The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-6813 CN/G NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT # r - cit or R r, Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replemshment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering August 6, 2004 Attn: California Bank and Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 Attn: Ed Kaiser RE: AK Properties I LLC 155 Saxony Road APN 258- 111 -07 Grading Permit 6813 -GI Final release of security Permit 6813 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the rough grade at this time. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 2300000043 -1 in the amount of $13,704.47 is hereby released in entirety. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Since r y, Masih Maher JaL Bach L y Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager AK Properties 1, LLC Debra Geishart File TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 S05 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 recycled paper - NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT sr, City C! Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering November 12, 2003 Attn: California Bank and Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 Attn: Ed Kaiser RE: AK Properties I LLC 155 Saxony Road APN 258 - 111 -07 Grading Permit 6813 -GI Final release of security Permit 6813 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the rough grade at this time. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 2300000983 -1 in the amount of $41,113.43 is hereby released in entirety. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sin ely, Aayl Vbcho Masih Maher Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager AK Properties I, LLC Debra Geishart File TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 Tj,�l recycled paper r Recording Requested By: ) DOC P 2003 City of Encinitas ) AUG 12 , 2 003 4 :13 P When Recorded Mail to: ) OFFICIAL RECORDS City Clerk ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE GREGORY J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER City of Encinitas ) FEES: 0.00 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) OC. NA Encinitas, CA 92024 ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY ) )SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY V A - ` GRANT DEED FOR CITY HIGHWAY Assessor's Parcel No. 258- 111 -07 Project No.: 6813 -G W.O.No.:00 -038 DRMUP/MOD /CDP AK PROPERTIES I, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP hereinafter called GRANTOR(S), do(es) hereby grant, convey and dedicate in fee title to the PUBLIC, hereinafter called GRANTEE, the right of way and incidents thereto for a public highway upon, over and across that certain real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: SEE EXHIBITS "A" and "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE, The Grantor, for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's remaining property contiguous to the right -of -way hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said highway. grant.hwy 08/12/03 1 STATE OF Idaho ) )ss. COUNTY OF Teton ) On this 5" day of August, in the year of 2003, before me a Notary Public, personally appeared STEPHEN D. LUNCEFORD, known or identified to me (or proved to me on the oath of), to be one of the partners in the partnership of AK PROPERTIES I, a California Limited Partnership, and the partner or one of the partners who subscribed said partnership name to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same in said partnership name. 4 otatry " Pub a lic of Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires.- Dated this day of , 2003 OWNE : AK PROPERTIES I, A CALIFO IA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: STEPHEN D. N C c, �p P TITLE: GENERAL PARTNER s� BY: TITLE: Signature of Owners to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgements. This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant to the City of Encinitas, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned agent on behalf of the A City Council of the City of Encinitas pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas adopted on November 9, 1994 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duty authorized officer. Dated: By: ete�' C'c�'1�ek��fe Alan n A , P.E. (Notarization not required) Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas 2 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO AK PROPERTIES I, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY APRIL 14, 1987 AS FILE NO. 87- 201716, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF APPROVED APRIL 19, 1881, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID AK PROPERTIES I LAND, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF NORTH 87 °53'18" EAST, 2.19 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTH 01 °23'30" WEST, 59.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 285.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 28.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05 "; THENCE SOUTH 57 °24'46" EAST, 1.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 9.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 15.94 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 96 0 08'33 "; THENCE SOUTH 38 °43'47" WEST, 2.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05 0 01'00" EAST, 14.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 250.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 9.74 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 0 13'56 "; THENCE SOUTH 07 0 14'57" EAST, 43.93 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 122.82 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, 14.55 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06 TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID AK PROPERTIES I LAND; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 87 °53'18" WEST, 5.91 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINES OF SAID AK PROPERTIES I LAND NORTH 04 °35'21" WEST, 83.86 FEET, NORTH 87 0 33'50" WEST, 1.43 FEET AND NORTH 01 ° 18'47" EAST, 102.29 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Si p .AND SU Exp. 6/30/0¢ 9 ` F ALOE JULY 1, 2003 TA4710surv\LEGALS \4710 ST DEDICATION.DOC EXHIBIT B STREET DEDICATION PLAT MAP 13226 LINE TABLE I L1 LINE LENGTH BEARING Ll 2.19 N87 °53'18'E o_ L2 1.01 S57 °24'46'E 30' L3 2.74 S38 °4347'W ` L4 14,36 S05 I L5 5,91 S87 °53'18'W N L6 1.43 N87 °33'50'W o N w 0 N88 36'30 "W(R) D= 5'37'48" o R= 285.00' z L= 28.00' L2 D= 96'08'33" R =9.50' ON32'25'15 "E(R ' L= 15.94'APN fl:� 258-111-07 L6 L3 }- L4 S 84'59I00 "W(R) z _____ -- 6=2'1 3'56" z o R= 250.00' X ? L =9.74' Q c cn (n j o � J 0 J (r1 00 fT1 D=6'47'1 1 " SCALE: 1" = 30 R =122.82 o 30 60 L5 L= 14.55' INDICATES AREA OF PM 3037 STREET DEDICATION I LAND SUS` P C L 2 SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. Exp. 5/30/0¢. 4407 MANCHESTER, SUITE 105 r ENCINITAS, CA. 92024 PHONE: (760) 753 -5525 l CIVL ENGINEEMO • PLANNING OF CA0 LAND SURVEYING U : \ldata\ surveys\ 4710sury \dwg \4710_ST_DEDICATI❑N.dwg 6/30/2003 SIDE 4710 GOVERNMENT CODE 2 *7.7 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE NOTARY SEAL ON THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS STATEMENT IS ATTACHED READS AS FOLLOWS: Name of the Notary: Commission Number: Date Commission Expires: -e 3—V — ? County Where Bond is Filed: a Manufacturer or Vendor Number: (Located on both sides of the notary seal border) Signature: dll - Firm NamOirf applicable) Place of Execution: A 14V(!! 0S N Date: e _ Rec. Fofm #RIO (Rev. 71961 low • FROM ! FAX NO. : Jan. 24 2000 04:42AM Pi 71F S?Z614q OF W3 Recording Rmuested by t WM W VF IN 09 3 San Diego Gas & 1Jle� trio .,o T 2003 - ymp r- mpany' J. 510, MOP Wb i recorded :nai. tc ociATM.1,Fzomk d5 Sat►17i Cos & EIectric Company 8335 Century PM* Court San Diego, CA 92123 R"21 Estate & F acilities, CP11D SPACE ABOVE FOIL RECORDER'S SE APIN: g. 1 - Transfer Tao; NONE SAN DIEW GAS & ELBC-TRIC COMPANY The land, tenements ar rcWty is located in the -,..J ° ° 2 ed area ofthe County of San Diego; State of California City of Encinitas, Counts+ of Sa Diego, State of California, and SAN ti DIEGO GAS & 1=S valuable cvnaideration, does CTRIC CONIPANI', a California corporntian (S1"!G &E1 hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim to any and ai[ person(s) ar entity having $ legal or eq�:itable interest in the hereinafter described rea] ro and claim of SDG &'P ir. and to the follAwing described real cr p p� alI right, ritlo, in * -eresr ea.,emeht(s) (1) dated September 9, 1947 and recorded October A ,�j94S in acquire Eby virtue of the Doct:meatt _No. 107632, (2) dated August 7, 1978 and recorded November 21, ? 978 a Recorder's File/Page No. 78- 503036 both of Official Records ofs4d County of San Diego. The real property in • hirb said easement #1 is quitclaimed is described as r'ollows: That certain portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Bern Range 4 We Northwest Q Of Se„tror. 1 S, Toa}�ip :3 Sot:th, ,"t, Son ardino'Vleridian, Conveyed to John R, Todd, Jr. and Siva Todd dy Deed recorded in Book 2134 a *.Page 292, Of?�cia1 Records of said San Diego Co +minty. The real property ?n which said easement #2 is quitclaimed is described as Follows. That portion of the West Half of the Notthc&st Qum. of the Northw•es; Section Township I3 Smrth, Range 4 West, in the County of San_ Diego, described in a Deed rmordecAp 1 14, 1987 at Recorder's FiW?age No. 87. 201716. EXCEPTIOI`T THEREFROM: The Wosterly 50.00 feat iiom the above described property. ai- osasts� FF ! FAX N0. Jan. 24 2000 04:42AM P2 T1us quitclamn does rot release any interest or estate SD nt3y ha in tilt a 1•io%e- described rea; property aficept the easement(s) specked. Y WITNESS WHERBOF, said San Diego Gas & Electric Compar y has �a +ased this deed to be executed in its carporare name by its duly authorized agent this %5" day of SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANKY, a California Co ration 4 D� J oan jeffri Land Mamtg Manager Real Fstate & Facilities Drawn Peacock Chocked zrAr Sketch T -523.M -3011 Date 05 -23 -2003 Q.C. No, 2003 -048 R/W No. 20641(Total)112084(Patt) Field Checked MJWilliaras STAVE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) before me QjW e P. PjMqA Notary Public, personally appeared Jobn B. Burton, personally known to me to be the person whose game is subscrihed to the within instrument and acknowledgement to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that lay his sib on the instrument he or the entity upon which he acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and of d ial real. Connie P. Peacock, Notay Public s �4aword�T.ta,dac; .2• a�.nsss(s) 1 � I SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS I Ivan R. Fox, P.E. Barry L. Munson, P.E. (� Gordon L. McElroy, P.L.S. Laurie Simon, Principal Planner v I CIVIL ENGINEERING May 19, 2003 j Engineering Studies SDE 4710 MAY 20 W Site Development Analysis Grading Plans Improvement Plans City of Encinitas Engineering Department ENGINEERING SERVICES Drainage Plans 505 S. Vulcan CITY OF ENCiNITAS Sewer/Water Line Pla Encinitas, CA 92024 Ilydrologv /Hydraulics Construction Administration Pavement Rehabilitation Subject: Hydrology /Hydraulic Study, Forensic Engineering 155 Saxony Road, APN 258 - 111 -07 j LAND PLANNING Pre - Acquisition Analysis Gentlemen; Land Use Consultation Environmental Analysis As part of the requirements for the referenced grading plan, we have prepared the attached Government Relations Land Division Hydrologic /Hydraulic study for the subject site. Tentative Maps Major Use Permits HYDROLOGY .Specific Plans Rezoning Variances Hydrologic calculations were performed for the basins affecting the proposed improvements. Ad "'` nislralive Per "' its Q' were determined by the County of San Diego Rational Method and are presented on the Annexations B onndayAd;nstn,ents attached Hydrology Calculations worksheet. A time of concentration of 5.0 minutes was assumed for the basins. The site consists of type D soil. Type D soil was used for LA SURVEYING detern of runoff coefficients. The basins are shown on the attached Hydrology Maps. Propertv Surveys Topographical Surveys Construction Slaking HYDRAULICS Records of Survey Legal Descriptions Subdivision Maps Easements Hydraulic calculations for the proposed improvements were performed using Flowmaster, Hei Certifications by Haestad Methods. Hydraulic calculations for all proposed on -site improvements are o rat Surveys Photo attached and the results are incorporated onto the plan. Photogrammetric Surveys If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank u, QaOFESS/ /, R. ante en R. Crosby, PE Principal Engineer NIX 4197 ! (760) 753 -5525 • FAx (760) 943 -8236 4407 Manchester Avenue • Suite 105 • Encinitas, California 92024 PROJECT NAME: ` ANIMAL KEEPER PROJECT NUMBER: 4710.00 COMMENT: COORD: N33 -03 E117 -17 100 YEAR STORM P6 (in): 2.60 P6/P24: 0.65 P24 (in): 4.00 ADJUSTED P6: 2.60 project consists of type D soil WATERSHED EVENT AREA I AREA C Tc I Q DESIGNATIO ear sf (Ac) i h cfs TOTAL SITE: PRE 100.00 38506 0.88 0.63 5.0 6.85 3.81 POST 100.00 38506 0.88 0.69 5.0 6.85 4.18 INCREASE IN Q100= 0.36 INDIVIDUAL BASINS A 100.00 7301 0.17 0.65 5.0 6.85 0.75 B 100.00 6246 0.14 0.55 5.0 6.85 0.54 B1 100.00 2827 0.06 1.00 5.0 6.85 0.44 C 100.00 20526 0.47 0.85 5.0 6.85 2.74 D 100.00 4183 0.10 1.00 5.0 6.85 0.66 D1 100.00 883 0.02 1.00 5.0 6.85 0.14 D2 100.00 3300 0.08 1.00 5.0 6.85 0.52 AREA B 6" PVC i Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet B Flow Element Circular Chann Method Manning's Forr Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.010 Slope 011000 ft/ft Diameter 6 in Discharge 0.54 cfs Results Depth 0.31 ft Flow Area 0.1 ft Wetted Perime 0.91 ft Top Width 0.49 ft Critical Depth 0.37 ft Percent Full 62.0 % Critical Slope 0.006607 ft/ft Velocity 4.22 ft/s Velocity Head 0.28 ft Specific Energ, 0.59 ft Froude Numbe 1.45 Maximum Disc 0.82 cfs Discharge Full 0.76 cfs Slope Full 0.005481 ft/ft Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u: \1 data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 02:59:34 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA B 6" PVC - CRITICAL • Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet B CRITICAL Flow Element Circular Chann Method Manning's Forr Solve For C hannel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.010 Slope 006607 ft/ft Diameter 6 in Discharge 0.54 cfs Results Depth 0.37 ft Flow Area 0.2 ft Wetted Perime 1.05 ft Top Width 0.43 ft Critical Depth 0.37 ft Percent Full 74.9 % Critical Slope 0.006607 ft/ft Velocity 3.42 ft/s Velocity Head 0.18 ft Specific Energ 0.56 ft Froude Numbe 1.00 Maximum Disc 0.64 cfs Discharge Full 0.59 cfs Slope Full 0.005481 ft/ft Flow Type 3 ubcritical C�EC,K- N W 2 N 3A� p,. Coy` �v - 1 y-�� it.3 -�y (-M 1 L ' 11°1 -L P Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u:\1data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:04:32 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA B -1 6" PVC Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet B -1 Flow Element Circular Chann Method Manning's Forr Solve For C hannel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.010 Slope 020000 ft/ft Diameter 6 in Discharge 0.44 cfs Results Depth 0.23 ft Flow Area 0.1 ft' Wetted Perime 0.74 ft Top Width 0.50 ft Critical Depth 0.34 ft Percent Full 45.6 % Critical Slope 0.005702 ft/ft Velocity 5.04 ft/s Velocity Head 0.40 ft Specific Energ 0.62 ft Froude Numbe 2.13 Maximum Disc 1.11 cfs Discharge Full 1.03 cfs Slope Full 0.003639 ft/ft Fl Type supercritical Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u: \1data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:01:01 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA D 6" PVC . Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet D Flow Element Circular Chann Method Manning's Forr So lv e For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.010 Slope 023300 ft/ft Diameter 6 in Discharge 0.66 cfs Results Depth 0.28 it Flow Area 0.1 ft' Wetted Perime 0.84 ft Top Width 0.50 ft Critical Depth 0.41 ft Percent Full 55.4 % Critical Slope 0.008131 ft/ft Velocity 5.91 ft/s Velocity Head 0.54 ft Specific Energy 0.82 ft Froude Numbe 2.20 Maximum Disc 1.20 cfs Discharge Full 1.11 cfs Slope Full 0.008188 ft/ft Fl Type supercritical Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u: \1data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:05:49 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA D 6" PVC - CRITICAL Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet D CRITICAL Flow Element Circular Chann Method Manning's Forr Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.010 Slope 008131 ft/ft Diameter 6 in Discharge 0.66 cfs Results Depth 0.41 ft Flow Area 0.2 ft Wetted Perime 1.14 ft Top Width 0.38 ft Critical Depth 0.41 ft Percent Full 82.3 % Critical Slope 0.008131 ft/ft Velocity 3.82 ft/s Velocity Head 0.23 ft Specific Energ 0.64 ft Froude Numbe 1.00 Maximum Disc 0.71 cfs Discharge Full 0.66 cfs Slope Full 0.008188 ft/ft Flow Type supercritical C N �p7 Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u: \1 data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:06:55 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA D -2 • Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet D -2 Flow Element Circular Chann Method Manning's Forr Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.010 Slope 020000 ft/ft Diameter 6 in Discharge 0.52 cis Results Depth 0.25 ft Flow Area 0.1 ft Wetted Perime 0.79 ft Top Width 0.50 ft Critical Depth 0.37 ft Percent Full 50.2 % Critical Slope 0.006404 ft/ft Velocity 5.26 ft/s Velocity Head 0.43 ft Specific Energy 0.68 ft Froude Numbe 2.09 Maximum Disc 1.11 cfs Discharge Full 1.03 cis Slope Full 0.005082 ft/ft Flow Type 33up ercritical Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u:\ldata\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:07:27 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Worksheet Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Rectangular Chai Flow Element Rectangular Chai Method Manning's Formu Solve For C h a nnel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.013 Slope 005000 ft/ft Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 0.14 cfs Results Depth 0.16 ft Flow Area 0.1 ft= Wetted Perim( 0.82 ft Top Width 0.50 ft Critical Depth 0.13 ft Critical Slope 0.008534 ft/ft Velocity 1.72 ft/s Velocity Head 0.05 ft Specific Enerc 0.21 ft Froude Numb 0.75 Flow Type 3 ubcritical Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u: \1 data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:08:13 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section • Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Rectangular Cha Flow Element Rectangular Chai Method Manning's Formu Solve For C h a nnel Depth Section Data Mannings Coeffic 0.013 Slope 005000 ft/ft Depth 0.16 ft Bottom Width 0.50 ft Discharge 0.14 cfs - T 0.16 ft 0.50 ft V:1 H:1 NTS Project Engineer: San Dieguito Engineering, Inc u: \1data\ engineering \4710 \hydro \4710flowmaster.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc FlowMaster v6.0 [614e] 05/07/03 03:08:33 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 °" .� ". '� 3 Ai. N *I e PY ,. �i � : _`p "� w � t qtr �t) � � •� f• 0 1 lop LIN i +6 K .. s' '�, x %,'#�° » j ,� ° tip + p:..ti'.Y • 1 m 1 Cm uj CD LO to CN co cm LL- cm cm r— Cm to ca Y .... O LSr V3 t=! -- o e •\ , !/I O S o - f Z ' W 3 u O U x a '"' Z G N G N C X1'1 O LI1 NY 'J < O i s ♦L Z Z S ' S O t.al O u OC- O O W J F W F w 3 • u W d '" IZ -n % s/ / .• '/ :� ��{ ` ` � cam. _� c r i / ool i .Ln �� r Cv7 0 1 r•► CIO) cn L L. �..� a y.s era / ., J— z C.sh Q C-7 � • p�qq �•.� s CD LU •..�. �l V•' v C u9 C- = •� 14 M O W O m JT W i s OL J _. Z LA Ub C'7 H z O '' O z' �• v ►-� V u O ~ ' a 2. co uj O w < 0 D to M .� t11 d 00 O 2 4. J 1 06 < v eh w t2'z` i o °. OuiO j w _ O u �o:p �C f zo O ul -J 0 • f z� 1- , J v w a Y II -A- v: r OJ i• 4- - . C p .�. O {.► 07 • C 07 L 60 A N i 7i X L as S "a X A V r- O J C •r 4'1 0J v a .� 1-. :. to O to 4-3 J4 r- c - t o OJ 4-3 U a cs C Q' z 0J 4- 7 v- 4) to r i L r Q C C.. 1 .• L Q O E 0J m i. d A r O +•> V 0 O .0 E i� v v C � * %% 4.1 A 4J r- 0J C r 1 0) A C L. OC O a 4j> � O w1• O N •r- >t C r A C C r ? V` •• VI A 4j S- O O 0J t// r- O � 4j C C. 0) - 0 C % A •r v- .0 C to . 0J O A t O O 4-J (J 4J 4 4J 0) C •^' ` 4-) 4•tt r- 02 r L A A 4.1 to II • . _•- r 4 . 1 C L C.4-b 4J 41 tu C L r O r v- r v OOLC"O a fL c . .r. 44... f - Z 0J w r r r p W •�- f3. A N 0J C` O r -4.0 (U 07 .0 4J .0 C. 4j 4.1 L L7 L r L L 4J to Cr C 11 C- ¢ •r C to o. 3 C. C.4j 0J 44 t : w •r- O V1 C.0 w L L 0J C r O L d M L v - O rA O 'C =An A C •r• v- O Ls -9 W O t.0 E dr- C r L 4s L .0 r r O7 4J LL. O 4- 07 A t o — A t0 = L .0 V r• C to M . 0 L E 4j Cu •p •. U C (D 0J N CL • r - C 4r r q:r to t0 Cu A 03 r- O O 4.1 41 C L d to QI H N W L 4J r- r u IA O E •C w = v = 4+ O 4J 40 3 41 lt7 41 0) Il 7 II '�- O 0J C W v"f A G O b O r 07 A r- 4 L et .= tC CU .>_ t O r- 4- L r- .0 t u d t0 M u V U- N t-- .r- G C 4+ 4.1 4J d O G 0. (` 4J r N d Q 4j ►-� 0J r• L rL D t- N en •t* Ln Q O r- N Cn A V z 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) . o In O us O to Q to C Ln o . H to CQ rte.. �� 1 A. M --r-;� �_ (/ - .�` _• = - {�•��_ L�� •; ; i c+f t-. t>. M •rl ''I, iil! ;. � 111 I I N L v 0 �+ �' • i'� i i��t 1 1 � 1 '_ i I!' I.�II I11 1 1 I t I E tz O CD W L_ a• i — -�� _ - N OF • T -+- i� 1 I' I f! I f t �►! I 11 rl ' !• ! 1 :III:: ? +I 1, I 1 7 1 1 O Aft .1 is d vt i r3 H • � I I SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. ^`i ` DEC 2 0 20 � ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS I ENGINEERING SERVICE CIT QF ENCINII A Ivan R. Fox, P.E. Barry L. Munson, P.E. Gordon L. McElroy, P.L.S. Laurie Simon, Principal Planner CIVIL ENGINEERING November 29, 2000 Engineering Studies SDE 4710 Site Development Analysis Grading Plans Improvement Plans City of Encinitas Engineering Department Drainage Plans 505 S. Vulcan Se"rNater Line Plans Encinitas, CA 92024 Hydrology /H vdraul ics Construction Administration Pavement Rehabilitation Subject: Hydrology/Hydraulic Study, Forensic Engineering 155 Saxony Road, APN 258 - 111 -07 j i LAND PLANNING Pre - AcyuisiLion Analysis Gentlemen; Land Use Consultation tncimnmemal Analysis As part of the requirements for the referenced grading plan, we have prepared the attached Government Relations Land Division Hydrologic/Hydraulic study for the subject site. 7cntaoce Maps ' Use Pe HYDROLOGY Mal- Use i Specilic Plans i Rcmning Variances Hydrologic calculations were performed for the basins affecting the proposed improvements. j Administrative Permits Q's were determined by the County of San Diego Rational Method and are presented on the Annexations attached Hydrology Calculations worksheet. A time of concentration of 5.0 minutes was Boundary Adjustments assumed for the basins. The site consists of type C soil. Type C soil was used for LAND SURVEYING determination of runoff coefficients. The basins are shown on the attached Hydrology Maps. Propenv Surveys Topographical Surveys HYD AI J ICS Construction Staking 1\ i Records of Survey Legal Descriptions Subdivision Maps Hydraulic calculations for the proposed improvements were performed using Flowmaster, Easements by Haestad Methods. Hydraulic calculations for all proposed on -site improvements are Height Certifications attached and the results are incorporated onto the plan. Cadastral Surveys Photogrammetric Surveys If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you, 4 iv m coaoeeo `= >t Barry L. Munson, PE Principal Engineer CIVIL �►�@ (760) 753 -5525 • FAX (760) 943 -8236 4407 Manchester Avenue • Suite 105 • Encinitas, California 92024 ICU 4 � „> • PROJECT NAME: ANIMAL KEEPER PROJECT NUMBER: 4710.00 COMMENT: COORD: N33 -03 E 117 -17 100 YEAR STORM P6 (in): 2.60 P6/P24: 0.65 P24 (in): 4.00 ADJUSTED P6: 2.60 project consists of type C soil WATERSHED EVENT AREA AREA C Tc I Q DESIGNATIO ear sf Ac (min)i h cfs TOTAL SITE: PRE 100.00 38506 0.88 0.63 5.0 6.85 3.81 POST 100.00 38506 0.88 0.69 5.0 6.85 4.18 INCREASE IN Q100= 0.36 INDIVIDUAL BASINS A 100.00 7290 0.17 0.50 5.0 6.85 0.57 B 100.00 3403 0.08 0.50 5.0 6.85 0.27 C 100.00 20572 0.47 0.80 5.0 6.85 2.59 D 100.00 7241 0.17 1.00 5.0 6.85 1.14 AREA B OUTLET PIPE 6" @ 1.1% Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c: \haestad \fmw \4710- ani.fm2 Worksheet AREA B OUTLET PIPE @ 1.1 % Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Channel Slope 0.011000 ft/ft Diameter 6.00 in Discharge 0.27 cfs (�,/7Q Oi/TZCF pnx Results Depth 0.21 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft Wetted Perimeter 0.70 ft Top Width 0.49 ft Critical Depth 0.26 ft Percent Full 41.03 Critical Slope 0.004678 ft/ft Velocity 3.56 ft/s Velocity Head 0.20 ft Specific Energy 0.40 ft Froude Number 1.60 Maximum Discharge 0.82 cfs Full Flow Capacity 0.76 cfs Full Flow Slope 0. 00 1370 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 12/19/00 FlowMaster v5.11 10:07:13 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA B OUTLET PIPE 6" @ 1.1 % - CRITICAL Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c: \haestad \fmw \4710- ani.fm2 Worksheet AREA B OUTLET PIPE @ 1.1% Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Channel Slope 0.004678 ft/ft Diameter 6.00 in Discharge 0.27 cfs Results Depth 0.26 ft Flow Area 0.10 ft Wetted Perimeter 0.81 ft Top Width 0.50 ft Critical Depth 0.26 ft Percent Full 52.41 Critical Slope 0.004678 ft/ft Velocity 2.59 ft/s Velocity Head 0.10 ft Specific Energy 0.37 ft Froude Number 1.00 Maximum Discharge 0.54 cfs Full Flow Capacity 0.50 cfs Full Flow Slope 0. 00 1370 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 10 :20 :05 AM 00 FlowMaster v5.11 10:20: Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA D 8" @ 1.4% SLOPE Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c: \haestad \fmw \4710- ani.fm2 Worksheet AREA D OUTLET PIPE 1.4% Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Channel Slope 0.014000 ft/ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.14 cfs Results Depth 0.38 ft — o j,C_ Flow Area 0.20 ft Wetted Perimeter 1.14 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 56.60 Critical Slope 0.006153 ft/ft Velocity 5.59 ft/s Velocity Head 0.49 ft Specific Energy 0.86 ft Froude Number 1.78 Maximum Discharge 2.00 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.86 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.005267 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 12/19/00 FlowMaster v5.11 11:11:49 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA D 8" @ 1.4% SLOPE - CRITICAL DEPTH Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c: \haestad \fmw \4710- ani.fm2 Worksheet AREA D OUTLET PIPE 1.4% Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Channel Slope 0.006153 ft/ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.14 cfs Results Depth 0.51 ft Flow Area 0.28 ft Wetted Perimeter 1.41 ft Top Width 0.57 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 75.95 Critical Slope 0.006154 ft/ft Velocity 4.01 ft/s Velocity Head 0.25 ft Specific Energy 0.76 ft Froude Number 1.00 Maximum Discharge 1.33 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.23 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.005267 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 01k.9 Nw z Z / w y 4 12/18/00 FlowMaster v5.11 11:12:13 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 AREA D OUTLET PIPE 8" @ 1.5% Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c: \haestad \fmw \4710- ani.fm2 Worksheet AREA D OUTLET PIPE @ 1.5% Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Channel Slope 0.015000 ft/ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.14 cfs Results Depth 0.37 ft Flow Area 0.20 ft Wetted Perimeter 1.12 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.51 ft Percent Full 55.40 Critical Slope 0.006153 ft/ft Velocity 5.74 ft/s /) Velocity Head 0.51 ft 0 Specific Energy 0.88 ft dEC.onnue /QoGK , , toe X¢ 667UG� Froude Number 1.85 Maximum Discharge 2.07 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.92 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.005267 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 12/19/00 FlowMaster v5.11 11:13:17 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coefficien C Lan_ Use Soi 1 Group (1) ,- - B Residential: - A C D Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55 Multi -Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 45 Commerci al (2) 80% Impervious •70 •75 .80 .85 Industrial (2) .80 .85 .90 .95 90' /a Impervious NOTES: (1) Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. (2 )Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious- ness values of 80°/, or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group. Actual imperviousness - 50 Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = 80 x 0.85 = 0 IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX -6 Rev. S/81 i w 6 3 ,�L �-' MAW s tit "4 „•,� � V� �. 4Wgry..,,. • p .1 '� � 1 'll .11 :11 11 • 11 11 11 • is - ' � �1 � • r 1 n'--t !► �' � mi l. -►a� r y � • coo z Lw co I _ cm J \ cc CM r r f \ V. CD O Cr '� Lam• w C ►' r. 23 U �< < • L:1 p < z 02 of I I 1 ► 1 I I i o a�a 0. '� C O < 3 a O W O Sao O W J W U C Lt. < o Z 7 F• w 3 u ka wo o. I Iml it I I lei --4 LA QD C6 cz Lr2 LC20 C" V�5, .r U"i T 'I CS Oa�I _ l = (� < O fA 64 CN C%j UP2 > CN P4 CV"3 W z I- 2 -C Jam' z < L) Z C � V V } b-4 116 2 0.4 LU 16 Z 0 0 z U ti Z CV% t b. < 0 vi - 0 6 z < 2. 0 O W J P C LL. 1 -C z A -3 u IJ 46 I I-A- 7 aJ _ C ++ S O O 04- • _ G •^ N O C7 4j 4- R i —bq r - 10 O a) 2 IC N L X .0 O O V r O J C N O r �-3 X O V a O 1-r C /--• N ij r .L: r— ` .r C LIB to CJ = = m c r' c Cm z Cu 4- icc u� O �M u { cnQ. •r ..) N 41 Cu C 0 0 4.0 p N 0 C r G 41 G 4 O L L 4. IC Q, CJ C.J .0 4J 4j 4-J O v C r • L w N di CJ +� r— 1 .O CJ O C i O O a N Q O N N r C r It7 C C r > Q �i C C C) O .T. b L -v- •� t C to Q V• O b = CJ O 4j CJ 4j 4-11 1 • . ` � /"' L 0.4 4 o + (C0 II • . L r0-• s c N c R3 C L r O O r r r Cm r C n N •� 10 V O O L C = CJ a - 4 - C IT; CJ CJ �-- -� r O CJ r E C r- L .0 CJ � w r r 0- b N CJ C O C ++ CJ 0 .0 4.1 O 0 CL 4J 4a i Ln L r L 4-11 Ca °. a ° H MCC .- am c. i� C CL 4 CJ Nc CL 0. ---% CJ C •r 0 S L r tp O u E C� C = •r L� C r r t 0 l n .K' 4- Gj L .0 r r QJ a O N 0. r C 4.r• r d• 0 to CJ r 0 C CJ C! mil/ Z C L O ep C111 N N CJ t 10 4j r r "- u N O E N 0 0 41 O 4.11 ++ g 4J y 4j CJ u O u L U C N i •n to Cj Cl to O r 0 to r - •.-� u V !L N - 0 .0 .0 O r- 4 - L .— t t V CJ t0 "o V O r- CL CS: O r - N M C C to d O r- N M ct' 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) N O to O Ln O Ln O W) O tt'J O to Ln I I T �- y eu .-. — -- _•�- .... C - C T }_ �_ �__ -{-- �f 4J / �!1 lit I N n I~ %0 Cr CD C I �S - r - •�� 'y - � � I 1 �T_ 1 � .1 t 1 1 1 . � t tt) •� 1 1 1 ! •• , 1 � I I 1 1 1 I •,. 1 1 i f ..• . 1 1 i 1 I 1 I H� ..tae z K N o .1Rt]lt h k=11.1111 " .C1 i etema•wur ADDBATnTV VT TV i 1 * `► - IC VA #' fn Cr t tin .RJo' `_ r ..r7 ` +C+ ' � '�� ?mac_ �'``_ •"s� �, ` i z MIr ,i Cfli ^ m CbC + { C D Cb n y . b; b i u f i • * CbB -� CcE CsD SIT �. L bQ •Q Z - s full `rr 5 CfB, qu • � iV 4 C¢D Ile Cr ' ",. �. � t•�lt+ { yip ` - �1 -' T s rs- • jM eY Ft US `,� TABLE- 15 (1 /4) I INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT KEY TO INTERPRETATION RATING SYMBOLS HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS: LIMITATIO A HIGH INFILTRATION RATE SL SLIGHT DEGREE OF LIMITATION B MODERATE INFILTRATION RATE M MODERATE DEGREE OF LIMITATION C SLOW INFILTRATION RATE SE SEVERE DEGREE OF LIMITATION D VERY SLOW INFILTRATION RATE Interpretation Rating Interpretation Rating Soil Map CM g y Soil Ma ° ti Symbol' o o Erodibility by Water m Symbol' o Erodibility by Water m o c E c7 a ° c E c7 > ° o o > o ° o _ U 2 0 2 C7 U ..- (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) AcG D SE (sip) SE BsC D M (str) SL d AtC D SL SL d BsD D M (str) SL d AtD D SL SL d BsE D M (SIP) SL d AtD2 D SL SL d BtC D M (str) SL f AtE D M (sip) SL d BuB C SE (str) SL g AtE2 D M (sip) SL d BuC C SE (str) SL g AtF D SE (sip) M d BuD2 C SE (str) SL g AuC A SE (str) SL a BuE2 C SE (str) SL g AuF A SE (str) M _ AvC C SE (str) SL CaB B M (txt) SL g AwC D SL SL CaC B M (txt) SL 9 AwD D SL SL CaC2 B M (txt) SL 9 AyE D M (sip) SL CaD2 B M (txt) SL g SE (txt) SL BaG D SE (sip) SE CbC C SE (txt) SL BbE C SE (str) M 015B SE (txt) SL BbE2 C SE (str) M CbE C SE (txt) SL BbG C SE (sip) M CCC D BbG2 C SE NO M CcE D _ BeE D SE (str) SL CeC A SE (txt) BgE D SE (str) M CfB D SE (dpt) SL BgF D SE (sip) M CfC D SE (dpt) SL BIC D SE (dpt) SL CfD2 D SE (dpt) M BIC2 D SE (dpt) SL CgC c BID2 D SE (dpt) SL (Cf) D BmC D M (txt) SL (Ur) D B c ChA C SE (str) SL (BI) D SE (dpt) SL ChB C SE (str) SL (Fa) C SE (dpt) SL CkA C M (txt) M BoC C M (txt) SL CID2 B SE (str) SE BoE C M (sip) SL CIE2 B SE (str) SE BrE C M (SIP) SL CIG2 B SE (sip) SE BrG C I SE (SIP) M CmE2 B SE (str) SE a. For full soil name see Appendix F, Guide to Mapping Units. nent soil units are not shown separately on the soil maps, it is b. Parenthetical symbols indicate properties adversely affecting recommended that the overall ratings for this complex be suitability as follows: assumed to be the same as those for the component soil with (dpt) = Depth to hard rock, or a hardpan, or any layer that the greatest degree of limitation. restricts permeability. d. Typically a grassland soil; conversion from brush usually not (f/d) = Flooding, ponding, or overflow necessary. (s/p) = Slope e. Moderate on slopes of more than 30 percent; slight on slopes (str) = Strength of granular, crumb, or blocky structure of less than 30 percent. in the surface layer. f. Stoniness or rockiness not a serious impediment to use of grass Absence of rating means no valid interpretation can be made. planting equipment. g. On desert facing mountain slopes and valleys in Land Resource c. This is a soil complex comprised of two soil units in a complex Area 20 E, the degree of limitation is severe because of climate, pattern. See Appendix F, Guide to Mapping Units, for compo- regardless of soil properties. 93 w CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E F R I N G REPORT OF GRADIN B G OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING THE ANIMAL KEEPER BUILDING ADDITION ' 155 SAXONY ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: THE I AN MAL KEEPER c/o AAAPSCO 3568 MAIN STREET LEMON GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92045 PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858- 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858- 496 -9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G November 10, 2003 The Animal Keeper c/o Aaapsco C\t'E 199.489.3 3568 hfain Street Lemon Grove, California 920.15 Attention: Mr Robert Fergen SUBJECT: REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING, PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION, THE ANIMAL KEEPER, 155 SAXONY ROAD, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Reference: "Report of Preliminary- Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Building Addition, The Animal Keeper, 155 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California ", b� Christian Wheeler Engineering, dated October 27, 1999. 1 Ladies /Gentlemen, In accordance with vour request, and with the requirements of Section 1701.5.13 of the Uniform Building Code, Christian `heeler Engineering has prepared this report to summarize our observations of the earthwork operations at the subject site, and to present the results of relative compaction tests performed in the fills that were placed during the grading of the project. The observation and testing services addressed by this report were coordinated by INfr. Dave Stockton of t Aaapsco and were provided during the period of October 22, 2003 through November 3, 2003. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a developed, nearly square parcel of land located east of Saxons- Road and south of Sunny Drive, in Encinitas, California. The site is bounded to the south and east by commercial property and on the north and west by residential property-. The property supports an existing single -stop masonry- building, fenced animal kennels, pared parking areas and landscaped areas. Prior to the earthwork operations, the area of the proposed building addition 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858- 496 -9760 f FAX 858- 496 -9758 CAT_ 199.489.3 November 10, 2003 Page ? ' contained concrete paving and was enclosed by a masonry wall. The sites topography was characterized as sloping moderately from the northeast towards the southwest. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: It is our understanding that the subject site is to be developed by the construction of a single -story addition with conventional spread footings and on -grade floor slabs. In addition, concrete paved exercise yards bounded by masonry walls are proposed for construction, adjacent to and east of the proposed building addition. PLAN REFERENCE: In order to augment our understanding of the designed configuration of the project, our firm was provided with an undated grading plan for the site prepared by San Diegutto Engineering Inc., of Encinitas, California. Plate No. 1 of this report is a reproduction of the plan, modified to show the approximate locations of our field tests and the relevant limits of contact with the encountered geologic units. SCOPE OF SERVICE i Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Inc. during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Participation in a pre - grading meeting to address the geotechnical aspects of the work and to coordinate our testing and observation services, • Periodic observation of the earthw operations, • Providing Feld recommendations for elements of the earthwork not specifically addressed by the referenced geotechnical report, • Recording the approximate elevations and limits of significant geotechnical elements, • Performance of relative compaction tests in the fills placed, • Performance of laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determinations on the soils encountered in the earthwork, and, • Preparation of this report. r CAT 199.489.3 November 10, 2003 Page 3 f SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING GRADING CONTRACTOR: The earthwork addressed by this report was performed by Frank Wright and Sons. The primary- equipment utilized by the contractor in the work consisted of the following: .... .. _ _ .............. 1 1 Hitachi EX200 Hydraulic Excavator 1 Hitachi EX120 Hydraulic Excavator 1 1 Bomag T40 Vibratory Sheepsfoot Compactor _ ... .... _ ............ ... _............. 1 Water Hose ................ _.. _.__ ........ .... ..........._... _ ._......_ . ..... ...... ... _ .................. ............... ......._............ __........_.__....._ ...._.__.._........ SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation began with the demolition and subsequent removal of the existing concrete pavement and associated improvements to areas to receive new fill and /or improvements. The resulting debris was removed to an off -site location. REMOVALS: Removal of potentially compressible pre - existing artificial fill soils and weathered terrace deposits was generally performed in areas to receive new fill and /or improvements. The material generated by the removal excavations were stockpiled for later use as structural fill. The excavations extended to approximately four -feet below proposed finish grade elevations in the easterly portion of the pad and approximately thirteen -feet in the westerly areas. The floor of the removal excavations exposed competent underlying terrace deposits and were scarified and moisture conditioned prior to fill placement. PARTIAL REMOVALS: To avoid undernuning the footings associated with the existing budding along the south/ southwesterly portion of the site, the removal excavations were performed at an approximate inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) away from the footings. The floor of the removals were prepared as previously- described and as the elevation of the fill placement increased in these areas, minimal horizontal benches were made along the existing building footprint to eliminate additional potentially compressible soils. FILL PLACEMENT Fill material consisting of the on site silty- sands were h - pically placed in thin uniform lifts by means of the hydraulic excavators and the sheepsfoot compactor. 1`1oisture conditioning was applied when necessary and compactive efforts performed by the sheepsfoot compactor to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. CXXT_ 199.489.3 November 10 2003 > Page -1 SEEPAGE PITS: As noted in the referenced geotechnical report, two seepage pits were anticipated to be located just north of the proposed addition. However, as a result of changes made to the design configuration of the addition, one seepage pit is now located within the footing area located in the northeastern corner of the building. The second seepage pit is now located in the northern portions of and entirely within the building pad area. In addition, a third seepage pit was discovered in the south- eastern corner of the site where a concrete patio and associated masonry retaining wall is to be located. The seepage pits were approximately five -feet in diameter and extended approximately thirty -feet below existing site elevations. The pits were backfilled using '/4" crushed aggregate to an elevation of approximately four to six feet below proposed finish grade. A 12 -inch concrete "cap" approximately seven feet in diameter was then constructed for each pit and was reinforced with No. 5 bars spaced at 6 -1ches on center each way. Fill soils were then placed and compacted atop the areas as described in the preceding paragraph. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING 1 FIELD TESTS: Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the fills were conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 2922 -91; "Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Sod-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods." The locations of the field tests were selected by our technician in areas discerned to exhibit relative compaction that was generally representative of that attained in the fill. The results and approximate locations of the field tests are shown on the attached plates. LABORATORY TESTS: The maximum dn- density and optimum moisture content of the e predominate soils encountered in the earthwork were performed in our laboratory by AST',L%i Test Designation D 1557 -91, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort." The tests were conducted in accordance with the methodology prescribed for the grain -size distribution of the soils tested. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate No. 3. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL: It is the opinion of Christian Wheeler Engineering that the earthwork addressed by this report has been performed substantially in accordance with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report, the Cite- of Encinitas grading requirements and the Uniform Building Code. This opinion is based upon our observations of the earthwork operations, the results of the CWE 199.489.3 November 10, 2003 Page 5 ' density- tests taken in the field, and the maximum density tests performed in our laboratory. It is our further opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. Our recommendations for the ' minimum design of foundations for the proposed structure, originallv presented in the referenced geotechnical report, are reproduced in the "Foundations" section of this report. REMAINING WORK As of the date of this report, additional work remains to be done on the site for the backfilling of utility trenches and retaining walls, and the preparation of the subgrade and base courses in areas to be paved. Our firm should be contacted when these operations are performed so that we can verify their compliance with the applicable specifications. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL: It is our opinion that the proposed structure may be supported by conventional continuous and spread footings. Specific details for the design of the foundations should be provided by the structural engineer for the project; however, the foundation design should incorporate the minimum recommendations presented in the following paragraphs. EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS: The soils present within the zone of influence of the proposed foundations are considered as being non - detrimentally expansive, with an Expansion Index less than 50. The recommendations presented herein reflect this condition. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: Spread footings supporting the addition should be embedded at least 12 inches below the adjacent finish grade. Continuous and isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Those areas where the proposed footings and on -grade concrete slabs abut the existing foundations and on -grade slabs should be structurally connected to mitigate the potential for differential settlement. r BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional spread footings with the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value maN be increased by 700 pounds per square foot and 350 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of footing embedment and width, respectiveh•, up to a maximum of 3,500 pounds per square foot. Additionally, the bearing capacity may be increased by one -third for combinations of temporar loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. CWE 199.489.3 November 10, 3003 Page 6 FOOTING REINFORCING: Based on the as- graded soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned two inches below the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one - third. FOUNDATION OBSERVATION: In order to confirm that the fooling excavations extend into a suitable bearing stratum and to verify that the footing dimensions and reinforcing steel schedules are in accordance with the minimum recommendations provided by the geotechnical engineer, Christian Wheeler Engineering should be contacted to observe the excavations in advance of structural inspections that may be conducted or required by the Building Official. ON -GRADE SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The minimum floor slab thickness should be not less than four inches. The floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, each way, and the reinforcement should extend horizontally at least 6 inches into the footings. Slab reinforcing should be positioned on chairs or mortar blocks at mid- height in the floor slab. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the industry standard that interior on -grade concrete slabs be underlain by a moisture retarder. We suggest that the subslab moisture retarder consist of at least a t-vo -inch -thick blanket of one- quarter- inch pea gravel or coarse, clean sand overlain by a layer of 10 -mil visqueen. The visqueen should be overlain by a hvo- inch -thick laver of coarse, clean sand. The clean sand should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 300 sieves. Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on -grade slab. This may be an excess amount of moisture for CV E 199.489.3 November 10 ?003 > Page 7 ' some hypes of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary, the concrete mix can be designed to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards through the floor slab. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. EARTH RETAINING WALLS LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are cast tight against undisturbed soils. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one - third. The upper 13 inches of exterior footings should not be included in passive pressure calculations where abutted by landscape areas. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot. An additional 13 pounds per cubic foot should be added to said value for 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If am are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values assume a drained backfill condition. Waterproofing details should be provided by the project architect. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The walls should not be backfilled until the masonrt has reached an adequate strength. t CWE 199.489.3 November 10 2003 Page 8 FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil friction coefficient, do not include a factor -of- safety. Appropriate factors -of -safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. LIMITATIONS The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from October 22, 2003 through November 3, 2003. As limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, the conclusions and opinions presented herein are based upon our observations of the work and the results of our laboratory and field tests. Our services were performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice in the region in which the earthwork was performed, and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the described work with applicable codes and specifications. With the submittal of this report, no warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services performed by our firm, and our performance of those services should not be construed to relieve the grading contractor of his responsibility to perform his work to the standards required by the applicable building codes and project specifications. r Christian kX"heeler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide professional service on this project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our firm. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WTIEELER ENGINEERING _- OQ FE�Sl iy! -- �- 47 C Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. 00215 Z3 Ui CHC /dd 1 OF CAt�F�� cc: (0) Submitted �� SUMMARY OF TESTS Project: Animal Keeper "LASS GRADING Relative Corn action Tests ASTM D2922-91 Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. % Rel. (feet) cl�) Density Density Comp. (Pct 1 10/27/2003 Area North of Budding 149.0 1 ___ 2 ___. : ______ 8 . 9 1 118.3 130.2 90.9 . . ..... . 2 10/27/2003 Area North of Building 139.0 2 1 12.8 1 117.5 130.2 1 90.2 . . ..... ...... 3 10/27/2003 Area North of Building 143.0 . 2 8.9 119.7 130.2 91.9 . .. . . . .................... ..... ......... 4 ----.. _____ y . _ _ . . . ..» . ._...__.-- - ..__ 10/27/2003 Area North of . B .....-._._.-_. uilding 145.0 1 2 9.2 117.5 130.2 90.2 . . .. . ....... . . . . . . ... . .. . .. .................... .... ... . .. ..... .... .. .......... ... 5 i 10/28/2003 = Area North of Budding 147.0 2 1 10.2 118.3 130.2 i 90.9 . . . . ........ .......... 6 10/29/2003 j North West Portion of Pad 140.0 . 1 8.0 116.7 128.4 90.9 7 10/29/2003 North West Portion of Pad _I ... 142.0 1 1 6.1 119.4 128.4 93.0 ........ . .. 8 1 10/29/2003 North West Portion of Pad 144.0 1 8.2 116.9 1 128.4 91.0 ... .......... . . . .. . ............. . .. .. ... ............. . ....... ..... . 9 10/29/2003 North West Portion of Pad 146.0 1 7.0 119.3 128.4 92.9 10 10/29/2003 North'Wv'est Portion of Pad 148.0 1 i 9.4 s 118.6 128.4 1 92.4 11 10/29/2003 3 South `Vest Portion of Pad 1 150.0 1 1 8.3 119.0 1 128.4 92.7 ......... .......... . ... ... 12 1 10/29/2003 South West Portion of Pad 1 147.0 1 I 8.4 1 117.6 1 128.4 91.6 13 if 10/29/2003 i South West Portion of Pad 149.0 1 3 '1 9.2 107.4 1 114.1 94.1 . . ......... 14 10/30/2003 North Portion 1 146.5 '1 3 1 8.3 106.4 114.1 93.3 .......... . . ................ .. 15 1 10/30/2003 1 North Portion I 147.0 i 3 1 11.1 107.0 1 114.1 93.8 16 J 10/30/2003 1 South Portion 146.0 1 3 1 1 . . . . ........ ... . 10.4 106.1 114.1 93.0 17 1 10/30/2003 1 South Portion 148.0 3 9.7 107.3 114.1 94.0 . . ... . ........... .... ..... . 18 10/30/2003 1 South East Portion 1 148.0 3 1 10.6 106.6 1 114.1 1 93.4 19 1 10/30/20 11.2 107.4 114.1 94.1 03 North East 0 3 ............ ......... . . . ........ ... .. ..... . ..... -.1 .......... ........... ... 20 1 10/31/2003 i South East Portion 150.0 3 8.9 111.4 1 114.1 97.6 . . . . ......... ....... . 150.0 3 8.9 111.4 114.1 1 97.6 ................ 21 10/31/2003 South East Portion 11.0 109.1 114.1 95.6 -_-__.-._. »_._.__-- . »___.___......_.._ 150 3 1 ..... -------- 4- 22 1 10/31/2003 Central East Portion 149.5 3 .. . . .... ....... 10.3 1 108.7 114-1 95-3 e 23 10/31/2003 North W st Portion 150.0 1 8.3 117.6 128.4 91.6 24 1 3 10/31/2003 North East Portion 1 148.0 3 1 10.6 111.1 114.1 97.4 . . . . . . . . . . ........................... .. .......... 11/3/2003 Nort Portion 150.0 3 7.9 25 No r - 107.8 114.1 94.5 1 TvIAXIMUM DRY DENSITY and OPTIMUM "MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 1557-91 Type Description Soil Ty P USCS Optimum M oisture - .%Ia.ximum Dn- Class ( Density- (PC Brown, SILTY SAND SM 8.1 128.4 2 Brown, SILTY SAND S \1 7.7 130.2 3 Light brown, SILTY SAND S 11.9 114.1 CWE 199.489.3 Plate 2 CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION THE ANIMAL KEEPER 155 SAXONY ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA D OCT 1 4 2003 EN CITY OF ENC4NRTAS S PREPARED FOR: THE ANIMAL KEEPER c/o AAAPSCO 3568 MAIN STREET LEMON GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92045 PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858- 496 -9760 + FAX 858- 496 -9758 CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G Octbber 27, 1999 The Animal Keeper C -VE 199.489.1 c/o Aaapsco 3568 Main Street Lemon Grove, California 92045 ATTENTION: Robert Fergen SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION, THE ANIMAL KEEPER, 155 SAXONY ROAD, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our Proposal dated August 27, 1999, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject property. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed addition, provided the recommendations presented in our report are followed. The most significant geotechnical condition that will affect the proposed building and exercise yard addition is relatively loose fills, which are unsuitable in their present condition to support settlement- sensitive structures. As such, we recommend this material be removed and replaced as properly compacted structural fill. Beneath the fill materials, the site is underlain by relatively dense terrace deposits with relatively high strength parameters and low expansion potential. However, in one of our borings, the upper few feet of the terrace deposits were found to be relatively loose and will also require removal and replacement as properly compacted structural fill. 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 8 5 8 -496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858- 496 -9758 CWE 199.489.1 October 27, 1999 - Page No. 2 ti If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Charlie G. Carter Jr., Staff Engineer 7 Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 Curtis R. Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 CHC:CRB:cgc Pc ;FF`ssr`r�, V J , ,� • �� cf'.. V No 1090 cc: (4) Submitted i` GI CERTIFIED W v No. CIF t o `� o ENNEERING ° (2) The Aniunal Deeper cc Exp.9-30 / rr GEOLOGIST Exp. 10-00 �r'?I U ECC� cOs' E OF C A�� TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description ................................................................................ ..............................1 Project Scope ..... ............................... ...................................................... ............................... Findin g s ........................................... ....................................................................................... ............................... 3 Site Description .............. ............................... General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ............................................................ ..............................4 Geologic Setting and Soil Description .......... ............................... Fill.................................................................................... ............................... 4 ... ............................... Terrace Deposits ................................................................................................ ............................... 4 GroundWater ........:.................................................................................................... ..............................4 TectonicSetting .......................................................................................................... ..............................4 Geologic Hazards .................... ............................... 5 .......................................... ............................... General................... .................................................................................. ............................... Groundshakin g ............. ............................................................................................. ............................... 5 Seismic Design Parameters ...................... .............. ............................ 6 ...................... ............................... Landslide Potential and Slope Stability .................................................................. ............................... 6 Liquefaction........................... ............................... 6 ............ Tsunamis............................................ ............................... 6 ........ ............................... Seiches................ ............................... 6 .............................................................. ............................... Conclusions........................ .................................................................................................... ............................... 6 Recommendations................ ................................................................................................ ............................... 7 Gradin g .......................... .................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Observation of Grading .......................... ..... ............................... SitePreparation ....................................................... ..............................: 7 Compaction and Method of Filling Earthwork................... ............................... 8 .............................................................. ............................... Excavation Characteristics ..................... ............................... SurfaceDrainage ....................................................................................................... ............................... 8 SeepagePits .......................................................................... ............................... .......... 8 ............................ Foundation Recommendations ................................................................................... ............................... 9 General................... ..................................................................................................... ............................... 9 BearingCapacity ........................................................................................................ ............................... 9 Footing Reinforcement 9 ...................... LateralLoad Resistance ............................................................................................ ............................... 9 Foundation Excavation Observation ...................................... ............................... 9 ................ On -Grade Slabs ............................................................................................................. .............................10 InteriorFloor Slabs ................................................................................................... .............................10 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs ... ............................... .................... ......10 .... ............................... Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................. ............................... ........................... ........ .................10 ................. ............................... ................. Earth Retaining Walls ..................................... ............................... ..10 ...... PassivePressure ......................................................................................................... .............................10 ActivePressure .......................................................................................................... .............................10 Backfill ........................................................................................................................ .............................11 Factorof Safety ......................................................................................................... .............................11 Limitations..................... ...................................................................................................... .............................11 Review, Observation and Testing ............................. ............................... Uniformity of Conditions ................................... ............................... ......................... ............................... Change in Scope ....................................... ................................ .............................. ...... .............................12 . CWE 199.489 The Animal Keeper Proposed Building Addition Time Limitations ...................... .............. 2 ........... ............................... Professional Standard ................. ............. ....... .............................12 ................ ............................... ........... Client's Responsibility ............................. ............................... FieldExplorations ................................................................................................................. .............................13 LaboratoryTesting ................................. ............................... .............. ........13 ................... ............................... ATTACHMENTS TABLES Table I Maximum Bedrock Accelerations, Page 5 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan Plates 2 -3 Boring Logs Plate 4 Laboratory Test Results Plate 5 Graph of Consolidation Test Result Plate 6 Subdrain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A References, Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs C%VE 199.489 The Animal Keeper Proposed Building Addition PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION THE ANINIAL KEEPER 155 SAXONY ROAD ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed addition to the existing single -story masonry building located at 155 Saxony Road in Encingv tas, California. The proposed single -story, lateral addition will be constructed on the north side of the existing single -story, masonry building located in the southeast comer of the subject site. The addition is expected to consist of either masonry or wood -frame construction, with conventional spread footings and an on -grade concrete floor slab. In addition, concrete paved exercise yards bounded by masonry walls are proposed for construction, adjacent to and east of the proposed building addition. Precise grading to construct the building pad for the addition is expected to consist of cuts and fills of approximately three to seven feet. To aid in the preparation of this report, a topographic survey plan prepared by The SP Consulting Group and dated February 2, 1997, which shows the location and configuration of the existing development with its proposed addition, was provided to us. A copy of this survey plan was used as the base map for our Site Plan and is included herewith as Plate Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The Animal Keeper and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and /or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. B D f AAA u�i rat PL ca [i C w 3 lFV .J t ; 4•,}f .e� E r,' 1--1 ��., F " r •• y "' O .` 5` .r� � i A � x r � � � £ T.'� I� z s• .�,rY d � i� � -C ri r : j ��' LUWt s ro t xs.. r � ��x. : } V -ya A .r : i i� ,t Z s° Cb r A `: i 2 " t ,c'' F7 S:ai�l 4�Oa Sv? q k. x • -a� 1'� ,# i.. iC n' '� z, tk :� `'"•t? ,fix 13.'ki s1s�`�aF �`_: �`�,.:; �r .�it1k .� It.^ 5 k'.ks ! �' r:,�` i , ' ,•n �' ,�z V q � '� '�# a �w "� ;� P._ ,.�c sa-;S+ r& y � . °" ;%; �, �� x. : (( } ,z f` t+" °'w'' �''"� ,� • :°.�"`�r. �,'.. �-►C '��•- � z: ; �� " E U 5 ax N k tt trt t 5 x F €� '� .�5, . `s : , 1+LY F it 'k a 'i` g` q �' f E>� �� ^• �. r, , n � ' f ' ^tie'.,z:� a�x ` � � . � w'^��F '7 ' �1'1�1J/•! � ��J F � �s€�. *��+,r� < � � �, VI'3� •x.71 ViY�Ui� VYV cy a:: 3 t t ro " 's` n � ' i'3."i� fir$ s" •4,.�;s..,'z# xfi: i 'F w S£� ? � `s , q' - " � '� G„. �n'x` �' 7 �z�� 'efi �n.� -,;; �` 3 <rti4 � f � . ' '!:. c ai7•Fe t 4 � atuat w• i i•a *F� ':.:4 k�'',a�"` - �� ,� !',, M IN � t FLUK �'n F �' r # S+� x �� .. nay`'_ '� '-f 6 U3SrA A Ot tFX Ay+ x 12 "� � �:,�p3 •f, {4 sk. � �� y :no}. ,ry, EY `i4e' .0 � :S � ' ��',�. i P � J ��'��`:�. L L19V ENU�t��a��'.�3y"tys� �� #� ��' �: -� g 3�"� fix"�4�"� �a %'��•rf2 '�� s,� � �; 4 Y i Va 7.U- 1x xs �� • � ' • 1.� �" � '��.t � � ,fir ' « � z ��`�.F '§, r '�'�'�� k - ..�f '� B � 3 l og ' i �... f` � '� Si �; Y � F _ ��t,� r�� ._ �'S'� F �� i a� �?� �f '� � > .�• , '"�� ' � z '- + ..�... t : y r.. x 1 4 air !F n. r iR F D Figure No.1 CWE 199.439 October 27, 1999 Page No. 2 PROJECT SCOPE The scope of our preliminary investigation included: surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, and review of relevant geologic literature. Based on the location of the proposed addition, two test borings were drilled at the site in order to explore the subsurface soil conditions and to obtain soil samples for laboratory testing. More specifically, the intent of this investigation vas to: • Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. • Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. • Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic factors that could have an effect on the site construction. • Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. • Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading. • Recommend appropriate foundation systems for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Present our professional opinions in a written report, which includes, in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summary of the laboratory test results. It was not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on -site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on -grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired, we can obtain samples of representative soils and submit them to C%VE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 3 a chemical laboratory for analysis. Further, it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a developed, nearly square parcel of land located east of Saxony Road and south of Sunny Drive, in Encinitas, California. The site is bounded to the south and east by commercial property and on the north and west by residential property. The property supports an existing single -story masonry building, large fenced animal kennels, paved parking areas and landscaped areas. The area of the site where the proposed addition will be constructed is mostly covered vith concrete paving and enclosed by a masonry wall. This area is utilized as an exercise area for the resident animals. A small drainage trench crosses the area from south to north. Just to the north of the proposed building addition are two seepage pits approximately five feet in diameter and approximately 30 feet deep. Based on our research of referenced aerial photographs, the site appears to be partially graded in photos taken in 1953. Photos taken in 1960 indicate the site was graded and had a structure of similar size and location on the site to that of the current structure. From photos taken in 1978 and the referenced grading plan we obtained from the City of Encinitas, the current structure appears to have been constructed in approximately 1978. Topographically, the subject property has a natural topography that slopes moderately, descending from the northeast to the southwest. The existing slope is more pronounced in the northeast corner, along the east perimeter of the site, and along the west boundary of the existing building pad area. The slope along the eastern boundary is supported by an existing retaining wall. It appears, from our exploration and the site's natural topography, the proposed building addition may be located on an existing cut /fill transition line. Based upon the topographic survey provided to us, on -site elevations range from approximately 138 feet (southwest comer) to approximately 158 feet (northeast corner) above Mean Sea Level. • CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 4 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on the results of our limited exploration and analysis of readily available, pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature, the area of the site where the proposed addition will be located is underlain by the Quatemary -age terrace deposits, which are mantled by man- placed fill materials. The fill and terrace deposits are described below FILL (Qao: Fill materials were observed in each of our two exploratory borings and extended to depths ranging from approximately two feet to seven feet below the existing ground surface. These fill materials were noted to consist of yellowish - brown, fine- to medium - grained, silty sand (SM) in Boring Number 1 (B-1) and gray to medium brown, fine- to medium - grained, silty sand (SM) with slight amounts of gravel and cobbles in B -2. The fill materials in B -1 were found to be generally damp and loose, while those in B -2 were noted to be generally moist to vet and loose to medium dense. The relative compaction of the fill was found to vary from about 84% (B -2 @ 3 feet) to 86% (B -2 @ 5 feet). Based on laboratory testing, we found the fill materials to possess a very low expansion potential (UBC Test Method 27 -2). TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Terrace deposits were encountered at depths ranging from two to seven feet below the existing site grades in our two exploratory test borings. These soils extended beyond our maximum explored depth of 15 feet below the ground surface. The terrace deposits were found to generally consist of orangish -brown to light brown, fine- to medium - grained, silty sand (SM) with trace amounts of gravel. These materials were noted to be generally moist and medium dense to very dense. GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered in our exploratory trenches and we do not expect any groundwater problems to develop due to the proposed construction. TECTONIC SETTING: No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary -age fault zones which typically consist of several individual en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north - westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 5 potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of geologic maps indicates that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is the closest active fault zone, is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include die Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest and the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed construction. GROUND SHAKING: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. TABLE I Fault Zone Distance Maximum Probable Maximum Bedrock Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 3 miles 6.5 Magnitude 0.42 g Coronado Bank 18 miles 7.0 Magnitude 0.17 g Elsinore 30 miles 7.3 Magnitude 0.13 g San Jacinto 53 miles 7.8 Magnitude 0.13 g San Clemente 55 miles 7.3 Magnitude 0.06 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed additions. • CkVE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS: In accordance with the evaluations provided above, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site is 0.42 g (based upon a Maximum Probable Seismic Event of 6.5 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault). For structural design purposes, a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening, and Soil Profile Type SD are recommended (UBC Table 16- J). Based upon the location of the site being approximately 5 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault (Type B Fault), Near Source Factors N, equal to 1.0 and N, equal to 1.2 are also applicable. Additional seismically related design parameters are recommended to be obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, utilizing a Seismic Zone 4. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY. A detailed, deterministic slope stability analysis was not included within our scope of services. However, based on our experience within the vicinity of the site, it is our opinion that the risk of deep - seated slope instability problems can be considered to be low. LIQUEFACTION: The near - surface soils encountered at the site possess a low risk potential for liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain -size distribution and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Due to the site's location, it will not be affected by a tsunami. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location, it will not be affected by seiches. CONCLUSIONS In general, we found the subject property suitable for the proposed addition, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed Based our research of referenced aerial photographs, the site appears to have been partially cleared, graded, and supported a structure of similar size and location some time prior to 1960. Based on the satisfactory performance of the current structure, the fill material comprising the building pad may have been removed and replaced as compacted fill during the grading operations performed in 1978. The fill materials encountered in our exploratory borings were most probably located outside the scope of grading operations performed for the construction of the existing structure; thus, possibly explaining the relatively loose, poorly compacted nature of these materials. C%X/E 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 7 The most significant geotechnical condition that will affect the proposed building and exercise yard addition is the relatively loose fill material that is unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement- sensitive improvements. As such, this material will be required to be removed and replaced as properly compacted structural fill. In addition, it may be necessary to remove one to two feet of the terrace deposits where they have weathered into a porous, collapsible material. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation should begin with the removal from the proposed improvement areas of any existing slabs, pavements, and utilities. This should be followed by the complete removal of all fill materials where settlement sensitive improvements are proposed. In addition, the terrace deposits within three feet of the proposed finish pad grade should also be removed in order to eliminate the cut /fill transition line that would run through the building pad. Based upon the results of our subsurface exploration, the removal depths are anticipated to extend to approximately three to seven feet below the existing ground surface. Where possible, the grading area shall extend horizontally a minimum of five feet beyond the boundaries of the proposed footings. To avoid und erminin g the existing footings, excavations near the footings should be sloped at a 1:1 inclination (horizontal to vertical) away from the existing footing. Prior to filling the excavation with the stockpiled soils, the bottom of the excavation should be approved by a representative of our engineering or geology staff. It should be noted that, based upon the observations of our field representative, localized deeper removals may be required. The soils at the bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of six inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The stockpiled soils may then be placed in the excavation as uniformly compacted fill in accordance with the following section. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill placed.at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as detemnined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 8 lifts sit to eight inches thick, widi each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. Based upon d results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, most of the on -site soils appear suitable for use as fill material. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix B. EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. Any and all embankments, structural fill, and fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath pavements should be compacted to a minim of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test D- 1557 -91. EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS: Based upon the condition of the encountered materials during our exploration, the subsurface materials at the site generally appear to be rippable with conventional earthmoving equipment. SURFACE DRAINAGE: It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed away from the proposed addition. Water should not be allowed to pond in landscaped areas near or adjacent to the proposed addition. SEEPAGE PITS: As previously mentioned, two seepage pits exists just north of the proposed building addition. We understand that these seepage pits are to be abandoned. The seepage pits should be filled with crushed stone or gravel and capped with approximately 12 inches of concrete at a depth of at least four feet below the proposed finish grade. The cap should be at least seven feet in diameter and reinforced with at least No. 5 bars spaced at 6 inches on center each way. The area around the pits can then be brought to finish grade with properly compacted structural fill. CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 9 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL: Our investigation indicated that the proposed addition may be supported by conventional spread foundations embedded into properly compacted structural M. Due to the generally low expansive potential of the native soils anticipated at bearing depths, special consideration and design for heaving soils will not be required. Spread footings supporting the addition should be embedded at least 12 inches below the adjacent finish grade. Continuous and isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Those areas where the proposed footings and on -grade concrete slabs abut the existing foundations and on -grade slabs should be structurally connected to mitigate the potential for differential settlement BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional spread footings with the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 700 pounds per square foot and 350 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of footing embedment and width, respectively, up to a maximum of 3,500 pounds per square foot. Additionally, the bearing capacity may be increased by one -third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCEMENT: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural engineer. However, based on the existing soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned two inches below the top of the footing. This reinforcement is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural conditions. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting oil, and b the passive pressure a g Y p p guest the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are placed tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one - third. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing concrete to determine if the soil conditions are as anticipated during the preparation of this report, and if the foundation recommendations presented M CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 10 herein are complied with. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level, and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. ON -GRADE SLABS INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The minim slab thickness for the proposed addition should be four inches. The slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. The slab reinforcing should extend into the foundations at least six inches. Slab reinforcing should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid - height in the floor slab. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: If the concrete on -grade floor slab will support moisture - sensitive floor covering it should be underlain by a moisture barrier. �We recommend that the minimum configuration of the subslab moisture barrier consist of a four - inch -thick blanket of coarse clean sand. The moisture barrier material should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieves, respectively. A visqueen vapor barrier should be placed in the center of the sand blanket. If the slab does not support moisture - sensitive flooring, the slab should be supported by at least two inches of coarse sand. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minim thickness of four inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatxvork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. EARTH RETAINING WALLS PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 400 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one -third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.40 for the resistance to lateral movement When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one - third. The upper 12 inches of exterior retaining wall footings should not be included in passive pressure calculations where abutted by landscaped or unpaved areas. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 pounds per • CAVE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 11 cubic foot. An additional 13 pounds per cubic foot should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure for 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values assume a drained backfill condition. Waterproofing details should be provided by the project architect. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 6. We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil friction coefficient, do not include a factor -of- safety. Appropriate factors -of -safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and /or cut slopes C%vrE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 12 may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in die intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any dianges in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our trenches, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our finishing of oral or written reports or findings. • CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 13 CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of The Animal Keeper, or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Two subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the site plan included herewith as Plate Number 1 on October 4, 1999. These explorations consisted of two test borings advanced with a truck - mounted drill rig utilizing 8 -inch diameter, hollow stem augers. The fieldwork was conducted by or under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The boring logs are presented on the following Plate Numbers 2 and 3. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification. In addition, a verbal textural description, the -,vet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. Relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained from California Modified samplers and returned to the laboratory for testing. Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also collected in bags from the boring locations. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below- a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. CXVE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Page No. 14 b) MOISTURE- DENSITY: In -place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in -place moisture content is detemiined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results of these tests are summarized in the boring logs. c) COMPACTION TESTS: The magnum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of one typical on -site soil sample was determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557 -91, Method A. The results of this test are presented on Plate No. 4. d) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: An expansion index test on a remolded sample was performed on a representative sample of the subsoil found near the surface of the site. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 ± 9 degrees Fahrenheit The specimen was then compacted in a 4 -inch- diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom, a total nonnal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 psO, and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The sample was saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported on Plate Nuinber 4 as the total vertical displacement times the fraction of the sample passing the #4 sieve times 1000. e) DIRECT SHEAR TEST: One direct shear test was performed to determine the failure envelope of each sample based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. The sample was tested at different vertical loads and saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of these tests are presented on Plate No. 4. fl GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution was determined from a representative sample of the fill materials in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of this test are presented on Plate Number 4. ^ LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 Date Excavated: 10/4/99 Logged by: DRR Equipment: IR A300 Project Manager: CHC Surface Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Hammer Weight: 140 pounds Drop of Hammer: 30inches SAMPLES SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS C'c FILL (Qaf): Yellowish-brown, damp, loose, fine to medium 2 grained SILTY SAND (SM). TERRACE nEPOSITS (Q!)L Orangish-brown to light brown, us 26 4.2 90.8 moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained SILTY SAND us Becomes dense. 23 106.4 us —16 Bottom of boring at 15 feet. THE ANIMAL KEEPER 155 Saxony Road, Encinitas CHRISTIAN WHEELEP, BY: SD DATE: Oct-99 199-489 PLATE NO.: .2 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-2 Date Excavated: 10/4/99 Logged by: DRR Equipment. IR A300 Project Manager. CHC Surface Elevation" N/A Depth to Water. N/A Hammer Weight: 140 pounds Drop of Hammer. 30 inches S AN ES1 0 W z g C' 'E 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W a 0 • — Z FILL 4Qaf), • Gray to medium brown, moist to wet, loose to — 2 medium dense, fine to medium grained SILTY SAND (SM) with MD slight gravels and cobbles. us 21 12.3 108.2 DS — 4 SA US 16 11.5 110.3 El ............ ............ ........ 6 8 TERRACE DEPOSITS Orangish-brown to light brown, us 15/6" moist, medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained SILTY 10 SAND (SM), trace gravels. us 50/5.5 13.6 117.9 12 Becomes dense to very dense. 4 X. US 1 150/5.51 .. ... .. 8.2 100.9 16 Bottom of boring at 15 feet. 18 20' THE ANIMAL KEEPER A ldr 11 155 Saxony Road, Encinitas CHRISTIAN YVFEELER- BY: SD DATE: Oct-99 ENGINEEKING I 199.489 PLATE NO.: 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION THE ANIMAL KEEPER - ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DENSITY/ OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT Sample Number Boring No. 2 @' /z' - 5' Description SILTY SAND (Slv� Maximum Density 128.4 pcf Optimum Moisture Content 8.1 % EXPANSION INDEX TEST Sample Number: Boring No. 2 @/2'- 5' Initial Moisture: 5 Initial Diy Density: 110.7 pcf Final Moisture: 16.3% Expansion Index: 0 (very low) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sample Number Boring No. 2 @ '/2'- 5' Sieve Size Percent Passing #4 100 #8 97 #16 88 #30 77 #50 58 #100 30 #200 20 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Sample Number Boring No. 2 @ '/2'- 5' Description Remolded Angle of Friction 320 Apparent Cohesion 250 psf CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Plate No. 4 man EN MIN mom mom IN ME MINI■■- Si an= =��■��no■■ MMME an WIN n MIMImmo m■■ �� =a■ ■ NINE ■■ EMEN ME INEIN Nmimm In MINIME NEEN■■��mmm■ ��MI■■ ==mom NINE NINE MINS IMME MI■■ �■■�� ■■ = =■■ a■■ IN�mm am INE IMMIN mom mmmmo Mom man ME IMIN mm mm on _ mom alim ME am MEN mm No am IN am INNIMIN MIME MIMMOM■■��i�� ■■ a ■ ■��i�� INIMEN NOUN ME El■■ ��i�� ■�� an MINI a ■■� = =an ■■ ME an== INININIMEMINE ��m�� ■ ■��i�mm ■■�� MMM■■ NINE I now wommom ME =zm mm■■ CGC / � 1 � 11 .. • : NUMB i I � -f—� SLOPE MINIMUM _ _ 6" MIN 6" MAX T • a WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL e ° PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS o e ' 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK or • ' ° MIRADRAIN 6000 or EQUIVALENT O . . ° e v GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL e. . �v 12" 0 TOP OF GROUND ° or CONCRETE SLAB .o' 6" MIN I MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale Christian Wheeler Engineering Job Number 199.489.1 Date: OCTO 27, 1999 Plate Number: 6 CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Appendix A, Page Al REFERENCES Anderson, J.G.; Rockwell, R.K and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra Volume 5, No. 2, 1989. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of IVlines and Geology, Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 1996, Geology Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 96 -02. Kern, P., 1989, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press, 73 pp. Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source -Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada 1988, California Division of Mines and Geology. Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L., 1992, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California (Rock and Stiff -Soil Sites) California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 92 -1. Wesnoush-y, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California ", in Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986. Grading Plans for Encinitas Boarding Kennel, City of Encinitas, dated August 4,1978; Scale 1" = 20'. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS County of San Diego, 1975, 200 Scale Map, Ortho-Topographic Map Sheets 322 -1677 and 322 -1683. County of San Diego, 1985, 200 Scale Map, Ortho- Topographic Map Sheets 322 -1677 and 322 -1683. Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 1996, Geology Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 96-02. CWE 199.489 October 27,1999 Appendix A, Page A2 PHOTOGRAPHS Lenska Aerial Images, 1995, The Thomas Guide, Commercial Edition, Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1928, Flight 37E, Photograph 2: Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1953, Flight 8Nt Photograph 76: Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1960, Flight 3, Photographs 77, 78, 90, and 91; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1970, Flight 3, Photograph 1; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1970, Flight 4, Photographs 13 and 14; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1974, Flight 33, Photographs 8 and 9; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1975, Flight 34, Photographs 3 and 4; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1978, Flight 15B, Photograph 39; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1978, Flight 16B, Photograph 40; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1983, Photographs 248 and 543; Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1989, Photographs 3 -3 and 1 -211; Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate). CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Appendix B, Page 131 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION THE ANIMAL KEEPER ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and /or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian NN%eeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work s CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Appendix B, Page B2 Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -91 Density of Soil In -Place - ASTIvi D- 1556 -90 or ASTM D -2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. `'hen the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Appendix B, Page B3 FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed G inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over -built and cut- r CWE 199.489 October 27, 1999 ` Appendix B, Page B4 back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in a ll fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. 1 CkVE 199.489 October 27, 1999 Appendix B, Page B5 SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. V hen work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfil. shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29 -C. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material are provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. v . o a 0 r O 1 b 0 g - c� n to U C > Ss z F; G ZZ m i zza T c z .. z, m N m 0D� 'Q c - v U) m z wam ti _ m I N - G) -C . c -N c z °w G) m In Z --�- - S A X Q N Y z R Q A n a ,�.+ ti�'� • ~y ' 1 t . 1 .\�,'. • .�°�'Mt.. �,1 ` � R' � • !, ,` .: • •'`'\ �,........+w .'."..i..a'"•mwe ri r c•C" , 7 f. ♦ ` , ! > 1. A f , ti • , '7 f rq • •'` . ' ° . rat'' • . it .� . �. , . p, • r r r , f -' -- ,; ,.» _ r. •__ '_ - • . fit_ X' `. � . ♦ t , OA N)Mww LIL veork" VIP t, ' CQJ ♦• y V Cn VAK ma < I N 6> A O ► n �� r n 00 f a O, ' , ti ,w I q s r G y � r t .9O'991 . M4 .90.ZON `3 1 a7 C D z z D O Q r /' > M N c _ �t7 � O r Z z C ° 0 D rn m r �00 c n D • m m o o �'' •.' it . `:� IV O m z 0 ENGINEER'S NAME: SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING PHONE NO. (760) 753 -5525 9Z99 -29L (6 1.9) 'ON 3NOHd ONI `ON1833NION3 oiinOIG NVS :3WdN" S 33NION3 Z - - ° n J J 03 oQO1oO . � ¢ z z ¢ z z cn C9 , o L � ~�` m�OWZ OMN .� `� �.tr' ( L � O o CC J N ° WM I - -� �� W 0 0 �O w -OZ� � a �'�_ �: — -� p ao --� Z (� �'j' ~ Z =p 3w =�IZ"� c�' IIIi ��o: W ?C H a O a .-- ��CC N J 40 ~f-W= 3C? % WW W� i Jzw i �� . "\, 0 W Lj � za Z��I -�'�' �W =�-'- cUin a¢``' 1�111 III III` �� J C] o � :� f - Z �? Z -J W z o0 p,ZVl(_? z = ►- =Z, >Oa - -- =- = -III- YWW Z Z �� - � w w pv W� w p�Op a -� Um Z �2� \ W W W �\ Z N ow��°�� ZOOWZ¢ a0� 1L � Q �5 J F-: ~ K, ,� ? ,� LJ X. >¢ W(nW Q- =D:��F -U ?X _� ZWU� O N �2 a a M W W W Q � F- a Ow ► C] �'� pO� �-° O �OQ!O V) W a \ Z Z J -- r -- 3 z -1 O z M .. �J ° wz a d z? = z' -� =_ �_ z vc (n cn z ° o -� ° a �,Q - �- Q W z a o N ¢° -� En ¢ o Q- W - - - -- -- z Q = g w I/' W J3 00Laz?� oa=,= - i�= I, w�=am �o� ;C. p W ►- , ow `�' of `�` U a F- �- W M a- O O [] I11= O a Z x o / w W 3 W �O w3�- Z _ _ I� �z Q ; W o o a � 1 -�' W° p Q rZ (/) ^ ^ Ow WO W J . -� LA z Z zN`°__ ¢�,ap (o-jo oU w =�1 - =T L11, , =II1= c�� Z , o 'NSW.9 J � ° W� X a w O W z Z �n C _z ? U I -I 11- X a ►- F- Y J m W Cj W W ¢ �_ a. = a! k < )+ W a- I- — O rY W U J ZZ°W�QWWa0 x�W00W w3 !1! X W - in ;� p O N a U ,� Q `(�, 1- 0 O apWti - J O N U�¢tn Of C) I w - ¢ Q z W ui W -- W z �t w Q Q UZ =J ° CC w 7) - j II� q4 V) mU om J (O cr Z w �- x W N f- ¢ F - �, oz o in s. I -� -� ;� °°' W z U� W 4 M Z $ LAJ w p ►_ M w (, � L` �z = wiz IlL Q ►- w U OM oa > Y Q O3 O� Q \ z H U a z z ° Z O Lj =O L JO�zU oUO�0a //� \\ �� p ° ° W O 0 U) q 0 °o ° z� U 0 DER k � V _ a- m: ~ a¢ UQ U ° LL- WZQ w \ i� %� ZZ w - a WZ W C9 wa0 Oz �`' ° 3Qa'� �,�' _Z O 3 m� O cn x z W J _ U) -j CC to O- Q O W Z W W j J W Q F-- = N m / �, �: J W a Z LLI WO (� M z a S O N W I - z 1 = - = ¢m U =�- U Q zv, o ,� N W O ¢w z ► - v _ U Z W W� I -�J3� U J�J U 3 V C W �� OO �O Um aZ I I-- I z W �� X �¢�-► =QZQCCa f' i a- ( N W CC W OW U) F- war: o¢3mQ mtzz< � •c a- o (nz ?�" � i••-- m z I w_ \ g =aN i �,, . ti o v (� m N .. 0 Z M Z Or n 3a z W Q Q o� 7� ��, Z z - L.j c� O �- t- � > U d� 0 w c I / W M U M w w_o o -*z o N ls�� S1 LJLJ LL. ua3 % 0 c cn 0 z Ow W O W '� x Ow I I / t0l' .' OO orc� W ¢ w J� zUo w I z J W C-4 1-i in a U,�i w c� Q Q O I - // A CL z W W tz W ? W ac U z, �_ m¢ _ �- Z N W a a U O X N W W �_-- �- Q ° / W SW Z° 3 O n N z O J z 01 (n 3 m D Z O F= Z z ° W z m W U in ? W LjJ J a¢ ap `'� O Li J I� O.O. N ;10� O c°o N ,\ 'n °� } Z W N ar ga ( N r z O Lj •+ O Z O m CD F X x I• - O x �w _ II ,•1 I In C1 1,1711 W �! �S' (n () m .- � � � . - � 4J tL,ZI W O O ° M b 0 W ,L 3: = � O N j Z x LL W z � !! ! �- z x Lam. = O O W z 1- X >� ;•i:. >: a 0 �! U p �U Ln W c p U O U �� U � ,. v, F W� W U3 Lj m j 0 W }-4 �. W C� O ` �' O W W '- r V O Q 0 F- h W W II 3 O O• a Z 3 �j .. ,,. •' LL �• m aa� a a�► -' N zz`' N Z Q m� p - N Li w ° M aw �s'i �a4 Gl �� O 0 o � 3 o 0 r `� -" 00 `�'' ��'�►. O �'� NO2'O6'54" �" 186.05' ��' za cr�r wM � L ,'�`° 0 N -� _... Z o Z La(j W Q • ^ F Q OM • V • ..°., �' :•, _ - M - • \ �' �� . ,a ' . • , ,�..- �� .. �(� V W v • - , • W C9 a . , • . • a . • U 0 . J J - J - -_- - a h O o N cO -� ¢ �� 00 0 .. �h / a r 3 3 O N 1-? I �• (`' M v J Y� O z z Z y N � �• cn N ¢ I 1 W 10 oz (n �n 4 �� x ¢ ¢ U t0 1. LC) ' Z O^ N ~ C �� c7 y C� J C9 ! 1 W. AV 30 4O � � _c MIX oc) Mtn s� (fin �`' _n °� 1 16 ° O N � U < �.. _J n . m � \A\ .()o (D �z n (( Z a- to • r , o Z o l Q Q] Z U •, , 4Je Z m W (+- Z° ® z U� Ei I� ZO Q J O'n W Z [L C7 p Z , C • aC • ~° UU) O a - C7 :3 ° J 0 O 1! >Z U 1± � �a ON 0 ..I II U W W N U O �W II O O� r• •M, LL W� _ wxa 4 v z o= aC Z a- w° Ofw ° ''� =nz Q ui s! J W U a W Z r tt? \ Z cy) 8 J z aC cc, ° w a (n J `� I I Q ^ m ww �S, S w o � � N a �G z O w � 3 (n ! I I W CN ° wx *•. w x a <t = X _ O 3 O N a z 1 I I U- N W a' � C7 a W cp r. U W Z W W F � ° z U ca L>r' � 9 d o ' W N x ° Q--+1 W v Q ca U Zp�� ;� �i O win m -j M 1 F - - - O WU W �' W z o� rK) �+1 �� c� W ZWU M �' ';il o �' � UJI 2 0 l¢i W I r� " Q CC Z � cq W Z J y' CC OC U _ N ,I ` U � I ��o a. n �' g N a � p' u�> x J� z� s IX in a3� A - (L *' �' < W II Q¢ w N om -� M o oc cn o to *- 3 z a �? 4 N O 0 W z `I W zc� �T-� v * j � Y Ul) ow �� zda N II M zON� �, �?�' Il N� Y� �� ° Z r r Mz o �' z ;ZZZO I ''z 3 ¢ m w M� Z..a- 7(n� ww O II I I C) a W � ��. �• _ >� ��. - �� SO Z ° .. i Z '• a � �� w�4 W �° Wes. III ' ° :�. Z f-- N ' 11 3 a ° ac o II �i � 'n W z _ M 4 mj a no Lj in 17 Y W ? . O of W N w - r o it 00 • ° I�QtO� a N� A wwwo o z o z♦ O w • in In U) M a ,.. W eg = U I v. w ° M v W M iij a0 v N II p I ( ° _ • 09 _ z-� �a • �c� c�� K) 00 a (I Q Z � Z n II II II II w w O a U zW *r:0 ^0. .off. . . v� SO S O W N Z p Q QQ I( ( x W _ _ .. ¢u' o U (nz Y a .. � -. v � , W 0 I - D -� . o 5.07a �' .p,� , �: :,:• , u , �� ; Q w > II n in o m a_ _.p ( Z o z in W �� a` ~� >W (n Q v W� H- ►- QN - a N C n- a 3 0? to X :(. w N —_,,,. a V) o o LZ w z a U J I W C/) 0 <.5 U) a Q 3 X io ~a4 w H n '��' 1 o�w N N ¢ II Z � LO N U� ( W Q � a- W W ar I� W xx W J O ,; x aZ� ...i N a_ U° J 3 w� 0 W e ¢ N O N J W IU LL N r7. W �� Z S� Qa 0 Z Q W Cc ° p O i� W U . 1 . t W Zo Z �g< W o O Z o N z 0 -m I a 1 r• 4 .; Z 0 J , F W Q � 0 ' z � • \./ -,, , , • p a W nj LU - a • W _F-- U -N CL LLJ m w o o ~ a � in m Y L` y 1�` r W U U) � o J z W ^ is N W I M aC Y Q N xJ �, z O a > 0 aC X N l�il W '� zoo U II? Y a m�, WO w a3 z w I o II J u M3s V, � N (n w 4a Z v, .l�/b W F- .,, O z ao z z o L/) N 0^ci LINVS z w I ao W • ((° a w = aC ac «1s --,�l ! �- _ (n ( cv J z j�z o (n C_, c zz Zl M3N o ° Q • � • ,! r I . c. W f ° r ( � y/}+y+ U M ¢a- ZU- 00 I N (n (� C..: v m W f�" aL� I i, 1 O z � V) (.. ,_ I I 0 aw a2UN ? m III Z Xz _ i 3oc Q �0 Li WZ - I wZ I ' "+ O ao 5 � I� w � ¢ I ,! _ LO v w _ I z < co x m _ o J 4 o Z � • - z ¢ >c�n 0 v II , `� � _ • '�' •� 6 v a G.7 N ° I a_ LLJ 'Q • oN Q I' Q N Y o o oo 00 - J ti I I U I Q z U) i `�. li • v y v �'4J O_ IW W Z Q UWZULJ z = m dd, ;,, �; o ;,� U a �o wo . O w z W v :n z = Z m o Z o a r U v v z� ��d, �IilOCC p� m O U WZ L� W• I z p NMOHS S`d N0� 3 IM ,5'8 S3 bdS L dOd ►� z a I Z N o f = C-4 U Z o �� wa. NI9 waw d N1112�`dd NIlSIX3 9 O ow �¢ W ,y,3�"o� ti m v v , U ¢• 1i f ♦ I O W p w ¢ W Z m 4- a O � C L . J z U N .rj Z f Q � ( n cr (n � w >� (n w z O a�� W rn a a9s : a I ° W - x ° o d a M r= a _ U o ;n V) 1 oc I o �� a c� o a o w cn U !I w o O - � no � ° - z ~ • O Z • v a• Of v , Y r W` O U "' w --� d x N V) 0' I y. a ¢ ma W a N z - ° Q �= m ...:, # F- x z a C' Q 0 3 z(n - z�' ?Io � Q O m W a W _ ,... ( p = I z W t tY 1 � m , y . a U I d. aci p.g m p 3,� g XW NZWW>O >>. WCC aC • a 0 m NN \ - 2m J LLJ O z = • a v • v , N ¢ 0 �� O W W � N W 2? UQ U - ) V) � -Qm� W U •° �0 r W W z I g W I Or CC 3 N V) IZ �� • . • r � L N N = U cG w C9 N a UO x Q 00 _• \ a o o J -.6LZl 3„8�.8l.lON w o • • ' - a : - - -- --___ o •� 0 32 35 "W W 83.59 , • z v a L ' � U C0 Z ( 0 ° ° j N•++ °� CO U Q o a M < O pi � F- jj a W ,n � W f U z ►` O M G a M W j . Q \ z a0 c9 m U co W in vi 4 O U WN Z UNW LjO X Z cco� r \in N H-0 M w ° Z rar ? 0 \ ICI 10 W . r • • W Q ^ ry• cc W G N W z ° ¢ Z O Z L-U 0 l - - M � z d z j cr H IL H < < ? � o a Z 0 OUO ZZ ¢ O, �. z z C'3 LU- vZ= i - -- - -- - `- Z W N O 11J v w a W o o s i_ - <z < x J d z LO \ U P 00 C/) V N � O U rn Cn z o i O Q \� O N O I c Z a c m c Q v 0 N j - 1 O NL i i I f i is