2010-10578 GLine: 50 ll8 X746
UNGINEERIAU Sh'HV1l:KA' Dl'iYHiC'1'MiSN'1
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PLAN PERMIT NO.: 10578SG
PARCEL NO. : 258- 141 -5600 PLAN NO.: 1057BG
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 599 CAMINO EL DORADO CASE NO.: 10080 / CDP
APPLICANT NAME SAWTOOTH DEVELOPMENT
MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 1336 PHONE NO.: 858- 229 -3506
CITY: SOLANA BEACH STATE: CA ZIP: 92075-
CONTRACTOR : SAWTOOTH DEVELOPMENT PHONE NO.: 858- 229 -3506
LICENSE NO.: 824807 LICENSE TYPE: B
ENGINEER : PLSA ENGINEERING PHONE NO 858- 259 -8212
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 9/24/10
PERMIT EXP. DATE: 9/24/11 PERMIT ISSUED BY: '
INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH
- --- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------- - - - - --
1.
PERMIT FEE
1,800.00
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 SIMPLIFIED GRADING PER APPROVED SG PERMIT 10578 -SG.
CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER APPROVED
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS. NO WORK IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.
- - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION 9 -2-9- /o
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED 10-57-0
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED /O
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION
INSPECTOR'S
NEW
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION S CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGU ING XCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PRRMISSU� PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
q/z #//y
DATE IGN
141 ck_n
PRINT NAMHj TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUT'
2121MOntiel Roatl, San Marcos, Califorroa 42069 • (7E0) 6397302 •Fax (760) ajp.7c77 • vmv: tlesigngroapca eom
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION
NEW RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT
599 CAMINO EL DORADO,
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No. 1047141.1
June 24, 2010
PREPARED FOR:
SaMooth Development
Attn: Clay Sammis
PO Box 1336
Solana Beach, CA 92075
SEP D2 4 2010
ENGIIIEERING SERVICES
"'.TY OF ENCINITAS
�i
M ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
2121 Monliel Road, San Marcos, Catilornia 92069 • (760) 839.7302 • Fax ;760; [81'7477 • wv:wdesigncrouoca coc
■ ■■N Date: June 24, 2010
yTo: Sawtooth Development
Attn: Clay Sammis
PO Box 1336
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Re: Proposed New Residence to be located at 599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation & Report
In accordance with your request and our Work Authorization and Agreement dated June 10, 2010, we have
prepared this geotechnical report for the proposed new residence development.
The findings of our 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 havKny juestions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office.
DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California RGE #2590
GE2S90
EXP. InIlt 1
r
Erin List
California RCE 5122
No. 65122
F-M 9wi t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SCOPE............................................... ............................... f
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................ ............................... 7
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS .................................. ............................... 1
GROUND WATER ........................................ ............................... 2
LIQUEFACTION..........................................
............................... 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................
............................... 3
GENERAL........................................
............................... 3
EARTHWORK.....................................
............................... 3
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
Trench Location Map .............................
............................... Figure No.3
Trench Logs ............................. ...............................
Trench Logs Nos. 1-5
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 our recommendations for the proposed new residence to be located at 599 Camino El Dorado,
Encinitas, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map ", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map "). The scope
of our work conducted onsite to date has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas,
a limited subsurface investigation of the subject property and preparation of this report presenting our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
For the purposes of this report the property is assumed to face west. The subject property appears to be a
rectangular shaped lot located at 599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California. The property is bordered to the
north, south by single family homes, to the east by a descending canyon and to the west by Camino El Dorado.
The general topography of the site area consists of hillside terrain. The site consists of a relatively flat building pad
flanked to the east (rear) by a descending slope to the canyon below. At the time of this report the lot is
unimproved.
Based upon our conversations with the project developer and our review of the project site plan we understand that
development will consist of the following:
A new main residence founded on raised foundation with an attached garage
Detached accessory unit and carport.
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Based upon our subsurface investigation of the property the site soil profiles and soil types are described as
follows:
Toosoil/Weathered Sands
Topsoil and weathered sands consisting of slightly silty sands with small roots. These profiles
extend to depths between approximately 15 inches to 32 inches below adjacent grade. The
materials consist of dark to light brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty sands. Topsoil and
weathered sand materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present
state. Slightly silty sands classify as SW -SM according to the Unified Classification System, and
based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the low range.
Sandstone
Sandstone material underlie the topsoillweathered material at the subject site. Sandstone
materials consisted of tan to grey, moist, dense to very dense, slightly silty sandstone. Sandstone
materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural
improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone
materials 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.
New Residence Page No. 1
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
CEOTECWC I. CML, STRV Tw COF,$V.TI
GROUND WATER
Ground water was not encountered as part of our subsurface investigation. 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 playa 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 silly 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.
New Residence Page No. 2
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEGTEC"I AL. CML. s7iNcrL Co,suLTN s
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
In the area of the proposed new residence unsuitable soil profiles found to mantle the upper 15 to 30 inches are
not suitable for the support of settlement sensitive improvements. In consideration of the proposed raised wood
floors we anticipate foundation excavations will be deepended through unsuitable profiles and grading will be limited
to the slab on grade garage. 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
We anticipate all new building foundations will be deepended through unsuitable profiles and grading will be limited
to the slab on grade garage. Grading operations shall be conducted in accordance with the recommendations
below as well as the Appendix B of this report, as applicable.
1. Site Preparation
Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and
subsurface debris (including organic topsoil and vegetative debris). 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 below the
underculdepths noted, should be filled and compacted using onsite material or an import material
with a low potential for expansion.
2. Removals
Fill and weathered profiles found to mantle the site in our trench excavations, upper approximately
22 inches feet, as observed in the field, are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or
structural improvements in their present state. We recommend a rip, removal and recompaction
in the areas of proposed slab on grade Floors of the garage. In general grading should consist of
the removal of unsuitable soil to an anticipated 18 inches and scarification of subgrade to a depth
of 12 inches and the re- compaction of fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.
In the area of driveways the upper 18 inches below adjacent grade shall be ripped and
recompacted, as described herein. Excavated fill materials are suitable for re -use as fill material
during grading, 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.
3. Transitions
Any structural sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform building pad. In
consideration of the deepened foundations at the raised floor portion of the building and the
shallow removals at the area of the garage, we anticipate all foundations excavations will be
deepened and placed on competent sandstone material.
New Residence Page No. 3
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Gconc"Sc. CNh S� CO MTN
4. Fills
All fill in the area of removal and recompaction should be brought to +2% of optimum moisture
content, and re- compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91).
Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in
diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re- compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction (based on ASTM 01557 -91). Surficial, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered
during grading (such as any undocumented or loose fill materials) should be removed to
competent material and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement.
Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 6-8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil
is planned, soils should have a low potential for expansion (EI <50), 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
backfll 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
The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded on competent sandstone.
Footings bearing in competent sandstone may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure
of 2,000 psf.
2. Seismic Design Parameters:
Site Class
D
Spectral Response Coefficients
SM (g)
0.878
Sol (g)
0.496
Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short
duration loadings.
3. The following parameters should be used as a minimum for designing new fooling width and depth below
lowest adjacent grade:
New Residence Page No. 4
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714.1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
CEOTECMN L. CML. s: Po.CTl1I1K CON$lf -TNIIS
No. of Floors Supported
Minimum Footing Width
"Minimum Footing Depth Below
Lowest Adjacent Grade
1
15 Inches
15 Inches
2
15 Inches
18 Inches
3
18 inches
24 Inches
'Fooling depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design
Group prior to the placement of steel and removal of excavation equipment.
4. All footings founded into recompacted fill 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, and should be reviewed by
project structural engineer 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 and depth of 24 inches.
6. For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum of 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 to 2% over optimum to a minimum of
18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
Concrete slabs on grade are anticipated at the garage and driveway areas. Concrete slab on grade floors founded
on recompacted fill material 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 #3 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the
midpoint of the slab.
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 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) as determined by the w/c ratio. This
recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete.
New Residence
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas. California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Job No.
3. The project architect and/or waterproofing consultant should provide all slab underdrain, flooring sealers
and various other details, specifications and recommendations (Le Moistslop and l.inkseal) at areas of
potential moisture intrusion (i.e. basement slabs and slab penetrations). Engineering Design Group
accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of the building.
4. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this
report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D -1557
(Figure 4), and as described in the Earthwork section of this report.
5. A one inch layer of coarse sand material, Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean of fine
materials, should be placed beneath the slab. Sand should be rounded to avoid puncture of visqueen
vapor retarder. In moisture sensitive areas, a visqueen layer (15 mil) should be placed below the upper
one inch of sand to act as a vapor retarder. The visqueen layer should extend down the interior edge of
the footing excavation a minimum of 12 inches. The visqueen layer should lap a minimum of 6 inches,
sealed along all laps with the manufacturers recommended adhesive, and extend down the interior edge
of the footing excavation a minimum of 12 inches. Beneath the vapor retarder a uniform layer of 4 inches
of pea gravel 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured
prior to installing the finish or N 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.
9. 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. Flatwork 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 sawculs (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 awayfrom the improvement. Concrete
subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not
trapped below the flatwork.
New Residence Page No. 6
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714.1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEORbMriLL.0 .fTRUGT COV TMTS
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 other options available in
the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete.
RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls are not anticipate for the project, but retaining walls up to 6 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 "Foundations"
section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall footings will be placed on recompacted fill
material or competent sandstone. Where cut -fill transitions may occur footings may be deepened to
competent material or alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering Design Group on a case
by case basis.
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. c50) will
be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is
not very low (E.I. >50) a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill
materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We
anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the following
parameters may be utilized:
Backfill 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.
1 If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an uniform at -rest
soil pressure of 65 psf.
4. 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 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the
percent reduction in available horizontal length,
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 architect. The recommendations should be reviewed in
New Residence Page No. 7
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOIECHWK .OM, StPUCY� C U:TMTS
consideration of proposed finishes and usage 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 enhanced waterproofing elements.
8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork" section of this
report. Backfll shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a 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 lied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing
structures and tightlined 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 shut -off 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 pending 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. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary
during the development of the proposed improvement(s).
1. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work for compliance with geotechnical
recommendations.
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 shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above
inspections have been conducted bya representative of theirfirm, and the design considerations of the project soils
New Residence Page No. 8
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California Job No. 104714 -1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOrFGIW,-Jl. GML, STNUCTUWLL CCNSIRTANrS
report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for
Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building.
Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this
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 test 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 reliability 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 staled 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 lime. In addition, changes
in requirements due to state 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 slated 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.
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
acarwNSU, CIM. Smucruas eor suruas
Page No. 9
Job No. 104714 -1
Site Vicinity
PROJECT NAME Sawtooth
PROJECT ADDRESS 599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, CA 92024
EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
2121 Monfiel Road, San Marcos. CA 92069
104714 -1 Phone: (760)839-7302 Fax: (760)480-7477 1
�
k
i
1
r,.
.a •.
M _ t 1
1
1. •. }•w.� .SKr;'' ,,���-
f
59 9 : '
9 GaminD E] EltDorado, Entinitas,
CA 9202d
rev
a
un
�
r
4
~
ImiO• U S eo •p¢a uney ►1
{{ .
�
�M,Google
I'im}apnylOal• Fsb 28.:200!,F va
t.OtD Gaayl•
070,10 'ME GI
1 7D•02'4�TN 117'182Bl2•W H•^ 04
Eye alt 75511 (�
Site Location
PROJECT
••
PROJECTADDRESS
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, CA 92024
PROJECT EDG
Il
I
Monfief Road, • 92069
Phone: (760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477
5l AN
I WM TMp I
LYOfGISD
VL J[4 UluC!
4
p— Approximate Test Pit Locations
PROJECT NAME Sawtooth
PROJECT ADDRESS 599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, CA 92024
EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERDVG DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
2121 Monllel Road, San Marcos, CA 92069
104714 -1 Phone:(760)839 -7302 Fax:(760)460 -7477 3
Project Name: I Sawtooth Development - El Dorado
EDG Project Number: 1 104717.1
TRENCH LOG NO. 1
Location: 1 599 Camino El Dorado Encinitas California I Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s)
6124/10
Total Depth:
30 in
Groundwater
NIA
Excavated:
Topsoil /Weathered Sands
Dark to light brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty
Level:
sands, with small roots.
Logged By:
ER
Approx. Surface
312
Backfrlled
6/24110
Elev.
Tan to grey, moist, dense, very slightly silty sandstone.
(date)
Excavation
Beckhoe
Method:
Soil Type
Depth
Material Description and Notes
UCSC
Sample
1
0 -15"
Topsoil /Weathered Sands
Dark to light brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty
sands, with small roots.
2
15 -30"
Sandstone
Tan to grey, moist, dense, very slightly silty sandstone.
GRAFHIC REPRESENTATION'
0
2 \ z- /
4
5
Project Name:
Sawtoolh Development - El Dorado
TRENCH LOG NO. 2
EDG Project Number:
104717 -1
N/A
Location:
599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, Cali`ornia
Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s)
6/24/10
Total Depth:
38 in
Groundwater
N/A
Excavated:
TopsoillWeathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Level:
Lagged By:
ER
Approx. Surface
312
Backfilled
6/24/10
Elev.
30 -38"
(date)
(SW -SM)
Excavation
Backhoe
Tan, moist, derse, slightly silty sandstone.
Method:
Soil Type
Depth
Material Description and Notes
UCSC
Sample
1
0 -30"
TopsoillWeathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Dark to light brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty
sands, with small roots.
2
30 -38"
Sandstone
(SW -SM)
Tan, moist, derse, slightly silty sandstone.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION:
0
. t
2 :r--
L
4
5
Project Name: I Sawtooth Development - El Dorado
EDG Project Number: 1 104717 -1
TRENCH LOG NO. 3
Location: 1 599 Camino El Dorado Encinitas California I Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s)
6/24110
Total Depth:
36 in
Groundwater
NIA
Excavated:
Topsoi[fWeathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Level:
Logged By:
ER
Approx. Surface
312
Backfilled
6/24/10
(SW -SM)
Elev.
(date)
Excavation
Backhoe
Method:
Soil Type
Depth
Material Description and Notes
UCSC
Sample
1
0 -28"
Topsoi[fWeathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Light brown, dry, loose, silty sands, with small roots.
2
28 -36"
Sandstone
(SW -SM)
Tan to light grey, moist, dense, slightly Silty sandstone.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION:
0
2
4
5
Project Name: I Sawloolh Development - El Dorado
EDG Project Number: 1 104717 -1
TRENCH LOG NO. 4
Location: 1 599 Camino El Dorado Encinitas California Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s)
6124110
Total Depth:
36 in
Groundwater
WA
Excavated:
Topsoil /Weathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Dark to light brown, dry, loose, silty sands, with small
Level:
roots.
Logged By:
ER
Approx. Surface
312
BackfiNed
6124110
Elev.
Tan, moist, very dense, slightly silty sandstone.
(date)
Excavation
Backhoe
Method:
Soil Type
Depth
Material Description and Notes
UCSC
Sample
1
0 -32"
Topsoil /Weathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Dark to light brown, dry, loose, silty sands, with small
roots.
2
32 -36"
Sandstone
(SW -SM)
Tan, moist, very dense, slightly silty sandstone.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION:
0
1 t
2 1^
1 2 .
4
5
Project Name: I Sawtooth Development - El Dorado
EDG Project Number: 1 104717 -1
TRENCH LOG NO. 5
[Location: 1 599 Camino El Dorado Encinitas California I Sheet 1 of 1
Date(s)
6124110
Total Depth:
24 in
Groundwater
NIA
Excavated.•
Topsoil/Weathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Dark brown to light brown, dry, loose, silty sands, with
Level:
small roots.
Logged By:
ER
Approx. Surface
312
Back {iNed
6124110
Elev.
Tan to grey, moist, very dense, slightly silty sandstone.
(date)
Excavation
Backhoe
Method:
Soil Type
Depth
Material Description and Notes
UCSC
Sample
t
0 -20"
Topsoil/Weathered Sands
(SW -SM)
Dark brown to light brown, dry, loose, silty sands, with
small roots.
2
20 -24"
Sandstone
(SW -SM)
Tan to grey, moist, very dense, slightly silty sandstone.
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION:
0
2 Z:
4
5
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 75
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 geolechnical 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 Testing
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 geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of
the contractor to 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 slopped 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 I civil engineer should be utilized.
3.4 Moisture Conditionino: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried back,
blended and I or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
3.5 Recompaction: 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 feel wide, at least 2 feel 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
overexcavaled 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 rill 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
5.1 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.
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
the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should tie 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 orgrade 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,
overexcavalion 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 overexcavalion, a licensed land surveyor I civil engineer should be utilized.
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
FINISHED SLOPE FACE /
/
PROJECT 1 TO t LINE FINISHED CUT PAD / /
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
— COMPACTED rr_ r/%
_FI - -_-- _-
OVERSURDEN OR = - -- ='r '= = = - --- `gel= PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
UNSUITABLE _ ----- - -_
?- �_ _— — }� reel: AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
MATERIAL =___- —_ _- _ — _
_ - - - - -- - -- RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
1 = f?___ - -_" CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.
2' 1 1S' MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MIN. LOWEST / MATERIAL AS EVALUATED
KEY BENCH I/ gY THE GEOTECHH ICA
DEPTH L
(KEY) CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
KEY
DEPTH
,
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
-4' Q NONPERFORATEO PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY,
IN.
3 NOTED ON GRACING PLANS
15' MIN.
SEE T- CONNECTION
e' MIN. DETAIL
OVERLAP' �.
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3f0/ft. MIN.)
41' 0
VON - PERFORATED
PIP! '
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140H OR APPROVED
ECUIVALENT);
8' MIN.
COVER
4'
PERFORATED
PIPE
S% MIN.
4' MIN.
BEDDING
IN TRENCH DETAIL
—BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
—BENCH
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
f � 10' MIN.
PERFORATED
EACH SIDE
PIPE j\
K CAP
NON - PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE
T— CONNECTION DETAIL
* IF 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
Steve Size : Passing
1" 100
3 /a" 00 -100
3/8" a0 -100
N0. 4 25 -40
N0. 8 18 -33
No. 30 5 -15
No. 50 0 -7
No. 200 0 -3
Sand Equivalent >75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geoteahnlcal report /Diana. Actual dimensions of buttress and ■ubdralni
may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based an field conditions.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION-Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE- Subdrain type should be Acrylon trllo Buledlene Styrene (A.S.S.), Polyvinyl Chlorlde
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum (111 depth" of 35 feet.
Class 200,SDR 21 should be uaed for maximum fill depth& of 100 lest.
BE
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
- EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
B' MIN. OVERLAP
f n •��i
3/4'- 1.1/2' CLEAN
GRAVEL (8tt3 /ft. MIN.)
= is
V /tlil --
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
FILTER
FABRIC ENVELOPE
Sieve Size
14ON OR APPROVED
/(MIRAFI
EQUIVALENT)*
e' MIN.
_T---
COVER. !
COVER
COVER =
!.I
4' MIN. BEDDING
— 6' 0 MIN_ -
PERFORATED
PIPE
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE �
MIN. 5,MI
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
-�' SEE ABOVE
PERFORATED
a- 0 MIN. PIPE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
�B' MIN. OVERLAP
+IR 3/4'- 1-1/2' CLEAN
GRAVEL
(8fl /tt. MIN.)
'IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3W- 1 -1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRICI
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Passing
1"
100
3/4"
90 -100
3/8"
40 -100
No. 4
25 -40
No. 8
18 -33
No. 30
5 -15
No, 50
0 -7
No. 200
0 -3
Sand Equivalent >75
NONPERFORATED B' 0 MIN.'
Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the 8eolachnlcal
consultant.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicled.
At locations recommended by the geotechnlcal consultant, nonparforatad pipe should be Installed,
SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain typo should be Acrylonitrlls Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.). Polyvinyl
Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum
fill depth@ of 35 feet. Cleve 200,SDR 21 should be used for mexlmum fill depth$ of 100 feel.
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING I
GROUND 9URFACE�
2' MIN.F+-15' MIN
KEY 'LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
FILL— OVER —CUT SLOPE
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
i
r
i
i
T +- -15' MIN. -
2' LOWEST
MIN. BENCH
KEY DEPTH (KEY)
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
S' MIN
2' MIN. LOWEST
KEY DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
BENCH
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
- REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE �/ t
i
v
I,. 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
FINISH GRADE
OVERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR SOIL (S.E?30) TO BE _-
DENSIFIED 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 greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces. j
I
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
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 lap 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 lest data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test
data and the boring logs.
APPENDIX D
& DRAINAGE DETAIL W E THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM WALL DRAINAGE AND
(NOT TO SCALE) WATERPROOFING APPLICATION TO SATISFY THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
I!!RECORD OF THE RETAINING WALL THE ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER OF
RECORD FOR THE PRQ)£CT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FDR THE DESIGN
�- AND SPECIFICATION OF THE WATERPROOFING ASSEMBLY
TOP OF WALL --,\ BLDG WHERE APPLIES COMPACTED BACKFILL �
01 9OX MIN. RELATIVE
L9 COMPACTION
u OHLM 5000 INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS k
7 VIII -II PROTECTED WITH PROTECTION BOIRD
li`111= IIEIIE I1 ('EVE M(IRADRAW) U4STIC NOT TO
3 - III =1T !L IIIJI I BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT
11= 11LI�JI I RF,i MIRADRAIN (OR EQUAL) INSTALLED
END MIRADRAN PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS
OVER MLCM WATERPRODFNG
2 ®hem FILTER FABRIC
W/ 6• LAP
RETAINING WALL J O 314 GRAVEL (1 SF / IT)
(CONC OR CHU) O 40 DA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE
8 (SCH 4D OR EQUN.)
PERFORA77ONS OPo£MED DOWN 2
X GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET
- EXACT PIPE LOCATION TO BE
4 DETERMINED BY SITE
CONSTRAINTS
r71 PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT PER
5 OSHA STANDARDS OR, PER
ALTERNATIVE SLOPING PLAN, OR PER
6 � APPROVED SHORING PLAN
1 4°I x4• (W) CONCRETE GNT 0
\✓ FTG/WALL CONNECTION (UNDER
WALL FOOTING -�I i e WATERPROOFING)
,) FOW PROTECTION BOARD BELOW
GRADE & UV PROTECTION BDARD
- ABV GRADE PER MFR SPECIFICATION
• _ a IA';iTALlATION NOTES
` MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFIED
• e, • INSTALLERS ONLY.
1.4 7 APPLICATIONS ID BE
b ALT LOCATION CONFIRMED BY
MANUFACTURER'S
REPRESENTATIVE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
JOB NUMBER M ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
VP MON71[l ND
.W.' WRCO�_ u 67069
(760) 679 -7"2 rAY (760) 460.7472
T1 -
f
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
EQUITY TITLE - SAN DIEGO
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
6ewtooth Development
585 & 509 Camino El Dorado,
Encinitas, CA 92024 C.l
)I
Order No.: 613i050s58 12 g
Escrow No.: EC- 16542 -0K
A.P.N.: 256-141-55-00&258-141-56
DOC # 2010- 0196901
IIIIIIilililll�f lillllllll!lllll IIIIIlIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII111111111IIII
APR 21, 2010 8:00 AM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
JUL , SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE
DAVID L. BUTLER, COUNTY RECORDER
FEES: 837.00
04 OC
PAGES: 2
IBIS 111111111111111111111111 of l VIII oil DIII II I Iloilo 01111111101
4YNl.t novvc rnw uivc ro rvn
GRANT DEED
THE DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER AX IS ni �Sb CITY TRANSFER TAX IS $
[XI computed on full value of property conveyed, or
Q computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
0 unincorporated area [ X ] City of Encinitas AND
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
Walter C. Gregory and Georgia D. Gregory, husband and wife as community property with right of
survivorship
hereby GRANT(S) to
Sawtooth Dove lopment,-�xcrup, a California Corporation
the following described real property In the County of San Diego, State of California:
In Exhlbil `A' attached hereto and made pert hereof...
Dated: March 30, 2010
STATE OF CA ORNIA
COUNTY OFI CiZPIO
P
On Qi it ('lj .w ?; before me
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) (stare subscribed to
the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that
halshefthey executed the same In hiWherftheir
authorized capacity(ies) and that by hislherltheir
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s), acted,
executed the instrument.
1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph Is
true and correct.
WITNESS mvhandend ofllclel seal
Signature
USIgnatufa of No-
yoyt�ary
Commission Expiration Date: -H O AA V) 12,
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: Sawtooth Development
,,,Sant ps Abo�F,
fully described
J. LOWEN
C;yyonmml IYM97 th
a k01 Walso
COX"
W Cove EA. ar,r 23.1012
(This area for official notarial seal)
Description: Ban Diego,CR Dooument- Yosr.Doo1D 2010.196901 Paps: 1 of 2
Order: ad1051087 Coa®ent:
4129
ORDER NO. $01050458
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 20507, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, JUNE 4, 2008 AS FILE NO. 2008 -0301498.
`END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION'*`
Description: San D1690,CA Document- Yeer.Doc1D 2010.196901 Page: 2 of 2 - - --
Order: ad1061087 Cogent:
ORDER NO. SD1050458
EQUITY TITLE COMPANY
2655 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, #301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
PHONE: (619) 574 -5985
FAX: (619) W J
{L � I
53v COVERED
DATED AS OF MARCH 18, 2010 AT 7:30 A.M. ` T �
WEST COAST ESCROW - ENCINITAS YOUR NO.: EC -16562
740 GARDEN VIEW COURT SUITE 100 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 585 AND 599 CAMINO EL
ENCINITAS, CA 92024 -5826 DORADO
ATTENTION: DOREEN TIRRES ORDER NO.: SD1050458
TITLE OFFICER: MIKE R VALERI
"PRELIMINARY REPORT"
IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, EQUITY TITLE
COMPANY HEREBY REPORTS THAT IT IS PREPARED TO ISSUE, OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUED, AS OF THE DATE HEREOF, A
POLICY OR POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE DESCRIBING THE LAND AND THE ESTATE OR INTEREST THEREIN
HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, INSURING AGAINST LOSS WHICH MAY BE SUSTAINED BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT, LIEN
OR ENCUMBRANCE NOT SHOWN OR REFERRED TO AS AN EXCEPTION BELOW OR NOT EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE
PURSUANT TO THE PRINTED SCHEDULES, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF SAID POLICY FORMS.
THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM THE COVERAGE OF SAID POLICY OR POLICIES ARE SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT B ATTACHED. THE POLICY TO BE ISSUED MAY CONTAIN AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE. WHEN THE AMOUNT OF
INSURANCE IS LESS THAN THAT SET FORTH IN THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE, ALL ARBITRABLE MATTERS SHALL BE
ARBITRATED AT THE OPTION OF EITHER THE COMPANY OR THE INSURED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE
PARTIES. LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS APPLICABLE TO THE CLTA AND ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICIES OF TITLE
INSURANCE WHICH ESTABLISH A DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT AND A MAXIMUM DOLLAR LIMIT OF LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN
COVERAGES ARE SET FORTH IN THE POLICY. COPIES OF THE POLICY FORMS SHOULD BE READ. THEY ARE
AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE THAT ISSUED THIS REPORT.
PLEASE READ THE EXCEPTIONS SHOWN OR REFERRED TO BELOW AND THE EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS SET
FORTH IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS REPORT CAREFULLY. THE EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE
YOU WITH NOTICE OF MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY
AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT IS NOT A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION AS TO THE
CONDITION OF TITLE AND MAY NOT LIST ALL LIENS, DEFECTS AND ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTING TITLE TO THE
LAND.
THIS REPORT (AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AMENDMENTS HERETO) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE AND NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS
DESIRED THAT LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR
COMMITMENT SHOULD BE REQUESTED.
THE FORM OF POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS REPORT IS:
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION /AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
HOMEOWNERS POLICY
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY
(XI CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD POLICY
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL POLICY
EXHIBIT "A"
VII vk v
ORDER NO. SD1050458
PARCEL 1 AND 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 20507, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FILED IN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, JUNE 4, 2008 AS FILE NO. 2008 -0301498.
'END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION...
♦e A � 1 !-lit Vli"�
ORDER NO. SDIO50458
SCHEDULE B
AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS
AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM DESIGNATED ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS REPORT
WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
A. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011, ALIEN NOT YET DUE OR
PAYABLE.
B. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010
TOTAL:
$7,178.72
FIRST INSTALLMENT:
$3,589.36 DELINQUENT
PENALTY:
$358.93
SECOND INSTALLMENT:
$3,589.36 OPEN
ASSESSED VALUATION:
LAND VALUE: $385,013.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $122,565.00
EXEMPTION: $0.00
CODE AREA: 19080
A. P. NO.: 258 - 141 -55-00
C. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 -2010
TOTAL:
$5,973.10
FIRST INSTALLMENT:
$2,986.55 DELINQUENT
PENALTY:
$298.65
SECOND INSTALLMENT:
$2,986.55 OPEN
ASSESSED VALUATION:
LAND VALUE: $390,119.00
IMPROVEMENTS: $1,020.00
EXEMPTION: $0.00
CODE AREA: 19080
A. P. NO.: 258 - 141 -56 -00
D. AN ASSESSMENT BY THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SHOWN BELOW
ASSESSMENT NO.: NIA
SERIES:
93 -1
DISTRICT:
ENCINITAS
FOR
1915 ACT 93 -1 RAQUEZA/BRACERO ROAD
BOND ISSUED:
APRIL 12. 1995
SAID ASSESSMENT IS COLLECTED WITH THE COUNTY /CITY PROPERTY TAXES.
E. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING
WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE.
F. ASSESSMENTS, IF ANY, FOR COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS AFFECTING SAID LAND WHICH
MAY EXIST BY VIRTUE OF ASSESSMENT MAPS OR NOTICES FILED BY SAID DISTRICTS.
WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC
RECORDS.
pv(ajc . T(-4
ORDER NO. SD1050458
AN EASEMENT FOR PURPOSES STATED AND INCIDENTAL RIGHTS.
FOR: TO ENTER UPON AND OCCUPY THE SAID PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PROSPECTING, DRILLING FOR, MINING OR REMOVING MINERALS,
MINERAL OILS AND GASES
RECORDED: AUGUST 15, 1921 IN BOOK 860, PAGE 36, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AFFECTS: THE EXACT LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SAID EASEMENT IS NOT
DISCLOSED OF RECORD
3. AN EASEMENT FOR PURPOSES STATED AND INCIDENTAL RIGHTS.
FOR: PUBLIC ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
RECORDED: AUGUST 13, 1952 IN BOOK 4557, PAGE 38, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AFFECTS: THE WESTERLY 30 FEET
4. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.
GRANTED TO: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
RECORDED: APRIL 29, 1953 IN BOOK 4838, PAGE 600, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AFFECTS: THE ROUTE THEREOF AFFECTS A PORTION OF SAID LAND AND IS MORE
FULLY DESCRIBED IN SAID INSTRUMENT.
5. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.
GRANTED TO: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
RECORDED: AUGUST 7, 1953 IN BOOK 4947, PAGE 401, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AFFECTS: THE ROUTE THEREOF AFFECTS A PORTION OF SAID LAND AND IS MORE
FULLY DESCRIBED IN SAID INSTRUMENT.
6. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "OPEN SPACE DEED
RESTRICTION ", EXECUTED BY AND BETWEEN LOIS KLEINSCHMIDT, AS TRUSTEE UNDER
DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED MAY 5, 1989 AND THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION,
RECORDED AUGUST 2. 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19940474881, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
7. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.
GRANTED TO: THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
RECORDED: NOVEMBER 22, 1996 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1996 - 0593424, OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
AFFECTS: THE ROUTE THEREOF AFFECTS A PORTION OF SAID LAND AND IS MORE
FULLY DESCRIBED IN SAID INSTRUMENT.
8. THE EFFECT OF A MAP PURPORTING TO SHOW THE LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY, RECORDED
AS MAP NO. 14433 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS.
9. AN EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP NO. 20507.
FOR: FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES.
AFFECTS: AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP
10. THE PARCEL MAP REFERRED TO IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HEREIN CONTAINS VARIOUS
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS IMPROVING OR DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY HEREIN
DESCRIBED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO SAID PARCEL MAP FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE:
AO /J G ¢.t0/n/v 6e -774tJ AIAW MELMn,(a 7054
SEE "etivD ZU7- f- dams" co VC -)2rp
C S vL pnP
Z -3 -4 S .
Z AY-1 O%lt� / ?c t1w1 J
7t"
/t wA-r nn, f j D " aoR-L -iu (-„C.f IA4-j
/U t7 'M NEZ� ec S Or7 YLUo C 'o &64 61V (. .SI6„IE0
2 /lo t/ ousF L4(ivol3_ 6orj.S7aui77 o'10& A57- 3 -q mot-+-INS .
DO RI t o7>C 21)f 61K I a,, 2,LF5 au
3 Loc.4"7vuS Fv2 Po-ST 60-`S-7- OMwPs • k d Cl Zgauuei;;; / /A/.YJtZncYJ• L/E Cj�I AA oL Z
YA
S f} fY! ge, Worm uo :
C%uiW CL4W ,4 rya S.4i/J T wow o �rcr/r,J
,r,s f+�ar v is /n m a:/ � �.lx►f -tit r'Inc.f-
of 1 ,J (' �vn2 p a,
3 2r � � R-ck h¢or•. w s . — � ;� su
n /NS 4Z7't�o /N /W j /96S(c-va4le7 r
ISirAW 5/7L-, 0. d - L2.tlejnnv ✓ho/CG� �.4+�JTs
aU � l3rn� alVOa , Asa «rsrra� 01/
1 c ua-6 oe-9ce�- lb /AJ
C 2 -:k , 120-, f �Z�7 /fZ+.� =Yl OtC.prcrcy
Gv K 4' 6rl7Q &- LAB "tww C4- 27: L 7�
eE-cke Vl3J • f
q-4001 Cam( rtl0 mo/l6 puA7uM rMS r* LLeX A-T
m14429
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
SiiDr?, Tc / T��t ara1�E
•.art �arcr camii�
2121 lvlonuel Road. San Marcos. Caldo(nia 92069 - 17001 839-7302 • Fax. 1760) 480-7477 - vmn.desgngrovpca com
Dale: October 5, 2010
To: Sawtooth Development
Attn: Clay Sammis
PO Box 1336
Solana Beach. CA 92075
Re: Proposed New Residence to be located at 599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California
Subject. Compaction Report
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. As we understand the proposed
improvements onsite include a new single family residence.
GRADING OPERATIONS
The scope of grading operations addressed herein consists of excavation and compaction of sub - grade,
placement and compaction of class II base at driveway apron and areas of street widening (approximately 8
feet) along Camino El Dorado, and a removal and recompaction in the area of the building. According to the
project contractor the accessary unit and carport have been eliminated at this time and no testing was
performed in these areas.
Pavement subgrade is described as rust brown, slightly silty sands with some gravel and small cobbles, and
generally possess expansion potential in low range. Class II base was utilized as base material below
pavement finished surfaces at the right of way. Prior to recompaction soils were cleaned of vegetative and
other debris and moisture conditioned. Soil was placed utilizing a wacker and remote vibratory roller.
A removal and re- compaction was performed in the approximate area of the proposed building pad.
Removals extended approximately 2 -3 feet below adjacent grade and extended to competent material. The
limits of the building pad were removed and re- compacted 5 feet outside of the proposed building pad. The
building pad area was established by project contractor. Subgrade was ripped 12 inches and moisture
conditioned with a fire hose. Onsite soils were placed and re- compacted to approximate proposed pad
elevation, approximately 1 foot higher than existing pad grade. Rough grading at the subject site was
conducted during October 2010.
Onsite soil was utilized as graded fill. Prior to re- compaction soils were cleaned of vegetation and other debris
and moisture conditioned. Onsite soil consisted of a range of light brown to brown, slightly silty sands. Based
upon our visual observation onsite soils possess potential for expansion in the low range. Soil was moisture
conditioned with a fire hose and placed utilizing a dozer.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The contractor should pre -soak the foundations and slab subgrade to 2% over optimum to a depth of 18
inches below adjacent grade prior to the placement of capillary break and visqueen.
FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
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,
as determined by ASTM D1557, (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) 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,
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. W e hope the report provides you with the necessary information to continue with the development
of the project.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
L-L-�
Erin Rist
California RCE# 65122
Attachments:
1) Table 1 & 2: "Laboratory and Field Test Results"
2) Figure 1: "Approximate Location of Compaction Tests"
L. R
Ac. 65122
Exp 09/011/2c11
Page No. 2
Z:\2010\SAWTOOTH, CAMINO EL DORADO, 104714-1 \REPORTS, LETTERS \COMPACTION REPORT.wpd
LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESULTS
TABLE NO. 1
Laboratory Test Results
SOIL
SOIL TYPE
MAXIMUM DENSITY
OPTIMUM
U.S.C.S.
TYPE
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
( %)
(PCF)
MOISTURE
CLASSIFICATION
1
1311
7.7
98%
2
1
ONSITE- brown silty
133.5
7.5%
SW -SM
86%
sands.
8 -4 -10
-18" from F.G.
1
2
IMPORT -Class II Base
138.5
6.5%
8 -9 -10
TABLE NO. 2
Field Test Results
TEST
NO.
DATE
ELEVATION
SOIL
TYPE ( #)
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
FIELD
MOISTURE
( %)
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
( %)
1
8 -4 -10
-18" from F.G.
1
1311
7.7
98%
2
8 -4 -10
-18" from F.G.
1
115.3
17.1
86%
3
8 -4 -10
-18" from F.G.
1
111.1
17.2
83%
4
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
141.2
10
102%
5
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
135.3
2.5
98%
6
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
129.8
51
94%
7
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
130.6
6.4
94%
8
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
127.7
5.8
92%
9
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
126.3
4.2
91%
10
8 -9 -10
F.G.
2
134.1
2.1
97%
11
8 -12 -10
-6" from A .
2
134.1
3.9
97%
12
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
2
133.4
3.5
96%
13
8 -12 -10
-6' from A .
2
141.0
4.2
102%
14
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
2
132.3
4.1
96%
15
8 -12 -10
-6" from A .
2
141.2
3.4
102%
16
8 -12 -10
-6- from A .
2
140.1
2.7
101%
17
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
2
135.8
4.0
98%
18
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
2
139.1
4.5
100%
TEST
NO.
DATE
ELEVATION
SOIL
TYPE ( #)
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
FIELD
MOISTURE
( %)
RELATIVE
COMPACTION
( %)
19
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
1
941
27.7
71 % Retest at
#21
20
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
1
124.3
8.6
93%
21
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
1
122.3
10.6
92%
22
6 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
2
1383
51'
100%
23
8 -12 -10
-6' from A.C.
2
146.7
4.4'
106%
24
10 -1 -10
2' from F.G.
1
116.0
14.5
87% See test # 25
25
10 -1 -10
-2' from F.G.
1
122.1
12.5
91%
26
10 -1 -10
-2' from F.G.
1
115.5
11.6
87% See test # 27
27
10 -1 -10
-2' from F.G.
1
121.9
10.0
91%
28
10 -4 -10
F.G.
1
121.2
63'
91%
29
10 -4 -10
F.G.
1
1193
5.6'
90%
30
10 -4 -10
F.G.
1
117.6
5.7'
88% See test # 31
31
10 -5 -10
F.G.
1
121.2
6.3'
91%
32
10 -5 -10
F.G.
1
120.9
6.7'
91%
33
10 -5 -10
F.G.
1
122.1
5.2'
91%
34
10 -5 -10
F.G.
1
115.7
6.0'
87% See test # 35
35
10 -5 -10
F.G.
1
119.9
6.2'
90%
36
10 -5 -10
-2' from F.G.
1
119.5
9.1
90%
37
10 -5 -10
-2' from F.G.
1
121.3
9.2
91%
Tests taken days after recompaction
Z12010\SAWTOOTH, CAMINO EL DORADO, 104714- 15REPORTS, LETTERS%COMPACTION REPORT.wpd
•
i
•
c
r
L" 5
0
T
r
T
a
0
•
y
Y
L
I •
k —
J
"i Approximate Location of Compaction Tests
u
I
PROJECT NAME Sawtooth Development
PROJECT ADDRESS 599 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, California
EDG PROJECT NUMBER I FAf TIVFFDTNr 71FC11 -'N !'Dl11TD FIGURE
104714 -1
PASCO LARET SUITER
& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING . LANG SURVEYING
October 5, 2010
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
PLSA1830
Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Project and Grading Permit No. 10578 -SG
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 this project 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
House Pad 312.9' 312.9'avg.
Accessory unit not constructed at this time.
23.24.3 10(13) 1 Engineered drainage devices and/or retaining walls have not been constructed at
this time.
23.24.310(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified
and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage 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.
Very truly yours,
Joseph 5211
Principal Land Surveyor
Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc.
535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. California 92075 1 ph 658.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaengineering.com
am.,
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Cjf lr0 f
Capital Improvement Projects
JJ
Encinitas
District Support Services
Field Cperolions
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL
TO: Subdivision Engineering
Public Service Counter
FROM: Field Operations
Private contract Inspection
RE: Grading Permit No. 41579 -54? Name of Project 5-9 9 elt? l //VO 6-L v(//l4DZ)
Name of Developer �0+ 1, n(i f >r7 > J ut
_ ,, M C7
Site Location S9 g � / Al o kZ
(address .- .number ...street name su w
000 (bldg) ,
I have inspected the grayjng at the subj ct site and have verified certification of the pad by
the Engineer of Work, ASe* LAitzri OWIW"ated /D— 57 --140, and certification of soil
compaction by the Soil Engineer, �j[a �yl�n2ated �p —�- /O : I am hereby
satisfied that the rough grading has been complete In accordance with the approved
plans and specifications, Chapter 23.24 of the Municipal Code, and any other applicable
engineering standards and specific project requirements.
Based on my observation and the certifications�,'II take no exception to the issuance of a
building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase �! �, if any, but only in so far as grading is
concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to
other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail
improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred
monumentation, or final grading.
Prior to final inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further
advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and
Irrigation) has been completed In accordance with the annrnvpd nlans and specifjcatlons.
(Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate)
Reference: Building Permit No. % - -8�
l o - -7 - -- / U
rDate)
(Date)
Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering
technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork
when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with
Building Inspection. Thank you.
JSG /field3.doel
TEL 760-633 -2600 1 FAX 760-633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas, California 92024.3633 TOO 760 - 6334700 0 roeyded paper
(le C2 j 1✓ `Q G(nK' Ig rvi%�� C���� /O�L�J�QJL CC.�f
� 3
City of Encinitas // /a c e
505 Sour, Vulcan A".ue
Ff1C
Enc inias, Califoma 920 24 -3633 a/i
Building
Tel 760- 633 -2600 • Fa 760- 943 -2226
TDD 760 - 633- 2700•*�,w.c,encinir.c ��— Planning
7�Q 00 W///.' Engineering
Ee
I"%n F614 Cl�r4 to A11ow Occupancy
TO: Subdivision Engineering
Public Service Counter
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection
2
RE: Building Permit No. _ --
Name of Project 5`?9 L 2701e b �t �bywW
Name of Developer) n I U
I have inspected the site at 59 t%U
address... number street name suffix
and have determined that finish (precise) grading
(lot no .) (bldg. no-)
and any other related site improvements are substantially complete
and that occupancy is merited.
UNI T��
'Z br,�
Signature of Engineen g Vpector Date
Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate Date
Reference: Engineering Permit No. I Ovrr`7 b Sv / /.-
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.
PASCO LARET SUITER
& ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING ♦ LAND SURVEYING
March 11. 2011
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
1GL�d�i
LIAR 1 4 2011
I I_-
os
RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR GRADING
PERMIT NO. 10578 -G. LOCATED ON 599 CAMINO EL DORADO
PLSA 1830
The Grading Plan permit number 10578 -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 I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage
system.
All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices
as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were
constructed and are ope9ponal, toggtff with the require covenant(s).
Engineer of Record
Ardolino RCE 71651
71851
= 'pI131 t'I
l , CIVIL q��Q
AFOFr.At1F
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done spector's signature hereon and
will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record
of the ultimate responsibi
Engineering Inspector Date ZZ f
535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 (x 858.259.4812 1 plaaeegieteriog.com sm.,