The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 00-13; Poinsettia Properties Planning Areas 2, 3 & 4; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (3)Barbara Kennedy -GDP 00-13 PA 2, 3 &4 StockPile ' ' "" " Page1: From: Mike Shirey To: Barbara Kennedy Date: 3/23/00 12:02PM Subject: CDP 00-13 PA 2, 3 & 4 Stock Pile Barbara, Engineering has reviewed the above CDP and has no comments or conditions. The grading plan was previously signed. -MS CC: Bob Wojcik 5055 Avenida Encinas Suite I 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 FAX 760/438/5980 760/438/8477 March 29, 2000 Michael Holzmiller Director of Planning City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92009 RE: Requirement for additional environmental review and Major Coastal Permit for Stockpile Permit for Planning Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Poinsettia Properties Project. Dear Mr. Holzmiller: We have been working with the Engineering and Planning Departments for over six months to secure a Stockpile Permit for our project. Recently we have been informed that this Permit would also require a Major Coastal Permit, and additional environmental work. The purpose of this letter is to communicate some facts which I believe clearly show that neither of these processes should be required by your Department for us to secure our Stockpile Permit. First, we have been told that because" the project has a value of over $60,000 a major permit is required". In reality, the project has a value of zero. The primary source of the import material is from the Standard Pacific site to the east. This export from the Standard Pacific site has a Major Coastal Permit. For this reason, our import site should not be valued. More Importantly, this work was covered by our Specific Plan and therefore incorporated into the Local Coastal Plan. The question is, should a coastal permit of any kind be needed for this import work? I believe not. Clearly, the import of 100,000 cubic yards has always been a part of the project. I have enclosed as "Exhibit 1", pages 62-64 of the approved Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. These pages include SECTION VI GRADING AND EARTHWORK. Included in this Section is a clear statement that Parcel A would require 100,000 cubic yards of import. Because of this, this import should be considered a part of the approved Specific Plan. This Specific Plan was approved by The California BENCHMARKPACIFIC Michael Holzmiller Page 2 March 29, 2000 Coastal Commission, as a part of our Local Coastal Plan Amendment. In addition, at the bottom of page 64, the Plan reads," To remedy this problem temporary stock piles may be located on the three parcels subject to the requirements of the Grading Ordinance. This material will then be incorporated into the grading plans for the subject parcel." There can be no question that this work jas always been considered a part of the approved project. As to the environmental review issue, we contend that we should receive a finding of prior conformance. I have already demonstrated that the 100,000 cubic yards of import was a part of the Specific Plan. As you know, we have a Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project, which was approved by the Carlsbad City Council. This EIR was based upon potential impacts from the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan, including the above mentioned import of 100,000 cubic yards of import. Even if the import was not mentioned specifically in the EIR, its impacts would have to be assumed to have been assessed. But, in this case, the import was specifically mentioned in the EIR. I have included as "Exhibit 2", pages 5.9-6, 5.9-7 and 5.9-8 of the Certified EIR. As a part of the Project Description, these pages describe the grading activities which are included within the project. TABLE 5.9-1, entitled ESTIMATED GRADING ACTIVITY, clearly included an import of 100,000 cubic yards for Parcel A. There can be no possible reason for additional environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this work. Because the vernal pool in the railroad ROW next to the property has been an issue, we have asked our biologist review the approved plans for the Stockpile Permit. I have attached as "Exhibit 3" a letter from Anita Hayworth, Ph. D.,of Dudek and Associates, dated March 24, 2000. This letter clearly indicates that the Stock Pile Permit with the proposed measures to prevent erosion, will have no impact on the vernal pool. Michael Holzmiller PageS March 29, 2000 In conclusion I would ask you to consider the following requests: 1. Your Department make a finding of Prior Conformance under CEQA 2. Your Department make a finding that either no Coastal permit is required, or issue the stockpile permit a Minor Coastal Permit administratively. The plans for the Stockpile Permit have been signed by you and by the City Engineer's office, and the permit was all but issued. We received a letter from Michael Shirley of the City Engineer's office on February 9 which indicated that our grading plans had been approved and signed. It has been since that time that your Department has been determining what Coastal Permits would be required. After all of this, a decision, which, for the reasons mentioned above, I believe to be incorrect, was made for us to secure a Major Coastal Permit. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Doug Avis cc: Marty Orenyak, Community Development Director Dee Landers, Senior Planner Barbara Kennedy, Planner I I VI. • GRADING AND E. A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to establish appropriate guidelines for grading in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area. Although most of the Poinsettia Properties area was previously graded under agricultural uses, some additional grading will be needed to complete the construction of Avenida Encinas and complete finish grading which will create building pads which drain properly. No hillside conditions exist per Chapter 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Hillside Development Ordinance) which will necessitate enough grading to require a Hillside Development Permit. Proposed grading for the specific plan are shown on Exhibits 22,23, and 24 starting on page 65. Grading quantities will be determined through review and approval of tentative maps, final maps, site development plans, and grading plans. B. GUIDELINES The following guidelines are hereby established to assure appropriate grading designs for the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan area. 1. Grading plans shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 21.95,21.83.060, and Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. Preliminary and final grading plans will be prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code for review by the City Engineer. 2. All permanent manufactured slope banks in excess of three feet in height shall be constructed at a gradient of 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or less. Any exceptions to this gradient must be approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. 3. Phasing of grading within each Planning Area shall provide for the safety and maintenance of other Planning Areas already developed or under construction. 4. Phasing shall preclude, where possible, hauling of earth over residential streets or developed areas. I 5. Grading permits may be issued after adequate review of grading plans by the City Engineer. These permits may be issued and grading may commence after I approval of the specific plan and tentative map but may not be issued prior to the recordation of the final map, unless approved by the City Engineer, Planning Director and the Community Development Director. I 6. Runoff and erosion shall be reduced by the construction of temporary and /or permanent desiltation basins identified within the Zone 22 Local Facilities Management Plan, or as superseded by a subsequent update to the Carlsbad Specific Drainage Plan. Provision for maintenance and removal of deposited Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan 62 April 28,1997 sediment must be made prior to final map approval. The plans for these basins must be proved by the City of Carlsbad Engin^jng Department. 7. Grading shall be phased so that all temporary erosion control basins are installed with the grading operation of that phase to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Temporary runoff-control devices should be installed prior to any grading activities. 9. All graded areas shall have erosion control measures installed within 30 days after rough grading is completed. If permanent vegetation can not be installed within the 30 day period, temporary irrigation shall be installed, if required for the maintenance of the public health, safety and welfare. 10. If grading activities are scheduled such that permanent landscaping and irrigation can not be completed prior to August 1 of any year, then in addition to hydroseeding, the developer shall additionally install City approved jute mat or straw punch all exposed slopes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. All temporary slopes or flat areas not scheduled for development within 60 days shall be hydroseeded. Ninety percent (90%) germination within 3 days is required by means of rainfall or with an irrigation system if rainfall is insufficient. 12. The application for grading permits must provide assurance to the Planning Director City Engineer that manufactured slope banks will be properly landscaped consistent with the City's Landscape Manual. p 13. Grading plans shall also include an erosion control plan. At a minimum, such mitigation shall require completion of construction prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for all improvements shown in the Master Drainage Plan for the area between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), as well as: restriction of grading activities to the months of April through September of each year (unless a variance is granted); revegetation of graded areas immediately after grading; and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the city declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of an assessment district, or through any similar arrangement that allots costs among the various landowners in an equitable manner. C. Remedial Grading All three parcels within the Poinsettia Shores Specific Plan have been used for agricultural purposes in the past. This has resulted in the upper three feet of the soil being heavily weathered and broken up from being repeatedly disced and plowed. The upper three feet of the material will have to be removed and recompacted. hi addition it is Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan 63 April 28,1997 assumed that thrusting material will have to "shrink '^loose 25% of its volume due to recompaction. Preliminary estimates indicate that the following amounts of import will be required: Parcel A - 100,000 cubic yards Parcel B - 12,600 cubic yards Parcel C - 54,275 cubic yards (The above estimates are preliminary and actual import requirements may be greater. The actual import requirements will be determined by the soil conditions of the site.) To remedy this problem temporary stock piles may be located on any of the three parcels subject to the requirements of the Grading Ordinance. This material will then be incorporated into the grading plans for the subject parcel. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan 64 April 28,1997 surrounding the project site (i.e. east of the 1-5), but proposed development will not obstruct existing views and blue water ocean views will not be eliminated. As depicted in the view/site distance profiles, the project will not obstruct scenic views through the site. Building height limitations, landscaping, setbacks, and building form and massing will reduce aesthetic impacts to less than significant. Future development of the specific plan will be compatible with existing development surrounding the project site. City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines Because the Scenic Corridor Guidelines identify Carlsbad Boulevard as a "community theme corridor", Poinsettia Lane as a "community scenic corridor", and the SDNR railway as a "railroad corridor" specific planning considerations need to be incorporated into right-of-way treatment, and the preservation of scenic views. Structural and landscape setbacks for Carlsbad Boulevard, and Poinsettia Lane are as follows as stated in the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan: Roadway Structural Setback Landscape Setback from Right of Way from Right of Way Carlsbad Boulevard Poinsettia Lane Poinsettia Lane 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 10 feet (fronting Planning Area 1) These setbacks are consistent with the right-of-way treatment guidelines identified in the Scenic Corridor Guidelines and will allow for the enhancement of landscaping along these corridors. Visual amenities associated with Carlsbad Boulevard will not be impacted as the project is located to the east of the roadway, while significant views are oriented westerly (i.e. ocean views). The views to the west available from the SDNR railway are also limited due to intervening topography. While development will be visible it will not obstruct any coastal views from the portion of the corridor that traverses through the project site. Views to the west through the site from 1-5 are limited due to the intervening development adjacent to the freeway. The proposed project will not significantly alter the visual character of this corridor. Occasional "blue water" views are available from points along Poinsettia Lane. Implementation of the project will introduce new development that will be visible from Poinsettia Lane, however the development will not obstruct existing views to the west. Grading Although the project site is relatively flat and has been graded in the past in conjunction with agriculture operations, additional grading will be required in order to complete construction of Avenida Encinas, and complete finish grading which will create building pads to drain properly. Grading for the project will involve approximately 124,700 cubic yards of cut and Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan city of Carlsbad Draft Program EIR 5.9-<j April 1997Pat 163,300 cubic yards of fill activity. The project will require total import of approximately 166,875 cubic yards, accounting for "shrinkage". The term "shrinkage" is used to account for the loss of volume of material due to the compaction of existing loose and weathered material. The amount of estimated import due to shrinkage is based on the assumption that the entire project will require that the first 3 feet of material be removed and compacted, and that the existing material will "shrink or loose 25% of its volume due to recompaction. Table 5.9-1 provides a summary of estimated grading activity for the project site. TABLE 5.9-1 ESTIMATED GRADING ACTIVITY Parcel A B C TOTAL Cut 65,500 40.000 19,200 124,700 Fill 81,000 30,000 52,300 163,300 Import Without Regard to Shrinkage (Cubic Yards) 15,500 (10,000) ' 33,100 38,600 Shrinkage Import From Off-site (Cubic Yards) 84,500 22,600 21,175 128,275 Total Import (Cubic Yards) 100,000 12,600 54,275 166,875 Source: O'Day Consultants Notes: 1 Parcel B grading will involve 10,000 cubic yards of export. 2 The grading quantities shown above are estimates and may change based on final grading plans and analysis. Project grading will not trigger the need to obtain a Hillside Development Permit. The Hillside Development Ordinance allows up to 8,000 cubic yards of grading per acre, while proposed grading involves approximately 1,100 cubic yards per acre. The total number of truck trips associated with the required import estimate of 166,875 cubic yards is 11,920, assuming a capacity of 14 cubic yards per truck. Averaged over a grading time frame of 6-8 weeks, import will result in between 66 and 50 truck trips per day. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to prepare a truck routing plan to avoid the use of residential streets. As stated previously, Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code contains grading policies and mitigation for projects located within the coastal zone. The project will be required to obtain a coastal development permit, which is subject to the development standards requirements of Section 21.203.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. These development standards address the preservation of steep slopes and vegetation, drainage, erosion, sedimentation, habitat, landslides and slope instability, seismic hazards, and floodplain development. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan Draft Program EIR 5.9-7 City of Carlsbad April J997P&T As indicated previously, the project she has been utilized for agricultural operations. A Phase 1 Environmental Assessment for hazardous materials has been prepared for the project site and while no significant contamination has been identified on-site, the report does contain recommendations that should be implemented prior to development of the site (Ref. C-22). The City's General Plan Master EIR requires the preparation of a soils report and submittal to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. While a report has been prepared for the project site, it must be submitted to the County for review and approval in order to satisfy the General Plan Master EIR requirement. In order to ensure that the project complies with the grading policies for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, Mitigation Measure 1 is proposed. In order to ensure that the project complies with human health mitigation identified in the General Plan Master EIR, Mitigation Measure 2 is proposed. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce the impact associated with grading to a level less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Grading shall comply with the provisions of Section 21.203.040 Development Standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as part of the Coastal Development Permit. The provisions of Section 21.203.040 shall be attached as conditions to future Coastal Development Permits for the project site. 2. Prior to the approval of site development permits, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to City and County Health Departments for review and approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or storage of agricultural chemicals restricted by the San Diego County Department of Health Services. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health. All recommendations contained in the report shall be implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION No significant impact to visual aesthetics has been identified for the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce the impact associated with grading to a level less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project in conjunction with other cumulative projects will not result in a significant cumulative visual aesthetics/grading impact. Please refer to Section 7.1 of this document for a detailed discussion of cumulative impacts. Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan City of Carlsbad Draft Program EIR 5.9-8 April 1997Par DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC I Engineering, Planniag, EniwiwOTimtt/ Sciences ana Managemtnt SeiriooB Corporate Office: 606 Third Street EncmitJS, California 92124 760,942.5147 F«M 760.632.0164 24 March 2000 858-02 Brian Murphy Benchmark Pacific 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Poinsettia Properties Stockpile Plan Dear Brian: Based on your request and our telephone conversation on 21 Match 2000,1 have reviewed the Stockpile and Erosion Control Plans for the Poinsettia Properties Areas 2,3, and 4. The stockpile permit allows for the stockpile of up to 100,000 cubic yards of import soil which will be used at a later date for grading the site to establish grades that allow the subdivision to install drains and sewer. The proposed stockpile area is provide with a number of erosion control devices including a straw bale dike surrounding the entire stockpile on the north, south, and west sides; a silt fence located outside of the straw bale dike; and four visqueen downdrains to prevent sedimentation and erosion of the stockpile area into other areas of the property. The toe-of-slope of the stockpile is located approximately 150 feet from the closest location to the wetland buffer area. This wetland buffer provides an additional protection distance of 200 feet from the existing vernal pool area and an approximately 150 foot distance from a ponded area that contained Riverside fairy shrimp (Steptocephalus voootonf) during the El Nino year of 1997-98. The vernal pool area as well as the wetland buffer area established in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been fenced to provide protection from impacts. Based on the location of the proposed stockpile being an adequate distance from the sensitive vernal pool area and the proposed measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation from the stockpile, no impacts will occur to the sensitive habitat area. Please feel free to contact me at (760) 942-2147 with questions or if you require additional information. Very truly yours, DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ^^ -^*- City of Carlsbad Planning Department April 13, 2000 Mr. Doug Avis 5050 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CDP 00-13 - POINSETTIA PROPERTIES PA 2, 3, & 4 STOCKPILE PERMIT Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your coastal development permit, application no. CDP 00-13, as to its completeness for processing. The application is complete, as submitted. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. The City may, in the course of processing the application, request that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise, supplement the basic information required for the application. In addition, you should also be aware that various design issues may exist. These issues must be addressed before this application can be scheduled for a hearing. The Planning Department will begin processing your application as of the date of this communication. Please contact your staff planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincere Plannirv J. HOLZMI Director MJH:BK:mh Adrienne Landers, Team Leader Mike Shirey, Project Engineer File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 FROM': BENCHMRRK PfiCIFIC FflX NO. : 760 438 5980 flpr. 14 2000 10:02flM PI To: CC: From: Date: Subject: BENCHMARK PACIFIC 5055 Avenida Encinas Suite 210 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-8477 FAX (760) 438-5980 Adriene Landers Doug Avis April 14, 2000 Stockpile Permit Per our conversation I have enclosed a copy of the Check and the City of Carlsbad Receipt for the payment of the Agricultural Mitigation Fee for Planning Areas 2, 3 and 4. The City Receipt is a little hard to read, but the receipt number is clear. The total amount paid was $263,780. Please call if you need additional documentation. Thank you for your help in this matter. « Interrupted Transmission » FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX ND. : 760 438 5980 Apr. 14 2000 10:03AM P2 Ul *i o 0 c\ - 8 Is 3! Q 9900 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 Apr. 14 2000 10:04AM P3 cD •JT D 8rfl Oru CD efl OO Oru ru cfl D OJa 5055 Avenida Encinas Suite #210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 FAX 760/438/5980 760/438/8477 April 13, 2000 Adriene Landers Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California Dear Dee: I received your telephone message this morning regarding your question as to how we evaluate the "material" which we will be importing to our site. In your question to me you asked specifically, "How do we calculate the cost or value of the dirt?". The most direct answer is that we assign no cost to the dirt, because we incur no cost. The benefit of a Stockpile Permit, and the reason we have been working with the City for over a year to secure one, is that it allows a receiving site the ability to take "spoils" from other sites in the area. As long as another site or grading operation has the responsibility of removing the material from their site, they also have the responsibility of disposing of it. If we have a receiving site close to the removal site, and have the ability to receive it, we incur no cost. This is because we become the cheapest alternative for the removal site. As an example, if we would have been able to secure this Stockpile Permit six months ago, removal material from the Fieldstone and Shea sites, which are directly adjacent to our property, would have been placed on our property at no cost. Because we did not have the Permit, the material was trucked elsewhere in the City. There exists a fundamental economic concept that if you are able to receive material at your site before you need it, and other projects have the urgency to remove it, you bear little or no cost in receiving it. This fundamental economic concept was clearly understood and accepted by your Engineering Department in their bonding requirements for the Standard Pacific Grading Permit and for our own Grading Permit. In issuing the Standard Pacific Grading Permit a value of the material to be removed was included in the total amount which was bonded for. We have previously given you a copy of their Grading Permit. To the contrary, when the Engineering Department issued our Grading Permit associated with the BENCHMARKPACIFIC Adriene Landers Page 2 April 13, 2000 Stockpile Permit they did not include the import material in the bonding requirement. We have also given you a copy of our Grading Permit. Simply stated, the Engineering Department, in calculating their bond amounts assigned no value on the received material. It seems clear that the Planning Department must evaluate the "cost" of the import material exactly the same. In your message you asked me to explain how we would arrive at a "value" or "cost" of the import material. We would place a "value " or "cost" of zero to this material for two reasons. First, we incur no actual cost for the material. Our only cost is associated in taking erosion control measures. Second, the Engineering Department has made the exact same evaluation in setting bond amounts in issuing our Grading Permit. In conclusion, it seems that both City policy and a fundamental economic concept in our industry agree that the import material has a value of zero. For this reason it seems clear that the "cost" or "value" of our proposed Stockpile Permit is well below $60,000. For this reason, the Permit should clearly fall within the scope of a Minor Coastal Permit. Dee, in your discussion with Brian Murphy yesterday you stated simply that the decision that a Major Coastal Permit would be required because our bonding requirement was for more than $60,000. As you now know, our bonding requirement is not for more than $60,000. It is for $36,000. I cannot understand the dilema in issuing us a Minor Coastal permit under the circumstances. Sincerely, Doug Avis ^Mi \ ^ i T4r\ 4::V\3e?> ^ £*~-N«^ _^», ^ ^ < ,-r" Company No. Please Print City of Carlsbad Engineering Department HAUL ROUTE PERMIT Permit No. Company Name: <^ ^ A/ #<,< s-jva ^ Address: /OoQl -I//) /??**" City, State: 6; r <vj z>; o u __ 6* , Export Project # Import Project # / ^_^_ vcL Zip: / 2-d 7 £ £Site Address: / iX Site Address: , Phone Number ~7£c - 7 </3 - -$f f c/ 24-HR Phone No.: 7^>- 7 1/£ - ST^S? Contact Person: f&£ (<«ri> c L ^;:fat%Cx' ;%^TA^^SS,C? 4 v /^« v 6 X/' /// k L / t3L^=> /$ tf j f t> /^W/V/0,0 /<^A/ei«/A.<: ,' /o/ -v/7^777^ /A/ . ' Import Project # Site Address: Xty^y/oo f */<;',*/*-!• / fa ^T&rn* S*j . ^ /?,/• ^Planchecken Inspector C/j,p* ci<- •>/sys/c?1'~i— ^_ — --N. » / * / Material to be hauled: /^ ^ <^ /X 0.7 Dates From: To: Quantity: bo.o** - /No. of Trucks Hauling: /^" Type of Trucks: ^T>^ . £^-p ^ J^ C /f^t>^ X ^s'x*^ &**>£ s /*Z L>*y /¥*<;(. ) Tractor No.: # # # License Plate: # # # flrinirv ^//y/xi/Xxi 73/^,./cy - f~Y/t,**f? ^/L(r^/-/v/i Hoetinatinn- /vvtf-fJi t>A ^-^/Crsjfi -sr r /^/ v/ r<-Tr, A / ./ Thomas Brothers: Route through Carlsbad: Thomas Brothers: ~>' • v/ ^ l-»^-'/S. t- <7A/ /V(,i///aA/i c/v ~i~ 4 ' "i~^~. HAULING OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT ON SATURDAY. SUNDAY, OR CITY HOLIDAY PROHIBITED. HOURS ARE RESTRICTED TO 7:00 AM TO 4:00 PM. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THE CITY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVOKE OR CHANGE THIS HAUL ROUTE AT ANY TIME. HAUL ROUTES ARE TO BE KEPT CLEAN AT ALL TIMES. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL BE CAUSE FOR REVOCATION OF THIS PERMIT. APPLICANT SHALL DELIVER ONE APPROVED COPY OF THIS PERMIT TO THE CARLSBAD POLICE DEPARTMENT AT 2560 ORION WAY. AND ASSURE THAT ONE APPROVED COPY IS IN EACH TRUCK ASSIGNED TO THE HAUL ONE APPROVED COPY SHALL REMAIN AT THE SITE(S). PERMITTEE SHALL INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS, AND DEFEND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD OR ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES FROM ALL CLAIMS. DAMAGE OR LIABILITY TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY ARISING FROM OR CAUSED BY ANY ACTIVITY OR WORK DONE PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT UNLESS THE DAMAGE OR LIABILITY WAS CAUSED BY ANY ACTIVITY OR WORK DONE PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT UNLESS THE DAMAGE OR LIABILITY WAS CAUSED BY THE SOLE ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CITY OR ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE 5 FOR CITY USE ONLY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: APPROVED BY: EXTENSION APPR BY: DATE DATE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS O.AUB«ARY\EN3\WORCM>OCS\MISFOKMS»fcJ RoU* Pin* FRM0008B doc Rw. V21/S8 5055 Avenida Encinas Suite * 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 FAX 760/438/5980 760/438/8477 •-: PUNNING DEP;!SP,,;.IV!T i" April 3, 2000 Michael Holzmiller Director of Planning City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92009 Dear Michael: I am writing this letter to you as a follow up to my earlier letter of March 29, 2000. I have enclosed a copy of the Grading Permit for the Standard Pacific site, or Mariano Unit 1. This Permit , and associated fees included a removal or waste of 93,200 cubic yards, as you can se. If you remember in my earlier letter, I pointed out that the value of the import to our site should be zero, as this work was previously valued in the Standard Pacific Grading Permit. As you can see, this Permit paid a fee of $16,050. I have requested a meeting with you and Marty Orenyak. I made this request on March 29, 2000. 1 have heard nothing to date. I would like very much to discuss this matter with you as soon as possible. Sincerely, Doug Avis cc: Marty Orenyak, City of Carlsbad Dee Landers, City of Carlsbad Barbara Kennedy, City of Carlsbad. BENCHMARKPACIFIC APR-03-03 Dr:irAH FROH-STAN0AR3 PACIFIC S,0,858-ZiZ-ZZ6i)T-m 07/30/1999 joO Address: Permit Type; GRAPING Parcel No: City of Carlsbad Grading Permit Permit Biualtne submitted?: Y Lot * 0 SfisSS^ Location: AVIARA PARKWAY/COBBLESTONE Project Title; MARIANO UNIT 1 Description: Applicant: STANDARD PACIFIC CORP 9338 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIE90 CA 92123 619292-2200 Status: I Applied: 07/01/1999 Issued: 07/30/1999 Entered By: MAM Total Fees: Si6.oso.00 Cut: Import: Remedial: Grading Fee Additional Fee Other " * M@TOh ft' ^ "f-\\^ -'V- w*t'*'r'Nji T'^'Maih'-iiJSlLi'l1 W^W- !i!ifr»«239miiijui?l!aH!». '«!.*; -1* i rfftSf" fiaSSff .bqi Permit Raleaae Date Released. crrv OP CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palnms Dn, Carbbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 IVd 00/OC/CO FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 Mar. 29 2000 03: 26PM PI Benchmark Pacific BOSS Avenfda Encfnas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760)4384477 Fax:(760)438-6980 PAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: To: Sender \>r**»* yO£/ SHOULD RECEIVE \b PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SWEET. /F YOt/ DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL. MESSAGE 40 — k— FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 Mar. 29 2000 03:27PM P2 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING May 20,1999 Benchmark Pacific 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, California 92008 ATOM: Brian Murphy CWE 199.192.3 SUBJECT: Pesticide Residue Mitigation, Planning Area 5, Poinsertia Properties Specific Plan, Carlsbad, California Dear T.atiig« and Gen In accordance with your request, we hare prepared this letter to present our opinion regarding the proposed mitigation of pesticide residues in soils at the Poinsettia Properties site. We understand that Bridge Housing, the pending buyer o£ Planning Area 5, proposes to mitigate the presence of pesticide residues ia the on-site soils by excavating the upper three to six fett of soil and burying the uppermost two feet of excavated soil at the bottom of the excavation. The burial option proposed is acceptable to us. Based on previous conversations -with personnel from the San Diego County Health Department, we understand that this is their preferred (diough not the only acceptable) mitigation alternative. If you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Curtis R Burden, C.E.G. #1090 CKB:crb cc: (2) Submitted 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 921U •»• 619-496-9760 •»• FAX 619-496-9758 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX ND. : 760 436 5980 ^^ Mar. 29 2000 03:27PM P3 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING April 12,1999 Benchmark Pacific CWE 199 ^.j 5055 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, California 92008 ATTN: Briaa Murphy SUBJECT: Report of Limited Pesticide Sampling, Pomsettia Properties - Parcel A, Avenida Encinas and Poinsettia Avenue, Carlsbad, California Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have peiformed some limited sampling and testing for pesticide residues of the near-surface soils at the subject site. This limited sampling and testing was performed m order to evaluate the amount of pesticide residues in the soils and determine whether the residues are below regulatory limits for residential uses. El wen samples were obtained at representative locations at a depth of approximately one foot to two feet tdow the existing ground surface; the sample locations are shown on the accompanying Plate No. 1. The samples we« submitted to an approved environmental testing laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures for analysis. The results of the laboratory tests indicate that detecable amounts of pesticide residues were detected in all of the samples obtained on April 2,1999 -< t a depth of approximately one foot to two feet Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (ITLC) for n^phene and DDT/DDE/DDD are 5.0 mg/kg and 1,0 nig/1®, respectively. Preliminary remediation jpsals (PRGs) for residential soil established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for toxaphe:ne, DDT/DDE, and DDD are 0.4 mg/kg, 1.7 mg/kg, and Z4 mg/kg, respectively, A summary of the TTLCs, the PRG$, and the laboratory test results are presented below; complete copies of the test results are presented at the rear of this report. Threshold Mmit DPP DDE DDT Toxaphcne (PP«>) 1115 (ppb) 1000 1000 1000 5,000 2S£ EDD EPE QDJ. ToxaphgQg (pptn) 2.4 1.7 1.7 0.4 (ppb) 2400 1700 1700 400 4925 Mcrtury Street •«• San Diego, CA 92111 4- 619-496-9760 -f FAX 619-496-975S FROM : BENCHMARK PflCIFIC ^ FflX NO. : 760 43B 59S0 A Mar. 29 2000 03: 28PM P4 . CWE 199.192.1 - Apnl 12,199-) ' <ppb) PP2NW 309 670 192 253 (PTAS # t) 37 121 76 121 (PTAS #2) PP2NE(dup) 60 166 m 495 PP2SW 34 143 60 503 (PTAS # 3) PP2SE 57 153 t38 192 (PTAS #4) PP3 1,090 2,170 921 744 (PTAS # 5) PP4W 471 1,370 476 618 (PTAS #6) PP4E 353 1,330 364 558 (PTAS #7) PP5N 451 2,290 570 1J70 (PTAS #8) PP5SW 522 1,770 373 t,450 (PTAS #9) PP5SE 184 914 197 935 (PTAS # 10) PP6 452 1,410 500 1,560 (PTAS #11) FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC CWE 199-192,1 FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 April 12,1999 Mar. 29 2000 03:28PM P5 3 The laboratory test results indicate the following: 1) One sample (PP 3) was slightly above die tTLC tor DDD; none of the samples were above the PRGforDDD. 2) Six samples were above the TTLC for DDE: four of the samples were above the PRG for DDE. 3) No samples were above either the TlTX or die PRG for DDT. 4) No samples were above the TTLC for toxaphene; nine samples were above die PRG for toxaphene. 5) The samples tested ranged ftom less than the recommended limit to slightly above the recommended limit, to as much as approximately four times the recommended limit. Based on the laboratory test results, it is our opinion that after site preparation procedures associated with the anticipated improvements, die amount of p<sticide residues remaining in the near-surface soils should be sufficiently low so drat "no significant risk" to the healdi and safety of workers and residents is present The "no significant risk" level assumes that that the. occurrence of one excess lifetime cancer in a population of one million is "not significant". The samples tested tanged from less than the recommended limit to slightly above the recommended limit, to as much as approximately four times the recommended limit. It is expected that after Welding the near-surface soils with other on-sire soils and/or imported soils, the levels will be reduced to l>elow both the TTLC and the PRG limits. It may be advisable to verify this during and after grading; operations. If you have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact r.his office. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Curtis R. Burdett, CE.G, #1090 CRBxrb cc: (2) Submitted PACIFIC NO. : 760 438 5980 552*0*0, I 29 2008 03 .-29PM (jf ~Hv O erf g £ °-*«Mwh«, Enein p'ate Number: f FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 Mar. 29 2000 03:30PM P7 Pacific Treatment 4340 Viewridge Avenue, Suite A » San Diego, CA 92123 Analytical Services, Inc.(619) 560-7717 • Fax (619) 560-7763 Analytical Chemistry Laboratory April 12,1999 Christrian Wheels- Engineering AQn.: Curtis Burdett 4925 Mercury Street San Diego, California 92111 Project Name/No,: Poinsettia Properties Laboratory Log No.: 0752-99 Date Received: 04/02/99 Sample Matrix: Eleven soil samples PONo.: 199.192 Please find the following enclosures for the above referenced project identified: 1) Analytical Report 2) QA/QC Report 3) Chain of Custody Form Samples were analyzed pursuant to client request utilizing EPA or other ELAP approved methodologies. Date of extraction, date of analysis, detection limits and dilution factor are reported for each compound analyzed. All samples were analyzed within the method required holding time from sample collection. Data for each analytical method was evaluated by assessing the following QA/QC functions, as applicable to the methodology: Quality Control Standard Surrogate Percent Recovery Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) percent recoveries for all analyses Matrix Spike Recovery/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery (MSR & MSDR) and/or Relative Percent Difference (RPD from MSR & MSDR) / certify that this data report is in compliance both technically and for completeness. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data report has been authorized by the following signature. /Janis Columbo Vice President/Laboratory Director Water • Soil • Waste • Waste water • Marine Sediment & Tissues • Elutriate Analyses Thst Produce Results! FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC ^ FAX NO. : 760 43B 5980 Jfe Mar. 29 2000 03:30PM PB ANALYSIS RES ULTS - EPA 8080 ORCANOCHLOR1NE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: N/A DATE RECEIVED: N/APROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETOA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED- 04/06/99 PTAS LOG* METHOD BLANK DATE ANALYZED: 04/08/99 SAMPLEID.-N/A MATWX. SOUD DILUTION FACTOR: 1 _^ SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC(LINDANE) 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND ODD 2 ND DDE 2 ND DDT 2 ND D1ELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFAN H 2 ND ENDOSULFAN/SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND • ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 126 Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4*10 vtaMWgcA*., sum A .wnofcjo.cA 92123 (6i9)560-77i7 F*x(6i9)&60-r763 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC ^ FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 Jfe Mar. 29 2000 03:31PM P9 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED- 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.; POINSETTIA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-1 DATE ANALYZED; 04/08-09/99 SAMPLE ID: PP2NW MATRIX" SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLEVOL./WT.: 300 ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPEi(UG/KG) PPB(UG/K<3) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 NDGAMMA.BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 309 * 4,4-DDE 20 670 * 4,4-DDT 20 192 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANU 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 253 ** ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 115 •NOTE: THIS ANALYTPS CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF= 10) «« NOT& TOXAPHBNE is A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHBNB PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE Q.UANTITATION OF OT1IER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. WQ vnwiwge AV«,, suite A«san wego, CA 92123 (6t9) seo-77i7 FAX (619) S60-:763 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC A FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 4fc Mar. 29 2000 03:31PM P10 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLOFJNE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETOA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-2 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 SAMPLE ID: PP2NE MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 ^ SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 300 ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPE (UO/KQ) PPB (UQ/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 37 4,4-DDE 2 12, 4,4-DDT 2 76 DIELDRIN 2 NDENDOSULFAN i 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRJN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOX1DE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 121 * ND - ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOf .TING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORD!**3LY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 tl7 • NOTE- TOXAPHENB IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTB AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANHTAT1ON OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BB ACCURATE. Pacific Tteatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 viewiia^ AW., suite A. ssnDisgo.cA 92123 (6i9)seo-77ir FAX(619)&€0-'T63 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC ^ FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 4fc Mar. 29 2000 03:32PM Pll ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 PROJECTNAME/No, POINSETTtA PROPERTIES SSSSSSt). £££ DILUTION FACTOR: 1 REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPE(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ALPHA-BHC 2 ™ BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 ^ 4,4-DDE 20 1««* 4,4-DDT 2 1I8 DIELDR1N 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 495 ** ND ' ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 25-146 126 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTES CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF»1 0) •• NOTE; TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MAN" TOXAPH6NE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS: THEREFORE, THE QUANTTTATION OF OTTER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE- Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. ^oviflwri(ii)«Ave.,sutoA.sanDis9o, CASZIZS {619)560-771? FAX(619)560-',7S3 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 fe ^ 29 2^ Q3'^3PM ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DAtE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 _ DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POWSETTIA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED-. 04/06/99 PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-3 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 SAMPLE ID: PP 2 SW MATRJX: DILUTION FACTOR: I ANALYTE ALDRIN ALPHA-BHC BETA-BHC GAMMA-BHC DELTA-BHC CHLORDANE 4,4-DDD 4,4-DDE 4,4-DDT DIELDRIN ENDOSULFAN I ENDOSULFAN II ENDOSULFAN SULFATE ENDRIN ENDRIN ALDEHYDE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE METHOXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE REPORTING LIMITS PPB (UG/KG) 2 2 2 2 2 20 2 20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 20 25 RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) ND ND ND ND ND ND 34 143* 60 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 503** ND • ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 2<>-146 119 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) •• NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER !»E$TtClDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTTTATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4MOw«wnd«eAw..swtoA-SanDi«Qo,CA92i23 (Bisjsw-zm FAX(6i9)56o-7763 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC ^^ FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 4fe Mar. 29 2000 03:33PM P13 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 0.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES DILUnONFACTOR: 1 SVO,.WT. ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPE(UG/KO) PPB(UG/KO) ALDRIN 2 ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA.BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 57 4,4-DDE 20 153 * 4,4-DDT 20 138* DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 192 ** ND * ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOf.TING UMTT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 125 •MOTE: THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED ATA DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-=tO> •• NOTE: TOXAPHENB IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTB AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 43.10 vawndje AW,, sune A • san Diego, CA 82123 (6i«) 660-771? FAX (619) SOKTM FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC A FAX NO. : 760 438 5960 A Mar. 29 2000 03:34PM-P14> ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED; 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSBTTIA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED.- 04/06/99 PTASLOGfc 0752-99-5 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 SAMPLEID-.PP3 MATOX. SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 __ SAMPLE VOL7WT.: 300 ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHL0RDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 1,090 * 4,4-DDE 200 2,170 ** 4,4-ODT 20 921 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 744 *** ND « ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REfORTINO LIMIT WEPORTINO LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 2M46 130 * NOTE: THIS ANALYTFS CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A E'IFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF» 10) ** NOTE: THIS ANALYTES CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-JOO) ••• NOTE; TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE. THE QUANTITATlON OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE, Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 434ovtewiwa»Av»,, suite A.swoieoo.CA 92123 (6i9)5eo-rm Mx<6i9)5$o-7.'63 ™w un • -7ACT 4-ro S9B0 ^ Mar. 29 2000 03:34PM _.PISFROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC ^ FflX HO. • 760 438 5980 ^ „, ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLQRINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 PTASLOGfc 0752-99-6 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 SAMPLE ID; PP4W MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: t SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORFING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 471 * 4y4-DDE 20 1370 * 4,4-DDT 20 476* DffiLDRJN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN1 2 ND ENDOSULFAN11 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 618 ** ND=ANAi-YTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOR" .ING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 121 * NOTE: THIS ANALYTE-S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A CIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) " NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTtqDB PEAKS; THEREFORE. THE QUANTITAT1ON OF OTHJJR PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. paciffc Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 434cvte*tw«eA¥e.,suittA.swiowgo,cA82i23 (6i9)5so-77ir FAX(619)560-7763 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5980 jf^ Mar. 29 2000 03:35PM__P16 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA S080 ORGANOCHLOPINE PESTICIDES CLIENT'. CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETTU PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99PTASLOG#: 0752-99-7 DATE ANALYZED: 04/0*-09/99 SAMPLE ID: PP 4 E MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: t _ SAMPLE VQL./WT.; 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LfMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPBOJG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 3S3 * 4,4-DDE 20 1,330 * 4,4-DDT 20 364 * DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFAN H 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRJN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOX1DE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 558 ** ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOK1 ING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 127 » NOTE: THIS ANAtYTES CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR, (DF=IO) «« NOTE: TOXAPHENB IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATtON OF OTHLR PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. PaeHlc Treatment Analytic*! Services, Inc. 4340 wewwa* AW.. sutoMSm 01*50. CA 92123 <6i9)seo.77u FAX(6i9)56o-77i>3 « *•*<-. coora ^ Mar 29 2000 03:35PM PIT.FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC - FAX NO. : 760 43B 5980 * Mar,.J9 ANALYSIS RESULTS • EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORHVE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETOA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED: 04/06/99 PTAS LOG #: 0752-99-8 DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99 SAMPLE ID: PP 5 N MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 10 . SAMPLE VQL7WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 20 ND ALPHA-BHC 20 ND BETA-BHC 20 ND GAMMA-BHC 20 ND DELTA-BHC 20 ND CHLORDANE 200 ND 4,4-DDD 20 451 4,4-DDE 200 2,290 * 4,4-DDT 20 570 DffiLDRIN 20 ND ENDOSULFANI 20 ND ENDOSULFAN U 20 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 20 ND ENDRfN 20 ND ENDWN ALDEHYDE 20 ND HEPTACHLOR 20 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 100 ND METHOXYCHLOR 200 ND TOXAPHENE 350 1,770 ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPOSING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDING) .Y TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 2«-146 103 » NOTE; THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-100) « NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE. THE QUANTITATION OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340'/wwM8*^..Suh8A.sanDi«go,CA92i23 (6l9)5«H7t7 FAX(6i9)S6o-77W P^V wn • 7fi0 438 5980 A Mar. 29 2000 03."36PM P18FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC — ^AX N0- • 760 43B ^^ • ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 DATE RECEIVED: 04/02/99PROJECT NAME/NO.: POINSETTIA PROPERTIES DATE EXTRACTED- 04/06/99 PTAS LOG * 0752-99-9 DATE ANALYZEI* ' 04/08-09/99 SAMPLE1D.-PP5SW - SQIL 30 GDILUTION FACTOR: 1 _ _ SAMPLE VOL./WT.: ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 522 * 4,4-DDE SO 1T770 *« 4,4-DDT 20 373 * DIBLDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN H 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 1,450 **• ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDING!. Y TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 133 * NOTE; THIS ANALYTES CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DHIFfeRENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=10) »• NOTE: THIS ANALYTE* CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DIFFERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-25) «• MOTS: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WtTH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTtTATlON OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, inc. 4MO v*wrWgeAve.,s<*»A.sanDteoo,cA 92123 (em) 560-7717 FAX (619> 550-776:1 FROM : BEHCHHSRK WCIFIC ^ FBX NO. : 7SO 43B 59B0 ^ Mar. 2S 2000 B3:37P. Pig ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED: 04/02/99 PROJECT NAME/NO, POINSETTIA PROPERTIES DATC EXTORTED: StL^L* °Jf 95M° DATE ANALYZED: 04/08-09/99SAMPLE ID: PPSSE MATRIX' SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOUWT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB0JG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ^ DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 20 184 * 4,4-DDE 20 914 * 4,4-DDT 20 197 * D1ELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRJN 2 ND ENDRJN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE IS 93S ** ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDING! Y TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPT ABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 120 • NOTE THIS ANALYTE'S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DI1-TERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF-10) •» NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONfcNT ANALYTE AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER. PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANT1TATION OF OTHEK. PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Tfeatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 vwwidg«Ave..Sune A •SwOieoo.CA 92123 (619)560-7717 PAX (619) 560-776;i FOV m • TfiB 43S 5980 A Mar. 29 2000 03:37PM_P20_FROM : BENCHMARK PftCIFIC A ™X NO. . 760 438 b^b* ^ ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 OUGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DATE SAMPLED; 04/02/99 * ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ALPHA-BHC 2 BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND M-WW> 20 452 * 4,4-DDE 50 I>410 ** 4,4-DDT 20 500 DffiLDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN I 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 20 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 1,560*** ND = ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINOL Y TQ ACCOUNT FOR D1LUTJON FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-I4U 132 • NOTE: THIS ANALYTE-S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A DMTERENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF<=10) •• NOTE: THIS ANALYTE-S CONCENTRATION WAS DETERMINED AT A D FFEKENT DILUTION FACTOR. (DF=2S) ""NOTE: TOXAPHENE IS A MULTI-COMPONENT ANALYTB AND MANY TOXAPHENE PEAKS COELUTE WITH OTHER PESTICIDE PEAKS; THEREFORE, THE QUANTITATTON OF OTHER PESTICIDES MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 vavwwoe AW., sute A • san t>by>, CA 92123 (619) seo-7717 FAX (6isj 560-776:1 FROM '• BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : "760 438 5980 Mar. 29 2000 03:3BPM P21_ QA/QC REPORT METHOD: EPA «08ft-SOIL DATE ANALYZED: 04/08/99 QA/QC SAMPLE: 0752-99-2 SPIKED ANALYTE GAMMA-BHC HEPTACHLOR ALDRIN . DIBLDRIN ENDRD4 4,4-DDT LCS%R 124 105 109 138 123 123 MS%R 127 125» 121 125 135 329* MSD % R 132* (32' !28» 62* 145 S64* RPD 4 5 6 26 7 10 ACCEPTABLE LCS.MSyMSD CRITERIA % 32-127 34-111 42-122 36-146 30-147 25-160 ACCEPTABLE RPD CRITERIA % <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 LCS % R = LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE PERCENT RECOVERY MS % R » MATRIX SPIKE PERCENT RECOVERY MSD % R - MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE PERCENT RECOVERY RPD = RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE * NOTE: POOR RECOVERY ATTRIBUTABLE TO SAMPLE MARIX EFFECTS. (619)560-7717 FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC TI .- FAX NO. : 760 438 59 0 Mar. 29 2000 03:3BPM P22 3RLW axts 08WM09 FROM V. BENCHMARK PACIFIC_FAX NO. : 760 43B 5 80 Mar. 292000 03=39PM P23 \f FROM : BENCHMARK PACIFIC FAX NO. : 760 438 5960 May. 01 2000 10:22AM P2 Memorandum BENCHMARK PACIFIC 50S5 Avenida Encinas, Suite 210 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 438-8477 Fax (760) 438-5980 DATE: May 1,2000 TO: Dee Landers FROM: Brian Murphy RE: Southwest Homeowners Association Meeting CC: Doug Avis Dee. Just to let you know, this morning I meet with the Southwest Homeowners Association. The Association is a group of representatives from the various homeowner associations in the southwest quadrant; Jim Calclaser is the group's president The meeting was scheduled some time ago to present an update on the developments within the Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan. We used the opportunity to mention that we will begin importing soil to Planning Areas 2,3 and 4, We explained that the import is consistent will the specific plan and required due to "shrinkage". We also explained that the import is not part of any building approvals. We told the group that we are preparing a tentative map for Planning Areas 2,3 and 4, and that we would meet again with the group to review the map once it has been submitted to the City. No one seemed concerned about the import. The group members seemed to be happy with the project and appreciated the update. Please call with any questions. GEOCON INCORPORATED Geotechnical Engineers andEngineering Geologists Project No. 05684-12-01 February 14, 1996 HSL/BP/Michan L. P. c/o Benchmark Pacific Post Office Box 2524 Carlsbad, California 92018 Attention: Mr. Doug Avis Subject: POINSETTIA PROMENADE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA UPDATE REPORT Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization and our proposal dated February 9, 1996, presented herein is an update to our report for the subject property entitled Geotechnical Investigation [for] Poinsettia Promenade, Carlsbad, California, (Report File No. D-4052-J01), dated January 26, 1988. The scope of our services included the following: 1. Conduct a site visit to verify that site conditions have not changed substantially since the date of the above-referenced investigation. 2. Review the referenced report; and 3. Prepare this update report confirming that site conditions have not changed and that the recommendations as presented in the geotechnical report essentially remain valid for the project development or, if necessary, provide modifications to update the report. A site visit was performed on February 13, 1996. The property was observed to be in essentially the same condition reported in the original geotechnical report. A landscape nursery stock (palm tree boxing) operation is currently operating in the eastern portion of the site along the Avenida Encinas frontage. However, this activity is not, in our opinion, considered to have impacted the geotechnical or geologic site conditions. 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego. CA 92121-2974 619558-6900 FAX 619558-6159 Project No. 05684-12-01 February 14, 1996 Page 2 Review of the conclusions and recommendations presented in the original project report indicates that the document essentially remains valid and applicable to the anticipated site development except for the comment and revisions as noted below. Based on the information as presented in the site study, as well as our experience with the area geology installation of below-grade improvements which are placed below the existing perched groundwater table should be carefully considered. Control of groundwater to enable installation of such improvements may be difficult. Development plans and prospective contractors should be aware of this condition. Geocon Incorporated has revised the recommended grading specifications; therefore, it is recommended that such documents as contained in Appendix C of the geotechnical report be replaced with the enclosed updated recommended grading specifications. The project soils engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans for future development prior to fmalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report and this update report and determine the need for additional comments, recommendations, and or analysis. If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, )CON INCO, :. Leaka , RCE 22527 AS:DFL:slc Enclosure: Recommended Grading Specifications (revised Appendix C) (4) Addressee APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR POINSETTIA PROMENADE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. D-4052-J01 REVISED FEBRUARY 14, 1996 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIHCATIONS 1 GENERAL 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom- mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the commencement gf grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so chat personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading cedes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for confonnance with these specifications. 2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7 Geotedmical Report shall refer to a soil report (including ail addendums) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. MATERIALS 3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect die presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by me Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnicai Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above die ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of me ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. 4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided diey are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The e:cposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontakvertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL FINISH SfldCE cecs »or sea NOTES:(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by die Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented- steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design dial it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above die optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by die Consultant, water shall be added by die Contractor until die moisture content is in die range specified. 6.1.4 When die moisture content of die soil fill is above die range specified by die Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, die soil fill shall be aerated by die Contractor by blading/mixing, or odier satisfactory methods until die moisture content is widiin die range specified. 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be dioroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of die in-place dry density of die compacted fill to die maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance widi ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum densiry has been achieved diroughout die entire fill. 6.1.6 Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-dury loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rode fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading, as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, diis method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-64, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the.rocfc fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between lar^e rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rack fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2 The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until me rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 7.5 The Consultant shall observe the placement of sufadrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1 Sofl and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 7.6.1.4 Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2 Rock Fills: 7.6.2.1 Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM Dl 196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8 PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work rn the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. 9 CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1 Upon completion of the work. Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating chat the lots and/or building pads are graded, to within Q.i foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of die subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial confonnance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. CCOOB IncorponBd Fora. Rerakn fefc