Loading...
2004-9048 GLine: 3� 1386 � --3 E C E J w JUN 3 2004 D L — -, • X1901 CTOR RODRIGUEZ- FERNANDEZ, P.E. ANNING ♦ ENGINEERING ♦ SURVEYING Blvd. Ste. 409 San Diego, CA. 92117 Tel. (858) 967 -5693 Fax. (858) 581 -6138 1: GRADING QUANTITY 200 CY 2: IMPROVEMENTS 80 LF COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES FOR 235 LA COSTA AVENUE (DWG. NO. -G) ITEM UNIT PRICE Cut/Fill $ 9.00 3" PVC $ 5.00 Subtotal = 10% Contingency Total June 3, 2004 TOTAL $ 1,800.00 $ 400.00 S 2.200.00 220.0 00 � SSE ���.s� , Note: The unit prices indicated above are from the County of San Diego st Estimate Unit Price List dated May 2001 — 22 s Z. Victor Rodriguez-F R.C.E. 35373 2 x 4-hV � 0,35379 i 913aIII {`''''ate *l pc � 0, 11 15s x t S A z� Z40 c.F k (11t a L (ASIv s.330t� 4 IZZS� K .to dl � y34s3 a ovc,� 1510� Capital Improvement Projects `l District Support Services C ity of Field Operations EWindas Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering July 13, 2004 Victor Rodriguez- Femandez 4901 Morena Blvd, Ste 409 San Diego, CA 92117 Re: Grading Application 9048 -G 235 La Costa Avenue Permit issuance requirements This correspondence shall serve to briefly summarize the Engineering Permit process for drawing 9048 -G. The approved Drawing will remain valid for one year. If the Permit is not issued within six months from the date of approval of the drawings, the drawings are subject to review by City staff for compliance to current codes and regulations. In order to obtain the necessary Engineering Permits to construct per this Drawing, you will need to satisfy the requirements below. All necessary items must be submitted in one complete package to the front counter staff at the time of permit issuance. (1) (z) (3) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 9048 -G. Provide a digital file of drawing 9048 -G, (AutoCad DFX, Microstation DGN, or ArcView Shapefile formats are acceptable) Pay non - refundable Inspection, Plancheck, and Flood Control fees: Permit Type Permit No. Amount Grading (inspection) 9048 -G $1345.00 Flood control 9048 -G $0.00 The flood control fee is assessed at a rate of $0.21 /SF of for any net new impervious areas; none are created per these plans. All of the fees and requirements as shown above must be submitted as one package at time of application for a permit, with the exception of sureties that are required to be posted prior to recording of a map. Provide the name, address, telephone number, and state license number and type of the construction contractor. Construction of public improvements is restricted to qualified contractors who posses a state license as listed below. TEL 760-633 -2600 I FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 0 recycled paper Type Description Work to be Done A General Engineering any & all C -8 Concrete apron/curb/gutter/ramp/sidewalk C -10 Electrical lighting/signals C -12 Grading & Paving any surface, certain drain - basins /channels C -27 Landscaping planting/irrigation /fencing & other amenities C -29 Masonry retaining walls C -32 Parking &Highway Improvement signage /striping /safety C -34 Pipeline sanitary sewer /storm drain The contractor must also meet the minimum insurance requirements as stated on the accompanying handout. The applicant may be also obligated to provide proof of insurance, with the City of Encinitas listed as co- insured, which should meet the criteria in the handout as well in the executed covenants regarding improvements. (4) Permits are valid for no more than one year and may expire earlier due to expirations of letter of credit and/or insurance policies. (5) This project does not propose land disturbance in excess of one acre and is exempt from the State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirement. An erosion control plan shall be implemented per the approved grading plan 9048 -G. Once the Engineering Permits are issued, advance notice of 48 hours must be given prior to you or your contractor scheduling the mandatory pre - construction meeting. For more details see General Notes number 9- (drawing 9048 -G). A separate Right -of -way Construction Permit will be required for any work in the public right -of -way or any public easements, if applicable. Typically, this work may include excavation, backfill, and resurfacing to install electric, gas, telephone, and cable television lines, and set their vaults and pedestals. A Permit Fee of $150.00 per application, and a site plan, preferably the work order issued by the public utility, will be required. The contractor license and insurance requirements will remain unchanged. Permits must be issued at least 48 hours in advance of the start of work. Haul Routes, Traffic Control Plans, and Transportation Permits are handled by the Traffic Engineering Division -see note number 10 on Grading Plan. For more details, contact Raymond Guarnes, Engineering Technician, at (760) 633 -2704. Security Release: Please allow 4 weeks for release of any securities. Any cash releases will be mailed to the above address unless otherwise notified and all letters mailed to financial institution will be copied to above owner. Any financial release will be initiated after final approval from the Engineering inspector. Construction changes, prepared by the Engineer of Work, should be submitted to the Engineering Services Department as redlined mark -ups on 3 blueline prints of the approved Drawing. Changes are subject to approval prior to field implementation. Substantial increases in valuation due to the proposed changes may be cause for assessment and collection of additional inspection fees and security deposits. As- builts of Drawing 9048 -G, prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required prior to Final Grading acceptance by Engineering Services. Satisfactory completion of Final Inspection is a prerequisite to full release of the Security Deposit assigned to any Grading Permit. This letter does not change owner or successor -in- interest obligations. If there should be a substantial delay in the start of your project, please request an update. Should you have questions regarding bonding or security deposit release, please call Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779. Should you have any other questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2839 or visit the Engineering Counter at the Civic Center. Sincerely, Stephanie Kellar Engineering Technician cc Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer permittfile enc Application Digital File Requirements Requirements for Proof of Insurance Utility Trench Resurfacing Detail Security Obligation Agreements (various) Right of Way Construction Standards (�) CHICAGO �� 1 3 2004 H aG SERVICES LE COMPANY DPRELIMINARY REPORT Dated as of: August 28, 2002 at 7:30 AM Order No.: 23071661 - U52 CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception in Schedule B or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in the attached list. Copies of the Policy forms are available upon request. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to In Schedule B and the exceptions and exclusions set forth In the attached list of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the tftle Insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It Is Important to note that this preliminary report Is not a written representation as to the condition of tftle and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting tftle to the land. THIS REPORT (AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AMENDMENTS HERETO) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE AND NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS DESIRED THAT LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR COMMITMENT SHOULD BE REQUESTED. The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY Title Department: Visit Us On The Web. westemdivision. ctt. com CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY 925 "B" STREET SAN DIEGO, CA. 92101 (619)544 -6291 fax: (619)544 -6279 Steven R. Brown TITLE OFFICER �FP - /0 /B bk SCHEDULE A Order No: 23071661 U52 Your Ref: 1. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is: A FEE 2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: JOSE LUIS ISLAS, A SINGLE MAN 3. The land referred to in this report is situated in the State of California, County of SAN DIEGO and is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION wiummmr Page 1 DESCRIPTION Order No. 23 07 166 1 THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THAT ROAD KNOWN AS COUNTY ROAD SURVEY NO. 346, DISTANT SOUTH 890 51' 45" WEST - RECORD SOUTH 89° 59' 30" WEST - 596.75 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 8, AVOCADO ACRES NO. 3, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2063, RECORDS OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD FOLLOWING THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 475 FEET; CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23" 29' AND LENGTH OF 194.68 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO GUY D. OSMONDSON, ET UX, BY DEED DATED JULY 18, 1935, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 422, PAGE 251 OF OFFICTAr, RECORDS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD, FOLLOWING THE ARC OF SAID CURVE IN A GENERAL SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION, SAID ARC HAVNG A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11" 55' 30" A RADIUS OF 475 FEET AND LENGTH OF 98.85 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF COUNTY ROAD, SOUTH 540 27' 15" WEST - RECORD SOUTH 54" 28' 30" WEST - A DISTANCE OF 174.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35" 31' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 365.91 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO T. W. MEANS, ET UX, BY DEED DATED JUNE 6, 1934, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 297, PAGE 305 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 67" 39' EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAND SO CONVEYED TO MEANS AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAND CONVEYED BY SOUTH COAST LAND COMPANY TO HAROLD FOULD BY DEED DATED AUGUST 2, 1934 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 394, PAGE 154 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, 193.07 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LAND CONVEYED TO GUY C. OSMONDSON, ET UX, ABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE NORTH 230 32' WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID OSMONDSON'S LAND 408.61 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED IN DEED TO WILLIS M. GUNDRUM AND M. AGNES GUNDRUM, RECORDED JANUARY 15, 1951 AS DOCUMENT NO. 6002 IN BOOK 3932, PAGE 431 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEET WIDE, 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, THENCE SOUTH 89" 16' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, A DISTANCE OF 1184.10 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE TRACKS OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE NORTH 150 01' 15" WEST 989.92 FEET TO ENGINEER'S STATION 2002 PLUS 78.84 R.R. ON SAID CENTER LINE OF SAID TRACKS AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTER LINE, NORTH 54" 04' 07" EAST, 67.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 700 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19" 01' 52 ", A DISTANCE OF 232.51 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, NORTH 73" 05' 59" EAST, 656 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1150 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17" 30' 00 ", A DISTANCE OF 351.25 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO SAID CURVE, SOUTH 89" 24' 01" EAST, 377.62 FEET TO A POINT THAT BEARS NORTH 0" 40' 37" EAST 17.95 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 8 OF AVOCADO ACRES NO. 3, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 2063, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. SCHEDULE B Page 1 Order No: 23071661 U52 Your Ref: At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in the policy form designated on the face page of this Report would be as follows: A 1. PROPERTY TAXES, INCLUDING ANY ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED WITH TAXES, TO BE LEVIED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2002 -2003 THAT ARE A LIEN NOT YET DUE. r 2. SUPPLEMENTAL OR ESCAPED TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 -2002 ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 1ST INSTALLMENT: PENALTY: DELINQUENT: 2ND INSTALLMENT: PENALTY: DELINQUENT: CODE AREA: ASSESSMENT NO.: $6,661.83 $666.18 DECEMBER 10, 2002 $6,661.83 $676.18 APRIL 10, 2003 19119 819 - 114 -76 -41 e 3. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES, IF ANY, ASSESSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75) OF THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. c 4. AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT GRANTED TO: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY PURPOSE: PUBLIC UTILITIES, INGRESS AND EGRESS RECORDED: OCTOBER 28, 1968 AS FILE NO. 188615 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS: THE ROUTE THEREOF AFFECTS A PORTION OF SAID LAND AND IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT. D 5. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT SHOWN BELOW AMOUNT: $1,500,000.00 DATED: JUNE 29, 2001 TRUSTOR: JOSE LUIS ISLAS, A SINGLE MAN TRUSTEE: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BENEFICIARY: DOLORES M. COOK, TRUSTEE OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST OF THE VINCENT AND DOLORES COOK FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1989, AN UNDIVIDED 81.8216% INTEREST AND DOLORES M. COOK, TRUSTEE OF THE MARITAL TRUST OF THE VINCENT AND DOLORES COOK FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1989, AN UNDIVIDED 18.1784W INTEREST RECORDED: AUGUST 6, 2001, AS FILE NO. 2001 - 554006, OFFICIAL RECORDS PRE9 .10/31/87bk Page 2 Order No: 23071661 U52 e END OF SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE B (continued) Your Ref: F NOTE NO. 1: WE WILL REQUIRE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM THE PARTIES NAMED BELOW IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE EFFECT OF DOCUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS, LIENS, DECREES, OR OTHER MATTERS WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE SAID LAND, BUT WHICH, IF ANY DO EXIST, MAY AFFECT THE TITLE OR IMPOSE LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES THEREON. PARTIES: JOSE ISLAS (NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE SEARCH AND EXAMINATION OF TITLE UNDER THIS ORDER. ANY TITLE SEARCH INCLUDES MATTERS THAT ARE INDEXED BY NAME ONLY, AND HAVING A COMPLETED STATEMENT OF INFORMATION ASSISTS THE COMPANY IN THE ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH APPEAR TO INVOLVE THE PARTIES BUT IN FACT AFFECT ANOTHER PARTY WITH THE SAME OR SIMILAR NAME. BE ASSURED THAT THE STATEMENT OF INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL AND WILL BE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL TO THIS FILE.) G NOTE NO. 2: PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR SHOWN BELOW ARE PAID. FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES THE AMOUNTS ARE: FISCAL YEAR: 2001 -2002 1ST INSTALLMENT: $622.40 2ND INSTALLMENT: $622.40 EXEMPTION: $NONE CODE AREA: 19119 ASSESSMENT NO: 216 - 052 -27 JP PREJMBGB /M /WEk 1 y In6 6WP WAS a[vN® NON ASMW wwtis CII.T. b VRm 6 RStW ECA THE AMOCT 6 IlE CNIJ 520EN AQgOAi MM MY 101 WAY WIN ECP2 9ECMW CA RUM CIOINIEES e L1 OP / c Of 39�i +''' 54 6 SHTI .fm SAN 91E09 COUNTY 6SSESSOIP3 NU IN 216 96 OS MAC W \ 1 ? 41 i ' -- Oa 2.34 AC 2e2 AC �'�• 1 tt P ML71 emEYJ�J'3® MO w 54 6 SHTI .fm SAN 91E09 COUNTY 6SSESSOIP3 NU IN 216 96 OS MAC W \ 1 ? 41 i ' -- Oa 2.34 AC 2e2 AC 052 M' OF-- J 216 -05 1"-200' 6/V69 SY ll e 1 1 1 51 .M N I �I 7 407 61 WM 2 E i \ u iE © ii 3 O 7O �9M ] • S.00AC O S. mod,.' • i Ty �T12S N4W' 39P6 �6S ��//S�� n Wr,n • TUS NWW S9 '•'N6iiU� S CON 1 SEC A t e 254 1 e 77 W BONE H)vS EIA (MAP513-EATONVILLE VACATED) SEC 33 - T12S-R41 - POR S 1/2 R0S 528,1691,15545 m -- emEYJ�J'3® • o�o� mom M■EE m MEWE ��� ■NO 0' C.. ME �M■N mom �■■■m ll e 1 1 1 51 .M N I �I 7 407 61 WM 2 E i \ u iE © ii 3 O 7O �9M ] • S.00AC O S. mod,.' • i Ty �T12S N4W' 39P6 �6S ��//S�� n Wr,n • TUS NWW S9 '•'N6iiU� S CON 1 SEC A t e 254 1 e 77 W BONE H)vS EIA (MAP513-EATONVILLE VACATED) SEC 33 - T12S-R41 - POR S 1/2 R0S 528,1691,15545 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Fidelity National Financial Group of Companies' Privacy Statement July 1, 2001 We recognize and respect the privacy expectation of today's consumers and the requirements of applicable federal and state privacy laws. We believe that making you aware of how we use your non - public personal information ( "Personal Information "), and to whom it is disclosed, will form the basis for a relationship of trust between us and the public that we serve. This Privacy Statement provides that explanation. We reserve the right to change this Privacy Statement from time to time consistent with applicable privacy laws. In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: • From applications or other forms we receive from you or your authorized representative; • From your transactions with, or from the services being performed by, us, our affiliates, or others; • From our Internet web sites; • From the public records maintained by governmental entitles that we either obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates or others; and • From consumer or other reporting agencies. Our Policies Regarding The Protection Of The Confidentiality And Security Of Your Personal Information We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. We limit access to the Personal Information only to those employees who need such access in connection with providing products or services to you or for other legitimate business purposes. Our Policies and Practices Regarding the Sharing of Your Personal Information We may share your Personal Information with our affiliates, such as insurance companies, agents, and other real estate settlement service providers. We may also disclose your Personal Information: • to agents, brokers or representatives to provide you with services you have requested; • to third -party contractors or service providers who provide services or perform marketing or other functions on our behalf; and • to others with whom we enter into joint marketing agreements for products or services that we believe you may find of interest. In addition, we will disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission, when we are required by law to do so, or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. One of the important responsibilities of some of our affiliated companies is to record documents in the public domain. Such documents may contain your Personal Information. Right To Access Your Personal Information And Ability To Correct Errors Or Request Change Or Deletion Certain states afford you the right to access your Personal Information and, under certain circumstances, to find out to whom your Personal Information has been disclosed. Also, certain states afford you the right to request correction, amendment or deletion of your Personal Information, We reserve the right, where permitted by law, to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in responding to such requests. All requests must be made in wrfting to the following address Privacy Compliance Officer Fidelity National Financial, Inc. 4050 Calle Real, Suite 220 Santa Barbara, CA 93110 Multiple Products or Services: If we provide you with more than one financial product or service, you may receive more than one privacy notice from us. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. PRNACVT - M /n /01bk LIST OF PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs. attorneys fees or expenses which arise by reason of 1 (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws. ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land, (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, hen or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Dale of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Detects, liens, encumbrances. adverse claims or other matters -. (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created. suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant. (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceabihty of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the stale in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the hen of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in- lending law. 6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction crealing the interest of the insured lender. by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy. state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE 8, PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of I Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing hens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, fights. interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the lams or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements. liens or encumbrances. or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4 Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct Survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims. (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof. (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. Reorder Form No 12699 AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6.1.87) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the exceptions in Schedule B. you are not insured against loss, costs, attorney's lees and expenses resulting from: t. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: • land use • land division • improvements on the land • environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to the violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks 2. The right to take the land by condemning it, unless - • a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records on the Policy Dale • the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking 3. Title Risks. • that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you • that are known to you. but not to us, on the Policy Dale - unless they appeared in the public records • that result in no loss to you • that first affect your title after the Policy Date -this does not limit the labor and material hen coverage in Item B of Covered Title Risks 4. Failure to pay value for your title. 5. Lack of a fight • to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in item 3 of Schedule A. or • in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE In addition to the Exclusions, you are not Insured against loss, costs, attorneys'tees and expenses resulting from: 1. Someone claiming an interest in your land by reason of: A. Easements not shown in the public records B. Boundary disputes not shown in the public records C. Improvements owned by your neighbor placed on your land. 2. It, in addition to a single family residence, your existing structure consists of one or more Additional Dwelling Units. Item 12 of Covered Title Risks does not Insure you against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: A. The forced removal of any Additional Dwelling Unit, or, S. The forced conversion of any Additional Dwelling Unit back to its original use. it said Additional Dwelling Unit was either constructed or converted to use as a dwelling unit in violation of any law or government regulation. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OFTITLE INSURANCE (998) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule.B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' tees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulabon.This includes ordinances, laws and regulations concerning: a. building c. Land use e. Land division b. zoning d. improvements on the Land I. environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters it notice of the violation or enforcement appears in the Pudic Records at the Policy Date. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15, 16, 17 or 24. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes if notice of the violation appears in the Pudic Records at the Policy Date. 3. The night to take the Land by condemning it, unless: a. a notice of exercising the night appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and Is binding on You If You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4 Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public Records; In. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they appear in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, B.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25. 5. Failure to pay value for Ybur Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to any Land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A: and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion daes not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 16, AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (10- 17 -92) WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT - FORM 1 COVERAGE and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY (10- 17.92) WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT - FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss of damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited 10 building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting . regulating, prohibiting or relating to (1) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land: (ii) the Character, dimensions of location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; Or (IV) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations. except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice Of a defect. lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting me land has been recorded In the public recortls at Date of Policy. (b( Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above. except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect. lien o, encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records al Date of Policy, but known to me insured claimant and not disclosed ,n venting to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy: (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Dale of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the pnority, of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements uncle, construction or completed at Date of Policy): or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained it the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Dnenlorceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the stale m which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceabitity Of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out Of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim or priority of any statutory lien for services. labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Dale of Policy the insured has advanced or is o1bligated to advance. 7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy. stale insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination: or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: la) to timely record the instrument of transfer: or (b) of such recordation to impart nonce to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. The above policy forms may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following General Exceptions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage land the Company will not pay costs, adorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whetheror not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts. rights. interests of claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3, Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, Shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatemed mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (q water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17 -92) and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY (10- 17.92) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of 1. (a) Any law. ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws. ordinances. or regulations) restricting regulating, prohibiting or raising to (t) the occupancy, use. or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a pan: or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records at Dale of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above. except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect. lien o' encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has Dean recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value Without knowledge Defects, liens, encumbrances. adverse Claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed In writing to the Company by the Insured claimant prior to the sate the Insured claimant became an Insured under this policy: (c) resulting In no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (dl attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had paid value for the estate or Interest Insured by this policy Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting In the insured the estate or Interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy. state insolvency, or similar creditors rights laws, that is based on (i) the transaction creating the estate or Interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or [ii) the transaction creating the estate or Interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer, or (b) of such recordation to Impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or hen creditor. The above policy forms may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following General Exceptions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' lees or expenses) which arise by reason ot: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result In taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims whlcn are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection Of the land or by making inquiry of persons In possession thereol. 3. Easements, hens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4 Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, (c) water rights. claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. LIST OF PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or tlamage, costs, attorneys fees or expenses which arise by reason of 1 (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (Including but not limited to budding and zoning laws. ordinances. or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use. or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting Irom a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date Of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters. (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created. suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant: (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an Insured under this policy (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant: (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the Insured mortgage or the estate or interest insured by this policy 4. Uneniorceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the Insured at Date of Policy, or the Inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5 Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in- lending law. 6 Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting In the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the Insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE — SCHEDULE 8, PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage land the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of I Taxes or assessments Which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by me public records. 2. Any lacts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the lams or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof. which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area. encroachments. Or any other (acts which a correct survey would disclose. and which are not shown by the public records. 5. la) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance Ihereol; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records. aeorder Form No 12699 Victor Rodriguez- Fernandez, P.E. civil engineer & land surveyor 4901 MORENA BLVD., STE. 409, SAN DIEGO CA., 92117 PH (858) 967 -5693 February 18, 2003 DETENTION CALCULATIONS: V req. = (0.6" Precip.)(SFarea)(Coeff. of Runoff)(Regression Factor = 1.299) Volume to remain for a period of 24 to 48 hrs. Parcel 1 Gross area: 17,797 SF • req. _ (0.6/12)(17797)(0.55)(1.299) = 636 CF (Depth = 1.0') • provided = 1600 CF Parcel 2 Gross area: 16,658 SF • req. = (0.6/12)(16658)(0.55)(1.299) = 595 CF (Depth = 0.7') • provided = 1200 CF Parcel 3 Cross area: 15,516 SF • req. = (0.6112)(15516)(0.55)(1.299) = 554 CF (Depth = 1.4') • provided = 950 CF Parcel 4 Gross area: 15,968 SF • req. = (0.6/12)(15968)(0.55)(1.299) = 570 CF (Depth = 1.4') • provided = 1050 CF �[ �wE JUN 3 2004 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS yy I lC P1UV 10 sC 609S Remainder Parcel s s I U„ �_ Gross area: 19,974 SF o , A�� pcio� • req. _(0.6/12)( 19974 )(0.55)(1.299) = 714 CF (Depth = 1.3') 9 T; cF > 9A) c,F • provided = 900 CF oK 6�2 v(L- The existing soil per project Soils Report is "Silty Fine Sand ". Expected percolation rate = 0.4 in./hr. Total percolation depth in 48 hrs. = 0.4 x 48 /12 = 1.6'= MAX POND DEPTH L11 VICTOR RODRIGUEZ- FERNANDEZ, RCE 35373 (E)CP 9- 30 -03) 118/2003 DATE A C E � W E D JUN 3 2004 OR RODRIGUEZ- FERNANDEZ, P.E. ENGINEERING SERq�g P G ♦ ENGINEERING • SURVEYING CITY of ENCINI*j Morena I & Ste. 409 San Diego, CA. 92117 Tel. (858) 967 -5693 Fax. (858) 581 -6138 1: GRADING QUANTITY 200 CY 2: IMPROVEMENTS 80 LF June 3, 2004 COST ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES FOR 235 LA COSTA AVENUE (DWG. NO. -G) ITEM UNIT PRICE TOTAL Cut/Fill $ 9.00 $ 1,800.00 3" PVC $ 5.00 $ 400.00 Subtotal = $ 2.200.00 101/o Contingency = $ 220.00 Total = $ 2,420.00 Note: The unit prices indicated above are from the County of San Diego Cost Estimate Unit Price List dated May 2001 �R AOE, pESuSez IO ' o° -F NF q q � F y *� Victor Rodriguez -F dez RC.E.35373 ' Y1 13 UN p \r�lF OF ca1 06/03/2004 09:56 40.243 D001 :H_vr I -C MAIL, ',Y HEN F @CUr'.D+;'I? MAIL, 1 ((�� n ((�� pp � �1 - L� D 6 D 3 2004° - .. City Clerk t1a' "•.d+'.fi y.:,...:G,T.-e:: 2oo4-tX�51IO�j City of Encinitas EKING SutvIGES °'i rr i .:- 3+: r'.. SUS J. Vulcan Avenue ENC1N CiT OF Farrel Emcinitas, C„ 92924 CERTIFICA'T'E OF COMPLIANCE (Section 66499 -35 of the Government Code) NOT APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN COMPLIANCE: The Planning and Building Director of the City of Encinitas has determined that the parcel of real property described below has been divided or has resulted from a division in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and with the provisions of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code enacted pursuant to the Act The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant to the Act Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. Section 3.1.1 of the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan and Section 30.16.010 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code specifies a minimum lot size of 14,500 net square feet and minimum lot dimensions of 80 feet in width and 100 feet in depth for the subject NR -3 zone. This Certificate of Compliance applies to one parcel (Remainder Parcel of Pbl 19268). The parcel complies with the minimum lot size and dimension requirements and all applicable development regulations. The parcel described in this recorded document was created via a tentative parcel map permit (Case No. 01 -302 TPM/CDP) in accordance with the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan and the Encinitas Municipal Code Section 30.16 and may not be further subdivided unless the zoning designation for the parcel is changed to permit parcels under 14,500 square feet in net area. Owner /Applicant: Jose Islas Description: (See Exhibit A, Attached) Plat Map: (See Exhibit B, Attached) NOTE: The description in Exhibit A and Plat Map in Exhibit B, attached, have been provided by the owner of the property, and neither the City of Encinitas nor any of its officers or employees assume responsibility for the accuracy of said description. This Certificate of Compliance shall in no way affect the requirements of any City, County, State, Federal or local agency that regulates development of real property. Case No: 03 -184 CC and 01 -302 T TI VCDP Date: January 21, 2004 Bill Weedman, City Planner .KSJpbd: a:cor03 -1 S4CC ■ .36/23,,2004 09:59 N0.243 P002 !:X1IIBIT'A- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Remainder Parcel of Parcel Map 19268 recorded on July 3, 2003 in office of the County Recorder of County of San Diego, in Ilook of Parcel Maps at Page 19268 as File No. 2003- 0796068. Excepting therefrom Parcels 1, 2 3 & 4 of said Parcel Map. Prepared under the supervision of: /2 0$03 Victor Rodriguez- Femandez. No. 5335 License Expires 12 -31 -03 ■ No. 5335 Exp. 12/31/03 EXHIBIT "B 9# GG RS X46 1. EXISTING USE OF PROPERTY: VACANT`, 2. FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY A+�.rj� RESIDENCE SITE R W EASEMENT O TO��SDG t PER FlLE C NO. 188615 O OF -R. Z PARCEL 1 P A R 9 1 2 i4 U 53 PARCEL # GRAPHIC SCALE m % N 2 5 LANQ s 25 0 25 50 75 1 -- 1 \ q6¢ 'S� PARCEL 4 e^� N FMT FT \� �� No. 5335 1 TNC \ / (� S \ * Exp. 12/31 /03 4 9 IJGE PARCEL 3� 1 q CAL & =12.00' STREET DEDICATION PER PM 192684 12/08/03 ® = PUBLIC UTILITY AND FMERGE14CY ACCESS EASEMENT GRANTED PER PM 19268 VICTOR RODRIGU — FERNANDEZ, L.S. 5335 A =MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE STREETS LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31/03 AND STORM WATER PER PM 19268 ; ® -PROPOSED PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT , PER PM 19266 = f ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN 12/08/03 ARE PER PM NO. 19268 SE LUIS ISLAS, OWNER ■ Aug 16 2004 11:25AM MONARCH 7145249518 VICTOR RODRIGUEZ- FERNANDEZ, P.E. 4901 Morena Blvd Suite 409, San Diego, CA 92117 2,100 -L L2221 o00 1 ,'100 G1 000 qZA Z,400 18 i� Zt' -12.o 2,032 22,3tz (858) 967 -5693 Project: GRADING & STREET D4MOVEMENTS (DWG. NO 7628 -G) Location 235 LA COSTA AVENUE Date: November 4, 2002 BONDING ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT I QUANTITY I UNrr COST I AMOUNT A: GRADING & EROSION CONTROL 1 Grading: cud ll C.Y, ' "300 $9.00 $ 2,700.00 2 Erosion Control LS :: 1 $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 SUBTOTAL= $ 3,700.00 B.- STREET RAPROVEMENTS I A. C. pavement SF. 5 $ 1.00 $17,000.00, 2 Sewer Manhole EA. 1 $ 2,200.00 $ 0 3 8 "Sewer Main LF. 260 $ 65.00 $L4.w.00. 4 Trench acin LF. 40 $ 23.00 $ 920.00 S 4 "SewerLatera! EA. 4 $ 600.00 $ 1,400.00 6 1 " Water service & Meter EA. 3 32,400.00 $ 7,200.00 7 Fire HWraw EA. 1 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,100.00 SUBTOTAL= $ SUBTOTAL= $ B- 10%Contin en $ TOTAL= p.3 I' v ZA7TA 7 3,342 -2 t'1b& TOTAL BONDING ESTIMATE = $57 `T9Z�0 3G, 10 Z Note: The unit prices indicated above are from the County of San Diego Cost Estimate Unit Price List dated May 2001 Victor Rodriguez- Femandez, R.C.E. 35373 /�,S,,npES ^/p�;•� .nl ^.Ooh � ?�• .1 �v.r•t. ^sag ;t, . Sep 07 2004 9:18AM MONARCH 7145249518 p_2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY NORTH AMERICAN TIRE AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS D A" TAX STATEMENTS TO: COSTA LAGUNA ESTATES, LP. 1330 GARTEN DRIVE PLACENTIA, CA 92870 Assesoor's Parent No. 216452 -27 DOC # 2004 - 0613048 JUN 30, 2004 12:06 PH i U 18 8 WRCia REM 8811 DIEGO CLUdIY WMW'S ME GlEm J. SM OW REC(RDER FEES: 4048.00 Or: 0C SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER'S USE Title Order No. 70- 5236413 Fscmw No. 120066JY GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTORS) DECLARE(S) THAT the documentary trartafv tans is: COUNTY: $4.070.00 & CITY: SO.OD Total tronsfa tax 4.070.00 0 eeayuled on bra value of property convoyed, or O aon@uted on ib0 value less nlm of tieN or eacurtivmse rem ming u Roe of, Cc or o naeefer is amps from lax forme buwlna a FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION receipt of which is haeby acknowledged, JOSE LUIS ISLA% A SINGLE MAN hereby GRANT(S) to COSTA LAGUNA ESTATES, L.P, A CALF ORNIA LIIIIITED PARTNERSHIP - -- -1h-eeT 6w— ingiiescnn6 raIprape to ountyvi SAN�G�StaTeafCALUQANLG— --- -- PARCELS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND THE REMAINDER PARCEL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19268, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP THEREOF FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JULY 3, 2003 AS FILE NO. 796068 ALSO KNOWN AS: 23S LA COSTA AVE, ENCL IITAS, CALIFORNIA Date: Jun_-292004 JOSE LUIS STATE OF C )Ss COUNTY "a , &YOUNG u On � befo, n,e, 9 Comnslasan r 1396917 "No101y FubNe - CorDrtlo Qkat the unde"igncd Notafy ybh/ -auM fm !Ja S C 2 ?, kM &WwdkR1 Conn* said tespft.' MMCtaEIm. E,�lw Z6, 2007 Personally lacown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory e idmcc) to be the pasml{f) whose tie p(E)(aam sub scribed to ihs within inalrummt and Acknowledged to me 6�helthey executed the same i(Zoer/theis authorized capacity(jen and that by ®'hahhcir signatrrr4ijon the instrument the palm /jm the entity upon behallof a peraagoffw ed, executed the insttutrtenl. WITNESS m d official seal. i �� .. FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP STATEM, UKO 5 DIRECTED M ARSFIAL • LAND PLANNING • CIVIL ENGINEERING ENGINEERING • GEOMATIC ENGINEERING ROUP • GPS AND ROBOTIC SURVEYING • CYRAX AND 3 -D LASER SCANNING March 17, 2006 Duane Thompson Associate Civil Engineer City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 -6633 Dear Duane, D ` o W E I MAO Z 2 2006 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS This letter is being written per your departments request, to verify that Marshall Engineering Group is the Engineer of the work performed on Drawing Number(s) 7628 -G and 9048 -G. Marshall Engineering will assume the responsibility as stated in the Engineer's Statement on said Drawing(s). Respectfully, William M. Raymond ' Civil Engineer PE 5758 Land Surveyor LS 7279 h 3� o f , CNK o1 r.A+ 2001 E. Financial Way Ste. 104 Glendora, CA 91741 Phone: 626 -914 -5788 • Fax: 616 -914 -5757 • Cellphone/Pager. 909- 721.7445 Registered Clvll Engineer and Licensed Land Surveyor by the Board of Registration of Callfornla r_ Rating Table for LOT - Flow Elwnw* Friction MOW: ve For: Channel Slope: Left Side Slope: Right Side Slope: Bottom Width: VAR 2 2 2006 Trapezoidal Channel Manning Fonnula Ulaehar00 0.01000 fUR 25.00 ft /fl (H.V) 25.00 ft/h (H V) 0.00 ft Normal Depth (ft) 0.13 0.17 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.42 11.51 6.00 0.17 Worksheet 2 Design Procedure Form for Design Flow Uniform Intensity Design Flow Designer: Keyiw L, NAEC21LL Company: ,5 A t_ E Gt N r4 UtP C. Date: 3 , o(0 Project: 4vT - Bio6WALS GALL' Location: 235 LA C06-FA T31-VD- 1 . Determine Impervious Percentage Mt.N a. Determine total tributary area A „,„ _ Obi{ 2iy acres (1) b. Determine Impervious % _ L4 3 % (2) 2. Determine Runoff Coefficlent Values Use Table 2 and Impervious %found in step 1 a. A Soil Runoff Coefficient C. = (3) b. B Soil Runoff Coefficient Cc a (4) c. C Soil Runoff Coefficient C = (5) d. D Soil Runoff Coefficient Ce = z (6) 3. Determine the Area decimal fraction of each soli type in tributary area a. Area of A Soil 1 (1) = A. = (7) b. Area of B Soil / (1) = Ap = (8) c. Area of C Soil / (1) = A = (9) d. Area of D Soil / (1) = Ad = (10) 4. Determine Runoff Coefficient e. C = (3)x(7) + (1)x(8) + (5)x(9) • (6)x(10) a C = 0, 4S (11) 5. Determine BMP Design tow All N. DV a. Qa,p = C x 1 x A = (11) x qt2 x (2) QOMP ° 0. 02 — 0. %D s (12) Worksheet 9 Design Procedure Form for Grassed Swale Designer: K5 J !J L. M E2R 1 L L_ Company: MARSHAL -l. rt4GINEER.lgd , GRouP Std G. Date: 31)(6/0(o Project: LOr- 1310,5 At-r- GALLS Location: Z3,17 t_.A CosTA Bo,J D. 1. Determine Design Flow (Use Worksheet 2) MI N- MAX. Clenp = O.oz-O. 1 cfs 2. Swale Geometry a. Swale bottom width (b) b. Side slope (z) c. Flow direction slope (s) b = D z = 25: I S= /. O ft 3. Design flow velocity (Manning n = 0.2) v = -2,L2-0. Iii ft/r. 4. Depth of flow (D) D = 0, 125 -O, 7 ft 5. Design Length (L) L = (Xmin) x (flow velocity, ft/sec) x 60 5 L = 3(p' ' 42- ft 6. Vegetation (describe) mod 8. Outflow Collection (check type used or describe "other) _ Grated Inlet' _ Infiltration Trench Underdraln Other Q!o- SyJAt -E Notes: 54 Rating Table for STREET BIOSWALE - 1 Prof 40 "NONOVOMM KQMWII!1�1,111111i�ll Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Friction Method Manning Formula So" For. Discharge Input 0.61 0.22 2.72 16.41 116i00 0.02000 Roughness Coefficient: 0.200 Normal Depth: 0.33 It Left Side Slope: 25.00 Wit (H:V) Right Side Slope. 25.00 ftM (H:V) Bottom Width 0.00 ft Channel Slope (fVft) 0.01000 0.04000 0.01000 001000 0.61 0.22 2.72 16.41 116i00 0.02000 003000 1.05 0.39 t72 10.51 15.50 004000 112 ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON • CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE: (619) 447 -4747 • (858) 541 -0225 FAX: (858) 541 -0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. June 15, 2005 Monarch Construction, Inc. 1330 Garten Drive Placentia, CA. 92870 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Report of Field Density Tests Backfill Over Water Main Proposed Residential Subdivision Site 200 Block of La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Gentlemen : In accordance with your request, we have performed in -situ density tests in the backfill soils placed over the water main serving subject residential subdivision, more specifically referred to as being Map No. 19268, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The backfilling operation was performed during the month of April, 2005. The depths of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results 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 backfill soils are set forth on page L -1, under, "Laboratory Test Results ". The approximate location of the field density tests is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that he backfill soils placed over the sewer main have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Figure No. I are parts of this report. Respectfully subjAitted, ALLIED EAM TECHNOLOGY , P.E. 000 ti Din 9 15 ExP \Q � Ile Q l Jr��pQ� f OF GA A Project No. 02-1147A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 La Costa Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Page L -1 The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the backfill soils encountered were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A. The results of the tests are presented as follows : Maximum Soil Soil Dry Density Type Description (lbs. /cu.ft.) Optimum Moisture Content (% Dry Wt.) Reddish brown silty fine sand (SM) 124.0 10.0 Project Nu. 02- 1147A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 Page T -1 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth Plus of Fill Field Dry 3/:' Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Rock Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) ( %) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks W -1 1 +2.0 12.5 113.5 0 124.0 91.6 04/26/05 W -2 1 +2.0 12.0 112.8 0 124.0 91.3 04/26105 W -3 1 +2.0 11.0 112.6 0 124.0 90.8 04/26105 W4 1 +4.0 11.5 114.8 0 124.0 92.6 04/26/05 Finished grade W -5 1 +4.0 10.4 114.2 0 124.0 92.1 0426/05 " W -7 1 +4.0 11.2 115.0 0 124.0 92.8 04/26/05 " i i r, R I I°l°ROX/M.< I�i�OJEL NO, OZ- 1147,12 ..,i -•. LOOT/OV OF CO` .P46 O o-7ZLfP r-ROUN17 /Wp Uhf .NO. / ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON • CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE: (619) 447 -4747 • (858) 541 -0225 FAX: (858) 541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, RE Monarch Construction, Inc. 1330 Garten Drive Placentia, CA. 92870 June 15, 2005 Subject: Project No, 02- 1147A2 Report of Field Density Tests Subgrade and Base Material in Private Street Proposed Residential Subdivision Site 200 Block of La Costa Avenue Encinitas, CaEfomia Gentlemen : In accordance with your request, we have performed in -situ density tests in the subgrade and base material of the private street serving subject residential subdivision, more specifically referred to as being Map No. 19268, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The backfilling operation was performed during the month of May, 2005. The depths of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results 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 subgrade soils and base material are set forth on page L -1, under, "Laboratory Test Results ". The approximate location of the field density tests is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that the subgrade soils and base material placed on the private street have been compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. Page L -1, T -1 and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. �1 �r Pre' 7A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 Page L -1 La Costa Avenue 1. Sc LABORATORY TEST RESULTS cm dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the subgrade soils -.!trial were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method ,'!s of the tests are presented as follows : Soil )ascription Maximum Dry Density (Ibs./cu.ft.) Reddish brown silty fine sand (SM) 124.0 Grayish brown gravel 140.0 Optimum Moisture Content (% Dry Wt.) [1][0 M Project N 02- 1147A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 Page T -1 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth Plus of Fill Field Dry '/4 • Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Rock Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs. /cu.tt.) ( %) (lhs. /cuff) Compaction Test Remarks SG -I I Subgrade 8.5 118.9 0 124.0 95.9 05/13/05 SG -2 1 8.9 119.9 0 124.0 97.6 05/13/05 SG -3 1 10.1 117.9 0 124.0 95.1 05/13/05 SG-4 1 10.6 118.4 0 124.0 95.5 05/13/05 SG -5 1 10.4 118.7 0 124.0 95.8 05 /13/05 SG -6 1 10.1 119.1 0 124.0 96.1 05/13/05 SG -7 1 9.9 119.0 0 124.0 96.0 05/13/05 B -1 2 Base 6.2 133.2 0 140.0 95.2 05/19/05 B -2 2 6.0 134.2 0 140.0 95.9 05/19/05 B -3 2 7.1 135.3 0 140.0 96.7 05/19/05 B-4 2 6.2 135.0 0 140.0 96.5 05/19/05 B -5 2 6.1 133.8 0 140.0 95.6 05/19/05 B-6 2 6.9 135.6 0 140.0 96.9 05/19/05 B -7 2 6.2 134.2 0 140.0 95.9 05/19/05 B -8 2 72 133.0 0 140.0 95.1 05/19/05 / 'ON' 3S/7J /d �1 .l1 /S 30 67�1� -JO Na -Zk-t ON/10 .V9 0771-1 QZ 176,1=j1d07 -AO WI -Zk247 21 W1XO,�Nrlf1 l�� /i 4S /8 ® r c -� 1 7b"ZP 11-20 WAI 7�r0�d I f S99 9Q 7qS!9� C 95 00 CYOY Cb'/ll�a/ 0��/O��✓ .:t.;c,.r,� . �� �1.• i• ul • Ii 4 Y•. % rJ' 1 r 1� 1 I 1 I I ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON • CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE: (619) 4474747 • (858) 541 -0225 FAX: (858) 541 -0254 ROBERT CHAN, RE Monarch Construction, Inc. 1330 Garten Drive Placentia, CA. 92870 June 15, 2005 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Report of Field Density Tests Backfill Over Dry Utilities Proposed Residential Subdivision Site 200 Block of La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Gentlemen : In accordance with your request, we have performed in -situ density tests in the backfill soils placed over the dry utilities serving subject residential subdivision, more specifically referred to as being Map No. 19268, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The backfilling operation was performed during the month of April, 2005. The depths of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results 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 backfill soils are set forth on page L -1, under, "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate location of the field density tests is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that he backfill soils placed over the dry utilities have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Page L -1, T -1 and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. Respectfully ALLIED EA ROBERT CHAN, P G'i y 2 x Cr F9.p, i<;511�,5 C RIr _Z ��F� Project No. 02-11 :?A2 Monarch Constriction, Inc. 06/15/05 Page L -1 La Costa Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1. The may'l m dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the backfill soils er --ountc, ' were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A. Ti-e resin, the tests are presented as follows : Maximum Optimum Soii Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Ty :: �cription (lbs. /cuff) (% Dry Wt.) 1 Reddi•', ,wn silty fine sand (SM) 124.0 10.0 2 Grayis ,wn gravel 136.0 6.5 Project No. 02- 1147A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 Page T -1 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth Plus of Fill Field Dry ' /"' Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Rock Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) ( %) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks SG -1 I Subgmde 11.6 119.9 0 124.0 96.7 0426/05 Subgrade in La Costa Avenue B -1 2 Base 7.0 130.6 0 136.0 96.1 0426105 Base in La Costa Avenue DU -1 1 + 2.0 11.0 112.8 0 124.0 91.0 0427/05 Finished grade DU -2 1 +2.0 10.4 112.8 0 124.0 91.0 0427/05 " DU -3 1 +2.0 10.8 113.2 0 124.0 91.4 0427/05 " DU-4 1 +2.0 10.2 114.0 0 124.0 91.9 05/043/05 " DU -5 1 +2.0 11.1 113.7 0 124.0 91.7 05/04/05 DU-6 1 +2.0 11.5 113.8 0 124.0 91.8 05/04105 " i !I l , 'A! s� lI'- Dil l OV4- ZZ)a7jO/2/ OF [O/1P�9CTED F /LIfO 61OL/NZ7 T OY MA LOOT /ON OF COMPACFr/7 fTJZA0 CMUND FROJEC/ NO, OZ- 1147h 1 F /GURf ,NO. / ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON • CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE: (619) 447 -4747 • (858) 541 -0225 FAX: (858) 541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. Monarch Construction, Inc. 1330 Garten Drive Placentia, CA. 92870 June 15, 2005 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Report of Field Density Tests Backfill Over Sewer Main Proposed Residential Subdivision Site 200 Block of La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Gentlemen : In accordance with your request, we have performed in -situ density tests in the backfill soils placed over the sewer main serving subject residential subdivision, more specifically referred to as being Map No. 19268, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The backfilling operation was performed during the month of March, 2005. The depths of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results 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 backfill soils are set forth on page L -1, under, "Laboratory Test Results ". The approximate location of the field density tests is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that he backfill soils placed over the sewer main have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Page L -1, T -1 and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. Respectfully sub ttted, ALLIED E4RTH TECHNOLOGY , P.E. y •v' n1J n C r = i'.,VCS Projec' 02- 1147A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 La Costa Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Page L -1 1. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the backfill soils -entered were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A. results of the tests are presented as follows Maximum Optimum Soil Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Type Description (lbs. /cu.ft.) (% Dry Wt.) 1 ;r- .,silty fine sand (SM) 128.0 8.5 Pro' N ). 02 -1 ' 7A2 Monarch Construction, Inc. 06/15/05 Page T -1 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth Plus of Fill Field Dry IWI Maximum Date Test roil atTe�( Moisture Density Rock Dry Density Percent of No. -'vpc (Ft.) f 46 Dry Wt.) (lbs. /cu.ft.) ( "'�) (lbs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks S -1 1 +2.0 12.4 116.9 0 128.0 91.3 03/17/05 S -2 1 +2.0 12.9 117.5 0 128.0 91.9 03/17/05 S -3 1 +4.0 11.9 116.9 0 128.0 91.3 03/17/05 Finished grade S4 I +3.` 11.2 116.7 0 128.0 91.2 03/17/05 " S -5 1 +30, 10.9 116.5 0 128.0 91.1 03/17/05 " S-6 1 +2.0 12.1 116.7 0 128.0 91.2 03/24/05 S -7 1 +3.0 12.6 115.3 0 128.0 90.1 03/24/05 Finished grade / 'ON 3S/7�/� 1 ZYZP / /-ZO 'ON / 12 -7rOlyd �., OUIV �0 NO/1�TI _ /XO�ddy CrV�OYJ 0�77/� Q ,7 775'�l,/p.7 -=/O IIIVI-LO97 1 I I� 1� 1 I i iI 1 1 ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 -EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447 -4747 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. Decembar 9, 2003 Mr. Jose Luis Islas P.O. Box 232488 Escondido, CA. 92023 -2488 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Report of Engineering Observation of Grading and Testing of Compacted Fill Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 Las Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Islas: In accordance with your request, we have provided engineering services in conjunction with the grading for the five proposed residential building sites on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216 -051 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed development consists ohgr. -Jiiq cif the site to rdoeive five residences. SCOPE OF WORK 10 Our services included : - Providing engineering observation of.'the gradirg operation; - performing field density tests in the placed and compacted till; - performing laboratory tests on samples of the material used for fill; and - providing professional opinions regarding the contractor's adherence to the geotechnical portion o`tlr plans and specifications. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 2 235 La Costa Avenue SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Site preparation, grading, compaction and testing were accomplished during the period between November 3 and 12, 2003, inclusive. In our opinion, based on our observation and testing, the earthwork performed during that period was in substantial conformance with the recommendations as presented in the report entitled "Geotechnical Investigation — Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision, 235 La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by our firm, dated October 25, 2002. The property was previously used as a green house for the growing of commercial flowers. Prior to grading, the existing structures and improvements on the site were demolished and the debris hauled away and disposed of offsite. During the grading operation, certain earthwork operations were observed. These included : The removal of the upper loose undocumented fill soils and residual soils that remained below finished grade. Depth of removal varied from 3 to 9 feet below existing grade. The over - excavation of the natural soils within the residential lots to a depth of 3 feet below finished grade. The elevations of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results are presented on pages T -1 to T-4, 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 location of the compacted filled ground and field density tests are presented on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that the fill soils placed on the site have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Test results indicate that these soils will support the proposed residential buildings without detrimental settlement, and the sites are adequate for their intended use as support to the proposed residential buildings. SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Observations and laboratory tests indicated that the fill soils placed within 3 feet below finished grade on the site are classified as having LOW expansion potential (Expansion Index = 35). Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 3 235 La Costa Avenue RECOMMENDATIONS Foundation for Structures It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot (total dead plus live loads) be used for the design of continuous or spread footings that are a minimum of 12 and 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respectively, and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single -story) or 18 inches (for two stories), into the competent natural or compacted fill soils. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with 2 #5 rebars; one rebar located near the top, and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, and should be reinforced with a minimum of two #5 rebars in both directions It is recommended that concrete slab -on -grade be at least 4 inches in thickness. The concrete slab should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 rebars @ 24 inches on center, in both directions. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. It is recommended that foundation for the proposed structures be setback at least 7 feet from the top of fill slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of fill slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. Concrete Flatwork It is recommended that the proposed concrete flatwork founded be 3 '/2 inches in thickness, and be reinforced with 6x6 -10 /10 welded wire mesh at mid - height, underlain by 4 inch of sand base. '/2 -inch expansion joints and '/4" weakened plane contraction joints should be provided at 15 -foot and 5 -foot intervals, respectively. Foundation Trench Excavation Inspection It is recommended that the foundation trench excavations for the proposed structure be inspected by our firm to ensure proper embedment into the bearing strata. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified. It is recommended that any additional fill placed, like those behind the retaining walls along the front of the property, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 4 235 La Costa Avenue Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Pages L -1, T -1 to T -4, inclusive and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. ctfully sub tted, ALLIED E H TECHNOLOGY ��oeoe�RTSC� y� ��T ScoNalF� Fc y2- 0 Kqy 2y 71 07 , P.E. C 24613 9 s Exp.ry31 05 Exp1y31105 ECHN�G �\Q' Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 235 La Costa Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Page L -1 1. The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils, as determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557 -91, Method A, are presented as follows: Soil Type F] 3 FA Soil Type Soil Description Maximum Dry Density (lbs. /cu.ft.) Brown silty fine sand 128.0 (SM) Brown to reddish brown 126.5 silty fine to medium sand (SM) Light brown fine to medium 130.0 sand (SW) Optimum Moisture Content (% Dry Wt.) M. 10.5 The Expansion Index of the soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 18 -2. The results of the test are presented as follows : Soil Description Expansion Index I Brown silty fine sand 35* (SM) * Considered to possess LOW expansion potential Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -1 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) ( %Dry Wt.) (lbs/cu.R.) (lbs/cu.OJ Compaction Test Remarks 1 1 47.0 9.1 117.3 128.0 91.6 11/05/03 Parcel 2 2 47.0 10.9 114.8 126.5 90.8 11/05/03 " 3 2 47.0 11.1 116.5 126.5 92.1 11/05/03 4 3 49.0 9.2 126.2 130.0 97.0 11/06/03 " 5 1 49.0 9.5 116.7 128.0 91.2 .11/05103 " 6 1 56.5 10.2 117.8 128.0 92.1 11/06/03 " 7 1 54.5 9.2 120.5 128.0 94.1 11/06/03 " 8 1 56.0 10.6 119.3 128.0 93.2 11/06103 " 9 1 58.5 9.8 120.4 128.0 94.1 11/06/03 " 10 1 50.5 11.2 118.1 128.0 92.3 11/06103 II 1 52.5 10.4 120.0 128.0 93.8 11/06/03 " 12 1 52.5 9.0 122.2 128.0 95.5 11/06/03 " 13 1 52.2 9.6 123.9 128.0 96.8 11106/03 " 14 1 54.5 10.7 121.4 128.0 94.8 11/06/03 " 15 1 58.5 10.3 119.3 128.0 93.2 11/06/03 " 16 1 54.5 13.6 118.0 128.0 92.2 11/06/03 17 1 56.5 11.8 117.7 128.0 92.0 11/06/03 " 18 1 56.5 10.2 120.1 128.0 93.9 11/06/03 " 19 1 56.5 9.4 120.6 128.0 94.3 11106/03 " 20 2 58.5 10.4 120.7 126.5 95.4 11/06/03 " Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. lose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -2 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE of TEST RESULTS (Contn'd) Depth of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 21 2 58.5 9.9 121.2 126.5 95.8 11/07/03 Parcel/ 22 2 58.5 9.8 117.1 126.5 92.5 11/07103 " 23 2 58.5 11.4 118.8 126.5 93.9 11/07/03 " 24 2 58.5 10.9 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/07/03 " 25 2 58.5 8.5 122.5 126.5 96.8 11/07/03 Parcel 26 2 58.5 8.3 116.8 126.5 92.7 11/07/03 " 27 2 58.5 8.7 119.2 126.5 94.2 11/07/03 " 28 2 58.5 9.1 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/07/03 " 29 2 60.5 9.8 116.4 126.5 92.0 11/07/03 " 30 2 60.5 10.4 116.5 126.5 92.1 11/07/03 " 31 2 60.5 10.2 118.3 126.5 93.5 11/07/03 " 32 2 60.5 12.0 115.7 126.5 91.5 11/07/03 " 33 2 62.0 8.0 121.2 126.5 95.8 11/07103 " 34 2 62.0 10.5 119.2 126.5 94.2 11/07/03 " 35 2 62.0 10.3 117.1 126.5 92.6 11110/03 " 36 2 62.0 11.5 119.0 126.5 94.1 11/10/03 Parcel 37 2 62.0 10.1 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/10/03 " 38 2 60.5 9.9 115.8 126.5 91.5 11/10/03 " 39 2 60.5 8.5 116.2 126.5 91.9 11/10103 " 40 2 60.5 10.7 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/10/03 " Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -3 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 41 2 63.0 13.0 118.0 126.5 93.3 11/ 10/03 Parcel 3 42 1 63.0 9.3 126.3 128.0 98.7 11/10103" 43 3 63.0 9.8 119.7 126.5 94.6 11/10/03 Parce14 44 2 63.0 10.2 119.4 126.5 94.4 11/10/03 " 45 2 60.5" 11.2 121.9 126.5 96.4 11/12/03 Parcel 1 46 2 60.5" 11.9 119.0 126.5 94.1 H/ / 12/03 " 47 1 60.5" 8.1 125.8 128.0 98.3 11/12//03" 48 2 60.5" 8.5 124.5 126.5 98.4 11/12/03 " 49 2 62.5• 11.8 123.1 126.5 07.3 11/12/03 Parcel 2 50 2 62.5" 9.7 120.2 126.5 95.0 11112/03 " 51 2 62.5• 10.4 123.9 126.5 98.0 11/12/03 " 52 2 62.5• 12.0 119.6 126.5 94.5 11/12/03 " 53 1 64.5• 8.9 126.4 128.0 98.8 11/12/03 Parcel 54 2 64.5" 10.1 121.8 126.5 96.3 11/12/03 " 55 2 64.5" 11.0 122.4 126.5 96.8 11/12/03 " 56 2 64.5' 8.9 126.4 126.5 99.9 11/12/03 " 57 2 65.0' 9.9 115.9 126.5 91.6 11/12/03 " 58 2 65.0" 10.3 120.3 126.5 95.1 11/12/03 Parcel 59 2 65.0" 11.1 121.3 126.5 95.9 11112/03 " 60 2 65.0• 11.3 119.4 126.J 94.4 11/12/03 " " Finished grade Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft) ( % Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Page T-4 Remarks 61 2 62.5* 9.1 123.3 126.5 97.5 11112/03 Parcel 62 2 62.5* 10.8 121.0 126.5 95.7 11/12/03 " 63 2 62.5 * 10.7 120.3 126.5 95.1 11/12/03 " 64 2 62.5* 11.4 118.6 126.5 94.2 11/12/03 " 65 2 62.5* 10.1 117.8 126.5 93.1 11/12/03 " 66 2 62.5* 11.1 118.5 126.5 93.7 11/12/03 " 67 2 62.5* 11.1 116.9 126.5 92.4 11/12/03 " 68 2 62.5* 10.5 120.7 126.5 95.4 11/12/03 " * Finished grade 91 OVER EXC4V47701V LINE 407 �'/ a 3 #� a38 117 r/7 *40 / 6 R�l`fA /A10 1� tI L SlO � #� FILLSLO � 5 • , l ss QV 0 #G � 1 h v v rSmwAgv% � S}*tkAZ2 B 41 - FILL omo 17/ O #Z 1 PI4QlCCT nil, OZ - / 7A� #fZ3 "GO i �1k3 *II FNIMTE *32 #Z7 RIM t ihJZ 440 / r 4 t3 #25 ®tl2B #25 EXC4YAT/LW UNE FAX X � add 3!S=j x#57 �/ *51. U P *3q- IS "ALE �„ 3pi if,HlLjw W7- 5LOP£ i9Fi KMIM,47T 1O147701Y OF �ML'/7L7�J7 F/L L ED GRGIJNO APPROX7Ikl.4TE lDZ477aY OF fYEL D Df-N!V7Y 7T-S7- .*4P) t40XM47F LOWrION Or COM94CTM7 MCP 6901INL7 F/GURE MD. l ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTYIENT Capital Improvement Projects City of District Support Services EYlCZYIItdS Field Operations Subdivision Engineering traffic Engmeemg ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL 7O: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. 2(,A G i 4 IdYl?-4al Name of Name of Developer f +� ms✓G1 Site Location Z33 -- . :(address...number ...sweet name,. - :.sufflXl:(10[1(b1b9) . - ... J have.inspe::-Led the grading,-4 the subject site and •.havew -ewif led -certlfiCatloasof the pad by.' the Engineer of Work, - dated S— �' and cerpfication of, spit compaction by the soil g+ eer, r�ir:e�� d -ri:am Hereby satisfied that the..rough grading has been completed;try:aCCOrdaFl¢B:.wll =Vie�aptiroved� ?= - •:•.plans,,and- specifications, Chapter .:23:24 °of the Munic"I Code`ar1'G'•arW'other applicable ' r. engineering standards and' Specific project requirements Based on.my observation and the certifications, _I take no exception to the issuance of a:. building permit for the lot(S) as noted or Phase , If any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permits) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. (Dare.' (Signature of senior Civil Engineer, only jf =ropla[e) !Dare) Reference: Building Permit No. Soecial Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperworl-- when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection. Thank you. JSG /field1docl Ai TE:. 760.633 -2600 i FAX 760-633 -2627 505 S. vuimn Avenue, Sichuras, Caiifomia 92024 -3633 TDD 760.633 -2700 —,r recvcled paper M ARSHAL •LAND PLANNING •CIVIL ENGINEERING ENGINEERING . GEOMATIC ENGINEERING G ROUP • GPS AND ROBOTIC SURVEYING • CYRAX AND 3 -1) LASER SCANNING City of Encinitas May 18, 2007 Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit No. 9048G Pursuant to section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the Remainder Parcel. As the Field Engineer for the subject, I hereby state all rough grading for these unit has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. VII . The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. Per plan per field measurement Remainder 62.70 62.66 VIII. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. XIV. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes and walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. X. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage walls have been field verified bpd are in substantial conformance with the subject grading William M. Ia .711.iiill 2001 & Fhonetd R'ayMr. 104 Glendora, CA 91741 Phan= 626 - 914-5788 • Faw 626 - 914 -5757 • CaUphonal%ff 7 909- 721 -7445 Realatere+d ChL Eoineer and Lleenaed Land SYrrvelor b9 the Board ofRNO&Sdon of CdMinla City of Encinitas r _ <� $O$ $oath Vulcan Armue t Fsteitutu, Calif«nia 92024-3633 Tel 760633 -2600 • Fu 760 -943 -2226 TDD 760- 633- 2700•www.ci.encindes.caus Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. _ -- Name of Project J Ae 1 014 1Skrs Name of Developer _c' I have inspected the site at a 3.SS L 4A- r 4%S T address... number street name suffix Fire Building Planning Engineering , and have determined that finish (precise) grading iot no.) (bldg no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. Signature of Engineering Inspector Date / Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only it appropriate ii LL Date Reference: Engineering Permit No.�pr1 Special Note: Please do not sign the 'blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled 'Final Inspection' . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, ifcompleted. Thank you. �MEG) Marshall Engineering Group ARM smarAl l:] City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 • LAND PLANNING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • GPS & ROBOTIC SURVEYING • LEED® CERTIFICATION • STORMWA TER QUALITYDESIGN & INSPECTION OCT 2 Re. Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Case No. 03- 184COC and No.9048G The grading under permit number 7628GI 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 1 % to the street and /or 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 requiV -r maintenance covenant(s). Engineer of Record Dated L`O(1-1 RAYyr0�rc�� a"'c 57580 A 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 MARSHALL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 2001 E. Financial Way Ste. 104 Glendora, CA 91741 Phone: 626. 914 -5788 •Fax: 626 - 914.5757. WEB: www.megi.bz �1 z4LLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447-4747 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. December 9, 2003 Mr. Jose Luis Islas P.O. Box 232488 Escondido, CA. 92023 -2488 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Report of Engineering Observation of Grading and Testing of Compacted Fill Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 Las Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Islas: In accordance with your request, we have provided engineering services in conjunction with the grading for the live proposed residential building sites on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216 - 051 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of Calitornia. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed development consists of grading of the site to receive five residences. SCOPE OF WORK Our services included : Providing engineering observation of the grading operation; performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill; performing laboratory tests on samples of the material used for fill; and providing professional opinions regarding the contractor's adherence to the geotechnical portion of the plans and specifications. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 2 235 La Costa Avenue SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Site preparation, grading, compaction and testing were accomplished during the period between November 3 and 12, 2003, inclusive. In our opinion, based on our observation and testing, the earthwork performed during that period was in substantial conformance with the recommendations as presented in the report entitled "Geotechnical Investigation — Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision, 235 La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by our firm, dated October 25, 2002. The property was previously used as a green house for the growing of commercial flowers. Prior to grading, the existing structures and improvements on the site were demolished and the debris hauled away and disposed of offsite. During the grading operation, certain earthwork operations were observed. These included : The removal of the upper loose undocumented fill soils and residual soils that remained below finished grade. Depth of removal varied from 3 to 9 feet below existing grade. The over- excavation of the natural soils within the residential lots to a depth of 3 feet below finished grade. The elevations of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results are presented on pages T -1 to T -4, 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 location of the compacted filled ground and field density tests are presented on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that the fill soils placed on the site have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Test results indicate that these soils will support the proposed residential buildings without detrimental settlement, and the sites are adequate for their intended use as support to the proposed residential buildings. SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Obwrvations mid laboratory texts indiented Ihnt the fill soils placed within I feet below finished grade on the site are classified as having LOW expansion potential (Expansion Index = 35). Project No. 02- 1147A2 RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 3 235 La Costa Avenue Foundation for Structures It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot (total dead plus live loads) be used for the design of continuous or spread footings that are a minimum of 12 and 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respective) and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single -story) or 18 inches' r two stories), into the competent natural or compacted fill soils. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with 2 #5 rebars; one rebar located near the top, and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, and should be reinforced with a minimum of two 95 rebars in both directions It is recommended that concrete slab -on -grade be at least 4 inches in thickness. The concrete slab should be reinforced with a minimum of 43 rebars @ 24 inches on center, in both directions. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. It is recommended that foundation for the proposed structures be setback at least 7 feet from the top of fill slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of fill slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. 1 / Concrete Flatwork _ X It is recommended that the proposed concrete flatwork founded be 3 '/2 inches in thickness, and be reinforced with 6x6 -10 /10 welded wire mesh at mid- height, underlain by 4 inch of sand base. '/2 -inch expansion joints and '/4" weakened plane contraction joints should be provided at 15 -foot and 5 -foot intervals, respectively. Foundation Trench Excavation Inspection It is recommended that the foundation trench excavations for the proposed structure be inspected by our firm to ensure proper embedment into the bearing strata. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified. It is recommended that any additional fill placed, like those behind the retaining walls along the front of the property, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 4 235 La Costa Avenue Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Pages L -1, T -1 to T -4, inclusive and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. ti`"Q�0Q'�6�RT C� FyC h No. C-24613 Exp. 12131105 OF IC A0F ���ppgERT No. G -00196 ` Exp. 12/31105 \'P CF07ECH k\C'11 TFOF C A0�P Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 235 La Costa Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Page L -1 1. The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils, as determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557 -91, Method A, are presented as follows: Maximum Optimum Soil Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Type Description (lbs. /cu.ft.) (% Dry Wt.) 1 Brown silty fine sand 128.0 8.5 (SM) 2 Brown to reddish brown 126.5 10.5 silty fine to medium sand (SM) 3 Light brown fine to medium 130.0 8.0 sand (SW) 2. The Expansion_ index of the soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 1 R-7. The resulls of the tcsl :arc hrcsenlecl as follows Soil Soil Expansion Type Description Index I Brown silty fine sand 35* (SM) * Considered to possess LOW expansion potential Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -1 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Dcptb of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) ( %Dry Wt.) (lbs/cu.ft.) (lbs/cu.R.) Compaction Test Remarks 1 1 47.0 9.1 117.3 128.0 91.6 11 /05/03 Parcel 2 2 47.0 10.9 114.8 126.5 90.8 11105103 3 2 47.0 11.1 116.5 126.5 92.1 11/05/03 " 4 3 49.0 9.2 126.2 130.0 97.0 11/06/03 5 1 49.0 9.5 116.7 128.0 91.2 11/05/03 6 1 56.5 10.2 117.8 128.0 92.1 11/06/03 7 1 54.5 9.2 120.5 128.0 94.1 11/06/03 8 1 56.0 10.6 119.3 128.0 93.2 11/06/03 " 9 1 58.5 9.8 120.4 128.0 94.1 11/06103 " 10 1 50.5 11.2 118.1 128.0 92.3 11/06/03 II 1 52.5 10.4 120.0 128.0 93.8 11/06/03 " 12 1 52.5 9.0 122.2 128.0 95.5 11/06103 13 1 52.2 9.6 123.9 128.0 96.8 11106103 " 14 1 54.5 10.7 121.4 128.0 94.8 11/06/03 " 15 1 58.5 10.3 119.3 128.0 93.2 11/06/03 16 1 54.5 116 118.0 128.0 92.2 11/06/03 " 17 1 56.5 11.8 117.7 128.0 92.0 11/06/03 " 18 1 56.5 10.2 120.1 128.0 93.9 11/06/03 " 19 1 56.5 9.4 120.6 128.0 94.3 11/06103 20 2 58.5 10.4 120.7 126.5 95.4 11/06/03 " Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -2 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Contn'd) Depth of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbsJcu.ft.) (lbsJcu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 21 2 58.5 9.9 121.2 126.5 95.8 11/07/03 Parcel I 22 2 58.5 9.8 117.1 126.5 92.5 11/07/03 " 23 2 58.5 11.4 118.8 126.5 93.9 11/07/03 " 24 2 58.5 10.9 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/07103 " 25 2 ' 58.5 8.5 122.5 126.5 96.8 11/07103 Parcel 26 2 58.5 8.3 116.8 126.5 92.7 11/07/03 " 27 2 58.5 8.7 119.2 126.5 94.2 11107/03 " 28 2 58.5 9.1 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/07/03 " 29 2 60.5 9.8 116.4 126.5 92.0 11/07/03 " 30 2 60.5 10.4 116.5 126.5 92.1 11/07/03 " 31 2 60.5 10.2 118.3 126.5 93.5 11107/03 " 32 2 60.5 12.0 115.7 126.5 91.5 11/07/03 " 33 2 62.0 8.0 121.2 126.5 95.8 11/07/03 " 34 2 62.0 10.5 119.2 126.5 94.2 11/07/03 " 35 2 62.0 10.3 117.1 126.5 92.6 11/10103 " 36 2 62.0 11.5 119.0 126.5 94.1 11 if 10!03 Parcel 3 37 2 62.0 10.1 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/10103 " 38 2 60.5 9.9 115.8 126.5 91.5 11110/03 " 39 2 60.5 8.5 116.2 126.5 91.9 11 /10 /03 " 40 2 60.5 10.7 118.2 126.5 93.4 11 /10 /03 " Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -3 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Sail at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs. /cu.ft.) (lbsJcu ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 41 2 63.0 13.0 118.0 126.5 93.3 II /10 /03 Parcel 3 42 1 63.0 9.3 126.3 128.0 98.7 11/10/03" 43 3 63.0 9.8 119.7 126.5 94.6 11/10/03 Parcel 4 44 2 63.0 10.2 119.4 126.5 94.4 11/10/03 " 45 2 60.5 11.2 121.9 126.5 96.4 11/12/03 Parcel 1 46 2 60.5* 11.9 119.0 126.5 94.1 11/12103 " 47 1 60.5• 8.1 125.8 128.0 98.3 11 /12/ /03 " 48 2 60.5' 8.5 124.5 126.5 98.4 11/12/03 " 49 2 62.5• 11.8 123.1 126.5 07.3 11112/03 Parcel 50 2 62.5' 9.7 120.2 126.5 95.0 11/12/03 " 51 2 62.5• 1011 1219 126.5 98.11 11/12/03 " 52 2 62.5" 12.0 119.6 126.5 94.5 11/12/03 " 53 1 64.5' 8.9 126.4 128.0 98.8 11/12/03 Parcel 54 2 64.5• 10.1 121.8 126.5 96.3 11/12/03 " 55 2 64.5• 11.0 122.4 126.5 96.8 11/12/03 " 56 2 64.5• 8.9 126.4 126.5 99.9 11/12/03 " 57 2 65.0' 9.9 115.9 126.5 91.6 11/12/03 " 58 2 65.0" 10.3 120.3 126.5 95.1 11/12/03 Parcel 59 2 65.0• 11.1 121.3 126.5 95.9 11/12/03 " 60 2 65.0" 11.3 119.4 126.5 94.4 11/12/03 " • Finished grade Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation Date of Fill Field Dry Maximum Test Soil at Teat Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No Type (Ft) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs. /cu.ft.) (lbsJcu.ft.) Compaction Test Page T-4 Remarks 61 2 62.5• 9.1 123.3 126.5 97.5 11/12103 Parcel 62 2 62.5• 10.8 121.0 126.5 95.7 11/12/03 " 63 2 62.5' 10.7 120.3 126.5 95.1 11/12/03 " 64 2 62.50 11.4 118.6 126.5 94.2 11112/03 " 65 2 62.50 10.1 117.8 126.5 93.1 11/12/03 " 66 2 62.5• 11.1 118.5 126.5 93.7 11 /12/03 " 67 2 62.5' 11.1 116.9 126.5 92.4 11/12/03 " 68 2 62.5• 10.5 120.7 126.5 95.4 11/12/03 " Finished grade I� ,--­'OVQP EXG4Val- ;#fo7 0 #� 9r� red 0 9 #Or0 / Q�e *Iff Bx6a F125ZW MWTE QW V �IHZ k21 `#I n #Z(e �2Z � \ 31�NLN t3'HILN Fr S tkZD i .00 4 &Z & ZS 431 Alb *11 1 S./ A3 �FII ZA9 r 1 P1TdJ=r A17. (27- 1 7,4� 1�l°/°l40.Y/1'9 LDG4M CON .7./n7/`-/ aA1l7OjY5' d977W Q;Z Mdl*102 .dO —L531 �C1/SN�Q Q7 -7/� San nrorl -JO AALLV07.71dWX- O�Yc3&V 0g771--J X31.; / A/OO NOZZ007 - 7ZPW 1XOSd3b' 3d975 _L/T7 H71N dx 3N/ 7 ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 -EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447 -4747 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. January 19, 2005 Monarch Construction, Inc. 1330 Garten Drive Placentia, CA 92870 Subject: Project No. 02- 1147A2 Review of Foundation Plans Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Gentlemen: The undersigned has reviewed the foundation plans for the proposed five -lot residential subdivision site to be constructed on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 16-052-27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. Based on a review of the foundation plans, it has been determined that the recommendations and specifications presented in the Project Soil Report for the subject property, prepared by our firm, dated October 25, 2002, have been properly incorporat,cd into the plans. .... K (2) P.E. TECHNOLOGY ®QUO 9Ea t ryq r Fy� s rio C -24613 ` Exp. 12131105 .` 4 -0 0�1h 9� 8 b .q �C 1 t.cp. 12/31/05 ° Rte_ ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY ROBERT CHAN, P.E. P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447-4747 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED FIVE -LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SITE 235 LA COSTA AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. JOSE LUIS ISLAS PROJECT NO. 02-1147A2 OCTOBER 25, 2002 ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447-4747 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. October 25, 2002 Mr. Jose Luis Islas P.O. Box 232488 Encinitas, CA. 02 -23 -2488 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Islas : In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed the geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential subdivision site on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216- 052 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. We are pleased to submit the accompanying geotechnical investigation report to present our findings, conclusions and recommendations relative to the development of the project site. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of the undersigned. The scope of our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis. No adverse geotechnical conditions were encountered which would prohibit the development of the site, provided that the recommendations presented herein are followed. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. fro Registered ivil Engineer Registegg Geotechnical Engineer roOERT cNg4" I :V !hv No .0 -24613 Exp.12131105 CIv11. _ee, Rr ry�Fy® No. G -00198 ` Exp.12131 /05 \19n.07ECHN`C e1�P� TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION .............................................. L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ................................ I SCOPE OF WORK ............................................ 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..... ............................... 2 LABORATORY TESTS ........................................ 3 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................... 4 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting and Soil Description .............. 5 Tectonic Setting ........................................ 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Groundshaking .......................................... 6 Liquefaction Potential .................................. 6 Landslides................................................ 6 GROUNDWATER............................................... 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General................................................... 7 Grading................................................... 8 Foundation and Slab Design ........................... 9 Retaining Wall Design and Lateral Loads........... 11 Slope Stability .......................................... 13 UBC Seismic Coefficients ............................. 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'nd) Backfill Over Utility Trenches ........................... 14 Private Road Pavement Section .............................. 14 Concrete Flatwork ......... ............................... 15 Surface Drainage and Maintenance ..................... 15 Grading and Foundation Plan Review .................. 16 LIMITATION AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ............. 17 Figure No. 1 — Site Location Map Figure No. 2 — Approximate Location of Exploratory Borings and Trenches Figure Nos_ 3 to 8, inclusive — Trench or Boring Log Sheet Appendix I — General Grading and Earthwork Specifications Appendix II — Laboratory Tests ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY ROBERT CHAN, P.E. P.O.BOX 1932 - EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447-4747 October 25, 2002 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and conclusions of a geotechnical investigation conducted at the site of a proposed residential subdivision, located at 235 La Costa Avenue, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. Subject property is more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216 - 052 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The location of the property is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Site Location Map ". DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT It is our understanding that subject property is to be subdivided into 5 residential lots. The existing residential structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed residences to be constructed on these lots will be two stories in maximum height; of woodframefstucco and slab -on -grade construction. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 2 235 La Costa Avenue SCOPE OF WORK ---- - - - - -- -- -- --- - - - --- The objectives of the investigation were to inspect and determine the subsurface soil conditions and certain physical, engineering properties of the soils beneath the site, and to evaluate any potential adverse geotechnical conditions that could affect the proposed project, in order that engineering recommendations could be presented relative to the safe and economical development of the site as presently proposed. In order to accomplish these objectives, a total of three exploratory borings and three exploratory trenches were excavated and inspected, and representative samples of the subsurface soils were collected for laboratory testing and analysis. The data derived from our field observations and the laboratory test results were reviewed and analyzed, and a summary of our preliminary findings, opinions and recommendations is presented in this report. FIELD INVESTIGATION ^YY -It is noted that the property is currently used a s a greenhouse for commercial flowers, with the majority of the site inaccessible to large excavating equipment. The. initial field exploratory phase of our investigation was performed on October 4, 2002, and involved the excavation of three exploratory borings at locations inaccessible to a backhoe. These exploratory borings were drilled with a portable continuous flight auger. These exploratory borings were drilled to a depth of 10.0 feet below existing ground Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 3 235 La Costa Avenue surface. On October 16, 2002, three exploratory trenches were excavated with a Case 58013 backhoe equipped with a 24 -inch bucket at accessible locations. These exploratory trenches were excavated to depths varying from 3.5 to 14.0 feet below existing ground surface. The approximate location of the exploratory borings and trenches is shown on Figure No. 2, entitled, "Approximate Location of Exploratory Borings and Trenches ". The drilling and trenching operations were performed under the direction of our field personnel, and a continuous log of the soil types encountered in the exploratory borings and trenches was recorded at the time of excavation, and is shown on Figure Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, each entitled, "Boring Log Sheet" or "Trench Log Sheet ". The soils were visually and texturally classified by the field identification procedures set forth on the Unified Soil Classification Chart. In -situ density tests and representative samples were obtained at various depths in the exploratory borings and trenches. The in -situ densities of the soils encountered in the exploratory borings were determined with a Triggs penetrometer. LABORATORY TESTS The samples collected during our field investigation were subjected to various tests in the laboratory to evaluate their engineering characteristics. The tests were performed in accordance with current A.S.T.M. testing standards or other regulatory Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 4 235 La Costa Avenue agency testing procedures. A summary of the tests that were performed and the final test results are presented in Appendix II hereto. The tests that were performed included determinations of the maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents, as well as the expansion indices of the soils encountered. SITE DESCRIPTION Subject property is a pentagon- shaped property consisting of 1.97 acres, located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of Vulcan Avenue. The topography of the site may be described as relatively level, with drainage in a general northwesterly direction into La Costa Avenue. The site is currently being used as a green house for the growing of commercial flowers. An office trailer was situated in the front of the property. A two -story older residential structure was located along the east property line. All existing improvements are to be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The property is bounded on the north by La Costa Avenue, on the east by single- family residences, and on the south and west by agricultural nurseries. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 5 235 La Costa Avenue GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS -- ----- -- -- - - -- - -------- - - - --- -- - - - - -- -------- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- --------------- - - -- Geologic Setting and Soil Description ----- - - - --- --- - -- --- - - -- - ---- --------------- According to the Geology Map of the San Diego Metropolitan Area published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the site is underlain by Quatemary-age terrace deposits. These terrace deposits were encountered on the site in the form of light reddish brown silty fine sands, which are dense and cemented. The formation soils were overlain by a layer of residual soils on the order of 1 to 5 feet in thickness. These residual soils consist of dark brown silty sands, the upper portions of which are dry and loose. In the westerly portion of the property, undocumented fill soils were encountered, similar to those encountered in Trench No. I to a depth of 4.0 feet; and in Boring Nos. I and 2 to a depth of 2.0 feet. These undocumented fill soils appeared to have been generated locally, and consist of the same silty sands, and are generally dry and loose in consistency. Tectonic Setting No evidence of faulting was noted during our surface reconnaissance or in the exploratory trenches. A review of available geologic literature did not reveal any major faulting in the area. It should be noted that much of Southern California, including the City of San Diego area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which typically strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others are classified as Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 6 235 La Costa Avenue only potentially active according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. A review of available geologic maps indicate that the subject property is approximately 41.7 km (26.1 miles) southwest of the active Elsinore Fault Zone (Type A Fault), and approximately 6.6 km (4.1 miles) northeast of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Type B Fault). GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Groundshaking - The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is groundshaking as ------------------ a result of movement along one of the active fault zones mentioned above. Construction in accordance with the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code and requirements of the governing jurisdiction should minimize potential structural damage due to seismic activity. Seismic soil coefficient in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code were determined with the UBCSEIS Program and presented herein. Liquefaction Potential — In consideration of the competent natural soils underlying the -- -------- - - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- site, and the lack of a permanent groundwater table near the ground surface, it is our opinion that soil liquefaction does not present a significant geotechnical hazard to the proposed site development. Landslides - Subject property is located on relatively level terrain and underlain by --- ----- - -- - -- competent natural soils. A review of available geologic maps did not reveal any ancient Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 7 235 La Costa Avenue landslides in the vicinity. An inspection of subject and surrounding properties did not reveal any indications of land movement. Therefore, the potential for landslide on subject or adjacent properties is considered negligible. Other potential geologic hazards such as tsunamis and seiches should also be considered negligible or nonexistent. GROUNDWATER No groundwater was encountered in the exploratory borings or trenches to the maximum depth of exploration at 14.0 feet. No seeps or springs were observed on the site during our investigation. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General No adverse soil conditions were encountered which would prohibit the currently proposed development of the project site. All of the soils encountered on the site are suitable for use as supporting materials for the proposed structures, provided that the recommendations contained herein are followed. 3. The soils encountered on the site possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 35). Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 8 235 La Costa Avenue 4. Undocumented fill soils encountered in the northwesterly portion of the property, and well as the upper portions of the residual soils encountered on the site are dry, loose and compressible, and are not considered to be capable of providing safe and reliable support to any proposed fills, structures or improvements. Grading 5. It is recommended that all earthwork be accomplished in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Encinitas, UBC Chapter A33, Appendix I attached hereto, entitled, "General Grading and Earthwork Specifications ", and recommendations as presented in this Section. 6. Where the recommendations of this Section of the report conflict with those of Appendix I, this Section of the Report takes precedence. Grading operation should commence with demolition of all existing improvements on the site and disposal of all debris offsite. 8. All undocumented fill soils, and loose residual soils that remain below finished grade should be removed. The bottom of the excavation should be inspected by our firm. The removed soils should then be properly moistened, and uniformly recompacted prior to the placement of additional fill soils. All fill soils should be properly moistened, and uniformly compacted until Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 9. 235 La Costa Avenue proposed grade elevations are reached. The layers of fill should not exceed 8 inches to allow for adequate bonding. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with A.S.T.M. DI 557. 10. In order to provide uniform settlement characteristics, it is recommended that the natural soils on the building pads be over- excavated to a depth of 3 feet, and uniformly recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. 11. Imported fill soils may be required for the development of the project. It is recommended that these fill soils possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index < 50), and should be approved by our firm at the borrow site prior to importation. Foundation and Slab Design -- -- ---- -- -- -- - - -- -- - -- ----- - - - --- 12. A safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot may be used in the design and checking of continuous or spread foundations that are a minimum of 12 and 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respectively, and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single - family) or 18 inches (for two stories) into the competent natural or compacted fill soils. 13. The above safe allowable soil bearing value may be increased 300 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of depth or width, to a maximum of 3,000 pounds per square foot. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 10 235 La Costa Avenue 14. The above safe allowable soil bearing value may be further increased by one third when considering wind and/or seismic forces. 15. The settlement of foundations, when designed and loaded as outlined above, is within acceptable tolerance limits for residential structures of this type. 16. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with 2 #5 rebars; one rebar located near the top, and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be reinforced with a minimum of 2 #5 rebars, in both directions, placed at mid - height of footing.. 17. The concrete slab on grade should be 4 inches net in thickness, and reinforced with #3 rebars @ 24 inches on center in both directions, placed at mid- height of slab. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. In areas to be tiled or carpeted, a visqueen -type moisture barrier should be placed at grade and be overlain by one inch of protective sand cover. This moisture barrier should be heavily overlapped or sealed at splices. Please note that the foundation and slab reinforcement requirements are based on soil characteristics, and should be superceded by the requirements of the project architect.. 18. The settlement of foundations, when designed and loaded as outlined above, are Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 11 235 La Costa Avenue within acceptable tolerance limits for light residential buildings of this type. 19. It is recommended that our firm inspect the foundation trench excavations for the proposed structures to ensure proper embedment into properly compacted fill soils. 20. It is recommended that foundation for the proposed structures be setback at least 7 feet from the top of slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge of the foundation along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. Retaining Wall Design and Lateral Loads --- ---- - - -- - -- - -- --- - --- -- - -- - - --- -- -- - - -- 21. Retaining wall foundations should conform to the recommendations under Item Nos. 12 to 20 above. 22. Active earth pressures against retaining walls will depend upon the slope of the backfill and the degree of wall restraint. Unrestrained retaining walls free to rotate at the top and with level backfill should be designed to resist an active earth pressure equivalent to that generated by fluid weights as shown below : Equivalent Backfill Slope Fluid Wt. (Horizontal : vertical) (Pci) Level 35 2 : 1 48 1 %:1 56 A Project No. 02-1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 235 La Costa Avenue Page 12 For rigid, absolutely restrained retaining walls, an uniform horizontal pressure of 7H (where H is the height of the retaining wall in feet) should be applied in addition to the active pressure recommended above. 23. The above active earth pressures are provided assuming that soils having low expansion potential (Expansion Index < 50) are placed behind the retaining walls. All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. 24. To resist lateral loads, it is recommended that the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 280 pcf be used for footings or shear keys poured neat against competent undisturbed natural soils. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for passive resistance. This value assumes that the horizontal distance of the soil mass extends at least 10 feet or three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. 25. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 is recommended. 26. Retaining walls should be properly waterproofed and provided with gravel and perforated pipe drain systems to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the retaining walls. The gravel portion of the drain should extend at least two -third the height of the retaining wall and should be enclosed in a filter Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 13 235 La Costa Avenue fabric envelope. 27. The on -site soil conditions are such that standard cantilever retaining wall designs, such as those presented in the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings or those issued by the City of Encinitas Building Department, may be used, where appropriate. Slope Stability - - - - - -- -- --- - - ---- 28. Minor cut and fill slopes under 10 feet in maximum height are proposed for the development of the site. It is our conclusion that both cut and fill slopes will be safe against massive slope failure up to the proposed heights when constructed at a slope ratio of 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical) or flatter. 29. The above conclusions assume that surface water is not permitted to flow over the top of slopes, and that all slopes are properly planted and irrigated in accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas. Seismic Soil Coefficients 30. Seismic soil coefficients were determined in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, and presented on the following page : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Parameters Seismic Zone Factor 4, Z Soil Profile Type Near Source Factor, Na Near Source Factor, Nv Seismic Coefficient, Ca Seismic Coefficient, Cv Seismic Source Type Backfill Over Utility Trenches Islas 10/25/02 Page 14 235 La Costa Avenue Value Reference 0.40 Table 16 -1 Sc Table 16 -J 1.0 Table 16 -5 1.1 Table 16 -T 0.40 Table 16 -Q 0.64 Table 16 -R B ---- - - ---- - - - --- -- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- 31. It is recommended that backfill soils placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation to at lest 90 percent of maximum dry density. Private Road Pavement Section 32. The PCC private road serving the subdivision should be 5 %: inches net in thickness, and be reinforced with 6x6- W2.9xW2.9 (6x6 -6x6) welded wire fabric, placed at mid - height of concrete slab. Control joints at a minimum of 10 -foot intervals should be provided. 33. The upper 8 inches of the subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. 34. If a flexural structural pavement is proposed for the private road, it is recommended that a preliminary structural section of 3 inches of asphaltic Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 15 235 La Costa Avenue concrete over 4 inches of Class lI base material be used for design purposes. The upper 8 inches of the subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. 35. It is further recommended that the actual flexural pavement section design be used on actual "R" -value tests performed on the subgrade soils upon completion of rough grading. Concrete Flatwork 36. It is recommended that all concrete flatwork, such as walkways, be 3 % inches in Thickness. Four inches of sand or rock base material should be provided. One inch expansion joints at 15 -foot intervals and '/< inch weakened plane contractor joints at 5 -foot intervals should also be provided. Surface Drainage and Maintenance -- --- - - -- --- -- -- - - -- - - - -- ------------------ 37. Adequate drainage control and proper maintenance of all drainage facilities are imperative to minimize infiltration of surface water into the underlying soil mass in order to reduce settlement potential and to minimize erosion. The building areas should have drainage swales which direct storm and excess irrigation water away from the structures and into the street gutters or other drainage facilities. No surface runoff should be allowed to pond adjacent to the foundations. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 16 235 La Costa Avenue Grading and Foundation Plans Review - - --- - -- --- - --- - -- -- - - ---- 38 It is recommended that our firm review the final grading and foundation plans for the proposed site development to verify their compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter A33, as required by the State of California. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10125/02 Page 17 235 La Costa Avenue LIMITATION AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ---- - - - - -- -- - - -- ----- --- ---- -- - -- --- - - -- --------------- - - - -- The preliminary findings and recommendations contained in this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based on the assumption that the soil conditions beneath the entire site do not deviate substantially from those disclosed in the exploratory borings and trenches. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during grading, or if the scope of the project differs from that planned at the present time, our firm should be notified in order that supplemental recommendations can be presented, if necessary. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations presented herein are brought to the attention of the Project Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. Furthermore, the Owner, or his representative, will also be responsible for taking the necessary measures to ensure that the Contractor and subcontractors properly carry out the recommendations in the field. 3. Professional opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based partly on our evaluation and analysis of the technical information gathered during the study, partly on the currently available information regarding the proposed project, and partly on our previous experience with similar soil conditions and Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 18 235 La Costa Avenue projects of similar scope. Our study has been performed in accordance with the minimum standards of care exercised by other professional geotechnical consultants currently practicing in the same locality. We do not, however, guarantee the performance of the proposed project in any respect, and no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, are made or intended in connection with the study performed by our firm. 4. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property could occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or due to man made actions on the subject and/or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review by our firm and should not be relied upon after a period of two years. Figure Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, and Appendices I and II are parts of this report. Ponto � 16' -C IUXTPS AAM nn \t�. b' � "��, rz . }`a s 33 •.T +.ry xt fra..ry��Yi�r. _,'�� -� �n cos „; may' Y. �}� M'�y'♦�� � t� �� 1i I\ Fy 1 �j SCALE 1'_ 307 II �I 1 • 1 II II o° . •. p III p II 1 jl II••;` L ! . i T:t.z`_ lil �I II -u fl. � jI 1 l ' II �I I IIti N II 11 1 • m 22 042' 5:P E PARCF =,L `z , PARCEL * I 0 EXISTIN HOUSE 5 � "• PROPOSED!,: STREET �UF f PARCELt 2 } 2 W .% ........ ............. ...... $t3 PARCEL #4 Q PARCEL =3 1 364,0, �i • 0 rn Q: <V N N .,LEGEND 8 APPROXIMATE LOCATEON OF EXPLORATORY BORING FJ+ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH QUF- UNDOCUMENTED FILL QTI: TERRACE DEPOSITS APPROXIMATE. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY- BORINGS AND. TRENCHES PROJECT NO. 02 -1147A2 FIGURE NO. 2 T:t.z`_ lil �I II -u fl. � jI 1 l ' II �I I IIti N II 11 1 • m 22 042' 5:P E PARCF =,L `z , PARCEL * I 0 EXISTIN HOUSE 5 � "• PROPOSED!,: STREET �UF f PARCELt 2 } 2 W .% ........ ............. ...... $t3 PARCEL #4 Q PARCEL =3 1 364,0, �i • 0 rn Q: <V N N .,LEGEND 8 APPROXIMATE LOCATEON OF EXPLORATORY BORING FJ+ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH QUF- UNDOCUMENTED FILL QTI: TERRACE DEPOSITS APPROXIMATE. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY- BORINGS AND. TRENCHES PROJECT NO. 02 -1147A2 FIGURE NO. 2 TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH #1 DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) LEGEND — Indicates representative sample * — Indicates in -situ density test Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 3 FT. 0 Brown, very dry, loose SILTY FINE SAND (SM) I (UNDOCUMENTED FILL) 2 Dry \J 4.5* 106.4* 85.8 %* 3 Damp 4 Dark brown, moist, loose SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 5 (residual soil) 6 edium dense 7.5* 112.1' 90.4 %* 7 8 9 10 Light reddish brown, moist, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) medium dense, cemented 11 12 13 14 BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) LEGEND — Indicates representative sample * — Indicates in -situ density test Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 3 TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH NO. 2 ncO�DTn'rrnrr g01T. TYPE BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 4 0 I Dark brown, dry, slightly dense (residual soils) .� SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 2 Reddish brown, moist, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) medium dense 3 4 5 Light reddish brown, moist, dense 6 7 8 BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 4 TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH NO.3 ROTT. TYPE BOTTOM OF TRENCH (Terminated after Hitting sewer lateral) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 5 r i . .... - 0 Dark brown, dry, slightly SILTY FINE SAND dense (SM) 1 (residual soils) 2 Light brown, moist, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) medium dense 3 Hit 4" dia. sewer lateral BOTTOM OF TRENCH (Terminated after Hitting sewer lateral) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 5 BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO. 1 r-r Trc/`n rDT7/lAT Soil. TYPE BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) LEGEND Indicates representative sample Indicates blowcount/10cm/Triggs penetrometer Granular 0 Very loose 5 Loose 11 Medium dense 31 Dense 51 Very dense 0 Brown/medium brown, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) moist, loose 1 (Undocumented fill) 2 Dark brown, most, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 3 loose (residual soils) 4 5 Reddish brown, moist, medium SILTY FINE SAND (SM) dense (Terrace deposits) 6 22* 7 20* 8 19* 9 dense 30* 10 65* BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) LEGEND Indicates representative sample Indicates blowcount/10cm/Triggs penetrometer Granular 0 Very loose 5 Loose 11 Medium dense 31 Dense 51 Very dense Nn 02- 1147A2 Cohesive 0 Very soft 2 Soft 5 Medium dense 9 Stiff 16 Very stiff 31 Hard RKO BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO.2 rr nP4ZC P 1PT10N SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 7 0 1 2 Dark brown, dry, loose (undocumented fill soils) SILTY FINE SAND (SM) Dark brown, moist, loose SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 3 (residual soil) 4 20* I 5 Light brown/light reddish brown, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 6 moist, medium dense 25* (terrace deposits) 7 30* g 35* q 50* 10 BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 7 BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO.3 cT IIGC('A1PTT(1N SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 8 0 Light brown/light reddish brown SILTY FINE SAND cemented, dry, medium dense (SM) 1 (terrace deposits) 2 Dense 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 8 APPENDIX I GENERAL GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 These recommended grading and earthwork specifications are intended to be a part of and to supplement the Geotechnical Report(s). In the event of a conflict, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report(s) will supersede these specifications. Observations during the course of earthwork operations may result in additional, new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications - and/or the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report(s). 1.2 The Owner or his authorized representative shall procure the services of a qualified Geotechnical Consulting Firm, hereafter to be referred to as the " Geotechnical Consultant ". (often the same entity that produced the Geotechnical Report(s). 1.3 The Geotechnical Consultant shall be given a schedule of work by the Earthwork Contractor for the subject project, so as to be able to perform required observations, testing and mapping of work in progress in a timely manner. 1.4 grubbingkthrough includes grading. Includedroarecltrenching, excavation, backfilling, compacting and grading. All work shall be as shown on the approved project drawings. 1.5 The Geotechnical Consultant or a qualified representative shall be project on site as required, to observe, map and document the subsurface exposures so as to verify the geotechnical desisign suppositions. In the event that observed conditions are found to be significantly different from the interpreted conditions during the design.phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the Owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to suit the observed conditions and notify the agenc(ies) having jurisdiction, where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, record elevations or tested include cleared natural ground for receiving fill or structures, "remedial removal" areas, key bottoms and benches. 1.6 The guidelines contained herein and any standard details attached herewith represent this firm's recommendations for the grading and all assocaited operations on the subject project. These guidelines shall be considered to be a part APPENDIX I Page 2 of these Specifications. 1.7 If interpretation of these guidelines or standard details result in a dispute(s), the Geotechnical Consultant shall conclude the appropriate interpretation. of 1.6 subgradeechand Consultant the required compaction testing. The test results shall be provided to the Owner and the Contractor and if so required, to the agenc(ies) having Jurisdication. 1.9 The Geotechnical Consultant shall notprovide "supervision" or any "direction" of work in progress to the Earthwork Contractor, or to any of the Contractor's employees or to any of the Contractor's agents. 1.10 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture- conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The the grading cinr solely accordance withthe responsible plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the Owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Geotechnical Consultant nisa aware sofl n assume aligradingoperations, The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plans(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper APPENDIX I Page 3 moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that cnstruction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2,1 roots, and nother bdeleterious ematerial s as shallbersufficiently remed and the ov owner. pgoverningisagencies,in and method acceptable the Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall nvolume). more contain more organic materials (by than 5 precent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable and /or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. Materials used for fill, either imported or on -site, shall not ntain hazardous Divisionby4, Chapter 30, Article 9 and 10; 40CFR, and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Cnsultant theeaff affected ectedarea. termination ior to APPENDIX I Page 4 resuming grading operations, the owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 2.2 Any asphaltic pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off - site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 2.3 those groundwater than may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immeidately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition. 2.4 Processing Existing ground that has been declared' satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.5 overexcavation : In addition to removals and overexcavations recomended in the approved geotechnical report (s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic - rich highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.6 Benching : Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 1 (horizontal vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5 : 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. APPENDIX I Page 5 2.7 Evaluation /Acceptance of Fill Areas : All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and /or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. the contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strenght shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize . Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is competely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction - - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- ---- - - - - -- 4.1 Fill Layer : Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near- APPENDIX I Page 6 horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning : Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and /or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557- 91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill : After each layer has been moisture - conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557 -91). Compaction equipmnt shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes : In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM Test Method D1557 -91. 4.5 Compaction Testing : Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill /bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testiing : Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and /or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In APPENDIX I Page 7 addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations : The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechincal report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and /or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor /civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over - excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant . based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill- over -cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slopes shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. APPENDIX I Page 8 7.0 Trench Backfill 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal /OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by Jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. PROJECT PLAN ITOI MINIMUM FROM TOE OF = v== _- SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND_ -- - z__�Y ==_ - TYPICAL NATURAL___ _ 9 RESIGN BENCH OROUND =r= HEIGHT 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) NATURAL i CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS DESIGN SLOPE PROJECT PLAN I TO I MINIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND \ 2' MIN _ KEY DEPTH LOW EST BENCH(KEY) I KEYING AND BENCHING I DETAIL - A LOWEST BENCH 2' MIN.KEY DEPTH FILL SLOPE REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FILL-OVER CUT -SLOPE 4' TYPICAL -BENCH HEIGHT EMOVE UNSUITABLE CUT FACE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT j� CUT -OVER NATURAL FILL -SLOPE j � � u� GROUND \ / FOR SUBDRAINS SEE STANDARD DETALL C REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL A'TYPICAL T BENCH BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN HEIGHT SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR THAN 5:1 MAXIMUM BENCH HEIGH SHALL BE 4 FEET MAXIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 8 FEET. ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY FINISH GRADE -------------- - MPWTED -------------- SLOPE FACE - - - - - - - 7= --------- ------ - ------------ —10 MIN. —15 IN. -- NATURAL GROUND BENCHING 12 "MIN, OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET O CALTRANS CLASS II \ PERMEABLE ) #2ROCK l 3 Cu • FT I FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC ( M 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PERFORATE PIPE 6" MAN . DESIGN FINIS GRADE -___ -- X20' MIN. NON PERFORATED 6" MIN. CANYON SUBDRAINS DETAIL - C REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL i F 111111 \COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE MINIMUM 6' DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION - FILTER FABRIC (MIRAR 140 N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER 5' MIN. FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY 15' OUTLET PIPES 4'0 NON - PERFORATED PIPE 100 MAX•O -C- HORIZONTALLY. = __ == _- BACKCUT 1 1 30' MAX.O.C.VERTICALLY OR FLATTER BENCHING =T KEY f DEPTH r =_ = _2*1 /: MIN=- �,rncmpv�� 15'MIN. 2' MIN. f "—KEY WIDTH 12 "MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET \ / \FILTER FABRIC MlggFl 140 OR APPROVED \ �2 EQUIVALENT SEAL = 6 "MIN. SHOULD BE ;' -: . ° n; OVER PROVIDED AT, THE JOINT S OUTLET PIPE (NON-PERFORATED) �� �� 4" MfN, BELIDIN CAL7RANS CLASS I PERMEABLE OR A 2 ROC (3 Cu FT/FT)WRAPPED IN T .CONNECT)ON FIL7FR FABRIC FOR COLLECTC PIPE TO OUTLE PIPE SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION – SUBDRAIN COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN OR,UNLESS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. OUTLET PIPE SHALL BE NON _PERFORATED PIPE.THE SUBDRAIN PIPE SHALL HAvE7 AT LEASTS PERFORATIONS UNIFORMLY SPACED PER FOOT PERFORAT10N SHALL BE 1 /4 "?O) I 2 "IF DRILLED HOLES ARE USED.ALL SUBDRAIN PIPES SHALL HAVE A GRADIENT AT LEAST Z %TOWARDS THE OUTLET SUBDRAIN SCHEDULE 40 PIPE ASTMD3034 PIPE 235)SCHEEDDUD 40 POL \A YL CHi BRIDE PLDASTlC7' C PVC) PIPE ALL OUTLET PIPE SHALL BE PLACED IN A TRENCH NO WIDER THAN TWICE THE SUBDRAIN PIPE, PIPE SHALL BE IN SOIL OF SE > 30 JETTED OR FLOODED IN PLACE EXCEPT FOR THE OU151DE 5 FEET WHICH SHALL BE NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL UTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL jUBDRAINS DETAIL - D ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25102 235 La Costa Avenue APPENDIX II Laboratory Test Results 1. The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils encountered, as determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A, are presented as follows : Maximum Optimum Moisture Soil Dry Density Content Description (lbs. /cu.R.) (% Dry Wt.) Trench #1 Brown silty 123.0 10.3 Sample #1 fine sand (SM) Depth 2.0' Trench #2 Dark brown 124.0 10.0 Sample #1 silty fine sand (SM) Depth 1.0' 2. The Expansion Index of the most clayey soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 18 -2. The results of the test are presented as follows : Sample T2 -B1 @ 2.0' Condition Remolded Initial M.C. (°/u) 10.8 Initial Density (pcf) 110.8 Final M.C. ( %) 23.4 Normal Stress (psf) 144.7 Expansion Index 35* * Considered to possess LOW expansion potential ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 -EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE(619)447-4747 ROBERT CHAN, RE. January 19, 2005 Monarch Construction, Inc. 1330 Garten Drive Placentia, CA 92870 Subject: Project Nlo. 02- 1147A2 Review of Foundation Plans Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Gentlemen: The undersigned has reviewed the foundation plans for the proposed five -lot residential subdivision site to be constructed on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216 - 052 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. Based on a review of the foundation plans, it has been determined that the recommendations and specifications presented in the Project Soil Report &.r the subject property, prepared by our firm, dated October 25, 2002, have been properly incorporated into the plans. ,ecespecttwly suom etl. ��FESSlQ 2/q ALLIED EAR TECt INOLOGY QcoERSSIi��yc y��O�a�a1 cygyCFC� a _ 2/T No c -2, cB No. G -00'98 Exo 12/31105 Robert Cha . P.E. (2) Ad essee rrgr fir° HN,�Q�\ grfOFCAL�i ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 -EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 TELEPHONE( 619)447 -4747 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. December 9, 2003 Mr. Jose Luis Islas P.O. Box 232488 Escondido, CA. 92023 -2488 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Report of Engineering Observation of Grading and Testing of Compacted Fill Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 Las Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Islas: In accordance with your request, we have provided engineering services in conjunction with the grading for the five proposed residential building sites on subject property, more specifically referred to as being /assessor's Parcel No. 216 - 051 -27, in the City of Lncinitas, State of California. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed development consists of grading of the site to receive five residences. SCOPE OF WORK Our services included : - Providing engineering observation of the grading operation.; - performing field density tests in the placed and compacted till; - performing laboratory tests on samples of the material used for fill; and - providing professional opinions regarding the contractor's adherence to the geotechnical portion of the plans and specifications. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 2 235 La Costa Avenue SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Site preparation, grading, compaction and testing were accomplished during the period between November 3 and 12, 2003, inclusive. In our opinion, based on our observation and testing, the earthwork performed during that period was in substantial conformance with the recommendations as presented in the report entitled "Geotechnical Investigation — Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision, 235 La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, California" prepared by our firm, dated October 25, 2002. The property was previously used as a green house for the growing of commercial flowers. Prior to grading, the existing structures and improvements on the site were demolished and the debris hauled away and disposed of offsite. During the grading operation, certain earthwork operations were observed. These included : The removal of the upper loose undocumented fill soils and residual soils that remained below finished grade. Depth of removal varied from 3 to 9 feet below existing grade. The over- excavation of the natural soils within the residential lots to a depth of 3 feet below finished grade. The elevations of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results are presented on pages T -I to T-4, 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 location of the compacted filled ground and field density tests are presented on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground ". The results of the tests and observations indicate that the fill soils placed on the site have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Test results indicate that these soils will support the proposed residential buildings without detrimental settlement, and the sites are adequate for their intended use as support to the proposed residential buildings. SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS nhservalinns and Inhoralnry lcsls indicaled Ihnl the till soils rinced within 3 feet below finished grade on the site are classified as having LOW expansion potential (Expansion Index = 35). Project No. 02- 1147A2 RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 3 235 La Costa Avenue Foundation for Structures It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot (total dead plus live loads) be used for the design of continuous or spread footings that are a minimum of 12 and 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respectively, and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single -story) or 18 inches (for two stories), into the competent natural or compacted fill soils. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with 2 #5 rebars; one rebar located near the top, and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, and should be reinforced with a minimum of two #5 rebars in both directions It is recommended that concrete slab -on -grade be at least 4 inches in thickness. The concrete slab should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 rebars @ 24 inches on center, in both directions. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. It is recommended that foundation for the proposed structures be setback at least 7 feet from the top of fill slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of fill slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. Concrete Flatwork It is recommended that the proposed concrete flatwork founded be 3 %: inches in thickness, and be reinforced with 6x6 -10 /10 welded wire mesh at mid - height, underlain by 4 inch of sand base. `/2 -inch expansion joints and '/4" weakened plane contraction joints should be provided at 15 -foot and 5 -foot intervals, respectively. Foundation Trench Excavation Inspection It is recommended that the foundation trench excavations for the proposed structure be inspected by our firm to ensure proper embedment into the bearing strata. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified. It is recommended that any additional fill placed, like those behind the retaining walls along the front of the property, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page 4 235 La Costa Avenue Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Pages L -1, T -1 to T4, inclusive and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. �e��QO6Ear cyy2�Fy� � R No C -24613 ; Exp. 12131105 \`rI CIvo- %QF�epOEFT 2J No. G- 001988 R ` Exp. 12131105 x C;Pte' Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 235 La Costa Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Page L -1 ]. The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils, as determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557 -91, Method A, are presented as follows: Maximum Optimum Soil Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Type Description (lbsJcu.ft.) (% Dry Wt.) 1 Brown silty fine sand 128.0 8.5 (SM) 2 Brown to reddish brown 126.5 10.5 silty fine to medium sand (SM) 3 Light brown fine to medium 130.0 8.0 sand (SW) 2. The Expansion Index of the soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test Nn. 1R - ?. The resuhs ache lest arc rrescNed ns rollows : Soil Soil Expansion Type Description Index 1 Brown silty fine sand 35* (SM) * Considered to possess LOW expansion potential Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -1 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs/cu.ft.) (lbs/cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 1 1 47.0 9.1 117.3 128.0 91.6 11 /05/03 Parcel 2 2 47.0 10.9 114.8 126.5 90.8 11/05/03 " 3 2 47.0 11.1 116.5 126.5 92.1 -11/05/03 " 4 3 49.0 9.2 126.2 130.0 97.0 11/06/03 " 5 1 49.0 9.5 116.7 128.0 91.2 11/05/03 " 6 1 56.5 10.2 117.8 128.0 92.1 11/06/03 " 7 1 54.5 9.2 120.5 128.0 94.1 11106103 " 8 1 56.0 10.6 119.3 128.0 932 11/06/03 " 9 1 58.5 9.8 120.4 128.0 94.1 11/06/03 " 10 1 50.5 11.2 118.1 128.0 92.3 11/06/03 " I 1 1 52.5 10.4 120.0 128.0 93.8 11/06/03 " 12 1 52.5 9.0 122.2 128.0 95.5 11/06/03 " 13 1 52.2 9.6 123.9 128.0 96.8 11/06/03 " 14 1 54.5 10.7 121.4 128.0 94.8 11106103 " 15 1 58.5 10.3 119.3 128.0 93.2 11/06/03 " 16 1 54.5 13.6 118.0 128.0 92.2 11/06/03 " 17 1 56.5 11.8 117.7 128.0 92.0 11/06103 " 18 1 56.5 10.2 120.1 128.0 93.9 11/06/03 " 19 1 56.5 9.4 120.6 128.0 94.3 11/06/03 " 20 2 58.5 10.4 120.7 126.5 95.4 11/06/03 " Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -2 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Contn'd) Depth of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 21 2 58.5 9.9 121.2 126.5 95.8 11/07/03 Parcel 22 2 58.5 9.8 117.1 126.5 92.5 11107/03 " 23 2 58.5 11.4 118.8 126.5 93.9 11/07103 " 24 2 58.5 10.9 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/07/03 " 25 2 58.5 8.5 122.5 126.5 96.8 11/07/03 Parcel 26 2 58.5 8.3 116.8 126.5 92.7 11107103 " 27 2 58.5 8.7 119.2 126.5 94:2 11/07103 " 28 2 58.5 9.1 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/07/03 " 29 2 60.5 9.8 116.4 126.5 92.0 11/07/03 " 30 2 60.5 10.4 116.5 126.5 92.1 11/07/03 " 31 2 60.5 10.2 118.3 126.5 93.5 11/07/03 " 32 2 60.5 12.0 115.7 126.5 91.5 11/07/03 " 33 2 62.0 8.0 121.2 126.5 95.8 11/07/03 " 34 2 62.0 10.5 119.2 126.5 94.2 11107/03 " 35 2 62.0 10.3 117.1 126.5 92.6 11/10/03 " 36 2 62.0 11.5 119.0 126.5 94.1 11 /10 /03 Parcel 3 37 2 62.0 10.1 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/10/03 " 38 2 60.5 9.9 115.8 126.5 91.5 11/10/03 " 39 2 60.5 8.5 116.2 126.5 91.9 11/10/03 " 40 2 60.5 10.7 118.2 126.5 93.4 11/10/03 " Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 Page T -3 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks 41 2 63.0 13.0 118.0 126.5 93.3 11 /10 /03Parcel 3 42 1 63.0 9.3 126.3 128.0 98.7 11/10/03" 43 3 63.0 9.8 119.7 126.5 94.6 11/10/03 Parcel 44 2 63.0 10.2 119.4 126.5 94.4 1 1 / 10/03 " 45 2 60.5• 11.2 121.9 126.5 96.4 11/12/03 Parcel 1 46 2 60.5* 11.9 119.0 126.5 94.1 11/12/03" 47 1 60.5• 8.1 125.8 128.0 98.3 11/12//03 " 48 2 60.50 8.5 124.5 126.5 98.4 11/12/03 " 49 2 62.5• 11.8 123.1 126.5 07.3 11/12/03 Parce12 50 2 62.5* 9.7 120.2 126.5 95.0 11/12/03 " 51 2 62.50 10.4 1239 126.5 98.0 11/12/03 " 52 2 62.5• 12.0 119.6 126.5 94.5 11/12103 " 53 1 64.5* 8.9 126.4 128.0 98.8 11/12/03 Parcel 54 2 64.5* 10.1 121.8 126.5 96.3 1 1/12/03 " 55 2 64.5* 11.0 122.4 126.5 96.8 11/12/03 " 56 2 64.5* 8.9 126.4 126.5 99.9 11/12/03 " 57 2 65.0* 9.9 115.9 126.5 91.6 11/12/03 " 58 2 65.0* 10.3 120.3 126.5 95.1 11/12/03 Parcel 59 2 65.0• 11.1 121.3 126.5 95.9 11/12/03 " 60 2 65.0* 11.3 119.4 126.5 94.4 11/12/03 " * Finished grade Project No. 02- 1147A2 Mr. Jose Luis Islas 12/09/03 235 La Costa Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft) (% Dry Wt.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) (Ibs. /cu.ft.) Compaction Test Page T-4 Remarks 61 2 62.5• 9.1 123.3 126.5 97.5 11 /12/03 Parcel 62 2 62.5' 10.8 121.0 126.5 95.7 11/12/03 " 63 2 62.5• 10.7 120.3 126.5 95.1 11/12/03 " 64 2 62.5• 11.4 118.6 126.5 94.2 11/12/03 " 65 2 62.5' 10.1 117.8 126.5 93.1 11/12/03 " 66 2 62.5' 11.1 118.5 126.5 93.7 11/12/03 " 67 2 62.5• 11.1 116.9 126.5 92.4 11/12/03 " 68 2 62.5• 10.5 120.7 126.5 95.4 11/12/03 " • Finished grade Q Q V u sl S -T*7 � 6? 0 /# 40 fz�rlA!IYDX?�t �$ :OLT �et�e 0#rdo �ttG S 0 v1 sYMN 40 wo 17/ O &Z • �l TWI i -�T An m -1 7 ab N *4-& *3 III #N9 438 OVER EXG4V4-77ON LINE L 111.5, e *39 FILL =7 FnsE� >�lV.4TE 4M � *Z& 32'N�N f /LL SLOP 45U I 3130 440 *Z5 ^31� #V qp *-fz 4zb .w 0007- s, EXC 414TILVV UNE r, r 1 leg &3iA2 e 4157 ft-15- �54 056 dS3% M.YS' ALE =3p� it'HILN UJr 5LDPE i9F1aROX 1MATE WO77I01Y OF conplz7TP F/L Lf-D 61AMN22 ® AP1°ROX/M.4TE Wz4- TTaV OF FY1 D DE"NS/TY TE5T- APPROXI*I LOWrION OF GOrJPW= MCP &ROLINg F/OURE AID, l al ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. TELEPHONE(619)447 -4747 NOV 6 2002 _ f - I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED FIVE —LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SITE 235 LA COSTA AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. JOSE LUIS ISLAS PROJECT NO. 02- 1147A2 OCTOBER 25, 2002 ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLM Y pil W3 N 193: • 1 ; . AW',., � A! IFr'E'vi: • a;_'ri'_?..4 =.: 71'.Lli ?Hr)Nrin!�,:d- i ;- -i.; RO BEit f CHAN, II E. October 25, 2002 Mr. Jose Luis Islas P.O. Box 232488 Encinitas, CA. 02 -23 -2488 Subject : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Five -Lot Residential Subdivision Site 235 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Islas: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed the geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential subdivision site on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216- 052 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. We are pleased to submit the accompanying geotechnical investigation report to present our findings, conclusions and recommendations relative to the development of the project site. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of the undersigned. The scope of our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis. No adverse geotechnical conditions were encountered which would prohibit the development of the site, provided that the recommendations presented herein are followed. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. ,Respectftdly bmitted, ALLIED E RTH TECHNOLOGY Robert n Register d Civil Engineer ered Geotechnical Engineer 2 i g " ! � � -24513 � i. 12i:1i05 1 \y Q Ezp 12j1:'J5 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION ............... ............................... DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT . ............................... SCOPE OF WORK ............. ............................... 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..... ............................... 2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............ ............................... 4 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting and Soil Description .............. 5 Tectonic Setting ......... ............................... 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Groundshaking ........... ............................... 6 Liquefaction Potential ... ............................... 6 Landslides ................. ............................... 6 GROUNDWATER ................ ............................... 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General.................... ............................... 7 Grading.................... ............................... 8 Foundation and Slab Design ........................... 9 Retaining Wall Design and Lateral Loads........... I I Slope Stability ........... ............................... 13 UBC Seismic Coefficients ............................. 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'nd) Backfill Over Utility Trenches ........................... 14 Private Road Pavement Section .............................. 14 Concrete Flatwork ......... ............................... 15 Surface Drainage and Maintenance ..................... 15 Grading and Foundation Plan Review .................. 16 LIMITATION AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ............. 17 Figure No. 1 — Site Location Map Figure No. 2 — Approximate Location of Exploratory Borings and Trenches Figure Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive — Trench or Boring Log Sheet Appendix I — General Grading and Earthwork Specifications Appendix It — Laboratory Tests ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022 -1932 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. TELEPHONE(619)447 -4747 October 25, 2002 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and conclusions of a geotechnical investigation conducted at the site of a proposed residential subdivision, located at 235 La Costa Avenue, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. Subject property is more specifically referred to as being Assessor's Parcel No. 216- 052 -27, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The location of the property is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Site Location Map ". DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT It is our understanding that subject property is to be subdivided into 5 residential lots. The existing residential strictures on the site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed residences to be constricted on these lots will be two stories in maximum height; of wood frame /stucco and slab -on -grade construction. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 2 235 La Costa Avenue SCOPE OF WORK ---- -- - - -- - - -- - --- - - - - -- The objectives of the investigation were to inspect and determine the subsurface soil conditions and certain physical, engineering properties of the soils beneath the site, and to evaluate any potential adverse geotechnical conditions that could affect the proposed project, in order that engineering recommendations could be presented relative to the safe and economical development of the site as presently proposed. In order to accomplish these objectives, a total of three exploratory borings and three exploratory trenches were excavated and inspected, and representative samples of the subsurface soils were collected for laboratory testing and analysis. The data derived from our field observations and the laboratory test results were reviewed and analyzed, and a summary of our preliminary findings, opinions and recommendations is presented in this report. FIELD INVESTIGATION --- - - - - -- ------------------------- It is noted that the property is currently used a s a greenhouse for commercial flowers, with the majority of the site inaccessible to large excavating equipment. The. initial field exploratory phase of our investigation was performed on October 4, 2002, and involved the excavation of three exploratory borings at locations inaccessible to a backhoe. These exploratory borings were drilled with a portable continuous flight auger. These exploratory borings were drilled to a depth of 10.0 feet below existing ground Project No. 02-1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 3 235 La Costa Avenue surface. On October 16, 2002, three exploratory trenches were excavated with a Case 580B backhoe equipped with a 24 -inch bucket at accessible locations. These exploratory trenches were excavated to depths varying from 3.5 to 14.0 feet below existing ground surface. The approximate location of the exploratory borings and trenches is shown on Figure No. 2, entitled, "Approximate Location of Exploratory Borings and Trenches ". The drilling and trenching operations were performed under the direction of our field personnel, and a continuous log of the soil types encountered in the exploratory borings and trenches was recorded at the time of excavation, and is shown on Figure Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, each entitled, "Boring Log Sheet" or "Trench Log Sheet ". The soils were visually and texturally classified by the field identification procedures set forth on the Unified Soil Classification Chart. In -situ density tests and representative samples were obtained at various depths in the exploratory borings and trenches. The in -situ densities of the soils encountered in the exploratory borings were determined with a Triggs penetrometer. LABORATORY TESTS The samples collected during our field investigation were subjected to various tests in the laboratory to evaluate their engineering characteristics. The tests were performed in accordance with current A.S.T.M. testing standards or other regulatory Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 4 235 La Costa Avenue agency testing procedures. A summary of the tests that were performed and the final test results are presented in Appendix II hereto. The tests that were performed included determinations of the maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents, as well as the expansion indices of the soils encountered. SITE DESCRIPTION Subject property is a pentagon- shaped property consisting of 1.97 acres, located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, east of Vulcan Avenue. The topography of the site may be described as relatively level, with drainage in a general northwesterly direction into La Costa Avenue. The site is currently being used as a green house for the growing of commercial flowers. An office trailer was situated in the front of the property. A two -story older residential structure was located along the east property line. All existing improvements are to be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The property is bounded on the north by La Costa Avenue, on the east by single- family residences, and on the south and west by agricultural nurseries. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 5 235 La Costa Avenue GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Geologic Setting and Soil Description According to the Geology Map of the San Diego Metropolitan Area published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the site is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits. These terrace deposits were encountered on the site in the form of light reddish brown silty fine sands, which are dense and cemented. The formation soils were overlain by a layer of residual soils on the order of I to 5 feet in thickness. These residual soils consist of dark brown silty sands, the upper portions of which are dry and loose. In the westerly portion of the property, undocumented fill soils were encountered, similar to those encountered in Trench No. I to a depth of 4.0 feet; and in Boring Nos. 1 and 2 to a depth of 2.0 feet. These undocumented fill soils appeared to have been generated locally, and consist of the same silty sands, and are generally dry and loose in consistency. Tectonic Setting No evidence of faulting was noted during our surface reconnaissance or in the exploratory trenches. A review of available geologic literature did not reveal any major faulting in the area. It should be noted that much of Southern California, including the City of San Diego area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which typically strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others are classified as Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 6 235 La Costa Avenue only potentially active according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. A review of available geologic maps indicate that the subject property is approximately 41.7 km (26.1 miles) southwest of the active Elsinore Fault Zone (Type A Fault), and approximately 6.6 km (4.1 miles) northeast of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Type B Fault). GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Groundshaking - The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is groundshaking as ------------------ a result of movement along one of the active fault zones mentioned above. Construction in accordance with the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code and requirements of the goveming jurisdiction should minimize potential structural damage due to seismic activity. Seismic soil coefficient in accordance with the current Unitbrrn Building Code were determined with the UBCSEIS Program and presented herein. Liquefaction Potential — In consideration of the competent natural soils underlying the site, and the lack of a permanent groundwater table near the ground surface, it is our opinion that soil liquefaction does not present a significant geotechnical hazard to the proposed site development. Landslides - Subject property is located on relatively level terrain and underlain by competent natural soils. A review of available geologic maps did not reveal any ancient Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 7 235 La Costa Avenue landslides in the vicinity. An inspection of subject and surrounding properties did not reveal any indications of land movement. Therefore, the potential for landslide on subject or adjacent properties is considered negligible. Other potential geologic hazards such as tsunamis and seiches should also be considered negligible or nonexistent. GROUNDWATER ` No groundwater was encountered in the exploratory borings or trenches to the maximum depth of exploration at 14.0 feet. No seeps or springs were observed on the site during our investigation. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General No adverse soil conditions were encountered which would prohibit the currently proposed development of the project site. 2. All of the soils encountered on the site are suitable for use as supporting materials for the proposed structures, provided that the recommendations contained herein are followed. 3. The soils encountered on the site possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 35). Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 8 235 La Costa Avenue 4. Undocumented fill soils encountered in the northwesterly portion of the property, and well as the upper portions of the residual soils encountered on the site are dry, loose and compressible, and are not considered to be capable of providing safe and reliable support to any proposed fills, structures or improvements. Grading 5. It is recommended that all earthwork be accomplished in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Encinitas, UBC Chapter A33, Appendix I attached hereto, entitled, "General Grading and Earthwork Specifications ", and recommendations as presented in this Section. 6. Where the recommendations of this Section of the report conflict with those of Appendix 1, this Section of the Report takes precedence. 7. Grading operation should commence with demolition of all existing improvements on the site and disposal of all debris offsite. 8. All undocumented fill soils, and loose residual soils that remain below finished grade should be removed. The bottom of the excavation should be inspected by our firm. The removed soils should then be properly moistened, and uniformly recompacted prior to the placement of additional fill soils. 9. All fill soils should be properly moistened, and uniformly compacted until Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 9 235 La Costa Avenue proposed grade elevations are reached. The layers of fill should not exceed 8 inches to allow for adequate bonding. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557. 10. In order to provide uniform settlement characteristics, it is recommended that the natural soils on the building pads be over - excavated to a depth of 3 feet, and uniformly recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. 11. Imported fill soils may be required for the development of the project. It is recommended that these fill soils possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index < 50), and should be approved by our firm at the borrow site prior to importation. Foundation and Slab Design 12. A safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,800 pounds per square foot may be used in the design and checking of continuous or spread foundations that are a minimum of 12 and 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respectively, and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single - family) or 18 inches (for two stories) into the competent natural or compacted fill soils. 13. The above safe allowable soil bearing value may be increased 300 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of depth or width, to a maximum of 3,000 pounds per square foot. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 10 235 La Costa Avenue 14. The above safe allowable soil bearing value may be further increased by one third when considering wind and/or seismic forces. 15. The settlement of foundations, when designed and loaded as outlined above, is within acceptable tolerance limits for residential structures of this type. 16. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with 2 #5 rebars; one rebar located near the top, and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be reinforced with a minimum of 2 #5 rebars, in both directions, placed at mid - height of footing.. 17. The concrete slab on grade should be 4 inches net in thickness, and reinforced with #3 rebars @ 24 inches on center in both directions, placed at mid - height of slab. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. In areas to be tiled or carpeted, a visqueen -type moisture barrier should be placed at grade and be overlain by one inch of protective sand cover. This moisture barrier should be heavily overlapped or sealed at splices. Please note that the foundation and slab reinforcement requirements are based on soil characteristics, and should be superceded by the requirements of the project architect.. 18. The settlement of foundations, when designed and loaded as outlined above, are Project No. 02- 1147A2 19. 20. Islas 10/25/02 Page 11 235 La Costa Avenue within acceptable tolerance limits for light residential buildings of this type. It is recommended that our fine inspect the foundation trench excavations for the proposed structures to ensure proper embedment into properly compacted fill soils. It is recommended that foundation for the proposed structures be setback at least 7 feet from the top of slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge of the foundation along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. Retaining Wall Design and Lateral Loads 21 22. -- ----- - - - --- - - - - -- ---- ------ ---- - - - - -- Retaining wall foundations should conform to the recommendations under Item Nos. 12 to 20 above. Active earth pressures against retaining walls will depend upon the slope of the backfill and the degree of wall restraint. Unrestrained retaining walls free to rotate at the top and with level backfill should be designed to resist an active earth pressure equivalent to that generated by fluid weights as shown below Equivalent Backfill Slope Fluid Wt. (Horizontal : vertical) (Pe;) Level 35 2 : 1 48 1 %z :1 56 Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 12 235 La Costa Avenue For rigid, absolutely restrained retaining walls, an uniform horizontal pressure of 7H (where H is the height of the retaining wall in feet) should be applied in addition to the active pressure recommended above. 23. The above active earth pressures are provided assuming that soils having low expansion potential (Expansion Index < 50) are placed behind the retaining walls. All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. 24. To resist lateral loads, it is recommended that the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 280 pcf be used for footings or shear keys poured neat against competent undisturbed natural soils. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for passive resistance. This value assumes that the horizontal distance of the soil mass extends at least 10 feet or three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. 25. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 is recommended. 26. Retaining walls should be properly waterproofed and provided with gravel and perforated pipe drain systems to reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the retaining walls. The gravel portion of the drain should extend at least two -third the height of the retaining wall and should be enclosed in a filter Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 13 235 La Costa Avenue fabric envelope. 27. The on -site soil conditions are such that standard cantilever retaining wall designs, such as those presented in the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings or those issued by the City of Encinitas Building Department, may be used, where appropriate. Slope Stability - - - - - -- - ---- - - - - -- 28. Minor cut and fill slopes under 10 feet in maximum height are proposed for the development of the site. It is our conclusion that both cut and fill slopes will be safe against massive slope failure up to the proposed heights when constructed at a slope ratio of 2 : 1 (horizontal : vertical) or flatter. 29. The above conclusions assume that surface water is not permitted to flow over the top of slopes, and that all slopes are properly planted and irrigated in accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas. Seismic Soil Coefficients ----- -- -- - - -- - - - -- ---------------- 30. Seismic soil coefficients were determined in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, and presented on the following page : Project No. 02- 1147A2 Parameters Seismic Zone Factor 4, Z Soil Profile Type Near Source Factor, Na Near Source Factor, Nv Seismic Coefficient, Ca Seismic Coefficient, Cv Seismic Source Type Islas 10/25/02 Page 14 235 La Costa Avenue Value Reference 0.40 Table 16 -1 Sc Table 16 -J 1.0 Table 16 -S 1.1 Table 16 -T 0.40 Table 16 -Q 0.64 Table 16 -R B Backfill Over Utility Trenches ---- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- --- - -- ------ - - - - -- 31. It is recommended that backfill soils placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation to at lest 90 percent of maximum dry density. Private Road Pavement Section 32. The PCC private road serving the subdivision should be 5 %z inches net in thickness, and be reinforced with 6x6- W2.9xW2.9 (6x6 -6x6) welded wire fabric, placed at mid - height of concrete slab. Control joints at a minimum of 10 -foot intervals should be provided. 33. The upper 8 inches of the subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. 34. If a flexural structural pavement is proposed for the private road, it is recommended that a preliminary structural section of 3 inches of asphaltic Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 15 235 La Costa Avenue concrete over 4 inches of Class II base material be used for design purposes. The upper 8 inches of the subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. 35. It is further recommended that the actual flexural pavement section design be used on actual "R" -value tests performed on the subgrade soils upon completion of rough grading. Concrete Flatwork 36. It is recommended that all concrete flatwork, such as walkways, be 3 %x inches in Thickness. Four inches of sand or rock base material should be provided. One inch expansion joints at 15 -foot intervals and '/4 inch weakened plane contractor joints at 5 -foot intervals should also be provided. Surface Drainage and Maintenance --- -- - - -- - ---- - - -- -- - ---- ------------------ 37. Adequate drainage control and proper maintenance of all drainage facilities are imperative to minimize infiltration of surface water into the underlying soil mass in order to reduce settlement potential and to minimize erosion. The building areas should have drainage swales which direct storm and excess irrigation water away from the structures and into the street gutters or other drainage facilities. No surface runoff should be allowed to pond adjacent to the foundations. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 16 235 La Costa Avenue Grading and Foundation Plans Review 38. It is recommended that our firm review the final grading and foundation plans for the proposed site development to verify their compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter A33, as required by the State of California. Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 17 235 La Costa Avenue LIMITATION AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The preliminary findings and recommendations contained in this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based on the assumption that the soil conditions beneath the entire site do not deviate substantially from those disclosed in the exploratory borings and trenches. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during grading, or if the scope of the project differs from that planned at the present time, our firm should be notified in order that supplemental recommendations can be presented, if necessary. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations presented herein are brought to the attention of the Project Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. Furthermore, the Owner, or his representative, will also be responsible for taking the necessary measures to ensure that the Contractor and subcontractors properly carry out the recommendations in the field. 3. Professional opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based partly on our evaluation and analysis of the technical information gathered during the study, partly on the currently available information regarding the proposed project, and partly on our previous experience with similar soil conditions and Project No. 02- 1147A2 Islas 10/25/02 Page 18 235 La Costa Avenue projects of similar scope. Our study has been performed in accordance with the minimum standards of care exercised by other professional geotechnical consultants currently practicing in the same locality. We do not, however, guarantee the performance of the proposed project in any respect, and no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, are made or intended in connection with the study performed by our firm. 4. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property could occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or due to man made actions on the subject and /or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review by our firm and should not be relied upon after a period of two years. Figure Nos. I to 8, inclusive, and Appendices I and II are parts of this report. t s, Fonto, � Z � � � tttJJJilllJJJ� `� B 32 ' i S BAIKUITD 33 11 � LA COS t t � � �Ya. u n •�. � 1 44F l O PROJECT NO. : 02 -1147A2 FIGURE N0.1 TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH #1 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) LEGEND (1 — Indicates representative sample * — Indicates in -situ density test Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 3 0 1 2 3 4 Brown, very dry, loose (UNDOCUMENTED FILL) Dry 0 Damp SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 4.5* 106.4* 85.8 %* Dark brown, moist, loose SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 5 (residual soil) 6 =, )medium dense 7.5* 112.1 * 90.4 %* 7 8 9 10 Light reddish brown, moist, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) I1 medium dense, cemented 12 13 14 BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) LEGEND (1 — Indicates representative sample * — Indicates in -situ density test Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 3 TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH NO. 2 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 4 0 I Dark brown, dry, slightly dense (residual soils) 'l SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 2 Reddish brown, moist, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) medium dense 3 4 5 Light reddish brown, moist, dense 6 7 8 BOTTOM OF TRENCH (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 4 TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH NO.3 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF TRENCH (Terminated after Hitting sewer lateral) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 5 0 Dark brown, dry, slightly SILTY FINE SAND dense (SM) 1 (residual soils) 2 Light brown, moist, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) medium dense 3 Hit 4" dia. sewer lateral BOTTOM OF TRENCH (Terminated after Hitting sewer lateral) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 5 BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO. 1 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) LEGEND Indicates representative sample Indicates blowcount/ I 0cm/Triggs penetrometer Granular 0 Very loose 0 I 2 Brown/medium brown, moist, loose (Undocumented fill) SILTY FINE SAND (SM) Medium dense 31 Dense 51 Dark brown, most, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) Hard 3 loose (residual soils) 4 5 Reddish brown, moist, medium SILTY FINE SAND (SM) dense (Terrace deposits) 6 22* 7 20* 8 19* 9 dense 30* 10 65* BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) LEGEND Indicates representative sample Indicates blowcount/ I 0cm/Triggs penetrometer Granular 0 Very loose 5 Loose 11 Medium dense 31 Dense 51 Very dense Cohesive 0 Very soft 2 Soft 5 Medium dense 9 Stiff 16 Very stiff 31 Hard Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure N. 6 BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO. 2 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02-1147A2 Figure No. 7 I 0 1 2 Dark brown, dry, loose (undocumented fill soils) SILTY FINE SAND (SM) Dark brown, moist, loose SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 3 (residual soil) 4 20* 5 Light brown/light reddish brown, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) 6 moist, medium dense 25* (terrace deposits) 7 30* 8 35* 9 50* 10 BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02-1147A2 Figure No. 7 BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO. 3 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE i i 0 Light brown/light reddish brown SILTY FINE SAND cemented, dry, medium dense (SM) 1 (terrace deposits) 2 Dense 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BOTTOM OF BORING (No refusal) Project No. 02- 1147A2 Figure No. 8 APPENDIX I GENERAL GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 These recommended grading and earthwork specifications are intended to be a part of and to supplement the Geotechnical Report(s). In the event of a conflict, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report(s) will supersede these specifications. Observations during the course of earthwork operations may result in additional, new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications and /or the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report(s). 1.2 The Owner or his authorized representative shall procure the services of a qualified Geotechnical Consulting Firm, hereafter to be referred to as the " Geotechnical Consultant ". (often the same entity that produced the Geotechnical Report(s). 1.3 The Geotechnical Consultant shall be given a schedule of work by the Earthwork Contractor for the subject project, so as to be able to perform required observations, testing and mapping of work in progress in a timely manner. 1.4 The work herein includes all activities from clearing and grubbing through fine grading. Included are trenching, excavation, backfilling, compacting and grading. All work shall be as shown on the approved project drawings. 1.5 The Geotechnical Consultant or a qualified representative shall be project on site as required, to observe, map and document the subsurface exposures so as to verify the geotechnical desisign suppositions. In the event that observed conditions are found to be significantly different from the interpreted conditions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the Owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to suit the observed conditions and notify the agencies) having jurisdiction, where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, record elevations or tested include cleared natural ground for receiving fill or structures, "remedial removal" areas, key bottoms and benches. 1.6 The guidelines contained herein and any standard details attached herewith represent this firm's recommendations for the grading and all assocaited operations on the subject project. These guidelines shall be considered to be a part APPENDIX I Page 2 of these Specifications. 1.7 If interpretation of these guidelines or standard details result in a dispute(s), the Geotechnical Consultant shall conclude the appropriate interpretation. 1.8 The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the processing of subgrade and fill materials and perform the required compaction testing. The test results shall be provided to the Owner and the Contractor and if so required, to the agenc(ies) having Jurisdication. 1.9 The Geotechnical Consultant shall notprovide "supervision" or any "direction" of work in progress to the Earthwork Contractor, or to any of the Contractor's employees or to any of the Contractor's agents. 1.10 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture - conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 29 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plans(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper APPENDIX I Page 3 moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that cnstruction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled ----- -- - --- -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing : Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contai more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill shall contain more than 5 precent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the state of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may const }tute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and /or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. Materials used for fill, either imported or on -site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Article 9 and 10; 40CFR, and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to APPENDIX I Page 4 resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 2.2 Any asphaltic pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off - site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 2.3 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immeidately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition. 2.4 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.5 Overexcavation : In addition to removals and overexcavations recomended in the approved geotechnical report (s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic - rich highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.6 Benching : Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 1 (horizontal . vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5 : 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. APPENDIX I Page 5 2.7 Evaluation /Acceptance of Fill Areas : All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, .and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and /or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. the contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General : Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strenght shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize . Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is competely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction - - -- --- - - - --- - -- ---- - --- -- 4.1 Fill Layer : Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per. Section 3.0) in near- APPENDIX I Page 6 horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning : Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and /or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557- 91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill : After each layer has been moisture - conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557 -91). Compaction equipmnt shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes : In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM Test Method D1557 -91. 4.5 Compaction Testing : Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill /bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testiing : Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and /or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In 22 042' 5j; E II U EXISTING HOUSE SCALE 1'. 30� u IJ PARCF�-•l. 0 T# 2'; II11 �•t •. II 1 11 • II 3 � ,•_i II in e t II ��► i °r Il w 13 t II > z PAKEL I a II T# I IJ o �1 r r� II !I II N r , Ln 3 QUF o� 2 .i Iw PROPOSED'. STREET PARCEL* 2 ':• t•1 r APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY ....: PROPOSED'. STREET PARCEL* 2 ':• t•1 r APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY ................. . PARCEL #4 `Q T1 PARCELx3 2 0 1 1 <V N rn N 0 CD co LZ :LEND 8 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING HAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH QUF - UNDOCUMENTED FILL OTI : TERRACE DEPOSITS BORINGS AND TRENCHES PROJECT NO. 02 _1147A2 FIGURE NO. 2 1 ................. . PARCEL #4 `Q T1 PARCELx3 2 0 1 1 <V N rn N 0 CD co LZ :LEND 8 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING HAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH QUF - UNDOCUMENTED FILL OTI : TERRACE DEPOSITS BORINGS AND TRENCHES PROJECT NO. 02 _1147A2 FIGURE NO. 2 APPENDIX I Page 7 addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations : The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechincal report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and /or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor /civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over - excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill- over -cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slopes shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. APPENDIX I Page 8 7.0 Trench Backfill - - - --- --- -- --- 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal /OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. PROJECT PLAN 1TO1 _ _ g =___ - FILL SLOPE MINIMUM FROM TOE OF -- • SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND REMOVE UNSUITABLE -_ -� c TYPICAL MATERIAL NATURAL _ - BENCH -71-BENCH GROUND = =M N = HEIGHT 15' MIN, -_{ 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH(KEY) OMPACT _ FILL -OVER CUT -SLOPE 4' TYPICAL NATURAL GROUND _ _- = IBEWA BENCH HEIGHT REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL LOWEST BENCH 27MIN.KEY DEPTH CUT FACE SHALL BE I CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO CUT FACE TO BE • GEOLOGIC CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT j� CONDRTIONS QUATE CUT -OVER I � FILL -SLOPE NATURAL / i� GROUND FOR SUBDRAINS SEE _ == STANDARD DETALL C -' DESIGN SLOPE REMOVE -_= UNSUITABLE MATERIAL PROJECT PLAN I TO 1 �_ -= I MINIMUM FROM TOE OF , 4 TYPICAL SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND - = �= ' BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN MPACr_ BENCH BENCH SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR HEIGHT THAN 5:1 MAXIMUM BENCH HEIGH SHALL BE 4 FEET MAXIMUM FILL I MIN -T �- 15'MIN. -- WIDTH SHALL BEG FEET. 2 . LOW EST KEY DEPTH BENCH(KEY) KEYING AND BENCHING ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY DETAIL - A IFINISH GRADE ____ =___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - KEY f 1' DEPTH r L OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NON•PERFORATED PIPE 100' MAX. O.C.HORIZONTALLY. 30' MAX.O.C.VERTICALLY 15' MIN. 2 MIN. —KEY WIDTH 0 k PAM it moo I A A 15' ® y 12 "MIN. OVERLAP FROM __ — THE TOP HOG RING TIED ------ EVERY EVER \ FEET MIRAF1 140 OR = APPROVED FOS/TNE 5E4L �2 _ EQUIVALENT SHOULD BE 6 MIN. PROVIDED AT a ' COVER THE JOINT OUTLET PIPE (NON–PERFORATED) CAL.7RANS CLASS 1 �q "MIN. BEDDING PERMEABLE OR w 2 ROC (3 Cu FT/FT)WRAPPED IN T.CONNECTION FILTER FABRIC FOR COLECT06 PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION — SUBDRAIN COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN OR,UNLESS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. OUTLET PIPE SHALL BE NON _PERFORATED PIPE.THE SUBDRAIN PIPE SHALL HAVF, AT LEASTB PERFORATIONS UNIFORMLY SPACED PER FOOT - PERFORATION SHALL BE 1 4 "701 2 "IF DRILLED HOLES ARE USED.ALL SUBDRAIN PIPES SHALL HAVE A GRADIENT AT LEAST 2 %TOWARDS THE OUTLET SUBDRAIN 40 PIPE SDR 23.5,sACHEEDDUD 10 POLYVINYL 3 CHLORIDE P AS11CT ( PVC) PIPE ALL OUTLET PIPE SHALL BE PLACED IN A TRENCH NO WIDER THAN TWICE THE SUBDRAIN PIPE, PIPE SHALL BE IN SOIL OF SE > 30 JETTED OR FLDODED IN PLACE EXCEPT FOR THE OUTSIDE 5 FEET WHICH SHALL BE NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL BUTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL f SUBDRAINS ALLIED EARTH • TECHNOLOGY DETAIL — D 4 Project No. 02- 1147A2 2. Islas 10/25/02 235 La Costa Avenue APPENDIX ❑ Laboratory Test Results The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils encountered, as determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A, are presented as follows : Maximum Optimum Moisture Soil Dry Density Content Description (lbs. /cuff) (% Dry Wt.) Trench 41 Brown silty 123.0 10.3 Sample #1 fine sand (SM) Depth 2.0' Trench #2 Dark brown 124.0 10.0 Sample #1 silty fine sand (SM) Depth 1.0' The Expansion Index of the most clayey soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 18 -2. The results of the test are presented as follows : Sample T2 -B 1 @ 2.0' Condition Remolded Initial M.C. ( %) 10.8 Initial Density (pef) 110.8 Final M.C. ( %) 23.4 Normal Stress (psf) 144.7 Expansion Index 35* * Considered to possess LOW expansion potential