2010-10640 GLine: 4 L, 0� � 909j
February 16, 2012
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
PLSA 1819
RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR GRADING
PERMIT NO. 10640 -G. LOCATED ON HAYDN DRIVE
/7(A
The Grading Plan permit number 10640 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the
approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading
plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage
system.
All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices
as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11 were
constructed and are opgygpyjnal, together yrith t{i94'+E;t{uir. (nance covenant(s).
Engineer of
G.
r (�� No 73620 T�
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact -iWh
will take place only after the above is signed and stamped al
of the ultimate responsib /J
Engineering Inspector
Wspector's signature hereon and
not relieve the Engineer of Record
Date
_ City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encini(as, California 92024-3633
Tel 760 -633 -2600 • Faz 760.943 -2226
� y
TDD 760- 633 -2700 • wimxi.encinitas.ca.us
Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy
TO: Subdivision Engineering
Public Service Counter
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection
RE: Building Permit No. /0
RrrJc -f /'fl"
Name of Project GpODkil -ii
Name of Developer 7-a5e R0U-!fl (� (A) C-IJ
I have inspected the site at / 76/ #AyoN bjEWE
address ... number street name suffix
and have determined that finish (precise) grading
(lo! no.) (bldg. na.)
and any other related site improvements are substantially complete
and that occupancy is merited.
Signal re of Engineering Inspector Date
Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate Date
Reference: Engineering Permit No. /000 G
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, if completed. Thank you.
Fire
Building
Planning
Engineering
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
cit1i Qf Capitol Improvement Projects
JJ J District Support Services
Feld Operations
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL &rz'- �`` P
TO: Subdivision Engineering ,yam
Public service Counter
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection !�, /
RE: Grading �Permit No. /L !v �� s
Name of Project 17(o1 Q
Name of Developer .7 -SE �QCyI .raW , ) G D e�I J
Site Location __L7 (o rl �� y DN : bielr le-
.!address :: _number . [reet.name. . suFfrxl (IdtJ
:•.::', 'J have-inspected the gra ' g;at thesubjectsU and have verified certificatlansof the pad by
the Engineer of Work, IvAS, v f R2 S etl r %:« ,2 /(' and certification of sot,. *'
compaction by the soil Engineer, J:am hereby -
. ..:.satisfied- -that the rough grading has.been comWeted.In ;:accortlanceawitdr the:approvetll = *•-;: x,_r�y
•'.-plans,: and - specifications, Chapter, 23:2r1-of -the ;MLmitapal7Code antd ,.2hy-other'- 8pplicable'":-: • ";-�t�
engineering standards and specific project requiremegts. ,:-•:...r.,:;: °.: ,; trs•;t • tc.. T.;•,, ,;.
eased onmy observation and the certifications,.1 ke no.exception to the :issuance .of , a: -, a:.>
building permit for the lot(s) as noted or. Phase N , if any, but only in so far as grading is
concerned. However, this release is not intended Ito 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 Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further
advised so that l can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and
Irrigation) has been completed In accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
7 -2� -!L
(Signature of Engineering7R5ftector) (Date!
(Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date! —
Reference; Building Permit No. & —�.
Special Not.. 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 paperwml4
when completed Office staff will handle the apprnpiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with
Buil ding Inspection. Thank you.
ISG /fieid1docl
TEL 760.633 -260D I FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 9202¢3633 Too 760-633 -2700 li� recycled paper
1Z
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
2121 Monti el Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839.7302 • Fax: (760) 480 -7477 • www.desoVroupco.com
Dale: August 18, 2011
To: Jose Rocha and Gwen Goodkin
1224 Summit Drive
Cardiff. CA 92077
Re: Proposed New Residence to be Located at 1761 Haydn Drive, Encinitas, California
Subject: Compaction Report - Backfill and East Pad
References:
1. "Limited Geolechnical Investigation and Evaluation, Residence Located at 1761 Haydn Avenue,
Cardiff California ". Prepared by Engineering Design Group, EDG Project No.104733 -1, dated
August 4, 2010-
2. "Compaction Report". Prepared by Engineering Design Group, EDG Project No.104733 -1, dated
February 25, 2011.
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization we have provided limited earthwork observation and
compaction testing services during the wall backfill at the above referenced site. The results of our quality
control and compaction testing operations are summarized below. The proposed improvements consist of
the construction of a proposed new single family residence founded on a combination of basement slab on
grade floors, upper level slab on grade floors, and raise wood floors with a crawl space.
GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading operations described herein consist of the placement of fill soils in the area of backfill for the
basement walls and filling to grade to the east of the basement structure. Basement excavations extend to
cut competent sandstone material (see Reference No. 2). Onsite soils were utilized as backfill for the
basement walls. Backfill at the subject site was conducted during May thru July 2011.
Prior to recompaction soils were cleaned of vegetation and other debris and moisture conditioned. Onsite soil
consisted of slightly silly sands. And based upon our visual observation onsite soils possess potential for
expansion in the low range. Soil was moisture conditioned with a water hose and compacted by tracking and
whackers.
Pape 1
EDG 104733.1
N.%20101ROCHA - COHN, 104733 -1 \REPORTS, LETTERSICOMPACTION RPT - BACKFILL 8- 24- 11.wpd
t10V
q 2011 L
CI�� �
FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
Limited field density tests were performed in accordance with D2922 (Nuclear Gauge Method). Our test
results indicate that, in the locations tested, soils have been compacted to at least 90% relative compaction,
as noted, and determined by ASTM D1557, (Procedure A). The reported lest results are representative of
the soil conditions at the locations tested. Our observation and field density testing methods are in
accordance with normally accepted procedures. The accuracy of the relative compaction values are subject
to the precision limitations of the ASTM test methods. The accuracy of the maximum dry density
determination (ASTM D1557) is discussed in the 2003 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Volume
04.08, entitled, Soil and Rock: Building Stones. Variations of relative compaction values should be expected,
laterally and vertically, from actual test locations.
TESTING SUMMARY
In general, it is our opinion, based on the placement procedure and the test data collected, the fill soils tested,
at the locations tested, were compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-
91, Procedure A).
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to
contact us. We (rope the report provides you with the necessary information to continue with the development
of the project.
Sincerely,
y. cell .I:121aI.[H10WICI:[CIG 6mg
No. 65122
Exp. 9/30!11
S
Erin Rist
California RCE# 85122
Attachments:
1) Table 1 8 2: "Laboratory and Field Test Results'
2) Figure 1: "Approximate Location of Compaction Tests"
Page 2
EOG 104733-1
N:12 (MOCHA- COHN, 104733.1%REPORTS, LETTERS \COMPACTION RPT - BACKFILL 6- 24- 11.wpd
LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS
TABLE NO. 1
Laboratory Test Results
SOIL
SOIL TYPE
MAXIMUM DENSITY
OPTIMUM
U.S.C.S.
TYPE
(PCF)
MOISTURE
CLASSIFICATION
W
(�io)
1
ONSITE - Brown silty
124.7
8%
SW -SM
sand
2
ONSITE - Light brown
115.9
14%
SW -SM
sandstone
Page 3
EOG 104733 -1
N:120101ROCHA - COHN. 104733- 11REPORTS. LETTERSSCOMPACTION RPT - BACKFILL B- 24- 11.wpd
TABLE NO. 2
Field Test Results
TEST
NO.
DATE
FINISH
GRADE
MINUS
SOIL
TYPE
( #)
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
FIELD
MOISTURE
(°/,)
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
(^/,)
1
5 -2 -11
3'
1
116.2
10.3
93%
2
5 -2 -11
3'
1
118.0
10.2
95%
3
5 -2 -11
5'
1
112.2
12.9
90%
4
5-2-11
4'
1
116.9
12.6
94%
5
5 -3 -11
5'
1
114.3
11.8
92%
6
5 -3 -11
8'
2
110.1
16.3
95%
7
5 -3 -11
4'
1
112.6
10.2
90%
8
5 -3 -11
2'
2
111.5
9.1
96%
9
54-11
3'
1
118.1
10.7
95%
10
5-4 -11
3'
1
115.9
11.5
93%
11
5-4 -11
2'
1
114.1
15.3
91%
12
5-4 -11
1'
1
120.8
7.7
97%
13
5-4 -11
3'
1
117.2
10.7
94%
14
6 -1 -11
4'
1
114.3
13.2
92%
15
6 -1 -11
2'
1
112.7
8.2
90%
16
6 -2 -11
FG
1
116.2
12.4
93%
17
6 -2 -11
FG
1
113.5
12.3
91%
18
6 -24 -11
FG
1
119.5
10.8
96%
19
6 -24 -11
1'
1
113.8
9.4
91%
20
6 -24 -11
1'
2
105.8
12.3
91%
21
6 -24 -11
1'
2
111.6
11.5
96%
22
7 -19 -11
FG
1
114.6
10.5
92%
23
7 -19 -11
FG
1
115.8
10.8
93%
24
7 -19 -11
FG
1
115.3
7.1
92%
Page 4
EDG 104733 -1
N:120101ROCHA - COHN. 104733- 11REPORTS. LETTERS \COMPACTION RPT - BACKFILL B- 24- 11.wpd
Approximate Location of Compaction Tests
A «e Y
y ALL
f
tY
35
i n f t
It
HAYDN DQtve
Not to Scale
I
•p
I
I
x
A
PROJECT NAME Rocha / Goodkin
PROJECT ADDRESS 1761 Haydn Drive, Cardiff. CA 92007
EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
104733 -1 Phone: 2121 f nbel Road, S an Marc Marcos. C 92069 ) 1
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
City Of Coplid Improvement Projects
EYlC tYIZtCZS District Support Services
Field Operations
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
TO: Subdivision Engineering Alo &oshn /A/6.
Public service Counter
O. k-
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection
RE: Grading Permit No�7 J_ &aqo G1
Name of Project 5-F 9 -- k 4q oA) J iz-(v6
Name of Developer _ f OSE —elp 64, / __rJ G cUnkA]
Site location _ ]
(address ._number street name ._suffix) tloU (bldg)
The proposed grading of the subject site Will Tequire construction of retaining
walls that are also building walls. The inspection of the site retaining Walls is to be
done by the Field Operations Division of the :Engineering Services Department.
However, the inspection of the building retaining walls is to be done by the
Building Inspection Division of the Community Development Department.
Therefore, issuance of the necessary Building Permit is requested in order to
facilitate the completion of rough grading.
NO INSPECTIONS BEYOND FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION ARE TO BE
PROVIDED BY BUILDING INSPECTION UNTIL A NOTICE OF ROUGH
GRADING APPROVAL, WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND SIGNED BY THE
ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, IS RECEIVED. FRAMING IS PROHBITED.
6
Z_ - -7-& _- r
loo t2l -
!Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (date)
Reference: Building Permit No. - --
Special Note: Submit this farm, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering
technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a full rough grading approval and submit that paperwork, when
completed. Office staff will handle the approptate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building
Inspection. Thank you.
JSG /field1doc 1
TEL 760433 -2600 1 FAX 7601633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, Cahfomu 92024 -3633 TDD 760433 -2700 (:� recycled paper
Subject: groperty Line Fence Authorization
To Whom 11 May Concern:
I am in the f rocess of building my new home at 1761 Haydn Avenue in Cardiff by the Sea The
contractor h expressed to me that he will need to periodically remove sections of the property
line fences to perform his work. I am requesting permission to allow them to alter or remove
these sectior s as needed through the construction process. Your authorization would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you
Jose G. lJoci Date
ignature Date
F� ill y
Print Name
1 % les-��!ns4-- �'
� CA 7 p1 -00
PASCO LARET SUITER
& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING + LANG SURVEYING
July 25, 2011
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Engineer's Pad Certification
For Grading Permit No. 10640 -G
UWAMUE
Pursuant to Section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby
submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced project. As the Engineer
of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for this project has been
completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of
Encinitas, Codes and Standards.
23.24.3 10 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and
shown on the approved grading plan:
Pad Elevation Pad Elevation
Location Per Plan (9" below FF) Per Field Measurement
Lower Level Pad 125.83' 125.87' (average)
23.24.3 10 (B) 1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices
and/or retaining walls have been field verified and are in
substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
23.24.3 10 (B)5, The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been
field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject
grading plan.
23.24.3 10 (B)6. The construction of positive building and pad drainage has been
field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject
grading plan.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the information listed above.
Sine 1,
amCf. Mac*
Project Engineer
L No. 7362 F ^'
\�s ExPl s}I
OF
535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaengineering.com
am.,
PASCO LARET SUITER
& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL FNGINLEWNG . LAND FANNING . LAND SLIRVLYINI]
February 18, 2011
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
PLSA1819
Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit No. 10640 -G
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby
submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced project, as the Surveyor
of Record for the subject property. I hereby state that the rough grading for the portion of
this project listed below has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and
requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards.
23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown
on the approved grading plan:
Pad Elevation Pad Elevation
Location Per Plan Per Field Measurement
Basement Pad 115.78' 115.8'avg.
23.24.310(B)1 Engineered drainage devices and/or retaining walls have not been
constructed at this time.
If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Joseph Yuhas, PLS 5211
Principal Land Surveyor
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc.
535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858159.8212 1 fx 858.259,4812 1 plaaengineering.con,
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
PROJECT NAME:
STREET LOCATION:
CONTRACTOR:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PERMIT NUMBER:
CEL,EPHONE :
/c.304n,- IJeC -CoN SEAT da -Tive /rtyrrs ��vsc�,ss�
AAle
GL s
Glebe OF 5 //4ES5 /S 70 Cu% 007- 20
S i�uLDr D A5r7hFi/T 1/ S
v.v 7y o k /N^ Litz/ aK- Sf /cat/ �JrZ E2C
/fLb /!I -5&"E & -Vpo2 F72nm DIw 81ySt�,t�%
^107- H L L R pF s4Io24 n,(, A,,q
1/ S,T G�, j /� /CFCan(rYyt�DvlTlodl f�la4E�jYrC -31T �v�¢L
4I/- L/ V�enc «ss w ; lTf °/ s /nos o,^
Y Iron Looks L,tE AFT
�-aTW AC5 - ShC" rS Coo• Cr F�
Z 7 C,/I,*pb-e .577LL AA 7- cU/rwc P�4c =! on! -NP aF
T1CrhLS - ,S As
27/-c7 11 8omn F-Lta - 577[- 6clt -,C- c i+aw -� D,,T 6F; (R./ArLW,
Q � 3' n iR W Z- 1 � / CO lr •v 7�72t� AT t Cc� 2ycZL
OF 1jASEmt�i 4Nt7r3 fL lu/Z� %7XinNly . ENG. 17E�(./J
C an /� �rLtJ . u/.tw/rS TraE flvC� fiu.� 5/ S
- r alm4i S Syr &qcr 7wucc,
F7u-,=n w /rN /,2T odew.- Aj cvo 60,.&r- rA-+L
r e
if nl-A f15 A S A-Fir m SUdof4- tzl-
olli
-IR Al S 11 /Vo "P IEXU 7U >7-Ve yrce Crh
Fz,re it Rf*%/,+rkyJ Su"Agsn-r) xjs4 haul. or-r 4L17EA
2 2 l i (iZ r,V� n �0 L tom So S fCppoci- onof pa C C-e-
S, (atdSt" Coti,rRdL_
COr,D,1�JUn2 RvvL..1' GQ,�, ISSur�.
5 12 1 � �r t �1TDnr �2 Lt RtL yR->,.�, c "at5
GW- fl vj 5 -�. m-xx3S S rua I� .
ON LO ThoiN t,j et-LL S A-&t- 'rj l +hc,4 Carl b( 6e -4PW
A t✓d Coxr-, ILR( -TVg- L tv 'V u.4c
bN C, kYJ A,L LVI-nl -t0 e
CZ 3 -k-1' H�I�I Q�-T
aA- Atuo T
F�d� I �tT Ln+v I S !�PECS
m14429
l.v, iz-1
n,L-,g vivL,
Av� 79-1 C o IC . -4-0
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STREET LOCATION:
CONTRACTOR:
71,'1111 4tic 7)-/E o,-
-7QE //ll
7 /9q S En L
L c7[rt71oN iN
L/ " 4a6& -71 L i
ACTIVITY REPORT
;u 5/» Li
;L50
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PERMIT NUMBER:
CEL.EPHONE:
1745T- wtiLA -S LuHtFX E
,L n
--7 C
m ItOC /?r .S/377E
/ iU-�I- 6K- At t- uc`- vie /T (K f
AS ot4ckv 45 vvEZC Cy,O�.,o cAL
��1S[ I
ST7u- A
Q/ c Sfx -35
5, z�i� ;�f „49
rr L< 6a-
(1 /1.)JL'vn6u7s
er ciUY f C'- ,¢[hJrN [ 12 L -7tti
14
i 4rr _SNOWS <iti �✓ Ir 7�i r� �wRi�
92F / 3'L !�, E /G A L S 6 X}Xr �Z.� li'(P
/3y.g ("q frc�[4in1Y1ifwSE- Pinrt� C[nt A, (L ZvY�
s 5 iE, � /4Sc� LET
04-1� 421d 1 Lt /1-4c1 -/ 0 3i&d Ptol; r mer -
- NrA)L/ Si ftik' AT
3yy. L /arc 7hE y,wj) -5c--Pc rtt-� �w, lLr�
r 2 TU So-1 L
712-Slit Vi rm-n 5iTE Cv/vpr7mo1,1g I" =r r7.,L uLN L,h�rNv �2h3sky
ui k CET�L /
1Aj YJtz7t7o 8[nP S . grW E CctAEerxN Nn-ncC 5 / 1f Ar S
67F- 7- S FV4 S "C-ON .
r,2I21 ri /r2 & --T B4( 1+7U w 1�),4 Co"5T-. srE�
Iry iY iC. Q t2 �R.�� - Lt N E EKO (,47 A! 60 6 94,ho E KRs m
C om t Dower . /9Wtaq /n/ Fw -o,.17of w rrLC 5 wp�oES 2 °�
So F00/7A16 r),L" (3c ouG 7a �(,�lE Gc�clC71/Tiots dO
/LCW7 JAtlJJW /tlx?wT 3 �
0 N J Fx2 7>2f97 N 4-7,4e p t� e10 INS SK�wA1
-(b S iEE /r(L lAI) C'95
'N t3
/ /LC> //z Ai102o4U lb" Pt7W 'p., c"-6 ftAiO & "•X!v" Cu/LES Fb2/Y /s
v ExKN 51406- d Tut r- 6toac Swttc Go i b " o,.l
r
m14429
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
PROJECT NAME:
STREET LOCATION:
CONTRACTOR:
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PERMIT NUMBER:
TELEPHONE:
/k /Lxzp_f Slot . A-T_ If- S7 34 /as 10-OC Z7n/v EUI4-7
m x Cv� - Ojv;cT u-SWnt,�5_
O r 77L / W 6 67a ti/-17- 61F _
/ Al �i7V y E �
/h¢11 SM ,5[.a9ZE.
Z - /o -rZ Sou ALo14(, '`p " C � ,Z6 oN Al n) /ev pe-72
L r ru stY1 �t i42f7s At s' /n/ srJC� + �hy a__ J.[3
AJ
qw)7 5 7a imA Sc., ,1L 3 Z7 54n
yIMa lfvv
ii2o 3 (k .
2 lZ /m,J 56""l -rte P(.TUTko. 1' s:
b gia . 7)-(e- rnrtiro4 7_1e4r
3- - IL A bL 7rrn5 ,4 u E Alow
iZ
3 2;IIZ A3- &.,LTS 1C-Lqub?2 ok 7� T1nXl .
M14429
borlml 7n
Rlar 61zt� SwgLE
IN 10064"C_
a/1d �f-hL
tv;; /2u�K
%Jt�Y!LF Cr4- +- r- /M(o /YlC
�✓ftd�
a
f.�� �R Pxock .
TiXw�Lwl3�i
/Llfi/�, r61 tPllt Ly vuc, cXi 9%i3 SIC Zt
LU�2NEb Alm
i 5 CLoc
E 7-0 TINE "rr l (
ai 7b
/k /Lxzp_f Slot . A-T_ If- S7 34 /as 10-OC Z7n/v EUI4-7
m x Cv� - Ojv;cT u-SWnt,�5_
O r 77L / W 6 67a ti/-17- 61F _
/ Al �i7V y E �
/h¢11 SM ,5[.a9ZE.
Z - /o -rZ Sou ALo14(, '`p " C � ,Z6 oN Al n) /ev pe-72
L r ru stY1 �t i42f7s At s' /n/ srJC� + �hy a__ J.[3
AJ
qw)7 5 7a imA Sc., ,1L 3 Z7 54n
yIMa lfvv
ii2o 3 (k .
2 lZ /m,J 56""l -rte P(.TUTko. 1' s:
b gia . 7)-(e- rnrtiro4 7_1e4r
3- - IL A bL 7rrn5 ,4 u E Alow
iZ
3 2;IIZ A3- &.,LTS 1C-Lqub?2 ok 7� T1nXl .
M14429
ENGINEERING
ff DESIGN GROUP
:wxuon �:nrtrnnu'. cxurrr,
r0 •LiW NI Yl l (44NRYt ::'N:'9x'. :N
2121 Monliel Road, San Marcos. Calilornia 92069 • (760) 839 -7302 - Fax: (760) 480 -7477 • www.des gngroupca.com
Date: February 25, 2011
To: Jose Rocha and Gwen Goodkin
1224 Summit Drive
Cardiff, CA 92077
Re: Proposed New Residence to be Located at 1761 Haydn Drive, Encinitas, California
Subject: Compaction Report
References:
1. "Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation, Residence Located at 1761 Haydn Avenue,
Cardiff California ". Prepared by Engineering Design Group, EDG Project No.104733 -1, dated
August4,2010.
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization we have provided limited earthwork observation and
compaction testing services during the rough grading at the above referenced site. The results of our quality
control and compaction testing operations are summarized below. The proposed improvements consist of
the construction of a proposed new single family residence founded on a combination of basement slab on
grade floors, upper level slab on grade floors, and crawl space.
GRADING OPERATIONS
Prior to the start of grading the pre- existing residence was demolished. Grading operations consisted of the
placement of fill soils in the area of the pre- existing below grade garage and excavation of the proposed
basement- Basement excavations extend to cut competent sandstone material. Onsite soils were placed and
recompacted to proposed pad grade. Rough grading at the subject site was conducted during February 2011
Onsite soil was utilized as graded fill. Prior to recompaction soils were cleaned of vegetation and other debris
and moisture conditioned. Onsite soil consisted of slightly silty sands. Based upon our visual observation
onsite soils possess potential for expansion in the low range. Soil was moisture conditioned with a water hose
and wheel rolled, a vibratory walk- behind and hand whackers.
It should be noted a vertical seepage pit was encountered in the field during the excavation of the basement
wall. The pit was located in the approximate north east portion of the basement and measured approximately
36 inches in diameter. The structural engineer was made aware of the condition to provide additional detailing
as necessary.
TEMPORARY CUTS
At the time of our last site visit temporary cuts onsite do not, at all locations, meet minimum OSHA
requirements. As a reminder where cuts are not made in accordance with OSHA requirements it is the
contractors responsibility to file all necessary permits and reports with OSHA, including an alternative sloping
Page 1 of 4
EDG Project No. 10
Z:120101ROCHA- COHN, 104733 -1 %REPORTS, LETTERSSCOMPAC RPT - WITH BASEMENT.wpd
prepared by the project soils engineer. A daily monitoring program at the top of cuts shall be maintained. In
addition during periods of forecasted rains slopes should be covered and secured with visqueen. Monitoring
during rain events shall continue to ensure effectiveness of erosion control devices and slope stability.
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST)NG
Limited field density tests were performed in accordance with D2922 -96 (Nuclear Gauge Method). Our test
results indicate that, in the locations tested, soils have been compacted to at least 90% relative compaction
and 95% in the upper 3 feet, as noted, and determined by ASTM D1557 -91, (Procedure A). The reported test
results are representative of the soil conditions at the locations tested. Our observation and field density
testing methods are in accordance with normally accepted procedures. The accuracy of the relative
compaction values are subject to the precision limitations of the ASTM test methods. The accuracy of the
maximum dry density determination (ASTM D1557 -91) is discussed in the 2003 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Section 4, Volume 04.08, entitled, Soil and Rock; Building Stones. Variations of relative
compaction values should be expected, laterally and vertically, from actual test locations.
TESTING SUMMARY
In general, it is our opinion, based on the placement procedure and the test data collected, the fill soils tested,
at the locations tested, were compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-
91, Procedure A).
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to
contact us. We hope the report provides you with the necessary information to continue with the development
of the project.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Erin Rist
California RCE# 65122
Attachments:
1) Table 1 8 2: 'Laboratory and Field Test Results -
2) Figure 1: "Approximate Location of Compaction Tests
Page 2 of 4
EDG Project No. 10
Z:\201MROCHA - COHN, 104733- 1\REPORTS, LETTERS \COMPAC RPT- WITH BASEMENT.wpd
LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS
TABLE NO 1
Labora tory Test Results
SOIL
SOIL TYPE
MAXIMUM DENSITY
OPTIMUM
U.S.C.S.
TYPE
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
( %)
(PCF)
MOISTURE
CLASSIFICATION
1
117.4
10.3
94%
2
1
ONSITE - Brown silty
124.7
8%
SW -SM
95%
sand
1 -25 -11
5 FT
1
2
ONSITE - Light brown
115.9
14%
SW -SM
5 FT
sandstone
118.9
11.7
95%
TABLE NO. 2
Field Test Results
TEST
NO.
DATE
FINISH
GRADE
MINUS
SOIL
TYPE
W
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
FIELD
MOISTURE
( %)
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
( %)
1
1 -25 -11
5 FT
1
117.4
10.3
94%
2
1 -25 -11
5 FT
1
118.1
7.9
95%
3
1 -25 -11
5 FT
1
118.8
12.5
95%
4
1 -25 -11
5 FT
1
118.9
11.7
95%
5
1 -26 -11
3.5 FT
1
114.6
12.4
92%
6
1 -26 -11
3.5 FT
1
111.6
17.0
89% RETEST
AT 7
7
1 -26 -11
3.5 FT
1
116.5
12.6
93%
8
1 -26 -11
3.5 FT
1
118.5
10.5
95%
9
1 -27 -11
3 FT
1
115.5
10.8
93% RETEST
AT 10
10
1 -27 -11
3 FT
1
118.0
11.1
95%
11
1 -28 -11
1 FT
2
105.0
12.0
91% RETEST
AT 12
12
1 -28 -11
1 FT
2
107.0
12.1
92% RETEST
AT 13
13
1 -28 -11
1 FT
2
111.5
13.5
96%
14
1 -28 -11
1 FT
2
110.5
11.9
95%
15
1 -31 -11
1 FT
2
115.2
12.0
99%
16
1 -31 -11
1 FT
2
110.5
12 .0
95%
TEST
NO.
DATE
FINISH
GRADE
MINUS
SOIL
TYPE
( #)
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
FIELD
MOISTURE
( %)
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
( %)
17
1 -31 -11
1 FT
2
114.4
131
99%
18
1 -31 -11
1 FT
2
1133
12.5
98%
19
2 -1 -11
1 FT
2
113.8
10.4
98%
20
2 -1 -11
F.G.
2
110.9
101
96%
21
2 -1 -11
F.G.
2
112.4
10.7
97%
22
2 -1 -11
F.G.
2
109.0
11.0
94% RETEST
AT 23
23
2 -1 -11
F. G,
2
111.1
10.0
96%
Page 4 of 4
EDG Project No. 10
Zi20101ROCHA - COHN. 104733- 1\REPORTS, LETTERSICOMPAC RPT - WITH BASEMENT.wpd
Subject: groperty Line Fence Authorization
To Whom Itl May Concern:
I am in the r rocess of building my new home at 1761 Haydn Avenue in Cardiff by the Sea. The
contractor h expressed to me that he will need to periodically remove sections of the property
line fences to perform his work. I am requesting permission to allow them to alter or remove
these sectior s as needed through the construction process. Your authorization would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you
Jose G.lJoc3a Date
2 /y/ii
Date
Print Name
1
/A
W CA 92-6>0
/g -�z�
PASCO LARET SUITER
& !ASSOCIATES
February 18. 2011
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
PLSA1819
Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit No. 10640 -G
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Section 2' ).24.3 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. this letter is hereby
submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced project, as the Surveyor
of Record for the subject property. I hereby state that the rough grading for the portion of'
this project listed below has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and
requirements of the City of Encinitas. Codes and Standards.
23.24.3) 1 O(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and sho.cn
on the approved grading plan:
Pad Elevation Pad Elevation
Location Per Plan Per Field Measurement
Basement Pad 115.78' 115.8'avg.
23 24.310(B)l Engineered drainage devices and/or retaining walls have not been
constructed at this time.
If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely.
/Joseph Yuhas. PLS 5211
Principal Land Surveyor
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates. Inc.
.t .,..a I!vl...,, nn.,, I.,, t � I I., 14 en 4.,., i i 1. .. u .. . ` I I - ... rl— ugi.,.,.., -.n.
PASCO LARET SUITER
& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING
September 20, 2010
Engineering Department
City of Encinitas
505 So. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
PLSA 1819
RE: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS FOR 1791 HAYDN DRIVE, 10 -029 CDP
The purpose of this letter is to address the hydrology and hydraulics of the proposed
development at 1791 Haydn Drive.
HYDROLOGY
This existing project site slopes east to west from Westminster Drive toward Haydn
Drive. There is an existing single family residence, with typical patio areas, walkways,
and a driveway currently located on the site. The proposed grading for this project will
be for the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a new single family
residence, site walls, patio areas, and a driveway. No drainage patterns will be
significantly altered as a result of the grading. There is no change to the use of the site
and there is no significant change in impervious area of the site therefore no increase in
peak runoff is anticipated as a result of the project. IMP swales have been incorporated
into the site design to provide treatment for runoff from impervious areas prior to leaving
the site. Runoff will continue to discharge onto Haydn Drive to the west of the site as it
does in the current condition. The proposed project is classified as a standard project per
the City of Encinitas Stormwater Manual.
HYDRAULICS
The proposed driveway drainage system consists of trench drain to be installed at the low
point in the driveway to collect surface runoff, and a stormwater pump to discharge to
driveway runoff to an IMP swale along the southerly property line where it will sheet
flow back on to Haydn drive. The total tributary area (A) of the trench drain is
approximately 700 sf or 0.02 ac. Based on the 100 year 6 hour precipitation of 2.5 in for
this location (see attached isopluvial map) and a time of concentration of 10 min, a storm
intensity (I) of 4.25 in/hr has been determined using the Intensity- Duration Design chart.
Figure 3 -2, of June 2003 revision of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (see
attached). Using the rational method equation Q =CIA, and assuming a runoff coefficient
(C) of 0.9 for the impervious driveway area, the total peak flowrate being collected by the
driveway trenchdrain is 0.08 cfs. The proposed 6" wide trench drain, approximately 18'
in length, will have a total capacity of 1.25 cfs (see attached calculations), therefore it is
of adequate capacity to safely collect the driveway runoff for the 100 year storm. It is
recommended that the proposed stormwater pump to be installed shall have a minimum
capacity of 0.5 cfs or approximately 225 gpm to ensure that runoff from the 100 year
535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx $58.259.48 12 1 plsaengineering. cum Wei
S E P
2 1
2010
PLSA 1819
RE: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS FOR 1791 HAYDN DRIVE, 10 -029 CDP
The purpose of this letter is to address the hydrology and hydraulics of the proposed
development at 1791 Haydn Drive.
HYDROLOGY
This existing project site slopes east to west from Westminster Drive toward Haydn
Drive. There is an existing single family residence, with typical patio areas, walkways,
and a driveway currently located on the site. The proposed grading for this project will
be for the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a new single family
residence, site walls, patio areas, and a driveway. No drainage patterns will be
significantly altered as a result of the grading. There is no change to the use of the site
and there is no significant change in impervious area of the site therefore no increase in
peak runoff is anticipated as a result of the project. IMP swales have been incorporated
into the site design to provide treatment for runoff from impervious areas prior to leaving
the site. Runoff will continue to discharge onto Haydn Drive to the west of the site as it
does in the current condition. The proposed project is classified as a standard project per
the City of Encinitas Stormwater Manual.
HYDRAULICS
The proposed driveway drainage system consists of trench drain to be installed at the low
point in the driveway to collect surface runoff, and a stormwater pump to discharge to
driveway runoff to an IMP swale along the southerly property line where it will sheet
flow back on to Haydn drive. The total tributary area (A) of the trench drain is
approximately 700 sf or 0.02 ac. Based on the 100 year 6 hour precipitation of 2.5 in for
this location (see attached isopluvial map) and a time of concentration of 10 min, a storm
intensity (I) of 4.25 in/hr has been determined using the Intensity- Duration Design chart.
Figure 3 -2, of June 2003 revision of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (see
attached). Using the rational method equation Q =CIA, and assuming a runoff coefficient
(C) of 0.9 for the impervious driveway area, the total peak flowrate being collected by the
driveway trenchdrain is 0.08 cfs. The proposed 6" wide trench drain, approximately 18'
in length, will have a total capacity of 1.25 cfs (see attached calculations), therefore it is
of adequate capacity to safely collect the driveway runoff for the 100 year storm. It is
recommended that the proposed stormwater pump to be installed shall have a minimum
capacity of 0.5 cfs or approximately 225 gpm to ensure that runoff from the 100 year
535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx $58.259.48 12 1 plsaengineering. cum Wei
storm event is properly conveyed offsite and no ponding occurs in the driveway adjacent
to the garage.
Based on the discussion in this letter it is the professional opinion of Pasco Laret Suiter &
Associates, Inc. that the proposed drainage system on the project Grading Plan will
function to adequately intercept, contain and convey flow from a 100 year storm to the
appropriate points of discharge.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Pa m G. Mack
RCE 73620
GREGG ��F\
No. 73620
E)ql 1 /e
INLET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED TRENCHDRAIN
Width of inlet (w) = 0.5 ft
Length of inlet (1) = 18 ft
Inlet Perimeter (P) = 37 ft
Clogging factor (Q = 0.5 per San Diego County Drainage Design Manual section 1.3.1.2
Weir Coefficient (C.) = 3.0 per San Diego County Drainage Design Manual section 1.3.2.2
Depth of flow approaching inlet (d) = 1 in or 0.08 ft (assumed)
Effective Grate Perimeter Leng,th
P,= (1 -C,,)P San Diego County Drainage Design Manual Equation 2 -17
P,�(1 -0.5 ft) * 37 ft =18.5 ft
Inlet capacity operating, as a we
Q= C.P,D,a San Diego County Drainage Design Manual Equation 1 -16
Q =3.0 * 18.5 ft * 0.08"= 1.25 cfs
Q=1.25 cfs
,'��'i111r.
I
.
'
- : -... - .. '... - . ... i
• . . = . .
. ...:.... . .. . . .
... . ,. ... - . :.. • -. ,
� - ... - . - ...
',
� -• � - :. _.
_
1 .
' .. _ _ - • .. -.
!!!
■,■
�►
�.
�,■■
11111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIItllllllll
■
■■
■11111111
■1111111111111
v���■►
�1��i:
�Illuunuuunnununuuunuonullunuu
■■■■����u
■nunuuuui
i;■`.
�.
�.
���.,.
��umunuluumuuuuuumunlluuu
■■■■I�Illunnnuumm
�i`►
��'��I�1�:��Ihuall,�n�!!lu
�III�.
`
�c�C:
'''''
1i:
��!
����
1111111111111111111111111111111111
'llllllllllllllllllllllllllll
.! °1!IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
EctuATION
D-0.645
, . .:
IIIIIIII
1111111
11
hu..-
IIe.4r.,
f
u
n,!4�1n�.
ulll�ll■■■■Illllllnunn
���Ill�lllillllii
!Illlil!!I�i!!ii;!ii
. ' �lullllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
I�:
Illllll�lll�u!
�IIn1!
ll�I�ly;
!�I!!!1111111111111111111111111
11:._
Illllil
!!Illlliul!mlgl!III!�Ig11,!�.,.
�,�i�,llllllllllllllllll
Illlllllllliii�!
■■■
ONENESS
monsoon
■ ■■■
■■■■
111111111111111.!
Illllllllllllllllllii.!
Illlllliiilllll
I'll
1111111111110111111111111
11111111111111171111111111111111
!!ll�iliiil�l!Iliiii�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIinallllllllllli
1111MI
.!111111111200111.91011:
!1111■biMIER
�M►111011
.�
■�llllli.!IIIn111�1.!llii
11191:1!I1:1!1111:
=1i
11110111..
o. III
���II��IIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllii
:!111111
;!!
IIIIII��Illi�lllii
►!Illii�!!!Ii
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii.
lllllliil�lllli
:!111��1lllliii!II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�fl�1
!!!IIIIIIIIII�llllill!!IIIIII�
�
n{
n u u 1
u 1 �
1:
��
YIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIilllllllilll
!!Illlliiiil�
• ��
.:
.
I I:
•. :.
I . :I •.
�---�-
--w.
o
SiEiullnnulSS"
:n.niil-rl-ww..►v.uuuuul.
�---�-
---wu
=ol�i
o
r•ru
.
m
unum
�=
r.
o
7SiiiuunSSl
lmnwunununu---wuur-
w-lnnu
unl�.
+
-_--�MO----�------
w__-�-..
�oD■
oo1uo1..1uuuu1u—
unn
..
iSn;munl1u
ww
.l
i�
./1nn_.-
m nm
�u:..S1u1
--��_w---�----�---
--�m---��m
.■
.rwun1.m_nm.unlunSSnnn
un
m m
1 11H
ewn1 nn.muu11m
1m. nn11
nnu
S l
o
o..
....nI
1.1r11.w
—uo.
uu
n. /1n
n1.1 - n/.01
11nnnn11111uu
ww
19111115111111111111111111/
1/1:11111111111111111111111
/
;
1
IIIII
If.
{
m
1
1uw1
SO
1
1
//111.111.
mmim
MONSOON
meson
'
loll
.
■■
.■
.■
.
..■
. /
MIN"
some
rinsinim1.n.u1u1.11uu1..1u11w
1m1:1
■■■
■■■■■■umm�111
H!,
I'll"
■■■■
■
o■■■■
■
■.t
■
1..u.1.n11.u1..1.n111n1n11u11m111n111u1n11u111u1n11
1n11n1u1n11nm11111m11u1111un1111nn111a1l11m11n1111m
11111
1 1
111nn1111mu1111n11u11u
Intensity- Duration Design Chart - Template
F I E
3 -1 �
Fidelity National Title Company
2763 Camino Del Rio South San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 295 -7332 FAX (619) 297.2213
September 21, 2010
Jose G. Nunez -Rocha and Gwen C. Goodkin
1761 Haydn Drive
Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007
Order No.: 09- 4228534
We appreciate the opportunity of being of service to you.
Fidelity National Title Company
n,
l� SEP 21 2010 !F
SCHEDULE A
Our name and address is: Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, 2763 Camino Del Rio
South, San Diego, CA 92108 -3894
File Number: 09- 4228534 Policy No.: 27-27217-08/7218
Premium: $ 3,018,00 Policy Amount: $ 1,250,000.00
Date of Policy: October 19, 2009 and Time: 08:00 A.M.
Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability
For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21:
Street Address of the Land: 1761 Haydn Drive, Encinitas, California
1
9
3
Name of insured:
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
$ 10.000.00
$ 25 000.00
$ 25.000.00
$ 5,000.0
Jose G. Nunez -Rocha and Gwen C. Goodkin, husband and wife, as community property with right of
survivorship
Your interest in the Land covered by this Policy is:
A Fee
The Land referred to in this Policy is described as:
SEE EXHIBIT "ONE" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
THIS POLICY VALID ONLY IF SCHEDULE B IS ATTACHED
1
ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (1/1/08)
Your Deductible Amount
Covered Risk 16:
1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A
or
$ 2 500.00
Whichever is less)
Covered Risk 18:
1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A
or
$ 5,000.0
(Whichever is less)
Covered Risk 19:
1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A
or
$ 5.000.00
(Whichever is less)
Covered Risk 21:
1.00% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A
or
$ 2,500.00
(Whichever is less)
Street Address of the Land: 1761 Haydn Drive, Encinitas, California
1
9
3
Name of insured:
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
$ 10.000.00
$ 25 000.00
$ 25.000.00
$ 5,000.0
Jose G. Nunez -Rocha and Gwen C. Goodkin, husband and wife, as community property with right of
survivorship
Your interest in the Land covered by this Policy is:
A Fee
The Land referred to in this Policy is described as:
SEE EXHIBIT "ONE" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
THIS POLICY VALID ONLY IF SCHEDULE B IS ATTACHED
1
ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (1/1/08)
Policy No.: 27- 27217- 08/7218 File No.: 09- 4228534
EXHIBIT "ONE"
Lot "C" in Block 79 of Cardiff Villa Tract, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1469, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 10, 1912.
Assessor's Parcel No: 260- 276 -07
ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (1/1/08)
Policy No.: 27-27217-08/7218 File No.: 09- 4228534
SCHEDULE B
EXCEPTIONS
In addition to the Exclusions, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
Property taxes, including any personal property taxes and any assessments collected with taxes, for the
fiscal year 2009 -2010, Assessor's Parcel Number 260 - 276 -07.
Code Area Number: 19006
1 st Installment:
2nd Installment:
Land:
Improvements:
Exemption:
Personal Property
$2,650.54 Paid
$2,650.54 Open
$445,916.00
$17,324.00
$None
$None
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.
Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or
restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, martial status,
disability, handicap, national origin, ancestry or source of income, as set forth in applicable state or federal
laws, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law.
Recorded: June 27, 1988, Instrument No. 88- 308142, of Official Records
Said covenants, conditions and restrictions provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat the lien of any
mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value.
Matters contained in that certain document entitled "A reement Regarding and Grant of Easement" dated
February 26, 1991, executed by and between Haydn Partners, a California General Partnership and
Stephen K. Schuette and Kimberly B. Schuette, Trustees under Declaration of Trust dated November 7,
1989 recorded March 7, 1991, Instrument No. 1991 - 0100437, of Official Records, which document,
among other things, contains or provides for: as provided therein document.
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
5. A covenant and agreement entitled "Covenant Regarding Real Property: Variance
Executed by:
In favor of: Stephen K. Schuette and City of Encinitas
Recorded: April 22, 1991, Instrument No. 1991- 0181650, of Official Records
Which among other things provides: improvements
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.
6. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured
thereby
Amount: $697,500.00
Dated: October 6, 2009
Trustor: Jose G. Nunez - Rocha, a married person and Gwen C. Goodkin, a married person
Trustee: Fidelity National Title Ins. Co.
Beneficiary: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a National Association
THIS POLICY VALID ONLY IF SCHEDULE B IS ATTACHED
ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (1/1/08)
Policy No.: 27-27217-08/7218 File No.: 09- 4228534
Loan No.: 0112221668
Recorded: October 19, 2009, Instrument No. 2009 - 0577730, of Official Records
END OF SCHEDULE B
ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (1/1/08)
TTY OF F\CINITAS ENGINEERING' DESIGN MANUAL - 2009
=j APPLICATION NO.
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
JOB SITE ADDRESS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.
r �1(j qf� 200 -? 14-0-1
tT M ¢ ' •
CMI ENGINEER INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP CODE
STATE LICENSE NO. & TYPE
TELEPHONE NO.
SOILS ENGINEER INFORMATION
r, j6 MAyG AjaIGA1 6POQP
NZ 1 ZI fAM r>' Ea- " 5W M&pS, G A
ADDRESS o 039 7 3o Z-
CITY, STATE ZIP TELEPHONE NO.
Fz f bSrZZ- .0 !.£ 2590
REGISTRATION NO.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE
I�Wl^1C� 1M�P_tt>J��nAr,'NTS �SSoc.lk4�47 W i N THE
roNs-rQ��r�on� o F A F- _cs LID 0,13
CASE NO. ID DZR G� P
AAd qIzlllo
SIG14rATrJAE DA SIGNED
WI --wAy�- MAU- fo s�E cm 4b5s ZS� �iZ12
PRINT NAME ----------- -- -- - - - -- - --------- -- ---------- - ----- - TELEPHONE NO. - ----------
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
PLANNING CASE NUMBER �0-G1kCQp
FOR GRADING PLANS:
I OK FOR PLAN CHECK
ak -
PLANNER
PAGE 1 -2
FOR FINAL MAPS /PARCEL MAPS
FINAL MAP
PARCEL MAP
f l b-0
DATE
APPENDIX 1.2
BONDING COST ESTIMATE FOR:
GRADING PLAN 1761 HADYN DRIVE
ENCINITAS. CA
DWG 10640 -G
PREPARED FOR: NOV 1 6 2010
JOSE ROCHA
PLSA 1819
PREPARED BY:
PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(858) 259 -8212
DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2010
s No. 73620
it '
WILL f: G. MACK, R 73620 DATE'
1}
EXHIBIT "A" PLSA 1819
1791 HADYN DRIVE
GRADING PLAN BOND ESTIMATE DWG 10640 -G
CITY OF ENCINITAS
ITEM QTY UNIT A UNIT PRICE TOTAL
GRADING:
EXCAVATE AND FILL
850
CY
$20.00
$17,000.00
EXCAVATE & EXPORT
275
CY
$27.50
$7,562.50
IMPROVEMENTS
4" PVC STORM DRAIN
5
LF
@
$20.00
$100.00
6" TRENCH DRAIN
12
LF
@
$25.00
$300.00
SUMP &PUMP
I
EA
@
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
DG TRAIL
160
SF
[Q
$5.00
$800.00
TURFBLOCK BMP SWALE
120
SF
@
$5.00
$600.00
6 "X 16" ZERO HEIGHT CURB
80
LF
@
$10.00
$800.00
SAWCUT PAVING
60
EA
@
$4.00
$240.00
4" AC PAVING
180
SF
@
$1.75
$315.00
CLASS 1I BASE
180
SF
@
$1.00
$180.00
DRIVEWAY PAVING
500
SF
@
$5.50
$2,750.00
RETAINING WALL
320
SF
@
$29.65
$9,488.00
EROSION CONTROL
FIBER ROLLS
60
LF
@
$2.25
$135.00
CONST. ENTRANCE/ TIRE WASH
400
SF
@
$5.25
$2,100.00
HYDROSEEDING
5,000
SF
@
$0.20
$1,000.00
GRAVELBAGS
50
EA
@
$1.10
$55.00
SILT FENCE
100
LF
@
$1.60
$160.00
SUB TOTAL= $44,585.50
10 %CONTINGENCIES= $4,458.55
GRAND TOTAL = $49,044.05
BONDING COST ESTIMATE FOR:
GRADING PLAN 1761 HADYN DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CA
DWG 10640 -G
PREPARED FOR:
IOSE ROCHA
PLSA 1819
PREPARED BY:
PASCO LARET SUfTER & ASSOCIATES
535 N. MGHWAY 101, SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(858) 259 -8212
DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 2010
z/5/ I Z ILe
ILL AM G. MACK, RCE 73620 ATE
DEC 1 2M
EXHIBIT "A" PLSA 1819
1791 HADYN DRIVE
GRADING PLAN BOND ESTIMATE DWG 10640 -G
CITY OF ENCINITAS
ITEM OTY UNIT @ UNIT PRICE TOTAL
GRADING:
EXCAVATE AND FILL
850
CY
$20.00
$17.000.00
EXCAVATE & EXPORT
275
CY
$27.50
$7,562.50
IMPROVEMENTS
4" PVC STORM DRAIN
5
LF
@
$20.00
$100.00
6" TRENCH DRAIN
12
LF
@
$25.00
$300.00
SUMP &PUMP
I
EA
@
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
DG TRAIL
320
SF
@
$5.00
$1,600.00
TURFBLOCK BMP SWALE
120
SF
@
$5.00
$600.00
6 "X 16" ZERO HEIGHT CURB
80
LF
@
$10.00
$800.00
SAWCUT PAVING
60
EA
@
$4.00
$240.00
4" AC PAVING
180
SF
@
$1.75
$315.00
CLASS 11 BASE
180
SF
@
$1.00
$180.00
DRIVEWAY PAVING
500
SF
@
$5.50
$2,750.00
RETAINING WALL
320
SF
@1
$29.65
59,488.00
EROSION CONTROL
FIBER ROLLS
60
LF
@
$2.25
$135.00
CONST. ENTRANCE/ TIRE WASH
400
SF
@
$5.25
$2,100.00
HYDROSEEDING
5,000
SF
@
$0.20
$1,000.00
GRAVEL BAGS
50
EA
@
$1.10
$55.00
SILT FENCE
100
LF
@
SI.60
$160.00
SUB TOTAL = $45,385.50
100/oCONTINGENCIES= $4,538.55
GRAND TOTAL = $49,924.05
ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 10(o4-0 -PF_
A.P.N.: 260 -Z7�o -07 Project No: 0-029 C)P
An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one,
Exhibit "A ", as the owner of the Benefited property described in paragraph two, Exhibit "A," to
encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Exhibit "A ", as detailed in the diagram,
Exhibit "B ". Exhibit "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set
forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby
covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows:
1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees,
and assigns of the respective parties.
2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose
described in paragraph four, Exhibit "A ".
3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in
the City and waives all right to contest that title.
4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and
abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to
Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which
the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease.
5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in
order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay
for or restore Permittee's improvements.
6. Permittee agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify from and against all claims,
demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to
the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or
Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property.
Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, Permittee shall, at no cost to
the city, return City Property to its pre - permit condition within the time specified in the notice
of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment.
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND,
) WAS RECORDED ON DEC 14, 2010
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
) DOCUMENT NUMBER 2010
DAVID L BUTLER COUNTY RECORDER
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
TIME 3 57 PM
rr CITY CLERK
)
CITY OF ENCINITAS
)
505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE
)
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
)
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 10(o4-0 -PF_
A.P.N.: 260 -Z7�o -07 Project No: 0-029 C)P
An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one,
Exhibit "A ", as the owner of the Benefited property described in paragraph two, Exhibit "A," to
encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Exhibit "A ", as detailed in the diagram,
Exhibit "B ". Exhibit "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set
forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby
covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows:
1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees,
and assigns of the respective parties.
2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose
described in paragraph four, Exhibit "A ".
3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in
the City and waives all right to contest that title.
4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and
abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to
Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which
the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease.
5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in
order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay
for or restore Permittee's improvements.
6. Permittee agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify from and against all claims,
demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to
the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or
Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property.
Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, Permittee shall, at no cost to
the city, return City Property to its pre - permit condition within the time specified in the notice
of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment.
If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the
City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited Property, and restore
the City Property to its pre - permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any
improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the costs incurred. Notice
may be given by first class mail sent to the last known address of the Permittee, which shall
be deemed effective three calendar days after mailing, or by any other reasonable method
likely to give actual notice.
If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien
upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City
may add to the tax bill of the Benefited Property any past due financial obligation owing to
city by way of this covenant.
11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or
resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other
action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a manner in accordance with
the terms of the permit.
12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest
subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of
property taxes levied on such interest.
13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement
must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the
County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee
14. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this / day of4ae4 , 20/0.
i n
Dated: ur I `1 I -C)
Owner Permit a Sig ture
JOSE- � N Eztzoc14A A KA Scs e- MBA Z-
Dated:
Owner /Permittee Print
Owner /Permittee Signature
Owner /Permittee Print
(Notarization of PERMI na I tta h
Dated: ! U
Peter Cota - Robles
IV I Engineering Service Director, City of Encinitas
&ocfie.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of SAS! DfE&C )
On GcTG8E2 IS[ ZOIU before me, JUSEPP C YUN4S A NOTARY
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared JOSE NyNE7 PtxH Il
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Islare
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in
his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
--
JOSEPH C YUHA
WITNESS my hand and official seal. COMM V 06409
3 NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA x
:3 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Commason Exes Jul 13, 2012
(Seal)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
Countyofn l7/2Cy
On llct . le 22:)10 before me:,;� r]R A M I C t- cj f?, 0 71W i PlJ Uc
(insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared ! f, Tt X 607A^ 6 L Fj
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the p rson(s) whose name(s ks re
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowlecjgg4 to me tha he /they executed the same in
p i er /their authorized capacity(ies), and that b jhist r /their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
I *4ftRANDA G. MILLJ01/lt
WITNESS my hand and official seal. C0"""bf0"$lam
NotSa DN
Sao a.w Cwnry
My fim END• Jan. 6, 2011
Signature A!(l /!tl4y " (Seal)
EXHIBIT "A" TO COVENANT
REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 10640 -G
PERMITTE
JOSE NUNEZ ROCHA
BENEFITED PROPERTY
LOT C BLOCK 79 OF MAP 1469
CITY PROPERTY
THE EASTERLY HALF OF HAYDN DRIVE LAYING ADJACENT TO THE
ABOVE PROPERTY.
ENCROCHMENT FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED TURFBLOCK SWALE
AND 2' HIGH RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY
ATTAClIMENT "B "
DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT
IN HAYDN DRIVE
2' MAX HIGH APN
SEGMENTAL BLOCK 260-276"12
RETAINING WALL PER
CITY OF ENCINITAS cn 3:
GRADING PLAN 10640 —G —
.I
3' WIDE TURFBLOCK
SWALE PER CITY OF
ENCINITAS GRADING
PLAN 10640 —G
ku
!2'
cn 3
Q I
Q I
Q
Z
-I-
SCALE 1 " =10'
20' I 20',
q40'xl-
APN
260 - 276 -07
3' WIDE TURFBLOCK 1,
SWALE PEA CITY OF
ENCINITAS .;
ENCINITAS GRADING
PLAN 10640 —G
2' MAX HIGH
SEGMENTAL BLOCK
RETAINING WALL PER I APN
CITY OF ENCINITAS
GRADING PLAN 10640 —G 260 ^276-08
HL'-,A ldl�
Alke
December 7, 2010
Jose Nunez Rocha and Gwen C. Goodkin
1761 Haydn Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Permit issuance requirements for:
Application 10640 -G
10 -029 CDP
1761 Haydn Drive
260 - 276 -07
This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10640 -G. Your
approved plan will remain valid for one year. If the permit is not issued within six months from the date of
approval of the drawings, the plans will be subject to review by City staff for compliance with current codes
and regulations before a permit can be issued, and changes to the approved plans as well as additional
fees may he required
Please read through this letter carefully and contact the City with any questions you may have. It
contains information about many requirements that may apply to your project and can make the
process clearer and easier for you.
In order to obtain the permits to construct the work shown on your approved plans, you will need to satisfy
the requirements below. All of the items listed below must be submitted to the Engineering front counter
in one complete package at the time the applicant comes in to pull the permit. Partial submittals of any
kind will not be accepted. Your project planchecker will not accept any of the documents listed on behalf
of the Engineering front counter staff; all items must be submitted to the front counter directly together and
at one time. The correct number of each of the requested documents must be provided; copies of
documents submitted to the City during plancheck do not reduce the necessary quantities listed below.
(1) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10640 -G.
Provide 2 copies of soils report "Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation, Residence
Located at 1761 Haydn Avenue, Cardiff, CA" prepared by Engineering Design Group dated
August 12, 2010; and Soils Letter regarding "Basement Excavations and Onsite Infiltration"
prepared by Engineering Design Group dated November 11, 2010.
Submit 2 copies of the approved, signed (not draft) Resolution of Approval or Notice of Decision
for Planning Case No. 10 -029 CDP.
(2) Post Security Deposits to guarantee all of the work shown on your approved drawings. The
amounts of security deposits are determined directly from the Approved Engineer's Cost Estimate for
bonding purposes dated November 29, 2010 by your engineer according to a set of predetermined unit
prices for each kind of work shown on your plans. You will be required to post security deposit(s) as
follows:
FA
(a) Security Deposit for Grading Permit 10640 -G: in the amount $49.924.00 to guarantee both
performance and labor/ materials for earthwork, drainage, private improvements, and erosion
control.
(b) Security Deposit for Improvement Permit : N/A
(c) Security Deposit for Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities: N /A.
(d) Security Deposit for Deferred Monumentation: NIA.
A minimum of 20% and up to 100% of the amount listed in item(s) 2(a) must be in the form of
cash, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or an assignment of account. Up to 80% of the amount
listed in item 2(a) may be in the form of auto- renewing Performance and Labor and Materials
Bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Up to 100% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(b), 2(c), and /or 2(d) may be in the form of auto -
renewing Labor and Materials bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Cash, certificates of deposit, letters of credit, and assignments of account are also acceptable
financial instruments.
If a certificate of deposit (CD) will be obtained to secure the entire amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a)
and /or 2(b), two separate CD's for 25% and 75% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a) and /or
2(b) should be obtained in order to facilitate any future partial release of those securities. CD's
posted may be of any term but must be auto - renewing and must specify the City of Encinitas as a
certificate holder and include a clause that until the City of Encinitas provides a written request for
release of the CD, the balance shall be available to the City upon its sole request.
The format of any financial instrument is subject to City approval, may be in the owner's name
only, and must list the City of Encinitas as a Certificate Holder
For any questions regarding how to post securities, bonding, or the required format of securities.
please contact Debra Geisharl at 760- 633 -2779
(3) Pay non - refundable fees as listed below
Fee Type
Amount
Grading Inspection
$2,496.00
Improvement Inspection
n/a
NPDES Inspection (Grading)
$499.00
NPD_ES Inspection (Improvement)
nla
Flood Control
$105.00
Permanent Encroachment Permit,
$290.00
10640 -PE
NPDES Plancheck Fees Due
f n/a
GIS Mapping Fee (Maps/ PM's only) I n/a
The grading and improvement inspection fees are calculated based on 5% of first $100,000.00 of
the approved Engineer's cost estimate of $49,924.05 dated November 29, 2010, and 3% of the
cost estimate over $100,000.00. The NPDES inspection fee is assessed as 1% of the first
$100,000.00 of the approved Engineer's cost estimate and 0.6% of the cost estimate over
$100,000.00. The Flood control fee is assessed at a rate of $0.21 per square foot of net new
impervious surface area for driveway and parking areas as created per the approved plan.
(4) Provide the name, address, telephone number, state license number, and license type of the
construction contractor. The construction of any improvements within the public
right -of -way or public easements is restricted to qualified contractors possessing the
required state license as listed in the table below. The contractor must also have on file with
the City current evidence of one million dollar liability insurance listing the City of Encinitas as co-
insured. Additional requirements are described in the handout "Requirements for Proof of
Insurance' available at the Engineering front counter.
IF
Type
Description
Work to be Done
A
General Engineering
any & all
C -8
Concrete
a ron /curb! utter /ram /sidewalk
C -10
Electrical
lighting/signals
C -12
Grading & Paving
any surface, certain drain -
basins /channels
Landscaping
plantinglirrigationlfencing &other
amenities
Masonry
retainin walls
EC-27
Parking &Highway
lm rovement
signage /stripinglsafety
Pipeline
sanitary sewerlstorm drain
(5) Permits are valid for no more than one year from the date of issuance and may expire earlier due
to expirations of letter of credit and /or insurance policies.
(6) This project does not propose land disturbance in excess of one acre and does not require from
the State, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). An erosion control plan shall be
implemented per the approved grading plan.
Preconstruction Meeting: A preconstruction meeting at the project site is mandatory for all projects.
The preconstruction meeting may not be scheduled until the Engineering permit(s) have been issued, and
the applicant /contractor must give the assigned Engineering inspector a minimum of 48 hours advance
notice prior to the scheduled meeting lime.
Right -of -Way Construction Permit: A separate nght -of -way construction pennit will be required for any
work in the public right -of -way or public easements Typically this work may include construction or
reconstruction of a portion of the driveway within the public right -of -way, excavation, backfill. and
resurfacing to install electric. gas. telephone. and cable television lines, or water and sewer connections
A permit fee of $300 00 per application and a site plan. preferably the work order issued by the public
utility. will be required. Contractor license and insurance requirements apply. Permits must be issued at
least 48 hours in advance of the start of work.
Haul Routes, Traffic Control Plans, and Transportation Permits: These separate permits may be
required for your project and are handled by the Traffic Engineering Division. A fee of $250.00 is required
for traffic control plans. For more details, contact Raymond Guarnes, Engineering Technician, at (760)
633 -2704.
Release of Project Securities: The partial or complete release of project securities is initiated
automatically by the City after submission of satisfactory as -built drawings to the City and approval by the
project Engineering inspector. Applicant requests cannot be addressed without release approval from the
project inspector. The processing and release of securities may take up to 4 weeks after the release
process is initiated by the project Engineering inspector. Any cash releases will be mailed to the address
on this letter unless the City is otherwise notified, and all letters mailed to a financial institution will be
copied to the owner listed hereon. Satisfactory completion of Final Inspection certified by the project
Engineering inspector is a prerequisite to full release of the Security Deposit assigned to any Grading
Permit. A sum in the amount of 25% of the securities posted for improvement permits will be held for a
one -year warranty period, and a release is automatically initiated at the end of that warranty period.
Construction Changes: Construction changes prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required for all
changes to the approved plans. Requests for construction change approval should be submitted to the
Engineering Services Department front counter as redlined mark -ups on 2 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. Construction change fees of $200.00 and $350.00 will be assessed for minor and
major construction changes, respectively. Construction changes necessitating a new plan sheet will be
assessed the per -sheet plancheck and NPDES plancheck fees in lieu of the construction change fee.
Construction changes not previously approved and submitted as as -built drawings at the end of the
construction process will be rejected and the securities release will be delayed.
Change of Ownership: If a change of ownership occurs following approval of the drawing(s), the new
owner will be required to submit to the City a construction change revising the title sheet of the plan to
reflect the new ownership. The construction change shall be submitted to the Engineering front counter
as redline mark -ups on two blueline prints of the approved drawing together with two copies of the grant
deed or title report reflecting the new ownership. Construction change fees apply. The current owner will
be required to post new securities to replace those held by the City under the name of the former owner,
and the securities posted by the former owner will be released when the replacement securities have been
received and approved by the City.
Change of Engineer of Work: If a change in engineer of work occurs following the approval of the
drawing(s), a construction change shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Department. Two copies of the forms for the assumption of responsibility by the new engineer and the
release of responsibility by the former engineer shall be completed and submitted to the City.
Construction change fees apply.
As- builts: Project as -built drawings prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required prior to Final
Grading acceptance by Engineering Services. Changes to _the approved plans require a construction
change to be submitted to the City prior to field implementation. Construction changes may not be
submitted as as- builts at the end of the construction process.
This letter does not change owner or successor -in- interest obligations If there should be a substantial
delay in the start of your project or a change of ownership, please contact the City to request an update.
Should you have queslions regarding the posting of securities. please contact Debra Geishart, who
processes all Engineering securities, at (760) 633 -2779
Should you have any other questions, please contact me at (160) 633 -2780 or visit the Engineering
Counter at the Civic Center to speak with an Engineering Technician
Sincerely,
Ruben Macabitas
Assistant Civil Engineer
cc PLSA and Associates, W. Mack
Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician
Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer
permittfile
Eric Application
Requirements for Proof of Insurance
Security Obligation Agreements (various)
ENGINEERING ,IAN 2 0 2011
ImDESIGN GROUP
17 Y:[KIM �fIW�YY NY.I""tll:�
2121 MonUBI Road, San Marcos, California 92069 .(760) 639.7302 • Fax: (760) 480 -7477 wwwdasgrr�ra
Date: November 11, 2010
To: Jose Rocha & Gwen Goodkin
1224 Summit Drive
Cardiff, CA 92007
Re: Proposed new residence to be located at 1761 Haydn Avenue, Cardiff, California
Subject: Basement Excavations and Onsite Infiltration
Ref: 1. Grading Plan prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter and Associates, dated 10 -21 -2010.
2. "Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation, Residence Located at 1761 Haydn Avenue,
Cardiff California ". Prepared by Engineering Design Group, EDG Project No. 104733-1, dated
August 4, 2010.
We have reviewed the grading plan, referenced above, and prepared the following letter, as requested, in
consideration of the upcoming grading at the above referenced project. Based upon cross sections at the
basement locationswe anticipate cuts for the basement and footing excavations to range between 11 to 13
feet below adjacent grade. In consideration of the proposed cuts proximity to the south property line we
anticipate either shoring be installed in the area of the basement excavations or that portion of the foundation
will be excavated and constructed in two sections, per the requirements more specifically described below.
If foundations are to be constructed in sections construction shall proceed in consideration of the following
requirements.
1. Temporary backcuts of 1:1 may be made in the area of the excavation.
2. A representative of Engineering Design Group shall be onsite to observe the start of temporary cuts
in the area immediately adjacent to the property line.
3. A copy of a signed letter of acknowledgment shall be onsite identifying to the adjacent neighbors the
start and scope of construction, as well as the subject property owner's intent, shall any sloughing or
distress to landscaping, fences, etc. occur, to repair.
4. An Alternate Sloping Plan for any non - compliant OSHA excavations shall be prepared by the project
soils engineer of record, will be filed with OSHA. The Alternate Sloping Plan will detail the monitoring
program, limitations and preventative measures and considerations relative to the implementation of
the non -OSHA compliant excavation.
5. The excavation and all work done in the excavation, including but not limited to, excavation, setting
steel, pouring concrete, setting block, applying waterproofing, placement of backdrain, etc. must be
performed by a contractor with a current OSHA permit.
6. Confirmation shall be made with the City of Encinitas Building Department that building inspectors
will conduct foundation inspections in non -OSHA compliant excavations. In the case this can not
occur a special inspection program shall be agreed upon by structural engineer of record,
owner /contractor and building officials.
EDG Project No. 104733 -1
Page 1 of 2
Prior to the start of a secondary section alternating section cuts walls must be constructed and
grouted to allow an OSHA compliant cut of 1:1 temporary backcut with no undermining of adjacent
structures and /or property.
8. Excavations and foundation construction shall be scheduled in consideration of forecasted rainstorms
such that excavations and backcuts adjacent to property lines are not exposed to heavy rain
conditions for extended periods of time.
9. If the following above conditions cannot be met, or are determined to be too costly, temporary shoring
shall be installed where cuts extend below a 1:1 projection from adjacent properties or structures,
prior to the start of basement excavations. A shoring permit from the City of Encinitas Building or
Engineering Department shall be obtained prior to the construction of shoring. A representative of
Engineering Design Group shall be onsite during shoring excavation.
It should be noted that the site proposes onsite infiltration and the owner should be aware runoff will be
infiltrating below grade. In consideration of the below grade basement the waterproofing will play a critical role
in performance of the subsurface structure and finishes. Engineering Design Group has provided minimum
retaining wall waterproofing recommendations as part of the project soils report. It should be noted this detail
is not site specific. In consideration of the proposed infiltration conditions at the site, the services and site
specific recommendations of a waterproofing contractor may be necessary and should be considered. Any
infiltration trenches shall be designed as far away from basement walls as possible.
If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Pµu " ON.�e
W
No. 65122
Exp. 09/30/2011
1�
Erin E. Rist
California RCE #65122
cc: Gary Cohn, Cohn and Associates
Will Mack, Pasco Larel Suiter and Associates
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
ff01t[NEfJLCM. SIALCILNµ \YKwIKIWW [p6YlP
f11P NISiRNiW 6 [GeNMC W CONSIAUCIQN
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760)f36-7-302 • Fax: (760) 480 -7477 • www.designgroupca.com
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1761 HAYDN AVENUE
CARDIFF CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No.104733 -1
August 12, 2010
PREPARED FOR:
Jose Rocha & Gwen Goodkin
1224 Summit Drive
Cardiff, CA 92007
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
L101lLM16N ,SA 4PoI['UNU \uLx „LL'F11 In.NFl4e-
'R Ni:,MNI ",, 6L44VIY.,M :,MSINII[".N
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839 -7302 • Fax: (760) 460 -7477 • www,designgroupca.com
Date: August 12, 2010
To: Jose Rocha 8 Gwen Goodkin
1224 Summit Drive
Cardiff, CA 92007
Re: Residence located at 1761 Haydn Avenue, Cardiff, City of Encinitas, California
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Report
In accordance with your request we have performed a limited subsurface investigation of the subject site for
the proposed residential development.
The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are
presented in this report. In general it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is
feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted
construction practices are followed.
If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
A�.Zv
Erin E. Rist
California RCE #65122
TABLE OF C
Page
SCOPE.......... ................................ ...............................
1
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................... .......................
1
FIELD INVESTIGATION ........................... .......... .................
..... 1
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS .............................. ...............................
1
GROUNDWATER .................................... ...............................
2
LIQUEFACTION ...................................... ...............................
2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. ...............................
2
GENERAL.
2
EARTHWORK ........................................................
FOUNDATIONS ............................... ...............................
4
CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE .................. ...............................
5
RETAINING WALLS ............................ ...............................
7
SURFACE DRAINAGE .......................... ...............................
8
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING .......... ...............................
8
MISCELLANEOUS .................................... ...............................
9
FIGURES
Site Vicinity Map ............................................................
Figure No. 1
Site Location Map ............................ ...............................
Figure No.2
Approximate Location of Test Pits .............. ...............................
Figure No. 3
Test Pit Logs ............................ ...............................
Test Pit Nos. 1-3
APPENDICES
References .................................. ............................... Appendix A
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ...... ............................... Appendix B
Testing Procedures ........................... ............................... Appendix C
Retaining Wall Drainage Detail .................. ............................... Appendix D
SCOPE
This report gives the results of our limited geotechnical investigation for the property located at 1761 Haydn
Avenue, Cardiff, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map ", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map ").
The scope of our work, conducted to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and
surrounding areas, a limited subsurface investigation of the property in the area of proposed improvements,
field analysis, soil testing and preparation of this report presenting our conclusions and recommendations.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property appears to be an irregular shaped lot located at 1761 Haydn Avenue, Cardiff, California.
The site is bordered to the north, south by single family residences, to the east by Westminster Avenue and
to the west by Haydn Street. The general topography of the site area consists of moderately sloping foothill
terrain. The topography of the site itself generally slopes descending from east to west. At the time of this
report the site is developed with a one story single family residence and a below grade garage.
Based upon our conversations with the project architect and review of the site plan we understand that the
proposed improvements will include the following:
1. Demolition of the existing residence.
2. New two story residence with lower level subterranean garage.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Ourfield investigation of the property consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation
of existing conditions on -site and on adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions.
Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of three hand dug and hang augered test pits in
the approximate area of the proposed building improvements, logging of soil types encountered in the
proposed pad area and sampling of soils for laboratory testing, as deemed necessary. Excavations were
logged by an engineer from our firm. The logs of our exploratory test pits are presented in Test Pit Logs, No.
1 -3.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Materials consisting of topsoil, fill and weathered soils underlain competent sandstone were encountered
during our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types are described as follows:
Topsoil I Fill I Weathered
Topsoil/fill /weathered soils consist of light brown to reddish brown, dry to slightly moist,
medium dense slightly silty sands with small. Toposil/fitl and weathered sandy
materials found in the upper 2 -6 feet below adjacent grade of the area of
improvement are not suitable for the support of structures or settlement sensitive
improvements in their present state. Topsoil and fill soil onsite generally classify as
SW -SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation
generally possess potentials for expansion in the low range.
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
G MCMI L. Cry MUCT L CON TANn
Sandstone
Sandstone was found to underlie fill onsite. Sandstone materials consisted of reddish
brown to tan to grey, moist to very moist, dense slightly silty sandstone. Sandstone
materials are considered suitable for the support of overlying fill soils, structures
and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are
followed. Sandstone classify as SW -SM according to the Unified Classification System,
and based on visual observation and our experience possess potentials for expansion
in the low range.
For detailed logs of soil types encountered in lest pit excavations, as well as a depiction of observed locations,
please see Figure No. 3, "Approximate Location of Test Pits" and Test Pit Logs Nos. 1 -3.
GROUND WATER
Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Groundwater is not
anticipated to be a significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
However, in our experience groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously existed.
Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a significant role in the future performance of the
project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on Grade" section of this report for specific recommendations
regarding water to cement ratio for moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or
waterproofing consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details.
LIQUEFACTION
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major
earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is
not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area.
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research
and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near - surface ground water table are most
susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory
motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near
surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically- induced dynamic settlement at the site is
considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of
the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of
California.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
In general it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint provided that the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices
are followed.
Unsuitable soil profiles found to mantle the upper 2 -6 feel at the locations investigated are not suitable for the
support of settlement sensitive improvements in the present condition. We anticipate building retaining walls
Page No. 2
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
UOWC + L. CNL, sTnucT L CON LTMTS
at the lower level will be founded on cut- sandstone. In the area of the upper level crawl space, foundations
may deepened through fill /weathered profiles to competent sandstone to avoid cut -fill transitions between the
upper and lower level. As an alternative to deepened foundations a removal and recompaction of
fill /weathered mateial may be performed in the area of the crawl space to 95% relative compaction to limit
cuttfill transitions.
The following recommendations should be considered as minimum design parameters, and shall be
incorporated within the project plans and utilized during construction, as applicable.
EARTHWORK
Site grading is anticipated to include the excavation of the lower level garage pad and the formation of the
upper building pad.
1. Site Preparation
Prior to any grading areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and
subsurface debris (including organic topsoil). Removed debris should be properly
disposed of off -site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting
from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend
Wow the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted using on -site material
or a non - expansive import material.
2. Removals
Fill found to mantle the site in our test pit excavations, upper approximately 2-4 feet, is
not suitable for the structural support of buildings or improvements in their present state.
We anticipate removal of these profiles during the lower level garage excavation.
Excavated materials are suitable for re -use as backfill material, provided they are
cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized
material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and are free of contamination.
Any structural sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform
building pad. We anticipate the new lower level and upper level foundation will
be founded on footings bearing on competent sandstone.
3. Transitions
New structures should be constructed on a uniform graded pad. Due to the limited
extent of mitigative grading, where a cut/fill transition occurs all foundations shall extend
to competent sandstone. We do not anticipate any undercuts below footings for this
project.
4. Fills
We anticipate fill to be limited to backfill behind new building retaining walls. All backfill
should be brought to +2% of optimum moisture content, and re -compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) and 95% relative compaction in
the upper 3 feel where upper level footings will span across retaining wall backfill (unless
footings are specifically designed as grade beams in this area). Surficial, loose or soft
soils exposed or encountered during grading (such as any undocumented or loose fill
materials) should be removed to competent material.
Page No. 3
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECMw L, CNIL. STRU TV"L CONSMTMITS
Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import
of soil is planned, soils should be non - expansive (EI <30) and free of debris and organic
matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the
borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. Where new foundations extend across
a retaining wall backfill wedge footings shall be deepened through fill to competent
sandstone.
5. Slopes
Permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Permanent
fill slopes shall be placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary cut slopes
shall be excavated in accordance with OSHA requirements. Subsequent to grading
planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the stability of slopes,
especially during the rainy season (October thru April).
FOUNDATIONS
We anticipate that the proposed foundation system for new residence will utilize a combination of lower level
building retaining walls and continuous perimeter foundations with raised floor system at the upper level. The
following design parameters may be utilized for new footings extended to competent sandstone or
recompacted fill material.
Footings bearing in competent materials may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils
pressure of 2,000 psf.
2. Seismic Design Parameters:
3.
Seismic Design Parameters:
Site Class
SDS (9) 1 0.926
SDI (9)
0.525
Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration
loadings.
The following parameters should be used as a minimum for designing footing width and depth below
lowest adjacent grade:
Minimum Footing Dimensions
No. of Floors I Footing Width I Footing Depth Below
Supported Lowest Adjacent Grade
1 I 15 inches 1 18 inches
2 1 15 inches 1 18 inches
18 inches
24 inches
Footings may be deepened in the field to extend to competent sandstone profiles. This
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECWCAL, CNR, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 4
Job No, 104733 -1
condition should also be noted on project structural plans.
4. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars
at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional
reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary. This detail should be
reviewed on a case by case basis by our office prior to construction.
5. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and
footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c, in each
direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum
width of 24 inches.
6. For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum 10 feet horizontal setback in competent material
or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken
at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this
condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design
Group for review.
7. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report,
applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards.
8. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre- moistened a minimum of 18 inches
in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
9. Where new foundations extend across a retaining wall backfill wedge footings shall be
deepened through fill to competent sandstone. Or backfill shall be compacted to 95%
minimum compaction.
CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
Concrete slabs on grade should use the following as the minimum design parameters:
Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches (5.5 inches at
garage and driveway locations) and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the
midpoint of the slab. All concrete shall be poured per the following:
Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum
Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch
Air Content: 5 to 8 percent
Non - Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2500 psi minimum.
Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio - 0.45 maximum, approximate minimum
resulting compressive strength = 4,000 psi minimum (No special inspection required for water
to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer).
Moisture retarding additive in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors and moisture
sensitive areas.
2. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e, interior living space where slab vapor emission is a concern), the slab
concrete should have a minimum water to cement ratio of 0.45, generally resulting in a compressive
strength of approximately 4,000 psi (non - special inspected) or as determined by the w/c ratio. This
Page No. 5
Job No. 1047331
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECMICAL. CM . STRUMTOfUL CO WLTMTS
recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete.
3. All required fills used to support new foundations, should be placed in accordance with the grading
section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor,
and 95% in the upper 3 feet, ASTM D -1557.
4. For all interior slabs, a uniform layer of 4 inches of washed, clean sand (Sand Equivalent > 50,
decomposed granite is generally not acceptable) is recommended under the slab in order to more
uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary
break. In addition, a visqueen layer (15 mil) should be placed mid - height in the sand bed to act as
a vapor retarder. The visqueen layer should lap a minimum of 6 inches, sealed along all laps and
extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a minimum of 12 inches.
5. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes
place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located
to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer.
6. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre - soaked to 2 percent over optimum
moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.
7. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately
cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage
to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques (linoleum type)
which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor
finishes.
8. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor
subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected
concrete cracking, the following may be implemented:
• Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches.
• Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete
is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the
slump kept to a minimum.
• Concrete subgrade should be pre - soaked prior to the pouring of concrete.
The level of pre- soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of
18 inches.
• Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Faatwork adjacent to top of a
slope should be constructed with a outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet distance to
daylight.
• Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating concrete
sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints
should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width
should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at
expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement
placed in accordance with industry standards.
• Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement.
Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such
that water is not trapped below the flatwork.
• The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking.
The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and
performance, and should pursue a cost - benefit analysis of these recommendations, and
Page No. 6
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTEC��, CWIL. STFUCTLNUL COn T, S
other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete.
RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls up to 12 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following
recommendations and minimum design parameters:
Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in
the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in
'Foundation" section of this report.
2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure
of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with low potential for expansion
(E.I. <50) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Based upon our field
investigation onsite soil may be utilized as retaining wall backfill, to be confirmed in the field at the
time of site grading.
3. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized:
Back(ll Sloping Condition
2:1 Slope
1.5 :1 Slope
Active Fluid Pressure
50 pcf
65 pcf
Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values.
4. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an at rest soil
pressure of 65 psf.
5. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf. This value
assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the
height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available
passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 limes the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must
be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length.
6. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral
loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above.
7. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished,
the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall.
8. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be
designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the "Retaining Wall Drainage
Detail ", Appendix D. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are minimums, and are
intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or architedhe recommendations
should be reviewed in consideration of proposed finishes and usage, especially at basement levels,
performance expectations and budget. If deemed necessary by the project owner, based on the
above analysis, and waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under drains and
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
G OTECHN L, CIVIL, STRVCTU CONSULTANTS
enhanced waterproofing elements.
Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork" section
of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining
material.
10. Al moisture sensitive locations, i.e. basement walls, cast -in -place concrete retaining walls should be
considered in lieu of masonry retaining walls.
11. Retaining wall backfill zone shall be detailed to reduce moisture intrusion. Detailing of the retaining
wall shall include both french drain at the base of the stem to collect subsurface water and drainage
detailing at top to collect potential surface water within the crawl space.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will playa critical role on the future performance
of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or
adjacent to foundation walls, or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements
should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a
minimum slope of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales
should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Any french drains,
backdrains and/or slab underdrains shall not be tied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters and
downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tighllined to the area drain system. All
drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept
free of debris to allow for proper drainage.
Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Irrigation
should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow irrigation devices as well as
automatic rain shutoff devices should be installed to reduce over watering. Irrigation practices and
maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an important component to the performance of onsite
improvements.
During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such
as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible Any leakage from sources such as water
lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other
vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled
or avoided.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our
investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during
construction. The following items shall be conducted prior /during construction by a representative of
Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering
recommendations provided herein, as applicable.
Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work for compliance with geotechnical
recommendations.
Page No. 8
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECNNICAL. CIVIL. STRULnML CONSMTANTS
2. Attendance of a pre - grade /construction meeting prior to the start of work.
3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches.
4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation equipment.
5. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils.
6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval.
The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel
reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design
Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting the above Observation
and Testing protocol.
Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality
control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize
onsite for field observation and testing.
MISCELLANEOUS
It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs
of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements
resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions
induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic
cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes.
Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a
visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory lest pits. The recommendations in this report are
based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We
believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliabtlity for anticipating the behavior of the
proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor
can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the
accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied.
This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as
stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change.
Man -made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition,
changes in requirements due to stale of the art knowledge and /or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a
result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the
specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated
above are altered.
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be
incorporated into the plans and /or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a
contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions,
be retained to build the structure.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to
contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development
of the project.
Page No. 9
Job No. 104733 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECRRICAL. CNIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
San Marcos, i o.
04 Escondido '7
:J
}
Enc nitasn l C. � 1761 Haydn Dr, Cardiff by- the -Sea, A 92001
Poway
J-
�. .
1 - - 14 � Lakesir
1 n (acs O EI Cajon
.
' 16 Europa Tel ` q•ta 1
.,IC La Mesa :,,COO
Data 510aNO�AA U 5 Nary, fiGA AGE6'.0 .,,,,Coo
GCCoo'�. al. su'.0 1{
% Date Feb 2B. 2068 32.57,0373'N 11790'32 B51W Way, IO tt F�Gr'rlg L;a "8 ; _ -- .Ere aIt730a46 mh CSC
Site Location
PROJECT NAME Rocha / Goodkin
PROJECT ADDRESS 1761 Haydn Drive, Cardiff, CA 92007
EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
104733 -1 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, CA 92069 2
Phone: (760 )839 -7302 Fax: (760)480 -7477
LOGGED BY: ER
TEST PIT LOG NO.1
I SAMPLED By: ER
GEOLOGIC
SAMPLE
ATTITUDES
No.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOILiWEATHERED SANDS
0 -6 ft. Light, dark to reddish brown, dry to moist, loose, slightly silty to
coarse sands. (SW —SM)
0
�9 ft..ELight
77--
tan to gray, slightly moist to moist, dense silty sands.
(SW —SM)
GRAPHIC
APROXIMATE SCALE:
LOG
(V) 1-
= 0.5' (H) NfS SURFACE SLOPE: f 0' TREND:
0'
-- 7.17+^.7 ..
5.0'
'
.. .
8.0
~•
TOTAL DEPTH
= 9'
9.0'
10.0'
11.0'
ENGDOMMG
EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG
DMGN GROUP
ROCHA RESIDENCE
Ram Rory
1761 HAYDN AVENUE CARDIFF, CA
K YARC09, G 020e9
9W
JOB NO.
DATE
('n0) e70 -733
FAX (700) 00-7477
TEST PIT No. 1
104733 -1
8 -6 -10
TEST PIT LOG NO.2
LOGGED BY:
ER
SAMPLED BY: ER
GEOLOGIC
ATTTfUDES
SAMPLE
No.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
O
0 -1.5 ft. Dry, brown, loose to cemented, slightly silty sands. (SW -SM)
SANDSTONE
1.5 - 2.5 k. Reddish brown, coarse to fine, slightly moist, sandstone.
(SW -SM)
GRAPHIC
LOG
APROXIMATE SCALE: SURFACE SLOPE t 0
(V) 1' = 0.5' (H) NTS
TREND:
0'
____:
1
TOTAL DEPTH = 2'
-6'
4.0'
5.0'
7.0'
8.0'
9.0'
10.0'
11.0'
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
2121 yam ROAD
SAN W6C08, G 92020 e4
(700) W9-7302
FAX (7e0) 4eo -7477
EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG
ROCHA RESIDENCE
1761 HAYDN AVENUE CARDIFF,
CA
JOB No.
DATE
TEST PfT No. 2
104733 -1
8 -6 -10
TEST PIT LOG NO.3
sa�MPELED BY: ER
GEOLOGIC
ATTITUDES
SAMPLE
No.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
O
0
TOPSOIL/WEATHERED SANDS
0 - 4.5 ft. Light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist, loose, slightly silty
sonds. (SW -SM)
SANDSTONE
4.5 — 5 ft. Light ton, slightly moist, dense, slightly silty sandstone. (SW —SM)
GRAPHIC
LOG
APROXIMATE SCALE:
(V) 1' = 0.5' (H) NTS SURFACE SLOPE: t 0' TREND:
0'
1.
3.0'
4.0'
6.0' TOTAL DEPTH =
5' -0'
7.0'
8.0'
9.0'
10.0'
11.0'
ENGROMP"1G
DESIGN GROUP
2121 Mom ROAD
SM WARCOS. CA ozoeo
(veo) eso -7=
M (M) seo -van
D(PLORATORY TRENCH LOG
ROCHA RESIDENCE
1761 HAYDN AVENUE CARDIFF, CA
JOB No.
DATE
TEST PR No. 3
104733 -1
8 -6 -10
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page.
2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in
California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990.
3. Day, Robert W. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction-" 1999.
McGraw Hill.
4. Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data.
5. Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K. 1977, "Permanent displacements of Earth embankments by
6. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
7. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in
Abbott, P.L. and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and
Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
8. Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71 -17, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi."
9. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes:
California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195 -199
10. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975.
11. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977.
12. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee,
Macroseminar Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006.
13. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael P., "Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of San Diego
County, California, Plate 2, Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5'
Quadrangles, San Diego County, California ",dated 1996,
14, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline
Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December
15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal
Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87 -2), dated June.
16. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott,
P.L. and Elliott, W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip
guidebook.
17 Various Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX B
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1.0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and
earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and
grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and
shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict.
Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the
geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these
specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testinq
Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the
recommendations of the geolechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of
the contractorto assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least
24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations
should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not
assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
accomplish the work in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances,
recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding the
testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant If, in the opinion of the consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction,
adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical
report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend
that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction shouts be performed in general
accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method
ASTM D1557.
3.0 Preparations of Areas to be Filled
3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material
should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design
engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant.
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending
on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material
should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of
large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free
of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic -rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable
ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the
condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated,
a licensed land surveyor / civil engineer should be utilized.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavaled and processed soils should be watered, dried back,
blended and / or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
3.5 Recomoactiom Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed,
screened of deleterious material and moisture - conditioned should be recompacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the
geotechnical consultant.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to
vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum
of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping Flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise
overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas
and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill
placement.
4.0 Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed
as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve
satisfactory fill material.
4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension of greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location,
materials and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical
consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material
does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted
or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish
grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet
horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail.
4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the
requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical
consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
51 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive
fill, in near - horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer
should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture
throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried -back, blended and /or mixed, as
necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
t 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture - conditioned and
mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to no less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve
r . the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished in addition to normal compacting
procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill
elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of
grading, the relative compaction of fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent.
5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the
fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on file dconditions
encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition to, on slope faces,
as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for every 5,000 square feet of slope
face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope.
6.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability
by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the
plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless
recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant however, may recommend changes
in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by
a licensed land surveyor / civil,engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be
allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains.
7.0 Excavation
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant
(as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation and refilling of cut areas and /or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e. stability fills or
slope buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the
limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor / civil engineer should be utilized.
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
13' MIN. I _--COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MIN. LOWEST / MATERIAL AS EVALUATED
KEY BENCH (/ BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
DEPTH
(KEY) CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
/ /
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
// � FINISHED CUT PAD
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
- ------- - - - - --
__ ____
�----- --- _
_COMPACTEo- _ =r'
== J�----- ______
OVERBURDEN OR
_F=
= =� s
UNSUITABLE
-_ = -�� _ = = -_ - -- PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
____
- - -__ -_ AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
MATERIAL
- r_== ______
---- RECOMMENDED - "' RECOMMENDED BY THE
----------- -.
-- - GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
— BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.
13' MIN. I _--COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MIN. LOWEST / MATERIAL AS EVALUATED
KEY BENCH (/ BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
DEPTH
(KEY) CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
-4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
_
BACK CUT
-'- = 1:1 OR FLATTER
ENCH
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
KEY — 10' MIN.
DEPTH -_ {_____ __ _ ?IN• == PERFORATED f� EACH SIDE
- _ PIPE
___-___ CAP
MIN. " _____ ____ =_2!t MIN: __ __ _ -� HON - PERFORATED
—3 =-
OUTLET PIPE
AS NOTED KEY GRADhING PLANS T- CONNECTION DETAIL
15' MIN.
B' MIN.
OVEFiLAi
3/4*- 1-112'
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3ftP /1t. MIN.)_
4.0
NON - PERFORATED .
PIPE, l
f�1
FILTER FABRIC —�
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
14ON OR APPROVED
EOUIVALENT)i
SEE T- CONNECTION
DETAIL
f I, COVER
4'
. PERFORATED
PIPE
5% MtN.
4' MIN.
BEDDING
TAIL
*1F CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'- 1.1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
% Passing
1"
100
3/4"
00 -100
3/8"
40 -100
No. 4
25 -40
No. 8
18 -33
N0. 30
5 -15
No. 50
0 -7
No. 200
0 -3
Sand Equivalent
>75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report /plena. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdrain
may be chanoed by the oeotechnlcal consultant based on field conditions.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - aubdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the geotechniCal consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE - aubdrain type should be Acrylon Irile Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,80R 32.0 should be useo for maximum fill depths of 35 teat.
Class 2009SOR 21 should be used for maximum 1111 depth• of 100 feet.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
— EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
BENCHING
-r_ =T - -- � REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
1��311� - ---------
��- 'fir MATERIAL
--
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE �B' MIN. OVERLAP
e' MIN. OVERLAPS (MIRAFI 14ON OR APPROVED
Ir \I _II EQUIVALENT)*
(I Q' MIN. 0' MIN.! � _ /_
/! COiVER CO`ER t •'' 3 /4'- 1-1 /2' CLEAN
4' MIN. BEDDING - :I, 91 Et MIN.)
3/4'- 1.1/2" CLEAN' "Tf' { uJIL-
GRAVEL (9ft P /ft. MIN.)
B' PI MIN. *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
PIPE 314- 1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE _ = SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
—SEE ABOVE
15' MIN. 5'MINi PERFORATED
B fd MIN. PIPE
NONPERFORATED B' A MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Passing
1"
1DO
3/4"
90 -100
3/8"
40 -100
No. 4
25 -40
No. 8
I8-33
No. 30
5 -15
No. 50
0 -7
No. 200
0 -3
Sand Equivalent >75
Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the peotechnical
consultant.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln plpe should be installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the peotechniCal consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed.
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 1231SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum
fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200,SOR 21 should be used for maximum 1111 deptha of 100 last.
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING
GROUND 9URfACE �
2' MIN. 15' MIN ----{
KEY LOWEST 1
DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
FILL - OVER -CUT SLOPE
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
2
i
2 LO ' LOWEST
MIN. BENCH
KEY DEPTH (KEY)
BENCH
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
- REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
CUT - OVER -FILL SLOPE
PROJECT 1 TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
MINI2' MI N. LOWEST
KEY DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
EXISTING Z/
GROUND
SURFACE � I�-n`
f
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
/ PRIOR TO FILL
/ PLACEMENT)
ENCH
-REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on field conditions encountered.
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
SLOPE FACE
OVERSIZE WINDROW
PINLBH GRADE
_ 1—.A
GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.?JO) TO BE
OEN31FIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING
DETAIL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than a inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greeter),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces,
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in lilts.
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
Direct Shear Test:
Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a
minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore
pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force.
The samples are sheared in a motor - driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel
of approximately 114 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15
minutes. Where applicable, the "relaxed" and "peak" shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a
majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore
pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good
estimations of effective strength parameters.
Expansion Index Tests:
The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard
No. 29 -2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture
content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1 -inch thick by 4 -inch diameter specimens
are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric
equilibrium is reached.
Classification Tests:
Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain -size analysis by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass
screens (ASTM D22 -65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were
encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain -size
distribution curves are presented in test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test
data and the boring logs.
APPENDIX D
MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING
& DRAINAGE DETAIL tKIIE MIS DETAIL REFRLSEITS THE MINAALl ' WAIL DRAINAGE AND
(NOT TO SCALE) WATERPROOFING APPLICATION TO SATLSFY THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
INTENT OF THE RETAINING WAIL THE ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER OF
RECORD FDR THE PROJECT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN
--,-F AND SPECIFICATION OF THE WATERPROOFING ASSEMBLY.
70P DF WALL �(
RETMANG WALL
(CONC OR CWU)
WAIL F0077NO
• a
o
a ,
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
JOB NUMBER
BLDG WHERE APPLIES
O
COMPACTED BACWLI
i y y J
90x MIN. RELATNE
COMPACTION
OHLM
5000 INSLILLED PER
YANUFACIURER'S SPEGFlCATLDNS k
PROTECTED WITH PROTECTION BOARD
(ABM MIRADR41N) WSW NOT 10
L
BE EXPOSED TO SUNLoIT
MRADRMN (OR EMM) #STALLED
I
PER MWUFACTLIRER'S SPECWATmS
��2
®mw
OYER WS17C WATERPROMM
noER FABRIC
W/ 6- LAP
s
c
O J / * ' GRAVEL (1 SF / F)
O6 4' DIA PERFORATED DRUN LINE
(SCH 40 OR EOMW.)
PERrMTXW ORIENTED DOWN 1
X GRADIM TO SLUABLE OUnET
- DM7 PIPE LOCATION TO BE
DCTERMNED BY 577E
Ca%IRAYFTS
OPROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT PER
DSHA STANDARDS OR, PER
ALMMINE SLOPING PLAN, OR PER
APPROVED S7FORNC PLAN
O 40W (45') C'ONCREFE CWT 0
FTC/WALL CONNECTION (UNDER
WATERPROOfW)
OFOAM PROTECTION BOARD BELOW
GRADF k W PROTECDON BUARD
ABV GRADE PER MFR SPMFV71M
ALT LOC4'RDN
im ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
217A MWtlfl RD
SAN LAKV. G 97065
(760) 6J5 -7307 F" (760) 4W-7477
MANUFACTURER'S COMED
INSTALLERS ONLY.
APPL)CAWNS 7D BE
CONFIRMED BY
A WUFAC7URER S
REPRESENTATNE
FIGURE
ATTAC1MENT "B "
DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT
17V HA YDN DRIVE
SCALE 1 " =10'
2' MAX HIGH
SEGMENTAL BLOCK -
RETAINING WALL PER
CITY OF ENCINITAS
GRADING PLAN 10640 -G I
t -
3' WIDE TLRFBLOCK
SWALE PER CITY OF
ENCINITAS GRADING
PLAN 10640 -G
Q
Z
APN
J260- 276 -07
T -
20' I 20, ) ...
F401
3' WIDE TLRFBLOCK
SWALE PER CITY OF
ENCINITAS GRADING -- - =
PLAN 10640
I _
2' MAX HIGH
A
SEGMENTAL BLOCK
RETAINING WALL PER r�G�1J
CITY OF ENCINITAS
GRADING PAN 10640 -G i 260-276 -0e
YL:;A 1tJ1.
C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
'ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 10640GI
------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PARCEL NO. : 260- 276 -0700 PLAN NO.:
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1761 HAYDN DR CASE NO.: 10029 / CDP
APPLICANT NAME JOSE ROCHA /GWEN GOODKIN
MAILING ADDRESS: 1761 HAYDN DR PHONE NO.: 310 - 200 -4494
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024-
CONTRACTOR : BAUER PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO.: 619 - 520 -2077
LICENSE NO.: 707610 LICENSE TYPE: B
ENGINEER : PLS&A PHONE NO.: 858- 259 -8212
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 1/20/11
PERMIT EXP. PERMIT ISSUED BY:
INSPEC TODD BAUMBACH
------------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------- - - - - --
1.
PERMIT FEE
290.00
2.
GIS MAP FEE
.00
3.
INSPECTION FEE
2,496.00
4.
INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
.00
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
49.9.00
6.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
49,924.00
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FE
105.00
8.
TRAFFIC FEE
.00
9.
IN -LIEU UNDERGRN
.00
10.IN
-LIEU IMPROVMT'
00
ll.PLAN
CHECK FEE
.00
12.PLAN
CHECK DEPOSIT:
.00
-------
--- -- - - - - --
DESCRIPTION
OF
WORK - ----- -- -----------------
- - ----
PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK,
DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR MUST
MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS OR
APPROVED PLAN. LETTER DATED DECEMBER 7, 2010 APPLIES.
- - -- INSPECTION - - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION 1-1� -it
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED - ZS'- ti
0
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED Z - ( t
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION 3 -7g-/ f
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
ll 3(o 2-00 `q6l l
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER
PARCEL NO.
JOB SITE ADDRESS
APPLICANT NAME
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY: ENCINITAS
C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 10640PE
260 - 276 -0700
1761 HAYDN DR
JOSE ROCHA /GWEN GOODKIN
1761 HAYDN DR
STATE: CA ZIP
CONTRACTOR : BAUER PACIFIC
LICENSE NO.: 707610
INSURANCE COMPANY NAME:
POLICY NO. :
ENGINEER : PLSkA
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 1/20/11
PERMIT EXP 2
INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBA
CONSTRUCTION
PLAN NO.:
CASE NO.: 10029 / CDP
PHONE NO.: 310- 200 -4494
92024-
PHONE NO.: 619 -520 -2077
LICENSE TYPE: B
POLICY EXP. DATE: 0 /00 /00
PHONE 0.: 858- 259 -8212
PERMIT ISSUED BY: I/ ~
-------------------
- - - - --
PERMIT FEES
& DEPOSITS ----------------------------
1.
PERMIT FEE
290.00
2.
GIS MAP FEE
.00
3.
INSPECTION FEE
.00
4.
INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
.00
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
.00
6.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
.00
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FE
.00
8.
TRAFFIC FEE
.00
9.
IN -LIEU UNDERGRN
.00
10.IN
-LIEU IMPROVMNT
.00
ll.PLAN
CHECK FEE
.00
12.PLAN
CHECK DEPOSIT:
.00
--------- --------- - -- -- -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK -------------------------------
PERMIT FOR PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT OF ITEMS IN THE ROW SHOWN ON GRADING
PLAN #10640 -G. SEE PLAT FOR DETAILS. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC
CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS OR APPROVED PLAN.
- - -- INSPECTION -------- -- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION I - Ze t'
FINAL INSPECTION S - - ( Z ?�
-------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- - - - - --
I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE.
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER
►l-2blso ki
DATE 9IGNVD
3ro 2-c* LH9 f
TELEPHONE NUMBER