sfi�/� ✓ cfS� b? �oC . DI��N�/ A�s - Co&T3; ^d .3 O`� /� EZ ,B�n/a rjDQ,gil,) SySJG-�►'1ih2/9 EL/•Jfa +fJo/ 5u r 7C L/z h)f o t- // �/u Cr1ZUty kv�rl nJe°Jd. • U }S �i:iL7$ 1g0� c� i�zS o �v fG0 h drn -�v 2x rho grct u�l �v c0 !2?G e. is vK- c�J Alm. F7 rl� / Skeye V,e 0 1C s �j f oi�z S/!i� pt - 00NE" jacocl-Aso icoo',40 4Q�, it? ��t��/ cl/tLewxjs . m14 4 9 U ry �<S r 1V S/7L� ttrt=fit�t P 'i !�'{ • �/'►'I PS U, tC - ��^ � HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING,.INCOGEOLOGY SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY June 30, 2004 Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 SEP 21 7�106 F;. v; zs Mr. Bill Erwin 843 San Dieguito Drive Encinitas, California Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence 843 San Dieguito Drive Encinitas, California APN 258-232-11 References: Attached Dear Mr.,Erwin: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation at our subject site. Our work was performed in May and June 2004. The purpose investigation was to evaluate the geologic and soil conditions at the subject site in order to provide grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed new residence. We understand the existing structure will be demolished in order to construct a new single- family residence. No specific development plans were available for review at the time of this report. With the above in mind, our scope of services included the following: • Review of available geotechnical reports, plans, and geologic literature for the site and immediate vicinity(see References). • Subsurface exploration consisting of two exploratory,hand-excavated test pits within the area of proposed development for geologic observation and soil/bedrock sampling. • Laboratory testing of samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this report presenting the results of our field and laboratory work, analyses, conclusions and recommendations. 5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite C • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax (949)487-9116 www.hetheringtonengineering.com PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 843 San Dieguito Drive, Encinitas, California (see Location Map, Figure 1). The rectangular-shaped is 0.22 acres.ltifiThe property Assessor urrently No. 258-232-11, and has an area of approximately supports a one-story, single-family residence and attached garage. The westerly half of the lot slopes gently downward from San Dieguito Drive with an approximate elevation differential of two feet. The easterly half of the lot is generally level. Vegetation consists of front and rear lawns with numerous developed properties trees along the property lines. The property is bordered by similarly p on the south, north and east sides, and by San Dieguito Drive on the west side. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Although no plans were available at the time of this report, it is dsta singicthat proposed development consists of demolition of the existing res idence an of a new two-story, single-family residence and attached garage. We anticipate that wood-frame construction founded on conventional structu continuous/spread that footings with a slab-on-grade floor will be utilized for the new building loads will be typical for this type of relatively light construction. It is anticipated that the new residence will be constructed at approximately existing site grades. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by manually excavating two test pits to a depth of approximate four feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the accompanying Plot Plan, Figure 2. The subsurface exploration was supervised by a geologist from this office, who visually classified the soil and bedrock materials, obtained bulk samples for laboratory testing and performed in-place density tests in accordance with ASTM: D1556 (Sand-Cone Method). The soils were visually classified cording Log of Test Pits, i l Cl 3 sification System. Soil classifications are shown on LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. Tests performed consisted of the following: HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. r ` I NI T 3 Lap J�1 ae , 4 , wow BRMANY RD 700 BEACH 1 zoo A0� o < WCLWS G4 A > FS 5 REACH _ '►t YJ'� SI X cry r op R ct o rzEe � HILLS WY ST A 9 ION UN ST ST UNION S t UNION Q 8 VISO e.11 n PL FDIEfiL.WtE PACIFIC FLOR • „a x f� �6 5T DR I 4 ENCINITAS Y 1 S Kowusar c ` D st Sav o r 8EAd1 E •u,t r SITE �LfI iro ��V s 15 M y E 6R ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide,San Diego County,2004 Edition N SCALE: 1"-2000' (1 Grid=0.5 x 0.5 miles) LOCATION MAP 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 1 FIGURE NO. 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 3 • Dry Density and Moisture Content(ASTM: D 2216) • Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) • Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) • Sulfate Content (EPA 9038) • Expansion Index (ASTM: D 4829) Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations re presented on Figure 4 on the Logs of Test Pits,Figure 3. The remaining laboratory test SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1. Geologic Setting The subject site is within a stretch of low hills that are contained The tethe ion oastal plain region of northern San Diego County, California. g characterized by gently to locally steep sloping hillsides and incised canyons composed of Eocene sedimentary bedrock that is capped at various elevations by relatively level to gently westward sloping Pleistocene regressive marine terraces. The subject property is contained within the northwestern portion of the U.S.G.S Encinitas 7-1/2 minute quadrangle. The principal geologic unit reported within the site vicinity consists of marine sedimentary terrace deposits. These deposits are essentially massive and structureless. No known or reported deep-seated landsliding is known to exist on the site. No known or reported active or potentially active faults exist within the site vicinity. Active fault zones within the general site region include the Rose Canyon/Newport- Inglewood and the Elsinore, which are located 4-kilometeres southwest and 45.5- kilometeres northeast, respectively. A brief description of the geologic units observed within the site follows. 2. Geologic Units a. Fill/osoil — The site is mantled by a relatively thin layer of fill/topsoil generally composed of brown, medium dense to dense, dry silty sand with HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 4 pebbles and active roots. The fill/topsoil is not considered suitable for support of structures. b. Terrace Deposits-Underlying the fill/topsoil deposits generally indurated composed of red brown, moist, dense, poorly Y 3. Groundwater No seepage or static groundwater was encountered in the exploratory test pits. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater might occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. SEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active southern California region. There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults that pass through the site. Active and potentially active fault zones presently mapped within the site region include the offshore extension of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood and the Elsinore faults, which are located approximately 4-kilometeres southwest could hwes 45.5-kilometeres northeast o expected from from the site, respectively. Strong ground motion earthquakes occurring along the San Diego Trough, San Jacinto, and San Andreas fault zones which lie at greater distances from the site. The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: Maximum Probable Fault Earthquake (Moment Slip Rate Fault Type Magnitude) Rose Canyon/ Newport-Inglewood 6.9 1.5 mm/year B 4-kilometers (2.4-miles SW) Elsinore (Julian Segment) 6.8 5 mm/year B 45.5-kilometers (28-miles NE) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHMCAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 5 SEISMIC EFFECTS 1. Ground Accelerations The most significant probable earthquake to effect the property would be a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault. Depiction of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis utilizing a consensus of historical seismic data and the respective regional geologic conditions that are shown an the Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Map, Sheet 48 (Reference 7), indicates that peak ground accelerations of about 0.20 to 0.30g are possible with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50-years. 2. Ground Cracks The potential within the site for fault surface rupture due to active faulting is considered low due to the absence of an active fault on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events are possible, as with all of southern California. 3. Liglu_efactiOn The risk of liquefaction within the site is considered negligble due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the dense underlying terrace deposits. 4. Land The risk of seismically induced landsliding affecting the property is considered improbable due to the lack of topographic relief. 5. Tsunamis Due to the elevation of the property above sea level, the potential for seismically generated ocean waves to affect the site is considered low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. General The proposed construction of a single-family residence is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Grading and foundation plans should take into account the appropriate geotechnical features of the site. Assuming that the HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 6 recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are utilized during design and construction, the proposed development of the site is not expected to adversely impact adjacent properties from a geotechnical standpoint. 2. Seismic Parameters The following seismic parameters for use in the design of structural elements are provided for the project: a. Ground Motion — The proposed addition should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Chapter 16, Division IV-Earthquake Design of the 2001 California Building Code. The basis for the design is dependent on and considers seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and building height. b. Soil Profile Type — In accordance with Section 1629.3.1, Table 16-J, and the underlying geologic conditions, a site Soil Profile of Type SD is considered appropriate for the subject property. C. Seismic Zone — In accordance with Section 1629.4.1 and Figure 16-2, the subject site is situated within Seismic Zone 4. d. Seismic Zone Factor (z) — A Seismic Zone Factor of 0.40 is assigned based on Table 16-I. Since the site is within Seismic Zone 4, Section 1629.4.2 requires a Seismic Source Type and Near Source Factor. e. Near-Source Factor (Na and Nv) —Based on the known active faults in the region and distance of the faults from the site, a Seismic Source Type of B per Table 16- U, and Near Source Factors of Na = 1.0 per Table 16-S and Nv = 1.2 per Table 16-T are provided. f. Seismic Coefficients (Ca and Cv) —Using the Soil Profile Type and Seismic Zone Factor along with Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the Seismic Coefficients Ca= 0.44 (Na) and Cv=0.64 (Nv) are provided, or Ca= 0.44 and Cv= 0.77. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 7 3. Site Grading. Prior to grading, the area of the proposed residence and improvements should be cleared of surface obstructions and debris, and stripped of vegetation. Soils disturbed from demolition of the existing residence footings shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Materials generated during clearing should be the properly disposed of at an approved Holes removal of buried obstructions s old be backflled with compacted fill.from septic systems, if encountered, should be removed in accordance with local regulations. Within the limits of the proposed residence and hardscape improvements, the existing disturbed surface soils should be removed down to approved terrace deposits and replaced as a compacted fill in order to achieve design finish grades. Removal depths are anticipated to be approximately 2 feet. Removal depths may be deeper in areas of existing utility trenches. Following removals the exposed subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction (ASTM D: 1557-00). The Geotechnical Consultant shall determine final removal depths during site grading. The remedial grading should extend to at least 3-feet beyond the limits of the proposed residence and improvements. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8-inches in thickness. All fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent based upon ASTM: D 1557-00. The on-site materi als are suitable for use as compacted fill. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All grading and compaction should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 8 4. Foundation Recommendations The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous/spread footings founded at least 18-inches into approved compacted fill and/or terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 15-inches wide and reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars, one top and one bottom. New foundations located adjacent to utility trenches should extend to below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the bottom of the trench. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000-pounds-per-square-foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads including wind and seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 200-pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction between foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils. Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of reinforcing steel in order to verify that they are founded in suitable bearing materials. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 4-inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars spaced at 18-inches, center-to-center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the slab. A 4- inch layer of clean sand should underlie slabs with at least a 10-mil visqueen vapor barrier placed at mid-height in the sand. 5. Soluble Sulfate A representative sample of the on-site soils was submitted for sulfate analyses. The result of the soluble sulfate test per EPA 9038 methods is presented on the attached Laboratory Test Results, Figure 4. The sulfate content of the on-site soils is consistent with a negligible sulfate exposure classification per Table 19-A- 4 of the 2001 California Building Code. Consequently, special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete are not considered necessary. 6. Trench Backfill All utility trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557-00). Backfill should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 9 7. Site Drainage The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the structure and appurtenances. Surface drainage should be designed by the project Architect and/or Civil Engineer. a. Consideration should be given anoaprea dram system and/or to suitable ltocations downspouts that discharge away from the structure. b. All site drainage should be directed away from the structure. On-site soils are generally sandy in nature and considered erodible if exposed to concentrated drainage. c. No landscaping should be allowed against the structure. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may affect foundation performance. d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems must be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter(rainy) season. e. All yard and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are not blocked and flow properly. This may be accomplished either visually or, in the case of subsurface drains by placing a hose at the inlet and checking the outlet for flow. 8. Recommended Observation and Testing During Construction The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a. Observation and testing of removals and placement of compacted fill. b. Foundation excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. c. Interior and exterior utility trench backfill. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 28, 2004 Page 10 9. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein and to provide additional investigation or recommendations, as necessary. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions, as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be present in our excavations, the Geotechnical Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely, HETI ERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. r/ QROFESS/pN �o�✓ ��`��oN S. Q ql�, cp aul o Seth \NEER Jason S. Gel de � � �`��ti g `� Registered Civ' E ginew W12 m Registered Geologist 37 (expires 9/30/0 s Fxp. Date Certified Engineering `Ist 115 N (expires 3/31/06) `'' E FpF'.CALIF�P OF CAu iche asc ncellos Staff Geologist HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHMCAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 11 Attachments: Location Map Figure I Figure 2 Plot Plan Log of Test Pits Figure 3 Laboratory Test Data Figure 4 Distribution: 4 - Addressee HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazard in California," Special Publication 117, 1997. 2. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada", California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998. 3. ICBO, "California Building Code", 2001 Edition. 4. Jennings, C. W., "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas", California Division of Mines and Geology,Map No. 6, dated 1994. 5. Kennedy, Michael P., and Peterson, Gary L., "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California", California Division of Mines and Geology,Bulletin 200, dated 1975. 6. Petersen, Mark D., et al, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96- 08, 1996. 7. Petersen, M., Beeby, W., Bryant, W., et al, "Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 48, 1999. 8. Tan, Siang S., and Giffen, Desmond G., "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California," Division of Mines and Geologic Open —File Report 95-04, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, Plate 35-B, dated 1995. 9. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael P., "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", Plate 1, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02, 1996. 10. Weber, Harold F., Jr., "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California", California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 82-12LA, dated 1982. Project No.4756.1 Log No.8534 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. I I I , I I I , I I TP-2 1 , I EXISTING I DECK I EXISTING I 2-STORY RESIDENCE 1 , I , I I 1 © , I TP-1 I I I , — — — — SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE — — — — SCALE: 1"=20' LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION 0 2 TP-2 OF TEST PIT 0 10 20 30 40 PLOT PLAN 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 I FIGURE NO. 2 BACKHOE COMPANY: Mansolf Excavating BUCKET SIZE: DATE: 05/10/04 w rt W SOIL DESCRIPTION E a z u H H Q � w w a w a o o o TEST PIT NO.TP-1 ELEVATION: 0.0 FILLITOPSOIL: Brown pebbly silty sand, dry, medium dense, orous 106 5.2 Terrace Deposits: Dark red brown silty sand, dense, moist, slightly porous, contains minor well rounded pebbles. 119 8.5 5.0 Total depth 5 feet No water or caving 10.0 15.0 TEST PIT NO.TP-2 ELEVATION: 0.0 FILLITOPSOIL: Brown pebbly silty sand, dry, medium dense, orous 105 5.8 Terrace Deposits: Brown silty sand, dense, moist, porous, abundant active roots. @19": Dark red brown silty sand, dense, moist, slightly porous, 115 8.4 contains minor well rounded pebbles 5.0 Total depth 4 feet No water or caving 10.0 15.0 LOG OF TEST PITS 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 FIGURE NO. 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM: D 3080) Cohesion Internal Remarks Sample Location (psfl Angle of Friction,(0) TP-1 @ 18" 75 33 Remolded, consolidated, saturated, drained EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM: D 4829) Sample Initial Compacted Final Volumetric Expansion Expansion Sample n Moisture Dry Density Moisture Swell(%) Index Potential L o (pcf) ( °) 1 Very Low 6.6 126.0 11.8 TP-1 1.5' 0 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS (ASTM 1557-OOA) Description Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Location Density(pcf) Moisture Content(%) 132.0 8.5 TP-1 @ 1.5' Red silty sand SULFATE TEST RESULTS (EPA 9038) ample Location Soluble Sulfate in Soil S (%) TP-2 @ 1.5' 0.0223 FIGURE 4 Project No.4756.1 Log No.8534 the ,,,.,Sea Brisht � � pji�^,o c o m p a n y October 26, 2006 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Erwin Grading Plan Grading Permit Number 9576 - G, 843 San Dieguito Drive, Encinitas Pursuant to section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced lot. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for this lot has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310[B]. The following list provides the pad elevation as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation per Lot No. Per Plan Field Measurement Erwin Parcel 135.50 135.52 23.24.310[6]5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Sincerely, 0. (rry F Robert O. Sukup RCE 28302 No.G(030 $ q clw- t ; erwncrt2 Engineering Management General Contracting Development 4322 Sea Bright Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone/FAX 760-720-0098 the .1 � Sea Bright ��c o m p a n y November 11, 2009 t� City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Erwin Grading Plan Grading Permit Number 9576 - G, 843 San Dieguito Drive, Encinitas Pursuant to section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced lot. As the Engineer of Record for the subject plans and grading for this lot has been completed in co nformance with the approved requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310[6]. The following list provides the pad elevation as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation per Lot No. Per Plan Field Measurement Erwin Parcel 135.50 135.52 23.24.310[13]1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and/or retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject rough grading plan. 23.24.310[6]5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310[13]6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Sincerely, Robert O. Sukup No.c028" *` RCE 28302 Up.31-311T1 O�Q Erwncrt2 Engineering Management General Contracting Development 4322 Sea Bright Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone/FAX 760-720-0098 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING,INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD,SUITE "I" SANTEE,CALIFORNIA 92071 (619)258-7901 Fax 258-7902 October 27, 2006 Mr. Bill Erwin 843 San Dieguito Drive Project No. 06-1167C7 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Report of Field Density Tests Proposed Single-Family Residence 843 San Dieguito Drive Solana Beach, California References: See Attached Dear Mr. Erwin: This is to present the results of field density tests performed on the building pad for the proposed single-family residence at the subject site. In accordance with your request, in-place field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1556-90 (Sand Cone Method) . Grading was conducted between October � 12 and 19, 2006 under the observation and testing of a representitive of East County Soil Consultation & Engineering Inc. The results of the field density tests are presented on Page T-1 under "Table of Test Results" . The laboratory determinations of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils are set forth on Page L-1 under "Laboratory Test Results" . The approximate test locations are shown on Plate No. 1. Prior to the remedial grading operation, all brush and vegetation were removed from the building pad area. Subgrade soils were overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade into the dense sandstone of the Terrace Deposits Formation and a minimum of 5 feet beyond proposed perimeter footings. The bottom of the excavation was scarified to a depth of approximately 6 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted. BILL ERWIN PROJECT NO. 06-1167C7 On-site and imported fill soils consisting of silty sand were placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned around optimum and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction was achieved with the use of a Caterpillar 420 backhoe. In addition, the two seepage pits encountered during the grading operation were properly backfilled and compacted. Based on our field observations and density test results, it is our opinion that the grading operation for the proposed single- family residence was performed in accordance with the referenced soil investigation report (Reference No. 2) and local grading ordinances. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Pages T-1, L-1 and Plate No. 1 are attached. Respectfull ubmitted, OQ?�pFESS/oN OIJ S• No. Gc 2704 m r. Exp:i z-3 -01 z -9T OF L1FOQ, F Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E. RCE 54071, GE 2704 MSD/md 2 BILL ERWIN PROJECT NO. 06-1167C7 REFERENCES 1. "Transfer of Geotechnical Resposibility, Geotechnical Engineer of Record, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 843 San Dieguito Drive, Encintas, California 92024, APN 258-232-11", Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. , Dated October 17, 2006. 2 . "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residence, 843 San Dieguito Drive, Encintas, California, APN 258-232-11", Project No. 4756. 1, Log No. 8534, Prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. , Dated June 30, 2004 . 5 BILL ER WIN PROJECT NO. 06-1167C7 PAGE T-1 TABLE OF TEST RESULTS ASTM D1556-90 MAXIMUM DEPTH FEELD DRY DRY TEST SOIL OF FILL MOISTURE DENSITY DENSITY PERCENT NO. TYPE IN FEET %DRY WT. P.C.F. P.C.F COMPACTION RED 1 1 2 12.1 125.8 131.5 96 2 1 1.5 8.4 118.2 131.5 90 See#6 3 1 4 9.7 110.6 131.5 84 4 1 1.5 9.3 122.1 131.5 93 5 1 1.5 10.0 126.9 131.5 97 6 1 1.5 9.1 126.1 131.5 96 Retest#3 7 1 2 10.2 126.6 131.5 96 8 2 3 FG 10.2 120.9 130.0 93 9 2 3 FG 9.2 124.0 130.0 95 10 2 4 FG 10.3 122.0 130.0 94 11 2 4 FG 10.7 124.4 130.0 96 FG=FINISH GRADE 3 BILL ERWIN PROJECT NO. 06-1167C7 PAGE L-1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill materials as determined by ASTM D1557-91, Procedures A and B which use 25 blows of a 10 pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder and Procedure C which uses 56 blows of a 10 pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 6 inch diameter 1/13.3 cubic foot compaction cylinder are presented as follows: OPTIMUM MAXIMUM MOISTURE SOIL TYPE/ DRY DENSITY CONTENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION LB/CU. FT. %DRY WT. 1/A TAN BROWN SILTY, 131.5 8.2 FINE GRAINED SAND 2/A BROWN SILTY,FINE 130.0 9.0 GRAINED SAND (IMPORT) 4 /�,/pr�4DXJ ®8 Z prYY517Y 7Z�WT EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HART LEY RD..SUITE I.SANTEE.CA 92071 r 1� (619)258-7901 Fax(619)258-7902 T� AV. / the Sea Bright company November 18, 2009 NOV 19 2009 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No. CDP 04 - 143 and Grading Permit Number 9576-G The grading under permit number 9576-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the required maintenance covenant. 2 fi w '^ Engineer of Record: CC 7° No.CO28 02 p.3�3 ) Dated: �) o� `s�q Civil. oQ�� Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility. Engineering Ins ector: 4 Dated: 1 t ( � v erwncrt4 Engineering Management General Contracting Development 4322 Sea Bright Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone/FAX 760-720-0098 VtNT Recording Requested By: )N 1 jN itj ro()e City Engineer ) Jvll ., '7 ,.; lit t,.,i;,(�I iJ r �sF. t 1NIit ly >i_)�F ILA When Recorded Mail To: ) IWE s 26 Pm City Clerk City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPX COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR DRAINAGE Assessor's Parcel No. 258-232-11 Project No.:CDP 04-143 9576-G A. William Patrick Erwin and Julie Ann Erwin trustees of the William Patrick Erwin and Julie Ann Revocable Trust created on 5/8/02 ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 843 San Die uito Drive ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of CDP 04-143 by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. E. If either party is required to 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: OWNER Dated Z, William Patrick Erwin Dated �;enn Erwin ,5 e< aft dcked (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CI T F ENC ITAS Dated _— by (Notarization not required) Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services ATTACHMENT W TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. CDP 04-143 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 16 of Block "H" of Encinitas Highlands, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2141, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 4, 1928. Excepting the Southerly 66 feet thereof. ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT HOLDA CITY ARMLESS FORLDRAINAGE PROPERTY: PROJECT NO. CDP 04443 OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1, For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from drainage or 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. oAgeneral suspect to lez st id his not not extend to claims which the creditor does favor at the time of executing the r the debtohich if known by him must have materially affected his se 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. ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4, State of California ) County of On (Date)before me Su�- "a (Name and title � �+��` "Notary Public"),personally appeared (V/1 1 4 171 AA's 1%�r'''i� (Name of Signer(s)),personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s),Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hcfgtmf they executed the same in hi0frer/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by#isfher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. SUSAN GORALM COrnmission#t 1457781 Witness m hand and official seal. owcomm.NolSa Rieg -CaNFort�O Y San Diego county Espires Dec 22.2007 Notary's Signature Seal Copyright 2002 North American Notary Association Form 1005 CA HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY E 0 V June 30, 2004 D Project No. 4756.1 SEP 21 2�G6 Log No. 8534 Mr. Bill Erwin 843 San Dieguito Drive i Encinitas, California Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence 843 San Dieguito Drive Encinitas, California APN 258-232-11 References: Attached Dear Mr..Erwin: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. Our work was performed in May and June 2004. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the geologic and soil conditions at the subject site in order to provide grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed new residence. We understand the existing structure will be demolished in order to construct a new single- family residence. No specific development plans were available for review at the time of this report. With the above in mind, our scope of services included the following: • Review of available geotechnical reports, plans, and geologic literature for the site and immediate vicinity(see References). • Subsurface exploration consisting of two exploratory hand-excavated test pits within the area of proposed development for geologic observation and soil/bedrock sampling. • Laboratory testing of samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this report presenting the results of our field and laboratory work, analyses, conclusions and recommendations. 5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite C • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax(949) 487-9116 www.hetherinatonenaineerina.com PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 843 San Dieguito Drive, Encinitas, California (see Location Map, Figure 1). The rectangular-shaapproximately ed property is 0.22 acres.dtifiThe prope rty�urrently No. 258-232-11, and has an area of supports a one-story, single-family residence and attached garage. The westerly half of the lot slopes gently downward from San Dieguito Drive with an approximate elevation differential of two feet. The easterly half of the lot is generally level. Vegetation consists of front and rear lawns with numerous fruit and flowering trees along the property lines. The property is bordered by similarly developed properties on the south, north and east sides, and by San Dieguito Drive on the west side. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Although no plans were available of demolition of the existing t it is our andsconstruction proposed development consists of a new two-story, single-family residence and attached garage. We anticipate that wood-frame construction founded on conventional continuous/spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor will be utilized for the new structure, and that al for this type of relatively light construction. It is building loads will be typic anticipated that the new residence will be constructed at approximately existing site grades. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by manually excavating two test pits to a depth of approximate four feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the accompanying Plot Plan, Figure 2. The subsurface exploration was supervised by a geologist from this office, who visually classified the soil and bedrock materials, obtained bulk samples for laboratory testing and performed in-place density tests in accordance with ASTM: D1556 (Sand-Cone Method). The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are shown on the attached Log of Test Pits,Figure 3. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. Tests performed consisted of the following: HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. L5 M i ' INIT TASK, � ti $ ✓ �E ST �j �$ � � � , wiW 700 LEUGM A P< 3c e vo L y ,. Zw SFAM rr p{E "4tl6 F3 8 SI NIA r A a BFACH sEaEtq Sry , y cr d' rof t M Eff 57 i h NIUS uHlon st 9 ION VISA�NC 1" ` � 6T �4 � rm rloit a p ION MM 6w ST ST NA PACIFIC 400 OR u.� MW Au DR Y f 4A TE ENCINITAS. OO 8 OCEANa� m�,,, �, SM• f — �Yl p $ E •idti ��' `� � �� SITE ,WALI , Ali F ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide,San Diego County,2004 Edition N SCALE: V-2000' 0 Grid=0.5 x 0.5 miles) LOCATION MAP 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 I FIGURE NO. 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 3 • Dry Density and Moisture Content(ASTM: D 2216) • Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) • Direct Shear(ASTM: D 3080) • Sulfate Content(EPA 9038) • Expansion Index (ASTM: D 4829) Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations are presented on the Logs of Test Pits, Figure 3. The remaining laboratory tests are presented on Figure 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1. Geologic Setting The subject site is within a stretch of low hills that are contained within the coastal plain region of northern San Diego County, California. The site region is characterized by gently to locally steep sloping hillsides and incised canyons composed of Eocene sedimentary bedrock that is capped at various elevations by relatively level to gently westward sloping Pleistocene regressive marine terraces. The subject property is contained within the northwestern portion of the U.S.G.S Encinitas 7-1/2 minute quadrangle. The principal geologic unit reported within the site vicinity consists of marine sedimentary terrace deposits. These deposits are essentially massive and structureless. No known or reported deep-seated landsliding is known to exist on the site. No known or reported active or potentially active faults exist within the site vicinity. Active fault zones within the general site region include the Rose Canyon/Newport- Inglewood and the Elsinore, which are located 4-kilometeres southwest and 45.5- kilometeres northeast, respectively. A brief description of the geologic units observed within the site follows. 2. Geologic Units a. Fill/Topsoil — The site is mantled by a relatively thin layer of fill/topsoil generally composed of brown, medium dense to dense, dry silty sand with HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 4 pebbles and active roots. The fill/topsoil is not considered suitable for support of structures. b. Terrace Deposits—Underlying the fill/topsoil are terrace deposits generally t d s composed of red brown, moist, dense, poorly in silty 3. Groundwater No seepage or static groundwater was encountered in the exploratory test pits. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater might occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. SEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active southern California region. There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults that pass through the site. Active and potentially active fault zones presently mapped within the site region include the offshore extension of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood and the Elsinore faults, which are located approximately 4-kilometeres southwest and 45.5-kilometeres northeast from the site, respectively. Strong Diego Trough, San Jacintol and expected fault earthquakes occurring along th e San g o Trough zones which lie at greater distances from the site. The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: Maximum Probable =Fault Earthquake (Moment Slip Rate Fault Type; Magnitude) Rose Canyon/ Newport-Inglewood 6.9 1.5 mm/year B 4-kilometers (2.4-miles SW) Elsinore (Julian Segment) 6.8 5 mm/year B 45.5-kilometers (28-miles NE) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 5 SEISMIC EFFECTS 1. Ground Accelerations The most significant probable earthquake to effect the property would be a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault. Depiction of ata probabilistic seismic hazard analysis utilizing ions that are cnsensus of historical seismic an the Sei smic and the respective regional geologic cond Shaking Hazard Maps of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Map, Sheet 48 (Reference 7), indicates that peak ground accelerations of about 0.20 to 0.30g are possible with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50-years. 2. Ground Cracks The potential within the site for fault surface rupture due to active faulting is considered low due to the absence of an active fault on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events are possible, as with all of southern California. 3. Liquefaction The risk of liquefaction within the site is considered negligble due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the dense underlying terrace deposits. 4. Landsliding The risk of seismically induced landsliding affecting the property is considered improbable due to the lack of topographic relief. 5. Tsunamis Due to the elevation of the property above sea level, the potential for seismically generated ocean waves to affect the site is considered low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The proposed construction of a single-family residence is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Grading and foundation plans should take into account the appropriate geotechnical features of the site. Assuming that the HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 6 recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are utilized during design and construction, the proposed development of the site is not expected to adversely impact adjacent properties from a geotechnical standpoint. 2. Seismic Parameters The following seismic parameters for use in the design of structural elements are provided for the project: a. Ground Motion — The proposed addition should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Chapter 16, Division IV-Earthquake Design of the 2001 California Building Code. The basis for the design is dependent on and considers seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and building height. b. Soil Profile Type — In accordance with Section 1629.3.1, Table 164, and the underlying geologic conditions, a site Soil Profile of Type SD is considered appropriate for the subject property. C. Seismic Zone— In accordance with Section 1629.4.1 and Figure 16-2, the subject site is situated within Seismic Zone 4. d. Seismic Zone Factor (z) — A Seismic Zone Factor of 0.40 is assigned based on Table 16-I. Since the site is within Seismic Zone 4, Section 1629.4.2 requires a Seismic Source Type and Near Source Factor. e. Near Source Factor (Na and Nv) —Based on the known active faults in the region and distance of the faults from the site, a Seismic Source Type of B per Table 16- U, and Near Source Factors of Na = 1.0 per Table 16-S and Nv = 1.2 per Table 16-T are provided. f. Seismic Coefficients (Ca and Cv) —Using the Soil Profile Type and Seismic Zone Factor along with Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the Seismic Coefficients Ca= 0.44 (Na) and Cv=0.64 (Nv) are provided, or Ca= 0.44 and Cv= 0.77. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 7 3. Site Prior to grading, the area of the proposed residence and improvements should be cleared of surface obstructions and debris, and stripped of vegetation. Soils disturbed from demolition of the existing residence footings shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Materials generated during clearing should be properly disposed of at an approved location off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions should be backfilled with compacted fill. Old septic systems, if encountered, should be removed in accordance with local regulations. Within the limits of the proposed residence and hardscape improvements, the existing disturbed surface soils should be removed down to approved terrace deposits and replaced as a compacted fill in order to achieve design finish grades. Removal depths are anticipated to be approximately 2 feet. Removal depths may be deeper in areas of existing utility trenches. Following removals the exposed subgrade should -be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction (ASTM D: 1557-00). The Geotechnical Consultant shall determine final removal depths during site grading. The remedial grading should extend to at least 3-feet beyond the limits of the proposed residence and improvements. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8-inches in thickness. All fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent based upon ASTM: D 1557-00. The on-site materials are suitable for use as compacted fill. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All Fading and compaction should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 8 4. Foundation Recommendations The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous/spread footings founded at least 18-inches into approved compacted fill and/or terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 15-inches wide and reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars, one top and one bottom. New foundations located adjacent to utility trenches should extend to below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the bottom of the trench. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000-pounds-per-square-foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads including wind and seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 200-pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction between foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils. Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of reinforcing steel in order to verify that they are founded in suitable bearing materials. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 4-inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars spaced at 18-inches, center-to-center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the slab. A 4- inch layer of clean sand should underlie slabs with at least a 10-mil visqueen vapor barrier placed at mid-height in the sand. 5. Soluble Sulfate A representative sample of the on-site soils was submitted for sulfate analyses. The result of the soluble sulfate test per EPA 9038 methods is presented on the attached Laboratory Test Results, Figure 4. The sulfate content of the on-site soils is consistent with a negligible sulfate exposure classification per Table 19-A- 4 of the 2001 California Building Code. Consequently, special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete are not considered necessary. 6. Trench Backfill All utility trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90- percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557-00). Backfill should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 9 7. Site Drainage The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the structure and appurtenances. Surface drainage should be designed by the project Architect and/or Civil Engineer. a. Consideration should be given to providing the structure with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge to an area drain system and/or to suitable locations away from the structure. b. All site drainage should be directed away from the structure. On-site soils are generally sandy in nature and considered erodible if exposed to concentrated drainage. c. No landscaping should be allowed against the structure. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may affect foundation performance. d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems must be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter(rainy) season. e. All yard and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are not blocked and flow properly. This may be accomplished either visually or, in the case of subsurface drains by placing a hose at the inlet and checking the outlet for flow. 8. Recommended Observation and Testing During Construction The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a. Observation and testing of removals and placement of compacted fill. b. Foundation excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. c. Interior and exterior utility trench backfill. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 28, 2004 Page 10 9. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein and to provide additional investigation or recommendations, as necessary. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions, as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be present in our excavations, the Geotechnical Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report,please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely, HET�ERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. i �oQROFESS/p,�,� ��.✓ �� ON S. GAO ley aul o seth EERUy� Jason S. Gelde `�� — g Registered Civ' M ginm 6MI 2 m Registered Geologist 37 (expires 9/30/0 �• xp. Date Certified Engineering st 115 (expires 3/31/06) E.G. J�,9 CIVIL Q �`.,. EV, OF CAu fiche asc ncellos Staff Geologist HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 11 Attachments: Location Map Figure 1 Plot Plan Figure 2 Log of Test Pits Figure 3 Laboratory Test Data Figure 4 Distribution: 4 -Addressee HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazard in California," Special Publication 117, 1997. 2. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada", California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998. 3. ICBO, "California Building Code", 2001 Edition. 4. Jennings, C. W., "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas", California Division of Mines and Geology,Map No. 6,"dated 1994. 5. Kennedy, Michael P., and Peterson, Gary L., "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California", California Division of Mines and Geology,Bulletin 200, dated 1975. 6. Petersen, Mark D., et al, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96- 08, 1996. 7. Petersen, M., Beeby, W., Bryant, W., et al, "Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 48, 1999. 8. Tan, Siang S., and Giffen, Desmond G., "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California," Division of Mines and Geologic Open —File Report 95-04, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, Plate 35-13, dated 1995. 9. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael P., "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", Plate 1, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02, 1996. 10. Weber, Harold F., Jr., "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California", California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 82-12LA, dated 1982. Project No.4756.1 Log No.8534 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. I I � 1 I � I I I I I I TP-2 I � I EXISTING DECK I I � I It I EXISTING 2-STORY I RESIDENCE 1 I I � I I � © I TP-1 I I I — — — — SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE — — — — SCALE: 1"=20' LEGEND —Z—{� TP-2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION 0 2 .,, TEST PIT L—ij-- 0 10 20 30 40 PLOT PLAN 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 I FIGURE NO. 2 BACKHOE COMPANY: Mansolf Excavating BUCKET SIZE: DATE: 05/10/04 W SOIL DESCRIPTION >" � z UU la4 44 w w a w a o o o TEST PIT NO.TP-1 ELEVATION: 0.0 FILUTOPSOIL: Brown pebbly silty sand, dry, medium dense, orous 106 5.2 Terrace Deposits: Dark red brown silty sand, dense, moist, slightly porous, contains minor well rounded pebbles. 119 8.5 5.0 Total depth 5 feet No water or caving 10.0 15.0 TEST PIT NO.TP-2 ELEVATION: 0.0 FILLITOPSOIL: Brown pebbly silty sand, dry, medium dense, orous 105 5.8 Terrace Deposits: Brown silty sand, dense, moist, porous, abundant active roots. @19": Dark red brown silty sand, dense, moist, slightly porous, 115 8.4 contains minor well rounded pebbles 5.0 Total depth 4 feet No water or caving 10.0 15.0 LOG OF TEST PITS 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 I FIGURE NO. 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM: D 3080) Sample Location Cohesion Internal Remarks (psi Angle of Friction(°) TP-1 @ 18" 75 33 Remolded, consolidated, saturated, drained EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM: D 4829) Sample Initial Compacted Final Volumetric Expansion Expansion Location Moisture Dry Density Moisture Swell'(%) Index Potential TP-1 1.5' 6.6 126.0 11.8 0 1 Very Low MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS (ASTM 1557-OOA) Description Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Location p Density(pcf) Moisture Content(%) TP-1 @ 1.5' Red silty sand 132.0 8.5 SULFATE TEST RESULTS (EPA 9038) Sample Location Soluble Sulfate in Soil (%) TP-2 @ 1.5' 0.0223 FIGURE 4 Project No.4756.1 Log No.8534 # 2006-0398966 • �'��! {Ilf 11 II{{III{1111 if III IIlli I{III 1{111 VIII VIII IIII IIII Intl. Recording Requested By: ) JUN 06, 2006 3:28 PM City Engineer OFFICIAL RECORDS ,JI DIEGO i COUNTY REi_ORDER"',OFFICE When Recorded Mail To: ,, ) GREGORY J. SMITH;COUNTY RECORDER FEES: 0.00 City Clerk ) PAGES. h City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue I Vil Hill Hill Hill IIIII RIII Rill VIII hill VIII RIII Hill Rill Rill III III ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPA n.10 E COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: 4 HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR DRAINAGE Assessor's Parcel No. 258-232-11 Project No.:CDP 04-143 9576-G A. William Patrick Erwin and Julie Ann Erwin trustees of the William Patrick Erwin and Julie Ann Revocable Trust created on 5/8/02 ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as 843 San Die uito Drive ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows: See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of CDP 04-143 by the.City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties. D. OWNER agrees that OWNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant. S CA N N E Ell" r 0 • k E. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing parry 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: OWNER Dated 4 a 3 lI6 r William Patrick Erwin Dated o2 O � �/� Z L e Ann Erwin S t� atfdck�d ac(�now�f�gr,�ctit dam' �`"'� (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached.) CIT F ENC ITAS Dated by (Notarization not required) Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services r ATTACHMENT 'A' TO COVENANT REGARDINGREAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. CDP 04-143 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 16 of Block "H" of Encinitas Highlands, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map Count , December 4, Excepting the Southerly 66 County Recorder of San Diego Y feet thereof. ATTACHMENT B TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR DRAINAGE PROJECT NO. CDP 04-143 OWNER'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS 1. For claims that are alleged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from drainage or 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. (O ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4hthe/ _ o State of California ) County of to before me S ate, �� ask �` r�'�(Na a and title On 2 Z3 U (Date) "Notary Public"),personally appeared (A ll G FYI �� `<< kl pl� j4 d "/Lill` Am li/A n (Name of Signer(s)),personally known'to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s)whose name(s).is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hefshcF they executed the same in histher/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by hUAter/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. SUSAN GORALS10 Cwnn*sion 1457751 Witness my hand and official seal. " NokxV Son �'Cuntf Diego Candy. My Comm.ExpMes Dec 22,2007 Notary's Signature Seal Copyright 2002 North American Notary Association �� Form 1005 CA the Sea Bright c o m p a n y May 21, 2006 HYDROLOGY DISCUSSION ERWIN GRADING PLAN 843 SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE 9576 - G PBD -2005 -62 APN 258 -232 - 11 The above project is an infill project that proposes to tear down the existing house and replace it with a new single family dwelling. The lot drains away from San Dieguito Drive or from west to east. The lot is very flat. It has an average slope from west to east of about 1.8%. The existing surface drainage patterns will remain. There is approximately an additional 775 S.F. of impervious surface proposed. This is very minor. To accommodate for the minor increase in non pervious area, I have introduced 60 foot long gravel swales on each side of the house that contain 4" perforated pipes at a .5% grade. These perforated pipes join into a level perforated pipe that is likewise in a level gravel swale that spans the back of the lot. It is in a "mini" sump condition [about .2']. The intent is for the water to soak and filter into the ground. If the rains are too heavy and the runoff can't be absorbed into the rock and ground, then the water will back up out of the drains along the back and flow to the south in their existing drainage pattern. Based on the minor increase in impervious surface and the flatness of the pad, I do not see much rain water ever leaving the site. I have attached a calculation for the sizing of the gravel infiltration swale which shows it is more than adequate. QESsro,�t 0. erwnhyd1 rn Plo.CUB_ Ezp CIVI ' Engineering Management General Contracting Development 4322 Sea Bright Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone/FAX 760-720-0098 �.• the Sea Bright c o m p a n y November 18, 2005 01 ! Li NOV 1 8 2005 ��.. E. d, SERVICES City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 - 3633 Att: Engineering Department Ref: GP #xxxxG, Erwin Engineering Department, I did a calculation on the square footage of impervious surface for the existing condition[includes storage sheds] on the above referenced project and the proposed development of the property[with no temporary storage sheds]. The end result was the proposed project had an additional 775 S.F. of impervious surface versus the existing condition. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1. Robert O. Sukup Project Civil Engineer '`t o.s RCE 28302QO��t U,�GQ2 a No.CO28= EV.:�j ;Jt,C� Clv111- erwnimp1 �°-� , Engineering Management General Contracting Development 4322 Sea Bright Place Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone/FAX 760-720-0098 1. NOV 18 2005 ENG&ERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS J' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence 843 San Diegulto Drive Encinitas, California APN 258-232-11 7. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. I -� HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY June 30, 2004 Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 Mr. Bill Erwin 84') San Dieguito Drive Encinitas, California Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residence 843 San Dieguito Drive Encinitas, California APN 258-232-11 References: Attached s Dear Mr. Erwin: s� In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. Our work was performed in May and June 2004. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the geologic and soil conditions at the subject site in order to provide grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed new residence. We understand the existing structure will be demolished in order to construct a new single- family residence. No specific development plans were available for review at the time of -� this report. With the above in mind, our scope of services included the following: Review of available geotechnical reports, plans, and geologic literature for the site • and immediate vicinity(see References). Subsurface exploration consisting of two exploratory hand-excavated test pits within • the area of proposed development for Qeologic observation and soil/bedrock sampling. • Laboratory testing of samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. • Engineering and geologic analvsis. • Preparation of this report presenting the results of our field and laboratory work. analyses, conclusions and recommendations. 5205 Avenida Encinas. Suite A • Carlsbad. CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 32242 Paseo Adelanto. Suite C • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax (949) 487-9116 www.hetheringtonengineering.com J.� w y y�1115a ag J � z$ 1 �� INIT a $ E 6 S 6 Cpl =-iW TAS i ST 3 LAUREN Cr J gT1lg �Ep zop �,, � S �1. � y y ST \E `` BRITTANY RD $'\ 0 i L LEUCADIA 700 �» � BEACH �t I LVO I pwinIA BLVD CA 8 u - \ � ae � `z� �v-- BEACONS �.tx cccf, "CA FS SI NIA.... BEACH ell c oi�m ro ewe g Jvo �— �\ `$1i\ �.7(. \ \Tt nvu ao SETfiA r i s s\,� � ; j � a� vu s � EZEE SZ 9 to UNION uNlow I5T UNION 600 OR vm i ;rs�lSp Llvu+ts, VON V—ISO-h1 STE tt w- _ FDJ(GLOYE PACIFIC 0'. \\ ST 1(• s�\?I II 40 1.•a� `nl r� 911fiO6l$T 13. d i L-y �y'.uJiC I••. '[' 4.1 v�l� � .�. 41 TA �I IENCINl S: rg OCEAN V, .'-*,.»m� - ae lb MXJNLIC�IIT p ST_ '''i� A 4`C( Sp0 n n I BEACH �� T El S T 4 a SITE Q•Wt p • L° g E SY 0 15 I �s. w 1� COVE RS i.o o` � _' j I '" I� s� EI I� A REOUEU % ST ,-°-. fl..ST�,, E ' ST 300 /�, '�°*c im 9w 1> HEM vtEHP P i� cl _ HEADER --'i u i ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide,San Diego County,2004 Edition 1 N SCALE: 1"-2000' (1 Grid=0.5 x 0.5 miles) LOCATION MAP 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 I FIGURE NO. 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHMCAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 �. Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 T Page 3 J. Dry Density and Moisture Content(ASTM: D 2216) Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) Direct Shear(ASTM: D 3080) Sulfate Content (EPA 9038) Expansion Index (ASTM: D 4829) Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations are presented on the Logs of Test Pits, Figure 3. The remaining laboratory tests are presented on Figure 4. (� SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1. Geologic Setting The subject site is within a stretch of low hills that are contained within the coastal plain region of northern San Diego County, California. The site region is .1 characterized by gently to locally steep sloping hillsides and incised canyons composed of Eocene sedimentary bedrock that is capped at various elevations by relatively level to gently westward sloping Pleistocene regressive marine terraces. The subject property is contained within the northwestern portion of the U.S.G.S Encinitas 7-1/2 minute quadrangle. 1 The principal geologic unit reported within the site vicinity consists of marine sedimentary terrace deposits. These deposits are essentially massive and structureless. No known or reported deep-seated landsliding is known to exist on the site. No known or reported active or potentially active faults exist within the site vicinity. Active fault zones within the general site region include the Rose Canyon/Newport- Inglewood and the Elsinore, which are located 4-kilometeres southwest and 45.5- kilometeres northeast, respectively. A brief description of the geologic units observed within the site follows. 2. Geologic Units a. Fill/Topsoil — The site is mantled by a relatively thin layer of fill/topsoil generally composed of brown, medium dense to dense. dry silty sand with HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. i J i j PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 4 pebbles and active roots. The fill/topsoil is not considered suitable for ' support of structures. 1 b. Terrace Deposits—Underlying the fill/topsoil are terrace deposits generally ` composed of red brown, moist, dense, poorly indurated silty sand. 1 3. Groundwater JNo seepage or static groundwater was encountered in the exploratory test pits. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater might occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. jSEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active southern California region. There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults that pass through the site. Active and potentially active fault zones presently mapped within the site region include the offshore extension of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood and the Elsinore faults, Iwhich are located approximately 4-kilometeres southwest and 45.5-kilometeres northeast from the site, respectively. Strong ground motion could also be expected from earthquakes occurring along the San Diego Trough, San Jacinto, and San Andreas fault Izones which lie at greater distances from the site. ] The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: i Maximum Probable Fault Earthquake (Moment Slip Rate Fault Type �� Magnitude) �. Rose Canyon/ Newport-Inglewood 6 g 1.5 mm/year B i 4-kilometers (2.4-miles SW) Elsinore (Julian Segment) 6 g 5 mm/year B 45.5-kilometers (28-miles NE) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 5 SEISMIC EFFECTS 1. Ground Accelerations The most significant probable earthquake to effect the property would be a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault. Depiction of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis utilizing a consensus of historical seismic data and the respective regional geologic conditions that are shown an the Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Map, Sheet 48 (Reference 7), indicates that peak ground accelerations of about 0.20 to 0.30g are possible with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50-years. 2. Ground Cracks The potential within the site for fault surface rupture due to active faulting is considered low due to the absence of an active fault on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events are possible, as with all of southern California. 3. Liquefaction The risk of liquefaction within the site is considered negligble due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the dense underlying terrace deposits. 4. LandslidinQ The risk of seismically induced landsliding affecting the property is considered improbable due to the lack of topographic relief. 5. Tsunamis I Due to the elevation of the property above sea level, the potential for seismically Qenerated ocean waves to affect the site is considered low. CONCLUSIONS A'D RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The proposed construction of a single-family residence is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Grading and foundation plans should take into account the appropriate geotechnical features of the site. Assuming that the HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 6 recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are J utilized during design and construction, the proposed development of the site is J not expected to adversely impact adjacent properties from a geotechnical standpoint. 2. Seismic Parameters The following seismic parameters for use in the design of structural elements are provided for the project: i a. Ground Motion — The proposed addition should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Chapter 16, Division IV-Earthquake Design of the 2001 California Building Code. The basis for the design is dependent on and considers seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and building height. b. Soil Profile Type — In accordance with Section 1629.3.1, Table 16-J, and the underlying geologic conditions, a site Soil Profile of Type SD is considered appropriate for the subject property. n c. Seismic Zone — In accordance with Section 1629.4.1 and Figure 16-2, the subject d. site is situated within Seismic Zone 4. J Seismic Zone Factor (z) — A Seismic Zone Factor of 0.40 is assigned based on 1 Table 16-I. Since the site is within Seismic Zone 4, Section 1629.4.2 requires a Seismic Source Type and Near Source Factor. e. Near-Source Factor (Na and Nv) — Based on the known active faults in the region and distance of the faults from the site, a Seismic Source Type of B per Table 16- U, and Near Source Factors of Na = 1.0 per Table 16-S and Nv = 1.2 per Table 16-T are provided. a f Seismic Coefficients (Ca and Cv) —Using the Soil Profile Type and Seismic Zone Factor along with Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the Seismic Coefficients Ca= 0.4, (Na) and Cv= 0.64 (Nv) are provided. or Ca=0.44 and Cv = 0.77. _m HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. J PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 7 Site Grading ,} Prior to grading, the area of the proposed residence and improvements should be j cleared of surface obstructions and debris, and stripped of vegetation. Soils ,1 disturbed from demolition of the existing residence footings shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Materials generated during clearing should be J properly disposed of at an approved location off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions should be backfilled with compacted fill. Old septic systems, if encountered, should be removed in accordance with local regulations. Within the limits of the proposed residence and hardscape improvements, the existing disturbed surface soils should be removed down to approved terrace deposits and replaced as a compacted fill in order to achieve design finish grades. Removal depths are anticipated to be approximately 2 feet. Removal depths may be deeper in areas of existing utility trenches. Following removals the exposed subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction (ASTM D: 1557-00). The Geotechnical Consultant shall determine final removal depths during site grading. The remedial grading should extend to at least 3-feet beyond the limits of the proposed residence and improvements. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8-inches in thickness. All fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent based upon ASTM: D 1557-00. The on-site materials are suitable for use as compacted fill. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All grading and compaction should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. 1 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1 Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 J Page 8 4. Foundation Recommendations The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous;spread 1 footings founded at least 18-inches into approved compacted fill and/or terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 15-inches wide and reinforced with a minimum of two 44 bars, one top and one bottom. New foundations I located adjacent to utility trenches should extend to below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the bottom of the trench. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000-pounds-per-square-foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads including wind and seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 200-pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction between foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils. Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of reinforcing steel in order to verify that they are founded in suitable bearing materials. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 4-inches and should be reinforced with r4 bars spaced at 18-inches, center-to-center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the slab. A fl- inch laver of clean sand should underlie slabs with at least a 10-mil visqueen vapor barrier placed at mid-height in the sand. 5. Soluble Sulfate A representative sample of the on-site soils was submitted for sulfate analyses. The result of the soluble sulfate test per EPA 9038 methods is presented on the attached Laboratory Test Results, Figure 4. The sulfate content of the on-site soils is consistent with a negligible sulfate exposure classification per Table 19-A- 4 of the 2001 California Building Code. Consequently, special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete are not considered necessary. 6. Trench Backfill All utility trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90- percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557-00). Backfill should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 9 7. Site Drainaue The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the structure and appurtenances. Surface drainage should be designed by the project Architect and/or Civil Engineer. a. Consideration should be given to providing the structure with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge to an area drain system and/or to suitable locations away from the structure. b. All site drainage should be directed away from the structure. On-site soils are generally sandy in nature and considered erodible if exposed to concentrated drainage. c. No landscaping should be allowed against the structure. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may affect foundation performance. d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems must be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter (rainy) season. e. All yard and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are not blocked and flow properly. This may be accomplished either visually or, in the case of subsurface drains by placing a hose at the inlet and checking the outlet for flow. 8. Recommended Observation and Testing Durinu Construction The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a. Observation and testing of removals and placement of compacted fill. b. Foundation excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. c. Interior and exterior utility trench backfill. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 28, 2004 IPage 10 9. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein and to provide additional investigation or recommendations, as necessary. ss LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions, as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be present in our excavations, the Geotechnical Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office at your convenience. Sincerely, HET GTON ENGINEERING, INC. Q�pFESSIpHq CGS ' QUO �S. Gf� �Fy Jason S. Geldert aul A. B gseth Registered Civil E n" err 639h Registered Geologist 377 �lt1-RlN� 912 Certified En ineerin r'1'- cFo (expires 9/30/06) �` � - g g � r l i_.r. Date_— (expires 3/31/06) aP y °� Q- v E 33 � cnm 1 �TFOF CAt�E�Q Michel Vasco cellos OF CA�`F Staff Geologist HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 4756.1 Log No. 8534 June 30, 2004 Page 11 Figure 1 Attachments: Location Map Figure 2 Plot Plan Log of Test Pits Figure 3 Laboratory Test Data Figure 4 Distribution: 4 - Addressee HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, "Guidelines Pub for Evaluating and - Mitigating Seismic Hazard >n California," Sp ,i 2. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada 7, California Division of Mines and Geology, 3. ICBO, "California Building Code", 2001 Edition. 4. Jennings, C. W•, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas", California Division of Mines and Geology,Map No. 6, dated 1994. G L. "Geology of the San Diego 5. Kennedy, Michael P., and Peterson, Gary , Metropolitan Area, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, dated 1975. 6. Petersen, Mark D., et al, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96- 08, 1996. 7. Petersen, M., Beeby, W., Bryant, W•, et al, "Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 48, 1999. 8. Tan, Siang S., and Giffen, Desmond G., "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California," Division of Mines and Geologic Open -File Report 95-04, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, Plate 35-B, dated 1995. 9. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael P. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California'% Plate 1, California Division. of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-0-2, 10. Weber, Harold F., Jr., "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California", California Divisions of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 82-12LA, dated 1982. Project No.-1"56.1 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 1 r I I r TP-2 r i EXISTING DECK EXISTING 2-STORY RESIDENCE � t I i TP-1 , i I — — — — SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE — — SCALE: 1" =20' LEGEND C z APPROXIMATE LOCATION 0 _ 2 TP-2 ® OF TEST PIT PLOTp 10 20 30 40 �L01 PLAN 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA - GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 I FIGURE NO. 2 BACKHOE COMPANY: Mansolf Excavating BUCKET SIZE: DATE: 05/10/04 E- I a SOIL DESCRIPTION I wN z wG w pa aa cn�l w G w h a Ca �G I � xE- ELEVATION: PIT NO.TP-1 w oo T M EST . o 0.0 FILLITOPSOIL: Brown pebbly silty sand, dry, medium dense, porous -7 106 ! 52 � Terrace Deposits: Dark red brown silty sand, dense, moist, slightly j porous, contains minor well rounded pebbles. i Iii 119 8.5 5.0 Total depth 5 feet 17 No water or caving lil III I J II I I it I 10.0- 1 15.0 TEST PIT NO.TP-2 ELEVATION: 0.0 FILL/TOPSOIL: Brown pebbly silty sand, dry, medium dense, orous Terrace Deposits: Brown silty sand, dense, moist, porous, 105 5.8 abundant active roots. @19": Dark red brown silty sand, dense, moist, slightly porous, 115 8.4 contains minor well rounded pebbles 5.0-i Total depth 4 feet No water or caving I 10.0— III i 15.0 LOG OF TEST PITS 843 San Dieguito Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, CA GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 4756.1 FIGURE NO. 3 LAB )RATORY TEST RESUI-TS DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM: D 3080) Sample Location Cohesion Internal Remarks (ps fl Angle of Friction(°) 75 33 Remolded, consolidated, saturated, jTP-1 @ 18" drained II EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM: D 4829) acted Final Volumetric Expansion Expansion Sample Initial Comp index Potential Location Moisture Dry Density Moisture Swell (%) �i (%) (pcf) 11. 18 0 1 w Very Lo TP-1 @ 1.5' 6.6 126.0 1. ';� 1vIAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS (_-ASTM 1557-OOA) Optimum Maximum Dry Description Moisture Sample Location Density(pct Content TP-1 @. 1.5' Red silty sand 132.0 8.5 SULFATE TEST RESULTS (EPA 9038) Soluble Sulfate in Soil (%) Sample Location 0.0223 TP-? (a— L5' FIGURE f Project No.,'7 56.'. Log tio.8=-= r t