2003-7800 GLine: 1-5- 14
�I
b `
RECORDING REOUES
Lawyers Title Company
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Phillip J. Mulloy
2978 State Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
\ e 4
cw
No.: 19050570
r, E 11 W E
_ D
OCT 7 2009
ENGINEERING SERVICES
GRANT DEED
DOG # 2009 - 0541791
SEP 30, 2009 8:00 AM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
S AD RECORDERS E D L BUTLER. COUNTY RECORDER 5 Q 0 8
FEES: 238000
DC OC
PACES- 107
1111111 H11111111 Hill 11111 Hill pill Hill Hill All 91111111111111 X11 Hll 101
Escrow
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE DD S) Z 35
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX Is S
[XJ computed on full value of properly conveyed, or
[ J computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
[ ] Unincorporated area [X) City of Encinitas AND
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
hereby GRANT(s) to:
Phillip John Mulloy and Christina Ann Mulloy, Trustmanagers of the Mulloy Llving Trust dated
October 19, 2001
the real properly in thin City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, Stale of California, described as:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "B" AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Also Known as: 3542 Jasmine Crest, Encinitas, CA 92024
AP #:264- 540-01
DATED July 30, 2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
On
oetore me.
A Notary Public in and for said State personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be
the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies),
and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing paragraph Is We and mmect.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
SEE EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE
A PART HEREOF
Signature (Seal)
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN BELOW, IF NO PARTY SHOWN, MAIL AS DIRECTED ABOVE:
•cnnitvS. VULCAN AVE. PARTMEt'iT
' S0�
S. VULCAN V
NCINI.A_ "A 92024 ,Y/
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.:
PARCEL NO. : 264- 540 -0100 PLAN I40.: 7E00
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 3542 JASMINE L .T SE t0.: 01112 "T ft
APPLICANT NAME WLF VENTURES INC. I.STE y}
MAILING ADDRESS: 3542 JASMINE C _ T NE h'0.: 76G- 805 -544
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024-
CONTRACTOR : OWNER /BUILDER
LICENSE NO.: OWNER
ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION TESTING
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 3125/03
PERMIT EX
INSPEC
------- ( ---- fivvy-gg-i-
PHONE N:-,.: 760 - 8805 -544:
LICENSE TYPE:
a ENGINEERING PHONE NO
PERMIT =SS:ED
IT�FEES & DEPGSITS ------------ --- -- -- - - --
1.
PER EE
00
=.
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT'
3.
INSPECTION E
500.00
4.
INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
5,
PLAN CHECK FEE
200.00
6.
SECURITY DEP -SIT
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FEE
.00
S.
TRAFFIC FEE
-- -------
- - - - ------------
DESCF.IPTIOid
OF
WORE -- - - - - -- -----------------------
SIMPLIFIED GRADING PERMIT ISSUED FOR MINOR GRADING PER AFPROVED PLAN
7800 -G.
- - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION
_ Il i 6g
�%�
803 - 3i3Z
INSPECTOR'S SS�IIGG.N //ATURE - - --
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND 5 7
-
LAWS REGULATING EXCA34ATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS Or
ANY PERMIT ISSUED JR�UANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT z.
DATE SIG D
�vo
TELEPHONE NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 1 ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 1 160.746.4955 1 FAX 760.746.9106
November 18, 2009 110
City of Encinitas NQV
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas. CA 92024
Subject: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No. 7800 -G
Grading Permit No. 09 -1089
78 no 61
The grading under Permit No. 09 -1089 has been performed in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plans or as shown on the attached "as-
graded" plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the
approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% 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(s).
�`OQy1F
Engineer of Record at/ y ae+ ° Ei�
q x
1 V Zt� Dc * RCE 6 D/5
Dated N a� r i 1 N� RCE C 43345 �e
(-'IV Q2
o
For c�y\F
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 Inspecto� I ",=i""6 j �—
Dated 11 1 19 lo
SAN DIEGO I ESCONDIDO I RIVERSIDE I VENTURA I MERCED I TRACY I SACRAMENTO I PALM SPR
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING
ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION TESTING& ENGINEERING, INC.
SAN DIEGO, CA
RIVERSIDE, CA
VENTURA, CA
TRACY, CA
LANCASTER, CA
SACRAMENTO, CA
N. PALM SPRINGS, CA
2416 Vineyard Ave.
4% E. Priaceland Ci.
IMS Pacific Ave.
242 W. Lareh
42156 10th R. W.
3629 Madison Ava,
19020 N. ladla9 Ave.
SWteG
SWIe 7
S91te 195
Wt. F
UoR h
SWIe 22
S0hs 2.K
Eecaadida, CA 92029
Cornaa.CA91719
Oaoard, CA 93033
Trary, CA 95376
La09avler.CA93534
N. Hi9hlaadr, CA 956" N. Pad Spd0p, CA 92M
1760)716-6955
(%9) 371 -1990
(90511"1175
(209) 929-2990
("1) 726 %76
(916) 3311939
(760) 3291677
(7") 746-9906 FAX
(909) 371 -21" FAX
(90511"-9016 FAX
(209) 939-2995 FAX
( "1) 7240266 FAX
(916) 33"37 FAX
(7601 3348% FAX
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCES
3542 JASMINE CREST
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. STEVE GARDALITY
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 -3633
&a s3 RrItl"L? 6,F, Z r..IZ
PREPARED BY:
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92029
CTE JOB NO. 10 -6054
JANUARY 8, 2003
GEOTECHNICAL 9 ENVIRONMENTAL 9 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING 9 CIVIL ENGINEERING a SURVEYING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................... .............................VI
1.1 Introduct ion ................................................................................ ...............................
l
1.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................ ..............................1
2.0 SITE LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS .......................2
2.1 Background ................................................................................. ..............................2
2.2 Previous Investigations ................................................................ ..............................2
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ...................................................................... ..............................2
4.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................. ..............................3
4.1 General Physiographic Setting ..................................................... ...............................
3
4.2 Geologic Conditions .................................................................... ..............................3
4.3 Groundwater Conditions .............................................................. ..............................3
4.4 Geologic Hazards ....................................................................... ...............................
3
4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation .............................. , . .............................
3
4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting ................................................ ..............................4
4.4.3 Seismic Loading Parameters ................................................ ..............................4
4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation and Seismic Settlement Evaluation . ..............................4
4.4.5 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ......................................... ...............................
5
4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksliding ................................................. ...............................
5
4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils ....................................... ..............................6
.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. ...............................
6
5.1 General ........................................................................................ ..............................6
5.2 Grading and Earthwork ............................................................... ...............................
6
5.3 Site Preparation .......................................................................... ...............................
7
5.4 Site Excavations ......................................................................... ...............................
8
5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction ...................................................
8
...............................
5.6 Fill Materials ............................................................................... ...............................
8
5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes .................................................. ...............................
9
5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ................................... ...............................
10
5.8.1 Foundations ..................................................................... ...............................
10
5.8.2 Foundation Settlement and Slab Heave ............................. ...............................
10
5.8.3 Foundation Setback .......................................................... ...............................
l l
5.8.4 Concrete Slabs ................................................................. ...............................
11
5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ........................................ .............................12
5.10 Exterior Flatwork ..................................................................... .............................13
5.11 Vehicular Pavements ................................................................. .............................14
5.12 Drainage ................................................................................... .............................15
5.13 Slopes
....................................................................................... .............................15
5.14 Construction Observation .......................................................... .............................15
5.15 Plan Review .............................................................................. .............................16
6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ............................................... ...............................
16
FIGURES
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
APPENDICES
INDEX MAP
SITE MAP
RETAINING WALL
REFERENCES CITED
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
_aed Geetechnical Investigation Pa_. i
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
Januar,, 3, 2003 TH Jcc No. 10 -6054
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Introduction
This report presents the results of our updated geotechnical investigation and provides conclusions
and engineering criteria for the proposed residential development located at Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine
Crest, A.P.N. 264 - 540- 01 -00, Encinitas, California. It is our understanding that the site is to be
improved by constructing a new single - family home, driveway, and associated improvements. Figures
I and 2 are an index map showing the site location and the layout of the proposed development,
respectively.
Specific recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed
structures are presented in this report. The investigation for this report included site reconnaissance,
review of previous geotechnical documents, geologic hazard evaluation, and engineering analysis.
Appendix A contains a list of references cited.
1.2 Scope of Services
Our scope of services included:
• Review of readily available geologic reports and documents pertinent to the site area.
• Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the site.
• Soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements.
• Preparation of this report detailing the investigation performed and providing conclusions and
geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction.
FM 0.6054%pt_GeotecMical.dac
Updated Geotechnical Investi_aton Page'
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
January 3, 2003 CTE Job No. 10 -6054
2.0 SITE LOCATION DESCRTPTION.. -V'-D PREVIOUS NVESTIGATIONS
2.1 Back--round
The site is legally described as, Lot 1, Parcel Map 11411, A.P.N. 264 - 540 -01 -00 in the City of
Encinitas, California. The site is bounded on the south and east by Jasmine Crest Road, on the west
by an existing equestrian trail, on the north by an ascending 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope to an
adjacent building pad with a house that is currently under construction. The site consists of mass -
graded building pad with an existing storm drain at the north side of the lot, a 2:1 slope descending to
Jasmine Crest Road, and an approximately 2.5:1 slope descending from the equestrian trail.
2.2 Previous Investigations
Compaction testing and observation of grading activities were performed at the site from April 1999
to July 1999 by Southern California Soil and Testing Inc. (SCST). The summary of reported field
observations is referenced where appropriate.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Field investigation was conducted on December 27, 2002 and included a reconnaissance of the site
and the inspection of surface soils. As discussed, the site is currently an undeveloped, mass -graded
lot with a storm drain along the north side. In addition, weeds and other vegetation have apparently
grown at the unimproved lot since it was mass -graded several years ago. However, in general the
graded condition of the site remains unchanged from the conditions documented by Southern
California Soil and Testing Inc. (2000).
FA106054Vtpt Geotemh1u"1.dw
Lot 1,..:3?._
Enciria�,
Jarua ; S, ::? CTE Job \o. 10 -5054
4.0 GEOLOGY
4.1 General Physioeraphic Setting
At an approximate elevation of 325 feet above mean sea level (msl), the site lies within the
uplifted coastal mesa area. The area topography slopes down to the west with steeper slopes
located to the northeast of the site.
4.2 Geologic Conditions
Based on mapping compiled by Kennedy and Tan (1996) surface soils near the site consist ofunits of
the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics. However, during grading activities units of loose soil and
topsoil were encountered above metavolcanic rock (SCST, 2000). Surficial soils observed in this
investigation appeared to consist of fill and cut soils.
43 Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage or flows were noted in the bedrock material after the removal of loose soil
and topsoil during grading activities in the proposed site location (SCST, 2000). Although
groundwater levels will likely fluctuate during periods of precipitation, groundwater is not expected
to affect the proposed development if recommendations presented in this report are carried out.
4.4 Geologic Hazards
4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation
Based on our reference review and observations, it appears that geologic hazards at the site
are primarily limited to those caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground
Fil Ofi03444(_Oeotcdmical.doc
[=-dated Geotechnical Investigation Psse 4
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
January 8, 2003 CTE Job No. 10 -6054
motion waves The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement beneath the
proposed structures should be considered low.
4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting
Based on our site reconnaissance and a review of appropriate geologic literature, it is our
opinion that the site is not on known active fault traces. The Rose Canyon Fault,
approximately 1 1 miles to the west, is the closest zoned active fault. Other principal active
regional faults include the Coronado Banks, San Clemente, Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San
Andreas faults (Jennings, 1987). According to the California Division of Mines and Geology,
a fault is zoned active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and
Bryant, 1997).
4.4.3 Seismic Loading Parameters
In accordance with the California Building Code 2001 edition, Volume 2, Figure 16 -2, the
referenced site is located within Seismic Zone 4 and has a seismic zone factor of Z =0.4. The
largest proximal seismic source, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, is considered a Type B seismic
source. Based on the distance from the site to the Rose Canyon Fault of approximately 18
kilometers, near source factors ofNv =1.0 and N,-1.0 are considered appropriate. Based on
site geotechnical data, the site has a soil profile type of Sc and therefore seismic coefficients
of 00.56 and C, =0.40.
4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation and Seismic Settlement Evaluation
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine - grained sands or silts lose their physical strength
during earthquake- induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of point -to-
point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential
F:u 0- 6054TptGm"hr icalAm
Updated Geotechr:ica
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
Tarim r R 2nOi
ra' _
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
varies with ground,,vater level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and the intensity
and duration of ground shaking.
Because of the generally dense or hard nature of the soils and the apparent lack of a
permanent groundwater table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction damage
to proposed improvements should be considered negligible.
Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils density during
seismic events. Because the underlying site materials were generally found to be well
consolidated or solid rock during previous grading activities, the potential for seismic
settlement should be considered very low.
4.4.5 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation
According to McCulloch (1985), the tsunami potential in the San Diego County coastal area
for one -in -100 and one -in -500 year tsunami waves are approximately four and six feet. This
suggests that the site is not subject to damage due to the elevation (approximately 325 feet
above msl) and distance (approximately five miles) from the ocean. The site is not near any
significant bodies of water that could induce seiche damage.
4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksliding
According to Tan and Griffen (1995), the site area is generally susceptible to landsliding.
However, landsliding is not considered a significant hazard to the proposed structure due to
appropriate removal or keyway cuts of fill slopes (SCST, 2000). In addition, no active
landslides or rockslides were observed during this most recent investigation.
F:\ I OS054\Rpt_Geotechnical. doc
t ., •. ::'. ._ -:ion
Let ! °<
Pace 6
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
and Expansive Soils
Based on geologic observation and the referenced reports, the site fill soil materials consist of
silty SAND, sandy CLAY, and clayey SAND with low compressibility. All loose soil and
topsoil was removed and recompacted to an elevation of a minimum of three feet below
proposed finish grade. Onsite materials are anticipated to be moderately expansive. However,
the recommendations presented herein have been developed to minimize potentially expansive
subgrade materials.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
We conclude that the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,
provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the
project. Surface soils at the site reflect those anticipated by Southern California Soil and Testing Inc.
(2000) and are considered suitable for the support of the proposed improvements. Recommendations
for the design and construction of the proposed structures and improvements are included below.
5.2 Grading and Earthwork
Upon commencement of construction, Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. should
continuously observe the grading and earthwork operations for this project. Such observations are
essential to identify field conditions that differ from those predicted by this investigation, to adjust
designs to actual field conditions, and to ensure that the grading is in overall accordance with the
recommendations of this report. Our personnel should perform adequate observation and sufficient
FA 1M054Vtpt_G"w1uuca). da-
Updated Geotechnical Investigation
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
January 8, 2003
Pao,
CTE Job No 10 -6054
testing of fills during grading to support the Geote:.hn:cai Ccrsuitant's professional opinion regarding
compliance with compaction requirements and the specifications contained herein.
5.3 Site Preparation
Before grading, the site should be cleared of any existing debris and other deleterious materials.
Organic materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of off -site or placed in non-
structural areas.
After removal of unsuitable materials (anticipated to be less than 12 inches) the subgrade should be
scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to a minimum two percent above laboratory-
determined optimum moisture content and recompacted as recommended herein. However, locally
deeper removals of unsuitable materials may be required based on the actual conditions encountered
during construction. In addition, during site preparation, the overexcavation depths within the
proposed building limits shall be confirmed. The geotechnical consultant should verify that remedial
excavations have been satisfactorily accomplished. Finish grade soils across the site shall be tested for
expansion potential during grading to confirm the conditions anticipated.
Pavement areas shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations in Section 5.12. Proposed
flatwork areas shall be ripped and recompacted to a minimum depth of twelve inches. Such materials
shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at a minimum of two percent
above optimum moisture content.
F:u0-6054vttx_cx«w,lic&l.do,
Updated Geotec1,ni:. 1n esti�ati r.
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, Califortia
January 3, 2CO3
54 Site Excavations
Paz_
CTE Job \o. 10 -6C:=
Site excavations can generally be accomplished using heavy -duty construction equipment. Site
excavations should be observed by CTE. Such observations are essential to identify field conditions
that differ from those identified during our subsurface investigation and to adjust designs to actual
field conditions encountered.
5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction
The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred before fill
placement occurs. Following removal of unsuitable soils, areas to receive fills or concrete slabs -on-
grade should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to a minimum of two percent
above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted.
Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by
ASTM D1557 at a minimum moisture content two percent above the laboratory- determined
optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will be dependent on the type of compaction
equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding eight inches in
loose thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with our
geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. Exposed subgrade in proposed improvement
areas shall be kept moist until covered in order to mitigate the anticipated expansive soils.
5.6 Fill Materials
On -site materials are considered suitable for reuse on the site as structural fills, provided they are
screened of organic or other unsuitable materials and materials greater than six inches in maximum
FA "0 savtq_Gvotorw,;w.d«
e Crest
cncuuias, i z:,i�cia
Page 9
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
:.nceentered. In addition, prescribed moisture contents must be maintained until
subgrade is covered.
Imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an expansion index less than or
equal to 30 (per UBC 18 -I -B) with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils
for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engineer to determine strength
characteristics before placement on the site.
5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes
Sloping recommendations for unshored temporary excavations are provided herein. The
recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep- seated failure, but may experience
localized sloughing. Recommended slope ratios are set forth in Table 1 below.
TI%B1.E- i
RECUMUMENDIH) TE".1PORAU SLOPE PL-\T10S
SOILS TYPE
SLOPE RATIO
MAXBvfUM HEIGHT
(Horizontal: Vertical)
B (Native and Engineered
1:1 (MAXIIvfM
10 FEET
Fill Soils)
Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while
excavations exist according to Cal -OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping
recommendations do not allow for potential water seepage, or surcharge loading at the top of slopes
by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from
the top of all unshored slopes.
F:110 -6054Utpt Gmwhnica1.da
Updated Geotec'rnical Investigation
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
January 8. 2003
5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations
Page 10
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These foundation
recommendations should be reviewed after completion offinish grading. As stated, we anticipate that
A building footings would be founded entirely in properly recompacted fills. Subgrade moisture
contents must be maintained above optimum until improvements are constructed.
5.8.1 Foundations
Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. However, footings
should not straddle cut/fill interfaces. We anticipate all building footings will be founded
entirely in engineered fills. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on
allowable bearing values of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings embedded a
minimum of 24 inches in competent engineered fills. The allowable bearing value may be
increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic
forces. As stated, subsurface conditions shall be confirmed during preparatory grading.
For continuous and isolated spread footings, the minimum width should be at least 15 and 24
inches, respectively. Footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four #4
reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. The structural
engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement.
5.8.2 Foundation Settlement and Slab Heave
In general, for the anticipated construction, the maximum post - construction compression
settlement is expected to be less than 1.0 inch. Maximum differential settlement of
continuous footings across the buildings is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inches.
FA I 0-6054'Rpt_CotechnicaLdm
L pdi:_d Gectec: nicai Investigation
Lot 1, 35'? Pas-nine Crest
Encinitas, i.:a;izorttia
January 8, 2003
CTE Job No. 10 -6u_54
5 8.3 Foundation Setback
Footings for structures should be designed such that the minimum horizontal distance from
the face of nearby slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 10 feet. If this distance
cannot be maintained, then footings should be deepened until a 10 foot horizontal separation
exists between the compacted face of slope and the outer bottom edge of the footing.
5.8.4 Concrete Slabs
Concrete building slabs -on -grade should be designed for the anticipated loading. If elastic
design is used, a subgrade modulus of 120 pounds per square inch per inch is considered
appropriate. Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4.5 inches thick.
Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of 93 or 44 reinforcing bars placed on 12 -inch or
18 -inch centers, each way at mid- mid -slab height, respectively. Slabs subjected to vehicular
traffic may require additional thickness and/or reinforcing. Subgrade materials must be
maintained at prescribed above optimum moisture contents until overlying materials or
improvements have been placed and/or constructed.
In moisture sensitive floor areas, a vapor barrier of ten -mil visqueen overlying a two -inch
layer of consolidated aggregate base (minimum sand equivalent of 30) should be installed. At
a minimum, a two -inch layer of similar material should be placed above the visqueen to
protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. Slabs subjected to heavier loads
may require thicker slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. This office should be
contacted to provide additional recommendations, if necessary.
F:\IO- 6054�Rp_Geotcdh ml.dw:
I ;.:e'. Cectachrical Investigation
L, . I , 542 Jasmine Crest
January 3, 2003
5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
Page 12
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in
firm, well- compacted fill material may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total
frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance
value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1250 pounds per
square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional
resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two - thirds of
the total allowable resistance.
Basement and retaining walls up to ten feet high and backfilled using granular soils may be designed
using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 2 below.
IABLF 2
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGI ITS
(fxiands per cubic foot)
WALL TYPE
LEVEL BACKFILL
SLOPE BACKFILL
2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL)
CANTILEVER WALL
35
60
YIELDING
RESTRAINED WALL
55
90
The above values assume non - expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Therefore, some onsite
materials may not be suitable for wall backfill. Measures should be taken to prevent a moisture
buildup behind all walls below grade. Drainage measures should include free draining backfill
materials and perforated drains. Drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location.
F\106054\Rpt Gcolechaical.do
Updated Geotechnica; is
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine C"e�
Encinitas, California
January 8, 2003
Page 13
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
Waterproofing of walls below glade should be evaluated and/or designed by the project architect.
Figure 3 is a typical retaining wall drainage detail.
We recommend that walls below grade be backfilled with soils having an expansion index of 20 or
less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1:1 sloping plane, extended back from
the base of the wall. Wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction,
based on ASTM D1557 -91. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate
structural strength. Heavy compactors, which could cause distress to walls, should not be used.
5.10 Exterior Flatwork
To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of
foundation soils, we recommend that such flatwork be reinforced and installed with crack -
control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Flatwork includes
driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. All subgrade should be prepared according
to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive
drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to all flatwork. Exterior concrete
flatwork and similar improvements shall be designed by the project architect or civil engineer,
but shall have a thickened edge of at least 1.5 times the slab thickness. All exterior
improvement areas shall be kept moist until improvement placement/construction.
F:\10- 6054\RO_Geotechni Lda,
f_'odat-_d Geotechnical Investigation
Lot 1, 3532 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
January 8, 2003
?».fie 1"
CT E J ,: - No. 10 -60.4
5.11 Vehicular Pavements
We understand that parking and drive areas may be paved with concrete pavements. The
recommended concrete pavement sections for drive areas have been designed assuming light vehicular
traffic loads and low repetitions per day. Corresponding pavement designs presented in the table
below may not be adequate for larger axle loads and traffic volume. Pavements should be constructed
according to industry standards.
The upper 12 inches of subgrade shall be compacted to 95% of the laboratory determined maximum
dry density, as per ASTM D1557, at a minimum moisture content of two percent above optimum.
Proposed pavement areas must be kept moist until overlying improvement placement/construction.
Upon completion of preparatory grading in the proposed pavement areas, additional subgrade
sampling and testing for "R' Value determination and expansion index shall be conducted. This
additional testing will enable us to modify the pavement sections based on the as- graded conditions, if
necessary.
FA I 0fi0541Rpt_Geowhmcal. doc
C'_dat--d Geotechnical Investigation
Lot 1, 3542 Jasmine Crest
Encinitas, California
January 3, 2003
5.12 Drainage
Page 15
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate
erosion reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed
improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at least
two percent for a distance of at least five feet. The project civil engineers should evaluate the on -site
drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site.
5.13 Slopes
Proposed slopes should be constructed at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. Although graded
slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff
water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to
properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant vegetation should be
maintained on the face of all slopes. All slopes shall be properly keyed and benched as necessary.
Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will tend to creep laterally. We do not
recommend that distress sensitive landscape improvements be constructed within ten feet of slope
crests in fill areas.
5.14 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the
proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found or encountered during previous site
earthworks. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction
to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
F:\ IOG054\Rpt_Gwttdu i"Ldm
Updated Ge td `: i z: l:;:estigation
Lot 1. 3542 Jas-i ^a Crest
Encinitas, Califor-. a
January 3, 2CG CTE Job No. iu -6054
Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE
will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed
and tested to verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations
contained within this report. All footing trenches should be evaluated by the project engineer before
reinforcing steel placement.
5.15 Plan Review
CTE should review the project grading and foundation plans before the start ofearthworks to identify
potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report.
6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
The field observation, evaluation, and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been
conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable
geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report.
Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered
during construction.
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has been retained to provide geotechnical
engineering construction control and testing services during the construction phase of the above
project. CTE has reviewed the referenced geotechnical documents and has evaluated site conditions.
Based on this review and recent site reconnaissance, we are in general agreement with the
conclusions and recommendations presented in the reference documents. Therefore, CTE agrees to
F:110 -6054Vtp,_Geo,eclutical. do
Investigation
1'. Jasmine Crest
Page 17
CTE Job No. 10 -6054
ass1::me the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record and all provisions of the
department required as conditions of the grading permit will be complied with during the course of
work. However, CTE reserves the right to modify the recommendations based on conditions exposed
during construction and/or foundation installation operations.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed and anticipated
conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office
should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this
report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
6 G_oodmacher, CEG #2136 ono
w No p,.F �
Engineering Geologist C-)
Exp. l uiu3
Staff Geologist
Dan T. Math, RCE #61013
Senior Engineer
- No.
810/0
12 /31/04
FA 10 6034\Rpt_neolxlmiul.dm
fN MN
II3' �Ob RFI 0 •pl tOpO MfIF0.$
PmHA fmn TGPO�O'AW WJNbwePmdmrom(wwv row mW
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING. INC.
GE.OTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ANDINSPECTION
1414 IIRETARDAPENUE. STE G ESCOVDIDOCA V`U]�1TWt tJ6f Ml
SITE INDEX MAP 10-6054
90 FOOT CONTOUR ELEVATIONS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEN 'ELOPNIENT ' A p$$HOWN
LOT 1, 3542 JASMINE CREST
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 11A IE2/02I I
13'-V ROIECTSlIRE05f!INDESpUp CNY
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
4'
Ii VOILCI IN If AL AN DIY]N4R0(DIIN ENGINIL.RING I L% I ING AND IWEI'TION
O
.`414\'INIIYARU A \'I!NU[.SfY.li 13CONDIDU CA 4 2@01]60174b41}55
k V41nLLtIW 11.1
I
/
It
SCALE
It JII 6111 1 t 1
SITE MAr
PROPOSED RESIDENIIAL DEVELOPMEN I
LOT 1,J542 JASMINE ('REST'
EN( 'INII'AS, CALIFORNIA
1
I,1 I, 111 KII
10 1
nnll —_
AS S I It
I /o
RETAINING W
1010LI :EN.:UIM
WALL FOOTING
<
IL .
o ,
n0� �
• �o
°e
� po
> v C
0
WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED
TO 90% RELATIVE DENSITY
3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED
BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI
140 N, OR EQUIVALENT)
> °
o ; I' MIN
- O
v ° .
°
00
: o-
e °o
°
v ° a
0
s..
4
� 4
PIFA
4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC
PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT), MINIMUM
1% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE
OUTLET
MINIMUM 6" LAYER OF
FILTER ROCK UNDERLYING
PIPE
r 3 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
h` A
000' GEOTECHMfAL ANDfONSTRL'(- f10N ENGINEERINGTESIING AND INSPE[T0�
:414 VMEVARD AVENUE. STE. G ESCDNDIDD CA Tl 9(7W) 746 W
ILINl2MING IFC
R 0
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL 10 -6054
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCALE
LOT 1, 3542 JASMINE CREST NO
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DATE RE
12/02 IFIr 3
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES CITED
REFERENCES CITED
1. Hart, E.W. and Bryant.W., 1997, "Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Alquist
Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of ),lines and Geology,
Special Publication 42.
2. Jennings, Charles W., 1987, "Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes,
Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells."
3. Kennedy, M. P. and Tan, S.S. 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa
Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County, California ", California Division of Mines and
Geology, Open -Files Report 96 -02.
4. McCulloch, D.S., 1985, "Evaluating Tsunami Potential" in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating
Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region — An Earth- Science Perspective, U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360.
5. Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., 2000, "Summary of Field Observations and
Tests for Relative Compaction", City of Encinitas, Tract No. 92 -108, Jasmine Crest,
Encinitas, California [consultant report No.9811318.7].
6. Tan, S. S. and Griffen, D.G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Landslide Hazard Identification
Map No. 35 ", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 95 -04.
APPENDIX B
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
ST -O DARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Section I - General
The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent Construction
Testing & Engineering's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on
construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications.
Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the
recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall
interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or
specifications contained herein.
Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel
The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to assure that
geotechnical construction is performed in general conformance with project specifications and
standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or
his authorized representative.
The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized
representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. He shafl authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other
consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized
representative should remain on -site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in
order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all
grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to,
earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements.
Section 3 - Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction site meeting shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the
grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and
representatives of the appropriate governing authorities.
Section 4 - Site Preparation
The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the
project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate
approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations.
Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods,
stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded.
Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas.
Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including
underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.)
and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of
utilities should include proper capping and /or rerouting pipelines at the -ro;ect per.rneter and cutoff
and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition.
Trees, plants or man -made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be
protected by the contractor from damage or injury.
Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas
to be graded and disposed off -site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be
performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
Section 5 - Site Protection
Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor.
Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties,
completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent
areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as
identified by the geotechr&al consultant, the client and the regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to
protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage.
Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage
away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand
to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the
geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and
should be subject to over - excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading
as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations
by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in
consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to
preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant
should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more restrictive by the regulating
agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to
prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. When deemed appropriate by the
geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins,
sand bags or other drainage control measures.
In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths
of greater than 10 foot; they should be over - excavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance
with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below
proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in- place, followed by thorough
recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the
desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be over - excavated and replaced as
compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions
dictate, the eeotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures.
Section 6 - Excavations
6.1 Unsuitable Materials
Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of
the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry,
loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and
nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.
Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture
conditions should be over - excavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or
above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill.
If during the course of grading adverse geotechr&al conditions are exposed which were not
anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined'by the geotechnical consultant
additional exploration, analysis and treatment of these problems may be recommended.
6.2 Cut Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the
regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical).
The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations
expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the
materials should be over - excavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If
encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical
Consultant.
When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the
prevailing drainage, a non - erodible diversion Swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top
of the slope.
6.3 Pad Areas
All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions,
located less than 3 feet deep should be over- excavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a
uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of over - excavation may vary and
should be delineated by the geotechr&al consultant during grading.
For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established
away from the top -of- slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage Swale and/or
an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top -of- slopes oft percent
or greater is recommended.
Section 7 - Compacted Fill
All fill materials shou;d have till quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below
or as approved by the geotechnical consultant.
7.1 Fill Material Ouality
Excavated on -site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant
may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials
are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on -site should be
sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements
outlined.
Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided
sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to
effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight
passing the 3/4 -inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field
conditions dictate.
Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are
generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special
handling in accordance with attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four
feet should be broken down or disposed off -site.
7.2 Placement of Fill
Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should inspect the area to
receive fill. After inspection and approval, the exposed ground surface should be scarified to
a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or
air dried by continued disking) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum
moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as
otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies.
Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in
loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed,
thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and
thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory
maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished
grades are achieved.
The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and
watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of
moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions.
When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:
vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope
area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six -foot wide benches and a
minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or
engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area after keying and
benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the
benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the
recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill.
Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills,
temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope,
benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3 -foot
vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill
prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3 -foot vertical
increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay,
the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification,
moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly
blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density.
Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials
should be over - excavated.
Following a period of flooding, rainfall or over watering by other means, no additional fill
should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed
as described herein.
Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill
provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize
material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within I foot of other
compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed
below the upper 5 feet of any fill and should not be closer than I I feet to any slope face.
These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical,
oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are
proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, over - excavated or
unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular
soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all
windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be
staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane.
It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement.
The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging
test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should
provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client.
The geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and
moisture conditions should test fill. Field density testing should conform to ASTNI Method of
Test D 1556 -82, D 2922 -81. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or
1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill
found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or
otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
7.3 Fill Sloaes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the
regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical).
Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should
be over -built and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual
amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not
achieved, the existing slopes should be over- excavated and reconstructed under the guidelines
of the geotechr&al consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired
compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to
provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface.
At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by
conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a
firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the
previously compacted firm fill intercore.
During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer
edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or
more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should
not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the
outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be
allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope
height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be
thoroughly dozer track rolled.
For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the
top -of- slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least 2 percent.
Section 8 - Trench Backfill
Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be
compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should
be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet
deep may be backfrlled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If
on -site materials are utilized, they should be wheel - rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm
cor.diticn. Fcr n':nor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected
if deemed necessary, based on review of back-fill operations during construction.
It utilitv contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to
a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction
equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly
jetted in -place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other
methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical
consultant at the time of construction.
In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where
flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the
geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas.
Section 9 - Drainage
Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be
installed in accordance.
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or side hill masses, should be
installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying attached plates.
Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable
disposal areas via non - erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales) as shown in
the attached plates.
For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 5
percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent
should be maintained over the remainder of the site.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of
the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be
detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.
Section 10 - Slope Maintenance
10.1 - Landscape Plants
To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of
grading. Slope planting should consist of deep- rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants
native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable.
Plants native to other semi -arid and and areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect
should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration.
10.2 - Irrigation
Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope
faces.
Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation
systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of
rainfall.
10.3 - Repair
As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to
protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This
measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting.
If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of
site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair.
If slope failures occur because of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and
currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against
additional saturation.
C I, Y OF E N I N I T A E
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT
PERMIT
NO.: _____
PARCEL NO. 264- 540 -0100
PLAN
NO.:
7800 -G
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 3542 JASMINE
T
SE
NO.:
C1112 ; MIN
APPLICANT NAME WLF VENTURES INC. (STE
r
Y)
--"
MAILING ADDRESS: 3542 JASMINE C T
- NE
NG.:
760 - 805 -5440
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE:
CA ZIP:
92024 -
CONTRACTOR : OWNER /BUILDER
PHONE
NO.:
760- 805 -544
LICENSE NO.: OWNER
LICENSE TYPE:
ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION TESTING b ENGINEERING
PHONE
NO..
760- 746 -49v:i
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 3/25/03
PERMIT EX _.- PERMIT
issuEqyel
INSPEC
;ERMIT
----------------------------
- - - - - -- --- -J'`�� -Oy
FEES & DEPOSITS
P,E EE .00 -.
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT:
3. INSPECTION E 500.00 4.
INSPECTION
DEPOSIT:
5. PLAN CHECK FEE 200.00 6.
SECURITY
DEPOSIT
7. FLOOD CONTROL FEE .00 8.
TRAFFIC
FEE
------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF
WORK ----
-- -- ------
-----------
- - - - --
SIMPLIFIED GRADING PERMIT ISSUED FOR MINOR GRADING PER APPROVED PLAN
7800 -G.
- - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE - - - --- --
INITIAL INSPECTION
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION _-
FINAL INSPECTION
INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - ---
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES ANT SIX:-
LAWS REGULATING EY.CjYjTING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED AR$UANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME
CIRCLE ONE: :. OWNER 2. RGENT ?
- *?(Z4la�
DAME SIGNED
TELEPHONE NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 1 ESCONDIDO, CA 92076 1 760.746.4955 1 FAX 760.146.9806
November 18, 2009
City of Encinitas OV $ 209
Engineering Services Permits 1
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No. 7800 -G
Grading Permit No. 09 -1089
The grading under Permit No. 09 -1089 has been performed in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plans or as shown on the attached "as-
graded" plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the
approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% 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(s). ------�
oQ�LorFssra
D.
Engineer of Record o� z
w
a �
6x 03o jry
P N� RCE C 43345
Dated N °`/ l 7 '2-O c7
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 Inspector
Dated
SAN DIEGO I ESCONDIDO I RIVERSIDE I VENTURA I MERCED I TRACY I SACRAMENTO I PALM SPRINGS I PHOENIX
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING