Loading...
2001-7103 G/I City OINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT r, Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 10, 2002 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276-A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Rhino Art Company, Inc. Jack B. and Marybeth Quick 97 North Coast Highway 101 DR/CDP 00-109 Grading Permit 7103-G APN 258-033-02 Partial release of grading security Permit 7103-G authorized earthwork, public improvements and erosion control, all as necessary to build/prepare Rhino Art Company. The acceptance, and warranty inspections have all been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division has approved rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 3000547665, in the amount of $57,801.00, may be reduced to $37,943.50. The document original will be held until final release of security. A final inspection is required for the release of the remaining Grading security and a release of 75% of the Improvement security. 25% of the Improvement security will be held until a one-year warranty inspection is approved. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher /ay back Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Client Debra Geishart File TEL -6u-633-2000 17AN 760-033-2627 5051 s. Vulcan nvrnuc. Fncinit,11. California 9202-i-3633 TDD ,0o-633-2700 3. recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city or Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 14, 2004 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276-A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Rhino Art Company, Inc. Jack B. and Marybeth Quick 97 North Coast Highway 101 DR/CDP 00-109 Grading Permit 7103-G and 7103-1 APN 258-033-02 Final release of security Permit 7103-G and 7103-I authorized earthwork, public improvements and erosion control, all as necessary to build/prepare Rhino Art Company. The acceptance, and warranty inspections have all been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division has approved final grading and improvements. Therefore, a full release of the remaining security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 3000547665, in the remaining amount of $37,943.50, is hereby released in entirety. The original amount was $57,801.00. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher y L mbach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Jack and Marybeth Quick Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper ` 111 I~ EN INEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City 0 Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 10, 2002 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 276-A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Rhino Art Company, Inc. Jack B. and Marybeth Quick 97 North Coast Highway 101 DR/CDP 00-109 Grading Permit 7103-G APN 258-033-02 Partial release of grading security Permit 7103-G authorized earthwork, public improvements and erosion control, all as necessary to build/prepare Rhino Art Company. The acceptance, and warranty inspections have all been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division has approved rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 3000547665, in the amount of $57,801.00, may be reduced to $37,943.50. The document original will be held until final release of security. A final inspection is required for the release of the remaining Grading security and a release of 75% of the Improvement security. 25% of the Improvement security will be held until a one-year warranty inspection is approved. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sinc ly, 'Masih Maher ay L bach Senior Civil Enginee Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Client Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 FAX 760-633-2627 07 S. Vulcan Avenue. Fncinaas. California 9202-i-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper I ~ ) KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology .,,,,--1►e-- 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 Bv: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf 7--cf Retained Fill: 32 0 120 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 1.50 Bearing: Analysis: Gravity Section Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5 Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 3.33 ft embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 250 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 20.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.29 2.28 19.97 N/A N/A Calculated Bearing Pressure: 478 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.28 ft L. !C?0 No. 36292 rn Qxe. (-43-~04- ISr 1 V " OF GAL~F6 frV ors JUL 1 9 2001 *x 'MEERiN SEt~VftrE +rv OF ENCrNMAc Pref. Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page of 12- KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology f 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Y---Rcf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 ' Retained Fill: 32 0 120 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 ' Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands 12 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 1+03.75 to 1+24.00 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 5.33 ft embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 250 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge- Offset= 3.00 ft; Load Width= 20.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearin¢ Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.17 4.61 19.70 13.59 3.68 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 721 psf _ Eccentricity at base: 0.33 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tel Tsc FS 2 2.67 5.0 295 SG200 933 ok 834 ok N/A 2.25 ok 1 1.33 5.0 430 SG200 933 ok 973 ok N/A 3.02 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): (Efficiency= 39 SG200: 1.11 sy/ft No. 36292 ,t exp. 3,~0¢ Clvl\ ~lE OF CA Pref. Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page Z of KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology .rt,-cto►-r'+"c ` 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Y---Pcf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 - ; 3 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus 2 r rl Factors of Safety f Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 1+24.00 to 1+54.00 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 8.00 ft embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 0 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bendine Factors of Safety: 3.03 6.38 17.60 9.42 9.53 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 966 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.27 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc FS 3 6.00 6.0 155 SG200 933 ok 765 ok N/A 2.39 ok 2 4.00 6.0 276 SG200 933 ok 973 ok N/A 4.33 ok 1 2.00 6.0 673 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 3.67 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 39%) SG200: 2.00 sy/ft c* L No. 36,2132 of CAUU Pref: Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page 3 of 12- KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology -S44 7o- 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters A_ c psf X-~cf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 5 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands 4 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus 3 2 Factors of Safety 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 710 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 1+54.00 to 2+04.25 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 10.00 ft embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 0 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge- Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.37 4.06 12.18 13.18 9.53 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1297 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.51 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout La er Height Length Tension Reinf. Tyne Tai TO Tsc FS 5 8.00 7.0 123 SG200 933 ok 765 ok N/A 3.22 ok 4 6.67 6.0 201 SG200 933 ok 904 ok N/A 2.45 ok 3 4.67 6.0 368 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 3.78 ok 2 2.67 6.0 507 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 5.42 ok 1 0.67 6.0 528 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 8.62 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): (Efficiency= 36 % ) SG200: 3.44 sy/ft cjo X y i ~ Na 3~?92 zyp l CIVIA- i` OF f' i~ Pref: Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents1195 Lkwp page Qr of G ? • • 11, KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Y---Pcf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 ; `5 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 4 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands i3 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus 2 s.1 Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50. Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG300 3005 1.61 1.10 1.10 1542 1.50 1028 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 2+04.25 to 2+23.00 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 11.00 R embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 0 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.53 4.58 13.13 7.20 13.44 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1392 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.51 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Layer Height Length Tension Reinl'. Tyne Tal Tcl Tsc FS 5 9.33 7.0 94 SG200 933 ok 730 ok N/A 2.17 ok 4 8.00 7.0 182 SG200 933 ok 869 ok N/A 3.26 ok 3 6.00 7.0 345 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 4.50 ok 2 4.00 7.0 483 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 6.13 ok 1 2.00 7.0 984 SG300 1028 ok 1376 ok N/A 4.91 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 44%) SG300: 0.78 sy/ft SG200: 3.11 sy/ft Ro. 362'92 Of CALaF . Pref. Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page : of a KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters AL c psf y__Icf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 L Retained Fill: 32 0 120 5 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 x q Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands 3 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus 2 Factors of Safety 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG200 2725 1761 7 Analysis: 2+23.00 to 2+56.75 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 12.00 ft embedment: 1.00 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 250 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge- Offset= 2.00 ft; Load Width= 1.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.30 3.84 11.31 8.61 2.47 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1617 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.51 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc FS 5 9.33 8.0 403 SG200 933 ok 835 ok N/A 1.64 ok 4 7.33 7.0 303 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 3.62 ok 3 5.33 7.0 451 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 5.14 ok 2 3.33 7.0 595 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 6.72 ok 1 1.33 7.0 871 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 7.03 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): (Efficiency= 55 % ) SG200: 4.00 sy/ft G- ,i~?.i f S8f0; . fin 36292 i~ e.,q- sV CiV\~- OF Gf ~ Pref. Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\MyDocuments\1951.kwp page 4 of iL- ~UW KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf X-Tcf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 6 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 5 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands 4 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus :3 2 Factors of Safety 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG500 4608 1.61 1.10 1.10 2365 1.50 1577 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 2+56.75 to 2+92.00 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 14.00 ft embedment: 1.17 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 250 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 2.00 ft; Load Width= 1.00 ft Results: Slidin Overturning Bearin Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.24 3.68 10.89 7.75 2.47 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1905 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.63 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Len th Tension Reinf. Tvve Tal Tel Tsc FS 6 11.33 9.0 403 SG200 933 ok 835 ok N/A 1.71 ok 5 9.33 8.0 303 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 3.80 ok 4 7.33 8.0 451 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 5.32 ok 3 5.33 8.0 595 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 6.89 ok 2 3.33 8.0 735 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 8.50 ok 1 1.33 8.0 1032 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A' 8.58 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 55 SG500: 0.89 sy/ft SG200: 4.56 sy/ft rc CE E W Na 360292 It 01F (A Pre£ Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page 7 of 12- KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters ~ 12-sif Y--P f Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 6 5 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands ; 4 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus _,3 t .2 Factors of Safety 1 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS ITS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG500 4608 1.61 1.10 1.10 2365 1.50 1577 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 2+92.00 to 2+95.75 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 14.67 ft embedment: 1.17 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 250 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 2.00 ft; Load Width= 1.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.58 4.74 13.10 5.87 2.46 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1918 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.49 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc FS 6 12.00 9.5 404 SG200 933 ok 835 ok N/A 1.88 ok 5 10.00 9.5 303 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 6.10 ok 4 8.00 9.5 452 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 7.53 ok 3 6.00 9.5 596 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 9.06 ok 2 4.00 9.5 735 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A >10 ok 1 2.00 9.5 1361 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A 7.90 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 62%) C SG500: 1.06 sy/ft SG200: 5.28 sy/ft tfE9stq qt• ~~GE E W No. 36292 ZAP 30 Pref: Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page of 1 Z ~n~rrrwl+• K44 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN r Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 71 f. Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf y_~cf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 7 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 6 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands 5 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus 4 '3 ;2 Factors of Safety 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG500 4608 1.61 1.10 1.10 2365 1.50 1577 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 2+95.75 to 3+27.25 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 16.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 0 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.34 3.98 11.79 7.10 5.58 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2085 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.84 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Tyne Tal Tel Tsc FS 7 13.33 9.5 232 SG200 933 ok 835 ok N/A 2.39 ok 6 11.33 9.5 322 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 4.65 ok 5 9.33 9.5 460 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 6.29 ok 4 7.33 9.5 599 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 7.92 ok 3 5.33 9.5 737 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 9.56 ok 2 3.33 9.5 875 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A >10 ok 1 1.33 9.5 1195 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A >10 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 57%) SG500: 2.11 sy/ft SG200: 5.28 sy/ft v&E JNn, 36292` FG~ Pref: Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\] 951.kwp page of KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology "Ta'"' [~a-. - 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf LT-Cf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 - Retained Fill: 32 0 120 ' 7 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 ^5 6 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands ; 4 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus -.3 2 Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG500 4608 1.61 1.10 1.10 2365 1.50 1577 0.90 0.95 SG600 7413 1.61 1.10 1.10 3805 1.50 2537 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 3+27.25 to 3+46.00 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 17.33 ft embedment: 1.50 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 250 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 10.00 ft; Load Width= 1.00 ft Results: Slidin Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 1.59 2.00 5.05 4.08 5.59 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 3129 psf Eccentricity at base: 1.62 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Laver Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc FS 7 14.67 10.0 232 SG200 933 ok 834 ok N/A 2.25 ok 6 12.67 9.0 322 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 2.66 ok 5 10.67 7.5 460 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 1.59 ok 4 8.67 7.5 598 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 3.22 ok 3 6.67 7.5 737 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 4.86 ok 2 4.67 7.5 887 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A 6.40 ok 1 2.67 7.5 2081 SG600 2537 ok 2255 ok N/A 3.96 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 57%) SG600: 0.83 sy/ft SG500: 0.83 sy/ft SG200: 4.61 sy/ft % Q~;.F £r"pd ACE E. e" { UJ N0. 3f292 r ET- C IV1A- -~0 F G A~ Pref: Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page 0 of 2 Rio KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology -ra 'a.0 er - 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Y---Pcf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 /7-,8 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 6 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands ; 5 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus 4 V; ; 2 Factors of Safety 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 SG500 4608 1.61 1.10 1.10 2365 1.50 1577 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 3+46.00 to 3+82.00 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 18.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 0 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.42 4.22 12.09 6.62 5.58 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 2316 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.89 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Tyne Tal Tcl Tsc FS 8 15.33 11.0 232 SG200 933 ok 835 ok N/A 3.25 ok 7 13.33 11.0 322 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 5.73 ok 6 11.33 11.0 460 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 7.36 ok 5 9.33 11.0 599 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 9.00 ok 4 7.33 11.0 737 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A >10 ok 3 5.33 11.0 875 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A >10 ok 2 3.33 11.0 1013 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok N/A >10 ok 1 1.33 11.0 1356 SG500 1577 ok 1533 ok NIA ?A >10 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): ( Efficiency= 60%) SG500: 3.67 sy/ft SG200: 6.11 sy/ft _ r~~~,~ ~E89Pp~~ . w Na 31r29~ ti Te 0E Av`F~~ , Pre£ Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page of KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN • Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology C-a - 3.0.3.1, 26 Apr 00 Project: Rhino Art Retail Date: 7/18/01 Proj. No.: 1951 By: lec Design Parameters Soil Parameters c psf Y -P-Cf Reinforced Fill: 30 0 120 Retained Fill: 32 0 120 •;5 Foundation Fill: 34 0 120 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands 4 3 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus '2 Factors of Safety 1 Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: 2.00 Bearing: 2.00 Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 1.50 Connection Peak: 1.50 Serviceability: N/A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG200 2725 1.61 1.10 1.10 1399 1.50 933 0.90 0.95 Analysis: 3+82.00 to 3+87.25 Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. (Hinge Ht N/A) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 11.33 ft embedment: 1.50 ft Level Backfill Surcharge: LL 0 psf uniform surcharge DL 0 psf uniform surcharge- Offset= 1.00 ft; Load Width= 0.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearin Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.45 4.31 13.67 11.70 5.59 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1451 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.55 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Tension Connection Connection Pullout Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc FS 5 8.67 7.0 232 SG200 933 ok 834 ok N/A 1.84 ok 4 6.67 7.0 322 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 3.95 ok 3 4.67 7.0 460 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 5.59 ok 2 2.67 7.0 598 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A 7.22 ok 1 0.67 7.0 604 SG200 933 ok 1041 ok N/A >10 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): (Efficiency= 48 % ) SG200: 3.89 sy/ft O Q fret OZ- S' w Ma 36292 b cc txe Ioj c4- IV IA- ~114r f OF Pref. Embed./ - 1 - Landmark Engineering Corp. C:\My Documents\1951.kwp page of Sent by: GEO GRID 760 509 0078; 06/01/01 6:51AM;Jetrax #710;Page 1/2 Geo Grid; Page 2 Re.-eiveel.: 5/31 /01 1 :11PM; 760 746 0163 PAGE 2 FILE No. 564 05/31 01 13:16 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO INC VGTION sTiNG 1ENCJ1NLE1UNCJ1 INC1 QnsTR ~ 4J~ SLV DIEGO, CA 11MRSIDF. CA V}.%IA!11A, CA TKACY, CA LANCASTER. CA sACRAWN10. c;A 42156 IU11r St. W. 3619 Mudixun Ave. ~ 2414 Vbloyilyd Ago. 490 E. Pri Suite CI. 164! Prc c Ave. 242 W. Lurch Lee( K Suite 22 C 2 Salto G 5uita 7 Suite 105 uitc f F' LYMtWIar. CA 93:74 V.1ii16tanm LA 9560 _Q R,anndido, CA 92929 CuwnY. CA 91119 OanYrd, CA 9711'33 'truer, CA 953u9 CO J 116111 746.4955 191191371.11191) 18651486-6479 12tW16139-20i (661) 726-9676 (919) 171 60:41 Job No. 1+'a17J1•ti1171VAN ENGINEE;t1NG, 1NC. (7w1,46.Iwwtir.r (9691:i7a2J«e WAS (805)466-9016 FAX (20) 09-11195 May 31, 2001 Mr. Jack Quick Rhino Arts Yia Facsimile• 858.792.7414 Subject: Geotechnical Design Parameters for Proposed Geogrid Walls Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101 Encinitas, California Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California Prepared by Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Dated May 3, 2000 Mr. Quick: As .requested, we have prepared modified the geotechnical design recommendations for use in design of Keystone walls at the referenced project. STRENGTH AND UNIT WEIGHT Provided in the table below are modified soil parameters considered suitable for design of the proposed geogrid walls. The parameters provided for the reinforced zone soils assume that on-site soils will be used as back ill. The design internal angle of friction for the reinforced zone has been previously confirmed by our laboratory. However, we reserve the right to perform additional testing to confirm that on-site soils are consistent throughout the duration of the project. Suitability and soil properties of any proposed imported soils should also be verified by this office. E I,i r ' 4 +r f 1 .Ism Internal Angle of Soil Zone Friction, ~ Apparent Cohesion, c Soil Unit Weight, (de rees (psfl c Reinforced Zone 30 0 120 Retained Soil 32 0 120 Foundation 34 0 125 ir< benT oy: ULU UhiU IOU buy UU/t1; ub/ul /ul 0:02AM; jetraX 411U; rage 'L/L Received: 5/31/01 1:11PM; Geo Grid; Page 3 FILE No. 564 05/31 '01 13:16 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO INC 760 746 0163 PAGE 3 Geotechnical Design Parameters for Proposed Geogrid Walls Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development, 33 North Highway 101 Encinitas, California May 31, 2001 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Based on the anticipated conditions, the above parameters are considered suitable for design and analysis of the wall system. WALL DRAINAGE Walls should be designed and constructed with appropriate drainage facilities as per the wall designer. However, CTE reserves the right to modify the proposed wall drains based on conditions observed during construction. STRUCTURE SETBACK Foundations for structures should be setback from walls a minimum of 5 feet or 1.25 times the height of the wall, whichever is greater. Should you have questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC r Dan T. Math, RCE#60103 than Goodtnacher, CEG #!2135 Senior Engineer enior Engineering Geologist cc; W. Mike Stevenson, Geogrid Retaining Wall Sysietns, Inc., Via fax;(619) 287-9204 1\C:te_vcrvcr\projectsll0-4043\Ltr_Keystone Wail Roca-doc CONSTRUCTION TESTING& ENGINEERING, INC, SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA SACRAMENTO, CA N. PALM SPRINGS, CA 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princcland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242 W. Larch 42156 10th St. W. 3628 Madison Ave. 19020 N. Indian Ave. r° Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite F Unit k Suite 22 Suite 2-K ~J Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 N. Highlands, CA 95660 N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 (760) 746 9806 FAX (909) 371-1890 (805) 486-6475 (209) 839-2890 (661) 726-9676 (916) 331-6030 760)329-4677 (909) 371-2168 FAX (805) 486-9016 FAX (209) 839-2895 FAX (661) 726-0246 FAX (916) 331-6037 FAX (760) 328-4896 FAX ENGINEERING, INC. FINAL REPORT FOR TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL & KEYSTONE WALL CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RHINO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DD, Q r, I~ ENGINEERING SERVICES PREPARED FOR: CITY Of ENCINITAS JACK QUICK, RHINO ART COMPANY c/o MAPLE, DELL, AND McCLELLAND ARCHITECTS, LLP 531 STEVENS AVENUE WEST, STE C SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 PREPARED BY: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 CTE Project No. 10-4043 June 2, 2004 GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAM 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 TREATMENT OF BUILDING PADS 1 3.0 FILL PLACEMENT 1 4.0 KEYSTONE WALL 2 5.0 TESTING 2 6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 3 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 3 8.0 LIMITATIONS 4 TABLES TABLE I COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA FIGURES FIGURE 1 SITE INDEX MAP FIGURE 2 COMPACTION LOCATION MAP FAProjects 10-4001 to 10-5000\10-4043\Final Comp Rpt, With Keystone Wall.doc Final Report for Testing of Compacted Fill & Keystone Wall Construction Page 1 Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California June 2, 2004 CTE Job No. 10-4043 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located on the east side of Highway 101, just north of its intersection with Encinitas Boulevard in the City of Encinitas, California. Site elevations are approximately 60 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site is less than 1/2 mile from the Pacific Ocean and less than one mile west of Interstate Highway 5. Currently, single-story, commercial buildings lie to the north and south of the site. Amtrak Railroad tracks and the associated easement lie immediately to the east at a similar grade. The property was recently developed by constructing a 3,100 square foot, masonry-block, commercial building. Associated improvements include retaining walls, driveways, utilities, landscaping, etc. Figures 1 and 2 are an index map showing the site location and a map of the site showing the approximate limits of the improvements, respectively. 2.0 TREATMENT OF BUILDING PADS To prepare the building pads, areas receiving fill were over-excavated to the depth of competent natural material. Where grading developed transitional conditions, cut portions of building pads were over-excavated to provide a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill underneath proposed structural footing. Exposed subgrades were scarified and moisture conditioned prior to compaction. Based on site preparation, we anticipate footings will be founded entirely in properly compacted fill. 3.0 FILL PLACEMENT Compacted fill was placed during recent grading to prepare the site for the construction of the proposed development. Fill material was derived from onsite and nearby sources. Fill was generally FAProjects 10-4001 to 10-5000\ 1 0-4043\Final Comp Rpt, With Keystone Wall.doc Final Report for Testing of Compacted Fill & Keystone Wall Construction Page 2 Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California June 2, 2004 CTE Job No. 10-4043 placed in uniform compacted lifts at near optimum moisture content. Grading was performed using standard heavy-duty construction equipment. Where observed, organic material and rocks greater than six inches were selectively picked from the fill. However, sifting of the fill was not performed. 4.0 KEYSTONE WALL CTE performed observation and special inspection during the construction of the keystone wall. Keystone wall construction was in general accordance with the approved wall sections and specifications. Footings for the keystone wall were excavated into competent bearing soil materials. Following placement of an appropriate leveling coarse; keystone blocks, shear pins, reinforcing fabric, and perforated pipe and gravel wall drain placement was observed, documented and found to comply with project plans. 5.0 TESTING Field and laboratory testing were performed throughout the site earthwork activities. Testing was generally performed to supplement field observations, to promote compliance with the applicable project requirements, and to develop additional recommendations for further site development. Field testing of the compacted fill material was conducted according to ASTM D2922 and D3017 (nuclear methods) along with AASHTO T224 (rock correction). Results of the field testing show that fill materials were compacted to appropriate engineering specifications (90% of the laboratory determined maximum dry density). The laboratory determined maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were ascertained per test method ASTM D-1557. FAProjects 10-4001 to 10-5000\10-4043\Final Comp Rpt, With Keystone Wall.doc Final Report for Testing of Compacted Fill & Keystone Wall Construction Page 3 Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California June 2, 2004 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Tabulated results of the field compaction testing performed are provided in the attached Table I, "Compaction Test Summary." Laboratory determination of the reference compaction values for the fill materials are provided in Table 11, "Laboratory Test Results." Approximate compaction test locations are shown on Figure 2, "Compaction Test Locations." 6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION This office should be contacted to provide geotechnical recommendations if additional improvements are constructed at this site. In general, we recommend that all additional grading and backfilling should be observed and tested to assure conformance with recommendations presented. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on site preparation, observations, and test results, the site is deemed suitable for support of the proposed improvements. The soil engineering and engineering geologic aspects of the grading are in compliance with the approved project geotechnical report and the grading plans (Drawing No. 7103-G) and permit. At your request, Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. performed a review of footing excavations at the referenced site. The following observations were made: • The footing excavations were dimensioned according to or greater than indicated on the approved project plans; thereby attaining appropriate embedment. • The soil materials exposed in the footing excavations appeared to competent generally non- expansive engineered fill materials as anticipated by the referenced soils report. • The soil materials exposed at the base of the footing excavation were found strongly resistant to probing indicating adequate capacity for the design bearing capacity specified in the approved project plans. FAProjects 10-4001 to 10-5000\ 10-4043\Final Comp Rpt, With Keystone Wall.doc Final Report for Testing of Compacted Fill & Keystone Wall Construction Page 4 Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California June 2, 2004 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Our recommendations were as follows: Any accumulated precipitation and loose soils or slough should be removed from the bottom of the excavations prior to placement of concrete. 8.0 LIMITATIONS As limited by the scope of the services that we agreed to perform, our opinions presented herein are based on our observations, test results, and understanding of the proposed site development. Our service was performed according to the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the performance of the project in any respect. Submittal of this report should not be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to comply with the project requirements. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding testing conducted, observations made during construction or recommendations presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. e EL Ta r`W r No. w p 61013 = t W Exp. z 12/31/04 a/ R Dan T. Math, RCE# 61013 CAI. Senior Engineer F:\Projects 10-4001 to 10-5000\10-4043\Final Comp Rpt, With Keystone Wall.doc TOPOI map printed on 08/09/02 from "Callfornla.tpo" and "Untltled.tpg" 117018.000' W 117117.0,000' W 117116.iE00' W WGG84117115.000' W { A j`1y f C , E ~~k f t s 1 1. O c,. ° ,Z i td r 7 o o ~I ek , 0 1 y S m A lit t r1g3r" y ,vo:• : d . r -r 1 yl- 'A s. SITE 5 ~l y q »R3'5. 4 i r 6 3 YIt MG Yin m ~sJ* A44H )1 Jd(.f 12'~ SX.N ~ 1 ~ q~ 'G g~ V Eyiviniuo, 43 ! ' r I S~[. S a C r' . F ~ k ~ ~ seas e ~ Lµ., r ~k r s " mE~ asp s "4 z t, EY r to r ~l°' Y~ 1y rye ~F. .r.1 AOV ~ "r r r 3 r C}nY a: j~ 4 k y T H' 1 r 1:6 4 ' v f.k1f'(311i l)S'"4-~(:. i.Jl"'YL k,{ i a N~2 ~I`'~ ! ` f A 7f L' t7 ~ Zb ~S - EY a4 i k ~ ~'.i o s n I. 10. 1 117°18.000' W 117117.000' W 117116.000, W WGS84 117115.000' W TNT/Am 13° Punted tSom TOP41 ~~J'WildtY m: Pmitoclwzu (a~t^,v.tapo.coml CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. .p GRAECHNICAI. AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPFf7JON 2414 VINEYARD AVENLEE STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955 E;xctnuAnenaa,ENr. k- I EJ BN SITE INDEX MAP 10-4043 'IL ALL PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COMMERCIAL BUILDING 'AS SHOWN 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA -.DATE: 11,101-TRL: 06/04 1 LEGEND APPROXIMATE COMPACTION TEST LOCATION • - - - SUBJECT SITE 1 EXISTING COMMER- CONCRETE TANK LOCATION 1 CIAL 0 SEWER DRAIN LOCATION BLOCK #56 i 36 3 IS 3 - , I • ' CO 10 • PROPOSED O 2 DRIVEWAY It , • i 30 I I XISTIN I a l , I REST- • NCE 1 IS 31 1 I I- ---9 26 • I 1 32 1 ~ ; • 1 pp G 1 a • W 1 oI 1 O >-1 34 • pa 31 PROPOSED 20 33 1 ~j ; C7I 1 LAND- ' SCAPING =1 19 • 1 I J 1 1 2 • I w 3 1 PROPOSED 1 R c7 I I O to 3100 SQ. FT. z MASONRY a ¢ I BUILDING ~I Q Q 1 1 I ,3 1 i 1 BLOCK # 56 14 II 1 LOT # 13 i I I 1 1 I JCON STRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEDI'ECHNICAI. AND CONSTRUC`T'ION ENGINF,F_RING TESTTNG AND INSPECTION 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G LS'CONDIDO I,-A.92029 (760) 746-4955 `Y;NC tNl?A.1i1NG, f M<:. EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP CTE JOB100'4043 SOURCE- PRELIMINARY PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COMMERCIAL. BUILDING AS SHOAN ARCIIITFCTURAI. DRAWING 4/2000 33 NORTH HIGHWAY :LOl 06/()4 ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA DATE: FIuliRE: TABLE I COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY Job Name: RHINO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Job No. 10-4043 Job Address: Encinitas Blvd. & H . 101 Date: 6/2/2004 Date Test Location Elevation Density Moisture Relative Soil No. (See map) Feet pcf Content Compaction Type % Dry % 10/23/2002 1 Building Pad Wei ht 10/23/2002 2 Building Pad 68.0 124.8 7.3 97% 1 10/23/2002 3 Buildin Pad 6968.0 1 1.0 2716.3 .7 98.7 .9 999% 9% 1 10/23/2002 4 Building Pad 1 70.0 121.5 10.4 94% 1 10/23/2002 5 Building Pad 70.0 118.1 9.9 92% 1 10/25/2002 6 South Half of Parkin Lot 70.0 124.3 7.6 11/6/2002 7 South East Corner of Parkin Lot SG 1 92% 1 11/6/2002 8 North End of Parkin Lot SG 12419.3.4 910.4 .6 96% 1 11/6/2002 9 West End of Parkin Lot SG 117.8 11.6 91% 1 11/7/2002 10 Northern Most Limit of Parkin Lot SG 118.5 10.4 92% 1 11/7/2002 11 Driveway A roach Area SG 125.7 9.8 11/7/2002 12 Parkin Lot 97% 1 12/19/2002 13 6" Sewer-East Side of Furniture Bldg 52.4 1150.8 10.6 96%0 2 12/19/2002 14 6" Sewer-East Side of Furniture Bldg- 46.8 113.5 9.7 2/7/2003 15 Water Main 9 2 10/1/2003 16 Curb Sta 2645 64.5 130.6 9.9 977%% 4 10/1/2003 17 Curb Sta 2636 69.4 118.6 5.29 92% 1 10/1/2003 18 Curb Sta 2630 69.4 121.40 9.2 94% 1 10/1/2003 19 Curb Sta 2627 70.0 120.70 8.7 94% 1 70.3 G 1 12519.6 .8 87.4 .8 995% 1 10/14/2003 20 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter F 10/14/2003 21 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter FG 127.9 8.1 7% 3 10/14/2003 22 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter FG 127.0 8.3 996% 3 10/14/2003 23 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter FG 126.0 8.3 5% 3 10/14/2003 24 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter 95% 3 10/14/2003 25 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter FG FG 12125.1 .8 88.0 .2 996% 3 10/14/2003 26 V-14and Gutter 3 10/14/2003 27 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter FG FG 12 12555.9 .7 88.1.0 95% 5% 3 10/14/2003 28 Parkin Lot-Curb and Gutter 96% 3 FG 126.5 8.4 96% 3 11/20/2003 29 North Parkin Lot FG 123.70 8.1 11/20/2003 30 North Parkin Lot 98% 1 FG 126.0 8.4 98% 1 11/20/2003 31 North Parkin Lot FG 125.1 9.0 11/20/2003 32 North Parkin Lot 97% 1 11/21/2003 33 Curb and Gutter-Next to Building SG FG 11 2.7 78.8 .2 998% 1 11/21/2003 34 Curb and Gutter-Next to Building 4 12/1/2003 35 Approach off 101 Sub rade North 711..9 12288.4 .4 7.2 95% 5% 4 12/1/2003 36 Approach off 101 Sub grade South 71.9 121.2 121.0 9.8 94% 1 12/1/2003 37 Approach off 101 Class II Base North 72.5 129.8 7.9 94% 1 12/1/2003 38 A roach off 101 Class II Base South 72.5 129.7 7.8 95 5 95% % 5 TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST 1 R TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA Job Name: RHINO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Job Address: Encinitas Blvd. & H . 101 Job No. 10-4043 Date 6/2/2004 Maximum Optimum Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Soil pcf Content Description %wt 1 129.0 8.5 Light Brown silty SAND 2 121.0 9.4 Brown SAND 3 132.0 8.0 Brown silty SAND 4 135.0 8.0 Brown silty SAND 5 136.5 6.5 Class 2 Base 1 FSDWARDSAND BROWN ENGINEERING FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE I Z 4 ~ n TO COMPANY c)-T FAX NO 24 14 NO. OF PAGES (including transmittal) l -r o v E, RE JOB NO o d 6 COMMENTS J - 11 T -VAC, +c c 2 1 D 41 u Hard Copy to follow by mail YeS.__ no TRANSMITTER C E G ~'i1,~ O r C_~ FAX NUMBER 760-436-8603 21 87 NEWCASTLE AVENUE • SUITE 103 • CARDIFF 13Y TH (760) 436-8500 • FAX (760) 436-8603 E SEA, CA 92007 ` JOB SIG O _Ol~ SOWgRpS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO- OF 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 By (t- l CALCULATED DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 1-4A- / 7 3 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i.... ` i i V , _...i . . t .......i............. t a f . f . . r... : ~ ! r w.~_. 4. 'k 5. E n.. , i _ F „r i .............._.._.-._i._........ ' [ f.. f i . v i i - - - i ' . S 5 ~+~1..0...................; , fi ? - - - Kato _ _ . ~.i NJ (Ad N G 4 r 3 c v a t - . i OT H f '"-A Tod d Baumbach - Rhino Arts -d W PagE From: Todd Baumbach To: Rob Blough Date: Subject: 12/9/2003 4:08:35 PM Rhino Arts Jack Quick is requesting a final. I need to develop You a final punchlist. I need to know if I should include a left sense requesting it if it can't fit. Thaksnd see if there is room to provide a left turn pocket? There is no CC: Greg Shields; Todd Baumbach _7 M SOWgRpS AND BROWN ENGINEERING December 8, 2003 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: As-Graded Certification for Project No. 7103G and Grading Permit Number 7103-GI The grading under Permit No. 7103-GI has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved Grading Plan. Sincerely, Randy R. own RCE 36190 exp. 6/30/04 Engineer of Work ~W i,FES boy R. ego~l~, "u No. 36190 T cc r" 000 162.rrr UA 6/30/04 ~~FCALIF~~`!► 21 87 NEWCASTLE AVENUE • SUITE 103 • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007 (760) 436-8500 • FAX (760) 436-8603 s c CONSTRUCTION TESTING& ENGNEERING, IN( C SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA SACRAMENTO, CA N. PALM SPRINGS 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242 W. Larch 42156 10th St. W. 3628 Madison Ave. 19020 N. Indian Ave GO Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite F Unit k Suite 22 Suite 2-K Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 N. Highlands, CA 95660 N. Palm Springs, CA (760)746-4955 (909) 371-1890 (805) 486-6475 (209) 839-2890 (661) 726-9676 (916) 331-6030 (760) 329-4677 (760) 746-9806 FAX (909) 371-2168 FAX (805) 486-9016 FAX (209) 839-2895 FAX (661) 726-0246 FAX (916) 331-6037 FAX (760) 328-4896 FAX ENGINEERING, INC. REPORT OF TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL FOR BUILDING PAD PROPOSED RHINO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MR. JACK QUICK RHINO ARTS COMPANY 125 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101 SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 PREPARED BY: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 CTE PROJECT NO. 10-4043 NOVEMBER 26, 2002 GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING } TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................1 2.0 FILL PLACEMENT ..................................................................................................................1 3.0 TESTING ...................................................................................................................................2 4.0 TREATMENT OF BUILDING PADS 5.0 FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Foundations ....................................................................................................................3 5.2 Foundation Setback ........................................................................................................4 5.3 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ..........................................................................4 5.4 Concrete Slab-On-Grade ................................................................................................5 5.5 Exterior Flatwork and Improvements ............................................................................5 6.0 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE ................................................................................6 7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ..............................................................6 8.0 SURFACE AND SUBGRADE DRAINAGE ............................................................................7 9.0 LIMITATIONS ..........................................................................................................................8 TABLES TABLE I COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA FIGURES FIGURE 1 SITE INDEX MAP FIGURE 2 COMPACTION TEST LOCATION MAP Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Building Pad Page 1 Proposed Rhino Arts Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California November 26, 2002 CTE Job No. 10-4043 1.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located on the east side of Highway 101, just north of its intersection with Encinitas Boulevard in the City of Encinitas, California. Figure 1 is an index map showing the approximate location of the site. Site elevations are approximately 60 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site is less than % mile from the Pacific Ocean and less than one mile west of Interstate Highway 5. It is our understanding that the property is to be developed by constructing a 3,100 square foot, masonry-block, commercial building. Associated improvements are to include retaining walls, driveways, utilities, landscaping, etc. Before recent grading improvements at the site consisted of a single-family residence. Grasses and debris cover the remainder of the irregular shaped, relatively flat parcel. A 15-foot high sub-vertical bluff descended from the west end of the site. Discovered during grading operations in the future parking area were a 45 foot abandoned seepage pit (septic system) and an abandoned concrete sewer. The approximate locations of these structures are shown on Figure 2. Currently, single-story, commercial buildings lie to the north and south of the site. Amtrak Railroad tracks and the associated easement lie immediately to the east at a similar grade. 4 Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Building Pad Page 2 Proposed Rhino Arts Retail Development 33 North Hiahway 101, Encinitas, California November 26, 2002 CTE Job No. 10-4043 2.0 FILL PLACEMENT Compacted fill was placed during recent grading to prepare the subject building pads for the construction of the proposed residential structures. Fill material was derived from on site sources. Fill was generally placed in uniform compacted lifts at near optimum moisture content. Grading was performed using standard heavy-duty construction equipment. Additional earthwork for other units, roadways, and backfilling for walls and utilities will be addressed under separate cover. 3.0 TESTING Testing was performed to supplement field observations in promoting compliance with the applicable project requirements. Testing of compacted fill addressed by this report was conducted between October 23 and November 7, 2002. Field-testing of the compacted fill material was conducted in accordance with ASTM D2922 and D3017 (nuclear method) along with AASHTO T224 (rock correction). Results of the field-testing indicate that fill materials were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM D-1557. Tabulated results of the field compaction testing performed are provided in the attached Table 1, "Compaction Test Summary." Laboratory determination of the reference compaction values for the fill materials is provided in Table 11, "Laboratory Test Results". Approximate test locations are graphically depicted on Figure 2, "Compaction Test Location Map." Report of Testing of Compacted Pro used Pacted Fill for Building Pad P Rhino Arts Retail Development 33 North Highway 101 Page November 26 Encinitas, California 2002 4.0 TREATMENT OF BUILDING CTE Job No. 10-4043 To prepare the building pads areas receiving fill were over-excavated to the d natural material. epth of competent Where grading developed transitional conditions cu were over-excavated to provide a , t portions of building pads minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill underneath structural footing. Exposed subgrades were scarified and Proposed moisture conditioned prior to compaction. Based on site preparation, we anticipate footings will be founded entirely in properly compacted fill. 5.0 FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDAT INNS 5.1 Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. Footings should not straddle cut/fill interfaces; based on grading, we anticipate all building footings will be founded entirely in compacted fill. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,000 pounds per square foot (Psi) for footings founded on properly compacted fills. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Footings should be at least 15 inches wide and founded at least 18 inches below the lowest subgrade. Footing reinforcement for all continuous footings should consist, at a minimum, of four #4 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed ne should also provide recommendations for reinforcement of any deepened spread footings and footings with pipe penetrations. Report of Testing Proposed Rh ` °f Compacted Fill for Building 33 Mort ino Arts Retail Develop ° Pad November H'gh`~'aY 101, Encinitas, ment 26, ? California Page 4 5 2 Foundation Setback CTE Job No. 10-4043 Footings should be designed such that sIo the minimum horizontal dist Pe to the outer edge of the footing is a minima the adjacent segmental w m of seven feet. Footings or utility trench excavations should situated adjacent to vertical) plane pro be deepened to extend beneath a 1:1 Projected upward from the base of wall or (horizontal: trench. 5j Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The f , following recommendations Ma Y be used for shallow footings on the site well-compacted fi!! material ma Foundations placed in frictional resist Y be designed using a coefficient ance equals coefficient of friction ti of friction of 0.30 (total value mes the of 300 pounds dead load) A design per square foot per foot of depth passive resistance square foot (with . a maximum value of 1,500 may be used for structural componen is founded in Pounds Per The allowable lateral resistance Quaternary Terrace Deposit soils. can be resistance, taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the ssive resistance does passive resistance, not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable Retaining walls up to ten feet high and backfilled using generally granular soils "sing the equivalent fluid Weights given in the T is may be designed backfill and free draining conditions. umennn-expansive sum Report of Testing Proposed Rh' of Compacted Fill for Building pad 33 wortino Arts Retail Development h Highway 101, Encinitas for November 26 2002 ,California Page 5 Measures should be taken to prevent a moisture CTE Job No 10_40 measures should i buildup behind all retaining nclude free draining backfll materials and Drainage discharge to an appropriate offsite location. perforated drains. Drains should . EQUIVALENT FABLE I LU1D UNIT WEIGHTS WALL TYPE (pounds per cubic foot) LEVEL BgCKFILL CANTILEVER WALL SLOPE ALL BgCKFILL (YIELDING) 35 (1-10 NT 4L: VERTICAL) RESTRAINED WALL 60 55 5.4 Concrete Slab-On-Grade 90 On-Grade Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be aminimum should consist of of4 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcing bars Placed on 24-inch reinforcement centers each way at mid-slab height . A vapor barrier ofsix-mil visqueen or si sand or mi larrnaterial overlying a two-inch la gravel should be installed beneath yerofcom - moisture sensitive slab pacted clean coarse sand should be placed above the areas. A two-inch layer of clean visqueen Placement. to protect the membrane during steel and concrete 5.5 Exterior Flatwork and IM rovemen We recom is mend that exterior flatwork and improvement slabs. To reduce the s be reinforced as reco mm potential for distress toendedforinterior recommend that i exterior flatN,ork caused by improvements subgrade move with men t, we crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Building Proposed Rhino Arts b Pad 33 NO1th High~~a Retail Development November 26, 200' 2 , California Page 6 designed by the project architect. F]at work CTE Job "1010-4 Includes driveways, Which should be installed sidewalks, and architec with crack control conditioned and features. All subgrades should be properly moisture placing concrete. Positive recommendations drainage should be previously given before Positive drainage established and maintained meads drainage adjacent to all flatv'ork. away from improvements at a gradient of at distance of at least five feet. least 2 percent for a 6.0 SUBGRADE For drive areas, the u AND AGGREGATE BASE Pper one-foot of fills and at least 95 0 of the laborato any aggregate base materials should be compacted to below are based on and concrete n an assn pavement sections 0 assumed on-site soils Resistance "R"-value n Table 2 Transportation of 40, Califo High~,ay Manual, and a traffic index of rnia De Part ment of 4.0. TABLE 2 Traffic PA VEMENT RECOA4MENDATIONS Area Traffic Index Assumed Asphalt Concrete Subgrade Class 1I lThickness Full Depth Subgr Base Thickness Concrete Automobile 4.0 Park 40 g/Drive Areas 2.5 4.0 4.0 - 40 5.0 If revised recommendations are required collected and we recommend that samples of the sub analyzed to determine their Resistance " made at the co alue. Revised mpletion of that testing, recommendations can be Report of Testing of Proposed ° ~~ompacted Rh-'no Arts Retail D Fill for Building n~ North Highwati eVelopment Pad November? . 2 101, 00 Encinitas, California ? Page 7 All additional 7.0 ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION CTE Job No. 10-404, , grading and backfillin BSERVATION recommendations g should be observed and tested to presented herein. All assure conformance with steel reinforce g trenches should be e ment. All graded Slopes footing examined pes should be before placement of vegetation, planted and maintained with erosion resistant 8.0 SURFACE AND and concrete ND SUB -slab-on GR ADEDRAINAGE drain from grade performance depends greatly on how rue both drrin well the runoff The grounds g construction and waters urface around structures over the entire life should be of the structure structures without graded so that ponding. The surface water floss rapidly away from the In general, the pave do this de ments and flowerbeds depends on the landscaping type gradients of at least two within five feet of buildings . Percent. Densely vegetated gs should percent slo Pe away at away from buildings if doing so is practical. gradients of five Planters should be constructed so beneath slabs and that water from them will pavement. not seep into the foundatio In any event, the site maintenance on areas or limit irrigation to the minimum actually necessary to sustain the 1personnel should be instructed to excessive irrigation, waterline breaks, or unusually high rainfall ap groundwater may develop. ConsegUentl ur, saturated without s Y, the site should be zones and saturating the foundation graded so or landsca that water drains away readily sources of water ped areas or cascadin such as water Pipes and g over slo drains should slope faces. Potential be frequently examined for signs ofl eakage Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Building Pad Page 8 Proposed Rhino Arts Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California November 26, 2002 CTE Job No. 10-404') or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be repaired promptly. The project Civil Engineers should thoroughly evaluate the on-site drainage and make provisions as necessary to keep surface waters from affecting the site. 9.0 LIMITATIONS As limited by the scope of the services that we agreed to perform, our opinions presented herein are based on our observations, test results, and understanding of the proposed site development. Our service was performed according to the currently accepted standard of practice and in a way that provides a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the performance of the project in any respect. Submittal of this report should not be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to comply with the project requirements. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding testing conducted, observations made during construction or recommendations presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. o`asa Respectfully submitted, ~ V~ T ~ o~ a~ota s CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. W ExP s s 12/31io4 A~ ~~r"~ C/VII. ~a tv HAhI C +i 6 Jona a 'Goodmache G #~V_I JJps ~c Dan Math, RCE #61013 Chi f ologist ~y Q Geotechnical Engineering Manager I , TABLE I COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY Job Name: RHYNO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Job No. 10-4043 Job Address: Encinitas Blvd. & Hwy. 101 Date: 11/18/2002 Date Test Location Elevation Density Moisture Relative Soil No. (SEE MAP) Feet pcf Content Compaction Type % Dry %o Weight 10/23/2002 1 Building Pad 68.0 124.8 7.3 97% 1 10/23/2002 2 Building Pad 68.0 116.7 8.9 90% 1 10/23/2002 3 Building Pad 69.0 127.3 9.7 99% 1 10/23/2002 4 Building Pad 70.0 121.5 10.4 94% 1 10/23/2002 5 Building Pad 70.0 118.1 9.9 92% 1 10/25/2002 6 South Half of Parkin Lot 70.0 124.3 7.6 96% 1 11/6/2002 7 South East Corner of Parkin Lot 56.0 119.3 10.6 92% 1 11/6/2002 8 North End of Parking Lot 56.0 124.4 9.4 96% 1 11/6/2002 9 West End of Parkin Lot 56.0 117.8 11.6 91% 1 11/7/2002 10 Northern Most Limit of Parkin Lot 56.0 118.5 10.4 92% 1 11/7/2002 11 Driveway A roach Area 56.0 125.7 9.8 97% 1 11/7/2002 12 Parking Lot 56.0 120.1 10.1 93% 1 TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST 1 TABLE H LABORATORY TEST DATA Job Name: RHYNO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Job No. 10-4043 Job Address: Encinitas Blvd. & Hwy. 101 Date 11/18/2002 Maximum Optimum Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Soil pcf Content Description %wt - 1 129.0 8.5 Light Brown silty SAND 2 I1?'13AGG' W ',FO! map pnntcd :n Oe/C9lOZ 117°17.000' `N 11%^~i BOG' vv 'll.;'Ba 11?°1,.000''.9 5 C m - . • i r s FS-frJ""'1'r". y~ i ~•rr'rk z tr o ~LIN ~,y 7s• E•f - t ' 7 _ l- •r~,~~.-.-'l M T ca S. t..C4'S •Ir 1 t Y }:yt~ •tt 1 %iWit _ J_ ~ ' S t""~ ) A ~ ~ \tk ya., + ar i; t ,4 e„ j ~ y t t, Psr. SITE ~T ~11 1•3 S f. ~t^ OR P Q- z it moo.wscirr STAT& DRAt.H ; j ) T' r r t 5i _ T 1 Encinitas 6H/49ti +S T 1 ~ d. A a~ ~ \ ~ 6~ ~ 'f- h~ ~ ~1 ji Zw g ~$.ia~ 1 ~ ~ ~~~k'a 1:• t r ~ l~~ r E+s+n.'Jt \ ~ ~ ~ A ' ` 4L{ X~ 1 i% .nr 4 / t a ~ 1 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~i 7 I, "'T~IfnnA l~br~ ~ Iq"~+~ l f ti : . ii lA ( eE. • . ~b t V~jk . r o sr, i-+ t`. ' ,p5~ ~Y ~ :n{ ~ .a 1. yy w f 1 _ r 3 i z Cardiff-by-the-Sea c (Cardiff) z % 117° 18.000' W 117° 17.000' W ~ r.~ t 117°16.000' W Wru584 11.u15.000' W TN MN Q URE S I/13' tl~®~OOO i0w R'47?!G B IYI Pnrted from TOPOI 0M) Wi)dflo-Pmdmtm.(-.I.po,..) y~~J= p CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNIC AL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE. STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955 ENrl NEERINr N(' CTE JOB NO: SITE INDEX MAP 10-4043 PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COM/IERCIAL BUILDING 5E'AL AS SHOWN 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DATE: FI 11/021 1 LEGEND 11 O APPROXIMATE COMPACTION TEST LOCATION - - SUBJECT SITE 1 1 EXISTING CONCRETE TANK LOCATION 1 COMMER- CIAL 1 BLOCK #56 • SEWER DRAIN LOACATION 1 ~ 1 ~ + 1 1 ' ~ 1 1 I 10 + 1 PROPOSED I2 11 , 1 DRIVEWAY + I XISTIN 1 ' I RES[- I • 1 ENCE 1 ' 1 1 i t + z I ' p? G ORKN 1 W 1 I ~ + Q 1 to (D8 of 1 1 Q 1 1 31 PROPOSED 1 d 1 v 1 LAND- 6 rt 1 I SCAPING O + 1 1 J 1 I ~ ~ 0 +L 1 3 1 F PROPOSED 1 1 P z I O 1 3100 SQ. FT. 1 MASONRY I BUILDING 1 t ti~ O O ' I ~ 1 I ~ 1 1 I t BLOCK # 56 1 t LOT #13 1 I ~ 1 1 I I i y~~EJ2 ~~yc CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ac a GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION ENOINEERINO,INC 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746.4955 . C NO: EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP TE10e10-4043 SOURCE PRELIMINARY PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COMMERCIAL BUILDING ' A `AS SHOWN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING 412000 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 DATE: IFIGURE: ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA ll/02 2 i 1 -4 5 _ -44 4A 1 40 1 3 5 - ft --I 130 I i I 125 i C Q, 120 C7 W 115 3 F I I I Z 110 a I 105 I~ ~ I NMI 100 I I I I I ' I I" I I I I 95 ' i 90 -T-- - - r r I I 85 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PERCENT MOISTURE ASTM D1557 METHOD ® A ❑ B ❑ C MODIFIED PROCTOR RESULTS LAB SAMPLE DEPTH MAXIMUM OPTIMUM NUMBER NUMBER (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION DRY DENSITY MOISTURE (PCF) CONTENT 10206 B-2 0-5 LT BRN SILTY SAND 129.0 8.5% CTE JOB NO: A CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 04/00 GEO4E 4 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCODIDO CIA. 9209 TESTING (760) 76-9 55 INSPECTION 10-4043 FIGURE: C-1 • DRAINAGE STUDY FOR QUICK / RHINO ART PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 97 N. HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA APN : 258-033-02 th ru 04 ~OQRO FESS~Oy 2 W 190 ewc P• 6/30/04 PREPARED BY: O ~ SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE, STE 103, CARDIFF, CA 92007 (760) 463-8500 00-016 9/17101 GC ~r JOB D % oo- o i b SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO. t of y" 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE i i I i r t ~ } i i SCALE } i T i } } 0T } } , ; o(~ - t i ME e A- j t 1 ...CCMG.1.O...._.....~0_✓.!`.:.T_. .!7•,/L•.i-r w N[ } : : fZ7rTto ti i `M -4- ._......_._ETtt~. . } i 5..._......... . ; . .€5..._t.lr tJ._..._...._Fo.ii__.......C.P.U ........F't Fc ~.cti' L ( t7Ni P } . C~lL0-p-tt__....... 'f LT:IL`1 CLr : c } V } } } ....-._.!_R. .!.~_o Fr C r. ~ n•-a_~ fY i~ ~ S E... . u . Tt°t_ ~ FM ~on,L95 tv T(ZTC~^r € 1>ET62twiEt~ J~j U- u , G✓:L!-✓ E.5 S. ~ c ..ft- T ~ : G tit. ~Q . ' R FF..C tlr. _ ...TO 4. fTA-C (1 ,i-!r r . • M q--P } ; i ar?.~,~rvgar a,,-spa FP -T RR An`r DE~E.~oPn~E~1T P.p.~-fix . 0 .(oD flrct ES l g . T? P _-o t r'i k...~ R-~t 1~ 40.-:. 1~• zC.-C2__..... -Tv A476 A 1 A-p n. L 3'7.....1-1 ~ ~ 5 CH a l~ -1~1P ~N~ET_...PI=R co..v'._~ _ ~cs_(.. _ A~J V I04.. - i Tl4 ~ev~ C T ~O v ;G- IS l~ fin( ~CFt ~j g £ . T: i i i ;J-0 ri- - r rTt 14 tN t__S.. j.w O F I Lv,? v E T t T F - J } I~~...._:.~.ti<...~N..._.._ N 9 r -4 72- , i , ..-......j JOB Qy v ~t vO 0 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET"°. L of • 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY DATE D ! CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE R 1 j : 1 i i i i ! ___..1............ 1............. .t...... _ 3... . 'll~~_. F'.,la--i ..//~-/I OvS, _ fl(4Ttt-w i } -c.... _ € € (o I ....u ....t............. s.....b~51TE ~%}Y? 7.........._T.o__... ?H_IS. t~ v~l i. T i!..-P P rc Tr j j3 T, 47- FC.cdwS As.. _S.If~ET f-c. ow Q v---2 ~!F+'C rv y .5_ .5~~4~C-5 RND .lS C_br.vE`~EJ 6.jvr7& t4D -C 17-: • y ~.~E. ON ~7! .F Der r N ~C.'E !5 / H tN Cv✓~vC+~ C-- r'vG....P,P-r. To 4 P'_° oy.Fi?_.__..nyf3i.4, DAL.. ! ~L- IT' H_tfa►lwA(vt TiE WRTCrL GnN .vtrlW-C-Se , w tH _CJ) PCG.... A-ND. GTTE2. FL ow t4cT Pro~c~o5C1~.. 8-1: t;:7 r Ar.~D Cor..T~l1tv;uES T Fr-o v _To Tt+ S.ouTtt._ V.lFr . W (cr ~t Z4 p,L ~7s . pQ L i.1 ~ 1r . vJ t_-rl . E....cv u~ N 5 Q fJ 1+ r-- A- 0F of . (t'~.C._;...Wa7r~7ate for. AliaV_ES.' r~ Ftow To F...- ....57"~~G {o` v C i f-- N . .C T.. L rr C-4T. e,2.....:._ A . 7F G- p 2TN T.: CU tiN p~ C A) C l ~v ! l S N . - a+ W+~ 47 I f ~~i l C !~-i? 1, I F~ IE h N q (.L j 'ill C 1 j : _ f i : i . -...«...w_-..._.«._...w rr'..vw...w`..~ayywwtiw~Y.~`~ ._YA .L~_..~-..--..~...~ - ~._-~.~~...~~.'f~+'+_w 1~t1[w.w.•rowYiiw+•~nne,•Gf.1C!-'L - JOB Q •a ~-k Op - O t to SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING: sHEETHO. 3 of Z~ • 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY C~ L DATE A - - 1 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE I " ° I f ; I i I t i f2:o N l.-C7 i , t I i i i f l.. 3...<....9..I _.._1_0 .._3...._. ! 2 3 8.:5 a _ . 7 F 1 ~ i• 7 i z: GA, : BaSint A ' q•l'1 - 71 - o z23 _..._a........... 5 _ . 957 .<t..5..t...........ty Z7 LN..... S.F..........~ jr SF D ! r....!N.y.__.Z.cg_.fa........ : ~ 2i 3 6 ! . -A' •_...1._a^ n~~ A, L .t v Gv J.p ~L:T1 ON GOr ~.l- ~C 1 PYL fN 'f>O!L- ~^ry~~-•~: 7 1 . - 1 v o S' tic ft G g5io~, _a..0.~15 (~o4-5Q + 9S( < 20~2) 1 gS. _gb7 ; . Ica- , _ : L7. L -r_._...._.._.__ Z.to.__..._.... _P.... Al)p. ►a_~.ak 1 P.,_! Ems.... ~.d~ . ; ~V 7.3 .1 ~j Q,.1 c~ S~rLr~ ni Cs C- Tx it c r~ ► t ~1 N u `r V : G°. _ ~i i G i 7 3 : ; : L ; (i -7 !gq _ _ : - 4......................... - - - - - .5.___........_: ......:......:.......r!1.~..~l...t.-~. _c. f?. f....._....._...._ , i i : I JOB Q., k oo - o rV SHEET NO.- 4- OF 2 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING.- 2187 te l o r~ Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY ra a L DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE N' - I I 's ! ! f ~?...N...:...>T c T. , _ _ oN i I t i .1........._.__..i.--...... - f f ' , i ; 1 i i i •.•i ' Q...~...P PI'S 0.23` 5` (o O, O 7 b..~..._ , _ . 0_ ._.2._n.. _i . _._4r- p i r ' i1....3.... S...~... .....R2'S.`.......... ......._..__._.._..?._..-_._.i _ - . boo...;.. =loo At (o_ 41 .fN~HQ D IE 73..)_.(...:4._ - i lF St A y a 3t A-,. :.......__i q2 CQ,~Q _ _ IFS t Az f~ _ U5G IY.D_N.,.!fZr. . l1ETHo..~.!. _ . t . : too 'F ~ ct; , _ - gS R~ cr'ypec -T,',oN 5 E ~vr € 9~r ~r,B w~ _ 7 V. LC oT. v. J 00 Io . . Q~na. _ = C ,~o_~ry = .Co 6s~~. . f} t~ ~ ...T . _ s........_.._.._ v_.S_._ <g. 1.h s I. c f> v c ez -rt o ..4 S ! o y !c._5I..._....._ ....Q n_z?3... .._....._>.a._a.........._=...._~........' -._s...... ~1, o . azz b... ..._G.F.S... d. _ A=5 ; - r s I , i i i ! i ! ...I. ! i I f JOB QUtCA- Oo- oi(o SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING: BHEET"°' S. of • 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY l~ ~i' GATE ~i~) 01 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ; ii s ! iE 1 i ! I :1 i t t i i i oN s..~. ~tv D 20,.0: y Q jL cp_~'~ i i + : , : , + v i ..__......a......_._.T.___....~-_...._._ t._..........i............:........._..:-...._.._. _ ...i...._......:-- } --i.....__.i~ f ~r:Q '-I "1....1........_.._......._ ........_.Ci~Yr~p 9 1"Lft.9 7...........j - - ...._.......i..___......_..._ _ _ _ _ - € ; G : f i ! G- ...Q.-........fJ...:!^.E._.__.C1L ...............O.,c,%'.!'.:_tr.1..!!_.^.__.~...A'N.D ..._t..N..._._._....__ __............_..._.~1..... .................._.._g. S_._,.... _..............................a 1~t 7 ...1....... ~_g C ( 1C .f f 's ! .i 110 ; , ti. P ' D i [ : j _ _ _ i _ _ . _ i i - A~ _ tZ : - T . 0 1 N ! ?l~S F iNh X t hr TEw 1; E $J}-e~_... ~._~.._E.'C.xs..G:._.._._4o v l _.._...._.__-...........j ~►On~_~ M...k Ire+ L)i ].~.¢'!'f_ ......j~f'-`.... _ . app l - _ x ..:.........?-.....fl.! o....~,`~.._~ L?...Z, A_.._C c_ ->4_7 C ° P L- „ C- ^'_.4.. . 10 W l Qa oe, FT- z.........,...... o. -A 4 1 A.3 F It . . . ~I ~ loo o,. - i ► ~:2.... 37:. _ . . - _ _ r. _ _ . _ lY oa i ; ~F' Z ! i i I I a , _ .......:........_._:...._..................._...._..........t~..._............. a,:.. z_.........._..........._...... _ ! - s ! Pu T. L-~. "1 TZe- I iN L.C-T' 1 N .s..- i s i i s 's ~ I 1 I I 4 1 ti.l - ._._a__ _ _ 1 a _ _ _ _ _ ; 's ! i i i j} i i• i t i ! O r• O O 0 ro < a x • ~n 0 a a m a rt :j ::r 1-1 a o m -4 10 '*J ro n n 'V < m 't1 x7 0 a cn u G n G cu " rt r to r r m T a r r r* ~ z o r rt r r- 0 x 0 0 to w 0 0 a a r u n n rr E O E E G n 0 ro 9 a Iy a o o y n n t ty o rr a s n rr to w a rr a s rt a a ra " to m a p o o n Z ~n ro r r a `G ro ro to - rt a s a rr a a w 0 r Q ro r C d o to t7 a- n E H m < r w r r a P. p y n .:S m a m cr r 0 ro rr r1 N X [a K x b q o E n a w o a w ,•7 n 0 rr a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rr o D 0 . . . . n m r a P m r 3 m o a r z r to ro ftj o H C r- N N O O O O .P O N N O O O Vj µ W J V1 O O J Ul J co In lJ1 O O m M - 'C C m m o o r w w m m N r w N O MIA ~o N o o W n n X W M Ul M M n n O M H M N N N M R M W tW rN t% z M C R• ro o rat t7 M / M E W m K v R 0 fA H '.i N• H t0 N O N P o 0 b • 7, o o o a ro m < ~ K • c rt O to m m o ~ ^ 0 5 0 o a 't7 10 b 0 0 '+7 < '•1 xl d 3 to d 0 tt K K Cr n K K AO rErENC r K K ",1 O r tjj no o Kw Kr• O r O O m to N, O a C w r :0 y 3 C rE nW 5 ro if d n m o p tj n n r• v n n a n ~o (T car r a f a r* a s K Q a 0) ry to (p a J y P. x ~o ro r r to ro ro tq rt r - ip G O n 0 V. 10 o n rn C a aK n;; E P. r r N F• °z n m w N K r O 'O K a cr x n a K ro H o a H o N w::r n w K a . . . . K m f0., N ,7P H ON r a fa r o C w m N o 0 0 0 0 .n o 0 0 0 0 0 ::I tu to F, r O b O O P N J lJl b b O O 0 b M C-' r ~P O J O Rl O ~P .p N O n O N m n n w w M m M M n n~ o M H 3 [a m M M K IT ro K M M K K Ul N M N N N M M G R• K K r a O rr b R V E I- a K p to :j F. O V" J e v JOB Q y« ~Qy 4 0- o t b SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING sHEETNO. OF Zy" • 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY ~f A-f DATE R ~Zo d CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 3 i 1 Dr-4% t-j~ ' C,f SG~t`En%1 ~k `T IC TS ; i I i i.... a . . ' . . . . ............r .............a.............,.............!... i r • • y ! _ ..._F-~~ :mot........ ! ! 4 i /p i~G IZ • 5 T.. . y!~ l 4.LV~.CT . _ v~ !1/~N I (T4 ~ BLVD C N G . I ov ~4l 5vc-r~.o t~.o17 Me (!!J -z - ~7~i a3 ;AE .4.`.i. 1~,~..,.. ~..G.1-__. Z V` tar(xHwa-yl rah ~"!r f . q f„ V. V 1 y i : ; i j.. i I j I i i ~ -oIL JOB _ Qvlz~k 00 ~ SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO. OF Lit 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY DATE Zo [o I CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE I i I 's ! OF ',2 d 41 i i ` .............'•...........-i.............. i........... _ . . ( - ....i.. _ - - - - i i : i i l ' i f t ._.................`v' g . - - li $ d Y.. N D R.4 i t_ P. q !j OS O Fcow o r~ , ioa;.... v.S.b 1{PNDfr~ PLt 15(0: 1~"- C~T~1 jlw Dt✓lrD T - .................._.v2 vllc!~a.~1 U.... ._oF.....J _ gA. LV2v6 i. ......L.'. S~ S. 7yc5 - 73 1350 -o•1s~ ~7~sa~ ads os - 8 Pr - 0 -E - t5 - 5 6Ac' iN:. A_ . '5 8 L3 - - .3:.0?.... _ 5....... -."13 d S6 ...~..z'b 5` 5 0 83 _ _ _ _ t' ; : i _ _ _ : t - r : i i i i ! Joe ~o c~ k. O O - 1 Io SHEET SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING CALCULATED BY DATE 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULA D DA a J Zo O CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE O l_1 ~~...'b....~ ~.o.....w........... .A ( r j 1.111-0 ...:a. t.. ;q : ? ` v S E N r C es ( , T1 u 4l. } o. tiJ (oo E. . e-.. . L ' _ S 5 .v v Jl. _F.5 l . , 6k . If 14 77 1, AA 8h '8B I Ia0..- 4 4: G M, /..H Sz CI o , p M :0) 2.... O iti.o _.'U S 6_... R..aT~ . 'ok 8q _ _ loo Iv O P~ Qs . . 7 4 7 C- .Ln..... ' !.s) 3 v. _fl s . 5 ? G r- e - . . Joe 0i,~ cilc 00- OIL, SHEET NO. L I OF Zg SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY ~Z R DATE Zo~ I • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE HBO. : _ b_ P8 f;' ? Co b . . . ll /L E.T .wp N. } ^n l;N_... n P, mill ' E. . S . ~ ?c• ~ ~ nil ; i C' r~- Y ~•S ; R-.pUC-C--7D t(- "___.ICJ+ t7 P':N vs _ ..~o~ S~ sF(a),Jc-N~ G~..L-L~ C_Jl e1.p*.~S L~~E 'TO. tE4E ~I.iUS_~?/CL-. GtI.R-F-.~L.1E21.5TIL..~,r D.r_.. 2ni rJ F JOB Rv~(,SC (j0`Ol(o SHEET NO. kof SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING r 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY (9 L' DATE • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ......C1rV G 1...L..,fR'.;'TC.... ...tLGT.`sd.. .(.M g ....,r(..~. P..... . i . i ; q 5 ~11...... , y F~ 1N z -7 5 3-0 Vk I :9~t R 5 = ;i ~+9__ (30?~ C~ 05.5 n .6 17, cri__ L IJc~T G9p!_ctTy.__Q GDS. o o Q. t cx~ a 'T -7 _Q• -bp ~f JOB Q k- D o- O I to SHEET NO. Of 2 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING CALCULATED BY QS C - - DATE 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 . CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE . t. i ...i-. i...... ........i.........i .►o P ' ? .Gt r' awl iF fv c3 ; J . t w~ t; Z e} !r T ,n a a.!'r _ = C ti _ . 1X c .....:......._tV .J R 0 . r . Cr 'J I , _ 'l r, E ,.G J......_ 3 . L ~1 yo L Z PIE ~u C...... Cam. C _ . . : --ofw JOB Qv kGk- Do' SHEET NO. AND BROWN ENGINEERING OF 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY C,- ~L DATE i~' j7--o lot CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i, . .....i ..........f ...........i Ftl~prta~~~ w + c .......Q..$ k- S Q~vo u~ . Co 4-S 7. 4 4 1 .o J D.90 270 _ wit 2 Z.7 0 / : -{,C 3 uS~ I rn1~A ~ F r • . 2i PD _ G. • ~i U l 4 . g i 1 r, I QV~t,~t OD -D( J06 SHEET NO. 15 OF Z A- SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING /c 1 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY v A L DATE1~~! Ol CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE S - n l `G F do M.. h S S n L c'.~t E. . s.,cr; r ~11k JJ4 : Tr..CU. i t IUD € ..i . i 11 i i - - ~o 14_yp~~~~~-y gyp... q m r ~ ?.~ku (2 to N~I~2~.~ 58 \`~,a~ s.oa. ~yn~G7Ir tj 6.vE, r P ` r L.\i D ,ate 43 0 "7 Cis. ? cfS 4 4 4ff bU T C, T'. r? L~ r;:1 1 1 F s NP _et ~ I rl .r !-F C ; D e. ..._Ex i. S_ T 4 h p .1~.. Tj.o..w ,,t,...... 5~ T L~,~Y!fS~vp cN.cti.. ~ . 7-4 Q„ ~`k v~ - o(co JOB ~ b Z SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 8HEET NO. CALCULATED BY C9'G • OF- 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i 1 f P (Y~ G 1 E~ C.G±rJ _.Q b ' z GFS.. ; C a o ova Z'~ R.c ? . /1 e ._cFS..... .i...... f , _ JOB e-- 1` 6 y - o l to 8MEET NO. 1-1 OF SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING CALCULATED BY r7C DATE B (Zb (o f • 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE . . ~ ~C7 N,E Ga,,,~e2 rCh 3 N :1 1 f J.~..Y r/' . .......r .i... Nll'1 ° ° . ..o .....i _ _ _ . r,. . I_L t.~ C . 11 C- ~ 11- trE..l. LG~'. 11_;'-•~'S ,.~LO~ 7. ?~1 (L C. ~ _ f • , d , c:,= 5 r~2fl tis.o Cd r... r ra:'r TQ ! . G P r , e~1 TT-cr rt ~7 lr~ 1~ - . ~A', > a L y F p f1~ _ v~ d T- nrC~ . 2 9 G~ mot? G T- Qv i G o0 -1)"p JOS Z 4 SHEET NO. OF SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING CALCULATED BY (rr~- DATE S f iv (oc 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 . CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 5.7c.... :...i.N'~~ ter . Q F.E 2- D F F 4 (T . . $ 1 4r r;_ ...T D 4..... A.. i F1 C`-! . i o~~NIN~-2 G^rj._, t ?J't <-✓1. J-__ u511 . C_i L. C{.2 C~?fir%'.(r V' ~ l ~ 0 . t ~ U cr. S L . . _ , 1~ ll~trr~L~T) " N G~ Do 0 1(D JOB SHEET NO. OF SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING CALCULATED BY (9- G - DATE 2 7-0 r 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE tc l?..E b '3.1. .p 1AJ i. C-1 7D • 20 Q F Z Storm Sewer Summary Report Page 1 • Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) No. s 1 OUTLET 241N.RCP 27.58 24 c 56.0 j 31.50 40.16 15.464 33.50 42.02 1.28 Enid 2 B-1 INLET ENCINIT 19.00 24 c 12.0 40.16 42.00 15.333 43.29 43.54 0.83 1 3 COa to COb 8.58 18 c 69.3 40.66 42.21 2.237 43.29 43.65 0.38 1 4 B-2 INLET TO COa 8.58 18 c 184.7 42.21 51.87 5.230 44.03 52.99 0.57 3 • • PROJECT FILE: New.STM I-D-F FILE: SAMPLE.IDF TOTAL NO. LINES: 4 RUN DATE: 08-22-2001 NOTES: c = circular; e = elliptical; b = box; Return period = 100 Yrs.; ' Indicates surcharge condition. - Pg 2 ~ or z~ orm Sewer Profile Proj. file: New.STM Elev. (ft) 55.0 Line: 1 9.0 Size: 24 in Line. 2 Size: 24 in 43.0 37.0 i EVSTING 24 RCP 0- 15.331 31.0 5.0 0 25 50 75 100 Reach (ft) 61orm Sewer Profile Pro,. file: NeW.STM j Elev. (ft) 65.0 Line: 4 Size: 18 in 6.0 Lin : 3 - Line: 1 Siz : 18 in Size: 2 in I 47.0 S R C. p. 15 2.3% 00 38.0 2 •24 =EX 571 a N --24__ R c_~P 15 3 29.0 20.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Reach (ft) Line 1 Q = 27.58 Size = 24 x 24 (Cir) Nv = 0.012 Len = 56.0 JLC =1.00 OUTLET 24IN.RCP / Outfall • Invert Depth HGL EGL Area Vel T-Wid Cover Dnstrm 31.50 24 33.50 34.70 3.14 8.78 0.00 N/A Upstrm 40.16 22 42.02 43.29 3.04 9.07 1.03 4.34 Drainage area (ac) = 0.00 Slope of invert = 15.464 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.00 Slope energy grade line = 15.351 Time of conc. (min) = 1.41 Critical depth (in) = 22 Inlet Time (min) = 0.00 Natural ground elev. (ft) = 46.50 Intensity @ 100 yr (in/hr) = 0.00 Upstream surcharge (ft) = 0.00 Cumulative C x A = 0.00 Additional Q (cfs) = 0.00 Q = CA x I (cfs) = 0.00 Full-flow capacity (cfs) = 96.36 Q Catchment (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Type = MH Q Carryover (cfs) = 0.00 Gutter slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Captured (cfs) = 0.00 Cross slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Bypassed to offsite = 0.00 Width of Flow (ft) = 0.00 Line 2 Q =19.00 Size = 24 x 24 (Cir) Nv = 0.012 Len = 12.0 JLC =1.00 B-1 INLET ENCINITAS / Downstream line = 1 . Invert Depth HGL EGL Area Vel T-Wid Cover 40.16 24 43.29 43.86 3.14 6.05 0.00 4-.3-4-- nstrm Upstrm 42.00 19 43.54 44.37 2.60 7.30 1.68 1.67 Drainage area (ac) = 0.00 Slope of invert = 15.333 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.00 Slope energy grade line = 4.250 Time of conc. (min) = 0.00 Critical depth (in) = 19 Inlet Time (min) = 0.00 Natural ground elev. (ft) = 45.67 Intensity @ 100 yr (in/hr) = 0.00 Upstream surcharge (ft) = 0.00 Cumulative C x A = 0.00 Additional Q (cfs) = 19.00 Q = CA x I (cfs) = 0.00 Full-flow capacity (cfs) = 95.95 Q Catchment (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Type = Curb Q Carryover (cfs) = 0.00 Gutter slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Captured (cfs) = 0.00 Cross slope (ft/ft) = 0.30 Q Bypassed to offsite = 0.00 Width of Flow (ft) = 0.00 Line 3 Q = 8.58 Size =18 x 18 (Cir) Nv = 0.012 Len = 69.3 JLC =1.00 COa to COb / Downstream line = 1 • Invert Depth HGL EGL Area Vel T-Wid Cover Dnstrm 40.66 18 43.29 43.66 1.77 4.86 0.00 4.34 Upstrm 42.21 17 43.65 44.03 1.75 4.91 0.57 4.26 Drainage area (ac) = 0.00 Slope of invert = 2.237 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.00 Slope energy grade line = 0.533 Time of conc. (min) = 1.03 Critical depth (in) = 13 Inlet Time (min) = 0.00 Natural ground elev. (ft) = 47.97 Intensity @ 100 yr (in/hr) = 0.00 Upstream surcharge (ft) = 0.00 Cumulative C x A = 0.00 Additional Q (cfs) = 0.00 Q = CA x I (cfs) = 0.00 Full-flow capacity (cfs) = 17.01 Q Catchment (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Type = MH Q Carryover (cfs) = 0.00 Gutter slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Captured (cfs) = 0.00 Cross slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Bypassed to 1 (cfs) = 0.00 Width of Flow (ft) = 0.00 Line 4 Q = 8.58 Size = 18 x 18 (Cir) Nv = 0.012 Len = 184.7 JLC =1.00 B-2 INLET TO COa / Downstream line = 3 Invert Depth HGL EGL Area Vel T-Wid Cover Dnstrm 42.21 18 44.03 44.40 1.77 4.86 0.00 4.26 Upstrm 51.87 13 52.99 53.56 1.41 6.08 1.31 2.76 Drainage area (ac) = 0.00 Slope of invert = 5.230 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.00 Slope energy grade line = 4.962 Time of conc. (min) = 0.00 Critical depth (in) = 13 Inlet Time (min) = 0.00 Natural ground elev. (ft) = 56.13 Intensity @ 100 yr (in/hr) = 0.00 Upstream surcharge (ft) = 0.00 Cumulative C x A = 0.00 Additional Q (cfs) = 8.58 Q = CA x I (cfs) = 0.00 Full-flow capacity (cfs) = 26.02 Q Catchment (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Type = Curb Q Carryover (cfs) = 0.00 Gutter slope (ft/ft) = 0.05 Q Captured (cfs) = 0.00 Cross slope (ft/ft) = 0.30 Q Bypassed to offsite = 0.00 Width of Flow (ft) = 0.00 Y I! r I 1I CHART 1-104.12- ROAM ~~.o1s o.vM I ONE S wt O sixcr ONE S" oar 20 ' K ~ b ~ x 7 N I 5 ~5 t 6c r • IL a 3 I N I ~ i 7 2 ~ O ` U c h ~ u I. I ~ \ t.2 Z O ag I T-, Q7 Qe ^ ~ r 1 I V OS _ Q{ _I ! I I 1 .1 I I i i I i 1 2 3 4 5 . t 7 t! 10 20 30 60 50 DISCHARGE MF. S) ONE SIDE CXAMPLE: Givtn: 0 e 10 S ■ 25 % C.hort gives:' Depth z 0.4. Velocity s 4.4 Lps. Q- E•or IFS `D =•.3I ~t ~S = szs"b e o v = S,~ ~.~s, REV. CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE SHT. No. GUTTER AND ROADWAY DISCHARGE- VELOCITY CHART 87 i i CHART 1-103,6 A CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS ASSUMED 2% CROWN. Q = 0,7L (A+Y)3/2 *A = 0.33 Y = HEIGHT OF WATER AT CURB FACE (0,4' MAXIMUM) REFER TO CHART 1-104.12 L = LENGTH OF CLEAR OPENING OF INLET f i f *Use A=0 when the inlet is adjacent to traffic; i.e., for a Type "J" median inlet or where the j parking lane is removed. O.Zg P65 - Io4- , I2 rff7CAPA TY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE SHT. N0. CITY OF C URB OPE14ING INLETS 13 CHART 1-103.6C 1.0 12 10 It s 8 ~ 4 O 10 6 .0 N S 3 9 v 4 .T Z 3 2 _ 13 GAS / O L- Q ;2; I.s t` T w z w w p IA - ~ z Z S 6 z ~r CL w O ° / w' .9 z z i = S z Z _ B W w W A 0 CL O J w ~e = .T O°~~ O LL. z LO y~ : O = 4 2 N 6 O w w / w a ? s.t = H F- 3 c~ .08 W .4 a v .06 0 .05 w 0 Z A4 a 3 2 .03 2 F{eidHt Ot ear0 lrr4" a1 2 IeMN voter Z 4L Z-J-Z- _ T 1 ~ Leeei Nyretean (Q) ELEVATION SECTION 4 REV. CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE SHY. NO. . riF • NOMOGRAM- CAPACITY , CURB INLET AT SAG 15 on 10, Hydraulics, Chapter 6 10-109 r 1 1 '0O1n0O - a cli cli lei V: - 11 1 IN IN H ~ 1~ . r - rl 1 . _ p 41 . ! - I I 1.. 5 p L- r I. ~ 1 E Ti II ~ ~s I,.r - ♦ I, Ov n I ii d L T' + . Y I O a y~ f ly _1 _ _ In or r- r p t 1 ; - = - Ell rc :rs , MV. 1 O z i _ I.. - _ t i E I ~ Oo } . a - r 0 ZE O CO l0 v N © 'lo V• N CO t0 Q N O O 0 0 0 o d 0 0 0 0 0O O O O OP/A Puo q/b }o santoA Note: AR2/3 = nQ 1.49 f Figure 6.8 Curves for Determining the Normal Depth (Ref. 1, p. 135) 4p right ® 1994, Professional Engineering Development Publications, Inc., 5912 Bolsa Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 10-98 1 P. E. (Civil) License Review Manual, volume V 0 01 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0. 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 _ i ^ 0.9 ° 0.8 / 0.7 ti? P`PA \ ~Q- 1~ o / do 0 0.5 O~ V _ 0.3 Q\Q 0.2 - -,do=3.i4i6do IP OA. , Ao = do = 0.7854 do 0 Ro= 4 do= 0.2500 do Figure 6.2 Geometric Elements of a Circular Section (Ref. 1, Figure 2-1) z i i I i i 1 - - RECORDING REQUESTED : T THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT Kevin K . Forrester, WAS RECORDED ON OCT 15, ?OQl Attorney a t Law DOCUMENT NUMBER 2001-07144456 WHEN RECORDED MAIL T0: GREGOf~'Y J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER Quick Family LLC 455 Cole Ranch Rd SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. Olivenhain CA 92024 TIME: 2.32 FM Assessor's Parcel Number: 258-033-01 Documentary transfer tax is $0.00. GRANT DEED BLUE LINE HOLDING, INC., hereby GRANTS to QUICK FAMILY LLC, a California limited liability company, for use by Lots 14, 15 and 16, of Map No. 187 recorded April 4, 1887 (APN'S 258-033-02, 03, 04), the following described real property in the CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA: AN EASEMENT FOR RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES, USED FOR ACCESS, FOR PARKING, FOR DRAINAGE, AND FOR UTILITIES TO SAID LAND, OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF VACATED "A" STREET, VACATED TO FRACTIONAL BLOCK 55, PER BOOK OF DEEDS NO. 1556, PG. 416 RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 1928, WITH THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN. Dated: October 15, 2001 Blue Line Holding, Inc., a California corporation By: Kevin rrester, President STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) On October 15, 2001, before me, Robert M. Neill, Notary Public, personally appeared Kevin K. Forrester, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I ho ROBERT M. NEILL WITNESS my hand and official seal. ' Commission# 1296654 ~i Notary Public -California San Diego County gAt~A My Ccrrxn. E)Pires MQ 20, 20t)5 li1 MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE 00-016 10/11/01 GC EXHIBIT 'A' That portion of vacated 'A' Street lying between fractional Block 55 and Lot 16, Block 56 Pitcher's Subdivision of Encinitas, as delineated on Map No. 187, Recorded April 4, 1887, vacated by the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County by order as recorded in Book of Deeds No. 1556, pg. 416, recorded December 13, 1928, all records of the San Diego County. As shown on Record of Survey 16274, filed the 3`d day of August, 1999, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 16; thence Northeasterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 16 1. North 83°55'41" East 9.76 Feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northerly line parallel with the centerline of said vacated A Street 2. North 83°55'41 East 59.49 Feet more or less to the Northeast corner of said Lot 16 also being a point on the arc of a 1332.39 foot radius curve concave Easterly, a radial line of said curve bears North 68°15'37" East to said point, said arc being the Westerly line of North County Transit District Rail Road land; thence along the Westerly line of said North County Transit District Land along said curve 3. Northwesterly 82.43 Feet through a central angle of 3032'40" to the Southeast corner of said fractional Block 55; thence 4. South 83°55'41 West 42.32 Feet more or less, to a point on the arc of a 2050.00 foot radius curve concave Easterly, a radial line of said curve bears North 80°55'40" East, said arc being the Easterly line of an easement for Public Highway purposes recorded January 11, 1935 in Book 364, Pg 406 of Official Records of the San Diego County, said line being the Easterly limits of public right of way for Highway 101; thence along the Easterly line of said public right of way for Highway 101 along said curve 5. Southerly 80.05 Feet through a central angle of 2014'14" to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 4087 square feet, more or less. p' ,NND SG Z J 406 70 9/30/04 C`g1.IFOR~P 00016.191 i EXHIDI T B PLAT FOR RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT 1 \ zt \ V \ 1 SCALE: 1 = 30 i rh \ _ z X NN D SCE rla t \ N \ \ ~O 5 qo \ O S83'S5 41 W , 4-;: o. 406 x . v l 42.32 .9/30/04 w ° , _ ` 1 IFOR c I 10 r A "_9 - \ ' cot I --A 0 200 \ N8335'41 .E 'all 9.76' ~TN . I c.. 59.4 9' N83 55 41 E 69.25 P.O.B. I 1 I z y u-' ~ I ~ RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND CD w; } uz U71UTY EASEMENT ~ I I LOT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY -1-- Lo°7 16 ® DOC. REC. 1/11135 IN BOOK 364, 50, PAGE 406 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 1 II `c) z _ .T ~ I C7~ CYt -y ~l C71 ? V 1 I 1 I CYZ J I I JOB NO. 00-016.1 10/11/01 I _ - 15 AWD5 t tWOWN CAAW=R/NG, l1~fG. I CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE SUITE 103 TEL. 76004368850TMOE SEFAAk CA 206 7 60 z a' A RECORDING REQUESTED r EUUEi,LED ON iJCT ~t2.9 G0 " UVj }SiT i~' Iy~u r~,001 -.0'1 Irf:. rIIIL~~:yy41!'?L ~ 1 ~1~1{1TjL't r~:tGl Q (;F1 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE i'GREGO111 i1. 1I'11ii~[~ rI [LIt}~T +t i LL0IRF11El! SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENT TO: IEt,I~ COU~i I tf Ijil! II~.a1E= MCI- SAN TIME: 1 raE~ ~ fr,M Name JACK QUICK Street 125 S. HIGHWAY 101 City s State Zip SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 Tide Order No. Escrow No. SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE T 355 Legal (2-94) Grant Deed THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $ ❑ unincorporated area n City of nc 1 n 1 a s Parcel No. ❑ computed on full value of interest or property conveyed, or ❑ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Jack Quick, Trustee and Marybeth Quick, Trustees of the Quick Family Trust 1Q-j tc..lL t%W t L`{ LLG hereby GRANT(S) to / Blueline Holding Inc., A California Corporation the following described real property in the City of Encinitas county of San Diego > state of California: A private access easement over, along and across a portion of property (APN 258-033-02, 03, 04) described in the attached legal description (see Exhibit 'A') and referenced on the attached plat (see Exhibit 'B') in favor of APN 258-033-05, also known as Lot 13 Block 56 of Pitcher's Subdivision, Map No. 187 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 4, 1887. Dated STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF } S.S. On before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/herRheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature (This area for official notarial seal) MAEL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN ON FOLLOWING LINE; IF NO PARTY SHOWN, MAIL AS DIRECTED ABOVE Name Rtrrr:t AM.reac (Stv a State `e t • • 00-016 6/21/01 GC EXHIBIT `A' Legal Description for Private Access Easement A Portion of Lot 14, 15 and 16 in Block 56 of Pitcher's Subdivision, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 187, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 4, 1887, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 16 Block 56 of Map No. 187; thence along the Northerly line of said Lot 16 1. North 83°55'41" East 16.86 Feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said Northerly line 2. North 83°55'41" East 16.00 Feet to a point on a line which is parallel with and 32.86 feet East of the Easterly right- of-way line of Highway 101 per Map No. 187; thence along said parallel line 3. South 05°57'29" East 168.88 Feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 14; thence along said Southerly line 4. South 83°33'42" West 16.00 Feet; thence 5. North 05°57'29" West 168.98 Feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 2703 square feet, more or less. ~~9LAND S'~'4'L R Z 0 a p, 9/3Q/04 C`gi.IFOR~P 00016.191 EXHIBI T 'B IC PLAT FOR PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT o ~ 1° rrz o ~p a UV AO DOC. REC. 11111-35 IN BOG1K 361, D ~y PAGE 406 OF OfRCIAL RECORDS to T.P.O.B. ® DOC REC. 1111135 IN BOOK 364, ` N8355'411 "E 69'25' SCALE: 1 n = 30' PAGE 406 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS / 60 36.39 I 6. Ir ~lz c~ (3 U-1 r ~ll v 1yL ~ b1 `1 `y' APN: 258-033-02, EXISTING EASEMENT LOT 16 FOR P`UBUC HIGHWAY ---LOT 16 I = I PRIVATE VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT = Z ~I o FOR THE BENEFIT OF APN.258-033-05 K 1 >T v co PRIVATE tla M APN: 258-033-03 ACCESS EASEMENT ~,I l 90 Lam LOT 14 ~ Ch 10' APN: 258-033-04 1 ~U j "N SC/ .PL 61.78'__ LOT 14 6. LOT 13,. 3 a 06 6 '33-42 OW 94.6" c 3~~~J~ P /so/oa Ably, 268-0 va a C`IFOR~' JOB NO. 00-0161 6121101 50Wn g tWowN civc-rniuenl6, M. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE SUITE 103 TEL 7 R%F 6B85 OE SFAkC 6b 236 860 a BLUE LINE HOLDING, INC. 4403 Manchester Avenue, Suite 205 Encinitas, California 92024-7903 Telephone: (619) 944-1918 FAX: (619) 944-3517 November 10, 2000 Mr. Jack Quick Quick Family LLC/Rhino Art Company 455 Cole Ranch Road Olivenhain, CA 92024 Re: Reciprocal Easement Agreement Dear Jack: This letter will serve to confirm our various discussions about reciprocal easements to be granted on and over our respective properties near the intersection of North Coast Highway 101 and Encinitas Boulevard. As you know, Blue Line Holding, Inc., a California corporation ("Blue Line"), owns fractional Block 55, and Lot 13 in Block 56, and that portion of "A" Street lying between Blocks 55 and 56, all in Encinitas. Quick Family LLC owns Lots 14, 15, and 16 lying between Blue Line's property in Block 55 and Lot 13 in Block 56. We have agreed, in consideration of the mutual benefits that will be realized by Blue Line and Quick Family LLC by joint use of these properties, that Blue Line and Quick Family LLC will grant to each other reciprocal easement rights for joint use of certain areas of the subject properties for parking, driving, walking, and other access. The specific areas of the respective properties subject to such joint use will be defined in a document to be prepared and recorded entitled "Reciprocal Easement Agreement." Sincere y yours, Kevin K. Forrester, President Blue Line Holding, Inc. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL THIS DEED AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN BELOW, MAIL TAX STATEMENT TO: Name Jack Quick Street Address 125 S. Highway 101 U Sias ! 2001 Zip Solana Beach, CA 92075 -gNGINEERINGSERUICES Title Order No. Escrow No. CffyOFENgN1TAS-' SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE T 355 Legal (2-94) Grant Deed THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER T~X IS $ ❑ unincorporated area city of Encinitas Parcel No. 258-190-25 ❑ computed on full value of interest or property conveyed, or ❑ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, North San Diego County Transit Development Board hereby GRANT(S) to Blue Line Holding, Inc. the following described real property in the City of Encinitas county of San Diego, , state of California: A private sewer lateral easement over, along, and across a portion of property (APN: 258-190-25) described in the attached legal description (see Exhibit'A') and referenced on the attached plat (see Exhibit'B') in favor of APN: 258-033-02 through 04. Dated STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF } S.S. On before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature (This area for official notarial seal) MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN ON FOLLOWING LINE; IF NO PARTY SHOWN, MAIL AS DIRECTED ABOVE Nom..... . 11 6/19/01 00-016 EXHIBIT `A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL All that portion of the Westerly 8 feet of the Easterly 200 feet of a variable width strip of land in Section 16, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino base and meridian, the same being all of said railway company's property from mile post, 237.54, the North line of said Section 16, to mile post 237.78, the North line of "C" Street, City of Encinitas, lying Northerly of the centerline of Encinitas Boulevard and Southerly of a line 230 feet Northerly and parallel with the centerline of Encinitas Boulevard. 00016.Igl. EXHIBIT cio ~ ~ Rn • ~ N ` • w ~ • J \ Q I a • APN 258-033-02 1 cp I I - ' I o4 I 2 o t Qn I~ S AN 258-033-03 s N - v, ~ z ' 1g4•p0 ■ APN 258_033-04 I . , a.oo ■ I 40' I ~ I ' I - 8' WIDE PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF ASSESSORS PARCEL Nos 258-033-02 THROUGH 04 N w o ' I I $.00 ~ o , I I I ENCINITAS BLVD , I ~JOB No. 00-016 6/21/01 OWAM-15 d DROWN f?"VCG'!l'M, M 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE SUITE 103 CARDIFF Y THE SEA, CA. 92007 TEL 760 436-8500 ~`a CONARUCTION STING SA~NGINEERING, INC. I s ~4JG ~f~ SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA ~i 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242 W. Larch 4215610th St. W. O~~ Q-° Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite F Unit K I G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (760) 746.4955 (909) 371.1890 (661) 486-6475 (209)839.2890 (661) 726.9676 ENGINEERING, INC. (760) 746-9806 FAx (909) 371.2168 FAX (661) 486.9016 FAx (209) 839.2895 FAx (661) 726.9676 FAX I I PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION I PROPOSED RHINO ART RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA JUN 5 20 _NGINEERINGSERVICES 2"0FEN6lNITAS I Prepared for: I JACK QUICK, RHINO ART COMPANY c/o MAPLE, DELL, AND McCLELLAND ARCHITECTS, LLP I 531 STEVENS AVENUE WEST, STE C SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 I I Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 I I CTE JOB NO. 10-4043 MAY 3, 2000 I EA104043vtp[ Geotechnical.doc GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION CONARUCTION STING AtNGINEEMNG, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242 W. Larch 4215610th St. W. OSuite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite F Unit K G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (760) 746.4955 (909) 371.1890 (661) 486-6475 (209) 839-2890 (661)726.9676 ENGINEERING, INC. (760) 746.9806 FAx (909) 371-2168 FAx (661) 486.9016 FAx (209) 839-2895 FAx (661)126.9676 FAX May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Jack Quick, Rhino Art Company c/o Maple, Dell, and McClelland Architects, LLP 531 Stevens Avenue West, Ste. C Solana Beach, California 9207 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101 Encinitas, California Mr. Rosengarden: At your request, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the referenced site to provide recommendations for the proposed development. The development of the proposed commercial building is considered feasible if the recommendations presented in our report are carried out. The attached report discusses the findings of our investigation activities and provides geotechnical recommendations for use during project design and construction. If you have any questions regarding our findings or recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact this office. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. r*or oodmac her, CEG #2136 Sgineering Geologist EA I O-C4i' Rpt_Geotechnical. d« GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' INVESTIGATION SUMMARY ...................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................................................2 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................2 ' 1.2 Scope of Services .........................................................................................................2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ..............................................................3 3.1 Field Investigation .......................................................................................................3 3.2 Laboratory Investigation ..............................................................................................4 4.0 GEOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................4 4.1 General Setting .............................................................................................................4 4.2 Geologic Conditions ....................................................................................................4 ' 4.2.1 Topsoils .........................................................................................................4 4.2.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits ........................................................................5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions ..............................................................................................5 4.4 Geologic Hazards ................5 4.4.1 Local and Regional Faulting .........................................................................5 4.4.2 Earthquake Accelerations .............................................................................6 I 4.4.3 Liquefaction Evaluation ................................................................................6 4.4.4 Seismic Settlement Evaluation .....................................................................7 4.4.5 Tsunamis, Seiche, and Flooding Evaluation .................................................7 I 4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksliding ...........................................................................7 4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils 8 I 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................8 5.1 Grading and Earthwork ................................................................................................8 5.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................9 I 5.3 Site Excavation ..........................................................................................................10 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................10 5.5 Fill Materials ..............................................................................................................11 ' 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................11 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ..................................................................12 5.7.1 Conventional Shallow Foundations ............................................................12 ' 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................13 5.7.3 Foundation Setback .....................................................................................13 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ...............................................................................14 5.8 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ......................................................................14 5.9 Segmental Wall .15 5.10 Seismic Loading Parameters ....................................................................................16 5.11 Exterior Flatwork .....................................................................................................16 5.12 Drainage ..........17 5.13 Slopes 5.14 Vehicular Pavements ...............................................................................................18 5.15 Construction Observation ........................................................................................18 5.16 Plan Review .............................................................................................................19 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................19 i i FIGURES FIGURE 1 SITE INDEX MAP i FIGURE 2 EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3 TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL FIGURE 4 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL i FIGURE 5 SEGMENTAL WALL DETAIL i APPENDICES APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED ' APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS ` APPENDIX D STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS l 1 I I Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 ' Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 INVESTIGATION SUMMARY This investigation was performed to provide site-specific geotechnical information for proposed commercial building and associated improvements at the site. The site is located east of California Highway 101 and '/4 mile north of Encinitas Boulevard in Encinitas, California. Our investigation found that surface soils consist of loose topsoils to the maximum observed depth of two feet below grade (fbg). Quaternary Terrace Deposits underlie the surficial soils to the maximum explored depth of approximately 35 fbg. Topsoils consisted generally of very loose, silty sands. Quaternary Terrace Deposits excavated as I dry, medium dense to very dense, silty sands with clay. Groundwater was encountered at 31 fbg in i Boring B-1. Although groundwater levels will likely fluctuate during periods of precipitation, i groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed development if proper site drainage is maintained. 1 With respect to geologic and seismic hazards, the site is considered as safe as any within the San Diego County area, a region of moderate to high seismic risk. Based on the geologic findings and reference review, no active surface faults are known to exist at the site. However, the Rose Canyon I Fault (closest known active fault) lies less than 5 kilometers (km) to the west. E\10-404;RptGwtechnical. doc I ~y • • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 2 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc.'s ("CTFpreliminary ' geotechnical investigation and provides conclusions and engineering criteria for the proposed development. It is our understanding that the property is to be developed by constructing a 3,100 square foot, masonry-block, commercial building and associated improvements (retaining walls, driveways, utilities, landscaping, etc.). We understand that the planned retaining walls may consist of segmental blocks. Specific recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed structures are presented in this rep ort. The investigation for this report r included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic hazard evaluation, and engineering analysis. Appendix A contains a list of references cited. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: f • Review of readily available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas. • Exploration of subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the geotechnical design characteristics of the soils. • Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the site. • Soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements. • Preparation of this summary report of the investigations performed including geotechnical construction recommendations. r ' E\10-4043\Rpt_Gmte hnical.do i~ • • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Improvements at the site consist of an existing single-family residence. Grasses and debris cover the remainder of the irregular shaped, relatively flat parcel. A 15-foot high sub-vertical bluff descends from the west end of the site. A large billboard straddles the adjacent parcel to the south. Single- story, commercial buildings lie to the north and south. Amtrak Railroad tracks and the associated easement lie immediately to the east at the foot of a small bluff. An index map of the site's location is shown in Figure 1. Site elevations are approximately 60 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site is less than ''/2 mile I from the Pacific Ocean and less than one mile west of Interstate Highway 5. Figure 2 shows the t general layout of the proposed development. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 Field Investigation Field exploration, conducted April 17, 2000, included site reconnaissance and the logging of three shallow soil borings. The soil borings were excavated with a CME-85, truck mounted hollow-stem auger to a maximum depth of approximately 35.5 fbg. A geologist from this office logged the sods in the field. The field descriptions and classifications have been modified, where appropriate, to I reflect laboratory test results. Exploration logs including descriptions of the soil and field-testing data are included in Appendix B. Approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. E ~ 10-4043%Apt_Geotmhntca1 doc I 0 • I Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 4 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California I May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 t 3.2 Laboratory Investigation 1 Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples for classification purposes and to I evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests for Modified Proctor, grain-size distribution, and in-place moisture and density were performed. Laboratory results and test methodologies are included in Appendix C. I 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting The site lies on an uplifted marine terrace in northern San Diego County. Topographically, the area is characterized by westward sloping terraces incised by streams draining toward the Pacific Ocean. I 4.2 Geologic Conditions Based on geologic mapping by Tan and Kennedy (1996), soils at the site consist of Quaternary I Terrace Deposits. However, based on our observations a surficial layer of topsoil overlies the Quaternary Terrace Deposits. The nature and depth of basement rocks below the Quaternary Terrace Deposits are unknown. 4.2.1 Topsoils Topsoils were observed to depths of approximately two fbg throughout the site. These soils I consisted of dry, very loose, silty fine sands with animal burrows and minor organics. I Topsoils are not suitable, in their current state, for support of structures or for the addition of E \IU-U)43%Rpt Gmte hnical dm S I Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 5 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 fill. These soils maybe excavated, moisture conditioned and recompacted provided that they I are screened of organic matter and other unsuitable materials. [ 4.2.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits Quaternary Terrace Deposits were observed underlying topsoils. These excavated as medium dense to very dense, orangish-brown, silty sands to the maximum explored depth of 35.5 feet below existing grade. These soils exhibit adequate strength for most grading applications, but may develop surficial instability due to erosion. I 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-1, at approximately 31 fbg. Although groundwater. levels will likely fluctuate during periods of precipitation, due to its depth, groundwater is not expected to I affect the proposed development if recommendations regarding drainage are implemented during construction. I 4.4 Geologic Hazards I From our investigation it appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those I caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground motion waves. The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed structures is considered low. 1 4.4.1 Local and Regional Faulting l Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our exploratory soil borings, and a review of appropriate geologic literature, it is our opinion that the site is not on known fault traces. E X10-4043\Apt_Gmtmhnical doc l Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 6 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 The Rose Canyon Fault (4.5 kilometers west of the site) is the closest known active fault (Jennings, 1987). Other principal active regional faults include the Elsinore, Coronado ' Banks, San Clemente, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is zoned active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart, 1994). ' 4.4.2 Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible bedrock accelerations at the site using the computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 1996). For the intended use, it is our opinion that the most significant seismic events would be 6.9 moment magnitude earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault located approximately 4.5 km from the site. The Rose Canyon fault is considered a seismic source Type B. I 4.4.3 Liquefaction Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. l I E:\ 10-10.43\Rpt_Gwt-hn,u1 dm l Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 i Due to the absence of shallow groundwater condition and the medium dense to dense nature 1 of the underlying native soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction should be considered low in all areas of the project. 4.4.4 Seismic Settlement Evaluation Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic events. We anticipate that loose surficial soils will be removed during grading. The underlying site materials were generally found to be medium dense to dense and are not considered likely to experience significant seismic settlement. Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for seismic settlement resulting in damage to site improvements should be I considered low. 4.4.5 Tsunamis, Seiche, and Flooding Evaluation The potential for tsunami damage at the site is very low due to the site's elevation (greater than 50 feet above sea level) and distance from the ocean (greater than 1/4 miles). Damage caused by oscillatory waves (seiche) is considered unlikely, as the site is not near any significant bodies of water that could produce such a phenomenon. 4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksliding During our investigation, active landslides were not encountered at the site. Additionally, L active slides have not been mapped in the immediate area of the site (Tan and Giffen, 1995). According to Tan and Giffen (1995), the site area is designated as generally susceptible to landsliding. I EA10-4043\Rpt_Geotechnica1 .doc I Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page g Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development J 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 If cut slopes and keyways are to be constructed, they should be evaluated during grading operations by the geotechnical representative. If potential adverse slope conditions are observed, alternate recommendations may be warranted. 4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on geologic observation and laboratory testing of similar soils from nearby sites, Quaternary Terrace Deposits materials exhibit very low to low compressibility characteristics and are considered suitable for support of fill and improvements. i i Based on the generally granular nature of near-surface soils (silty sands), we do not expect soils to exhibit expansive characteristics. However, upon final grading, soils should be examined for expansive characteristics by the geotechnical representative. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We conclude that the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design of the project. Recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed structure are included below. 5.1 Grading and Earthwork CTE should continuously observe the grading and earthwork operations for this project. Such observations are essential to identify field conditions that differ from those predicted by this E 10-4043\Rpt Gwte hn-U doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California I May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to ensure that the grading is in overall I accordance with the recommendations of this report. Our personnel should perform adequate observation and sufficient testing of fills during grading to support our professional opinion regarding compliance with compaction requirements and specifications contained herein. 5.2 Site Preparation Before any grading occurs, the site should be cleared of existing debris and other deleterious materials. In areas to receive structures or distress-sensitive improvements, surficial eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise loose materials or Topsoils should be removed to the depth of the competent Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Removal depths of one to two fbg should be expected. However, deeper localized removals (i.e. greater than two feet) may be encountered in some areas. To prevent transitional bearing conditions (a change from cut native to fill soils under the building) it may be necessary to overexcavate cut areas of the lot. If required, these overexcavations are intended to create a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill underneath proposed structural footings. Overexcavations should extend a minimum of five feet laterally beyond proposed improvement limits. Figure 3 is an example of typical methodology for placing fills over natural soil materials. Organic materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of off-site or placed in non- structural planter or landscape areas. All organic materials excavated and removed should be disposed of at a legal disposal site. E:\10-4043\Rp[ Gmt"hnical doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 I Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California I May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 5.3 Site Excavation Excavations in site materials should generally be accomplished with heavy-duty construction I equipment under normal conditions. Irreducible materials greater than six inches encountered during excavations should not be used in fills on the site. I I As stated, transitional bearing conditions are to be avoided. All structures should be underlain entirely by properly compacted fill or competent native soils. No footing or slab area should span a I cut: fill interface. I CTE should evaluate the subgrade to verify that mitigative measures (removal of inadequate soils and treatment of transitional conditions) have been properly implemented. f 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred before fill I placement occurs. Following removal of topsoils and any other loose or disturbed soils, areas to receive fills or concrete slabs on grade should be scarified nine inches, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and properly recompacted. The recompaction should reach 90% of the laboratory determined maximum value. Fill and backfill should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% (as evaluated by ASTM D1557) at moisture content between optimum and 3 percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil v6ll be dependent on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in I E \ 10-4043Vtpt_Gm,e:hmcal. do. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 1 I Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California i May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. 5.5 Fill Materials Low expansivity soils derived from the onsite materials are considered suitable for reuse on the site I as compacted fill. If used, these materials must be screened of organic materials and materials I greater than six inches in a maximum dimension. If encountered, clayey soils may be blended with granular native soils and reused in non-structural fill areas. I I Imported fill beneath structures, pavements, and walks should have an expansion index less than or I equal to 30 (per UBC 18-I-B) with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engineer to determine strength I characteristics before placement on the site. I 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes I Slope recommendations for unshored temporary excavations are provided. The recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. Onsite soils are considered Type A and B soils with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 1 I below. E \IO-104RRpt_Geotechnical.doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 12 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 TABLE I RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS SOILS TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal: vertical) A (Quaternary Terrace Deposits) 1 (MAXIMUM) 10 FEET I B (Topsoils) 1 '/2: 1 (MAXIMUM) 10 FEET Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, I equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all I unshored slopes. 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These foundation I recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork and testing of surface soils. I 5.7.1 Conventional Shallow Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. However, footings should not straddle transitional conditions (contacts between cut and fill soils). We anticipate all building footings will be founded entirely in properly engineered fill or I competent native soils. I I E:\IO-i043\Rpt GwtmhniW.do Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Shallow foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings founded on properly- engineered fills or 3,000 psf for footings founded on Quaternary Terrace Deposits. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. I Footings should be at least 15 inches wide and founded at least 18 inches below the lowest subgrade. Footing reinforcement for all continuous footings should consist, at a minimum, I of four 44 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. The structural engineer should also provide recommendations for reinforcement of any deepened spread footings and footings with pipe penetrations. 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement I In general, for the anticipated construction the maximum post construction compression and I consolidation settlement is expected to be less than 1.0 inch. Maximum differential settlement of continuous footings across the structure is expected to be on the order of '/2 I inches. 5.73 Foundation Setback I Based on the condition of site slopes we recommend that structural footings should be designed such that a 10-foot horizontal distance from the face of adjacent descending slopes I E.\I0-1043ARpt GeowhnicaLdoc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 14 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 to the outer edge of the footing is maintained. If necessary, footings should be deepened to create this setback. 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of 43 reinforcing bars placed on 24-inch centers each way at mid-slab height. In moisture sensitive floor areas, a vapor barrier consisting of ten-mil visqueen overlying a three-inch layer of compacted clean sand should be installed. At a minimum, a one-inch layer of clean washed sand should be placed above the visqueen to protect the membrane during steel or concrete placement. 5.8 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in firm, well-compacted fill material may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot) may be used for structural components founded in Quaternary Terrace Deposit soils. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. E.\10-4043Utpt Geocechnical. doe Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 f Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Retaining walls up to ten feet high and backfilled using generally granular soils may be designed ' using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 2 below. The table values assume non-expansive ' backfill and free draining conditions. ' TABLE 2 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic foot) ' WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 1 ''/z: 1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 35 60 ' (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 55 90 Measures should be taken to prevent a moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free draining backfill materials and perforated drains. Provided on Figure 4 is recommended gravel and perforated pipe drainage system. These drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location. 5.9 Segmental Wall Based on preliminary site plans segmental walls may be utilized on this site. Within the areas proposed for these walls, on-site or select import fill and geogrid may be required as shown on Figure 5. The material should consist of relatively free draining, generally granular materials with soil strength parameters presented in Table 3. These material properties should be used to design the geogrid length and spacing for use in segmental wall design to be provided by the wall fabricator. E1104043Vtpt Geotechnial. dm Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 I Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 I TABLE 3 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS Internal Angle of I Soil Zone Friction, ~ Apparent Cohesion, c Soil Unit Weight, ! (pcf) (degrees) (psf) I Reinforced Zone 30 0 120 Retained Soil 32 0 120 I Foundation 34 0 125 I 5.10 Seismic Loading Parameters The site is located in seismic zone 4 with Z=0.40. The Rose Canyon fault, a Class B seismic source type is located approximately 4.5 km from the subject site. Therefore, the site has a near source factor of Nv=1.2 and N,=I.0. Based on our subsurface exploration and our knowledge of site area geology, the site has a soil profile type of So, and therefore seismic coefficients C,=0.76 and Ca 0.44. 5.11 Exterior Flatwork To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of foundation soils, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Flatwork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks. and architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork EA10.$04;\Rpt GmtethniuLdoc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 f Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California f May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flat-work. 5.12 Drainage ' Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least five feet. The project civil engineers should evaluate the on- site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. 5.13 Slopes Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics, fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. Cut slopes in medium dense or better Quaternary Terrace Deposits should be constructed at slope ratios of 2:1 horizontal to vertical. These slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Although graded slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. E:\I04041Vtpt Gwtmhniral. dm r I Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California I May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face tend to creep laterally. We do not I recommend distress sensitive hardscape improvements be constructed within five feet of slope crests I in fill areas. I 5.14 Vehicular Pavements For drive areas, the upper one-foot of fills and any aggregate base materials should be compacted to I at least 95% of the laboratory maximum. The asphalt and concrete pavement sections below are based on an assumed on-site soils Resistance "R"-value of 40, California Department of Transportation Highway Manual, and a traffic index of 4.0. l Table 4 Ij Pavement Recommendations Traffic Traffic Assumed Asphalt Concrete Class II Full Depth Ii Area Index Subgrade Thickness Base Thickness Concrete "R"-value I I 4.0 40 2.5 4.0 - 1I Drive Area 4.0 40 - - 5.0 I) 5.15 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the l proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found in the exploratory test pit locations. The l interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the E.\10-t04i\Rpt Geotechnical.doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California Niay 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the r project. All earthworks should be observed and tested to verify that grading activity has been ' performed according to our recommendations. All footing trenches should be evaluated by CTE before reinforcing steel placement. r 5.16 Plan Review ' CTE should review the project foundation plans and grading plans before commencement of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report. r 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. r~ E:U 0-7043Utpt Geotahnical.dm Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 20 Proposed Mixed-Use Commercial Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, California May 3, 2000 CTE Job No. 10-4043 I Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TEST G & ENGINEERING, INC. Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 yertifiled oodmacher, CEG #2136 Geotechnical Engineering Manager ngineer ing Geologist Emil F. Rudol h Staff Engineer w.su O ~NGIN EEq~N f ru W 136 1~0- 2,1 Exp. ,,~~o~ 9>F MACN~ CALIF~P CAUL E:\IO-J043Utpc Gmtechmcal.doc ~l r 7 ffa aso 0 'M 51. Sidv~~a'SL ~f ti titi I~p U i i Puebla St: I 1 _ 5 V insettmark - j p Union St i co Orpheus Park; ii I y r ti etC r titi 1 ~ ti<< ~ ,`In on PI i SITE ~P aul ECk arts Par < Lollta`t ~Ar o ~Y ~w I c S;ac rest Flay a 4yvtia~Sca ,~`SVy 1 + '11 ~ t I~ 11~ Elnc r~ic w 3 ror 81v C, U CY III ~ . ~ 'i II Sl II' ~ninitas ~ a', 11u+ ~v'e.wpa`int- ;6'i li ilk 7 it l 1~ li Park U ll.. ~ tl ~ St i ~a ~ i~t 11l y111 RI q u eza St G' Ot f~. W WIIC CL -St i I II~~ a I cc 'I 10 San Lu i. y t Slp Iba Rd Hos it i i ~ si p 01999 Naviqatio n Tech no bq ies r~ i :~Jrs CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029(760) 7464955 E"7GR.FFAAIG,INC. CTE JO N : SITE INDEX MAP 10-4043 SQ RC'F MAPQUEST.COM 2000 PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COMMERCIAL BUILDING SCALE: SHOWN 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 CINITAS, CALIFORNIA DATE. IFIGUPE EX 04/00 l \\GRAPHICS IWROJECTS\10-3516VNDEXNAP CVS - LEGEND B-2 SOIL BORING, APPRO) z • LOCATION ul + 2 - - . SUBJECT SITE 1 ° 1 z I 1 I I + 1 l ' ~ 1 I I + 1 1 1 1 AVAX9AIdG G9SOdowd I - - - - -1 + 1 1 I I 7C ~ ~ ` 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 I 1_ _ ~ ` 1 1 + 1 W 1 i -2 C4 1 }1 • • a =1 ~ ~ 1 I + 1 I 1 1 oz ~ 1 1 oQ y¢ 1 1 az cdz o5zo 1 aQ o o<~ A-3 1 i o co 1 1 I •B 1 1 I 1 1 1 Y` 1 i ob 1 n 1 I I CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. p GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-4955 F3IGINEERINO,INC. T JOB NO EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP 10-4043 &Q1M M PRELIMINARY PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COMMERCIAL BUILDING SCALE: AS SHOW- 1 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING 4/2000 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 DATE: FIGURE. ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 04/00 2 \\GRAPHICS i\PROJECTS\10-3516\ NDEX\iAP CV5 i SURFACE OF COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL I FILL SLOPE ' AL S~ 5' TYPICAL ova I 5' TYPICAL I ' 15' MINIMUM. (INCLINED a, 2% INTO SLOPE) CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL iND CONSTRUCTTON ENGNEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 2414 VINEY%RD AVENUE. STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 420_9(760) 746-4955 ' hN<H~rr'NAQINI' . BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL CTE JOB \O 10-4043 PROPOSED RHINO ARTS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SCALE: NO SCALE 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 DATE04/00: FIGURE. ~~F ^.PRUJECTS\I(1J659\BENCH DETAIL C% ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 9 RETAINING WALL WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE DENSITY < e s . o 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 N, OR EQUIVALENT) 10 d °v > °o p s • ' I' MIN 0 ~ ° D ~ 0 FINISH GRADE o o P, .°O vo v a 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC ° o PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR mg\ ' ° p EQUIVALENT). MINIMUM I% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE e OUTLET a ' WALL FOOTING MINIMUM 6" LAYER OF FILTER ROCK UNDERLYING PIPE I ' - CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCITON ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION _414 VINEYARD A%EVUE. STE G ESCONDIDO CA. -.Ow (760) 7464955 CTE JOB NO: RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL 10-4043 PROPOSED RHINO ARTS COMMERCIAL BUILDING SCALE. 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 NO SCALE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DATE. FIGGR o4ioo 4 4 T PROJE(TS•I0-3340\RETAININGWALL.(.NV SWALE PER CIVIL ENGINEER'S DESIGN GR~' "Xk i F J DRAIN SWD 12 10, (I FT STRIP EVERY 10' ON CENTER) ' -F 1 I If ► r GEOGRIDS ! ' IN SELECT BACKFILL w- r lS~ j\\~\ FILTER ' / FABRIC (TYP) ► r V- K , 10 FT MIN TO D -.D . v (III IIII DAYLIGHT GRANULAR LEVELING COURSE 4" PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED ' BY ICF/FT 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC. SLOPE @ I% MTNIMUNi TO PROTECTED OUTLET. ' NOTE: WALL UNITS AND GEOGRID r` CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING. INC. PER WALL DESIGNER'S PLAN GEOTECKNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING A, TESTING AND INSPECTION ' 3411 VINEYNEYA ARD .~~'ENGE, STE G G E SC ONDIDO DIDO CA. v_u_a I-60) 736-4955 ~c~rrenc.wc CTE JOB NO SEGMENTAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL 10-4043 PROPOSED RHINO ARTS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SCALE. 33 NORTH HIGHWAY 101 NO SCALE ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DATE HULKE 04/00 5 APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED r i.ti.u.,arr n~u rrx~mx~~ n,' I REFERENCES CITED I 1. Hart, Earl W., Revised 1994, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special I Publication 42. 2. Jennings, Charles W., revised 1987, "Fault Map of California with Locations of I Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells." i 3. Tan, S. S., and Giffen, 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File I Report 95-04, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. 4. Tan, S. S., and Kennedy, 1996, "Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5 I Minute Quadrangles, San Diego County, California", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. I I I I I I I Y:: iww] pR (:f1xf[CY\KLOI R' ■ i APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS f t ,CONSTRL' TION TESTING & ENGINEERI INC. GEOTEC'W AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ~,vD lu l0N `U?' T 24 IJ ARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESC ONDIDO CA 'r ]n_r ni lift S D.r,1NEERAr.L`K PROJECT: RHINO ARTS DRILLER: WEST HAZ,vtAT SHEET: I of 2 ' CTE JOB NO: 104043 DRILL METHOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 4/17/00 LOGGED BY: DLJ SAMPLE METHOD: DRIVE ELEVATION BORING. B- I Laboratory Tests j C T 5 a ✓I N J U 3 ' J 1 > o ~ o cn R m o d o 2 V DESCRIPTION SM Loose, dry, brown, silty SAND, with burned organics. QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS: Becomes medium dense, light brown. ' S 13 SM Medium dense, Orange brown, silty fine to medium SAND. WA ' 14 13 ' 0 28 113.4 11.8 SM Very dense, moist to wet, gray to orange/brown, silty to clayey MD 34 fine to medium SAND, trace coarse sand. 50 Grading to bright yellow/orange, fine silty SAND, with fine mica. 45- 50/6" SP-SM Very dense, moist, fine to medium SAND, with silt, (white). ' 20 .50/6" SM Very dense, moist, yellow/orange, silty fine to medium SAND. WA 25- ' FIGURE: B-1 CONSTR r-T[ON TESTING & ENG[\EERI INC. GF II TJF I~O l 1) N i T R U C T ID N =NGINEER AG ".G A'4D IN I0N 2D AVEIUE. SUITE G W=Sl ONDID) l ~ F •.IIEF RINI; N,' PROJECT: RHINO ARTS DRILLER: WEST HAZMAT SHEET 2 of CTE JOB NO: 10-4033 DRILL METHOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 4/1700 LOGGED BY: DU SAMPLE METHOD: DRIVE ELEVATION: L _ _ f s BORING: B-1 (cont. Laboratory Tests DESCRIPTION 2- 50/6" SM Very dense, mots[, orange. silty the to medium SAND. ' 30- Very dense, moist to slight) wet, orange brown to light gray, silty 50/5^ SM fine to medium SAND, to fine silty SAND. Z Groundwater encountered at 31 feet below grade. I _ SP-SM Very dense, gray with orange, silty fine SAND, to fine SAND, with WA 50/6" silt, fine mica. Total depth: 35.5 feet below grade. ' Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. Groundwater encountered at approximately 31 feet. No refusal. 40- 5 FIGURE: B-l (cont.) CONSTRL TI ON TESTING & ENGINEERI INC. GEO TECH ~uD CgNSiRll l' ill JU ENGIN FERIUG tEST luG + ND IN~~,Rri :iii +RD +VENUE SUITE G ESC UNDI D4) C+ '+I•. I , PROJECT: RHINO ARTS DRILLER: WEST HAZNIAT SHEET: I of 1 CTE JOB NO: 10-1043 DRILL NIETHOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 4/17!00 LOGGED BY: DLJ SAMPLE METHOD: DRIVE ELEVATION: I s = r = BORING. B-2 Laboratory Tests DESCRIPTION I 0 SM : Verv loose, dry, brown, silty tine SAND, with organics, burrows. MAX ? ? QC;.- TERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS: ' S • 30 SM Very dense, dry to moist, dark orange/brown, silty fine to medium 30 SAND. ' 38 40- 1' SP-SC Medium dense, moist, brown with orange, medium to coarse SAND GS 13 with clay. IS 45- A 5016" SM Verv dense, moist, silty fine to medium SAND, (No recovery). ' Total depth: 15.5 feet below grade. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. No eroundwater encountered. ' No refusal. O ' FIGURE: B-2 ONSTR~TION TESTING & ENGINEER INC. `o=~ tiP i; EOTEC L AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND L0"ION _+I+ EVARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA 721129 I7611I +,,5 F1NGfNEFAU:GL`+C PROJECT: RHINO ARTS DRILLER: WEST HAZMAT SHEET: I of 1 CTE JOB NO: 104043 DRILL METHOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 4/17100 LOGGED BY: DL1 SAMPLE METHOD: DRIVE ELEVATION: D c ~ a BORING: D B-3 Laboratory Tests v Ca N U n ' ? C 3 C c] D J DESCRIPTION SM Very loose, dry, brown, silty fine SAND with animal burrows and organics. 9 - 9 ' QUAT ERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS: Becomes medium dense, light orange brown. ' S 15 108.4 5.1 SM Dense to very dense, moist, orange, silty fine to medium SAND. MD 37 24 37 ° 12 Medium dense, moist, orange, silty fine to medium SAND, trace 15 coarse sand. 17 ' Total depth: 11.5 feet below grade. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. No groundwater encountered. No refusal 45- i i 1 FIGURE: B-3 1 i i APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS I APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing I Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. Expansion Index Expansion testing may have been performed on selected samples of the matrix of the onsite soils according to Building Code Standard No. 29-2. Expansion Index results is reported in Appendix C. In-Place Moisture/Density The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed ring soil samples. The dry unit weight and moisture content are shown on the attached exploration logs and are shown in Appendix C. ' Modified Proctor Laboratory compaction tests were performed according to ASTM D1557, Method A. A mechanically operated rammerwas used during the compaction process. Modified Proctor analysis curve is presented in Appendix C. t Direct Shear Both undisturbed and remolded (recompacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum value) shear tests ' were performed on samples. Testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080-72 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. i f,CONSW-CTION TESTING & ENGINES ING. INC. GEI)"`- AL AND iJvSTRL: L: 0~ ` =F. RING TEST!NG AND INSPECTION ARD AV FN IIE SI!IG Vii(,), DI DO CA ` 0,6INFEWN-1 IW I I UNDISTURBED MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST ' LOCATION DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY (feet) (PC0 B-l 10-11 11.8% 113.4 ' 5-6 5.1% 108.4 ' B-3 200 WASH ANALYSIS I LOCATION DEPTH PERCENT PASSING CLASSIFICATION (feet) #200 SIEVE B-1 5-6 16.9 SM B-l 20-21 12.1 SM I I B-1 35-36 12.8 SM I I LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-4043 • JOB - O ((o Q y f G)G SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO. t OF S Z I Z L ~D t 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY C1 G' DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE A.. JJJ v..r....L.. _ _.....a. r. s_Tp ..._.........._...k.C-...::.' L._ oN_.............iz ..T Rat r rs G- ~-s. , ................/t....v~u... `T! 5......... R.L.G?./ t..~.........._~~r......_. Gr.... ......................Uw f3 E C vN l ....5...._...... Tit I...... ..e... a._. :._L. G t . i.- } - C-?~n~ rz - De=w' VA -1-1- Ll F 4.... a ...e~ tm....... .........._<.G.u,.T...._ lZ:....... w t i 7-f ~ w . .t.~....:.:! .............L............<......v....- v 5''i D~ 7 t o . -+4 4_4_44 . r......_..... . lv3 ;l:. G 1-4 ! - t 1 T-T-44-4-4 -1 ' .............I.1 . j C D.. . !~M......l ( p.._1..~?. GO ►a S'IT2 GT J U-Q-- -4 - -0-4--j - - i - - 1. T. 14. 4 +?+.!.1.._L:.. Y_v 1. v vE.. cy -0-JErl . . . Ltt- U_ 0 . G x o 2 i b' 3 T P... z '-fJUL-1-2. Q . . . ...L...._ 4-4 I....P w p rL I o C T. 7 3. € i s 4--j-4- . 1A . rob 64, ~J~ oo - ac Io SHEET Z SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING NO. OF 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY DATE 12- In / CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i ..............t.......... 4- :O -rz :..._.._....._.._..._.7 v _ : : . . . . : : . . : .0.....~._~s- _ __~t _Ts _o..._N....S._. Ft STfl v - : . _ Ic K.... y .._._U .~r'-.... _ 0 2- .TC o .R L s t w I T "i t b z O CO : CL_ (.u i 1, 1, - _ D € ,T _.._._._....._:....._.__...__....~cg_.._..._._...._......... X _ 02.T~ ~ 2s LA _ a. r-c..r.._..L.L.._._.........._.......__......_...<_........_._..t......... w~- - - - r - T( A- 0' P _ 7 - - c,tu.t . ~ ter... P - . . . _ _ _ l . ; -2-61 O X 2' . _ - O: t^y........._.y._T..._..... . : - :....2 D..Q......_........._... . X .s . rT C R- _ . ..,.ZOO;... - ~,~0......_...._.._.. S.Q.. X._._: vc G.F.. Tf± Cv.__T_ G ..___..r............. i 1C N ' JOB Py se- 1t Od - O lei SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET HO. _2 OF 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY DATE- 17- /2y ~G l CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE i X........ A;.-.V .tQ''r ..1~- ..................@ E ma Oct L t N E ~ . f o; 1 2 0 ....-F.......~t...y t o Z 5 4-4-4-4-4 -1-1-1 A I -T. A 5 s 8 ...F._......t..............................`~...o......... z. T : _ ...:...............b..7__~~...... 9.......... .F..'....._ .........__.~_4.,...p........5_ _....Z X z l { i- 4_7_1 J-1 . W V+ 144 - - 7 1 -A on . -4-4 00 00-4-4-?- ?1 z o + z`l is 61 - - - W_ . ' r_ W i 4 44, ...2 3..... 2. 15 . 5~ ~2 yc _ 9 e T-10-40- 0-4-A TTW + 7 . 4-04-4 a- 17 x' ~ S 3 01. i . . . _1444 4-4-- T_V_ 1- KV JOB- ~l>l 4-lz- ljp -016 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SMEETHO. - A- oF- ~ 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY & DATE /2 ZO 1d CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE , i i t' Co° Irv: . r- 6..; ....Q... t ...........3..... 5.8...,...o9D _ Z 4 _ ........C..........3........................~- ..:..S.F. _...~-.......a~......2.~_....9,.......~_E._ ......:..1z...........:..... 2'l..P~..0...:....G~............ ...............lo..T.M...............R -r..C1y........ 0 ,s e~ .f--Z'lf(wa l~f T l BAG 1-L............ C.?..E-! .............T"....... T mss. G VbL v............ T...._.........._...2..._.__....._ _u >v , lJ ~ ...N.L~,..S J...........~i..!~T~~~.1..CV..`.......~a7 2...... L~+T_QN ~ of w . 't.. c: A.& Tra 13 G~C-V l. ................:.........Z...................__..'.. ......7.........a...° 2 Z C...........9 ~r s F / X _.....g-_.......= 3.5........r c, fi _ Z 4..._o a. a 2 + b q- . z s r C. 2...•_F: + ._4 t~2_ . _ _8 b ? 5: g 8_~~ C . 2+o4zS ~0 2.+SG .~5 5 3 . F + °I 13 14 11~ cl.e o; 2 to : ~1 +C, Z Z . lo . I6 _ .......~..z..a...x..:.3:5.. Z.S......-................. Sj? .~i.. ..c F.. JOB Qv l~ oo - of 6 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO. T of 5 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 103 CALCULATED BY DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ` ............:.........`1.:....._p... 3....... Z.. _ _ ~..I3.~...o....._r...... - zs S L"16...oC.... X z`(, 25 ~o no i r.. , ...8.....:..el. . 37 1;.... 5 F..... «.G ate0 3 + 5g o ; w;..-... . s y _Z..... F.......... +......19. Z s~ ._2 2.. 2 22 x_ . c.F . . ...0..~1-......G.. Thursdav, December 27, 20012:02 PM Navigation Dept. 858-792-7414 p.01 is i RHINO IAX I I- I To: Greg Shields, P.E. From: Jack @ Rhino Art Company Date: 12/27/01 Re: Geotechnical request Greg- Find enclosed a letter that I just received from C.T.& E. -Jack Quick i 3 i I• i i I' I I ' I~ 1. I1 i 1 I~ 1! I; I~ 1 I~ 1. j I' I` 1 it 1 i 1 Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:02 PM Navigation Dept. 858-792-7414 p.02 . D C 27. 2001 2:33PM CTE NO. 2064 P. 112 ONS C TRUCT oN TESTING & ENGNEERNG, INC, G1 SAN DIEGO. CA NIVE6S5IDE, 'A • VENTURA. (:A TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA • MCRAMEIVE0, l'A 2111 VlaeM Are. 1110 L rr*t Ct. INS stint Am IQ W. Larch 42156 IOlh \1. W. 362r Madlwl Ara quilt G Stilt 7 Suitt 105 stale 21 quilt F Unit K )116 6xoad 00, CA llla29 Coronti CA" qj7 v Un•rd, CA 4JWJ Inn, CA 95JW l.azwm CA 13534 N. M itMaede CA 4SIA0 ENG BEI2DYG INC 17N) 71611SS 1134) 37l•Ib 405)116.6(75 1301? 1)!•2190 1661726.9676 19161331.6030 I... + (760)71ef606fAt 1!0!!!11-2101 At 1r001N61016tAt IIC91rJ4Ir9StAR 166U726.4676VAa 19161331•607fAx December 27. 2001 CTE Job No. 10-4043 I lVtr. Jack Quick Into Arm 858,792.7-414 i c j Subject: pResponse To Comnmen by City of Encinitas posod Rhino Arts velopment 33 North Highway 101 Encinitas, California Notes by Jack Quick, bar 19, 2001 Reference: Leber of CreotecbnicAl ip Parameter for Proposed Gteogrid Wa116 { is Propo•od Rhino Art U Development 33 North Highway 101 Encinitas, California CTE Job No. 1014043, May 31, 2001 I` Report of Preliminary chnical Investigation Proposed Rhino .Art W Development 33 North Highway 101 Encinitas, Califomia CTE Job No. 10-4043, May 3, 2000 i i ` W. Quick: I j As requested, Construction Testis Engineering, B Inc, (CTE)provides the following in =Vonso to rho comments provided, For your convenience, our responses have been j provided in the same order tad id the December 19, 2001 corrmpondenoe referenced above. The geoteehnieal 90 parameters presented in our May 31, 2001 corresponftee were evloped based on the Wxntory tooting conducted for and pmusted in pp•ndln C of the referenced soils i ~ report. These i laboratory results aP to eorraelate well with other work that we. have conducted in the vicinity of the sits as well sat testing on similar materials. Testing ducted consisted of grain size analysis, undisdtrbed moisture and density, and Modified Proctor. 'these tests enabled, us to adequately estimate an provide, the given design parameters. I j b. Due to the fact that a tae mmK ded design parameters were estimated and provided based n the results of our project-specific laboratory Nesting, as well as the act that the design cohesaiona and unit weights ware i~ 1 GEO ~MICAL • ENVM0NMM1rAL • CONSTA lON DWZCTION AND TWMG • CIVIL ENGDMRING • SUMYmG i I~ i i Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:02 PM Navigation Dept. 858-792-7414 p.03 D G; 27. 2001 2:33PM CTE NO. 2064 P. 2/2 i Response To Comments by City of cinitas page Proposed Rhino Art Retail Development 33 North Highway 101, Encinitas, Ca 'forma ' December Z7, 2001 CTE Job No. 10-4043 conscrvativcly stated 0 (psi) and 120 to 125 (pco, respectively, it is our opinion that further iaboratory testing is unwarranted at this time. However, confirmati testing of orrsite materials will be conducted during construction. deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, and the proposed wa1 design and/or construction will be modified based on the conditions expo , if necessary. c. As discussed during o recent telephone conversation, CTE can evaluate ! the requested cross-s 'on showing the proposed wall backout and the potential affect on the djacent improvements. However, CTE will require a copy of both the and grad' p ng plan abd segmental block wall plan. j I Furthermore, both of a plans will require CTE's review and approval ' prior to submitting to a governing authority. is We appreciate the opportunity to be o service on this project. Should you have questions or require additional information, ple eontaot the undarvignad at your convenience. Sincerely, i CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. I' Dan T. Math, RCE# 61013 Goodmacher, CEG #2136 Senior Engineer Senior gineering Geologist i tp6peo ° EEq~ s1NNO ~ ' ` ~ t~Us"~oe WI ~ cM eAt# Mo 2136 Exp. 103 0f CALIfO~` I I' I FdlnAWIT f D-y.W,V M, rift rn..,,n.nk tine I j December 27, 2001 Greg, RE: Rhino Arts Keystone Wall I found one major concern with the earthwork calculations submitted by Sowards and Brown. Page 5 and 6 of the cross sections show the billboard pile. There is no information regarding what happens to the billboard pile during construction. Other than that, the calculations are OK. Roger Free Sent by: GEO GRID 750 509 00ib; Ub!tl;ui _1:sbrm;,effaX rrooI -rage Retaining Wall c.a~. IeL:(I r N' A _f-JHw . Ph j'(;-!f:1-,A_.,,1 .Faa •t La'3 Systems. InC Phone P.., C, ill;rDell PROPOSAL 09/20/00 Estimate #H00299 Page 1 of 2 John Maple Rhino Art B il}I ding Maple Dell Architects v IZt4t 1"Q. Pr N.E. Encinitas Blvd. & Hwy 101 531 Stevens Ave.West, Ste. C 1 LI.: S. is v Q 1 Encinitas / CA I Solana Beach, CA 92075 _J T&W: (858) 755-0205 Fax#: Estimator: Mike Stevenson BASE • Total Q1V Unit U+ D. ?his is a 659,691 lump sum bid based on design 8,940 S_ 15.15` 59,691.00 11 documents noted below. Wall built in excess of 3,940 SIF will be billed at $15.15 per square foot. See TERMS and CONDITIONS, INCLUSIONS, EXCLUSIONS, 'Scope of Work Diagram' and 'Segmental Retaining Wall Precautions' that follow. ALTERNATES Qty Unit UIP Total Days 1 If waft is terminated between Lot 13 & 14: 0 (TOOL-0- 2,510 SF @ $15.50/SF = $38,905 00 7-7-97-777-7. 2 Color(Tan)Block 3,940 SF 0.75 _ 2,955 0 _ 3 Permit processing (does not include permit fees). 1 LS 1,500.00 .0 0 4 All required excavation to pemtit construction of Keystone wall. 2,900 CY 4 00' 11,600.00 0 Rock excavation and shoring is excluded. I INCLUSIONS 1 -Labor, equipment and material for installation of KEYSTONE concrete module units with fiberglass pins and all ' structural geogrid ~2 AM 314" crushed aggregate required for core filing within the Keystone unit and for base leveling ad. 3 Labor and equipment to place owner furnished baclfill material, compacted to 9010 modified standard proctor as (determined by ASTM 01557, within the Keystone(geogrid system. This proposal includes only backfrlfing level to top of wall, 4 One move-in Each additional move to be billed at $1,200.00 15 Color. Price is based on gray block Other colors are available for an additional $0.75 per facial square foot 6 lEnginewed drawings and calculations (excluding global and seismic)- i 7 Internal drainage located at base of wall, directly behind and a(tacentto bottom of blocks. Drainline consists of 4" SDR35 pipe Work covered under the base bid can be completed in 11 working days. - I DESIGN DOCUMENTS Preliminary Grading Plans prepared by Sowards and Brown dated 428/00. No sots information available. Bid assumes owner will furnish backfil with an internal friction angle of at least 32 degrees sandy material) X70 ~ ~ i I i Sent by: GEO GRID fbU bU9 UU/b; U0111lUI o;oirwj_q_- = muo,~rayc c)u 1295 DISTRHUTION WAY, VISTA. GALFGRNVA 920.93 Phone 7E0 50S 0079 Fez 7ED 509 007E 09/20100 Estimate 9M00299 Page 2 of 2 IMPORT ANT NOTE(S~ 1 This bid is for a wall with a batter to the face of wall of 32:1 (vertical : horizontal) non-plantable wall. Increased batter will Increase area and price- 2 Geotechnical Engineer should review potential for water infiltration into the reinforced zone and recommend remedial measures if anticipated. 3 Our proposal does not include soil moistening and mixing which is $1.00 per CY of backfill material. This cost can be entirely mitigated if GC/Owner can coordinate work during excvabon phase to permit us to supply a laborer with fire hose and water the soil as it is being excavated. 4 Segmental retaining waft are flexible (vs. rigid as in CMU walls) structures subject to post construction settlement and movement. All structures (i.e. pavements, curbs, trash enclosures, utility lines etc.) should be designed to handle some L . -(ground movement_Piease consult us for further details on this. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1 This proposal is to be incorporated as an exhibit in any subcontract agreement. 2 Payment: The greater of 5% of base contract price or $2,500.00 to be paid prior to commencement of our engineered drawings and calculations. Thereafter, monthly progress payments paid 30 days after invoicing. Retention will not ~4~ c eed 5% and is to be released no longer Man 30 days after GRWSs completion of work. This proposal supercedes all previous ones and is valid for 30 days. This bid is based on non-union, non-prevailing wage rates. iEXCLUSIONS 1 Fence on top of wag or any associated post pockets required for the construction of the wall- 12 Special Inspection: Cky or County certified special inspectors (i.e. certified geotechnical engineer and/or surveyor) need to be retained by owner or GC for soil compaction testing in the reinforced zone and placement of facing units and geognd fabric- Scheduling of al city/county inspectors is excluded. 3 GLOBAL AND SEISMIC CALCULATIONS. 4 Excavation for leveling pad and reinforced fill zone shall be per engineered design. Provide grade to within a tenth of a foot, 6" below footing coarse ready for placement of gravel. Embankment cut for wags with front access shall be the 19rid depth (approx. 6/10 ht of wall) plus 6' and for rear access a minimum of 12' 5 Backfill material used in the reinforced fill must consist of low plastic sod with 100% passing 3" sieve. Soil to be 1 stockpiled within 100' of proposed wall, uniformly moistened to optimum density. Backfdl material shall have a minimum 'internal angle of friction" as specified in design documents. 6 Drainage: Any drainage system other than those specifically noted, including granular chimney drains at tails of I geo rid, synthetic drainage composite and surface drains. f7 Securing building and all other permits. 8 All permit fees- If GRWS pays fees they are to be reimtxsed with 15% mark-up. 9 Surveying including at engineered staking for location of wall and control points. 10 Earthwork (slopes) beyond horizontal planes above top of wall. :11 Shoring and dewatering that may be required. - - 12 Good access of at least 20 feet of working area in front of wall and/or 12 feet behind wall. 13 , Reconstruction of slopes in front of and at toe of wall 14 Traffic control including barricades and flagman. 15 .Damage or extra work caused by flooding, rain, sliding or acts of others. Su M B : Acc r u Mike vertso - stimator sole De1~ n.. Dad Sent by: GEO GRID IOU buy Uu/0; u0!I/!ui 3;oarN1jjerm ttao,,raya 't/U Nora raRr"in ■mamums au Us Spacw&O In 09*m • 8M of Keystone` R«aWep Wale SCOPE OF WORK DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE INTERNAL DRAINAGE POST POCKETS ❑ ALTER BID IT D ALTERNATE BID ITEM FINISH GRADE D INCLUDED UDED ❑ EXCLUDED Fencing by others. Stubbed out 3' from wall- DRAINAGE Connection (by omens) to be SURFACE (BY DOTHERS) determined by site Civil Eng. j FILL ABOVE WALL D ALTERNATE BID ITEM ❑ INCLUDED D BATTER VARIES FROM 1:32 TO 3:1 FILL DIRT PLACED BY GEOGRID (PROVIDED BY OTHERS) U w O z REINFORCED m~ RETAINED 0 AREA $ AREA HL. N X11 FINISH GRADE x FILL BELOW WALL Q ALTERN B-iFEM UDED .:.•.Y ❑ EXCLUDED FOUNDATION EXCAVATION LIMIT - 6" BELOW BOTTOM OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL (BY OTHERS) AREA 36" X 6' GRAVEL BASE PROVIDED BY GEOGRID TPERBGEOTECH S RECOMMENDATION. DETERMINED BY FRONT SLOPE GRADIENT k DISTANCE TO s DAYLIGHT AS DIRECTED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 1) FRONT ACCESS - GRID DEPTH (x••0.6 X H) + 6' e s 2) REAR ACCESS - GREATER OF 12' OR GRID DEPTH (••-0.6 X H) + 6- PROJECT ?--41 JUL) LEGEND: LIMITS OF REQUIRED EXCAVATION LOCATION WlJdt~- GEOGRID FABRIC ~~~L tt LIU1T OF GEOGRIO'S WORK e/oo saw Of w."" Sent by: GEO GRID /bU buy UUlt! Segmental Retaining Wall Precautions 1. The area behind the wall that contains geogrid fabric (reinforced zone) is the structural component of the wall system. Do not, under any circumstances, excavate through, drill through or damage in any other way this fabric. If it's essential to do so, please consult with us before hand so we may evaluate the structural impact. Z Drain line at the base of the wall, if any, was stubbed out for final connection by others. To insure proper drainage, please see to it that all connections are made. 3. No standing water should be left to accumulate in the reinforced zone above the wall. 4. Any known subterranean water should be intercepted and diverted away from the reinforced zone. 5. Brow ditch above wall, if any, should be designed of sufficient size to carry away all surface water and avoid top of wall overflow, Overflow can cause erosion at the base of wall that may potentially undermine it. 6. Landscape watering and drainage in the reinforced zone should be designed in consultation with the Geotechnical engineer and performed in such away to avoid water from infiltrating into the reinforced zone. 7. The Keystone wall is constructed over a gravel base. All surface water runoff must be diverted away from the base of wall to avoid undermining it. 8. All gravel/sand encased utility lines constructed above wall, in the vicinity of the reinforced zone, should be designed to prevent underground water from flowing through the gravel mat and into the reinforced zone. 9. Do not operate heavy equipment on top, within three feet of the wall. The surcharge from equipment weight can push the wall out. 10. Segmental retaining walls are flexible (vs. rigid as in CMU walls) structures subject to post construction settlement and movement. All structures (i.e. pavements, curbs, trash enclosures, utility lines etc.) should be designed to handle some ground movement. Please consult us for further details on this. File: Segmental Retaining Wall Precautions.doc 12/26/2001 08:22 7607321367 ROWENG PAGE 01/01 SURVEYED BY ~w~/ / l a / DATE ~r T SURVEY .F INDEX PAGE or I A,Lvu f 8 sl CCoAjCuAO A 5Y64 94.Z8'RroF Sci Coq Z SEAM OYP) 8&, 37, Ar ol* 12 1 O . 7a. ~ of ~ ; •'E . 717 9 . ~ 155 • • , j.: ' I. _ , 1 7/1, 790 ap 80,4 f .4 0 4F A r.0 Ar Of i.. l ~ 14 53 i° 999'78, 7ri m Z O.O'l h J., g 5. +..li...,...i.....j. u- t4 =sA V+ C71P.) i ~ i 12/26/2001 08: 22 7607321367 ROWENG PAGE 01/01 SURVEYED BY HcJ ` / O/ DATE 1 Z z4- - o I SURVEY OF SI&A) L.nC O^rlQ-1-j r'JE CvR E6C' INDEX PAGE / OF j3(-t/D f 8 Sr (e oil C u A D/ A 5 /Gill AM 212•f 10, 2 ` 94.28' rof ..i i SW Coq Z- SEAM OMP) i, +.;~•Tl,.' ! •:.i,.i inn7af, 62 • ~ oooC 157 ' + 1 i . ~ .i.. 86,37'RT0f 12 14 F., i'.i,. i , 7a. ' R7 of • r A. 17A 155 _ i 717, 7.f: TI 7 i..~.;..E....' s~ 8(o, 47 l"A. 21/4- W, 29 .:4 0 4p y jmC~ 8 Rr.0 r, Lir ..:4 Ind 71 Q4 14 ; I` 0)99'7a . 76 j . . ; .i..i..J..,:i J 0,07 LL 14 o O Q Ilk YL ~ `Jt '~T A+X Fa=01°•~0`~ ..sx'f>• ~+Y t-.lie r Z.""h t ( NZ ,r~•.. ~~Y:." ~ t. y~a'C.C~wL~,r t ry ` t 4;~ ; s i; d ` ~F txxf ~ ~ w / \ ~ 9yo J / _ V.-Y~_ • it ^.'~M'i.; ~ - ~T _a~c ~'a . ~ • x:2 ~ ~n ~ ~ - ,,~~Y - °r~'-"tom `V4 - LIJ X+ w f".` r ts. t, ~ Yom' \ \r•. 4 1A, ST) ~t~ 1A4~ i ~ 4 ,QL.: J~ ~ t 4 a, E Y ~w'Y. J Li N, y_ '~19 { N Y 14k ' s l ss STWDLJ Qd r 00 •i \ t \ a 5 ' ^1 ,~v y v`:; Ca § _ .fi3d ~ I t'.: \ Y r4 : - „y - ~ y 1~•.~ ~ h ~ at xr ~ ,yi,~ 4 ~~'7 t(~, . y ~1 ~~y -r'" I V O's 1 k7e is t_ s .r f 4 ~ {p , I I.,~~`~4, , 1*~ r, 71 17'~A., , 0~1 J+ . ~ 1 Y4 J ~ ~ ~4 ~ ]y •w ~ * 2 yr ' I rte .ay ~ ~ ~ r^ a k .,p• , ~ ~ r', ~i - , . N .w , lee • ` ` `I ~ ` , • Vyl ~ ~~'~R.a: 'Alt `C ,5 ,F ~ ~o ".r' ~ C . i i 3t~ ~s ! S[~t "L ~Nr. ',.i"t' \ Fir ` t~ ~ 4~ w~ 2~~y k: Y - w r` rwt ~ t t A . v'~. .,~..•~y~j.' l rw.. ''~,wj.'A l 1,:~ ~ ~ 4 r ~I - ...,t.. Vtl-. _.p.~ p~'.'~Aaa~~~ t ~~__.'"~1±~ ~Y-QuT1a\ t r F•A:J'i ~ .a 4 ~ .y,N;4 1 V T-r v TS;. ~ of '~•,~1 j• "W`"' jt :!tlyi ~ r '•lir~ ♦r* Fi'"„ r;,~ ,!1 ,`J 1 ^ X i b, j M' i , _ 4 tt. in . , , ` ~ ~ r« ~ ,7s,."t~./ t.t } ^5 ~ .~.5 . ~ a f r t , • y., 1 It l I ~O~`~e ,,f,. t.\v)^ t ;,"pS ^y~ur, f~ "'Y'.~,Y \ \9~,:r 1~, ~ t~ ! ,.A ,,,,1 - (Y~ ~•0 v ~:1~7t~23~In``~ '--~'~~r. Id ♦ .rJ•~{,~, a'k L .L~• `'~a((l~''C,,~t ,r",~ r~' .'v 1. €M1.,~~~ w ~SI ~ a,w- ~ r+TiNR , rx;y+~t,~t'~ Y :f`+'-~~ 1 '(j .~,jqy r .o~ ~t M~ ~.a,' 'fie r r it% -'ra t P `n-.' 1. ~p 1 lT; p y k.. s J(1 'ib ~ x•44 ~ .,r ~ Z , ~.,Y T '.Y ' r~ Ry. L .a] r F kto F~ / r ,t •4 f t;' r a; i. 4~ Y: ra p y'l~t• ~J ~r / 1 I O - / w~ .y , y, n r F` ar v i+.t~ ,!'V~ l• ~r ~ iJ X J L 7 ,[...r k r l ar T 1 . ~ 4 \ `l~ .Jj~ ply, y /~'~'pw ' y~ ~A ~ ~t(~. u'' • y` J+ , ? 1 `Ij~,Ty ~ .M 'i ' ,f` Fr:. }y t ) ~ ` \`'t.. J ~r .,'t` ~t .i.e. l~ ~ \ l~ ',Iv.i •4 ~ V 1 ' i , , ` 1, L~y[;~i l \ . r } ~ 1 ,l ~ ~ / ~ y.~ \ ''t ~ y-•y^-•--^,. _ YiC^!"_'""~~ Iy'~• ~ ~ ~ ~ VA: • f" t M1r ` y 1 ~~t.' ,Y~ b44'~ ~•kt~ , ,YFw M1'ey~ 4 •y A~ t,,. , IZ- Y.. r <S j4. ~ MYYY 9, S 1111 r ~ ~ F o 'A Iw s ~ 1 e . Vr / v~ '11.1 ` 713 d S S ,y~ F3 j !~k ~ , ~i , + t . ` t yb ' ~ •i . ~ _ r, .s - j r'~a va • K~ t,' iy red' 3 y✓ a.-~+ r " I ff4 x IN L iy :,t. ` C"~.. `d'/ `~~'~j,, 7•`'" 7rrSyy,(7 IK.(y J ~v LbI}04 bl 6bIX*t>£ r r z a. Y ! a it ~+st \ , ~ a y / ~ ~'+S ~ o• ~ " 44 i YT 4tk ' F.+ ,t.cn y~ i is... ".a y'~a• x x _I• I k ' • ~ IAtli r 1. Ot. t'. Q c. , d - c~ - - t. I t... . , ( J~ rF I x r I _ a.. - - - 1 4 I . L._.... Z . i i i v~1 - , (W . , i IA 1ST 9 5`1 41 CSC - 1 - - . , ! p ! I I - --1. i . . ! _ i I ! rw 1 I ' - I t I I i f -I o I I : u I o W m v.l ~.....1. Q. 1 _ cr- m~ I I i - - - - - 1 1 Z I 1 1. ~Lz .J I I I j J.. 1- Q 3w _ i > I ! - , ? t (n Go o CO w j ~a-,y n~ N 0 O Q S I U t t I~ _ , _I V - ; , j I I I ~ ! i t _ I i I 1- - r ! i- - I I ! f L_...... _ . - -t I i t I I I I- I I ..f__ i. i - I I I I! I; ' j I I i , F............ 1 r - - _ _ ' - ; q; . , I I i ' I i Q ' L d? - ! l.._ i _ 2 i - i is N N k t nl - ; - ! N 0 - _ oLS _ , ' , aka ~ - - - i _ - -1 i----f.. _.i._. f _ _ ! r I ~ - - - _ L J t5 1 ; I i I I _ I I i i - i I I ~ I I ~ f : . I I I F. .._._.i i. .t..... .i._ i... . I j r r... r .1_. i i ' , - t.... - - • ~u o ' i ~ ; I I .I i C I i J i t a I o i. r o _ - ~ f 1 ' I - . w m ` , I O Y N U U N ^ j Z O I ; I I 1 r 1 1 i_. _ . Z Z 1.: z o /f W (ALL, 1 i I ti... I Z N ¢ I 3 a' o I J I2 I m y N ; I I I I ~ , i ~ -t- - - - G 3= Z I t l u _ - I Li3 Q-- -i 1 - Cot)Zm i l i l! l l l l I I I~;~ r~I i- i 41 Of t4 I I I I ' 1 . I ~ ^ J : : i i j ' ' I I I i I 1 I t i I . 1........ G i ! Q I `rs I I c l- O i... I tt . N.- - - - - 4 . : t-- - . 1 I - - - - - . Q"•I I ~i r ' - - ---i - , i . : l.__. I I i - 1 t- I 1 -r - - r 1 j E I i r._._.. _ r , I I 1 ~ I j I \ i • ...i ; t - 't r ' 1 r i 1 , 1 I , w w , . .9 0 0` `o I I , I a - - f v tt f . : t w m i o i w . C u u I } : - . _ Z - ~Mr N 0) - -44. - . r......... I 1- r L 6~. . _ OD yN j I I ~ ~ I ' ' ' 1, O! _ co u- ~ I 1 i _ I - ~ Q N - S p J can v o w L.. - I , I - i - _ i.._.. r_ 1 I ,lililll illll I lliliii 1_ , 1 I I I I i i i I 4 _ 4 I ! I f i I I 9. 2 i i z _ d- , cS _ _ , 1 O 0 . . 1 . - . . . - 6 N I i - _ , , _ . . ~U r i - : • t_. : r i ..r_._..t I _ . . - r ti i_ A i i I I I i ~ ~ A , W W 1 _.I. 0 0 o I ~ i ,r I ~ I I 1. I I i.. I I I I I I --7- 1 . t. ..c........... - , C. AS J I I , . S _ . Y ' W w O W U U J Z < S V ' A . ......i I:... - 4. A D: Z O - - --t- 1 Z O i I I r J I Z ; 'v 3 _ I~ . a _ I a _._r.. W I _ 9S / m rn I i U 111 i. .r. i _ ...i. l...., Q d I U I ~ Y co r T CO ` 1 I i _'t` i i N i. l-..._ : I ' i - . _ il~!ICII~II;ICIiIj llliiiilil 30 f~ _ F7 : N N ~ o r • + `J ~J t : t(S.. ,y N T i _ 1.. 0 0 0< ~JCJ. ! .9 _-mow... --r O ybo4~7ig O \ i 0 v p s - - s 6 m J~ m IS) = o w CN uj 0) .Z - _ -j.._... i.._..... - • Z :3 W Z O a M aJ L o M LIJ . t_.. d Z} T Ji.. J.... i...... I { i C M`S i : N r, co . J1'. { 'f 00 t d cv 3 ~ o a U V) U I ~9 : E n I I n O : : 0 0 -34 M.. - u. a. NEI v, - , s r ; ~r v4r- . : i z : O D r , 1 i....~ i ` ` r ' s Y ` - • U ( D - ' i : W J W , I 1. M _Z o ~ 4 Ir N : A- uj 0) W ,H Q j ' ' N Z 4J to tL O - Z N F" _ O N Z mT : f\ ch ~LL 3N° • o a to v I i , : . jjj i I I ~ o i CA v W W • W H a U... ; . a._. (L ll. , v Q • t 0 Q t f J tl > . U . 1..... • , I , r i tt: , . S 1 Z . W O 10~ M1 W N z , a o' W N m YN _ 0 3= - Z ~r Q i Z N r m .i,._... Z i. 3N~ a . . i _ p ~j. o Q3 _ i i r r i '9 ~9 45 9 UN U` a • It-VAN ~~D/IIII ' • =MW,v"MMUFAMM M .1~ ~K;M~ • - M■■YA . ■/.ate FROM ■■ilork, Immmlllq. I 0/11111 .§110111 b,~i~■ a_ GUTTER AND ROADWAY DISCHARGE- • CHART s , f�7 , FFI"p k 44 et 4L U44 4- 1 ! - Al -40 J\) szk iv jo 'Lin, t AW lot, Vol V -p a - 7 ; Q'I 11t 2 9, fr b7 -IL* Il e C% AC AMC 4L� A t 4k 40 -, �q - -4 dw I r li p bey fz 10 1% x ' Asir OF 3 A , la