The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-4813 G/IENGINEERING INSPECTION CENTRAL FIELD OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FORM TO: Engineering Counter Staff FROM: Engineering Inspection Staff Central Field approval for Building Permit No.: ` , / z &-1 Project Name: _0 1 SAXcxy L11 f l Developer Name and Address: )12 1-t? if T c'N 41 p T H ( 6 /-5T X14 9-Al We have inspected the site at 533 --q3/-Y27 6 z, IL -%//ir Address and have determined the work under the Gradingilmprovement permit but prior to final building inspection is complete. I Final Enginee Itispe nyDepartment approval by: Inspector Date: �. zy iJ 1,5465 S A X ON Yoq�> i 434 ® .. XJ94 596 614.: 626 � �7 ,_ 422 �m402 �V ©39d 581 � 677 �Q318OS01 �® SIB© Rai � 3 �� 313 � 550 �59 - 6S3 m S49 561 573 98S 59T b}1 �4�$45 Q34� 341 Q1� 1 L1 ENGINEERING INSPECTION CENTRAL FIELD OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FORM TO: Engineering Counter Staff FROM: Engineering Inspection Staff x Central Field approval for Building Permit No.: -013 6- Project Name: U • 2' 4 U(2'T0^/ Developer Name and Address: U R- htI170N /0/0 JrOd7H CO/}f% We have inspected the site at �fJ1 GDfN(r- '3-7 Address and have determined the work under the Gradinvilmprovement permit but prior to anal building inspection is complete. Date. 2-7 im5465 approval by. Am e- i` %d'" Ah PLAN PLAN T• A \ 0 \ \ 11 PLAN 1 442 438 t 443 430 431 43 447 426 t s 427 600 604 608 612 618 622 697 " 42 t u u iy 431 70 695 41 n 418 419 41 431 414 0 l 415 689 3 @fib < t S s 3t 685 406 d� 410 n esrye Is t Sb� "`ee 410 c *�5 4D6 394 Slaver Beny P1u1e q 398 6T3 382 577 505 510 573 669 Q. d 386 , S09 st >t 502 661 370 369 111 526 654 u „ SSB S66 ST4 SB2 598 b06 st _ s 657 521 534 646 34 3s 649 3S8 361 Y 525 t `m _ t 645 3 361 is a 357 S29 m 4 Seel Pea Plare 631 p�Y Q 3S 346 «,J�j 349 537 43 ' 633 350 350 a 345 541 31 » n ft S53 SS1. 565 S69 577 581 SB9 S93 401 60 609 613 625 tt 621 North MAP NOT TO SCALE .� �..,, y i ►i City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Request DR Horton 1010 First Ave., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Grading Permit Number Alfl ,3 - G Engineer of Record: &CA16&#C4V-X Geotechnical Engineer: GeC CO A.) —Zr C. Contractor: �, /Z•�Q,p�ll Project Manager: Rough Grading Approval is requested for the following lots: / ,�,-w S -g4 V4rw -a 46 sue' ./ 5 The following attachments are included as required for rough grading approval: []' Inspector's Rough Grading Approval Checklist. [] Geotechnical Reports for each of the above lots. Engineer's Pad Certification Report for each of the above lots. Er� Wall Certification Reports INSPECTOR - JACK WINGATE, GEOPACIFICA Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Requirements DR HORTON - Grading Permit �/.?- G The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough grading approval. L 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. APPROVED: ��/� DATE: Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. APPROVED: � DATE: All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer certifying that it was inspected and constructed in accordance with their recommendations and conforms to the approved plans. APPROVED: `L/� DATE: 2 8 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and completed per the grading plan, inspected and approved by the inspector. Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point for rough grading approval. �y APPROVED: l DATE: 3. All sewer systems shall be installed and accepted by City Inspector and Leucadia/�f�"Count��y Water District. p APPROVED: E 5-t) 11*1V 8jhjj k4 DATE: % 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by olivenhain Municipal Water District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. APPROVED: �Ll� DATE: 71-j-lpB 5. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. APPROVED: �,---L, z_ DATE: Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required. APPROVED: ��✓� 6. All fire hydrants are to be accepted by the Eire Department. APPROVED: `LC� DATE: IF installed, tested, inspected and DATE: —� 3 /� If z w 1 7. All roads are to be installed, _r. `-- final lift of paving. APPROVED: �lJ� DATE: 8. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate agency. APPROVED: DATE: i All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free � environment. APPROVED: L'L/GC/ DATE: These items are to be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written request rough grading approval. The Inspector will the approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL NO':ICE EXHIBIT "H" TO: BUILDING DEPART7M.ENT FROM. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: ROUGH GRADI14C APPROVAL FOR PROJECT NO e S-t -Sl% X o iv L (Tract Name) permit No. yk/3 - 67 f/rIZYoti /0/U S. 7' //,, . (Developer's Name & Address) We have inspected the grading for lots phase y_ of the above mentioned project. In addition, we have received rough gradi g certification from 6 eocgv the Soils Engineer, dated 3 0 5 , and from HKNj/Q /GL lL_ the Supervising Grading Engineer, dated 1-5 , and are satisfied that the rough grading has bee completed in accordance with City standards. Based on these certifications and our observation, we take no exception to the issuance of a building permit for lots /Y�o or phase ___ of project !2� from a grading standpoint. This release, however, is not intended to certify the project from other engineering concerns including site development, water or sewer availability, or final grading. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancv, we need to be advised e ;o that we can verify that final grading end landscaping has been completed in accordance with t.e approved plans for the project. APPROV ED: 0 Pro' ct Grading %s De o. Project Engineer cc: Developer / �� /os /PW_' -76w-� 29(9- 01 -8o -3) HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES % A N 1/ 1 1. V 11. 1 4 1 V1 ANNINI i [N(:INFFRINL', tuavnlNC; June 11, 1998 IRVINE (M VFGAS RIVFRgfiF $AN F 40) 0A%'[ ! IAMMAR IAI k 1111 L Irx N91LIMAN V11,111 1(q n.,l *cln SI. Suite 7no Sm 0..a11. r 97111 IG 191 $iR 45fk1 rl l «.Im saR 1414 t X "w hmmlkm. rn IM 011 Ivm4m5l1.(mn City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Grey Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade 4 ProjgcL Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 1 through 5 and 44 through 46 Elevations: Pad 1 at an elevation of 44.63 - Pad 2 at an elevation of 45.62 Pad 3 at an elevation of 46.60 Pad 4 at an elevation of 41.55 Pad 5 at an elevation of 48 51 Pad 44 at an elevation of 44.47 Pad 45 at an elevation of 45.47 Pad 46 at an elevation of 46.41 �i I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads In accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot) Sincerely, llunsaker & Associates Sari Diego, Inc. Daniel P, Smith L.S. 6854 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. O�7vND O 7J L.S 6854 Exp. 9130 /00 OON Vo(T 1TI14Ti e,e .0 qRu TOTPL P.nz GEOCON IN r.0 AY0n A 1*XD Project No. 05799 -42.01 March 10, 1998 D. R. Horton -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention. Mr. Mark Mullin GEOTECHN1CAL CONSULTANTS RECE!'.t4-D MAR 1 21998 Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (PHASE 4, PADS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 44 THROUGH 46) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PAD GRADING CERTIFICATION References: I. Update Geotechnical Investigation and Georechnicai Engineer of Record for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. 2. Interim Report of Test;ng and Observation Services During Site Grading Pads I through 11 and 44 through 46 for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area). Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated January 22, 1998. Gentlemen. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the above referenced reports. Our review was performed to determine if the recommendations of the above referenced project geotechnical reports were implemented during the grading of the subject pads. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated, based upon our review, that the subject pads have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotecllnical recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical reports. Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED James L. Br GE 2176 JLB:dmc (3) (3 /del) Addressee Job Site Trailer Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms Dale Hamelehle CEG 1760 6960 Flanders Drk ■ son Diego, C.16rnio 92121-297A • Telephone 1619) 5586900 ■ Fan 1619) 558 -6159 HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N 0 1 1 0 0. I N C PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE June 3, 1998 LAS VEGA5 RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Attn: Greg Shields �f W , p • 13'2 S -�/ Re: Retaining Wall Line and Grade Ceitit'ication Project Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area Precise Grading Plan 4813 -P Lots: Buildings 44 and 45 Owner: D.R. Horton 1010 South Coast Highway Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92924 The retaining walls for the above referenced buildings have been constructed with the location and grade on the attached exhibit. Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. R mond L. Martin, R.C.E. DAyt HAMMAR Project Manager JACK HILL LEX WILLMAN cc: Jerry Sims 10179 Mwmn .kom M. 5uitr 200 San D1eRo. CA 92121 (619) Ss445f10 PH 1(,19) 5511. cE 14 F www.l,ul.ykncan Inf 11NN V nSake• SD. co•� O ?RpFESSlO 4• q< Q- pIJD L' M x M M NO. dl)670 M Eav, 6130100 S�q�JCALLFW M M �1111111Me79O 111511 JUL 02 '98 04 :09Ph1 CITY (IF EfICINITC6 SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1998 TO: Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer FROM: Bill O'Donnell, Water Utility Planner RE: West Saxony Subdivision 2 c' The public water system located within the West Saxony subdivision is pressurized and all fire hydrants are operational at this time. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at ext. 2849. 07/02/1998 13:16 6195586159 Project No. 05799 -42.01 November 7, 1997 D. R. Horton Incorporated -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullin GEORMH INC. Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING) ENCIMTAS, CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERIOR STREETS Gentlemen: PA(E 02 In accordance with your request, we are providing pavement recommendations for the interior streets at the subject project. To assist in providing these recommendations, we have obtained a representative sample of the subgrade materials on all of the interior streets and performed R- Value: testing to determine bearing characteristics. Based on information provided by the City of Encinitas we have utilized a Traffic Index of 4.5 for all interior streets within the subject development. Results of the R -Value tests are summarized on Table I. Pavement sections were determined based upon the assigned Traffic Index and procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Higlrwav Design Manual and the California Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Based upon these procedures we recommend the following pavement sections. RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Location R -Value Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Rase (inches) Silver Berry Place 16 3 6.5 Bay Berry Place IS 3 6.5 Sweet Pea Place 20 3 5.5 Carmel Creeper Place 71 3 5 Saxony Place 44 3 5 Asphalt Concrete should conform to the most recent version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) adopted by the City of San Diego. Class 2 base should conform to Caltrans Section 26- 1.02B. Prior to placing base materials, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Class 2 base 07/02/1998 13:16 6195586159 GEO('MH 114C PAGE 03 materials should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to at least 95 percent of Hveem maximum density. Should you have questions regarding these recommendations. or if we may be of further service. please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCONrNCORPORATED James L. Brown GE 2176 DH:JLB:dmc (4) Addressee (2) City of Encinitas Attention: Mr. Blair Knoll hcz Dale Hamelehle CEG 1760 Vnvemher 7. 1997 07/02/1998 13:15 5195506159 GEpCDII 1110 PAGE 04 TABLE SUMMARY OF R -VALUE AND SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS Sample No. Location R -Value Sand Equivalent R- I intersection of Bay Berry Place and Silver Berry Place 15 17 R -2 Intersmtion of Silver Berry Place and Sweet Pea Place 16 15 R -3 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 34 25 16 R-4 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 39 19 15 R -5 R -6 Carmel Creeper Place adjacent to Pad 45 Saxony Place adjacent to Pad 28 71 44 17 17 07/02/1998 13:15 5195586159 GEOCOH IPIC FADE 05 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 March 5. 1997 D. R. Holton Incorporated - San Diego 10179 Huennekens Street, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92 12 1 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullen Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (VEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCIMTAS, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION: DETERMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTION ON SAXONY ROAD Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed additional geoteclmical engineering services for the subject project. The scope of our services consisted of advancing a core in the existing asphalt pavement section on Saxony Road to determine the existing structural pavement section. Prior to coring, a temporary encroachment permit from the City of Encinitas was obtained. After determination of die existing pavement section, an analysis was conducted to determine if the pavement section required an overlay as part of the street widening due to the increased traffic. It is our understanding that this information was requested by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. The asphalt core was obtained from the west side (southbound lane) of Saxony Road at approximately Station 26 +00. After coring, the aggregate base section was removed and the thickness measured. In addition, a sample of the underlying subgrade soil was obtained and subjected to Resistance Value (R- Value) testing to determine bearing characteristics for the pavement analysis. Observations and field measurements indicated that the existing pavement section consisted of 4 inches of Asphalt Concrete over 8 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. Observation of the street within the project limits indicated that the existing pavement section is in relatively good condition and generally free of reflective cracking and raveling. Once the existing structural pavement section was determined, an analysis was performed using procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (1990 Edition). Information was also obtained from The City of Encinitas, California. Public Road Standards (April, 1991). The analysis used an R•Value of 73 determined from laboratory testing on the sample of subgrade soils obtained from the coring and a Traffic Index (TI) of 7.0. The T.I. was supplied by Hunsaker and Associates who obtained the information from Mr Blair Knoll of the City of Encinitas, lire results of the analysis indicated that for a subgrade R -Value of 73, an asphalt pavement thickness of 4 inches Over native subgrade soils (full depth asphalt section) conforms to the Caltrans Design Procedure. Calculations are presented on'rable 1. However, the minimum section required by the City of Encinitas for local roads and collectors is 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inches of Class 2 base. Since the existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of base, the existing section conforms to both the Caltrans design requirements and the City of Encinitas minimum standards. As such, no overlay is required to increase the existing pavement 07/02/1998 13:16 5195585159 GFIX011 IIIC PAGE 06 section for the given design T.I. of 7.0. Some thin overlay may be required to provide a smooth transition where then new section abuts the existing pavement. In summary, based upon determined pavement sections and pavement design analyses, no overlay of the existing pavement section is required to satisfy the design T.I. criteria supplied by the City of Encinitas. Should you have questions regarding this consultation, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED JLB:dmc (3 /del) Addressee (3 /del) Hunsaker and Associates Attention: Mr. Ray Martin James L. Brown RC 43824 ` �, � No. f7�3tlZ� Exp 913pr07 JLB:dmc (3 /del) Addressee (3 /del) Hunsaker and Associates Attention: Mr. Ray Martin 07/02/1998 13:16 6195586159 GEOCON IM TABLE I PAVEMENT SECTION CALCULATIONS (CALTRANS METHOD) Design Traffic index 7.0 R -Value of Subgrade Soils 73 PAGE 07 Asphalt Concrete Thickness GE - .0032 x T.I. x (100.78) Where 78 equals the minimum specified R -Value for Class 2 Base GE = .0032 x (7) x (100 -78) = .4928 ft. Gf = 2.5 (5.14/7)1* = 2.14 Thickness required = GE/Gf = .492812.14 (12) = 2.76 inches. For existing 4 inch section, actual GE - (4112) x 2.14 = .7133 Class 2 Base Thickness GE = .0032 x (7) x (100 -73) Where 73 is the R -Value of the subgrade soils GE = .6048 less GE for the determined Asphalt thickness GE = .6048 - .7133 < 0 Therefore, base is not required as the Asphalt satisfies the total gravel equivalent necessary for the design structural section. Per the City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, the minimum recommended pavement section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of Class 2 base. Since the existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of Class 2 base, the existing section conforms to both the Caltrans design criteria and the City of Encinitas standards and does not require an overlay for structural purposes. TABLE II SUMMARY Of R -VALUE AND SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS Sample No. Location R -Value 1 Saxony Road Station 26 +00 (southbound lane) 73 JUL 02 198 02:26PM CITY OF EFICIIJITRS CITY OF ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: July 2, 1998 TO. Greg Shields, Engineering Department FROM: David Moore, Fire Prevention Bureau 9� SUBJECT: DR Florton Project - Saxony Rd Please be advised that all the fire hydrants at the above project are in service and acceptable to the Encinitas Fire Department. -T hank you. C-K P.�'F rA PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LASVEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL LEx WILLIMAN 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (61 9) 5 56 -4 500 PH (619) 55 8-1414 F x . hunsakeccon, Info ®HunsakerSD.com I HUN SAKE R &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O. 1 N C. August 17, 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -G West Saxony Building Pads 32, 38 through 43 Elevations: Pad 32 at an elevation of 172.6 Pad 38 at an elevation of 170.3 Pad 39 at an elevation of 171.2 Pad 40 at an elevation of 170.2 Pad 41 at an elevation of 171.2 Pad 42 at an elevation of 171.6 Pad 43 at an elevation of 171.4 I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. N/ Daniel P. Smith L.S. 6854 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. \-AND ,r P. , <l O L.S. 6854 Exp. 9/30/00 Ds. `131511 am. .o UH�1 4 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Request DR Horton 1010 First Ave., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Grading Permit Number yO /3- G Engineer of Record: Geotechnical Engineer: (n a ocoeu -6440. Contractor: Project Manager: Rough Grading Approval is requested for the following lots: PA,o.sF 5r L07s 3 8 , 3 9 _ ya h� /. `/z �8 The following attachments are included as required for rough grading approval: [� Inspector's Rough Grading Approval Checklist. j� Geotechnical Reports for each of the above lots. [.� Engineer's Pad Certification Report for each of %the above lots. N Wall Certification Reports INSPECTOR - JACK WINGATE, GEOPACIFICA Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Requirements DR HORTON - Grading Permit - G The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough grading approval. w 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. APPROVED: �!/� DATE: Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. �+y APPROVED: �U� DATE: X � /o All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer certifying that it was inspected and constructed in accordance with their rec9 mendat'or1}s and conforms to the approved plans. ✓✓� �ra6c� t2 �t.? APPROVED: DATE: 7�0 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and completed per the grading plan, inspected and (�N approved by the inspector. Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point for rough grading approval. APPROVED: DATE: 3. All sewer systems s all be installed and accepted by City �,tyo�✓� Inspector and Leuccandia unty Water District. !/ APPROVED: �� DATE: �b 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by Olivenhain Municipal water District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. APPROVED: DATE: B�/r% Y� S. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. APPROVED: Gf,oP DATE: 2a�l 0101 Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required. APPROVED: �L/� DATE: 81-WAx 6. All fire hydrants are to be installed, tested, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department. APPROVED: DATE: 7. All roads are to be installed, except for the final lift of paving. /°Qdatl o - ��i>�v /¢ /d . APPROVED: /� DATE: 4 51 8. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate agency. APPROVED: LU� DATE: X1%198 All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free environment. APPROVED: �G/� DATE: //w These items are to be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written request rough grading approval. The Inspector will the approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL NOTICE City Of EXHIBIT "H" Encinitas it7�� lifir�I��r�[�7��b�C7J FROM: ENGINEERINNG SS(E�RVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: 9- 1 o - / 6 Permit No. / ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL FOR PROJECT NO. I R1 J - CO t✓EST �? x O AJ y 65"CA A l efS bAtJCfAl (Tract Name) L.> -K,- 01:-70KA I o10 S- GOASTff WV. CIuCrA..,I7/. C4 loper's Name & Addre we have inspected the grading for lots 3 LH y�9 or phase -S of the above mentioned project. In addition, we have received rough grading certification from &C06-40A./ the Soils Engineer, dated 3"I0"7e , and from H[4nyS19 , the Supervising Grading Engineer, dated 8-/7 -5P and are satisfied that the rough grading has been completed in accordance with City standards. oZ y Based on these certifications and our observation, we take exception to the issuance of a building permit for lots 38 >0y or phase 1:5 of project .5/?,A0/VV from a grading standpoint. This release, however,,,, is not intended to certify the project from other engineering concerns including site development, water or sewer availability, or final grading. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, we need to be advised so that we can verify that final grading and landscaping has been completed in accordance with the approved plans for the project. APPROVED: 0 Pro jp t Grading//Inspector cc: Developer JRG /03/PW2- 157wp51 33(4/14/93 -2) Pr ct Engineer 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TEL 619- 633 -2600 /FAX 619- 633 -2627 / TDD 619- 633 -2700 � recycled paper �. 12 lip IWA nO M 0 r i �, GEOCON I M r O g r O n A r K G Project No. 05799 - 42.01 March 10, 1998 D. R. Iiotton -Sall Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention. Mr. Mark Mullin GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS C > RCC IrrLD MAR 1 Z 1998 Subject: ENCTNITAS RANCH (PHASE 4, PADS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 44 THROUGH 46) ENCINTAS, CALIFORNIA PAD GRADING CERTIFICATION References: 1. Update Geotechnical Investigation and Georeclnricai Engineer of Record for Encinitas Ranch (West .Sarwn' Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. 2. Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading Pads I through 11 and 44 through 46 for Encinitas Rauch (Jyest Sarony Planning Area),Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon incorporated, dated January 22, 1993. Gentlemen. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the above referenced reports. Our review was performed to determine if the recommendations of the above referenced project geoteclmical reports were bttplemented during the grading of the subject pads. It is the opinion of Geocon hrcorporated, based upon our review, Urat the subject pads have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geoteclmical recommendations included in the referenced gcotechnical reports. Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED / QPCFE � SS /pt,, h �; t. ey Ye. P� GZ cl l ro W. 0021762 Dalc Namelehle GE 2176 r Exp. 6/30/0, ' CEG 1760 JLB:dmc �CAI.tF (3) Addressee (3 /del) Job Site Trailer Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms / 0 GAO\ ttpN£LEHIE � N U NO. InED C ^t L EJiT • • bloNEENNG tC tn� GEOLOGIST \q� t2 -9t q8 OQ2 OF C 6960 Fbnders Uwe ■ smoew, cab6nia 92121 2974 ■ Tekphone 16191 5566900 ■ Fan X619) 5566159 or JI_IE 02 '98 04 :1_3FI1 CITY C-F- EIKIIJITHS SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1998 TO: Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer FROM: Bill O'Doruiell, Water Utility Planner RE: West Saxony Subdivision ( LD The public water system located within the West Saxony subdivision is pressurized and all fire hydrants are operational at this time. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at ext. 2849. PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE 5AN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL LEk WILLIMAN liUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES 5 A N D I E G O. I N C August 19, 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Attn: Greg Shields Re: Street Subgrade Certification Project: Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area Improvement Plan 4813 -1 ES -242 Lots: All of streets Saxony Road, Saxony Place, Silver Berry Place, Sweet Pea Place South, Sweet Pea Place East, Bay Berry Place, and Carmel Creeper Place. Owner: D.R. Horton 1010 South Coast Highway Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92924 The subgrade for the above referenced streets have been completed in conformance with the approved improvement plan. Daniel P. Smith L.S. 6854 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. In 179 Huennckcns 51. cc 5uile 200 San Mego, CA 92121 1619) 55 8-4500 PH (6191 5581414 F% w,- ,.hunsakecco,h In(o®HunsdkcrSD.0 Gr11 Jerry Sims \.AN D rL�P .t O X L.S. 6854 Exp. 9130/00 G9 b mruaN:!! W�rvMm�pynGf)IM IYRap] OpC n >s41 TGTEiL P.02 GEOCON I N C O A P O R A 2 2 D GEOTECHN1CAL CONSULTANTS M Project No. 05799 -42 -01 August 14, 1998 D. R_Horton -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. John Dannon Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (PHASE 5, PADS 32 AND 39 THROUGH 43) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PAD GRADING CERTIFICATION References: 1. Update Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Engineer of Record for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. 2. Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading Pads 12 through 14 and 26 through 43 for Encinitta Ranch (West Saxony Platming Area),Enclnitas, California prepared by Geocon. Incorporated, dated August 27, 1997. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the above referenced reports. Our review was performed to determine if the recommendations of the above referenced project geotechnical reports were implemented daring the grading of the subject pads. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated, based upon our review, that the subject pads have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical reports. Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED James L. Brown GE 2176 VJW-_ .- (3) Addressee (3 /del) Job Site Trailer Attention. Mr. Jerry Simms 411A Dale /,a- CEG 1760 6960 F6.4m Elsa ■ San o'wpo, C-R6 -° 92121-297A ■ Te6pka- (619) 558 -6900 ■ fox (619) 556.6159 ZO 30Vd ONI N00039 6919899619 16:51 866T/OZ/80 r :'0 ?/02/193R 13:15 5195585159 Project No. 05799.42.01 November 7, 1997 D. 12. Horton Incorporated -San Diego 1,010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attentiun: Mi. MafkNtullin GEXC11 l 114C. Subject: ENCINITAS RANCII (WEST SAXON -' PLANNING) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WrERIOTt STREETS Gentlemen: PAGE 02 In accordance with your request, we are providing pavement recommendations for the interior streets at the subject prgiect. 'ro assist in providing these recommendations, we have obtained a representative sample of the subgrade materials on all of the interior streets and performed R -Value testing to determine bearing characteristics. Based on information provided by the City of Encinitas we have utilized a Traffic Index of 4.5 for all interior streets within the subject development. Resulm of the R -Value tests are summarized on Table 1. Pavement sections were determined based upon the assigned Traffic Index and procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Highway Design .Manual and the California Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Based upon these procedures we recommend the following pavement sections. RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Location It -Value Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Base (inches) Silver Berry Place 16 3 6.5 Bay Berry Place 15 3 6.5 Sweet Pea Place 20 3 5.5 Carmel Creeper Place 71 3 5 Saxony Place 44 3 5 Asphalt Concrete should conform to the most recent version of the Standard specifications for Public Works Corstrucrion (Green Book) adopted by the City of San Diego. Class 2 base should conform to Callrans Section 26- 1.02B. Prior to placing base materials, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches:, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Class 2 base TENTATIVE MAP & DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT LEUC4wA BLVD. i . - ENCINITAS RANCH PROJEC7' SITE (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ` 1 1 CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA a $ P B� N -- VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 24'I9Y140'w NDEwauclrml '- "OrN STANDARD B' MOODIER GUBBA GOTTEB �)"D CU99 (TYR) AC.. PAVEMENTAND BASE AT AI D.—TD UNRS � =PAPIONG ONE8IDE 4D . XG BOTI SIDES PRIVATE DRIVE PVT oft. "B" -9' 19' 1 -- BAEWAU(RYP.) ASSNGWN 6 GUTTER (1YR) AF _ENT AND BASE PRIVATE STREET PRIVATE STREET "A" NO SCALE eDl ]W si0EDVYPJ S NG CUPS PROPOSED AGLITTER PTP) DUflEB� �) �- E)OSTING A.C. PAVEMEM AND BASE PUBLIC STREET EXISTING SAXONY ROAD NO SCALE L ry FENCE LINE - +I P .Max TYPICAL BUILDING SETBACKS NO SCALE ENCINITAS RANCH SPA WESTSAXONY PLANNING AREA PARKING SUMMARY PARKING REQUIRED nn anns�Ni SECOND FLOOR Sq. FT. b S TOTAL Sq. FT. BLDG. FOOTPRINT (1ST FLOOR+ GARAGE) TOTAL FOOTPRINT SD. FT. 196 -170 GUEST E-5 842 TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED J� PARKING PROVIDED 1142 300 OREN RESIDENT & GUEST SPA—__ 2—A L 519 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED PROJECT SUMMARY LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING TORO LOT LINE - - -- FENCE LINE - - - - -- BUILDING NUMBER 25 SLOPE (2;1. MAX) —� -1 o OF GRADE 2 STREET GRADE I6T.5 SPOT ELEVATION +1130 PAD ELEVATION Pt]D.6 SEWER WATER —w -- STORM DRAIN PROPOSED. FIRE HYDRANT B.4 PROPOSED STREET LIGHT RETAINING WALL TOP OF WALL ELEV. FINISHED SURFACE esI STANDARD PARKING 2US COMPACT PARKING 4oc PARALLEL PARKING 54 P HANDICAPPED PARKING 154 -H ENHANCED BUILDING ELEVATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE QFFIGIAL PLAT THEREOF, SHOWN AS PARCELS A THROUGH E IN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED JUNE 17, 1996 AS FILE NO 1996- 03010]2 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PUBLIC UTILITIES SEWER WATER .. STORM DRAIN ... TELEPHONE .... GAS AND ELECTRIC CABLSTY- POLICE & FIRE........ ENCINITAS SANITARY DISTRICT SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT CITY OF ENCINITAS PACIFIC BELL SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC DANIELS CABLEVISION CITY OF ENCINITAS ARCHITECTURAL/BUILDING SUMMARY PLAN NO. NO. OF UNITS FIRST FLOOR Sq. FT. SECOND FLOOR Sq. FT. LIVING AREA Sq. Ff. GARAGE Q. FT TOTAL Sq. FT. BLDG. FOOTPRINT (1ST FLOOR+ GARAGE) TOTAL FOOTPRINT SD. FT. 196 -170 75 842 91] 225 1142 300 13800 2—A 552 519 1,0632 632 1,26 139 1,259 1,993 3,252 855 4,107 1 2,114 97,244 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE 2.2 ACRES GENERAL NOTES I GROSSAREAI$: 14.0AC TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 511 RES. LOT, 3 MIXED USE LOTS, 1 OPEN SPACE LOT) 3. TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS: 138 (46 TRIPLEX BUILDINGS) 4. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 14 SPECIFIC PLAN r EXISTING ZONING IS: ER -MU2 6. PROPOSED USAGE'. MULTI - FAMILY ATTACHED CONDOMINIUMS, 3 MIXED USE HAD Si TES AND i PASSIVE RECREATION SITE ]. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 256 -33042 THROUGH 47. B. GRADING QUANTITIES: CUT: 68BW C.V. FILL: 68,000 C V. GENERAL DESIGN NOTES is WATER SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT, WHERE APPLICABLE. C. SPECIFIC METHODS OF HANDLING STORM DRAINAGE ARE SUBJECT TO DETAILED APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF IMPROVEMENT AND GRADING PLANS. DESIGN SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE BASIS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MANUAL, DRAINAGE EASEMENTSSHALLBE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 3, SANITARY SEWER TO BE PROVIDED AND CONNECTED TO CITY OF ENCINITAS SANITARY DISTRICT. 4. EVIDENCE SHALL BE PROVIDED OF HAVING OBTAINED GRADING RIGHTS UPON ADJACENT PROPERTY WHERE REQUIRED. 5, UTILITIES SHALL BE UNDERGROUND, EASEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AS NECESSARY. 6. PRESENT LAND USE- AGRICULTURE /. PRELIMINARY SOILS TESTS BY GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED ON JANUARY 9, 1996 (PROJECT NO. OOS4003 -00). CERTIFICATE TO BE PLACED ON FINAL MAP. R. MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 OF SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 9. THIS IS A MAP OF CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1350 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS FILED PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. I0. MODEL UNITS MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION. t. GRADING SHOWN. HEREON IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN FINAL DESIGN. SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY By SAN -LO AERIAL SURVEYS DATED JUNE 8,1993, 13 . INDIVIDUAL TRASH PICKUP IS PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT. OWNER i- III PROPERTIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (619) 431 -5600 SUBDIVIDER� ,,. 03 D_R. HORTON SAN DIEGO NO. 17, INC. 1 rli JAYI $ JJ 1017 9 HUENNEKENS ST., SUITE 100 III I SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 (619) 452 -3700 I I Ca, �( 196 -170 JOHN D. KERR, JR, DATE PRESIDENT Ess,D4a x 4Y� R 9-19 -96 >L.�D MY REGISTRATION HAM TIO R.C.E. ON OATS MV REGISTRATION EXPIRES ON 9/30199 PREPARED BY: REVISIONS DATE BY N�S',k_ s' PRELIMINARY SUBMITTAL �Y,O/p_{, H &A - LANDSCAPEB 55CC FLIPIENHANCED UNIT 1214196 OCMif$ REVISION 1 -T-9T USA DkBO, /n<. REVISI,xc 1/27N1 NSA TENTATIVE MAP AND SHEET DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT 1 ENCINITAS RANCH OF (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) 2 CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA W.1;7.1 IIAN 2 1 . ANT / EN, IINCE D /T. PO F Y R R ER II O >„ 40 o 40 80 /; mod" / ' �� Y !eo a caNacE �qP Roa,: LOCar ou)_o e. aF• REUnover� ��zmr // `xqn 2ry sex iK i /'.<. ar. ©�/ uNCVTeo Tcv 4s Tino�r4�. R cNN, l r?sT *.G s / � s -. SCALE IN FEET srvEl IS3 S E �'- w 5 9uBPlAR$IAN 9D9 r Ts x o !. �� vrco Err v 77 *� 'c.. rc PIe3 w - 15 rxlsr r�or -E rr, �-,ti�. F v "" / %�e�J s�3 � � I c��i � I * � CSI � .,N :rxr ,•r N. E'o) , P e ., DITCH jj �.: f� �P> +� _ �� k e� < � +J'• ° - v c � o POOL r moo AT oNS J- - � u , tr a way e , �� ypppj��IIL � a "� i �' -.N PN'o?IVEAREC PFEk' ✓�' w'I 9 I" *� I 4 5 �5 1 fl. �e Pf YS.O j61ra 0, Ps Y50 'k Z Ip�, r 'A+I' 8 ru aoNT`„ i pg�l� ?j o, �' `' IM P2 ass so Res ��-`.x r3 —�r FL ❑ -rY PI AeiE �: 29 m 28' 2T * I{ ao ..-' =} Pns ff T �R , � PRIMA, E fill i c N \ - - TAR I, o �� A- D U ADREs USE. DAACRES t bL O 0.ACR MixED USE a c !V > MIXED USE , �_ •j �. N85 10 5n M�/ 3 ©Gra rx sr c SUBDIV ON BOUNDARY m _ Rs¢ I si4 \Nasowo- —'�� wa�f ro e Ros<Ea NKPREPARED BY TENTATIVE 6 _ olrcµ �e �xiTi Y =a nsakeY DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT SHEET ., ERLt<j"FkW h 51oz+i oreY+ri [ ' OF t ' ar�H BASIN ssD�,atR ENCINITAS RANCH r -STING YMIARA -1- s (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) 2 f e, - - CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA WOR 199b3 9 m I I PHASE t i LEGEND -HASE 2 /_ _= f \ BUILDING PHASE LINE p�pc PHASE 3 1z � � aEaav J UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR MODELS r I III 1 O I UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR PHASE 1 j� LOT 4 ® F44 PHASE 4 ryry V 46 w PHASE 8 � 1 l0T 3 \\\ 37 LOT 5 2 4 l 45 9 m I I PHASE t i LEGEND -HASE 2 /_ _= f \ BUILDING PHASE LINE p�pc PHASE 3 1z � � aEaav J UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR MODELS r I III 1 O I UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR PHASE 1 , i � III L F44 UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR BUILD OUT \ w PHASE 8 � 1 l0T 3 \\\ 9 m I I PHASE t i LEGEND -HASE 2 /_ _= f \ BUILDING PHASE LINE p�pc PHASE 3 1z � � aEaav J UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR MODELS HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES sv��Ea Cl I UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR PHASE 1 UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR BUILD OUT w PHASE 8 � 1 37 LOT 5 I ..., _ 38 MODEL PAVED ACCESS ROAD SCHEDULE FOR OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT I 4t 77 3s 33 3a l 36 ae MODELS EXIST SAXONY ROAD �� PHASE i NEW 1 A ES DRIVE, E 6 CC S D E, NORTH OF PROPERTY _ I PHASE 5 PHASE 6 PHASE 7 24 PHASE 2 SILVER BERRY (THROUGH PHASE 2) & BAY BERRY I PHASES 3 & 4 SILVER BERRY, CARMEL CREEPER, SAXONY PLACE LOOP PHASES 5 — 7 SWEET PEA PLACE LOOP' 8 2T a° _ , I .,.. _� I L I LOT 2 � < \ \ \ LOT 1 HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES O1/02/1990 13:15 5195586159 GEOCON INC PAGE 03 materials should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to at least 97 percent of Hveent maximum density. Should you have questions regarding these recommendations, or if we may be of further service. please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCONINCORPORATED Jam�wn GE 2176 DILMOAnic (d) Addressee (2) City of Encinitas Attention: Mr. Blair Knoll Dale Hamelehle CEG 1760 137/02/1995 13:15 5195566159 GEOCOIJ 1hh_ PAGE 04 TABLE SUMMARY OF R -VALUE AND SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS Sample No. Location R -Value Sand Equivalent R 1 Intersection of Bay Berry Placc 17 and Silver Berry Place 15 R -2 Intersection of Silver Berry Place IS and Sweet Pea Place 16 R -3 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 34 25 16 R-4 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 39 19 15 R -5 Carmel Creeper Place adjacent to Pad 45 71 17 R -6 Saxony Place adjacent to Pad 28 44 17 07/02/1996 13:16 5195586159 GE00011 111C PA(-,E A7 - Project No. 05799 -42.01 March 5. 1997 D. R. Holton Incorporated - San Diego 10179 Huennekens Street, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92121 Attention: Mr, Mark Mullett Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCIMTAS, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION: DETERMINATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTION ON SAXONY ROAD Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have perforated additional geoteclulicnl engineering services for the subject project. The scope of our services consisted of advancing a core in the existing asphalt pavement section on Saxony Road to determine the existing structural pavement section. Prior to coring, a temporary encroachment permit from the City of Encinitas was obtained. After determination of the existing pavement section, an analysis was conducted to determine if the pavement section required an overlay as part of die street widening due to the increased traffic. It is our understanding that this infortttation was requested by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. The asphalt core was obtained from the west side (southbound lane) of Saxony Road at approximately Station 26 +00. After coring, the aggregate base section was removed and tlhe thickness measured. In addition, a sample of the underlying subgrade soil was obtained acid subjected to Resistance Value (R- Value) testing to determine bearing characteristics for the pavement analysis. Observations and field measurements indicated that the existing pavement section consisted of 4 inches of Asphalt Concrete over 8 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. Observation of the street within the project limits indicated that the existing pavement section is in relatively good condition and generally free of reflective cracking mid raveling. Once the existiug structural pavement section was determined, an analysis was performed using procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caitrans Highway Design Manual (1990 Edition). information was also obtained from The City of Encinitas. California. Public Road Standards (April, 1991). The analysis used an R -Value of 73 determined from laboratory testing on the sample of subgrade soils obtained from the coring and a Traffic index (TI) of 7.0. The T.I. was supplied by Hunsaker and Associates who obtained the infonnalion from Mr- Blair Knoll of the City of Eucudtas. The results of the analysis indicated that for a subgrade R -Value of 73, an asphalt pavement thickness of 4 inches over native subgrade soils (fill depth asphalt section) conforms to the Caltrams Design Procedure. Calculations are presented on Table 1. However, the minimum section required by the City of Encinitas for local roads and collectors is 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement over 6 Inches of Class 2 base. Since tlhe existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of base, die existing section conforms to both the Caitrans design requirements and the City of Encuitas ntbtimum standards. As such, no overlay is required to increase the existing pavement 07/02/1338 13:15 5135585153 GELiCi I It IC PNT 06 section for die given design T.I. of 7A. some thin overlay may be required to provide a smooth. transition where then new section abuts the existing pavement. In summary, based upon determined pavement sections and pavement design analyses, no overlay of the existing pavement section is required to satisfy the design T.I. criteria supplied by the City of Encinitas Should you have questions regarding this consultation, or if we may be of further service. please contact die undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED James L. Brown RCE 43824 JLB:dmc (3 /del) Addressee (3 /del) Ifunsaker and Associates Attention: Mr. Ray Martin No. 618624 tK *� Exp. 6/30/87 07/02/1358 13:15 6195586159 GE000r1 PIC PAGE n' TABLE PAVEMENT SECTION CALCULATIONS (CALTRANS METHOD) Design Traffic Index 7.0 R -Value of Subgrade Soils 73 Asphalt Conctete'1ltickness GE = 0032 x'r.l. x (100 -78) Where 78 equals the Urittimum specified R -Value for Class 2 Base GE _ .0032 x (7) x (100 -78) = 4928 ft. Gf= 2.5(5.14/7) - =2.14 Thickness required = GE /Gf = .4928/114 (12) = 2.76 inches. For existing 4 uich section, actual GE - (4/12) x 2.14 = .7133 Cla s 2 Base 1- hickttess GE= 0032 x (7) x (100 -73) Where 73 is die R -Value of the subgrade soils GE _ .6048 less GE for the determined Asphalt Ihick»ess GE _ .6048 —.7133 < 0 Therefore, base is not required as Ore Asphalt satisfies the total gravel equivalent necessary for the design structural section. Per the City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, the minimum recommended pavement section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of Class 2 base. Since the existurg section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of Class 2 base, the existing section conforms to both the Caltrans design criteria and the City of Encinitas standards and does not require an overlay for structural purposes. TABLE U SUMMARY OF R-VALUE AND SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS Sample IN Location R -Value I Saxony Road Station 26 +UO (southbound lane) 73 JI_IL 02 '98 02:26PIl CITY OF ENCINITRS CITY OF ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date; July 2, 1998 TO. Greg Shields. Engineering Department FROM: David Moore, Fire Prevention Bureau & SUBJECT: DR Horton Project -Saxony Rd Please be advised that all the fire hydrants at the above project are in service and acceptable to the Encinitas Fire Department. I hank you. ( i0 P.2 %2 T I IL -! 1- -194'2 13: 1'? so AV An Enova Company July 2, 1998 San Diego Gas & E! PO box Dui -:Hw o. ci nn2A lip, Jerry Sims D. R. Horton, INC. 1901 Ascension Blvd. ,STE. 100 Arlington, TX. 76006 Dear Jerry: Subject Encinitas Ranch / Saxony Rd. We are notifying you of our final acceptance project with gas and electric service. FILE NO PLA 590 PROJtt 701624 the work performed in order to serve We accept the work performed by you as des Abed in our underground electric c no 2580953 and gas construction order no. if 1',5725 and in accordance with the Documents, General Conditions and the Spec Illations. Our final acceptance of the work performed bA you is contingent upon your meeting obligations as specified in the contract docum nils. In accordance with the General the warran1y_period for the work performed by ou expires one year from the date o If I may be of further assistance or if you hav any questions, please call me at the r listed below. Our hours are from 7:00 AM - 410.0 PM, Monday through Friday. Sincerely w✓""" - �L Troy Sutton Customer Project Planner Telephone: (760) 480 -7723 above order umber PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL LEX WILLIMAN 10179 Huenneken5 St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 558 -4500 PH (619) 558.1414 F X w .hun aker.com IntogHunukerSD.com HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O, 1 N C. March 6, 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 6 through 11 p �CSL��1 nn U ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). See Exhibit "A ". Sincerely, 0 D UDaniel P. Smith L.S. 6854 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. cc: Mark Mullin. D.R. Horton L1 0 CS - r. ms as.eeuk ur>41 .. PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR IACR HILL LEX WILLIMAN 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 558 -4500 PH (619) 558 -1414 F X ..hunsakew.rn Info®HunsakerSD.com HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O, 1 N C. March 6, 1998 Exhibit A City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas. CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 6 through 11 Elevations: Pad 6 at an elevation of 149.3 Pad 7 at an elevation of 150.0 Pad 8 at an elevation of 150.5 Pad 9 at an elevation of 151.2 Pad 10 at an elevation of 151.4 Pad 11 at an elevation of 150.7 I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. Ray and L. Martin, R.C.E. Project Manager cc: Mark Mullin, D.R. Horton h�� oNO � ,y9R �Fc Z m � NO. 48670 A Exp. 6130/00 S'T Clv��P �� OF CAl -IF� Dsk \\ nu'[ata ndIVSII E 2d= wa. 137511 ,I 4 Al ENCINITAS RANCH Page 1 3/10198 ENCINITAS RANCH RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS MAP 13481 LOT N'S TENANT B.P. WS A. P. N. ROUGH G. B.P. COMMENTS APPROVAL ISSUED 1 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submifted 1 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan SubmkEed 1 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 2 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 2 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 2 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 3 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 3 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 3 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 4 D.R. Horton Phase Unlit No Plan No Plan Submitted 4 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 4 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 5 D.R. Horton Pool 97 -1526 25633042 10/29197 1050197 Final Required 5 D.R. Horton Recreation Room 97.048 25633042 10123197 1023197 Final Required 8 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 1 97.1794 25633042 In Plancheck 1211M7 8 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unit 2 97 -1794 256330-42 In Plancheck 12/15197 8 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unit 3 97- 1794 256330-42 In Plancheck 12/15197 7 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 1 97- 1795 256330 -42 In Plancheck 12/15517 7 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 2 97.1795 25633042 In Plancheck 12/15/97 7 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 3 97 -1795 25633042 In Plancheck 12/1597 a D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 1 97 -1796 25633042 In Plancheck 1211597 a D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 2 97 -1796 256. 330.42 In Plancheck 1211597 8 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 3 97 -1790 25633042 In Plancheck 12/15/97 9 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 1 97 -1798 25633042 In Plancheck 12/15/97 9 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 2 97 -1798 25633042 In Plancheck 1211597 9 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 3 97 -1798 25633042 In Plancheck 12/15/97 10 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 1 97 -1799 25633042 In Plancheck 12/1597 10 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 2 97 -1799 25633042 In Plancheck 12/1597 10 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unit 3 97 -1799 25633042 In Plancheck 12/1597 Page 1 ENCINITAS RANCH Page 2 3/10/98 ENCINITAS RANCH RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS MAP 13481 LOT 1CS TENANT B.P. WS A. P. N. ROUGH O. B.P. COMMENTS APPROVAL ISSUED 11 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unit 1 97 -1797 256. 330.42 In Planchack 12/15!97 11 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 2 97 -1797 256330.42 In Plancheck 12115/97 11 D.R. Horton Phase 3 Unk 3 97 -1797 256 -33042 In Plancheck 12/15/97 12 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unit 97 -1306 256 -33042 10/31/97 10/31/97 Final Required 12 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 2 97 -1306 256.33042 10/31197 10/31197 Final Required 12 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 3 97 -1306 25633042 10/31/97 10/31197 Final Required 17 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Until 97 -1307 256 - 330.42 10/31197 10131/97 Final Required 13 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 2 97 -1307 256.33042 10/31197 10/31)97 Final Required 13 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 3 97 -1307 256.33042 10/31/97 10131 )97 Final Required 14 D.R- Horton Phase 2 Unk 1 97 -1309 256 -33042 10/31/97 10/31/97 Final Required 14 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 2 97.1309 256 -33042 110131197 10/31 /97 Final Required 14 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 3 97 -1309 256 - 33042 10/31197 10/31 /97 Final Required 18 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unlit 97 -1310 25633042 10131 /97 10131 /97 Final Required 15 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 2 97 -1310 256 -33042 10131197 10/31 /97 Final Required 15 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unit 3 97 -1310 25633042 10131 /97 10/31 /97 Final Required 16 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Until 97 -1308 26633042 10/31 /97 10/31 /97 Final Required 16 D.R. Horton Phase 2 UnR 2 97 -1308 25633012 10/31 /97 10131 /97 Final Required 16 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unk 3 97 -1308 25633D42 10131 /97 10131 /97 Final Required 17 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Until 97 -936 25633042 10/21 /97 10/21/97 Final Required 17 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 2 97 -936 25633042 1C 21 /97 1021 /97 Final Required 17 ID.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 3 97 -936 25633012 1021 /97 1021197 Final Required 18 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Until 97 -937 25633042 1021 /97 1021 /97 Final Required 18 D.R. Horton Phase i Unk 2 97-937 25633012 10/21 /97 1021 /97 Final Required 18 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 3 97-937 25633042 10/21/97 10/21 /97 Final Required 19 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 1 97 -938 256330.42 1021 /97 10121 /97 Final Required 19 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 2 97.938 256- 330-42 1021 /97 10121 97 Final Required 19 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 3 97 -938 25633012 10121 /97 10/21 /97 Final Required 20 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Until 97 -939 25633042 1021197 1021 /97 Final Required 20 ID.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 2 97 -939 256330.42 1021 /97 1021 /97 Final Required 20 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unk 3 97 -939 25633042 1021 /97 1021197 Final Required Page 2 ENCINITAS RANCH Page 3 3/10/98 ENCINITAS RANCH RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS MAP 13461 LOT N'S TENANT B.P. vs A. P. N. ROUGH G. B.P. COMMENTS APPROVAL ISSUED 21 O.R. Horton Phase 1 Unit 1 97 -940 256-330.42 1021/97 1021/97 Final Required 21 O.R. Horton Phase 1 Unit 2 97 -940 25633012 1021/97 1021 /97 Final Required Final Required 21 D.R. Horton Phase 1 Unit 3 97-940 256330-42 1021/97 1021 /97 22 D.R. Horton Model Unk 1 97-647 25833012 827 /97 627197 Final Required 22 D.R. Horton Model Unit 2 97-647 258330.42 8/27 /97 827 /97 Final Required 22 D.R. Horton Model Unit 3 97-647 258330.42 827 /97 827 /97 Final Required 23 ID.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 23 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 23 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 24 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 24 D.R. Horton Phase Un8 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 24 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 25 D.R. Horton Phase Unlit No Plan No Plan Submitted 25 O.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 25 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 26 Sales Trailer 97-647 25633012 827197 827 /97 Final Required 27 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 27 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 27 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 28 D.R. Horton Phase Witt No Plan No Plan Submitted 28 D.R. Horton Phase Un82 No Plan No Plan Submitted 28 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 29 D.R. Horton Phase Unlit No Plan No Plan Submitted 29 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 29 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 30 D.R. Horton Phase Until No Plan No Plan Submitted 30 D.R. Horton Phase Un8 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 30 D.R. Horton Phase UnR 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 11 D.R. Morton Phase Unit 1 Na Plan No Plan Submitted 31 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 I No Plan No Plan Submitted Page 3 ENCINITAS RANCH Page 4 3/10/98 ENCINITAS RANCH RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS MAP 13481 LOT WS TENANT B.P. WS A. P. N. ROUGH G. B.P. COMMENTS APPROVAL ISSUED 31 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 32 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted No Plan Submitted 32 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan 32 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 33 D.R. Horton Phase Until No Plan No Plan Submitted 33 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 33 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 34 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 34 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 34 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 35 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 35 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 35 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 36 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 36 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 36 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 37 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unit 1 97 -1304 256 - 330-42 10/31197 10/31/97 Final Required 37 O.R. Horton Phase 2 Unit 2 97 -1304 256 -33012 10/31/97 10/31/97 Final Required 37 D.R. Horton Phase 2 Unit 3 97 -1304 25&33012 10/31/97 10/31/97 Final Required 38 D.R. Horton Phase Until No Plan No Plan Submitted 38 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 38 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 39 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 39 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 39 1D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 40 D.R. Horton Phase Will No Plan No Plan Submitted 40 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 40 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 41 D.R. Horton Phase Witt No Plan No Plan Submitted 41 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted Page 4 ENCINITAS RANCH Page 5 3110198 ENCINITAS RANCH RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS MAP 13481 LOT WS TENANT B.P. VS A. P. N. ROUGH G. B.P. COMMENTS APPROVAL ISSUED 41 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 42 D.R. Horton Phase Until No Plan No Plan Submitted 42 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 42 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 43 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 43 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 43 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 44 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 44 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 44 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 45 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 45 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 45 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted 46 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 1 No Plan No Plan Submitted 46 D.R. Horton Phase Unk 2 No Plan No Plan Submitted 46 D.R. Horton Phase Unit 3 No Plan No Plan Submitted Page 5 II I I 256 - 330 -07 I I I I 256 - 330 -14 I I I C4 I �y tar s LOT 4 /" \ V� ` i � �I l5`-I �!S -' \ \ 1j ® �® 14 • zg� 4 I o A 6� LOT 3 �\ \� Lor 2 Q CiQ ,` Lor 1 t 256- 330 -¢t�' - •.,� �' ..�. �': }�' ,, is �; / 256 Am i I �p -O2 P-.4 :~ �� i P -1766 82.7 I Al A. P -150.5 P- 176.81 P -1793 P -180. 1 1a I C II W -_, I - I ,. O �/ `✓ ...76.1 I i ? -1?6.1 1:-. yJ� 7- IB1.S. 1 P -150.0 Ic 1 .' . . 1Y]l P -ia9 -i P -175.6 h D -1 \� ►� - -. -- 1 vt i 1 - `:� PRIVATE DR. 'B•i I 5 R11- CENTER P -148.4 1_175 -� �`. ® I 1 Il{ q� I�_ - -_ ! I r•� $ � + 11 I fs 1.or 4 I O P -1 1.3 I+ . ! ' P -147.5 P - 170.1 I P -1703 P -1904 1 P -171.2 P -i80.' P- 146.6' I" p -146.5 I P -171.2 P -174.1 IP. -175.1 ,P -175.8 _ -I P -179! 1 O ® �- -- ,- - - -- / P -145.6 p_ P -171 6 190. f 9 145.5 - I P -178.4 + `o ' R -144.6 �~ P -171.a \ C J P -172.8 R- 173.6 P -17.5 P- 'S 5 j p -1a45 1 1 ? 1 �z� 3 -- s -J T - -� a {+R1vATE arnt - - - - - �IAr3 I 1 WE SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1998 TO: Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer FROM: Bill O'Donnell, Water Utility Planner RE: West Saxony Subdivision The public water system located within the West Saxony subdivision is pressurized and all fire hydrants are operational at this time. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at ext. 2849. CITY OF ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: July 2, 1998 TO: Greg Shields, Engineering Department FROM: David Moore, Fire Prevention Bureau D SUBJECT: DR Horton Project - Saxony Rd Please be advised that all the fire hydrants at the above project are in service and acceptable to the Encinitas Fire Department. Thank you. City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Request DR Horton 1010 First Ave., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Grading Permit Number - G Engineer of Record: Geotechnical Engineer: Contractor: Project Manager: Rough Grading Approval is requested for the following lots: The following attachments are included as required for rough grading approval: ❑ Inspector's Rough Grading Approval Checklist. ❑ Geotechnical Reports for each of the above lots. ❑ Engineer's Pad Certification Report for each of the above lots. ❑ Wall Certification Reports INSPECTOR - JACK WINGATE, GEOPACIFICA Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Requirements DR HORTON - Grading Permit - G The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough 10 grading approval. 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. APPROVED: DATE: Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. APPROVED: DATE: All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer certifying that it was inspected and constructed in accordance with their recommendations and conforms to the approved plans. APPROVED: POYA441 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and completed per the grading plan, inspected and approved by the inspector. Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point for rough grading approval. APPROVED: DATE: 3. All sewer systems shall be installed and accepted by City Inspector and Leucadia County Water District. APPROVED: DATE: 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. APPROVED: DATE: 5. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. APPROVED: DATE: Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required APPROVED: DATE: 6. All fire hydrants are to be installed, tested, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department. APPROVED: DATE: 7. All roads are to be installed, except for the final lift of paving. APPROVED: DATE: 8. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate agency. APPROVED: DATE: All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free environment. APPROVED: DATE: These items are to be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written request rough grading approval. The Inspector will the approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department �C�ln CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 TRANSMITTAL FORM (7&0) FAX: 633 -2818 Community Development Engineering Fire Administration Fire Prevention Public Works DATE: (Z' 2Z'`� SEND TO FAX n TO: ri, COMPANY: 7i:Za7UV A # PP ATTACHED PHONE: 619/633- 24:78 ❑ Call ASAP ❑ Review & Call ❑ Review & Pctum ❑ F.Y.I. ❑ Please Handle Per Our Conversation ❑ Please Reply by ❑ As Requested . 6 / U L ^• -l� mot` d.rr,c... -A � 4 n.a p--L -� Qt�R- c4lAro- l - ' CA H-N.91 Sign to Sign Bracket, Dimension to be compatible with part cap d See Detail 10'x 2 7/8" D.D. aluminum alloy BOWS, clear anodized Pala.. 24 "- 30 "- 36'- 42 4sl Q ® T.o� �@ �@ goo O� .091" 1511" ---I � TYPICAL STREET NAME LAYOUT g n blade of Typical layout of legend and border an variable length sig engineering extruded aluminum with "in screened reflective sheeting eng g greda. White letters and border on green background. 5 " —U.C., 3 3/4 " —L.C. © 4 11116 "spacing of two 11132" holes contend on both top and bottom edge of blade to match holes in sign bracket assemblies. © 2" z 2 314" —Arrow 2 " —U.C. Grill hole to secure tap to Post with t 181" slot screw or rivet. 0 i Curb and Sidewalk Setback b Sidewalk Width b 120' tyP P. _ r % Contiguous 6 Sidewalk Setback (see table) or less Width Slope to 1 /4" Contiguous more 7-r above grade POST CAP DETAIL than 6 Separate — 2'- 0 5 314" 4 11/16" •♦ R 10" diameter footing of 564.0-3000 concrete v Drill 11137' hole thru near side flange tyP 2 Plcs. a L2- min Drill and tap far 5/16'— 18 bolts in line with t 11/32" diameter holes. Drill and Tap for 5116•' -18 e 2.91" min. dia. one pointed screw (3 plcs.) g 7/1 dia. n = 3♦ 3 a _ ♦2 HALF— SECTION DETAIL e r s o Minor Street e NOTES I. ®denotes 4 11/16 "spacing shall match I the hales in the extruded blades ♦ $ o 2 Bracket to be die cast aluminum. 4 1 rte 1 3. All attaching screws shall be vandal STREET NAME SIGN LOCATION proof Type. (numbers indicate priority of location selection) mxx,'ataENDED BY APP11OVED BY COUNTY L "TE , SAN DIEGO COUNTY DESIGN STANDARD loose STANDARD STREET SIGN rQlasESlY STAN1011k OnAS MO NUMBER DS-13 cLA �044 6' 1. •9t. \JGd • 1 .37A� ��SDI 11�m� �J V North 430 426 418 414 4: ;l 41S L ^`pTL ALfh S.`YLT b i N(j "fa-, "041JA L 691 a 69S 689 685 SSA 59D b)f °t 653m � dif � m , • r • . MAP OT AWL v , ,r , City Of Encinitas October 21, 1997 Mr. Jay Kerr President DR Horton - San Diego 1010 First St., Ste. 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Building Permits - West Saxony Dear Jay W v 1 F fir u As a follow -up to your October 15, 1997 letter, the City will release the building permits for Phase I (Buildings 17 -21) using the 16 foot paved road on the north side of the project for fire access. Foundation only permits for the recreation building and Phase II (Buildings 12 -16 and 37) can also be pulled at this time. However, lumber cannot be dropped for Phase II or the recreation building until the base lift of asphalt is laid. Should you have any questions, please give me a call at (760) 633 -2771. (i 1, '1 � ► I I,� Alan D. Archibald, P.E. Director of Engineering Services CC' Will Foss Dave Moore Greg Shields gc5659 From: Dave Moore To: AARCH Date: 10/21/97 9:22am Subject: DR HORTON ALAN, THANKS FOR KEEPING ME IN THE LOOP. EVERYTHING SEEMS FINE EXCEPT FOR THE COMMIT IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH WHICH STATES "PRIOR TO ANY LUMBER DROP, WE WILL PROVIDE A 24 FOOT WIDE ALL WEATHER ACCESS FOR FIRE PROTECTION'. THE PHASE " ALL WEATHER " MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. AS YOU KNOW IT MEANS THE FIRST LIFT OF ASPHALT TO US. THIS CONDITION OF PAVING PRIOR TO LUMBER DROP HAS BEEN THERE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PLANNING PROCESS. DID YOU FEEL THEIR UNDERSTANDING WAS PAVING? IF NOT MAYBE I SHOULD CONFIRM THIS WITH MR. KERR . MARK MULLIN HAS BEEN PERSONALLY TOLD THIS BY ME. THANKS, DAVE - R-HORMN` CUSTOM HOMES OCTOBER 15, 1997 Mr. Alan Archibald City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA. 92024 Dear Alan, a Thank you and your staff for taking the time to meet with us out at the Saxony jobsite this afternoon. As a follow up to that meeting, we are requesting that the City of Encinitas release the building permits for buildings 17- 21,10 -14, 37 and the recreation building (map attached). This request represents a total of 11 production buildings in addition to the recreation building. It will take us 10 - 12 working days to pour the slabs from the day we layout. It is our intent to start the framing on the first 5 buildings and recreation building immediately, and hold off on the framing on buildings 10 -14,37 until December. We want to have them (10 -14, 37) available to us in the event that the winter weather materializes as predicted and we are unable to start additional slabs in a timely manner. We would like to start the work as soon as the tap is made in the street next week lo f 21 I have attached a current schedule for the remaining improvement work. Water We expect to have the "hot tap" made on the southernly side of Saxony Drive this week, the other tap is currently scheduled to be completed on the 21st. We should have the system tested and functional (with fire hydrants) by the end of next week. Storm Drain (pvc) Per our discussion, we will remove and reinstall the PVC Storm Drain System per District Standards (bedded in 314" rock) in all "traffic areas". Sanitary Sewer You will allow us to test and providing the system passes, hook up the existing neighbors to the sewer. 1010 First Street, Suite 101 E.mias. Ctt ilornm 92024 176016346700 Fax (760) 634 -6770 Dry Utilities The pre -con is Thursday (10/16), we expect to start work next week, completing the work (underground duct/gas) in about 10 days. Private Water This system will follow the drys by a week or so. Entry /Fire Protection /Access The trenching of utilities in the entry and model area will be complete in about 10 working days. Prior to any lumber drop, we will provide a 24 foot wide all weather access for fire protection. In the interim, Mark Mullin has secured an approval /access from the Fire Department for Phase 1 as serviced off Saxony Road. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Please call me if you have any additional comments or questions. Sincerely, Jay Kerr President DR Horton -San Diego cc: Mark Mullin Jerry Sims HOOLLS rr,IaW- 2 <*X>o.SAX0NY Q 1'a ass l, i � 01 1 r 1997 DEVELOPMENT START June 23, 1997 SCHEDULE DAYS: WEEK ENDING: CLEARING GRADING• REMOVALS GRADING - MASS EXC. GRADING - FIN MODELS ,GRADING - FINISH _ ISTORM DRAIN RADEC&G .ACECBG _ — &0CURE RADE STREETS -- ASE STREETS ASE /CURE _ -_ SAXONY JOB NO N17 DEV 002 UNITS. 13B MODEL/PHASE 1 SCHEDULE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE REVISED SCHEDULE _ ACTUAL SCHEDULE DATE 10114/97 GENERAL NOTES. 8-29-97 REVISED SCHEDULE BASED ON NEW PERMIT SCHEDULE 9 -12 -97 PULLED IMPROVEMENT PERMIT Weather Delays'. MEN No ■ mom M ME Weather Delays'. I i NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL LEAVE THE TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE NURSERY CONTAINERS. TOP OF THE CONTAINERS SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY AT FINISH GRADE. THE PLANTS ARE TO BE USED THROUGHOUT THE SITE AFTER THE SALES TRAILER IS REMOVED. ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT IS TO BE USED THROUGHOUT THE SITE AFTER THE SALES TRAILER IS REMOVED. ca -lei krif-t" <ojJ 3`t bzc i.3ks rR ejuc?S cE2'nF' i (� ceka -r\(oJ SAxaa� FD _ --lb4z — Itd�To►.� TEMPORARY SALES TRAILER PLAN DATE REVISIONS OS NII S PROJECT 96-660 SCALE 1/8'= 1' -0- Y 1 OEM owl F07 710, iLl y �- TEMPORARY A -� TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: 633 -2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS Community Development Engineering 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Fire Administration Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Fire Prevention q / Public Works DATE: 8 -��— 1� SENDTOFAXk &3`t - X2420 TO: YL �� COMPANY: Z) .k. t^ * _ 4 PP ATTACHED �L FROM: PHONE: 619/633- 27 7f, C3 Call ASAP C3 Re view & Call ❑ Review & Return 11 F.Y.I. ❑ Please Handle [21 "Per Our Conversation ❑ Please Reply by ❑ As Requested ?its 1� (a zEN arL{ / r1ai Q c� A ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough grading approval. 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer. 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and completed per the grading plan, inspected and approved by the inspector. Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point for rough grading approval. 3. All sewer systems shall be installed and accepted by City Inspector and the appropriate District. 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by the appropriate District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. 5. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required. 6. All fire hydrants are to be installed, tested, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department. 7. All roads are to be installed, except for the final lift of paving. 8. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate agency. All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free environment. These items are to be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written request for rough grading approval. The Inspector will the approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department. 1-H•HOMN' CUSTOM HOMES August 20, 1997 Greg Sheilds City of Encinitas 633 S.Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Re: Temporary Sales Trailer Permit Dear Greg, This is a formal request to release lot 26 of the West Saxony Planning Area for final pad grade certification. We plan to use this pad as a temporary sales facility, specifically a sales trailer location. A copy of the pad certifications was sent to your office by our engineer on August 14, 1997. Please call if I can be of further assistance. Ma G. Mullin a�. Vice President of Operations 1010 First &tr .Suite 101 Em.itm. Calif..mia 9 2024 1760)674-67W I" 1760) 614.6770 "W ytr f— $ � Sp( t,s p c i� D-ItH =Nm =JSTOM HOMES August 7, 1997 Alan Archibald City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Re: Saxony, Construction Schedule Enc: Revised Construction Schedule Dear Alan, ,.1 AUG 07 1997 "vGl dEciirl1' 3 S• RVICES CITY OF p4CINITAS Per your request, we are submitting the following construction schedule and description for your use. The attached construction schedule was revised on August 7, 1997, and is based on our improvement plans being approved on August 18, 1997, bonds/fees being posted by August 22, 1997, and starting construction by August 25, 1997. We have selected Burtech Pipeline to construct the underground improvements on our Saxony project. In discussing the project with Burtech, two operations will be used to install the underground improvements. We will have one operation working the upper half of the project, primarily lot numbers 12 through 40; and the other operation working the lower half of the project, primarily lot numbers 1 through 1 1 and 44 through 46. As you will note from the attached schedule, our first line of attack is to move one operation on the storm drain along the western property boundary, and the other operation to start the water line installation at the project entry. After the water is complete on the upper pad, and the storm drain is complete on the lower pad area, both operations will move back on sewer installation (then water) as indicated on the schedule. The underground improvements are anticipated to take five weeks to install. Dry utilities an additional four weeks. We plan to completely improve the entire site, however, there will be two move ons for curb and paving. One move on for the models and phase 1, the other for the balance of the project. Grading of the site will be complete within the next two weeks. According to the new rough grading approval requirements, all grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan must be complete. We intend to complete the grading, however, the project was designed to balance with spoil dirt removed from each lot as the units are built and finish graded. Unfortunately, we will not be able to comply with this requirement until a later date. Please call with any questions. Sincer ly, Mark G. Mullin Vice President of Operations 1010 First Street. Suite 101 Encinitas. California 92024 (760) 634-6700 Fax (760) 6146770 1997 DEVELOPMENT SAXONY JOB NO N77 DEV 002 UNITS: 138 MODEUPHASE 1 GRADING/IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE START. June 23, 1997 MASTER GRADING/IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE BUILDING COSTRUCTION SCHEDULE DAYS: .< 4 DATE 08/07/97 GENERAL NOTES: 8-7 -97 Schedule Revised - Eased on revised plan check schedule and 9 -10-97 final maps This schedule assumes 8- 18-97 plan approval EondsHees by 8.22 -97, start improvements _ i:[-' f�' vJr/ L�llrii [�ffcx__'_[��ll�l�l -f[''y �r -•. .• --, -,� ,�fGtTCC.Rilri. rztr��.��narclraicvii' r3 -7 r. -' - ! ifl/i[:Til/lf(.!j�.(lx(:�[rii '.ty(�� •i •' F� +I:1 r'' Weather Delays. µpp_) Pc, q_f1 k 1997 DEVELOPMENT START: June 16, 1997 SCHEDULE DAYS: 120 SAXONY JOB NO: UNITS: N17 DEV 002 138 MODELIPHASE 1 SCHEDULE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE REVISED SCHEDULE ACTUAL SCHEDULE DATE: 06/W97 GENERAL NOTES: Weather Delays: 1997 PHASE SAXONY JOB NO: N17 DATE WOW GENERAL NOTES: UNITS: 15 START: AUGUST 4, 1997 COMPLETE 1ST UNIT: SEPTEMBER 29.1997 SCHEDULE DAYS: 85 DAYS tJIlry IF1l UI.IWMl:T- UNI t55 LU 1 NUTAHD G5- WEEK ENDING: Wee W Oebn; Dec 1 -Building 21,20, 19 Dec 8 - Building 18, 17 fI'. f11iP: i3l_ iLF_ 31LC Il �fi/ fLli[!!- 3�.fiIL7_fYri_fYdfElKkammp?,.,m ,DRYWALL TEXTURE COLOR COAT SET CAB FIN PLMBGIHTG & ELECTRICAL C. ".. . ®. .C.. FINAL INSP tJIlry IF1l UI.IWMl:T- UNI t55 LU 1 NUTAHD G5- WEEK ENDING: Wee W Oebn; Dec 1 -Building 21,20, 19 Dec 8 - Building 18, 17 1997 PHASE MODELS SAXONY JOB NO: N17 DATE: OWWW GENERAL NOTES: UNrrS: 3 START: AUGUST 4, 1997 COMPLETE IST UNM SEPTEMBER 29.1997 SCHEDULE DAYS 45 DAYS Sj i��O t.'i�1t'13�CL>•1•E:iP�E:LL•7 s�s(••F>•iL:ffl fLivfl!'cL1 fCi��_�� DRYWALLNAIL DRYWALLTEXTURE COLOR COAT SFTCAB COUNTERTOPS FIN PLMBGlHTG A ELECTRICAL mC ll SOMME ©mmCCmCCCCC FINALINSP RCCU Em ESTIMATED OCCUP/W Cr - DATES a LOT NUMBERS WEEK ENOLNG- Sept. 29 - Buidkg 22 J 4 C \' \ "\JYH ��tP ��,�� o� 0•R NORTON' CUSTOM HOMES Jerry Suns Supenntendent James L. Brown, GE _ Associate GEOCON rNCOHY011AT6p GEOTECHNICAL 6960 Flonders Drive CONSULTANTS Son Diego, CA 9 21 212 974 Tel (619 558 -6900 Fox. (619 ) 558 -6159 Ueel St11k^f00 21 ' 571 1=' NlRRSf'��W James L. Brown, GE _ Associate GEOCON rNCOHY011AT6p GEOTECHNICAL 6960 Flonders Drive CONSULTANTS Son Diego, CA 9 21 212 974 Tel (619 558 -6900 Fox. (619 ) 558 -6159 NOTICE ON VIOLATION K e00&,TIpN No 7I(x Citv of Encinitas - State of California Office of City Engineer NOTICE Tr"�v This site has be n inspected and is to violation of the followin.- Chapter(s) of the Municipal Code: _ No Permit (15.04, 15.08, 23.24) _ Traffic Control (15.04) _ Grading (23.24) _ Erosion Control (23.24) _ . sphalt Concrete (15.04) Concrete (15.04) Trenching and Bachfilling (15.04) _ Drainage (15.04, 23.24) _ Illegal Encroachment (15.04) Other Site Address:�Q'�- ou are hereby ordered to abate the following olation p by / & -�e % (Date) Th, r ay be accomplished by: t' EvE/1 dS'. � a�c �vo a� ��1 wotil4ritT0.9�/ . D"' D"'L NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE! wASlfi/►! . S T If A/O 7- fc 4W/ T'n=b. ContacWrqectins r regarding removal of th' o 1 /o:3ahy Inspec Date Sign -off: `!9 City Eng ,_r Date N0 1ICE 01: %'IUI.n'l ION L'Agfi_- T1 oi✓ /JOT/QE City of Encinitas - State of California Office of City Engineer OTIC This site has been inspected and is in violation of the following Chapter(s) of the Municipal Code: _ No Permit (15.04, 15.08, 23.24) _ Traffic Control (15.04) Grading (23.24) _ Erosion Control (23.24) _ Asphalt Concrete (15.04) _ Concrete (15.03) _ Trenching and Backfilling (15.04) _ Drainage (15.04, 23.24) Illegal Encroachment 15.04 Site Address:7LU SlfXCv��( You are hereby ordered to abate the following violation by !y16— 7 4 3Q ~ (Date) SwaT P54 1't4iC9 s m. 11P73 Thi av a c�mplksh� d by: oas�4 /// C. APE 8&//V&- FVN60 //N F"tn TOP OF 7R&4V, P1 PE r-F-LJ, 10' 1 /N 7-0 �?o-170#1 OF TPrAx_-H. RF =M(Vt PIPE 1=Ptm 7W�,//. 44aiL Fol, Di i . DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE! Contact project inspector regarding removal of �0 ' Notice. 1��2a��1� Inspector Sign -off: City Engineer Date • I XUAC .:''=°NOTICE ShlCOU Y 4a�,a� NOTICE OF VIOLATION I" NOTICE &,4oPLzl City of Encinitas - State of California Office of City Engineer NOTICE �cc� . This site has inspected and is in violation of the following Chapter(s) of the Municipal Code: _ No Permit (15.04, 15.08, 23.24) _ Traffic Control (15.04) _ Grading (23.24) _ Erosion Control (23.24) _ Asphalt Concrete (15.04) Concrete (15.04) Trenching and Backfilling (15.04) _ Drainage (15.04, 23.24) _ Illegal Encroachment (15.04) x Other LP1-D0134 Site Address:ftbLQ� — -WQ4/)( 11W Yvd are hereby ordered to abate the following violation by 4-/-7-27 (Date) This may be accom lished by: R2 41V 60*21-TdAiz 69 T/O .-v /1/0 PGC= pf!-TL 9a� 6.t000tf � /W qqC4 /CEO i/v i7/c T1W,11611 wl Tl� d7f wo/exexi-; M11AI fiv T17 ti4f• 11 *4 % L*4& -)i2, vF TCIf. /a� v/�LTrc GUT NO%'1-L-"S T "+t)0(_-9_ Zo 1j' TO NC- ,+/(�2Tff. /1 «r11 ZiDG32 LUT Q� b/ 750X - U/J% - A" . DO NOT EMOV TH S NOTICE! Se-6�- /�`flJT o . Contact protect inspector regarding removal of thi otice. lector Date Sign -off: City Engineer Date NOTICE OF VIOLATION 2-'`p NC T I C z City of Encinitas - Siate of California Office of Citv Engineer j �9tco��cr wr�s� NOTICE This site has bee inspected and is in jviolation of the following Chapter(s) of the Municipal Code: No Permit (15.04, 15.08, 23.24) Traffic Control (15.04) Grading (23.24) Erosion Control (23.24) Asphalt Concrete (15.04) _ Concrete (15.04) Trenching and Backfilling (15.04) Drainage (15.04, 23.24) _ Illegal Encroachment (15.04) < Other CAW(=iu Site Address: VCDi��,L — L51X041)6 e�W 'ou are hereby ordered to abate the following violation by 4-17-97 (Date) This may be accomplished by: /A/ T1 CC 0#-TiF C,% 13ZJ- A -- �� Qvi xgP //V /t'L =.vCy W! T14 ILK IN T%l_C•i4/7f :1Y7/LT L4, 010(51,z ✓T ('N DO NOT . E.`.lt✓v -71-11S NO CE! ius. Aotice. inspector Date 4f: 'itv Engineer Date gcLzT WO RI UAC 1,tA/U0T1QC, . t City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Request DR Horton 1010 First Ave., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 4/81-3- Grading Permit Number 1f G Engineer of Record: 14u v5mzmE 4S50U#ms Geotechnical Engineer: 4 ;CoLON --r -N Contractor: D!2 . -HOZt. o nJ Project Manager: SeiZiW SIIKS Rough Grading Approval is requested for the following lots: T & LOTS )-8 d 31 PHV6 33 +41- , 35- The following attachments are included as required for rough grading approval: W" Inspector's Rough Grading Approval Checklist. [[SK Geotechnical Reports for each of the above lots. /�Engineer's,Pad Certification Report for each of the above lots. 3O(I Wall Certification Reports INSPECTOR - JACK WINGATE, GEOPACIFICA Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Requirements DR MORTON - Grading Permit —Y P /,3 - G The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough grading approval. 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. APPROVED: iro� DATE: -0* V/33 Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. APPROVED: /,!C!!/ DATE:�5�� a All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a Gliu�letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer certifying that it was inspected and constructed in accordance with their recommendations and conforms to the approved plans. APPROVED: 4 Lf DATE: 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and completed per the grading plan, inspected and approved by he inspector. Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point r ro gr din approval. / �j / APPROVED /•?/519' N � 3. All sewer systems shall be installed and accepted by City Inspector nd Leuca .a Tunty Water District. Q APPROVED: DATE: ✓ 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. / APPROVED: DATE: 9� ✓ 5. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. APPROVED: � DATE: �� /S�� '� Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required. APPROVED: ✓ 6. All fire hydrants are to be accepted by the 'Fiire Department. APPROVED: Gi'X) DATE: installed, tested, inspected and DATE: Y� I 7. All roads are to be installed, except for the final lift of paving. r Q� APPROVED: DATE: 12- -( Q — 4Q ✓ B. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate agency. APPROVED: L�✓� DATE: All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free environment. APPROVED: DATE: These items are to be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written request rough grading approval. The Inspector will the approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Car,,,O� Capital Improvement Projects by District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection f ICI Grading Permit No. q8 _G Name of Project Name of Develol "I Site Location .5(1Xe_ - �VA 1" L 4i;'a �li f�Cx ►N�QS �8thx.� 31 33 35 (address ...number ._streetname 1> `, of (o ...suffix) (lot) (bldg) I have inspected the grading at the subject site and have verified certification of the pad by the Engineer of Work, kfIANSAVOE dated I - -- ly -- 9P, and certification of soil compaction by the Soil Engineer, rW0c Off_ I am hereby satisfied that the rough grading has been completed 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, I take no exception to the issuance of a building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase _(, if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building 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 approved plans and specifications. (Signature of Engineering (Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) Reference: Building Permit No. - -- iz (pate) (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 /field1doc 1 TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760-633 -2700 recycled paper min AMIN am e c s I■� El FM El � Lo � p �I �.. i � �[,•� ...' � -moo ■pi � ■1■■ �� ■ ■1■ �, 0 HUN SAKE R CI &ASSOATES 5 n v 11 1 t G U. i N C PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL LE% WILLIMAN 10179 Huennekens 51. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 558 -4500 PH (619) 558 -1414 F % ..hunsakeccom Info ®Hunsaker5D.com December 14, 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -G West Saxony Building Pads 28 through 31, 33 through 35 Elevations: Pad 28 at an elevation of 176.5 Pad 29 at an elevation of 175.5 Pad 30 at an elevation of 174.5 Pad 31 at an elevation of 173.6 Pad 33 at an elevation of 174.1 Pad 34 at an elevation of 175.1 Pad 35 at an elevation of 175.8 s I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. Daniel P. Smith L.S. 6854 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. C L.S. 6854 Exp. 9/30/00 05k014Fper¢nWp pWng1375VB 494oc w o. 1375 41 � l;z GEOCON I N C O R P O R A T ED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Project No. 05799 -42 -01 March 10, 1998 D. R. Horton -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullin Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (PHASE 6, PADS 28 THROUGH 31 AND 33 THROUGH 35) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PAD GRADING CERTIFICATION References: 1. Update Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Engineer of Record for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. 2. Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading Pads 12 through 14 and 26 through 43 for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated January 22, 1998. Gentlemen In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the above referenced reports. Our review was performed to determine if the recommendations of the above referenced project geotechnical reports were implemented during the grading of the subject pads. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated, based upon our review, that the subject pads have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical reports. Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED ti James L. Brown GE 2176 JLB:dmc (3) Addressee (3 /del) Job Site Trailer Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms Dale Ham CEG 176( 6960 Flanders Rive ■ San Diego, Coli(omia 92121 -2974 ■ Telephone (619) 558 -6900 ■ Fox (619) 556-6159 JI.L 02 '98 04 :03PM CITY OF ENCINITAS -A- &--- N SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 2, 1998 TO: Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer FROM: Bill O'Donnell, Water Utility Planner RE: West Saxony Subdivision P.2 /2 The public water system located within the West Saxony subdivision is pressurized and all fire hydrants are operational at this time. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at ext. 2849. AFJ ?/02I1? ?9 13:16 61?55R615? Project No. 05799 -42.01 November 7, 1997 D. R. Horton Incorporated -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullin GEO� :f 0 111 H Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH ( WEST SAXONY PLANNING) ENCIMTAS, CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERIOR STREETS Gentlemen: 0 PAGE 02 In accordance with your request, we are providing pavement recommendations for the interior streets at the subject proiect. To assist in providing these recommendations, we have obtained a representative sample of the subgrade materials on all of the interior streets and performed R -Value testing to determine bearing characteristics. Based on information provided by the City of Encititas we have utilized a Traffic Index of 4.5 for all interior streets within the subject development. Resulm: of the R -Value tests are summarized on Table I. Pavement sections were determined based upon the assigned Traffic Index and procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of tite Caltrans Highwav Design Marmai and the California Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Based upon these procedures we recommend the following pavement sections. RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Locution li -Value Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Base (inches) Silver Berry Place 16 3 6.5 Bay Bert Place 15 3 6.5 Sweet Pea Place 20 3 5.5 Carmel Creeper Place 71 3 5 Saxony Place 44 3 5 Asphalt Concrete should conform to the most recent version of the .Sramiard Specifrcatiarls for Public Workt Construction (Green Book) adopted by the City of San Diego. Class 2 base should conform to Caltrans Section 26- 1.02B. Prior to placing hase materials, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Class 2 base �0;/0��19' +? 13:15 619 X85159 CiEO rill UP', PAGE 03 1 materials should also be etnnpacted to at lease 95 percent relative compaction. Asphalt coaerete pavement should be compacted to at least 95 percent of llvecur maximum density. Should you have questions regardintz these recommeudalions, or if we may be of fmtlrer service, please c(mlaettile undersigned at yourcouveoieoce. very truly yours. GEOCONINCORPOM FED - James L. Brown GE 2176 l)l l:JLR'dmc (A) Addressee (2) City 01, Gucinilas Altentiuu: Mr. Blair Knoll lu'IZ4 K Dale llamelehle CEG 1760 b!102/1998 13:16 61 159 GE",'011 11 P._ PP-iE 04 TABLE SUMMARY OF R -VALUE AND SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS Snmple No. Lucati at R -Value Sand Equivalent IT Intersection of Bay Berry Place and Silver Betty Place I S 17 R -2 Intersection of Silver Berry Place and Sweet Pea Place 16 _ 15 R -3 Sweet pea adjacent to Pad 34 25 I rt R -4 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 39 19 15 R -5 Camtel Creeper Place adjacent to Pad 45 71 l7 R -6 Saxony Place adjacent to Pad 28 44 17 0'7102/1998 13:15 5/95596159 GE01C4I 11K, FADE 05 Project No. 05799 -42.01 March 5. 1997 D. R. fiction Incorporated - San Diego 10179 Huennekens Street. Suite 100 San Diego. California 92121 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullen Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION: DETERMINATION OF EXiSIING STRUCTURAL- PAVEMENT SECIION ON SAXONY ROAD Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed additional geotcelurical engineering services for die subject project. Ilse scope of our services consisted of advancing a core in the existing asphalt pavement section on Saxony Road to determine the existing structural pavement section. Prior to coring, a temporary encroachment permit from the City of Encinitas was obtained. After determination of the existing pavement section, an analysis was conducted to determine if the pavement section required an overlay w part of die street widening due to the increased traffic- It is our understanding that this information was requested by the City of Encinitas Hngmeering Department. The asphalt core was obtained from the west side (southbound lane) of Saxony Road at approximately Station 26 +00. After coring, the aggregate base section was removed and the thickness measured. In addition, a sample of the underlying subgrade soil was obtained and subjected to Resistance Value (R- Value) testing to determine bearing characteristics for the Pavement analysis. Observations and field measurements indicated that dre existing pavement section consisted of 4 inches of Asphalt Concrete over g inches of Class 2 aggregate base. Observation of the street within the project limits indicated that the existing pavement section is in relatively good condition and generally free of reflective cracking end raveling. Once the existing structural pavement section was determined, an analysis was performed using procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Iligkway Design Manual (1990 Edition). Information was also obtained from The Citv of Encinitas. California, Public Road 8landards (April, 1991). the analysis used an R -Value of 73 determined from laboratory testing on the sample of subgrade soils obtained from the coring and a Traffic Index (TI) of 7.0. The T.I. was supplied by Hunsaker and Associates who obtained the information from Mr. Blair Knoll of the City of Eucutitas, The results of the analysis indicated that for a subgrade R -Value of 73, an asphalt pavement thickness of 4 inches over native subgrade soils (fill[ depth asphalt section) conforms to the Caltrans Design Procedure. Calculations are presented on Table t. however, the minimum section required by die City of Encinitas for local roads and collectors is 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inches of Class 2 base. Since the existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt over S inches of base, die existing section conforms to both the Caltrans design requirements and the City of Encinitas nrinintum standards. As such, no overlay is required to increase the existing pavement iV /02/1998 13:15 619553515q GEprrul 1110 PAGE 05 section for the given design T.I. of 7.0. Some thin overlay may be required to provide a snlood, . transition where then new section abuts rile a \istiltg pavement. In summary, based upon determined pavement sections and pavement de5lgn analyses, no overlay of the existing pavement section is required to satisfy the design T.I. criteria supplied by the City of Encinitas. Should you have questions regarding this consultation, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED i James L. Brown RCE 43824 JLB:druc (3 1del) Addressee (3 /del) Hunsaker and Associates Attention: Mr. Ray Marlin No. 043684 ii *� Exp, 6KjQW 07/82/1998 13:15 6195595159 GEOCfM WC. PAGE 97 TABLE PAVEMENT SECTION CALCULATIONS (CALTRANS METHOD) Design Traffic Index 7.0 R -Value of Subgrade Soils 73 Asphalt Conci etc '17tickness GE = .0032 x T.l. x (100 - 78) Where 78 equals the minimum specified R -Value for Class 2 13ase GE _ .0032 x (7) x (100 -78) = .4928 ft. Gf = 2.5 (5.14/7)14 = 2.14 Thickness required = GE/Gf - .4928/2.14 (I2) = 2.76 inches. For existing 4 bhch section, actual GB - (4/12) x 2.14 = .7133 Class 2 Base T3hicktiess GE = .0032 x (7) x (100 -73) WFhere 73 is the R -Value of the subgrade soils GE _ .6048 less GE for the detennined Asphalt thickness GE _ .6048 -.7133 < 0 Tlherefore, base is not required as the Asphalt satisfies the total gravel equivalent necessary for tlhe design structural section. Per the City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, the minimum recommended pavement section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of Class 2 base. Since the existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of Class 2 base, the existing section conforms to both die Caltrans design criteria and tie City of Encinitas standards and does not require an overlay for structural purposes. TABLE H SUMMARY OF R -VALUE AND SAND EQUIVALENT TEST RESULTS Sample No. Location R -Value Saxony Road Station 26 +00 (southbowhd lane) 73 JUL 02 '98 02:2EPM CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF ENCINITAS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: July 2, 1995 TO. Greg Shields, Engineering Department FROM: David Moore, Fire Prevention Bureau J°- SUBJECT: DR Horton Project - Saxony Rd � (v P.2% Please be advised that all the fire hydrants at the above project are in service and acceptable to the Encinitas Fire Department. Thank you. JUG -02 -1998 13:19 s An Enova Company July 2, 1998 San Diego Gas & El 0 0 !ox .en . ;�e cocoa. u nnNnc Jerry Sims D. R. Horton, INC. 1901 Ascension Blvd. ,STE 100 Arlington, TX. 76006 Dear Jerry: Subject Encinitas Ranch / Saxony Rd. We are notifying you of our final acceptance project with gas and electric service. FILE NO PLA 590 PROJ# 701624 the work performed in order to serve We accept the work performed by you as des ibed in our underground electric c no 2580953 and gas construction order no. 1 f 15725 and in accordance with the Documents. General Conditions and the Snecifications. Our final acceptance of the work performed bA you is contingent upon your meeting obligations as specified in the contract docum nts. In accordance with the General Our construction personnel If I may be of further assistance or if you hai listed below. Our hours are from 7'00 AM - Si�ly'✓"��. troy Sutton Customer Project Planner Telephone: (760) 480 -7723 any questions, please call me at the 00 PM, Monday through Friday. P.02 above ion order ENGINEERING INSPECTION CENTRAL FIELD OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FORM TO: Engineering Counter Staff FROM: Engineering Inspection Staff Central Field approval for Building Pe�rn/dt No. Project Name: 0 (1- /�/LT U/ v Developer Name and Address: P.A. U1- 4to4. y/o - Ai4+htoZ2 itl> - WY 44 UL L4W,,MF1 &,Ze �gl 2 6-7- /0 /0 S . ( 6 u We have inspected the site at e*A,61 - 7 % 7 -1795 47 -1757 Address and have determined the work under the Grading/Improvement permit but prior to final building inspection is complete. uate: im5465 J —Z approval by: PIAN 3 PLAN 2 �1 !� • A 0 q�> PLAN 44 438 443 430 431 43 447 426 ' ' is 427 600 604 608 612 618 622 697 30 42 °� n It 419 s 695 4141 n 431 418 3 414 a u 1S 4 689 si 605 410 6 13 406 i 394 1� Sllee,• Be.y Plece A 398 77 673 382 505 510 573 571 33 669 0 386 40 S09 1 31 502 r 661 310 3 369 0t 517 41 526 S34 558 566 574 582 598 606 654 646 36 33 dSl 374 36S 521 13 34 35 649 358 3 05 361 525 42 529 d m m u 645 362 357 Sweel Pen Plm•e G 637 346 I 349 537 43 ° n d 3s 633 350 a 345 541 SS SS7 565 >r1 „ a S69 S77 S81 S89 S93 601 60 609 613 625 23 621 North MAP NOT TO SCALE ENGINEERING INSPECTION CENTRAL FIELD OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FORM TO: Engineering Counter Staff FROM: Engineering Inspection Staff Central Field approval for Building Permit No.: Project Name: D • 12 - f-�O rLTQ/J Developer Name and Address: R r (/�/d �� fUrjfi CUh`f! � L -- - -.- yL/o-438 0: 3Y IFy y GL - Y 2 L `f tl� /L�k.1 Pt VjGt We have inspected the site at 4o&- Y/0- V02, Cif its cH Address and have determined the work under the GradinwImprovement permit but prior to final building inspection is complete. Z Fi Engineeri I pectio Department approval by- Inspector Date: 25 -�� im346s w PIAN3 PLSN1 �• 0 \ PLAN 442 438 443 431 I 43 441 426 is 417 600 604 608 612 618 622 697 41 8 n u If 435 695 n 419 4141 431 i4 415 689 Q�� e f 685 06 394 .Clover Be„y Plnee - - S 398 31 613 � 381 505 510 S13 ST7 72 669 a' 386 l >r 509 502 � 661 370 369 511 4s 39 SS8 S66 574 502 598 606 64d u „ a 6S7 374 365 521 $34 34 n 649 358 361 525 4 a a 645 s 362 �s w 351 a 529 v m g, Sweet Pen place � 631 346 �P9, 349 537 a 633 350 � u 345 511 "' of 3o � 553 S51 56S 169 571 S81 S89 S93 d01 60 609 613 625 �� 621 North MAP NOT TO SCALE w owl zda-,�-Ovl X33 -2Z7g �JJ Fj,ll t]'�r�Gl 5Dw1� �O33-Zo'i�j G 3 -2-77 I ,44 a,v, A�L C. 'Sc�F1K q. KNo(- . C.vr-;& (Y33 -2.793 'ei`/ 161nsakp.-- dx, p 12, Nw "-j C J IIA)SGAJ �i, 3 3 - L7p7G l'/� /'ti�A�s 1/��1, V Oh( /NIL VJ/L Q,4 iJ��e.G (� 63 LI -2- L FL, �� F.C. - l k - q �- t tL- SO. AUG 27 '97 To Fax #: From: 10 :50AM D. R. HORTON, INC. 7 ` 1 P•112 i FAX TRANSMISSION D.R. HORTON SAN DIEGO J 1010 S. Cw Hia"AY, Sur 101 JJuv EJV 92026 [760) 750) 6344 .6700 F�; (760) 634$770 V Mr. Alan Archibald Date: August 27, 1997 (760) 633 -2818 Pages: 2 including this covel4e�t Jay Kea Q Subject: City of Encinitas U(r_fl l Q� COMMENTS: )li'1 Alan, U . We went in to pull permits yesterday and we got the attached note at the counter. Two e ago when we met, I thought we agreed to work through this issue. Requiring that all improvements be complete prior to the issuance of the first building permit will put an incredib burden on us that seems unnecessary given the fact that we have bonded for completion of the work and expect to proceed as soon as possible on the improvements. We build homes ^ concurrent with development/improvements regularity throughout San Diego. We need to get � )v-' p jump on the houses because winter is coming and we need to be in the ground before the rata /// comes. We have submitted schedules and had additional meetings with you and your staff / ` f retarding this. I know Mark Mullin. our Operation VP has been trying to get a hold of you t iron this out. �"P We need your help. Do we need to get together again to work through additional issues? We V' want to accommodate you needs, we also need your cooperation. Mark and I will try to contact you. Please call us back when you get a chance. Thank you. Jay cc: Mr. Laure Wasserman RUG 27 '97 10 :50AM D. R. HORTON, INC. V' =1 CITY OF ENCRinAS 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92OZ4303 P. 2/Z 'J TRANSMITTAL FORM FAX: 633 -2818 Community Development Engineering Fire Admiobtiation Flre Prev"UOR Public Works DATE. 8 -7-?- 917 SEND TO FAX it % 3 — O COMPANY: 2 OPPATTACHED �j� PHONE:619l633• �7 FROM' �' ❑ Review & Call C3 Revlew & Retum [3 F.Y [, Call ASAP ❑ / ❑ Please Handle 0 Per Our Conversation ❑ Please Reply by_ ❑ AS RMuaim:d ZZ `f D.R. HORTON - SAN DIEGO FAX COVER SHEET TO: City of Encinitas ATTN: Greg Shields FAX #: 633 -2818 DATE: 27- Aug -97 F PHONE #: (760) 634 -6700 FAX #: (Z60) 634 -6770 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 (INCLUDING COVER) SUBJECT: Saxony REF: T'd 'oNI NoidoH 'a 'Q NN70:L0 d6, z2 onu D-H- HOR70N' HOMES August 27, 1997 Greg Shields City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Re: Saxony, Model Permits Dear Greg, As I mentioned earlier, we are ready to pull are model building permits, but according to Greg Caudill, the following engineering issues still require release. 1) Record the final map. As discussed previously with Hans Jens0b, we wish to pull the model permit without final recordation of the map. This is in accordance with the subdivision map act. 2)Obtain soil and pad certification from the respective consultant. We have submitted both an interim soils report and final pad certifications for the model lot in question. Please let me know your response, we are ready to get started. Thanks Again ir aa Mark G. Mullin 'Vice President I OIO First Ssseel, Swre 101 Enciuisas. Calibama 9202A (760) 6346700 Fu (760) 634 -6770 2'd ':)NI `NOiNOH 'a 'Q WtibO:LO G6. L2 gnu Cihl of 199�nciilitas atm: Mark Mullin, Vice President D.R. Horton Custom Homes 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas,CA 92024 Re: Tentative Map 96-170 "Saxony West PA" Applications 4813 FM "Final Map ", 4813IR "Road/Drairf', DES242 "Sewer' Permit 4813G1 "Rough Grading" A.P.N. 256- 330 - 15,17,18,19,23,40 Status of Project& Requirements for Continuance This correspondence shall serve to update the status of your project and establish certain requirements for continuance, especially with regard to construction. The plans of which Permit 4813GI authorizes the construction have been submitted for revision to "precise grading' status. A fourth submittal has been made of the subdivision's road, drainage, and sewer improvement plans. The third review of the proposed final map was completed by August 11, 1997, and returned to Hunsaker& Associates. The following items are administrative prerequisites for progress on your project: (1) Obtain the necessaryjurisdictional approvals on the "precise grading" element of the subdivison grading plans which include the site retaining walls. (a) The plan change review process will need to be completed. Blair Knoll is the planchecker. (b) An additional plancheck fee of 5700 /sheet for a total of $2,100 is due. (c) An additional inspection fee of 5% of the approved cost estimate is due. (The estimate is assumed to be less than $100,000.) The Engineer of Work will need to submit the estimate for review and approval. Considering the field work done to date, no additional security is required. (d) Three (3) blueline copies of the approved changes will be needed prior to actual construction. (2) Obtain the approval of the Director of Engineering Services for the subdivision's road, drainage , and sewer plans, and obtain the appropiate engineering permits, all prior to actual construction. (a) The fourth submittal review, which includes verifying the completenessof the new mylars, will need to be completed. Blair Knoll is the planchecker. Plan approvals are valid for three years. (b) A flood control fee of $0.21 /SF, which shall be assessed against the new impervious surface created by the private road and common parking network, is due. The Engineer of Work will need to submit a determination of the area in square footage (SF) and the supporting calculations and/or exhibit. The supporting work is needed not only for verfication purposes but to differentiate this assessment from future assessments on the building footprints and associated hardscape. (c) An inspection fee of 5% of the approved cost estimate for public road improvements, the widening of Saxony Road, is due. The fee shall be $3,358 and is non - refundable. (d) An inspection deposit of S1/LF (linear feet of new main) for a total of $2,586 is due for public sewer improvements. The deposit is subjectto charges based on time and materialscost recovery. (e) A security deposit of $243,473 will need to be posted to guarantee performance of public road and sewer improvements. An additional security deposit, in the amount of S4,000, is needed to secure performance and payment of labor and materials to complete monumentation deferred. The respective amounts can be either in the form of a Performance Bond issued by a State of California JSG /hcj /bak /96- 170.doc1 I F1. �.I" �, F\.0 .I•�,.•; :.:- ;. .,. .n U•m,c h:ncuucn, r..,un •r; -. �.� _, -I'UU 19-01 recyVed paper licensed surety, cash, a certificate of deposit payable to the City, a letter of credit using the City's format, an assignment of account of which the City has a sample, or a combination thereof. The City must pre- approve any financial instrument's format. Seventy-five percent of the posted security for public improvements will be released upon the satisfactoryconclusion of the acceptance inspection and formal acceptance byithe City Council. The remainder shall be a warranty retention, which is to be released only after the expiration of the one- year warranty period, which begins upon the date of acceptance, and satisfactory conclusion of the warranty inspection. Ii. That certain portion of the storm drainage, constructedby authority of the Grading Permit, that is to be accepted as public will also be subject to a similar warranty retention. iii. Security for deferred monumentation can be released upon verification of performance in the field, execution and recordation of a certificate of correction, if applicable, and receipt of proof of payment to the land surveyor. (f) The name, address, telephone number, and state license number and type of the construction contractor(s) is required. The contractor will need to be properly licensed for the type of work to be done. For instance, a Type "A" General Engineering license is acceptable for any public improvement, a Type "C -34" Pipeline for underground utilities, or a combination of Type "C -8" Concrete and Type "C -12" Grading and Paving for surface improvements. The contractor will need to meet the minimum insurance requirements as detailed on the accompanying handout. (g) A traffic control plan, accceptable to the City's Traffic Engineering Division, will need to be submittedno later than prior to the start of work on any portion of Saxony Road. (h) Four (4) blue Iine copies of the approved Improvement Plan are required. (i) Finally, the Improvement Permit, its corresponding Right -of -way Standard Conditions, and the Sewer Construction Permit will need to be signed by the property owner or an authorized representative and validated by the City. (3) The proposed Final Map should be corrected, associated documents properly executed, and a complete submittal made to the planchecker, Blair Knoll. Since an additional sheet has been added, an additional processing fee of 5960 is due. The terms of previous correspondence, dated June 9, 1997, that concerned the proposed tract are still valid and applicable. Please ensure the timely completion of the proposed plan change to Sheet 3, Drawing 4813 -G, as the original, signed mylar has been checked out since July 24, 1997. Original mylars are not intended to leave City care for extended periods of tune. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2780, or you may visit the Engineering Counter at the Civic Center. Sincerely, ffrey S_ Garami Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering cc: Ray Martin, Hunsaker& Assoc San Diego, Engineerof Work Greg Shields, Field Operations, Senior Civil Engineer enc JSG /hcj /bak /96- 170.doc2 iti, Oj Wgust"25,199�ncinitas atm: Mark Mullin, Vice President D.R. Horton Custom Homes 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas,CA 92024 Re: Tentative Map 96-170 "Saxony West PA" Applications 4813 FM "Final Map ", 48131R "Road/Drain", DES242 "Sewer" Permit 4813GI "Rough Grading" A.P.N. 256-330-15,17,18,19,23,40 Status of Project & Requirements for Continuance This correspondence shall serve to update the status of your project and establish certain requirements for continuance, especiallywith regard to construction. The plans of which Permit 4813GI authorizes the construction have been submitted for revision to "precise grading" status. A fourth submittal has been made of the subdivision's road, drainage, and sewer improvement plans. The third review of the proposed final map was completed by August 11, 1997, and returned to Hunsaker & Associates. The following items are administrative prerequisites for progress on your project: (1) Obtain the necessaryjurisdictional approvals on the "precise grading' element of the subdivison grading plans which include the site retaining walls. (a) The plan change review process will need to be completed. Blair Knoll is the planchecker. (b) An additional plancheck fee of $700 /sheet for a total of $2,100 is due. (c) An additional inspection fee of 5% of the approved cost estimate is due. (The estimate is assumed to be less than $100,000.) The Engineer of Work will need to submit the estimate for review and approval. Considering the fieldwork done to date, no additional security is required. (d) Three (3) blueline copies of the approved changes will be needed prior to actual construction. (2) Obtain the approval of the Director of Engineering Services for the subdivision's road, drainage , and sewer plans, and obtain the appropiate engineering permits, all prior to actual construction. (a) The fourth submittal review, which includes verifying the completeness of the new mylars, will need to be completed. Blair Knoll is the planchecker. Plan approvals are valid for three years. (b) A flood control fee of $0.21 /SF, which shall be assessed against the new impervious surface created by the private road and common parking network, is due. The Engineer of Work will need to submit a determinationof the area in square footage (SF) and the supporting calculations and/or exhibit. The supportingwork is needed not only for vet cation purposes but to differentiate this assessment from future assessments on the building footprints and associated hardscape. (c) An inspection fee of 5% of the approved cost estimate for public road improvements, the widening of Saxony Road, is due. The fee shall be $3,358 and is non - refundable. (d) An inspection deposit of $I/LF (linear feet of new main) for a total of $2,586 is due for public sewer improvements. The deposit is subject to charges based on time and materials cost recovery. (e) A security deposit of $243,473 will need to be posted to guarantee performance of public road and sewer improvements. An additional security deposit, in the amount of $4,000, is needed to secure performance and payment of labor and materials to complete monumentation deferred. The respective amounts can be either in the form of a Performance Bond issued by a State of California JSG /hcj /bak /96- 170.doc1 1IA . _ - \ I -n, uuL,. , recycled paper licensed surety, cash, a certificate of deposit payable to the City, a letter of credit using the City's format, an assignmentof account of which the City has a sample, or a combination thereof. The City must pre- approve any financial instrument's format. 1. Seventy-five percent of the posted security for public improvements will be released upon the satisfactory conclusion of the acceptance inspection and formal acceptance by the City Council. The remainder shall be a warranty retention, which is to be released only after the expiration of the one- year warranty period, which begins upon the date of acceptance, and satisfactory conclusion of the warranty inspection. A That certain portion of the storm drainage, constructed by authority of the Grading Permit, that is to be accepted as public will also be subject to a similar warranty retention. iii. Security for deferred monumentation can be released upon verification of performance in the field, execution and recordation of a certificate of correction, ifapplicable, and receipt of proofof payment to the land surveyor. (f) The name, address, telephone number, and state license number and type of the construction contractor(s) is required. The contractor will need to be properly licensed for the type of work to be done. For instance, a Type "A" General Engineering license is acceptable for any public improvement, a Type "C -34" Pipeline for underground utilities, or a combination of Type "C -8" Concrete and Type "C -12" Grading and Paving for surface improvements. The contractor will need to meet the minimum insurance requirements as detailed on the accompanying handout. (g) A traffic control plan, accceptable to the City's Traffic Engineering Division, will need to be submitted no later than prior to the start of work on any portion of Saxony Road. (h) Four (4) blueline copies of the approved ImprovementPlan are required. (i) Finally, the Improvement Permit, its corresponding Right -of -way Standard Conditions, and the Sewer Construction Permit will need to be signed by the property owner or an authorized representative and validated by the City. (3) The proposed Final Map should be corrected, associated documents properly executed, and a complete submittal made to the planchecker, Blair Knoll. Since an additional sheet has been added, an additional processing fee of $960 is due. The terms of previous correspondence, dated June 9, 1997, that concerned the proposed tract are still valid and applicable. Please ensure the timely completion of the proposed plan change to Sheet 3, Drawing 4813 -G, as the original, signed mylar has been checked out since July 24, 1997. Original mylars are not intended to leave City care for extended periods of time. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2780, or you may visit the Engineering Counter at the Civic Center. Sincerely, /4/effirey S. Garami Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering cc: Ray Martin, Hunsaker & Assoc San Diego, Engineer of Work Greg Shields, Field Operations, SeniorCivil Engineer enc JSG /hcj /bak /96 -170 .doc2 I T ! F E ti .' I N I T A ETIGINJEERIlVi IER'v I..ES DEPARTMENT 501 V'ULCAD AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PER!4IT III xc it 3I PARCEL NO. 256-.30 -4600 � � 13,19�IQ�� Iq,L3 FLAN N0.: -181: JOE ,ITE ADDRE35: SAXONY WEST PLANNING AREA APPLICANT NAME L.R. HORTON CUSTOM HOMES MAILING ADDRESS: 1010 SOUTH COAST HIGHWAY 101 PHONE NCB.: 760-G� -d "ii CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 52024- CONTRACTOR : PERRY & SHAW, INC. LICENSE NO.: 715408 ENGINEER : HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATE, SAN DIEGO INC.. PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 6/17/57 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 6 /17/98 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: GEOPACIFICA/GREG SHIELDS PHONE NO.: 619- 448-5554 LICENSE TYPE: A F'Hir NG -558 -4500 if 0 ---- -- -- -- ----- --- ---- - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 21100.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 2. INSPECTIOU FEE 15,488.00 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 3. PLAN CUM DEPOSIT: .00 -- - - - --- DESCRIPTION OF WORM - - - - - -- ------------------------ ZftklW*&jp&THWORK /EROSION CONTROL TO ROUGH GRADE FOR TM 96 -170, A ISOM 608DIVISION OF 138EA ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM. NO SITE ROAD /AEUER/WATER OR OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS PER THIS PERMIT. LETTER DATED ,JUN 09 1997 APPLIES. HAUL ROUTE PER TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION, IF APPLICABLE. 4 - - -- INSPECTION -- -------- - - - - -- DATE - - - - -- -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - --- INTtIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT &ECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION I HEREBY ACI(NOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT ANTI AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. 7u, Bk� -; GN TURE kAeL (-3. 1411 --ln1 PRINT NAME I::C'LE ''.ATE: 1. OWNER AG 102.0.117 LATE SIGNn -7L- o)(_3N 10700 'SLEPT. _,ITE ITTMEIBER 00, of i7 Encinitas attn: Mark Mullin, Vice President D.R. Horton Custom Homes 10179 Huennekens Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92121 Re: Tentative Map 96 -170 "Saxony West PA" Grading Application 4813 GR A.P.N. 256- 330 - 15,17,18,19,23,40 Permit Issuance Requirements -Rough Grading Drawing 4813 -G has been reviewed during its third submittal, and its approval is subject to submittal of mylars which have been signed by all the other applicable departments and agencies. Upon approval by the Director of Engineering Services, the Drawing shall be valid for three years, depending on the satisfactory completion of the final map process. In order to obtain a Grading Permit to construct per this Drawing, you will need to satisfy the following requirements: (1) Obtain plan approval. (2) Post a Security Deposit in the amount of $582,925.00 to guarantee performance of earthwork, drainage improvements, and erosion control. Up to eighty percent of the amount may be in the form of a Performance Bond issued by a State of California licensed surety. Twenty percent has to be in the form of cash, a certificate of deposit, a letterof credit, or an assignmentof account. The City must pre - approveany financial instrument's format. (3) Complete the enclosed Security Obligation Agreement. (4) Pay a non-refundable Inspection Fee of $19,488.00. (5) Provide (4) bluelineprints of the approved Drawing. (6) Provide the name, address, telephone number and state license number of your construction contractor(s), if not your company. (7) Sign the Permit. Any authorizedagent of the property ownermay sign. Once the Grading Permit is issued, advance notice of 48 hours must be given prior to you or your contractor scheduling a preconstruction conference. See Grading Note N9 far more detail. Construction changes, prepared by the Engineer of Work, should be submitted to the Engineering Services Department as redlined mark -ups on (2) blueline prints of the approved Drawing. Such changes are subject to review and approval prior to actual construction. A JSG /hcj /pgs /4813GR.doc1 recvcied Paper Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the subject lot or any of its dwelling units, a rough grading approval will be needed from the assigned Engineering Inspector. At a minimum, rough grading means certified pad preparation and soil compaction. A reduction of up to 75% of the posted Security Deposit may be merited pending such approval. Other prerequisites to rough grading approval, but not necessarily all, are as follows: 1) coordination of model home approval with Hans Jensen, Senior Civil Engineer, Subdivision Engineering, 2) satisfactory progress on private road and drainage improvements so as to ensure a safe and sensible job site, 3) approval and securing of the subdivision's public improvements,4) approval and recordation of the proposed final map and securing of deferred monumentation. Separate permits, for which there are significant inspection fees, minimum contractor qualifications, and mandatory warranty periods with retention, are required to construct public improvements and/or work in public easements or rights -of -way. As- builts, prepared by the Engineer of Work and approved by the Engineering Services Department, will be required prior to final inspection. Satisfactory completion of acceptance inspection for all public improvements, deferred monumentation performance and payment, and payment of impact fees are additional pre- or co- requisitesto building occupancy and grading final inspection. Satisfactory completion of final inspection is needed to release the remainder of the posted Security Deposit as it applies to private improvements. The Building Permit final inspection is a separate event and does not necessarily coincide with Grading Permit final inspection. The Grading Permit will be valid for a length of time not to exceed one year from the date of issuance. If the Permit expires without benefit of final inspection and a year has passed since the date of issuance, a reissuance fee may be charged. Nothing in this letter precludes or otherwise negates conditions of other required agency approvals, including, but not limited to, Encinitas Sanitary Division, San Dieguito Water District, Fire Prevention Bureau, Building Inspection Division, Current Planning Division, Housing Division, Encinitas Union School District, San Dieguito Union High School District, and the California Department of Transportation. Additional engineering requirements may be forthcoming during the building permit process preceding construction of the dwelling unit. Flood control fees are deferred to the private road review and building permit processes. This correspondence does not amend or negate subdivider obligations under the proposed final map. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (619) 633 -2780, or you may visit the Engineering Counter at the Civic Center. Sincerely, Jeffrey S. Garami Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering cc: Ray Martin, Hunsaker& Assoc San Diego, Engineerof Work Greg Shiolds, Field Operations, Senior Civil Engineer enc JSG /hcj /pgs /4813GR -doc2 OR ENGINE505 SFSVE&MUSARPARTTMENf ENCINITAS, CA 92024 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5029EX ----- - ----- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - -- PARCEL NO. „ __;. 5 =.000- 0000 . . _ -- _ ._. _... .....,. _.. -PLAN N0._:. TCP JOB SITE ADDRESS: ,440 - SAXONY RD..,_..:... APPLICANT NAME.. i. y4AN_ PIBGO ,,GAS d& BLBCTRI MAILING ADDRE93...»83Q6_.. CITY: SAN DIEGO 3T�,y■�p -/`-A , 71IP:,,2123 - CONTRACTOR : SAN DIEGO, OA9 &_ ELEQTRIC;CO,, PHONE NO..:- LICENSE .NO.: UTILITY ,T,,TCf3E, TYPE , h. INSURANCE COMPANY,NAME: SELF - INSURED POLICY NO. POLI,CY„,XP DA : p0/ Q . ENGINEER SAN.. &EGO. GAS '& PtECTRIC CO. ., . N 6.19;.b3�-'; 19 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 3 /10/97 ,. PT �.I� � �_..3/10/98:...�� . LTr1 . :.BY ERMI . INSPECTRONyBRADY --------------------------- , PERMIT.r I' .EF.S. &.PVQsxxgl�r'.��r::r'_..- 1. PERMIT FEE 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT 160.,00 .00 DESC91,9T CN,CF.rjORRK --- -------- ------------------ -- uIG TO RETIRE FROM SERVICE 1.1(2 ", GAS SE$VI.CE..TR4FF,IC „CONTROL PLAN, TO .: BE ACCEPTED BY TRAFFIC ,BNGINEERING.DIVIS . -REQUIRED PRIOR TO START.OF JOB _ --- INSPECTION ------------------- DATE -- -- - - -- I SI - - -- INITInr_ ruaprrrml�r .. zz.._ _r'g:L...; r)_.......:.. -..._ W +.e '�i s� ■w.s ww,irr�.`., .. FINAL INSPECTION__ --- - - - - - - - - - - - .- r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- . --- -. - X77 - 7�- - --- -” y.r. 7 --- . i - � u .. C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PARCEL NO. : 256- 000-0000 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 416 SABONY,RD,, ..APPLICANT NAME S.AN DIEGO d",..d�, EIyEC,TRjC CO. MAILING ADDRESS: 8306„ CENTURY PARK C CITY: SAN DIEGO - fiA7�Ea „ ZIP: PERMIT NO.: 4813EX PLAN NO.:, -.TCP PHONE NQo-619-- 6,3T;,7U9,... 92123- CONTRACTOR : SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. , LICENSE NO.: UTILITY INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: SELF-INSURED , ,_,t' t POLICY NO «:r „ r.__ •,� ENGINEER;._„ PIEGO..GAS & PERMIT ISSUE- DATE, ,,. 3/],0/97,.,.. ..:. PERMIT W.,, , _D4Tg, 3%10/98 P IIT .I39DED;, BY.. INSPECTOR,:. ON BRADY,. . 1. PERMIT FEE 2. INSPECTION,DEPOSIT: PHONE NO.: 619 - 637;,,,7,x,19, LICENSE TYPE: , PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS - .;------------ -------------- 160.00, 00 ---- . . .. _ -------- -- : : :m ------.- .---- - - - - -- D ,. I Q, - . ...c.ui u.. DIG TO RETIRE FROM 3ERVICE,3 /4" GAS .SERVICE., TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN, TO BE. ,,, ACCEPTED BY TRAFFIC,ENGINEERING.,DIVI3ION, REQVIRED,PRTOR TO START OF JOB,..,,, ---- INSPBCTIOtd ---------------- DATE --- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'P.SIGNATURE .---- INITIAI. FINAL UWXCTION_. C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. ''VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5029CN 1 PARCEL NO. 256- 330 -4700 4 lli PLAN NO.: TCP!!! JOB SITE ADDRESS: 440 FBO SAXONY RD. APPLICANT NAME D.R. NORTON MAILING ADDRESS: 10179 HUETNEKENS ST. #100 PHONE NO.: 619 - 452 -3700 CITY: SAN DIEGO STATE: CA ZIP: 92121- CONTRACTOR : SCHILLING CORP. PHONE NO.: 619 - 448 -5392 LICENSE NO.: 488153 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. POLICY NO. : C0115291488 POLICY EXP. DATE: 6/23/97 ENGINEER : HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO PH N PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 5/15/97 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 6/23/97 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: RON BRADY PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS 1. PERMIT FEE 160.00 2. INSPECTION DEPOS .00 c� 3. SECURITY DEPOSIT .00 � siko --- --- ------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ----- ----- --- ----- -- ----- - - - - -- EXCAVATION/BACKFILL /RESURFACING 250LF & 17LF TO INSTALL 2EA 5IN CONDUIT FOR ELECTRICAL & 1EA 1IN GAS SERVICE, RESPECTIVELY. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN TO BE ACCEPTED BY CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION PRIOR TO START OF WORK. CONTACT R. GUARNES @ (760) 633 -2704. - - -- INSPECTION - ------ --- -- - - -- DATE -- - -- - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. Z� J 'Sfl�y PRINT NAME 2.AAGENT 16-/ll-�z DATE Gif f yyi -- 3- - TELEPHONE NUMBER C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S E14GINEERI146 SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 4813CN PARCEL NO. : 256- 330 -4000 15,1 -q, le, )q 1 Z3 PLAN NO.: TCP JOB SITE ADDRESS: SA�ONY WEST PLANNING AREA APPLICANT NAME D.R. HORTON MAILING ADDRESS: 10179 HUENNEKENS ST. PHONE NO.: 619- 452 -3700 CITY: SAN DIEGO STATE: CA ZIP: 92121 - CONTRACTOR : BURTECH PIPELINE INC. PHONE NO.: 619 - 634 -2822 LICENSE NO.: 716202 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. : GL0674217 :.POLICY EXP. DATE: 11/01/97 ENGINEER : HUNSAKER 6 ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO INC. PH E N 619 -558 -4500 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 5/20/97 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 11/01/97 PERMIT ISSUED BY: _ INSPECTOR: RON BRADY -------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PERMIT FEE 1 160.00 SAr- D1et�o110 L.-NPrveg'Z- -D:s"jp-t:2"- 2. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 - --------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK - DIG FOR INSTALLATION OF 2IN WATER SERVICE. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN REQUIRED PRIOR TO START OF WORK. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT City of Akncinitas NSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION Inner malty of penury, that I am licensed under divisions of gwd(I SWIM 7000) at DIYISIfAl3 0l Ihe Business are Prolessm -s 4.n full face and effect. 714406 61rYt/�I; OWNER -B 10 LDER DECLARATION uni penalty of perjury that I am INemq Nom the Contledors :(lowing reason (Section 7031.5. Buslress and Prolesslons Code . :0 fegWres a permit to construct. star. Improve, derhdblL or repair ie Issuance, also equines IN applitam for Such parmN Io file a ne of Ana IS licensed poware to Ina provlslors of Ile comraGOls 3 (commercing with Section 7000) of Divislon 3 or this Buskess are bad ire or she is eaamol MereNom an4 the basis lot the alleged 'Ins of Seclim 70315 by any appllmnl er a permil subject the ralry of non mere Ilan INS hundred dollars (550000).): rrer of the properly, or my employees with wages as their sde 'a the wok, and the siucture is not Intended or olfered la tae ess and Prolessions Code The Conlracl0rt License Law does not "werfy who WHO or Improves Inereon, and wed duet such himself its or her own employees. pronoeo MY such Improvements are nol sae II, ndevtr, IN building or Improvemenl Is sold within pis Owl Wilder, will nave the burden of proving that ne or sire did -a purpose of Sale I. 31 fill, proper, am attlusivery contracting with licensed contradoe u (Section 7044. Business and Professions Code The Carraci apply to an Owner of property who Wilds or Impm es mention. and ' WOOS with a Conliactol(S) licensed pursuant to Me Contractors -.of under Section Business and ProessWw Code for at :KERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION - under many of mury one of Me aflowtq decimations . Ails maintain a cMittlle of careen to sell -Insure for Profess' ISO! by Section 3700 of the Labor Code for OI ndmmarce of the '11;S Issued. I mill mamlaln workers compensation insurance. ss required by or Code, to the performance Of MG work lot which This permit Is mpensation Insurance carrier and policy number are. need not be completed it INS permit Is b one Wtdmd dollars ar in the performance of the work for which MIS permit Is hued. I pawn in any manner so at to bLO1b subject to Me Ndaert' CYilana..0 agree mat d I Should a ., Subject to the wurw 'no of Section 3700 of IN UW . I II emmrtn rgmpry sum LApoleznp =AILRE TO SECURE WORKER COMPENSATION COVERAGE 15 1,L SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL -^: NORED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,00000), IN ADDITION TO ?NSATION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF ' 7-EST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY `r-n u ft Oenaty at pNprY was torte Is a construti lending agency -a wok for which Me permit is isaOed (Sedion 3097. Civil Code). -are Sad Mis applicaion. ss well as any Applicable anacnmenis. and "omeppp Is correct. I join to comply wins all >ty and county -' m •tiering to Wilding comanu 00. m0 III aultri a.rACf✓ bon to snare upon me doper on wri me work subject to scedhon OUMOSISS t? m T APPLICATION APPROVAL - CITY USE ONLY NOT BECOME VALID UNTIL SIGNED BY ItHill'OUILOINIS OFFICIAL OR 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Inspections Only (619) 633.2739 General Information (619) 633 -2730 Permit Number .. . Property Am real . Parcel Number . . Description of York Property Zoning . . Property miner . . Omer address . . . 97- 4711 Date 5105/97 416 SAXONY RD 256- 330-45-44 D11MINGI SINGLE FAMILY- DEHD/RENYE --- - - - - -- 2 Sli RURAL RES .501 -1.1 DU /AC Contractor .. ... PERRY Y SHAY ------------- -------- Structure Inforatiom --------------------- Other sstructPinfo ... Nl49ERI OF UNITS 3 UNITS DENO'D 2144 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit .... BUILDING PERMIT Permit Fee .. 4 144.0 Plan Check Fee .. 1 .44 Issue Data . 5/15197 Valuation 1 TOTAL PERMIT FEE 1 180.0 Fee summary Permit Fee Total 4 186.44 Plan Check Total 4 .44 Other Fee Total t N Grand Total 4 144.44 BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT City of icinitas iSEO CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION room penalty of perjury that I am licensed under DloVslons of I wiln Section TDOO) of Dlvtsion 3 of the Business and Professions A in lull force arm elfetl. 'IQ d t/Yrl a TA -. OWNER - BUILDER DECLARATION wder penalty, of perjury Iha I am exempt from IM Conuacto s :lowing reason (Section 7031 5. Business and Professions Code: I ex irrs a permit to construct. alter improve, demolish, a repair is rn ancre also rebutres IM apollcani for such mmul 0 file a 'e or she is licensed pursuant to the proVlsiom of the COnVadPrs (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of IN Business alb nag he or she Is exempt therefrom and the oasis for the alleged m of Section 7031 5 by arry applicant for a permit su0lects the illy of ml more Van Ilve hrwfaed doitars (&50000f) er of the property. or my employees with wages as Felt 304 IN work and the slnldllr0 is net intended or offered or sale ss and Professions Cade: The Contractors License Law does not Dpaly who builds or Implores Herself. lend who odes such himself s Or her Own employees. provided mar seen Improvements are no sale II, howi the building or imaovernenl Is sad wilnln One owner -Oxider will nave the burden of pfoying Inal lie OF she did lice e purpose of sale.). ]f this property. am exelush ey, poldrading with li2hsed Caaactors : Section 7044. Business and Ptolessiors Code '. The Contrail e0ply, to an owner of properly who bulMs a Reproves ttlereen. and Projects with a contractors) lcensed Mineral to the Corelacli un Lion Business and Professions Code for KERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION Wider Penalty of penury ere of the blloweng deClaraDOnS: will maiNaln a ciddi0aue a conserd to sal -insNe fa wdrlNrs- led by Section 3700 of the LaW Code. M the peMrrNrla 01 Hill roll is issued i will maintain workers Compensation Insurance, as required by DO, Code, for IN pedamal¢e of the work for winch this pi IS 3mpansellon insurance artler and pour number Ye: loved not be CompldN if fine permit Is for Of hundred dolhR al R ale plabrtrerKe or ere wok br which this parnse Is Issued. l parson In any roamer so as to ltec IlCt to Ihe wakare :dlNanla, and agree INN it 1 shouN beGON 51 to the wakas' 'ns of Section 370D at he bUrC eta forhwllhcomplywlal Appl cant. 'AILURE TO SECURE WORKER COMPENSATION COVERAGE 15 :LL SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL uNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS (SIODOD0.110). IN ADDITION TO ENS TION. DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF .7EREST AND ATTORNEYS FEES. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY •m under Penalty of Perjury that there is a constulion ending agenq it work lot whim Mrs permll a issued (Sealm W. Civil COdal. -ave melee mis agpi,ation, as well as am aoonaDle anacalem3, AN -tvr allon is corfEd. I agree to comply with all pry and County M Taal to ahl0ing CmstruDbon, Mee nerer aulhorlae .•ons 0. auponIne or . OCMy whirl the waxsedfeetID r insCh purposes : icn Net. r�r 4MUCATION APPROVAL - CITY USE ONLY '.CT BECOME VAL C'.NTIL SHIN BY TAE BUILDI OFFICIAL ON 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 Inspections Only (619) 633 -2739 General Information (619) 633 -2730 Permit Number . ... 97- 471 Date 5/16/97 Propertyr Address . . 421 SAIONT RD Parcel Huber .. .. ZM- 331-47 -N Description of York . DRUING SINGLE FAMILY-DEMO /RE710YE --- - -- - -- Property Zoning . .. RUNAL RED .511 5.1 DU /AC Property Omer ... P E III PROPERTIES LLC Omer address ... . P O BOX 23188 ENCINITAS CA 92123 Contractor ..... PEW k SNA9 --- ----- ---- --- - - ---- Structure Information --------------- ------ occupancy Type ..... DVUING-1 01 2 UNITS -113 Other struct Into ... NUMBER OF UNITS DMID 1.46 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit .... BUILDING PERMIT Permit Fare .. / 91.1 Plan Check Fee .. S N Issue Date . 5/15/97 Valuation 1 TOTAL PERMIT FEE 11 WIND Fee summary --------------- -- Permit Fee Total 4 91.46 Plan Cheek Total t N Other Fee Total 4 .N Grand Total a 9/.46 BUILDING DIVISION PERMIT City of Millicinitas iNSEO CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION rncer penalty of penury that I am IICCmSEd under pnovlslms 01 If with Section 7000) of Oivlsron 3 of The Business and Professions ei In fun force are fri OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION i most penalty of perjury the I am emllpl from the Cadaclors 011adng reasm ISecnm 70315. BWlness ad Peofesslals Cade :DI requires a permit To construct, aver. Improve demolish, or repair I Is Issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a M or she is Ilfensed pursuant 10 the provisions of the Cord Ili 9 (emlrrencmg with Swim 70001 of Dhvalm 3 of the Business and Oad he Or sre is evil Terefrom and the baSa for itr alleged lion of Section 7031 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the rylly of nor more than Me hundred dollars ($500 DO).) mer of the plOperty or of employees with wages as Urn sole 'd IDe work, and the structure is nu intended or offered IN sale ass and Professions Code. The Conlractois License Law does not Iropelty who builds or improves ttlaeon, and who does such himself his or fief Own employees, Provided That sown Impmvemeras are not • sale If however the building or Improvement Is sold wtmin one ° Owner guilder well rave IT bor0en Of proving fral he or sle old not -e purpose 01 sall . of the pool am eulusively cvntrading with licensed contractors cl (Section 7044, Business and Proessions Code The Cordwa s apply to m owrer or property who pul Ids or Improves Thereon. and in projems with a CmlraCdr(s) licensed pursuant to IN Contractors IN, "echm Business are Professions Code IN ..her eta: FSmKr[;,(�a:F��r[a:n[aan:r -u[a: under malty of oerlury One of mil following declaralom of will matnatn a celllficale of consent to sell -Insure for workers' vided by SWIM 3700 of IN Labor Code, for pre p olarmaree of the ermtt is issued. 'a will maintain workers' commi5iflon insul . as required by Am Code. IN the pedormSee Of the work NIX which this permit Is brtlpanvtlon bMUmce carrier and Ndicy, number are: need not be completed If The permit Is for One hundred dollars •a in He pedmtrloe of The work for which, this permit is ISSLI Q I mKill In very overview so 3e Id WO me wDlect to to week!( California, and agree teal if I shW Ome SUDjeci IO InE wOdrNS' Jre of Seddon 3700 of de lea . I stall Iddhwilh imply w et _Applicant . FAILURE TO SECURE WORKER COMPENSATION COVERAGE 15 ALL SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL IUNGRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100.000.00). IN ADDITION TO 'ENSITION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF vrEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY m under del of phlufy IM there is a DOM1etWim leneing agency 're nark 101 *00 this permit Is issued ISeGtW 3097, Civil Codel. .e'•e20 mu ablunNion, as wail a any applicable aa[Nnenls, and -Tr^Eton is Correct. I agree t0 Comply with all City and c1wW aws 'elating to hnlinng Cmsinelim. and hereby amhome O enter upon the Ompedy m wnicn the work subject 10 ,k r s:eClich connotes H APPLICATION ANNUISAL .CITY USE ONLY JOT 3ECOME VALID UNTIL SIGNS "C 9UI ING OFFICIAL OR ARE / 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, California 92024.3633 Inspections Only (619) 633 -2739 General Information (619) 633 -2730 Permit Number , . . Property Address . Petal Number . Description of York Property Zoning . . Property owner . . Ovner address .. . 97- 472 Date 5/16/97 422 SAIONT RD 256 - 330-47-44 DUELLING, SINGLE FAMILY-DENO /BDgVE -- ------ 11" is .511-1.0 DU /AC Contractor , . . . . PERRY If SNAN _ ______ ______ ______ _ Structure Information -------------------- Occupancy Type ..... DVELLING -1 OR 2 UNITS-R3 Other struot into ... KNER OF UNITS DEND'D 1.11 _________________________________________ ___ __________________ ____ Permit .... 1UILDING PERMIT Permit Fee . , f 90.44 Plan Check Fee . a .44 Issue Date .. 5/15/97 Valuation / TOTAL PERMIT FEE 1 90.44 Fee summary Permit Fee Total 1 91.44 Plan Check Total 1 .44 Other Fee Total IT .44 Grand Total 1 91.44 rci;2iras February 24, 1998 Jerry Simms D.R. Horton 1010 First St., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: WEST SAXONY GEOCON LETTERS DATED 20 FEB 98 SLIME TREATED SUBGRADE Gentlemen: The subject letter from Geocon has been reviewed. The City requires in -place density tests to meet or exceed 95% relative compaction. The lime treatment was approved; however, the same requirement for compaction exists. If you have any questions, please call me at 633 -2778. Sincerely, Greg elds, P.E. Field Operations cc: Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services Ron Brady, Inspector Jim Knowlton, Geopacifica ecmea Paz GEOCON IN CO H PO H A T ED Project No. 05799 -42 -01 February 20, 1998 D. R. Horton -San Diego 1010 First Avenue, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Jay Kerr GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 40 Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION: LIME - TREATED SUBGRADE COMPACTION Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Mr. Jerry Sims, your on -site superintendent, we are providing information pertaining to compaction of the lime treated subgrade soils at the subject project. It has been our experience that the use of lime for drying of overly wet subgrade soils is also effective in stabilizing the subgrade materials. The lime enhances the structural integrity of the soil by increasing the bearing capacity as the shear strength of the material is increased. Pacific Stabilization has performed the subgrade treatment and our testing and observations indicate the treatment consisted of mixing lime in the upper 12 inches of subgrade material. The lime treatment is complete and it is desired to pave the streets prior to additional rainfall. Presently, the in -place density test results within the lime treated subgrade are at least 90 percent relative compaction. Due to high moisture contents in the subgrade soils a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction was not attained. It is our opinion, that as long as the lime treated subgrade is firm, unyielding and at least 90 percent relative compaction, it will provide an acceptable bearing surface for the placement of base materials. Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED No.002176Z r James L. Brown Ex Yr ., P. 6/30/01 GE 2176 1 v3 Fes- DH:JLB:dmc (2) Addressee (2 /del) Job Site Trailer Attention: Mr. Jerry Sims ii Dale Har CEG 17E 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -2974 111 Telephone (619( 5586900 111 Fax (619( 5586159 fe"fi, 5:4,L,kq-CA4,- n6o) 5'11- 4-3c67, Tp MM� GEOCON INCORPORATED Project No. 05799 -42 -01 February 12, 1998 D.R. Horton -San Diego 1010 First Avenue, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Jay Kerr GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT , QW) Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION: SUBGRADE STABILIZATION WITH LIMI•. Gentlemen: G In accordance with the request of Mr. Jerry Sims, your on -site superintendent, we are providing information pertaining to the use of time to stabilize the subgrade soils at the subject project. It is our understanding that this letter is being requested by Mr. Greg Shields of the City of Encinitas prior to approval of the procedure. Mr. Sims indicated that Pacific Stabilization will perform the subgrade treatment and that the treatment will consist of mixing lime in the upper 8 to 12 inches of subgrade material to dry back the subgrade soils and to provide additional structural integrity for the pavement. The subgrade materials at this time have been exposed to the above normal heavy rainfall which has resulted in saturation of the subgrade materials. At this time, the existing base materials which were on the streets and became contaminated with subgrade soils due to mixing, have been excavated and removed from the site. The stabilization will occur directly on the subgrade materials to prepare the subgrade for placement of new base and asphalt concrete. It has been our experience that the use of lime for drying of overly wet subgrade soils is effective in stabilizing the subgrade materials. The lime also enhances the structural integrity of the soil by increasing the bearing capacity as the shear strength of the material is increased. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated (from a geotechnical engineering standpoint) that the lime treatment as proposed should effectively dry back to subgrade soils and provide a suitable bearing surface for the placement of the base and asphalt concrete. It is recommended that the treatment extend to a depth of at least 8 inches and that the treated materials be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Representatives from Geocon Incorporated should be on site during mixing of the lime to verify that the materials are thoroughly mixed and properly compacted. 6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 92121 2974 ■ Telephone (619) 558-6900 ■ Fax (619( 558 -6159 r Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED James L. Brown ??"�FSOIL GE 2176 r.`� fly 3 Nr No• 002[7gZ�� EXp' 6/30/O t (2) Addressee \CfC (2) City of Encinitas � CAL Attention: Mr. Greg Shields (l) Jobsite Attention: Mr. Jerry Sims Project No. 05799 -42 -01 -2. February 12, 1998 Y GEOCON INCORPORATED Project No. 05799 -42 -01 February 12, 1998 D.R. Horton -San Diego 1010 First Avenue, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Jay Kerr G1011CHNICA1 CONSULTANTS 0 Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION: SUBGRADE STABILIZATION WITH LIME Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Mr. Jerry Sims, your on -site superintendent, we are providing information pertaining to the use of time to stabilize the subgrade soils at the subject project. It is our understanding that this letter is being requested by Mr. Greg Shields of the City of Encinitas prior to approval of the procedure. Mr. Sims indicated that Pacific Stabilization will perform the subgrade treatment and that the treatment will consist of mixing lime in the upper 8 to 12 inches of subgrade material to dry back the subgrade soils and to provide additional structural integrity for the pavement. The subgrade materials at this time have been exposed to the above normal heavy rainfall which has resulted in saturation of the subgrade materials. At this time, the existing base materials which were on the streets and became contaminated with subgrade soils due to mixing, have been excavated and removed from the site. The stabilization will occur directly on the subgrade materials to prepare the subgrade for placement of new base and asphalt concrete. It has been our experience that the use of lime for drying of overly wet subgrade soils is effective in stabilizing the subgrade materials. The lime also enhances the structural integrity of the soil by increasing the bearing capacity as the shear strength of the material is increased. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated (from a geotechnical engineering standpoint) that the lime treatment as proposed should effectively dry back to subgrade soils and provide a suitable bearing surface for the placement of the base and asphalt concrete. It is recommended that the treatment extend to a depth of at least 8 inches and that the treated materials be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Representatives from Geocon Incorporated should be on site during mixing of the lime to verify that the materials are thoroughly mixed and properly compacted. 6960 Flanders [rive ■ San Diego, Ca[i6rnia 92121-2974 ■ Telephone (619) 558-6900 ■ Faa (619) 558 -6159 • Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED 'James L. Brown GE 2176 I1" (2) Addressee (2) City of Encinitas Attention: Mr. Greg Shields (1) Jobsite Attention: Mr. Jerry Sims Project No. 05799 -42 -01 .2- February 12, 1 GEOCON INCORPORATED Project No. 0 5799 -42 -01 September 15, 1997 D. R. Horton Incorporated -San Diego 1010 South Coast Highway 101, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullen RECEIVED SEP 1 61997 GEOTEOiNICAL CONSULTANTS Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA ADDENDUM TO INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING PADS 12 THROUGH 14 AND 26 THROUGH 43 Reference: Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading Pads 12 through 14 and 26 through 43 for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 27, 1997 Gentlemen: It has been brought to our attention by Mr. Jerry Simms (on -site superintendent) that the referenced report did not include foundation recommendations for Pad 38. Please note that Table VI (Summary of Recommended Foundation Category) has an error in the line which reads "37 and 39'; it should read "37 through 39 ". In other words the recommended foundation category for Pad 38 is a Category I. A corrected Table VI has been included herewith. We apologize for any inconvenience this error may have caused. If you have any questions regarding this addendum report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Y mes L. BI GE 2176 DH:JLB:slc (4) Addressee (2) Job Site Trailer Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms oEO�o gALENL Gti Dale Hamelehle W No. 1760 N—t CEG 1760 cc CEFMRED ' ENGINEERING Q Nib GEOLOGIST 9. 12.31.98 �Q= .F OF CP�� 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 921 21 -2 974 ■ Telephone 16191 558-6900 ■ Fax (619) 558-6159 TABLE VI SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY Lot Numbers Recommended Foundation Category 12 through 14 II 26 and 27 II 28 through 31 I 32 II 33 through 35 I 36 II 37 through 39 I 40 through 43 1[I Project No. 0579942.01 September 15, 1997 D.R. HORTON - SAN DIEGO 1010 First St., St. 101 Encinitas, Ca. 92024 Bus. (760)634 -6700 Fax (760)634 -6770 Transmittal To: City of Encinitas Attn: Greg Shields From: Mark Mullin Date: 22- Sep -97 Subject: Saxony We Are Forwarding: 4 By Messenger ❑ By Mail Your Pick -Up Date # of Copies Description 1 Interim Grading Report Pads 12 -14 and 26 -43 8 -27 -97 9 -15 -97 1 Addendum to Interim Report _ i 1 I SEP 23 1991 `� � The above documents are sent to you: ❑ For your approval or your use ❑ Per your request C: 1APC0031 1DATA1WKSIMASTERSITRANS. WK4 tNGIR'EERti:G SERVICES CITY OFE(yrm�T your review L Returned after loan to us ❑ Other PUNNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO TRANSMITTAL LETTER DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL LEX WILLIMAN 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (6191558-4500 PH (619) 558 -1414 FX InfoOHunsakerSD.com HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I f G O. 1 N C. To �_�ITY of EKY-M- ))TWcS Date t2- 1 S -°1-1 CNG�tJEEr1 \IJG ��Csi', Project so c' S \( LCPm K)ur-- C1JCkAlc7ess C A 920z433N.O. No. 13-1 S - 41 Attn. rj2C- s' SkA\.El..`1 We are forwarding J By Messenger J By Mail J Your Pick Up No. Copies Description oR1Cs» PL S"T2tsr�T SUC�C�(ZADG Comments This material is forwarded for Your Files ❑ Checking ❑ Other By 'Z:) kv,1 ' ti) J Per Your Request ❑ Your Review J Approval HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O, 1 N C. PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE December 15, 1997 LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Attn: Greg Shields Re: Street Subgrade Certification Project: Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area Improvement Plan 4813 -1 ES -242 Lots: All of streets Saxony Road, Saxony Place, Silver Berry Place at site entrance, Sweet Pea Place South and the portion of Sweet Pea Place East between Stations 10 +00 to 13 +50. Owner: D.R. Horton 1010 South Coast Highway Suite 101 Encinitas. CA 92924 The subgrade for the above referenced streets have been completed in conformance with the approved improvement plan. �C�- - ":i�;; Daniel P. Smith L.S. 6854 DAVE HAMMAR Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. JACK HILL LEX WILLIMAN cc: Jerry Sims 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 558 -4500 PH (619) 558 -1414 F ..hunsaker.com Info*HunsakerSD.com SAN D rP P 's O L.S. 6854 Exp.9 /30 /00/ j DSW�ft 113751[X1 M1 137"1 City of Encinitas November 25, 1997 Mark G. Mullin D.R. Horton 1010 First St., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: WEST SAXONY GEOCON LETTERS DATED 5 MAR 97 & 7 NOV 97 STRUCTURAL PAVEMENT SECTIONS Gentlemen: The subject letters from Geocon have been reviewed and the pavement structural sections required by the City are listed below. PRIVATE STREETS SILVER BERRY PLACE BAY BERRY PLACE SWEET PEA PLACE CARMEL CREEPER PLACE SAXONY PLACE 3" AC OVER 8" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE 3" AC OVER 8" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE 3" AC OVER 7" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE 3" AC OVER 6" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE 3" AC OVER 6" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE 4" AC OVER 8" CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE If you have any questions, please call me at 633 -2778. Sincerely, re 4hields, P.E. Field Operations cc: Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services Ron Brady, Inspector Jim Knowlton, Geopacifica ecvcjeaoaoer NEWCON90 VERSION: DEC-14-90 11 -17 -1997 15:57:25 .ER TITLE OF PROJECT. WEST SAXONY ENTER OPTION FOR METHOD OF DESIGN: 1 = PROGRAM WILL DESIGN THE LAYERS. 2 = YOU WILL HELP PROGRAM DESIGN THE LAYERS. ? 1 ENTER TRAFFIC INDEX (TI) (5 <= TI <= 15) ?5 ENTER R VALUE OF BASEMENT (OR NATIVE) SOIL (0 <= R_VALUE <= 90) 16 0032 *TI *(100 -R VALUE) = 1.34 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF SUBBASE MATERIAL 1 = LEAN CONCRETE BASE (LCB) 0 = NO SUBBASE MATERIAL 1.9) 2 = CLASS A CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.7) 1 = CLASS 1 AGGREGATE SUBBASE 4 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (AB) (R VALUE = 60) 2 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = 50) 3 = CLASS 3 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R VALUE = 40) 4 = CLASS 4 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = VARY) 5 = LIME TREATED SUB BASE (LTS) (R VALUE = 100) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 0 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF BASE MATERIAL 0 = NO BASE (GF = 0.0) 1 = LEAN CONCRETE BASE (LCB) (GF = 1.9) 2 = CLASS A CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.7) 3 = CLASS B CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.2) 4 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (AB) (GF = 1.1) 5 = SANDWICH - (E.G., DGAC, TPB, ACB) 6 = LIME TREATED BASE (LTS) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 4 CARE TO SPECIFY MINIMUM DEPTH OF BASE MATERIAL (N =NO, Y =YES) ? 6 CARE TO SPECIFY MINIMUM DEPTH OF BASE MATERIAL (N =NO, Y =YES) ? Y -TER MINIMUM DEPTH ).35 <= DEPTH <_ .5 (FT) OF BASE MATERIAL 3.00) BASE R_VALUE = 78.00 .0032 *TI *(100- R_VALUE) = 0.35 BASE GRAVEL FACTOR = 1.10 BASE MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 3.00 BASE MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.50 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 = STANDARD_GF 2 = ROAD MIX GF (GF = 0.8 * STANDARD GF) 1 - - - AC MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 0.65 AC MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.20 AC SAFE FACTOR (GE) = 0.20 CARE TO ENTER 'COST PER CUBIC YARD' OF AC PAVEMENT, TPB, BASE /WORK, AND SUBBASE MATERIAL. (N =NO, Y =YES) (NOTE: IF 'NO', THEN COSTS = 70, 60, 35, 25) ? N NOTE: POSITIVE RESIDUAL GE INDICATES OVER DESIGN NOTE: NEGATIVE SAFETY FACTOR IN LAYER = BASE AC TPB BASE SUBBASE RESID COST AC C(4 (FEET) (FEET) (FEET)(ig) (FEET) GE (SQ YD) GR -FCT 2,¢ 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.03 14.00 2.54 3 0.25 0.00 0.65 l g 0.00 -0.01 13.42 2.54 3.(� 0.30 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.01 13.42 2.54 4.1-0.35 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.08 14.00 2.54 0.40 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.20 15.17 2.54 0.45 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.33 16.33 2.54 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.46 17.50 2.54 0.55 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.60 18.67 2.56 11 -18 -1997 07:14:43 ENTER TITLE OF PROJECT. 'VMNY WEST CARMEL CREEPER PLACE ENTER OPTION FOR METHOD OF DESIGN: 1 = PROGRAM WILL DESIGN THE LAYERS. 2 = YOU WILL HELP PROGRAM DESIGN THE LAYERS. ? 1 ENTER TRAFFIC INDEX CTI) (5 <= TI <= 15) ? 6 ENTER R VALUE OF BASEMENT (OR NATIVE) SOIL (0 <= R_VALUE <= 90) ? 71 0032 *TI *(100 -R VALUE) = 0.46 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF SUBBASE MATERIAL 0 = NO SUB BASE MATERIAL 1 = CLASS 1 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R VALUE = 60) 2 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = 50) 3 = CLASS 3 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R-VALUE = 40) 4 = CLASS 4 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R VALUE = VARY) 5 = LIME TREATED SUB BASE (LTS) (R-VALUE = 100) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 0 -.fER CODE FOR TYPE OF BASE MATERIAL 0 = NO BASE (GF = 0.0) 1 = LEAN CONCRETE BASE (LCB) (GF = 1.9) 2 = CLASS A CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.7) 3 = CLASS B CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.2) 4 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (AB) (GF = 1.1) 5 = SANDWICH - (E.G., DGAC, TPB, ACB) 6 = LIME TREATED BASE (LTS) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 4 CARE TO SPECIFY MINIMUM DEPTH OF BASE MATERIAL (N =NO, Y =YES) ? y ENTER MINIMUM DEPTH (FT) OF BASE MATERIAL ( 0.35 <= DEPTH <= 3.00) ? .5 BASE R VALUE = 78.00 .0032 *TI *(100- R_VALUE) = 0.35 BASE GRAVEL FACTOR = 1.10 BASE MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 3.00 BASE MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.50 ENTER TYPE OF TREATED PERMEABLE BASE MATERIAL NONE ASPHALT (GF = 1.4; DEPTH = 0.25 FT) 2 = CEMENT (GF = 1.7; DEPTH = 0.35 FT) ? 0 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 = STANDARD GF 2 = ROAD MIX GF (GF = 0.8 * STANDARD GF) ? 1 - - - AC MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 0.65 AC MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.20 AC SAFE FACTOR (GE) = 0.20 CARE TO ENTER 'COST PER CUBIC YARD' OF AC PAVEMENT, TPB, BASE /WORK, AND SUBBASE MATERIAL. (N =NO, Y =YES) (NOTE: IF 'NO', THEN COSTS = 70, 60, 35, 25) ? N NOTE: POSITIVE RESIDUAL GE INDICATES OVER DESIGN NOTE: NEGATIVE SAFETY FACTOR IN LAYER = BASE AC TPB BASE SUBBASE RESID COST (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) GE (SQ YD) 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.59 10.50 AC GR -FCT 2.54 11 -18 -1997 07:13:49 ENTER TITLE OF PROJECT. SAXONY WEST SWEET PEA PLACE ,,.v'PER OPTION FOR METHOD OF DESIGN: 1 = PROGRAM WILL DESIGN THE LAYERS. 2 = YOU WILL HELP PROGRAM DESIGN THE LAYERS. ? 1 ENTER TRAFFIC INDEX (TI) (5 <= TI <= 15) ? 5 ENTER R VALUE OF BASEMENT (OR NATIVE) SOIL (0 <= R_VALUE <= 90) ? 20 0032 *TI *(100 -R VALUE) = 1.28 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF SUB BASE MATERIAL 0 = NO SUBBASE MATERIAL 1 = CLASS 1 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R VALUE = 60) 2 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = 50) 3 = CLASS 3 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = 40) 4 = CLASS 4 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = VARY) 5 = LIME TREATED SUB BASE (LTS) (R VALUE = 100) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 0 ;ER CODE FOR TYPE OF BASE MATERIAL 0 = NO BASE (GF = 0.0) 1 = LEAN CONCRETE BASE (LCB) (GF = 1.9) 2 = CLASS A CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.7) 3 = CLASS B CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.2) 4 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (AB) (GF = 1.1) 5 = SANDWICH - (E.G., DGAC, TPB, ACB) 6 = LIME TREATED BASE (LTS) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 4 CARE TO SPECIFY MINIMUM DEPTH OF BASE MATERIAL (N =NO, Y =YES) ? Y ENTER MINIMUM DEPTH (FT) OF BASE MATERIAL ( 0.35 <= DEPTH <= 3.00) ? .5 BASE R_VALUE = 78.00 .0032 *TI *(100 -R VALUE) = 0.35 BASE GRAVEL FACTOR = 1.10 BASE MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 3.00 BASE MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.50 ENTER TYPE OF TREATED PERMEABLE BASE MATERIAL NONE ASPHALT (GF = 1.4; DEPTH = 0.25 FT) CEMENT (GF = 1.7; DEPTH = 0.35 FT) ? 0 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 = STANDARD_GF 2 = ROAD MIX GF (GF = 0.8 * STANDARD GF) 1 - - - AC MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 0.65 AC MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.20 AC SAFE FACTOR (GE) = 0.20 CARE TO ENTER 'COST PER CUBIC YARD' OF AC PAVEMENT, TPB, BASE /WORK, AND SUBBASE MATERIAL. (N =NO, Y =YES) (NOTE: IF 'NO', THEN COSTS = 70, 60, 35, 25) ? N NOTE: POSITIVE RESIDUAL_GE INDICATES OVER_DESIGN NOTE: NEGATIVE SAFETY FACTOR IN LAYER = BASE AC TPB BASE SUBBASE RESID COST AC (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) GE (SQ YD) GR FCT 0.20 0.00 0.70 0.00 -0.00 12.83 2.54 0.25 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.01 12.83 2.54 0.30 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.03 12.83 2.54 0.35 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.16 14.00 2.54 0.40 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.28 15.17 2.54 0.45 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.41 16.33 2.54 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.54 17.50 2.54 11 -16 -1997 07:15:47 ENTER TITLE OF PROJECT. SAWONY WEST SAONY PLACE ziiTER OPTION FOR METHOD OF DESIGN: 1 = PROGRAM WILL DESIGN THE LAYERS. 2 = YOU WILL HELP PROGRAM DESIGN THE LAYERS. ? 1 ENTER TRAFFIC INDEX (TI) (5 <= TI <= 15) ? 5 ENTER R_VALUE OF BASEMENT (OR NATIVE) SOIL (0 <= R_VALUE <= 90) ? 44 0032 *TI *(100 -R VALUE) = 0.90 ENTER CODE FOR TYPE OF SUB BASE MATERIAL 0 = NO SUBBASE MATERIAL 1 = CLASS 1 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R VALUE = 60) 2 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = 50) 3 = CLASS 3 AGGREGATE SUB BASE (R VALUE = 40) 4 = CLASS 4 AGGREGATE SUBBASE (R VALUE = VARY) 5 = LIME TREATED SUB BASE (LTS) (R VALUE = 100) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ?0 :ER CODE FOR TYPE OF BASE MATERIAL 0 = NO BASE (GF = 0.0) 1 = LEAN CONCRETE BASE (LCB) (GF = 1.9) 2 = CLASS A CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.7) 3 = CLASS B CEMENT TREATED BASE (CTB) (GF = 1.2) 4 = CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (AB) (GF = 1.1) 5 = SANDWICH - (E.G., DGAC, TPB, ACB) 6 = LIME TREATED BASE (LTS) (1.3 <= GF <= 1.6) ? 4 CARE TO SPECIFY MINIMUM DEPTH OF BASE MATERIAL (N =NO, Y =YES) ? Y ENTER MINIMUM DEPTH (FT) OF BASE MATERIAL ( 0.35 <= DEPTH <= 3.00) ? .5 BASE R_VALUE = 78.00 .0032 *TI *(100 -R VALUE) = 0.35 BASE GRAVEL FACTOR = 1.10 BASE MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 3.00 BASE MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.50 ENTER TYPE OF TREATED PERMEABLE BASE MATERIAL NONE ASPHALT (GF = 1.4; DEPTH = 0.25 FT) i = CEMENT (GF = 1.7; DEPTH = 0.35 FT) ? 0 &NTFR.CODE FOR TYPE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 = STANDARD GF 2 = ROAD-MIX GF (GF = 0.8 * STANDARD GF) 1 - AC MAX. DEPTH (FT) = 0.65 AC MIN. DEPTH (FT) = 0.20 AC SAFE FACTOR (GE) = 0.20 CARE TO ENTER 'COST PER CUBIC YARD' OF AC PAVEMENT, TPB, BASE /WORK, AND SUBBASE MATERIAL. (N =NO, Y =YES) (NOTE: IF 'NO', THEN COSTS = 70, 60, 35, 25) ? N NOTE: POSITIVE RESIDUAL GE INDICATES OVER DESIGN NOTE: NEGATIVE SAFETY FACTOR IN LAYER = BASE AC TPB BASE SUBBASE RESID COST AC (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) (FEET) GE (SQ YD) GR FCT 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.16 10.50 2.54 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.29 11.67 2.54 0.30 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.41 12.83 2.54 0.35 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.54 14.00 2.54 GEOCON Ili(,; it it PV IAA 1`611 Project No. 05799-12 -01 November 7, 1997 0. It. Horton lncorporared -San Diego 1010 first Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullin i� CCNSULiANtS Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT RECOMMENDAI'IONS FOR INTERIOR STREETS Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we are providing pavement recommendations for die interior streets at the subject project. To assist in providing these recommendations, we have obtained a representative sample of the subgrade materials on all of the interior streets and performed R•Value testing to determine hearing characteristics. Based on infonnation provided by the City of Lacinitas we have utilized a Trattic Index of 4.5 for all interior 5trcets within the subject development. Results of the R -Value tests are summarized un Table 1. Pavement sections were determined based upon the assigned Traffic Index and procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Highway Design ,Hannal and the California Flexible Pavement Design Manual. Based upon these procedures we recommend the following pavement sections. RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Location R -Value Asphalt Concrete (inches) Class 2 Buse (inches) Silver Berry Place 16 3 6.5 Bay Berry Place l5 3 6.5 Sweet Pea Place 20 3 5.5 Carmel Creepr.P Placr. 71 1 5 Saxony Place 1 as 1 3 5 7� Asphalt Concrete should conform to the must recent version of the Standard Spew is ations for Public Works Construenar (Green Book) adopted by the City of San Diego. Class 2 base should conform to Caltrans Section 26 -1.02B. Prior to placing base materials, the subgradc should be scarified to a depth of at least l2 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Class 2 base _ - -- A9An flnnrirrs Dme ■ San()iuto. CA3ii6nki 92121.29/4 ■ Telephone (6191 5*6900 ■ fax (6191 558tiIJ9 materials should also be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted in at least 95 percent of Hveem maximum density. Should you have questions regarding these recommendations, or it we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCONINC:ORPORATED 4;�4r e James L, Browl Dale I Iamelehle GF 2176 CWT 1760 DH:JLB:dmc (4) Addressee (2) City of Encinitas Attention: Mr. Blair Knoll Prohxl No 05799.41 -0I 2 - Naveintw 7, 1997 TABLE SUMMARY OF R -VALUE AND 5AND EQUIVALENT TEST RE5ULTS Sample No. Location It-Value Sand Equivalent R-1 Intersection of Bay Berry Place and Silver Berry Plnce. is 17 R -2 Intersection of Silver Berry Place and Sweet Pea Place 16 l5 R -3 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 34 25 16 R -4 Sweet Pea Place adjacent to Pad 39 19 is R -5 Carmel Crceper Place adjacent to Pad 45 — Saxony Place adjaccutto Pad 28 714 1.7____. R -6 44 17 November 7. 1997 1120/1997 22:02 6347325 f-��-GE O C O N i s ,; o n? n '%.i 'r c o Project No. 0:1799 -yZ -0i March 3, 1997 SAXONY DR NORTON PAGE 01 GftOiKF1NIr�., CCniS:.a: \n;f5 i D. R. Horton Incorporated - San Diego 10179 Huennckens Street, Suite 100 San Diego. California 92121 Attention: Mr, Mark Mullen Subject: ENCINITASR11NCH (WESI'SAXONY PLANNING ARE.k) ENCMTAS, CALIFORNIA CONSTIT_TATTON DETERMINATION OF FXt'S,r NG STRUC'T'URAL PAVEibIFNT SECTION ON SAXONY ROAD Gende :nen: In accordance with your request, we have performed additional geotechnical engineering services for the subject project. The scope of our services eonsi5red of advancing a core in the existing asphalt pavement .section on Saxony Road to detemine the existing structural pavement section. Prior to coring, a temporary encroachment permit from the City of Encmitna was obtained. After determination of the existing pavement section, an analysis was conducred to determine if the pavement section required an overlay as part of the street widening due to the increased traffic. it is our understanding that this information wds requested by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. I'lie asphalt core was obtained from me west side (southbound lane) of Saxony Road at approximately Station 26 +q0. Ater coring, the aggregate base section was removed and the thickness measured. In addition, a sample of the underlying subgrade .soil was obtained and subjected to Resistance Value (R- Value) testing to determine bearing characteristics for the pavement analysts. Observations and held measurements indicated that the existing pavement section consisted of 4 inches of Asphalt Concrete over 8 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. Observation of the street within the project limits indicated that the existing pavement section is in relatively good condition and generally free of reflective cracking and raveling. Once the existing structural pavement section was determined, an analysis was performed using procedures outlined in Chapter 600 of the Caltrans Higfnvay Design Manua( (1990 Edition). Information was also obtained from 777e Ciry of Encinitas, California, Public Road Srandardi (April, 1990. The analysis used an R -Value of 73 determined from laboratory testing on the sample of subgrade soils obtained from the coring and a Traffic index (TT) of 7.0. The T I. was supplies! by Tfunsaker and Associates who obtained the information from Mr. Eclair Kaoll of the City of tneinitas. The results or the analysis indicated that for a subgrade K -Value of 73, an asphalt pavement thickness of 4 inches over nativo subgrade soils (full depth asphalt section) conforms to the Caltrans Design Procedure. Calculations are presented on cable L However, the minimum section required by the City of Encinitas for local roads and collectors is 4 inches of asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inches of Class 2 base. Since the Existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of base, the exisring section conforms to both the Caltrans design requirements and the City of Encinitas minimum standards. As such, no overlay is required to increase the existing pavement 6960 Flanders Dn.e • San D:.yo. C�hiwro 92t21 -2974 ■ rel.ohune 16191 5586900 ■ (an 16191 558 -6159 eOd 57)# 0.) NOJ039s69T98596T9:ON 131 65T9— BSS - 619— NOJO39 :QI 9T:01 Q3M 66:- 6T —nON 1 11k20/1997 22:02 6347325 SAXONY DR HORTON PAGE 02 se6iion for the $tvcn dcaign T.I. of l.0. Sumo thin nvrrlay mny be squired to provide a "mtx)th transition where then now section abuts the existing pavement. In summary, based upon determined pavement acutions and pavement design analyses, no overlay of the existing pavement section is required to satisfy the design T.I. criteria supplied by the City of Encinitas. Should you have questions regarding this consultation, or if we may be of further service, pteuse contact the undersigned at your convenience. very truly yours, GEOCONINCORPORATED James L. Brown l rl:� R CE 43824 '\ "g{Jyyy JLB:dn(; (3:'del) Addressee (3 /dcl) Hunsaker and Associates Attention: Sir. Ray Martin rrojmt No. 07799 —t2 -01 .2- March S. 1997 God GZ)# 00 N0003'046S1986S6191ON X31 65J9- 855 - 619- N0D039:(I1 GS:OT Cam 2,6.- 61 -r)ON 11)12e/1997 22:02 6347325 Design Traffic ludax g.-Value of Sub8rade Soils SAXONY DR HORTON TABLE I PAVEMENT SECTIUN CALCULATIONS (CAL I RANS METHUU) 7.0 73 PAGE 03 A50hillt Concrete ne s GE = .U032 x T.I. x (100.78) Where 78 equals the minimum specified R- Value for Class 2 Base GE = 0032 x (7) x (100.78) - .49281t. G = 2.5 (S. 14/7) - 2.14 Thickness requ+red + GE/Gf = .4928/2.14 (12) - 2.76 inches. For existing 4 inch section. actual GE _ (411' <') x 2.14 = .7133 Class 2 Base Ihiekness GE _ .0032 x (7),T (100 -73) Where 73 is the R -Value of the subgrade soils GE a .6048 less GE for the determined Asphalt thickness OF, 0 .6048-.1133 <0 Therefore, base is not required as the Asphalt sansties the total .-ravel equivalant necessary for the design structural section. Per the city of Encinitas Public Ruud Standards. the Minimum recommended pavt.-tuant section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of glass 2 base. Since the existing sectlon consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of Claw 2 base, the existing section conforms to both the (7altrans design criteria and the City of Encinitas standards and does not require an overlay for structural purposes. TABLE It SLNIMARY OF P.-VALUE AND SAND CQUIVALENT MST RESULTS Sa.nple No. Location K -Value 1 1 Saxony Road Station 26 f00 (southbound lane) 73 Nu. ,)5799-424)t M.d1 hod SZ)tl OJ NG:i039+6ST9t75S6T9:ON l31 6ST9- 65S- 6I9- NODU39:Q1 8T:0T Cl 1m L6,- 6T -f1pN -OCT -28 -1997 13:1? P.01iO3 HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. PLANNING - ENGINEERING - SURVEYING 10179 HUENIVE ENS STREET -SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 (619) 558-400 - FAX (619) 558 -1414 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Greg Shields COMPANY* City of Encinitas FROM. Ray Martin PROJECT: West Saxony DATE: October 28, 1997 WORK ORDER: 1375 -41 DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT: Pad Certification Letter, Recreation Lot COMMENTS: Original to follow. FAX: (619) 633 -2818 NO. OF PAGES: 3 THIS MATERIAL IS SENT FOR: YOUR FILES X PER YOUR OTHER REQUEST PLEASE CALL YOUR UPON RECEIPT REVIEW .kkm wor"Afuxes_s Y \olfm.d" wo 999 -201 1/19195 LICT -28 -1997 13:17 MANNING ENCMERINO SURV[YINL3 IRVINt LAS V[(.:AS RIM5IUL SAN 01EC;U HAVE HAMMAN JACK HILL LEX WILLIMAN 101791 lw,nnc.cns 51. 5uiw 200 San Diego, CA 97121 1G15) 5504;00 FI 1 (614) 5.5"•1114 F www.huusaker.itun Inio0.�HUnu4eSl).tom HUNSAICER &ASSOCIATES , S n 0 1 E G U. ti C October 27, 1997 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineers Certification of Rough Grade Project Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Recreation Building (Lot 5) P.02/03 I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). See Exhibit "A °. Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. Raymond L. Martin, R.C.E. Project Manager cc: Mark Mullin, D.R. Horton HD L. m NO. 48670 EXP. 6730/00 sl vt s Rsur nt]]SaD18>• M m m a V n � 6.36 \ PAD �y 8EU% 177.40 m Y� n 77.49 177.78 iPAD 178.80 PAD z% co LOT 5 6178.59 FAQ �9 178.28 PAD f! I 11 1 1179.62 PAD 179.20 ` I r PAD \I � \ P 1I N 177.79 178.59 179-9- J 4 TOP - _j 05 V M v� m a J tS 0 0 r INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING PADS 12 THROUGH 14 AND 26 THROUGH 43 ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR D. R. HORTON INCORPORATED -SAN DIEGO ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEP 231997 AUGUST 1997 a GEOCON INCORPORATED Project No. 05799 -42 -01 August 27, 1997 D. R. Horton Incorporated - San Diego 1010 South Coast Highway 101, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullen GEOTICHN"I CCBJSUITANTS 10) Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING PADS 12 THROUGH 14 AND 26 THROUGH 43 Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization, we have provided engineering observation and compaction . testing services during the mass grading of the subject site. This interim report has been prepared to verify that the subject lots were graded in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report and that fill soils placed on the lot were compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Upon completion of the mass grading operations, a final As- Graded report including an As- Graded Geologic Map will be prepared and submitted. Our services were provided during the period of June 23, 1997 through August 8, 1997 and included the following: • Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils, undocumented fills and alluvial soils within areas of planned grading. • Performing in -place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site. • Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction, and expansion characteristics of various soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill. • Preparing this interim report of grading. GENERAL The grading contractor for the project was Perry and Shaw Incorporated. The project plans were prepared by Hunsaker and Associates, San Diego Incorporated and are entitled Rough Grading Plans for Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area with City of Encinitas approval date June 16, 1997. The project soils report is entitled: Update Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Engineer of 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -2974 ■ Telephone (619) 558 -6900 ■ Fax (619) 558 -6159 Record (for] Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation from the referenced Grading Plans. Geocon Incorporated did not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as- graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage. GRADING Grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded Topsoils undocumented fill soils and alluvium were removed to firm natural ground (Terrace Deposits or Torrey Sandstone). Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. After removal of unsuitable materials, the overexcavations were observed by an engineer and/or engineering geologist to verify that all unsuitable materials had been removed. Fill soils derived from on -site excavations were then placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the on -site fill materials consist of fine to medium, silty sands. Debris that was encountered within the undocumented fill areas was removed during . placement and hauled off -site. During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in -place density tests were performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in -place density tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D- 2922 -81 (nuclear). The results of the in -place dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table 1. In general, the in- place density test results indicate that the fill soil has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent at the locations tested. Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture - density relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557 -91), and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables 11 and III. Slopes In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, with maximum heights of approximately 18 and 27 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over -filled and cut back or were track - walked with a bulldozer during grading. All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to Project No. 05799 -42.01 - 2 - August 27, 1997 just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the ID slope. Finish Grade Soil Conditions During the grading operation, building pads which encountered clayey soils at grade were undercut approximately 3 feet and "capped" with granular soils. Similarly, our observations and test results indicate that granular soils were placed within the upper approximately 3 feet of finish grade on fill building pads. Based on laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough pad grade on each lot have an Expansion Index varying from 0 to 4 and are classified as having a very low expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18 -1 -B. Table IV presents a summary of the indicated Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soil conditions for each of the subject lots. In addition to capping building pads as described above, the cut portion of those pads which contained a cut -fill transition within the building area was undercut approximately 3 feet below rough finish grade and replaced with properly compacted very low expansive fill soil. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those n U described in the project geotechnical report. The subject lots are underlain by compacted 611 soils. The fill is underlain by dense to very dense Quaternary Terrace Deposits and Tertiary Torrey Sandstone. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0. General 1.1. Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described herein. Project No. 0579942 -01 - 3 - August 27, 1997 E 2.0. Future Grading 2.1. Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. Grading plans for any future grading should be reviewed by Geocon Incorporated prior to finalizing. All trench backfill in excess of one -foot thick should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This office should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations. 3.0. Foundations 3.1. The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two -story residential structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on the following page. Table VI presents the recommended Foundation Category for each lot. 3.2. Foundations for either Category 1, 11, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one -third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. 3.3. The use of isolated footings which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be con- netted to the building foundation system with grade beams. Project No. 05799 -42 -01 - 4 - August 27, 1997 is E TABLE 3.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement (inches) I 12 One No. 4 bar top and bottom 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid -point 11 18 Two No. 4 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, both directions III 24 Two No. 5 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions CATEGORY CRITERIA Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50. Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet. Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130. Notes: I. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. 2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. 3. All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories 1 and II and 5 inches thick for Category III. 4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category III) of clean sand or crushed rock. 5. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean sand recommended in No. 4 above. 3.4. For Foundation Category III, the structural slab design should consider using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. 3.5. No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. Project No. 05799-42 -01 5- August 27, 1997 a 3.6. Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. • For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. • Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance should be increased to 1113 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post- tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforce- ment. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined. • For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori- zontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height. • Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should b° contacted for a review of specific site conditions. • Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. Project No. 05799 -42 -01 92 August 27, 1997 a TABLE 3.2 POST - TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post - Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters Foundation Category 1 II III 1. Thomthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes 3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70% 4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in. /mo. 0.7 in. /mo. 0.7 in. /mo. 7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in. 9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in. 3.7. As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration should be given to the use of post- tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post- tensioned systems should be designed by a structural . engineer experienced in post- tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post - Tensioning Institute (UBC Standard No. 294, Part II). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post- tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled Post - Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated. 3.8. UBC Standard No. 29 -4 Part II uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the structural engineer proposes a post- tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Standard No. 29 -4, Part II, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches for Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad exceeds 50 but is less than 90, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. Project No. i1e August 27, 1997 3.9. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs -on -grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re -entry slab comers occur. 4.0. Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 4.1. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials . do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 4.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001 H at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure. 43. All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 4.4. In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet Project No. 05799 -42 -01 - S - August 27, 1997 _J below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. 4.5. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. 4.6. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib -type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 5.0. Slope Maintenance 5.1. Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. Project No. 05799 -42 -01 - 9 - August 27. 1997 6.0. Drainage 6.1. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be property finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation, August 8, 1997 . Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions. can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED James L. Brown GE 2176 DH:JLB:dmc (4) Addressee (2 /del) Job Site Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms Dale Hatnelehle CEG 1760 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 - 10- August 27, 1997 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) Test Plus No. - -- ----- ---- Date -------- Test Location --------------------- 1 06/24/97 PVT DR I E PAD 4 2 06/24/97 PAD 46 3 06/24/97 PAD 45 4 06/24/97 PAD 44 5 06/25/97 PAD 44 6 06/25/97 PAD N PAD 46 7 06/25/97 PAD 45 8 06/25/97 PAD 46 8A 06/25/97 PAD 46 9 06/26/97 SLOPE W PAD 41 10 06/26/97 ACCESS RD NW LOT 2 11 06/26/97 SLOPE W PAD 41 12 06/26/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 13 06/26/97 PAD 43 14 06/26/97 PAD 42 1.5 06/26/97 PAD 41 16 06/27/97 SLOPE W LOT 2 17 06/27/97 LOT 2 18 06/27/97 PAD 40 19 06/27/97 SLOPE S PAD 43 20 06/27/97 PAD 43 21 06/27/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 22 06/27/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 23 06/27/97 PAD 41 TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) --- -- No. ----- (8) - - ---- (pcf) ---- -- (6) - -- - -- (pcf) - - ---- (8) - - -- -- (8) ------ (8) - -- --- 137 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.4 9.4 92 90 139 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 8.0 90 90 135 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.3 9.6 91 90 137 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 8.3 91 90 136 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 8.2 93 90 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 8.8 92 90 139 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.6 9.8 92 90 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 7.1 91 90 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 11.3 92 90 152 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.0 10.1 90 90 151 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.6 12.4 92 90 152 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 12.9 90 90 154 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.2 10.4 92 90 150 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.7 9.5 94 90 152 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 8.9 92 90 155 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.7 9.9 91 90 147 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.0 13.9 91 90 149 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 9.1 92 90 152 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.1 10.0 93 90 153 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 12.8 92 90 155 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 11.1 93 90 156 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 9.3 91 90 119 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.9 11.2 94 90 153 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.1 9.6 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) 0 TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test Field Plus No. --- ----- - -- Date - ------- Test Location ---------------------- 24 06/27/97 PAD 42 25 06/27/97 LOT 2 26 06/27/97 LOT 2 27 06/30/97 PAD 2 28 06/30/97 ACCESS RD SE PAD 1 29 06/30/97 S END PVT DR I 30 06/30/97 PAD 1 31 06/30/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 32 06/30/97 ACCESS RD S PAD 1 33 06/30/97 PAD 1 34 06/30/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 35 06/30/97 ACCESS RD SW PAD 44 35A 06/30/97 ACCESS RD SW PAD 44 36 06/30/97 PAD 1 37 06/30/97 SLOPE W PAD 2 38 06/30/97 PAD 2 39 06/30/97 E LOT 3 39A 07/22/97 E LOT 3 40 07/02/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 41 07/02/97 PAD 41 42 07/02/97 PAD 43 43 07/02/97 PAD 42 44 07/02/97 PAD 40 45 07/02/97 PAD 41 Elev. Field Plus Max. Opt. Field or Comp. 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. (ft) -- - -- No. - - - -- (8) - - -- -- (pcf) ------ (B) ------ (pcf) ------ 155 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 151 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.2 153 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.1 118 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 119 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.8 123 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 120 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.1 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 120.5 127 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 122 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.0 128 2 0 123.0 10.1 113.9 129 3 0 127.8 9.9 112.3 129 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 125 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.8 128 2 0 123.0 10.1 113.3 131 2 0 123.0 10.1 110.8 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 112.8 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.7 157 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 159 3 0 127,8 9.9 115.9 161 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 163 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.4 162 3 0 127,8 9.9 115.9 164 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Field Field Req'd Moist. Rel. Rel. Cont. Comp. Comp. (8) ------ (8) -- - --- (8) -- ---- 11.8 92 90 12.1 93 90 11.9 92 90 11.9 92 90 8.8 91 90 11.8 93 90 9.0 92 90 10.6 94 90 10.7 91 90 13.2 91 90 10.0 93 90 8.9 88 90 9.8 90 90 13.9 92 90 12.5 92 90 13.2 90 90 11.1 88 90 10.6 93 90 12.6 92 90 10.3 91 90 11.9 93 90 12.5 92 90 11.2 91 90 12.2 93 90 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) Test Plus Max. No. ---- -- -- ---- Date -- -- -- -- --------------------- Test Location 46 07/02/97 PAD 43 47 07/02/97 SLOPE S PAD 43 48 07/02/97 PAD 1 49 07/02/97 PAD 2 50 07/02/97 PAD 3 51 07/02/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 52 07/02/97 ACCESS RD PAD 43 53 07/02/97 PAD 40 54 07/02/97 PAD 43 55 07/03/97 PAD 3 56 07/03/97 PAD 1 57 07/03/97 LOT 4 58 07/03/97 PAD 3 59 07/03/97 PAD 2 60 07/03/97 LOT 4 61 07/03/97 LOT 4 62 07/03/97 LOT 4 63 07/07/97 LOT 5 64 07/07/97 LOT 4 65 07/07/97 LOT 41 65A 07/07/97 LOT 41 66 07/07/97 LOT 43 66A 07/07/97 LOT 43 67 07/07/97 LOT 7 0 TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) ----- No. ----- (8) ------ (pcf) - - - --- (8) - - - - -- (pcf) - -- --- (B) - ----- (8) - - - - -- (%) ------ 159 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.9 12.7 90 90 161 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 14.2 91 90 131 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 13.5 92 90 133 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 12.0 92 90 130 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.8 12.9 91 90 158 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 12.9 93 90 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.4 11.1 93 90 163 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.3 11.1 93 90 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 120.2 11.0 94 90 132 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.5 12.0 93 90 134 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 12.5 92 90 106 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 10.7 91 90 133 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.1 10.9 93 90 135 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.7 13.7 91 90 108 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.9 10.4 90 90 111 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 10.2 91 90 113 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.0 9.6 90 90 100 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.8 9.7 93 90 115 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.5 11.5 93 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 111.0 7.9 87 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.3 10.8 92 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 110.4 7.8 86 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.5 10.9 91 90 108 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.1 9.8 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms 6 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (C) V TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test Field Plus Max. No. -- -- -- ---- -- Date -------- Test ---------------------- Location 68 07/07/97 P/L LOTS 4 & 5 69 07/08/97 PAD 1 Dens. 70 07/08/97 PAD 4 No. ----- 71 07/08/97 PAD 3 (pcf) ------ 72 07/08/97 SLOPE W PAD 1 73 07/08/97 PAD 5 3 74 07/08/97 PAD 4 118.6 75 07/08/97 PAD 2 127.8 76 07/08/97 PAD 5 3 77 07/08/97 PAD 3 116.5 78 07/08/97 PAD 5 127.8 79 07/08/97 PAD 42 3 80 07/08/97 PVT DR E OPP PAD 41 81 07/09/97 PAD 42 127.8 82 07/09/97 SLOPE W PAD 43 83 07/09/97 OS N PAD 46 84 07/09/97 PAD 2 127.8 85 07/09/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 86 07/09/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 87 07/09/97 PAD 6 127.8 88 07/09/97 PAD 4 3 89 07/10/97 SLOPE S LOT 2 90 07/10/97 LOT 2 127.8 91 07/10/97 PAD 41 3 Elev. Field Plus Max. Opt. Field or Comp. 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. (ft) ----- No. ----- (8) ------ (pcf) ------ (8) ------ (pcf) ------ 113 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.3 136 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 137 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 139 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.5 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.3 138 3 C 127.8 9.9 117.9 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.6 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.7 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.7 166 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 164 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 165 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 143 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.6 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 144 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 143 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 145 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.3 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Field Field Req'd Moist. Rel. Rel. Cont. Comp. Comp. ---- -- ------ ------ 9.7 90 90 11.8 93 90 12.3 92 90 9.5 91 90 10.8 93 90 11.5 91 90 9.4 90 90 11.0 92 90 9.7 91 90 10.4 90 90 12.0 90 90 9.5 93 90 9.6 92 90 11.3 91 90 9.7 93 90 11.5 92 90 9.6 92 90 10.2 93 90 9.3 92 90 12.7 92 90 11.9 91 90 10.4 93 90 10.4 93 90 9.6 91 90 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test Plus Max. No. ------ - - --- Date -- - ----- Test ---------------------- Location 92 07/10/97 PAD 40 3/4" 93 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 6 94 07/10/97 LOT 4 Curve 95 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 4 96 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 7 97 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 8 97A 07/15/97 SLOPE. W PAD 8 98 07/10/97 LOT 4 127.8 99 07/10/97 PAD 24 94 99A 07/10/97 PAD 24 0 100 07/10/97 PAD 26 9.6 101 07/11/97 PAD 24 3 102 07/11/97 PVT DR A S PAD 26 103 07/14/97 PAD 23 118 104 07/14/97 PAD 26 9.9 105 07/14/97 PAD 25 90 106 07/14/97 PVT DR C OPP PAD 26 107 07/14/97 PAD 24 92 108 07/14/97 PVT DR C OPP PAD 26 109 07/15/97 PAD 25 7.6 110 07/15/97 PAD 27 4 111 07/15/97 PAD 43 119.0 112 07/15/97 PAD 41 120 113 07/15/97 SLOPE E PAD 26 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) - ---- No. -- - -- ( %) - - - - -- (pcf) - - - - -- (%) ------ (pcf) ------ ( %) ------ ( %) - -- --- ( %) --- - -- 110 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.6 12.9 94 90 116 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 9.6 91 90 117 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 9.6 92 90 118 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 9.5 91 90 119 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 10.0 92 90 122 4 0 126.8 10.2 111.2 7.6 88 90 122 4 0 126.8 10.2 119.0 11.6 94 90 120 4 0 126.8 10.2 114.2 12.4 90 90 170 3 0 127.8 9.9 111.0 7.7 87 90 170 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 10.0 93 90 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 9.0 92 90 172 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.2 10.4 92 90 164 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.7 10.0 91 90 173 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.1 9.9 92 90 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 11.5 93 90 173 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.3 14.7 92 90 165 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.6 9.6 91 90 174 4 0 126.8 10.2 113.9 14.6 90 90 168 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.1 14.4 91 90 176 4 0 126.8 10.2 113.9 14.7 90 90 171 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 9.7 93 90 169 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 9.2 92 90 169 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 9.4 93 90 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 9.4 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. -- --- - - -- -- Date -- - - ---- Test Location -------- -------- - - -- (ft) -- - ---- No. - ---- (8) - -- - -- (pcf) - - -- -- M - - -- -- (pcf) - - - --- (8) -- ---- (8) ------ (8) - -- - -- 114 07/15/97 SLOPE E PAD 23 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.8 8.9 91 90 115 07/16/97 PAD 36 173 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.1 13.9 92 90 116 07/16/97 PAD 26 177 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 9.8 93 90 117 07/16/97 PVT DR E OPP PAD 40 169 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.5 133 91 90 118 07/16/97 PVT DR E OPP PAD 43 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 10.8 93 90 119 07/16/97 SLOPE W LOT 4 122 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.3 13.0 91 90 120 07/16/97 SLOPE W PAD 6 121 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 9.4 93 90 121 07/17/97 PAD 32 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 11.5 93 90 122 07/17/97 PAD 39 169 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.7 9.7 94 90 123 07/17/97 LOT 4 125 2 0 123.0 10.1 116.0 14.0 94 90 124 07/17/97 SLOPE W PAD 5 123 2 0 123.0 10.1 114.8 9.9 93 90 125 07/17/97 SLOPE W PAD 3 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 10.3 92 90 126 07/17/97 LOT 4 128 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.7 10,1 91 90 127 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 13 159 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 13.3 92 90 128 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 14 164 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.6 11.4 90 90 129 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 12 168 2 0 123.0 10.1 114.1 13.6 93 90 130 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 13 166 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.6 13.6 91 90 131 07/18/97 PADS 18/19 178 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 9.3 93 90 132 07/21/97 PAD 13 172 2 0 123.0 10.1 110.3 14.7 90 90 133 07/21/97 PAD 14 174 2 0 123.0 10.1 115.8 13.6 94 90 134 07/21/97 PAD 5 129 1 0 115.8 14.6 110.2 16.4 95 90 135 07/21/97 PAD 3 131 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 9.3 93 90 136 07/22/97 PADS 20/21 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 121.1 11.0 95 90 FG 137 07/22/97 PAD 22 181 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.1 10.1 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms 0 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (C) 0 4P TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Test Plus Max. Opt. Field ------------ No. Date ------ -- -- ------------------- Test Location ST 138 07/22/97 SLOPE PAD 22 ST 139 07/22/97 SLOPE PAD 42 ST 139A 07/22/97 SLOPE PAD 42 ST 140 07/24/97 SLOPE PAD 24 ST 141 07/24/97 SLOPE PAD 26 FG 142 07/24/97 PAD 23 9.9 FC 143 07/24/97 PAD 24 127.8 FC 144 07/24/97 PAD 25 160 FG 145 07/24/97 PAD 26 10.1 FC 145A 08/04/97 PAD 26 127.8 FG 146 07/25/97 PAD 19 182 FG 147 07/27/97 PAD 18 9.1 92 148 07/28/97 PVT DR B S/0 PAD 21 9.9 148A 07/28/97 PVT DR B S/0 PAD 21 3 149 07/28/97 PVT DR B N10 PAD 22 FG 150 07/28/97 PAD 20 127.8 FG 151 07/28/97 PAD 21 179 FG 152 07/28/97 PAD 12 9.0 FG 153 07/28/97 PAD 13 127.8 FC 154 07/28/97 PAD 14 180 FG 155 07/31/97 PAD 36 9.3 FG 156 07/31/97 PAD 27 127.8 FG 157 07/31/97 PAD 31 182 FG 158 07/31/97 PAD 32 7.4 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) ----- No. ----- (8) ------ (pcf) -- ---- (8) ------ (pcf) ------ ( %) ---- -- (8) ------ (8) ------ 183 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 9.9 92 90 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 109.4 10.4 86 90 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.8 10.1 91 90 183 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.5 10.4 90 90 182 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.6 9.1 92 90 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 9.3 93 90 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.6 12.4 92 90 178 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 8.6 93 90 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 111.3 9.0 87 90 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.3 8.6 93 90 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.8 9.3 94 90 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.3 9.7 92 90 182 2 0 123.0 10.1 108.5 7.4 88 90 182 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.1 14.1 90 90 183 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 9.7 92 90 182 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.1 8.9 91 90 181 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.9 9.3 90 90 175 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 8.9 92 90 176 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.8 7.7 90 90 176 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.5 7.7 91 90 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 6.3 90 90 177 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.8 8.4 94 90 173 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.7 6.3 92 90 172 4 0 126.8 10.2 117.9 6.0 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. ----- No. --- -- -- Date -- - ----- Test ---- ---- -- Location --- --- ------ (ft) ----- No. - - - -- (B) - - ---- (pcf) - ----- (8) ------ (pcf) ------ ( %) ------ (8) - - - --- (B) - ----- FG 159 07/31/97 PAD 43 171 3 0 127.8 9.9 120.7 4.9 94 90 FG 160 07/31/97 PAD 42 171 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.2 5.4 92 90 FG 161 07/31/97 PAD 41 171 3 0 127.8 9.9 120.3 6.6 94 90 ST 161 08/08/97 SLOPE PAD 14 172 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.1 8.3 91 90 FG 162 07/31/97 PAD 40 170 3 0 127.8 9.9 121.8 5.9 95 90 FG 163 07/31/97 PAD 38 170 4 0 126.8 10.2 121.3 9.3 96 90 FG 164 07/31/97 PAD 39 171 4 0 126.8 10.2 121.1 11.3 96 90 ST 165 08/04/97 SLOPE PAD 12 173 2 0 123.0 10.1 106.8 7.3 87 90 ST 166 08/04/97 SLOPE PAD 40 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.5 7.9 90 90 ST 167 08/05/97 SLOPE PAD 40 158 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 7.5 91 90 ST 168 08/05/97 SLOPE PAD 43 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.6 7.8 90 90 ST 170 08/08/97 SLOPE PAD 13 165 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.2 11.2 91 90 ST 171 08/08/97 SLOPE PAD 12 170 2 0 123.0 10.1 114.5 7.9 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms P *ect No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) • Ixiii well) 1]:4tiims714 &' - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and /or recompaction. R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS AD - Area Drain JT - Joint Trench ST - Slope Test B - Base Test MT - Moisture Test SW - Sidewalk CG - Curb & Gutter RW - Retaining Wall SZ - Slope Zone CW - Crib Wall SD - Storm Drain UT - Utility Trench DW - Driveway SG - Subgrade WB - Wall Backfill FG - Finish Grade SL - Sewer Lateral WL - Water Lateral IT - Irrigation Trench SM - Sewer Main WM - Water Main CURVE NO. Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory maximum dry density /optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values. - TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test NU: Nuclear Density Test DC: Drive Cylinder Test - ELEVATION /DEPTH Test elevations /depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot. J 16 TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 -91 Sample Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture No. After Test ( %) Density (pcf) Content (/o dry wt.) 1 Yellowish - brown„ fine to medium Silty 4 114.7 9.8 SAND 115.8 14.6 2 Orange - brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 123.0 10.1 3 Dark brown, fine to medium SAND, with 8.8 1 16.2 1 116.1 trace gravel 127.8 9.9 4 Yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, with trace clay and gravel 126.8 10.2 TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear After Test ( %) (Pcf) (/o) (psf) Resistance (degrees) 4 114.7 9.8 1 555 35 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Before Test ( %) After Test ( %) 1 7.5 16.4 120.0 1 2 8.5 16.8 115.5 4 3 8.7 17.2 116.0 0 4 8.8 1 16.2 1 116.1 3 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 August 27, 1997 40 J 10 TABLE V SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Lot Numbers Sample at Finish Grade Expansion Index UBC Classification 12 through 14 4 3 Very Low 26 1 1 Very Low 27 through 30 3 0 Very Low 31 and 32 4 3 Very Low 33 through 37 3 0 Very Low 38 through 43 4 3 Very Low TABLE VI SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY Lot Numbers Recommended Foundation Category 12 through 14 I1 26 and 27 II 28 through 31 I 32 II 33 through 35 I 36 H 37 and 39 I 40 through 43 III 05799 -42 -01 August 27, 1997 GEOCON INCORPORATED Project No. 05799 -42 -01 October 24, 1997 D. R. Horton Incorporated -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullin GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS yi_t OCT 29 1997 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA ADDENDUM TO INTERIM REPORT DATED AUGUST 27, 1997 Reference: Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Pads 12 through 14 and 26 through 43 [for] Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 27, 1997. Gentlemen: QW) In accordance with your request, we have prepared this addendum to the above referenced report to include Lot No. 5 (Recreation Center) in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of the recreation building. Lot No. 5 is situated at the intersection of Bay Berry Place and Sugar Bush Place and adjacent to Pad Nos. 33 through 36. The recreation center area was excavated to grade (cut lot) and is underlain by dense Terrace Deposits. Laboratory expansion testing performed on the adjacent lots as well as the majority of the lots within the subdivision indicate that the materials within approximately 3 feet of finish grade consist of granular materials that possess a very low expansion potential as defined by UBC Table 18 -I -B. A small portion of the northeast comer of the lot was undercut due to expansive soils, however, it is our understanding that structural improvements will not be built in this area. Based on observations during the grading operations, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the grading for Lot 5 was performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report. The lot is considered suitable for support of the proposed recreation center. Based upon the As- Graded geotechnical conditions, we recommend that the recreation building be designed using the Category I foundation recommendations included in the report. In addition, we are providing the following recommendations for the concrete flatwork associated with the pool and hardscape. 1. It is recommended that concrete flatwork (i.e., sidewalks, hardscape and swimming pool decking) be at least 4 inches in thickness and reinforced with 6x6 -6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be positioned in the upper 1/3 of the slab. It has been our experience that the mesh must be pulled up into the slab during placement and that uniform placement of the mesh within 6960 Flonday Drive ■ Son Deep, CaGlomio 92121 2974 ■ Telephone (619( 558-6900 ■ Fax (619) 558 -6159 I� the slab is very difficult. As an alternative, No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both directions and placed at the slab midpoint may be used. 2. To control the occurrence of shrinkage cracks, it is recommended that crack control joints be placed at a maximum center to center spacing of 10 feet. The occurrence of cracking can also be reduced by limiting the slump of concrete and proper placement and curing. 3. Positive surface drainage should be provided such that surface runoff is directed to drainage swales and/or area drains or controlled drainage structures. 4. Consideration should be given to providing a thickened slab edge to provide a moisture cut -off where planter areas are located directly adjacent to the pool decking. In addition, landscape irrigation should be kept to a minimum to support the vegetation so as not to saturate the subgrade soils beneath the slab. This report is an addendum to the referenced interim report and should be used in conjunction with that report. The recommendations presented herein should be used with those in the report with respect to foundation design criteria. Should you have questions regarding this addendum, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCONINCORPORATED Jar GE 2176 DH:JLB:dmc (4 /del) Addr_ Project No. 05799 -42.01 -2- Dale Hamt CEG 1760 October 24, 1997 F r City Of Encinitas September 29, 1997 Mark G. Mullin D.R. Horton 1010 First St., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: WEST SAXONY GEOCON LETTER DATED 25 SEPT 97 OBSERVATION OF CUT SLOPE ADJACENT TO LOT 3; BALANCE AREA Gentlemen: The subject letter addresses an undocumented fill. The grading ordinance and the greenbook both establish procedures for the mitigation of this condition. There are no temporary slopes shown on the Grading Plan. Section 300 - 2.2.1, General, states, "Material that is unsuitable for its planned use shall be excavated and disposed of as directed by the Engineer." The undocumented fill site should be removed as unsuitable material. This remedial grading is required. If you have any questions, please call me at 633 -2778. Sincerely, G' re / ields, P.E. 9 Field Operations cc: Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services Jim Knowlton, Geopacifica TEL 619 - 633-2600 / FAX 619 -633- 2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 TDD 619 -633 -2700 recycled paper GEOCON I N C O A P O A A T E D GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 1% 1 2 5 s'k c c s1 -T44 (t..Eq- Project No. 05799 -42 -01 July 28, 1997 AUG 15 1997 D. R. Horton Incorporated - San Diego 1010 South Coast Highway 101, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullen Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING LOTS 15 THROUGH 25 Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization, we have provided engineering observation and compaction testing services during the mass grading of the subject site. This interim report has been prepared to verify that the subject lots were graded in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report and that fill soils placed on the lot were compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Upon completion of the mass grading operations, a final As- Graded report including an As- Graded Geologic Map will be prepared and submitted. Our services were provided during the period of June 23, 1997, through July 28, 1997, and included the following: • Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils, undocumented fills and alluvial soils within areas of planned grading. • Performing in -place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site. Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction, and expansion characteristics of various soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill. • Preparing this interim report of grading. 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -2974 ■ Telephone 16191 558 -6900 ■ Fax 16191 558 -6159 GENERAL The grading contractor for the project was Perry and Shaw Incorporated. The project plans were prepared by Hunsaker and Associates, San Diego Incorporated and are entitled Rough Grading Plans for Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area with City of Encinitas approval date June 16, 1997. The project soils report is entitled: Update Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Engineer of Record (for] Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation from the referenced Grading Plans. Geocon Incorporated did not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as- graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage. GRADING Grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded Topsoils, undocumented fill soils and alluvium were removed to firm natural ground (Terrace Deposits or Torrey Sandstone). Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. After removal of unsuitable materials, the overexcavations were observed by an engineer and/or engineering geologist to verify that all unsuitable materials had been removed. Fill soils derived from on -site excavations were then placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the on -site fill materials consist of fine to medium, silty sands. Debris that was encountered within the undocumented fill areas was removed during placement and hauled offsite. During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in -place density tests were performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in -place density tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D- 2922 -81 (nuclear). The results of the in -place dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table 1. In general, the in- place density test results indicate that the fill soil has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent at the locations tested. Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture- density relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557 -91), and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables II and III. Project No. 05799.42 -01 - 2 - July 28. 1997 Slopes In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, with maximum heights of approximately 18 and 27 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over - filled and cut back or were track- walked with a bulldozer during grading. All Slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slope. Finish Grade Soil Conditions During the grading operation, building pads which encountered clayey soils at grade were undercut approximately 3 feet and "capped" with granular soils. Similarly, our observations and test results indicate that granular s9ils were placed within the upper approximately 3 feet of finish grade on fill building pads. Based on laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough pad grade on each lot have an Expansion Index varying from 0 to 4 and are classified as having a very low expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18 -I -B. Table IV presents a summary of the indicated Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soil conditions for each of the subject lots. In addition to capping building pads as described above, the cut portion of those pads which contained a cut -fill transition within the building area was undercut approximately 3 feet below rough finish grade and replaced with properly compacted very low expansive fill soil. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those described in the project geotechnical report. The subject lots are underlain by compacted fill soils. The fill is underlain by dense to very dense Quaternary Terrace Deposits. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0. General 1.1. Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and Project No. 05799 -42.01 -3 - July 28, 1997 geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described herein. 2.0. Future Grading 2.1. Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. Grading plans for any future grading should be reviewed by Geocon Incorporated prior to finalizing. All trench backfill in excess of one -foot thick should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This office should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations. 3.0. Foundations 3.1. The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two -story residential struc- tures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on the following page. Table V presents the recommended Foundation Category for each lot. 3.2. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one -third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. 3.3. The use of isolated footings which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be con- nected to the building foundation system with grade beams. Project No. 05799 -42.01 - 4 - July 28, 1997 TABLE 3.1 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement (inches) I 12 One No. 4 bar top and bottom 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid -point 11 18 Two No. 4 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, both directions III 24 Two No. 5 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions CATEGORY CRITERIA Category 1: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50. Category [I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet. Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130. Notes: 1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. 2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgtade. 3. All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Category III. 4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category Il1) of clean sand or crushed rock. 5. All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean sand recommended in No. 4 above. 3.4. For Foundation Category III, the structural slab design should consider using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. Project No. 0579942 -01 . 5 . July 28, 1997 3.5. No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to main- tain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 3.6. Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recom- mended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. • For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. • Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance should be increased to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post- tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforce- ment. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined. • For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori- zontal: vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height. • Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions. • Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil move- ment without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. Project No. 05799 -42 -01 .6. July 28, 1997 TABLE 3.2 POST - TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS POST - TENSIONING INSTITUTE (PTf) DESIGN PARAMETERS FOUNDATION CATEGORY 1 11 III 1. Thomthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes 3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70% 4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in. /mo. 0.7 in. /mo. 0.7 in. /mo. 7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in. 9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in. 3.7. As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration should be given to the use of post- tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post - tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post- tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post - Tensioning Institute (UBC Standard No. 29 -4, Part 11). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post- tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled Post - Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated. 3.8. UBC Standard No. 29 -4 Part II uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design proce- dures. If the structural engineer proposes a post- tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Standard No. 29 -4, Part II, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches for Foundation Category 1. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad exceeds 50 but is less than 90, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 3.9. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of Project No. 05799 -42 -01 - 7 - July 28, 1997 varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs -on -grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re -entry slab corners occur. 4.0. Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 4.1. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to. 1.0, an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a I:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 4.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.0011-1 at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure. 4.3. All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 4.4. In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing Project No. 05799 -42.01 - 8 - July 28, 1997 pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. 4.5. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. 4.6. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib -type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 5.0. Slope Maintenance 5.1. Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recom- mended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. Project No. 05799.42 -01 - 9 - July 28, 1997 6.0. Drainage 6.1. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage'water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation, July 28, 1997. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term 'observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED JJAamfte'sBrown GE 2176 DH:JLB:slc (3) Addressee (3) Job Site Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms Dale CEG Project No. 05799 -42.01 - 10- July 28, 1997 Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test Plus No. - ----- ------ Date -- - ----- Test Location ---------------------- 1 06/24/97 PVT DR I E PAD 4 2 06/24/97 PAD 46 3 06/24/97 PAD 45 4 06/24/97 PAD 44 5 06/25/97 PAD 44 6 06/25/97 PAD N PAD 46 7 06/25/97 PAD 45 8 06/25/97 PAD 46 8A 06/25/97 PAD 46 9 06/26/97 SLOPE W PAD 41 10 06/26/97 ACCESS RD NW LOT 2 11 06/26/97 SLOPE W PAD 41 12 06/26/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 13 06/26/97 PAD 43 14 06/26/97 PAD 42 15 06/26/97 PAD 41 16 06/27/97 SLOPE W LOT 2 17 06/27/97 LOT 2 18 06/27/97 PAD 40 19 06/27/97 SLOPE S PAD 43 20 06/27/97 PAD 43 21 06/27/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 22 06/27/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 23 06/27/97 PAD 41 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) ----- No. - - - -- (8) - - - - -- (pcf) --- --- (B) - - - --- (pcf) ---- -- ( %) ------ ( %) -- - --- (8) ------ 137 3 0 127.8 9'.9 117.4 9.4 92 90 139 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 8.0 90 90 135 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.3 9.6 91 90 137 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 8.3 91 90 136 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 8.2 93 90 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 8.8 92 90 139 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.6 9.8 92 90 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 7.1 91 90 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 11.3 92 90 152 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.0 10.1 90 90 151 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.6 12.4 92 90 152 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 12.9 90 90 154 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.2 10.4 92 90 150 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.7 9.5 94 90 152 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 8.9 92 90 155 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.7 9.9 91 90 147 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.0 13.9 91 90 149 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 9.1 92 90 152 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.1 10.0 93 90 153 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 12.8 92 90 155 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 11.1 93 90 156 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 9.3 91 90 119 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.9 11.2 94 90 153 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.1 9.6 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (C) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Hoist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. - ---- ------ Date -- - - ---- Test Location -------- --------- - ---- (ft) ----- No. - - - -- (9) ------ (pcf) - - - --- ( %) ---- -- (pcf) -- - - -- (e) -- - - -- (8) ---- -- ( %) ------ 24 06/27/97 PAD 42 155 3 0 127.8 9'.9 117.9 11.8 92 90 25 06/27/97 LOT 2 151 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.2 12.1 93 90 26 06/27/97 LOT 2 153 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.1 11.9 92 90 27 06/30/97 PAD 2 118 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 11.9 92 90 28 06/30/97 ACCESS RD SE PAD 1 119 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.8 8.8 91 90 29 06/30/97 S END PVT DR I 123 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 11.8 93 90 30 06/30/97 PAD 1 120 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.1 9.0 92 90 31 06/30/97 SLOPE HE LOT 3 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 120.5 10.6 94 90 32 06/30/97 ACCESS RD S PAD 1 127 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 10.7 91 90 33 06/30/97 PAD 1 122 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.0 13.2 91 90 34 06/30/97 SLOPE HE LOT 3 128 2 0 123.0 10.1 113.9 10.0 93 90 35 06/30/97 ACCESS RD SW PAD 44 129 3 0 127.8 9.9 112.3 8.9 88 90 35A 06/30/97 ACCESS RD SW PAD 44 129 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.2 9.8 90 90 36 06/30/97 PAD 1 125 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.8 13.9 92 90 37 06/30/97 SLOPE W PAD 2 128 2 0 123.0 10.1 113.3 12.5 92 90 38 06/30/97 PAD 2 131 2 0 123.0 10.1 110.8 13.2 90 90 39 06/30/97 E LOT 3 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 112.8 11.1 88 90 39A 07/22/97 E LOT 3 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.7 10.6 93 90 40 07/02/97 SLOPE W PAD 40 157 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 12.6 92 90 41 07/02/97 PAD 41 159 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 10.3 91 90 42 07/02/97 PAD 43 161 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 11.9 93 90 43 07/02/97 PAD 42 163 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.4 12.5 92 90 44 07/02/97 PAD 40 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 11.2 91 90 45 07/02/97 PAD 41 164 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 12.2 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) Test No. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 65A 66 66A 67 Date 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/02/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/03/97 07/07/97 07/07/97 07/07/97 07/07/97 07/07/97 07/07/97 07/07/97 Test Location --------------- --- PAD 43 SLOPE S PAD 43 PAD 1 PAD 2 PAD 3 SLOPE W PAD 40 ACCESS RD PAD 43 PAD 40 PAD 43 PAD 3 PAD 1 LOT 4 PAD 3 PAD 2 LOT 4 LOT 4 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 41 LOT 41 LOT 43 LOT 43 LOT 7 TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) ----- No. --- -- ( %) - - ---- (pcf) --- --- (a) -- - - -- (pcf) ---- -- ( %) ------ ( %) ---- -- (8) - - ---- 159 3 0 127.8 919 114.9 12.7 90 90 161 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 14.2 91 90 131 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 13.5 92 90 133 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 12.0 92 90 130 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.8 12.9 91 90 158 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 12.9 93 90 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.4 11.1 93 90 163 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.3 11.1 93 90 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 120.2 11.0 94 90 132 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.5 12.0 93 90 134 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 12.5 92 90 106 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 10.7 91 90 133 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.1 10.9 93 90 135 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.7 13.7 91 90 108 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.9 10.4 90 90 111 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 10.2 91 90 113 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.0 9.6 90 90 100 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.8 9.7 93 90 115 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.5 11.5 93 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 111.0 7.9 87 • 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.3 10.8 92 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 110.4 7.8 86 90 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.5 10.9 91 90 108 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.1 9.8 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (C) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test Plus No. ------ -- - --- Date -- - -- - -- Test Location ---------------------- 68 07/07/97 P/L LOTS 4 & 5 69 07/08/97 PAD 1 70 07/08/97 PAD 4 71 07/08/97 PAD 3 72 07/08/97 SLOPE W PAD 1 73 07/08/97 PAD 5 74 07/08/97 PAD 4 75 07/08/97 PAD 2 76 07/08/97 PAD 5 77 07/08/97 PAD 3 78 07/08/97 PAD 5 79 07/08/97 PAD 42 80 07/08/97 PVT DR E OPP PAD 41 81 07/09/97 PAD 42 82 07/09/97 SLOPE W PAD 43 83 07/09/97 OS N PAD 46 84 07/09/97 PAD 2 85 07/09/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 86 07/09/97 SLOPE NE LOT 3 87 07/09/97 PAD 6 88 07/09/97 PAD 4 89 07/10/97 SLOPE S LOT 2 90 07/10/97 LOT 2 91 07/10/97 PAD 41 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) - - - -- No. - ---- (8) -- - - -- (pcf) ---- -- (S) - ----- (pcf) --- - -- (8) ------ (8) - - -- -- (8) --- --- 113 3 0 127.8 9'.9 115.3 9.7 90 90 136 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 11.8 93 90 137 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 12.3 92 90 139 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.5 9.5 91 90 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 10.8 93 90 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.4 11.5 91 90 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.3 9.4 90 90 138 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 11.0 92 90 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.6 9.7 91 90 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.7 10.4 90 90 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.7 12.0 90 90 166 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 9.5 93 90 164 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 9.6 92 90 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 11.3 91 90 165 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 9.7 93 90 143 2 0 123.0 10.1 112.6 11.5 92 90 140 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 9.6 92 90 142 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 10.2 93 90 144 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 9.3 92 90 143 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 12.7 92 90 145 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.3 11.9 91 90 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 10.4 93 90 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 10.4 93 90 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 9.6 91 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. ----------- Date -------- Test Location -------- -------------- (ft) ----- No. - ---- (i) ---- -- (pcf) - - - - -- M - - ---- (pcf) ---- -- (8) ---- -- (8) -- ---- (8) -- -- -- 92 07/10/97 PAD 40 170 3 0 127.8 90 119.6 12.9 94 90 93 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 6 116 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.9 9.6 91 90 94 07/10/97 LOT 4 117 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.0 9.6 92 90 95 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 4 118 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.9 9.5 91 90 96 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 7 119 3 0. 127.8 9.9 118.0 10.0 92 90 97 07/10/97 SLOPE W PAD 8 122 4 0 126.8 10.2 111.2 7.6 88 90 97A 07/15/97 SLOPE W PAD 8 122 4 0 126.8 10.2 119.0 11.6 94 90 98 07/10/97 LOT 4 120 4 0 126.8 10.2 114.2 12.4 90 90 99 07/10/97 PAD 24 170 3 0 127.8 9.9 111.0 7.7 87 90 99A 07/10/97 PAD 24 170 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 10.0 93 90 100 07/10/97 PAD 26 162 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.0 9.0 92 90 101 07/11/97 PAD 24 172 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.2 10.4 92 90 102 07/11/97 PVT DR A S PAD 26 164 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.7 10.0 91 90 103 07/14/97 PAD 23 173 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.1 9.9 92 90 104 07/14/97 PAD 26 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 11.5 93 90 105 07/14/97 PAD 25 173 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.3 14.7 92 90 106 07/14/97 PVT DR C OPP PAD 26 165 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.6 9.6 91 90 107 07/14/97 PAD 24 174 4 0 126.8 10.2 113.9 14.6 90 90 108 07/14/97 PVT DR C OPP PAD 26 168 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.1 14.4 91 90 109 07/15/97 PAD 25 176 4 0 126.8 10.2 113.9 14.7 90 90 110 07/15/97 PAD 27 171 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 9.7 93 90 111 07/15/97 PAD 43 169 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 9.2 92 90 112 07/15/97 PAD 41 169 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 9.4 93 90 113 07/15/97 SLOPE E PAD 26 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 • 118.9 9.4 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. No. -- -- ------ -- Date - ------- Test Location ---------------- ------ (ft) ----- No. - ---- M ------ (pcf) ------ W ------ (pcf) ------ (8) - -- --- (8) ------ (8) ------ 114 07/15/97 SLOPE E PAD 23 180 3 0 127.8 9'.9 115.8 8.9 91 90 115 07/16/97 PAD 36 173 4 0 126.8 10.2 116.1 13.9 92 90 116 07/16/97 PAD 26 177 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.4 9.8 93 90 117 07/16/97 PVT DR E OPP PAD 40 169 4 0 126.8 10.2 115.5 13.3 91 90 118 07/16/97 PVT DR E OPP PAD 43 167 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 10.8 93 90 119 07/16/97 SLOPE W LOT 4 122 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.3 13.0 91 90 120 07/16/97 SLOPE W PAD 6 121 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 9.4 93 90 121 07/17/97 PAD 32 168 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.9 11.5 93 90 122 07/17/97 PAD 39 169 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.7 9.7 94 90 123 07/17/97 LOT 4 125 2 0 123.0 10.1 116.0 14.0 94 90 124 07/17/97 SLOPE W PAD 5 123 2 0 123.0 10.1 114.8 9.9 93 90 125 07/17/97 SLOPE W PAD 3 125 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.2 10.3 92 90 126 07/17/97 LOT 4 128 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.7 10.1 91 90 127 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 13 159 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.9 13.3 92 90 128 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 14 164 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.6 11.4 90 90 129 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 12 168 2 0 123.0 10.1 114.1 13.6 93 90 130 07/18/97 SLOPE W PAD 13 166 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.6 13.6 91 90 131 07/18/97 PADS 18/19 178 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 9.3 93 90 132 07/21/97 PAD 13 172 2 0 123.0 10.1 110.3 14.7 90 90 133 07/21/97 PAD 14 174 2 0 123.0 10.1 115.8 13.6 94 90 134 07/21/97 PAD 5 129 1 0 115.8 14.6 110.2 16.4 95 90 135 07/21/97 PAD 3 131 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.6 9.3 93 90 136 07/22/97 PADS 20/21 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 121.1 11.0 95 90 FG 137 07/22/97 PAD 22 181 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.1 10.1 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. ------ No. ------ Date -------- Test - ------ --------------- Location (ft) --- -- No. - -- -- 0) -- -- -- (pcf) ------ (i) - ----- (pcf) ------ (8) ------ (8) - - - --- (8) - - -- -- ST 138 07/22/97 SLOPE PAD 22 183 3 0 127.8 9'.9 117.5 9.9 92 90 ST 139 07/22/97 SLOPE PAD 42 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 109.4 10.4 86 90 ST 139A 07/22/97 SLOPE PAD 42 160 3 0 127.8 9.9 115.8 10.1 91 90 ST 140 07/24/97 SLOPE LOT 24 183 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.5 10.4 90 90 ST 141 07/24/97 SLOPE PAD 26 182 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.6 9.1 92 90 FG 142 07/24/97 LOT 23 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 9.3 93 90 FG 143 07/24/97 LOT 24 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.6 12.4 92 90 FG 144 07/24/97 LOT 25 178 3 0 127.8 9.9 118.3 8.6 93 90 FG 145 07/24/97 LOT 26 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 111.3 9.0 87 90 FG 146 07/25/97 LOT 19 180 3 0 127.8 9.9 119.8 9.3 94 90 FG 147 07/27/97 LOT 18 179 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.3 9.7 92 90 148 07/28/97 PVT DRIVE B S/O LT21 182 2 0 123.0 10.1 108.5 7.4 88 90 148A• 07/28/97 PVT DR B S/0 LOT 21 182 2 0 123.0 10.1 111.1 14.1 90 90 149 07/28/97 PVT DR B N/0 LOT 22 183 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.8 9.7 92 90 FG 150 07/28/97 LOT 20 182 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.1 8.9 91 90 FG 151 07/28/97 LOT 21 181 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.9 9.3 90 90 FG 152 07/28/97 LOT 12 175 3 0 127.8 9.9 117.5 8.9 92 90 FG 153 07/28/97 LOT 13 176 3 0 127.8 9.9 114.8 7.7 90 90 FG 154 07/28/97 LOT 14 176 3 0 127.8 9.9 116.5 7.7 91 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05799 -42 -01 (G) EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and /or recompactfon. R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS AD - Area Drain JT - Joint Trench ST - Slope Test B - Base Test MT - Moisture Test SW - Sidewalk CG - Curb & Cutter RW - Retaining Wall SZ - Slope Zone CW - Crib Wall SD - Storm Drain UT - Utility Trench DW - Driveway SG - Subgrade WB - Wall Backfill FG - Finish Grade SL - Sewer Lateral WL - Water Lateral IT - Irrigation Trench SM - Sewer Main WM - Water Main - CURVE NO. Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory maximum dry density /optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. - ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values. TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test NU: Nuclear Density Test DC: Drive Cylinder Test ELEVATION /DEPTH Test elevations /depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot. TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 -91 Sample Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture No. Aker Test ( %) Density (pct) Content (% dry wt.) 1 Yellowish- brown„ fine to medium Silty 115.8 14.6 8.5 SAND 115.5 4 2 Orange - brown, fine to coarse Silty SAND 123.0 10.1 3 Dark brown, fine to medium SAND with 8.8 16.2 116.1 trace gravel 127.8 9.9 4 Yellowish brown, fine to medium, Silty SAND with trace clay and gravel 126.8 10.2 TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pct) Expansion Index Before Test ( %) Aker Test ( %) 1 7.5 16.4 120.0 1 2 8.5 16.8 115.5 4 3 8.7 17.2 116.0 0 4 8.8 16.2 116.1 3 Project No. 0579942 -01 Iuly 28. 1997 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Lot Numbers Sample at Finish Grade Expansion Index UBC Classification 15 through 21 2 4 Very Low 22 through 25 1 1 Very Low TABLE V SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY Lot Numbers Recommended Foundation Category 15 through 25 1 Project No. 05799 -42.01 July 28, 1997 AffPOUAI. L11-1 Le) Onl RESOLUTION NO. PC -97 -17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP, DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 14 ACRE SITE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF FORTY -SIX TRIPLEX RESIDENCES FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA OF THE ENCINITAS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (APN: 256- 330 -42 through 47; CASE NO. 96-170 TM/DR/CDP/EIA) WHEREAS, an application for consideration of a Tentative Map to create five lots, Design Review Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of forty-six triplex structures for 138 condominitun units was filed by Marc Perlman / D.R. Horton Custom Homes for properties located within the West Saxony Planning Area of the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan, and legally described as: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. SHOWN AS PARCELS A THROUGH E IN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED JUNE 17, 1996 AS FILE NO. 1996 - 0301072 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. WHEREAS. a public hearing was conducted by the Planting Commission on February 27, 1997 and continued to March 27, 1997 and all those desiring to speak did speak: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered. without limitation: The Agenda Reports for the February 27 and March 27, 1997 meetings; 2. The General Plan, Zoning Code, Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan Local Coastal Program, and associated Land Use Maps; 3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing by staff, by the applicant and by the public; 4. Written evidence submitted with the application and at the public hearing; and 5. The application and supporting material dated received by the City on September 20, 1996; and the Tentative Map and design plans dated received by the City on January 31, 1997. Said Tentative Map and design plans consisting of 14 sheets, including: (1) Sheet 1 of 2 of the Tentative Map and Design Review Permit; (2) cd1=096.170pc2.doc(3- 27 -97) Sheet 2 of 2 of the Tentative Map and Design Review Permit: (3 through 7) Sheets 1 through 5 of the Landscape Preliminary Plans: (8) Sheet Al -1 of the first and second floor plans; (9 through 14) Sheets 1 through 6 of the Elevation Drawings. Design changes pursuant to the Commission Sub - Committee meeting of March 17. 1997 resulted in revisions to the following 12 sheets dated received by the City on March 20, 1997: (1) First / Second Floor Plans (Sheet Al -1); (2) Landscape Preliminary Plan (Site Plan: Sheet 1 of 5); (3) Landscape Plan of Entry and Recreation Center, Unit Entry, and Active Recreation Area with Wood Trellis Elevation Drawing (Sheet 2 of 5); (4) Landscape Plan of Project Entry Elevation (Sheet 3 of 5); (5) Typical Internal Streetscape Elements (Sheet 4 of 5); (6) Typical Parking Area Screening and Wood Trellis Detail (Sheet 5 of 5); (7) Elevation Drawings: Type A (Sheet 1); (8) Elevation Drawings: Type B (Sheet 2); (9) Elevation Drawings: Type C (Sheet 3); (10) Elevation Drawings: Type D (Sheet 4); (11) Enhanced Exterior Elevation Details (Sheet 5); and (12) Enhanced Exterior Elevation Details (Sheet 6). In addition, the color and material boards for five color schemes along with two color elevation drawings of four typical front building elevations, three computer generated topographical models, one site sectional drawing showing the proposed grading from north to south and from east to west, and one sheet of the site plan indicating open space and parking areas. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Chapters 23.08 (Design Review), 24.01 (Subdivisions), and 30.08 (Coastal Development Permits) of the Encinitas Municipal Code: (SEE EXHIBIT "2 ") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Encinitas that application No. 96 -170 TM/DR/CDP/EIA is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Approval of this Tentative Map shall be consistent with the terms. conditions, and time frames established pursuant to the Development Agreement approved by the City Council on September 28. 1994 as Ordinance No. 94 -19 and recorded by the San Diego County Recorders Office as Document No. 1994-0713677 on December 14, 1994. The project is approved as submitted and revised by the Planning Commission as evidenced by revised plans dated received by the City on January 31 and March 20, 1997 (as described above) and shall not be altered without City approval or as conditioned herein. 2. This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days from the date of this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code. 3. The Tentative Map shall be valid for three years from the effective date of this approval (to March 27, 2000), during which time a Final Map shall be recorded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director: or cd/mif 196.170pc2. doc(3- 27 -97) as an extension of time may be granted pursuant to the Municipal Code. A Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of common landscaped areas. the recreation areas. entry area facilities. and private streets. Approval of any structural modifications of the living units, changes to approved colors or building materials. and/or plans for the construction of accessory structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Homeowners Association prior to the plans being submitted to the City for review. 4. A "Coastal Housing Replacement Plan' shall be implemented for those residents Nlq who qualify as moderate to low income household and may be displaced by the implementation of the approved project consistent with the Housing Sub - Committee plan for the Encinitas Ranch. 5. The project is subject to Chapter 23.26 of the Municipal Code, which requires a o); landscape and irrigation plan to be prepared by a State licensed landscape designer. The requirements for the plans are listed in Chapter 23.26. The landscape and irrigation plans must be submitted as part of the building permit application for the project. 6. For new residential dwelling unit(s), the property owner. /developer shall pay was s T development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but shall not be a Dh, limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees and Park Fees. Any fee credits shall be determined pursuant to applicable ordinances. Fee credits for Park Fees shall be pursuant to Section 3.3.2.1 of the Development Agreement. Pursuant to Section 3.3.1 of the Development Agreement, the City reserves the right to create new categories of Development Impact Fees and the right to increase or modify any and all Development Impact Fees (Section 33 of the Development Agreement). .Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. B. SITEDEVELOPMENT: The property owner /developer shall contact the Community Development Department regarding compliance with the following conditions: Prior to Building Permit issuance, a plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development and the Encinitas Fire Department regarding the treatment of the site during the construction phase. the circulation and parking of construction workers' vehicles and any heavy equipment needed for the construction of the project. and the mitigation of potential impacts the construction may pose to surrounding uses. 2. All required landscape plantings shall be in place prior to use or occupancy of new buildings or structures. All required plantings and automated irrigation systems shall be maintained in good growing and working condition and, whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new plant materials or irrigation parts to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering, and screening requirements. All landscaping and irrigation systems shall be maintained in a cd/cro/%i96.170pc2.doc(3.27 -97) manner that will not depreciate adjacent property values and otherwise adversely affect adjacent properties. All irrigation pipes shall be located underground except for drip irrigation systems. All "tree diamonds" shall be defined by standard six inch concrete curbs and shall have a minimum inside clear planting area of four feet and shall be provided with brick on sand treatment around the base of each tree. The Finger planters shall be a minimum of six feet when measured from outside curb face to outside curb face. A 12 inch concrete strip shall be provided along the inside face of the curb where the finger planting abuts a parking stall. Prior to final occupancy of the first dwelling unit, landscaping shall be installed within adjacent parking areas and within the 30 to 40 -foot landscape buffer along Saxony Road in front of both the mixed -use area of the site and the residential portion of the site. The landscaping in the buffer area in front of the mixed use portion of the site shall be consistent with the landscaping in front of the residential portion of the site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Twenty 15 gallon eucalyptus trees shall be added to the number shown on sheet I of 5 of Landscape Preliminary Plan dated received by City of Encinitas on March 20. 1997. 3. All exterior lights within the su ivision and in landscaped areas shall be provided with shields to prevent light glare from being visible above the horizontal plane of the bottom of the light source. Wood trellis structures shall be constructed at the entry doorway(s) to each unit, including end unit entries, as indicated on the approved plans. H �O � 5� cL . !, (9 VA L Lv� 6. 7 Property owners shall agree to preserve and save harmless the City of Encinitas and each officer and employee thereof from any accident, loss, or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as the proximate result of any of the work undertaken to complete this project, and that all of said liabilities are hereby assumed by the property owner. All garages shall be maintained for vehicular parking and shall not be converted to use for storage. additional living area, on any other use which would preclude their use for parking. Garage doors shall be provided with automated garage door openers. Conversion of the garage areas to another use and the parking of resident's RVs, boats, trailers, and/or commercial vehicles along Saxony Road shall be prohibited pursuant to the Covenants. Codes and Restrictions (CC &Rs) for the subdivision. The mix of exterior building treatments and color schemes shall be randomly distributed throughout the residential development so that no two exterior building designs or color schemes are located directly adjacent to each other or directly across the street from one another. The minimum distance between structures shall be 12 feet except between buildings 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4. 4 and 5, 6 and 7. 7 and 8. and 8 and 9 which shall be a minimum distance of 10 feet. Prior to permit issuance, any project signing shall receive design approvals a, required under Chapters 30.60 and 23.08 of the Municipal Code. cd/aa [i96- 170pc2.dm(3- 27 -97) S. This project shall be subject to all development limitations on the phased development of Encinitas Ranch set forth in the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan. At the time of project implementation, no building permits shall be issued for development which exceeds square footage, traffic generation, or other applicable limitations set forth in the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan at that time. 9. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the property owner shall cause to be recorded a standard form Covenant. acceptable to the Community Development Director, which records this Resolution of Approval and conditions herein. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: The property owner/ developer shall contact the Fire Department regarding compliance with the following conditions: ACCESS ROADWAYS: Fire apparatus access roadways shall have an unobstructed paved width of not less than twenty -four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. A roadway providing access to a single family residence shall not be less than sixteen (16) feet in paved width. EXCEPTION: With automatic sprinkler systems installed, a fire access road providing access to not more than three single family dwellings shall not be less than 16 feet in paved width with an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. 2. TURNAROUNDS: All dead -end fire access roadways in excess of 150 feet in length or serving four (4) or more dwelling units shall be provided with a cul -de -sac. Streets constructed to private road standards where a turnaround is required shall have a cul -de -sac with a paved radius of not less than 36 feet. Cut -de -sacs serving commercial lots within the subdivision shall comply with city road standards. Alternate types of turnarounds may be considered by the Fire Chief as needed to accomplish the purpose of the Fire Code. 3. GATES: All automatic gates across fire access roads shall be equipped with a fire department approved emergency key operated switch that will override ail command functions and open the gate. The entry gate shall be equipped with emergency traffic control activating strobe sensor(s) which will activate and open the gate upon the approach of emergency apparatus. All automatic gates shall be tested and approved by the Fire Department prior to their being left in the closed position. Plans for all access gates shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau of the City of Encinitas Fire Department for approval. 4. RESPONSE MAPS: Any development that by virtue of new structures necessitates fire hydrants. roadways, or similar features. shall be required to provide a map in a format compatible with current Department mapping services. and shall be charged a reasonable fee for updating all Fire Department response maps. 5. COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS: Prior to delivery of combustible building materials on the project site, water and sewer systems shall satisfactorily pass all required tests and be connected to the public water and sewer systems. In addition. cd/ccro/r/96.170pc2.d «13 -27 -971 the first lift of asphalt paving shall be in place to provide a permanent all weather access for emergency vehicles. Said access shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 6. OBSTRUCTIONS: All traffic roadways shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) feet wide and shall be maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Emergency access roadways, when required. shall be properly identified with signs pursuant to Fire Department standards. 7. FIRE HYDRANTS AND FLOWS: The property owner /developer shall submit a letter from the Encinitas Fire Department to the Community Development Department stating satisfaction with the type, number and location of fire hydrants. A letter from the water agency serving the area shall be provided to the Fire Department which states that the required fire flow is available. Fire hydrants shall be of a bronze type. A two -sided blue reflective road marker shall be installed on the road surface to indicate the location of the fire hydrant for approaching fire apparatus. 8. ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of numbers shall conform to Fire Department standards. Note: Where structures are located off a roadway on long driveways, a monument marker shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent address numbers shall be affixed to this marker. 9. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS: Structures shall be protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems installed to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Department. 10. FEES: Prior to Final Map recordation. the property owner /developer shall submit to the Community Development Department a letter from the Fire Department stating that all development impact. plan check and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. D. ENGINEERING: The property owner /developer shall contact the City Engineering Department regarding compliance with the following conditions: Grading Conditions: 1. All city Codes. Regulations, and policies in effect at the time of Tentative Map approval shall apply. The property owner /developer shall obtain a Grading Permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. The grading of this project is defined in Chapter 23.24 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. Grading shall be performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to ensure compliance of the work with the approved grading plan, submit required reports to the City Engineer, and to verify compliance with Chapter 23.24 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. cd4ro/f./96.170pc2.doc(3- 27 -97) 2. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the subdivision unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. 3. All newly created slopes within this project shall be no steeper than 2:1 4. A soils /geological/hydraulic report (as applicable) shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Such report shall be submitted prior to Final Map approval or as may be required by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project, the property owner /developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the purpose of the haul route. The property owner /developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. Drainage Conditions: 6. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any offsite siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall be shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other grading operations. The developer shall maintain the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer. 7. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water originating within the subdivision, and all surface water that may flow onto the subdivision from adjacent lands. shall be required. Said drainage system shall include any casements-and structures as required by the City Engineer to properly handle the drainage. 8. The property owner /developer shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the Final Map for this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with the Master Drainage Plan and City of Encinitas standards as required by the City Engineer. 9. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks shall not be permitted. Street Conditions: 10. A registered Civil Engineer or a licensed land surveyor shall provide a signed statement that: "The existing private roads of access to the project are within the easement for the benefit of the land division." cd/cm /f:/96- 170pc2.dm(3- 27 -97) 11. The property owner /developer shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the Tentative Map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the Final Map for this project. All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. 12. Five (5) feet shall be dedicated by the property owner /developer along the subdivision frontage to Saxony Road based upon a center line to right -of -way width of 30 feet and in conformance with City of Encinitas standards. 13. Reciprocal access and/or maintenance agreements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives or parking areas and maintenance thereof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 14. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, a right -of -way construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers office and appropriate fees paid, in addition to any other permits required. 15. Plans, specifications, and supporting documents for all improvements shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Subdivider shall install, or agree to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, improvements shown on the Tentative Map and the following improvements to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: Along the Saxony Road frontage provide 20 feet of AC Pavement, PCC Curb and Gutter, and a PCC Sidewalk. 16. The design of all private streets and drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map for this project. The structural section of all private streets shall conform to City of Encinitas standards based on R -value tests. The standard improvement plan check deposit is required. Utilities: 17. The property ownerideveloper shall comply with all the rules. regulations and design requirements of the respective utility agencies regarding services to the project. 18. The property owner /developer shall be responsible for coordination with SDG &E, Pacific Telephone, and all other utility agencies. 19. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including existing utilities unless exempt by the Municipal Code. 20. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required. cm =,v9e -1 70a2.d «o- 27 -97t map 21. This project will be approved specifically as 1 (single) phase. E. SAN DIF UITO WATER DISTRICT: The property owner /developer shall contact the San Dieguito Water District regarding compliance with the following conditions: The subject property is currently being served by two water meters (5/8" and 2 "). The property owner /developer may wish to down size the two inch meter and apply the capacity credit toward other meters. If the owner elects to do so, this must be accomplished prior to Final Map recordation. 2. The plans and specifications for the installation of a water system to serve the project with public water must be approved by the San Dieguito Water District prior to Final Map recordation. 3. The property owner /developer shall install the water system according to San Dieguito Water District Standards, and dedicate to the District the portion of the water system which is to be public water. 4. The property owner /developer will be required to enter into a secured agreement with the San Dieguito Water District prior to Final Map recordation. 5. The property owner shall dedicate to San Dieguito Water District all necessary easements for that portion of the water system which is to be public. 6. The property owner /developer will be required to show all existing and proposed water facilities on Improvement Plans. 7. The property owner /developer is required to comply with the District's fees, charges, rules and regulations, including installation of any required on -site and off- site facilities. 8. The property at 440 Saxony Road (immediately north of the project) is currently served by a three inch PVC line located at the north end of the proposed project. To complete all improvements, this line will need to be removed. The property owner /developer is required to provide for service to the property. 9. The District anticipates serving reclaimed water to customers in approximately two years. A reclaimed water main will be installed at Saxony Road. District Ordinance No. 94 -01 states that the use of potable water on landscape areas may be deemed an unreasonable use where reclaimed water is available. Therefore, this project will be required to utilize reclaimed water when it becomes available. The owner is required to install landscape irrigation to reclaimed water standards. cdJ= /f X96- 170pc2.d «(3- 27 -97) F. BUILDING DIVISION: The property owner /developer shall contact the Building Division regarding compliance with the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division for plancheck processing. The submittal shall include a Soils/Geotechnical Report, Structural calculations, and State Energy compliance documentation (Title 24). Construction plans shall include a site plan, a foundation plan, a floor framing plan. a floor plan, section details, exterior elevations, and materials specifications. Submitted plans must show compliance with the latest adopted editions of the California Building Code (The Uniform Building Code with California Amendments, the California Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Code). Commercial and multi - residential construction must also contain details and notes to show compliance with State disabled accessibility mandates. These comments are preliminary only. A comprehensive plancheck will be completed prior to permit issuance and additional technical code requirements may be identified and changes to the originally submitted plans may be required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an Environmental Initial Assessment (EIA) has been conducted for the proposed project and it has been determined that all project impacts have been adequately analyzed in the Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and environmental impacts have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that documentation and/or have been addressed by adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The mitigation measures identified in the program EIR have been included in this Resolution as Exhibit "I." This project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code and, therefore, a Certificate of Fee Exemption shall be made with De Minimis Impact Findings. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Bagg, Jacobson. Lanham. Patton, Wells NAYS: none 0 7021== Alice Jacobson, Chair Planning Commis 6n. "n. City of Encinitas ATTEST: Sandra L. Holder Secretary cdloro/C196- 170pc2.dog3- 27 -97) Resource Issue Impact Checklist lssuea and Supporting Information Sources I Potentially I Potentially I Leas Than I No Significant significant significant Eruct Impact Unless Fact Mitigation I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source# (s) :I) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? (1) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ill EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Consistent with General Plan and Specific Plan designation and zone classification. b) Generally consistent with APCD State Implementation Plan and Regional Air Quality Strategy; consistent with SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan; consistent with NCCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. c) Possible conflicts with existing adjacent rural residential and greenhouse agricultural use to the north and northwest and field sport recreational use to the south. Mitigation by Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan General Planning Standards Landscape buffers, edge conditions, and buffer /screen landscape treatments; mitigation by project 15 foot landscape buffer /screen treatment and location of mixed use. d) Possible conflicts with existing adjacent greenhouse agricultural use to the north and northwest. Mitigation by Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan General Planning Standards Landscape buffers, edge conditions, and buffer /screen landscape treatments; mitigation by project 15 foot landscape buffer /screen treatment. e) Possible conflicts with existing adjacent rural residential and greenhouse agricultural use to the north and northwest and field sport recreational use to the south. Mitigation by Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan General Planning standards Landscape buffers, edge conditions, and buffer /screen landscape treatments; mitigation by project 15 foot landscape buffer /screen treatment and location of mixed use. w H Issues and supporting Information sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than significant Impact No In¢>act II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: , a) cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1) X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly? (1) X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housin ?(1) I X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) An increment of additional population growth over that anticipated for General Plan 1986 buildout by 1.5 percent or less. b) Population and /or economic growth in the vicinity and larger community induced by traffic circulation system improvements, removal of existing land use conflicts, utility system improvements and extensions, and provision of additional housing and goods and services. Mitigation by tncinitae Ranch specific Plan Public Facilities Assessment District and Development Agreement; controlled by General Plan growth management program. c) Short-term displacement of four single family dwellings. Long -term provision of 141 multi - family dwelling units. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (1,2) _• b) Seismic ground shaking? (1,2) x c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2) X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1,2) .. e) Landslides or mudflows? (1,2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1,2) X g) Subsidence of the land? (1,2) .. h) Expansive soils? (1,2) .. I) Unique geologic or physical features? (1) .. EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) No onsite faults and distant from offsite faults. b) Structural failure or collapse unlikely with construction building code compliance; possible structural heavy cosmetic damage. c) Exposure to settlement of alluvium and uncompacted fills. Mitigation by implementation of comprehensive geotechnieal investigation reeounnendations as follows: earthwork oonstruction, site drainage, foundation criteria, interior on -grade slabs, exterior slabs, earth retaining structures, pavements, and reactive soils. d) Not near inland body of water or coastal shoreline and no exposure to seiches, or tsunamis; not near any active or inactive volcanos. e) No onsite landslides and distant from offsite landslides; onsite geologic formations not prone to landslides or mudslides. f) Exposure to erosion of exposed soils and settlement of alluvium and uncompacted fills. Mitigation by implementation of oomprehensiw geotechnical investigation recommendations as follows: earthwork construction, site drainage, foundation criteria, interior on -grade slabs, exterior slabs, earth retaining structures, pav nts, and reactive soils; mitigation by project erosion control landscaping. g) onsite geologic formations not prone to subsidence. h) onsite soils not prone to expansion. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Lesa Than significant Impact No Impact Iv. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1,5) x b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1,5) x c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality? (1,5) x d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1,5) x e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1,5) x f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (1,5) x g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (1,5) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1,5) x I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for Public water supplies? (1) x EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Minor reduced infiltration; diversion of natural runoff into storm drains; an increment of increased runoff peak flow in tributary basin. Controlled by existing adequate offsite storm drain system; mitigation by project storm drain aysten. b) Not within a floodplain; controlled by onsite and offsite storm drain systems. c) Elimination of agricultural pollutant and sediment sources in tributary basin; minimal new urban pollutant and sediment sources in tributary basin. Mitigation by project storm drain system; mitigation by project erosion control landscaping. d) Minor increased runoff peak flow in tributary basin; negligible increase in surface storm runoff into Pacific Ocean. controlled by existing adequate offsite storm drain system; mitigation by project storm drain system. e) Diversion of site natural runoff into project storm drain system. Controlled by connection to existing adequate offsite storm drain system. f) Minor reduced infiltration; no interception of an aquifer. g) No caused alteration in direction or flow of groundwater. h) Reduced infiltration and no, or negligible new urban pollutants in groundwater. Controlled by project landscaping. I Pro'ect not dependent on groundwater. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1) x b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1) X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (1) x d) Create objectionable odors? (l) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) An increment of excessive levels of CO and NOx from vehicles. No project mitigation measures available; ' Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations haw been adopted. b) An increment of excessive localized pollutant levels from traffic congestion; site adjacent to I -5 right -of -way. Mitigation by traffic circulation mitigation measures (see Below); Mitigation by Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan 200 foot residential setback from I -5 right -of -way; project 200 foot residential setback from I -5 right -of -way. c) No caused alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature, or change in climate. d No caused ob'ectional odors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No significant Significant significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VI. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1) x h) Hazards to safety from design features? (1) x c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1) x d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? (1) x e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (1)• f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation? (1) x g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) An increment of long -range intersection deficient conditions for Saxony Road 0 La Costa, E1 Camino Real La Costa, El Camino Real 0 Calle Barcelona; an increment of interim intersection deficient conditions for Saxony Road H Encinitas Boulevard, I -5 NB ramps 0 Encinitas Boulevard, El Cassino Real @ Olivenhain Road, Saxony Road 0 La Costa. Mitigation by extension and improvements for circulation element roads and intersections; Development Agreement; fair share costs for offsite road and intersection improvements in Carlsbad. b) No caused hazards to safety from design features; design in accordance with City standards. c) Adequate access provided for all purposes in accordance with City standards. d) Sufficient parking provided onsite and offsite in accordance with City standards. e) No caused hazards for pedestrians or bicyclists. Sidewalks and bike lanes provided in accordance with City standards. f) Generally consistent with APCD State Implementation Plan and Regional Air Quality Strategy; consistent with SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan. No effects on rail, waterborne or air traffic. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats ?(1) X b) Locally designated species? (1) x c) Locally designated natural communities? (1) H d) Wetland habitat? (1) x e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1) x EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a,b,c,d,e) Site currently and historically used for open field agriculture; no sensitive plant or animal species, or habitat present; no onsite or nearby migration corridors. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Th n 170 Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (1) X b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (1) n c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? (1) EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Generally consistent with adopted energy conservation plans. b) Acceptable consumption of non - renewal resources. c) No onsite or nearby useful mineral resources present. IX. HAZARDS. would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances? (1) X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1) t: c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1, 3, 4) X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1,3,4) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fla=nable brush, grass, or trees? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Residential and mixed use without risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. b) Consistent with emergency response and evacuation plans. c) Residential and mixed use without creation of health hazards. d) Concentrations of DDT /DDE in soils from historical agricultural use below EPA threshold limit for hazardous waste and not considered a public health hazard. Controlled by a public health and safety plan and standard dust suppression methods during construction. e No exposure of structures to flammable brush rasa or trees. Issues and Supporting Informs tron Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Iiq)act Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Inc: teases in existing noise levels? (1,6) X b) Ex osure of people to severe noise levels? (1,6) 1 X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Elimination of onsite agricultural operation noise; minor increase in onaite vehicle traffic noise. b) Residential use within excessive noise contours generated by I-5. Mitigation by 200 foot residential structure setback from I -5 right -of -way; eight foot high combined earth mound and structural noise attenuation barrier. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, of result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1) X b) Police protection? (1) C) Schools? (1) R d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1) X e) Other governmental services? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Implementation of an increment of EFPD planned fire operational resources. Mitigation by Development Agreement to include necessary costs and facilities. County Sheriff operational resources. Controlled by amendment to County Sheriff b) An increment of additional contract as necessary. c) An increment of school demand greater than EUSD and SDUHSD planned permanent facilities. Mitigation by Development Agreement to provide for necessary facilities. d) An increment of increased public facilities maintenance costs. Revenue to be generated City wide through development fees and other methods. demand for services. Costs offset by City wide development fees e) An increment of increased other governmental and other methods. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (1) X b) Communications systems? (1) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1) X d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1) X e) Storm water drainage? (1) x f) Solid waste disposal? (1) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) An increment of increased demand for power and natural gas. Service will be provided by SDGCE. b) An increment of increased demand for telephone and cable Tv systems. Service will be provided by PacBel and Times Mirror Cable Television. c) An increment of implementation of SDWD, planned water distribution facilities and planned reservoirs; extension of pipelines and additional improvements. Mitigation by Development Agreement including necessary improvements. d) An increment of sewer demand greater than ESD projections; an increment of implementation of planned sewer transmission facilities, extension of pipelines, and additional improvements. Mitigation by Development Agreement including necessary improvements. e) Minor increased peak runoff flow in tributary basin. Controlled by adequate offsite and project storm drain system. f) An increment of less that one percent increase in service area waste stream and no shortening of receiving landfill life span. XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (1) X c) Create light or glare? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) Possible scenic vista degradation from I -5. Mitigation by Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Development Standards; mitigation by project contour grading and landscaping. b) Extensive high graded banks. Mitigation by project contour grading of banks exceeding 15 feet in height and landscaping. c An increment of increased night lighting. Controlled by Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Development Standards. Issues ,nd Supporting Inforrsatron 9ourcea Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless lmpact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1) X b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1) X c) Affect historical resources? (1) .. d) Have the potential to cause physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a,b,c) Site disturbed by current and historical agricultural use; no known onsite paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources. d) No physical change affecting unique ethnic cultural values. e) No restriction of religious or sacred uses. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1) X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1) X EXPLANATION. The project will result in: a) An increment of increased demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Parks and recreational facilities provided in accordance with City standards; project recreational facilities. b) An increment of increased use of existing recreational opportunities. Costs offset by City wide development fees and other methods. FF orlr ng Informati en 9 :,u n.,ee Potentially significant Impact Po tentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the proposal have: The puential to degrade the quality of the environment, tantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, e a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining ls, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or mal, oc eliminate important examples of major periods of X ifornia history or prehistory? (1) ) The potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of X g -term environmental goals? (1) ) Impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable? (1) d) Environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse X effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? (1,3,4) EXPLANATION. The project will result in: CO and NOx from vehicles. Findings and a statement of Overriding considerations haw a) An increment of excessive been adopted. to certain resource issues. Mitigation measures are identified and Findings and a statement b) Long -term effects of Overriding considerations have been adopted. effects to certain resource issues. Mitigation measures are identified. c) Combined project and related project /DDE in soils from historical agricultural use below EPA threshold limit for hazardous d) Concentrations of DDT health hazard. Controlled by a public health and safety plan and standard dusL waste and not considered a public suppression methods during construction. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analysis is used pursuant to a program EIR as follows: a) Earlier analysis used: (1) Final Environmental Impact Report, Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and Leucadia No.94 -28, 25 June 1994. Boulevard Alignment, Case No.92 -09.8 SP, SCH #93121012; certified by Council Resolution and Reporting Program regarding the Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Leucadia Boulevard Alignment; adopted by Council Final Environmental Impact Report, Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan and file with the City of Encinitas Community Development Resolution No.94 -91, 21 September 1994. Documents on California 92024. Also see additional information sources to follow. Department, 505 South Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas identified and explained in the above sections I through c) Impacts adequately addressed: For all resource issues Ranch Specific Plan FEIR and identified additional sources. XVI, and as further detailed in the Encinitas identified and explained in the above sections I through XVI, and as d) Mitigation measures: For all impacts as Specific Plan FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and further detailed in the Encinitas Ranch identified additional sources. e) Findings and Statement of Ovevild nci Considerations: Have been ado Led for air. quallL , ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL NOTICE E>aiIBIT "H" TO: BUILDING DEPARTMENT FROM: ENG. 114EER-TNC DEPARTIENT p;;TE; �� Permit No. ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL FOR PROJECT NO. (Tract N . Z 14o(Zrvti' (Developer's Name & Address) We have inspected the grading for lots or phase d _ of the above mentioned project. In addition, we have received rough grading certification from �(CjC O N the Soils Engineer, dated 1-7-2-- `tY , and fro /ecNS�r�E" L , the Supervising Grading Engineer, dated r < , and are satisfied that the rough grading has-zbeeh completed in accordance with City standards. Based on these certifications and our observation, we take o / exception to the issuance of a build' g permit for lots' or phase a of project a S�iX �Y fr m a grading standpoint. This release, however, is ngk intended to certify the project from other engineering concerns including site development, water or sewer availability, or final grading. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, we need to be advised so that we can verify that final grading and landscaping has been completed in accordance with `_`.e approved plans for the project. APPROVED: Project Grading In _ector cc: Developer :5/05/PW2 -76W? 28(9- 01 -88 -:) Project Engineer Y City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Request DR Horton 1010 First Ave., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Grading Permit Number 4-9 3 - G Engineer of Record: Geotechnical Engineer: Geocoty Contractor: Project Manager: Ii.izz y S(rhs Rough Grading Approval is requested for the following lots: -tz S 7-6Lti The following attachments are included as required for rough grading approval: [Inspector's Rough Grading Approval Checklist. 9K Geotechnical Reports for each of the above lots. [Engineer's Pad Certification Report for each of the above lots. 0 /all Certification Reports INSPECTOR - JACK WINGATE, GEOPACIFICA Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Requirements DR HORTON - Grading Permit G The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough grading approval. 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. APPROVED: DATE: L A W Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. APPROVED: 4Z:5441 DATE: 6z"K d All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer certifying that it was inspected and constructed in accordance with their recommendations and conforms to the approved plans. APPROVED: `�/� DATE: 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and co m leted per the grading plan, inspected and approved by the inspector.7Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point for rough grading approval.- 001Z/�A4 / APPROVED: �LJ� DATE: 6�-r 48 —e 3. All sewer systems shall be installed and accepted by City Inspector and Leucadia County Water District. APPROVED: �4/ .IL�SJ DATE: 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by Olivenhain Municipal Water District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. APPROVED: �L/� <��,r1S� DATE: 440- 5. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. APPROVED: ---,Ae2 DATE: /6 Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required. APPROVED: Caw) DATE: 6. All fire hydrants are to be installed, tested, inspected and accepted by the Fir //e Department. APPROVED: GL/��c�Z��s> DATE: /C �B 7. All roads are to be installed, final lift of paving. / APPROVED: L./V DATE: 61grAr B. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate ,agency. APPROVED: G��s�zt� L/S DATE: All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free environment. APPROVED: G�� DATE: These items ar�so be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written reque to ^rough grading approval. The Inspector will 4ke- approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department "�& 2 - .'6 e 9. s 1.n� l�/y8 MHUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES A N D I E G 0, 1 N C. PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR IACK HILL LEX waDMAN 10179 Huennekens 51. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 558 -4500 PH 1619) 558 -1414 F wwsv.hunsakeccom Info ®HunsakerSO.com June 3. 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Attn: Greg Shields Re: Retaining Wall Line and Grade Certification Project: Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area Precise Grading Plan 4813 -P Lots: Buildings 44 and 45 Owner: D.R. Horton 1010 South Coast Highway Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92924 The retaining walls for the above referenced buildings have been constructed with the location and grade on the attached exhibit. Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. R mond L. Martin, R.C.E. Project Manager cc: Jerry Sims �oQ�oF Essiory\ Cl) ��Q. ��OND L. M99 �tr.`G' zZ m WU NO. 48670 EX p. 6 /30'00 S'T C I V' L a�P 9�OF CAl \F�` DS b msxgPA. \t375\tBBB�c >B.ax 1375 1 E: ,W75j41 \BASE.dwg Ned Jun 03 16:20:24 1998 Y 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 11 i 4'4 4,5 46 FA © _ °R J L _ J 0 Q O 0 O O Q V 160 170 0 0 � o O O e a O O l r- AR 42 °R - -- j 43 , 4,1 PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE. LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL LEK wILDMAN 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 16191558 4500 PH (6191558-1414 F X www.hunsakeccom Info ®HunsakerSO.com HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O. I N C. June 11, 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 1 through 5 and 44 through 46 Elevations: Pad 1 at an elevation of 44.63 Pad 2 at an elevation of 45.62 Pad 3 at an elevation of 46.60 Pad 4 at an elevation of 47.55 Pad 5 at an elevation of 48.51 Pad 44 at an elevation of 44.47 Pad 45 at an elevation of 45.47 Pad 46 at an elevation of 46.47 I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. Daniel P. Smith L.S. 6854 Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. LAND J-1 O X L.S. 6854 Exp. 9/30/00 OS kn k 11])5l t'dBB�cPb 65: GEOCON I N C O R P O R A T E D ul8 tie Project No. 05799 -42 -01 March 9. 1998 D. R. Horton -San Diego 1010 First Street, Suite 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Mark Mullin Subject: ENCINITAS RANCH (PHASE 3, PADS 6 THROUGH 11) ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PAD GRADING CERTIFICATION CONJSULTANT5 10) References: 1. Update Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Engineer of Record for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 1, 1996. 2. Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading Pads I through 11 and 44 through 46 for Encinitas Ranch (West Saxony Planning Area), Encinitas, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated January 22, 1998. Gentlemen In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the above referenced reports. Our review was performed to determine if the recommendations of the above referenced project geotechnical reports were implemented during the grading of the subject pads. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated, based upon our review, that the subject pads have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical reports. Should you have questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED James L176 . Brown GE 2 a DH:JLB:dmc (3) Addressee (3 /del) Job Site Trailer Attention: Mr. Jerry Simms 002176 7) 1* e�& Dale Hamt CEG 1760 6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 92121 -2974 ■ Telephone 16191 5586900 ■ Fax (619) 558-6159 CUSTOM HOMES June 12, 1998 Mr. Greg Shields Field Operations City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: WEST SAXONY PAVING REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Shields, I am in receipt of your May 26, 1998 letter to Jerry Sims and I would like to respond to your concerns. Pursuant to the City Council Resolution that tentatively approved the Saxony project, our engineers prepared street improvement plans showing the Saxony Road widening, the AC pavement overlay areas, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and various other street improvements to Saxony Road. The street improvement plans went through numerous plan checks with the City Engineering Department and were signed and approved by the City Engineer on September 5, 1997 (Drawing No. 4813 -1, ES -242). The areas of Saxony road that receive the AC overlay that you reference in your letter are clearly shown on our approved plans. We are currently completing the street improvements per the approved plans. This work does includes an AC overlay along a portion of our frontage, however, the approved plans do not require an AC overlay along our entire frontage. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. If I do not hear from you otherwise, I will consider this matter resolved. Sincerely, D.R. Hort( Vibb President MRP /yai cc: Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services Ron Brady, Inspector 1010S Cmi Hwy. 101 Suite 101 Encinitu. CaU mia 92024 (760) 6346700 Fax(760)634 -6770 _s May 26, 1998 Jerry Simms D.R. Horton 1010 First St., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: WEST SAXONY PAVING REQUIREMENTS Gentlemen: MAP A review of the proposed paving of Saxony with the inspector, Ron Brady, has resulted in this letter to clarify the City's requirements. Resolution No. PC- 97 -17, Section D. ENGINEERING, paragraph 15, states in part ,...... Along the Saxony Road frontage provide 20 feet of AC Pavement, PCC Curb and Gutter, and PCC Sidewalk. This work is under construction, however, Ron has stated that you do not intend on paving the 20 feet wide frontage of the project property. Please be advised that the paving is required. The paving is to be 1 1/2" overlay with the utility trenches to be done according to City standards unless another alternative is approved by the City. If you have any questions, please call me at (760)633 -2778. Sincerely, Greg Shields, P.E. Field Operations CC] Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services Ron Brady, Inspector Jim Knowlton, Geopacifica TEL 760 - 6332600 1 FAX 760633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 1 DD 760 -633 -2700 1# recycled paper City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Request DR Horton 1010 First Ave., Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Grading Permit Number % � G Engineer of Record: HLkFisjlkk� 4 4&S(Dc.(R1'es - S6-•vble&C., Geotechnical Engineer: (�,eQC,oA -) .-juC-. Contractor: b.Z. KOZ.- OM Project Manager: SLIW Rough Grading Approval is requested for the following lots: G) r' The following attachments are included as required for rough grading approval: [� Inspector's Rough Grading Approval Checklist. Geotechnical Reports for each of the above lots. Engineer's Pad Certification Report for each of the above lots. [[�}� Wall Certification Reports INSPECTOR - JACK WINGATE, GEOPACIFICA Re: Engineering Rough Grading Approval Requirements DR HORTON - Grading Permit YP�3 - G The following requirements are the minimum allowable prior to rough grading approval. 1. All grading operations required to obtain the elevations shown on the grading plan are complete and pad elevations are within 0.1 ft. APPROVED: DATE: 3 /xl98 Provide geotechnical report certifying the grading has been performed in accordance with the soils report and the compaction test results shall be submitted to the City. APPROVED: DATE: All retaining walls shown on the approved grading plans also require a letter of Certification, for each wall shown, from the geotechnical engineer certifying that it was inspected and constructed in accordance with their recommendations and conforms to the approved plans. APPROVED: ) DATE: 3fr� 2. All drainage systems, public and private, surface and subsurface, have been installed and completed per the grading plan, inspected and approved by the inspector. Yard drain inlets need not be installed at this point for rough grading approval. APPROVED: DATE: 3. All sewer systems shall be installed and accepted by City Inspector and Leuccadia County Water District. APPROVED: e::L-- //4V DATE: 4. All water systems, including fire protection systems, are to be installed and accepted by olivenhain Municipal Water District and the City as complete, including pressure testing, bacteria testing and chlorinating. . APPROVED: 111 DATE: 5. Curb and gutter, sidewalk grades are completed and R value tests have been taken. Letter of certification from the Engineer certifying line and grade are required. APPROVED: DATE: Compaction report from the geotechnical engineer is also required. APPROVED: �U� DATE: 6. All fire hydrants are to be installed, tested, inspected and accepted by the Fire Department. APPROVED: L�� DATE: 7. All roads are to be installed, except for the final lift of paving. APPROVED: DATE: 3Z1-/52F 8. All dry utilities shall be installed, inspected and approved by the appropriate agency. APPROVED: DATE: j/-F1W All other safety and health issues as required by the City to assure a safe and hazard free environment. APPROVED: DATE: These items are to be submitted to the City Inspector along with a written request rough grading approval. The Inspector will the approve or disapprove and forward to the Engineering Department • fMK -1 1'd' � 11 ll HL4 SU HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES $ :, I I C, „ I H I_ PIANNINC, rNf.INEERINC. SURMING IRVINE March 13, 1998 LAS VEGAS RIVERSIVE SAN DIEGO City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Attn: Greg Shields Re: Retaining Wall Line and Grade Certification Project: Encinitas Ranch West Saxony Planning Area Precise Grading Plan 4813 -P Lots: Phase 3, Building Pads 6 through 11 Owner: D.R. Horton 1010 South Coast Highway Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92924 61955£31414 P.01,W La 12 bw ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY Of ENCINITAS The retaining walls for the above referenced Phase 3 have been constructed in conformance with the location on the approved Grading Plan. Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. a 4=otn'd L. Martin, R,C.E. DAVE HAnIMAR Project Manager LACK HILL LEX WILLIMAN cc', Jerry Sims 10179 Hwmeken} $1, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619, 5584500 PH Ilil9) SS8-1414 F X www.hun.akvxon, In10*HunPk&S'0.com KEXP QSAOF ES%,,2800100 M J`T CIv L q 1YOF CAUF1 us" n1051. w. 137$41 TnTU P_nt PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E D O. 1 N C. IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO October 21, 1997 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas. CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 15 through 19 I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). See Exhibit "A ". Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. oQROFESS /oNy ot4D L y9P�Fc W NO. 46670 M Exp. 6/30 /00 DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILT. 4R�mcnd L. Martin, R.C.E. srA1 Cn f�aNP LEX WILLIMAN Project Manager OF cc: Mark Mullin, D.R. Horton 10179 Huennekens 51. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 1619155&451x1 PH 16191 S58.1414 F w .hunsekecmm Info ®HunmkerSD.com nmxa1� ..,m...oroc11315k¢ .o. 1341 0 HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O, I N C . PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO August 22, 1997 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector AUG 26 1997 E ":Glh'EE f ;;;�G g`RVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS Subject: Civil Engineer's Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 20 through 40 I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). See Exhibit "A ". Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. oQ�oFESSioNR �� OpLD L. / O Z m � NO. 48670 A DAVE A. HAMMAR Ezp 6 /30 /00 LEX WILLIMAN Raymond L. Martin, R.C.E. S��OF CAUF�`a\P Project Manager 10179 Huennekens 5t. cc: Mark Mullin, D.R. Horton Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 5584500 PH (619) 558 -1414 F X www.hunsaker.cooI Info®HunsakerSD.corn nM ka k%iaxsw Sea. — i»s1i EXHIBIT "A" Building Actual Approved Pad No. Elevation Elevation 20 82.04 82.10 21 81.49 81.50 22 81.32 81.35 23 80.40 80.37 24 79.39 79.39 25 78.49 78.42 26 79.05 79.00 27 77.40 77.50 28 76.45 76.50 29 75.43 75.53 30 74.48 74.50 31 73.62 73.60 32 72.65 72.60 33 74.12 74.08 34 75.09 75.05 35 75.82 75.80 36 80.00 80.14 37 75.80 75.80 38 70.31 70.26 39 71.19 71.17 40 70.20 70.25 Document? HUNSAKFR &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G O. 1 N C. PUNNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LAS VEGAS RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO August 14, 1997 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Mr. Greg Shields Inspector Subject: Civil Engineers Certification of Rough Grade Project: Grading Plan 4813 -P West Saxony Building Pads 20 through 40 •-- pUG 141997 tCITY OF ENC NITASES I hereby approve the rough grading for the referenced pads in accordance with my responsibilities under the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. Rough Grading has been completed substantially in conformance with the approved grading plan (within a tenth of a foot). Sincerely, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. DAVE HAMMAR JACK HILL Mond L. Martin, R.C.E. LEXwuuMAN Project Manager cc: Mark Mullin, D.R. Horton 10179 Huennekens St. Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 16191 5564500 PH (619) 55 &1414 FX w .huns keccom Info ®HunmkerSD.corn �OQSypFESS /ON\ OND L. 4fl Fyc C7 Z m ud NO. 48670 A Exp. 6/30/00 S'T O I V 1 �- <�Or 7qL RM kE Y k1375w5 C ra 137111 PCRVELL. John Powell S Associ February 25, 1997 Mr. Hans Jensen Senior Civil Engineer City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Inc. Consulting Civil 'z J SUBJECT: FIRST PLAN CHECK OF GRADING PLANS FOR ENCINITAS RANCH -WEST SAXONY PLANNING AREA (DWG. NO. 4813-G) Dear Mr. Jensen: We have completed our first review of the above subject which we received on January 30, 1997. Our plan check consisted of a review of the grading plans, drainage study, cost estimate, and soils report. We reviewed the project against the Tentative Map (draft dated 1/27/97), and City of Encinitas Grading Standards. From our review, we offer the following comments which should be addressed by the applicant prior to plan approval: General 1. Submit erosion control plans and improvement plans for review. 2. Obtain signatures as noted on the returned plans. 3. Provide earthwork quantities on the title sheet. 4. Complete the environmental data section on the title sheet. 5. Provide short legal descriptions for the adjacent properties (typical). 6. Revise the legend as noted on the title sheet. 7. Provide the source and date of the topographic information. 8. Provide a key map legend as noted on the returned plans. 9. Add street names to the legend and grading plans sheet. 175 Calle Megdelene, Suite 101, Encinitas, CA 92024 / (619] 753 -1120 ineers Mr. Hans Jensen February 25, 1997 Page 2 of 4 10. Depict the proposed lot lines and lot numbers on the key map and grading plans sheet (typical). 11. Revise the plans so the proposed grading lines are a bold, solid line type, not light and dashed (typical). 12. Depict the proposed topographic contours on the private streets (typical). 13. Address the discrepancies between the grading plans and the draft Tentative Map with regards to proposed grading, slopes, etc. 14. Obtain Letters of Permission for the off -site work. 15. Add a symbol for the daylight line and add the symbol to the legend (typical). 16. Provide a cross- section for the off -site grading on the alley north of the subdivision as noted on the returned plans. 17. Depict the existing utilities located in Saxony Road (i.e., water main, sewer main, etc.). 18. Coordinate with the San Dieguito Water District for the removal and relocation of water meters. This work should be proposed on the public improvement plans. 19. Depict the proposed location of the relocated water meter north of the site on Saxony Road. 20. Depict the existing 3 -inch water main located in the alley north of the subdivision where grading is proposed. Depict the existing easements associated with the water line. 21. Depict the abandoned 30 -inch water line on the site as noted on the returned plans. 22. Provide a temporary pumping plan for the plugged sewers. The plans should address where the sewage will be pumped to; type of pipe, type of pumps, retention capacity, etc. The temporary pumping plans should be approved prior to grading operations. 23. Depict the existing sewer near the southern boundary which is to be removed per the draft Tentative Map. John Powell & Associates, Inc. 175 Celle Magdalena. Suite 101. Encinitas, CA 92024 / [619J 753-1121 Mr. Hans Jensen February 25, 1997 Page 3 of 4 24. Obtain CalTrans approval for the proposed work in State right -of -way. 25. Depict the limits of the earthen berms at the top of slopes per the draft Tentative Map and add the symbol to the legend. 26. Depict the canyon subdrain (and outlet) per the recommendations in the soils report. 27. Clarify the drainage patterns of each building pad area (typical). 28. Call-out the thickness of proposed rip -rap including filter blanket material, layers, thickness, etc. 29. Clarify whether a splashwall (per detail, sheet 2) should be proposed where the concrete ditch meets the toe -of -slope at the northwest corner of the site. 30. Clarify the width, slope, and drainage patterns of the slope bench as noted on the returned plans. 31. Revise the cost estimate as noted on the returned document. 32. Call-out the proposed pedestrian trail on the plans. Coordinate with the Community Services department on the material of the pedestrian trail and provide additional detail to the plans. Include the material on the cost estimate. 33. Depict the retaining walls as proposed on the draft Tentative Map. Provide structural calculations, profiles for the proposed retaining walls, and address slope drainage behind the walls. 34. Address the inconsistencies between the plans and the hydrology study (i.e., grading, storm drains, etc.). 35. Provide a sewer easement which encompasses the existing facilities. It appears a portion of the existing sewer on the western portion of the site is located outside the easement as noted on the returned plans. 36. Revise the hydrology study as noted on the returned document. 37. Address the redline comments as noted on the returned plans. John Powell & Associates, Inc. 175 Calle Magdalene, Suite 101, Encinitee, CA 52024 / [519] 753 -112C Mr. Hans Jensen February 25, 1997 Page 4 of 4 The applicant should respond to each of our comments in a letter format to assist our next plan check review. If there are any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to call Jeremy Riddle or me at 753 -1120. Sincerely, Tom Frank Plan Check Manager No. 49070 JR/rb a Epp• 9 /ate cc: Greg Shields, City of Encinitas) CND\- "t'% Jeremy Riddle, Powell T9lF�c CP��tiOQ' John Powell 6 Associates, Inc. 175 Calle Magdalene, Suite 101. Encinitas. CA 92024 / [6191 753 -112 September 3, 1997 Burtech Pipeline P.O. Box 323 Cardiff, CA 92007 SAN DIEGUITO 505 S VULCAN AVENUE P.O. BOX 231010 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92023 -1010 Re: West Saxony Water Improvement Materials 3rd Submittal WATER DISTRICT (619) 633 -2650 FAX(619)633 -2627 TDD (619) 633-2700 The accompanying submittal data has been reviewed and compared with the requirements of the Plans and Specifications. Corrections or comments here do not relieve the contractor from compliance with the requirements of the drawings and specifications. The contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating all quantities and dimensions, processes and techniques of construction, and of performing his work in a safe manner in compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications. Items included in this submittal are listed noting the action taken and recommendations given and are reviewed for general conformance to the project design and in general compliance with the specifications. I. Anode Backfill - Backfill material manufactured by Farwest is acceptable. 2. — -Anode Lead Wire - No. 12 A WG copper wire by Rome Cable is accepo¢le. 3. Locating Wire - Wire should be bare copper with no insulation. Amend as noted. 4. Valve Casing Material - Class 150 PVC pipe manufactured by J -M Pipe is acceptable, 5. Service Saddle - James Jones No. J979 is acceptable for AC connection. 6. 2^ Meter Lid - MLS -300 manufactured by Pipeline Products is acceptable. In addition to the above comments, the following items also require submittal: Pipe zone backfill material (include grab sample) For those items marked "Amend as noted ", please have supplier acknowledge and no resubmittal is required. There was no acknowledgment of those amendments to the first two submittal, please provide. If you have any questions, please call me at (760)633 -2849. Sincerely, William O'Donnell Water Utility Planner cc: Warren Rapps, SDWD Inspector Greg Shields, City of Encinitas Westbume Pipe & Supply �j recycled paper M v August 29, 1997 Burtech Pipeline P.O. Box 323 Cardiff, CA 92007 SAN DIEGUITO 505 S. VULCAN AVENUE P.O. BOX 231010 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92023 -1010 Re: West Saxony Water Improvement Materials 2nd Submittal WATER DISTRICT (619) 633 -2650 FAX (619) 633 -2627 TDD (619) 633 -2700 The accompanying submittal data has been reviewed and compared with the requirements of the Plans and Specifications. Corrections or comments here do not relieve the contractor from compliance with the requirements of the drawings and specifications. The contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating all quantities and dimensions, processes and techniques of construction, and of performing his work in a safe manner in compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications. Items included in this submittal are listed noting the action taken and recommendations given and are reviewed for general conformance to the project design and in general compliance with the specifications. 1. 16" C -905 PVC Pipe - 16' PVC C -905 water pipe manufactured by 1 -M Pipe is acceptable. 2. 16" Gate Valve - 16' M &H Gate Valve No. 4067 is acceptable. 3. Fire Hydrant - James Jones No. J -3765 is acceptable. 4. Service Saddles - James Jones No. 1969 and 1996 are acceptable for PVC pipe. There will also be a 2" connection off the 16' AC main; use James Jones No. J979 or approved equal. Amend and resubmit. 5. 1" Corporation Stop - James Jones No. J -3403 is acceptable. 6. Water Meter Box - Brooks No. 37 -S two piece concrete cover is acceptable. A two piece concrete cover for the Brooks 66 box is not per District standards. Use MLS -300 lid. Amend and resubmit. 7. Valve Casing Material - Casing material manufactured by Southland pipe is acceptable for blow -off and air release. Use Class 100 PVC pipe or equal for valve casing. Amend as noted. 8. Copper Tubing - Nibco Type K "Soft" Copper Tubing and Fittings are acceptable. 9. Anode Lead Wire - Anode lead wire should be No. 12 AWG copper wire with THWN or THHN insulation. Locating wire should be No. 10 AWG bare copper wire. Rejected - resubmit. 10. Ground Clamp - Ground Clamp Type BGC manufactured by Ilsco is acceptable. H. Zinc Anode - Anode ZUR -30 manufactured by Farwest is acceptable. Submittal does not specify anode backfill composition. Amend and resubmit. 12. Bolts and Nuts - Bolts and nuts are acceptable as submitted provided that the bolts are Grade B. Amend as noted. 13. High Deflection and Repair Couplings - Couplings manufactured by CertainTeed are acceptable. 00 recycled paper 14. 12" Gate Cap - Gate Cap B54 manufactured by South Bay Foundry is acceptable provided it is marked "San Dieguito Water District ". Amend as noted. In addition to the above comments, the following items also require submittal: Pipe zone backfill material (include grab sample) For those items marked "Amend as noted ", please have supplier acknowledge and no resubmittal is required. There was no acknowledgment of those amendments to the first submittal, please provide on next submittal. If you have any questions, please call me at (760)633 -2849. Sincerely, W William O'Donnell Water Utility Planner cc: Warren Rapps, SDWD Inspector Greg Shields, City of Encinitas Westburne Pipe & Supply AW August 26, 1997 Burtech Pipeline P.O. Box 323 Cardiff, CA 92007 SAN DIEGUITO WATER 505 S. VULCAN AVENUE P.O. BOX 231010 ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 92023 -1010 Re: West Saxony Water Improvement Materials 1st Submittal DISTRICT (619) 633 -2650 FAX(619)633 -2627 TDD (619) 633 -2700 The accompanying submittal data has been reviewed and compared with the requirements of the Plans and Specifications. Corrections or comments here do not relieve the contractor from compliance with the requirements of the drawings and specifications. The contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating all quantities and dimensions, processes and techniques of construction, and of performing his work in a safe manner in compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications. Items included in this submittal are listed noting the action taken and recommendations given and are reviewed for general conformance to the project design and in general compliance with the specifications. 1. 6 " -8" C -900 PVC Pipe - PVC C -900 water pipe manufactured by J -M Pipe is acceptable. 2. 16" PVC Pipe - Submittal for 16" PVC pipe does not specify that it meets AWWA C -905. Amend and resubmit. 3. Gate Valve - M &H Resilient Wedge Gate Valve No. 4067 is acceptable for sizes up to 12'. Submit for 16" Gate Valve. Amend and resubmit. 4. Flanged Fittings - Tyler Utilities Flanged Fittings are acceptable provided they are cement lined and seal coated in accordance with AWWA C 104, with a bituminous coating. Amend as noted. 5. Tyton Joint Fittings - Union Foundry Tyton Joint Fittings are acceptable provided they are cement lined and seal coated in accordance with AWWA C104, with a bituminous coating. Amend as noted. 6. Valve Box - Valve Box SBF 1208 is acceptable provided it is marked "San Dieguito Water District ". Amend as noted. 7. Fire Hydrant Bury - Fire hydrant bury manufactured by South Bay Foundry is acceptable provided it is cement lined and seal coated in accordance with AWWA C104, with a bituminous coating. Amend as noted. 8. Fire Hydrant Extension - Extension manufactured by South Bay Foundry is acceptable provided it is seal coated in accordance with AWWA C104, with a bituminous coating. Only spool located directly under the fire hydrant will require a break -off groove. Amend as noted. 9. Transition Coupling - Smith -Blair No. 441 Transition Coupling is acceptable. 10. Tapping Sleeve - Smith -Blau Tapping Sleeve No. 622 is acceptable provided that it is fusion bonded epoxy coated and utilizes stainless steel bolts. Amend as noted. Schedule 80 Pipe - This is for private improvements, the District does not need to approve a recycled paper 12. Service Saddles - James Jones No. J996 is acceptable for use on PVC pipe. Use 1979 for AC pipe. Amend and resubmit. 13. 1" Corporation Stop - James Jones Corporation Stop Nos. 1 -1505 and J -3401 are not acceptable. Use J- 3402. Rejected - resubmit. 14. 2" Corporation Stop - James Jones No. J -1935 is acceptable. 15. Flange Fitting - James Jones No. 1 -129 is acceptable. 16. 1" Curb Stop - James Jones No. J4201 is acceptable. 17. 2" Curb Stop - James Jones No. J -1974W is acceptable. James Jones No. J -1975W is not per District standards. Amend as noted. 18. Fire Hydrant - Commercial fire hydrants are required for this project. Submit James Jones No. J -3765 or approved equal. Rejected - resubmit. 19. Water Meter Box - Brooks No. 66 is acceptable for 2" meter but cover must be MILS -300. Brooks No. 37 is acceptable for 1" meter but it is not clear what lid is to be used. Specify 2 piece concrete lid. Amend and resubmit. 20. Air Valve - Project requires only manual air releases valves. In addition to the above comments, the following items also require submittal: - Pipe zone backfill material (include grab sample) - Valve casing material - Copper Tubing - Zinc anode - Ground clamp - Locating Wire - Bolts and nuts - Deflection and repair couplings - 16" Gate valve - 12" Gate cap For those items marked "Amend as noted ", please have supplier acknowledge and no resubmittal is required. If you have any questions, please call me at (760)633 -2849. Sincerely, William O'Donnell Water Utility Planner cc: Warren Rapps, SDWD Inspector Greg Shields, City of Encinitas Westbume Pipe & Supply JUN 23 '97 10:47AM D. R. HORTON, INC. 1 - R-HORMN` CUSTOMHOMES June 23, 1997 Greg Sheids City of Encinitas Engineenng 505 S. Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 via fix 633 -2818 Dear Greg. Per our phone conversation on June 23, 1997, the panting on Saxony within our boundaries. I- Bus Stop sign I- Paul Ecke YMCA sign I- 40 mph sign P.1 we intend to remove and relocate 3 road signs in The 3 signs are: The Bus stop sign will relocate north 75 feet. A temporary fence will be installed behind face of curb on Saxony and the Paul Ecke YMCA and 40 mph sign will attach to the temporary fence with Pedestrians Use Other Side of Street on either ends. Yours truly, Jerry Sites Project Superintendent D. R. Horton ,'u- 7 L lA Greg Sheid 1010 Fiat Sax,, Suite 101 EnaN W. Cold mic 9;024 (760) 631 -6700 Fu(760)63&6770 %- 2- Date