Loading...
2004-9140 CN/G/I - \ ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT % Capital Improvement Projects <, city Of District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 26, 2007 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 9841 Airport Boulevard, 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 RE: BWA Financial, LLC 1951 -53 San Elijo Avenue CDP 03 -023 Improvement Permit 9410 -I Final release of security Permit 9410 -1 authorized the construction of public road, drainage improvements and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The remaining bond balance was replaced with a cashiers check. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 259399, (in the original amount of $33,924.00), reduced by 75% to $8,481.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishart ?yLe ach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager BWA Financial, LLC 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 ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT City Of Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep leni shment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering July 26, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 9841 Airport Boulevard, 9 Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 RE: BWA Financial, LLC 1951 -53 San Elijo Avenue CDP 03 -023 Improvement Permit 9410 -1 Final release of security Permit 9410 -1 authorized the construction of public road, drainage improvements and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The remaining bond balance was replaced with a cashiers check. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 259399, (in the original amount of $33,924.00), reduced by 75% to $8,481.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishart ?yLe ch Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager BWA Financial, LLC 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 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CZt'10f Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 29, 2007 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 9841 Airport Boulevard, 9 Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 RE: BWA Financial, LLC 1951 -53 San Elijo Avenue CDP 03 -023 Improvement Permit 9410 -1 Partial release of security Permit 9410 -1 authorized the construction of public road, drainage improvements and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the improvements. Therefore, release a portion of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 259399, in the amount of $33,924.00, can hereby be reduced by 75% to $8,481.00. The document will be kept until the 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, 1 Debra Geish J Lembach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager BWA Financial, LLC 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 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT cit Of Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep] enishment /Stonnwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 27, 2006 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 9841 Airport Boulevard, 91h Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 RE: BWA Financial, LLC 1951 -53 San Elijo Avenue CDP 0 Grading Permit 9410 -G Final release of security Permit 9410 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 259397, in the amount of $611,934.40, is hereby fully exonerated. 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, Q Debra Geish ; J y L mbach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager BWA Financial, LLC Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 I FAX 760 -63? -262 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 recycled paper GEOPACIFIC INC. REVIEW MEMORANDUM October 1, 2004 Mr. Duane Thompson Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Subject: Third Party Review Drawing # 9140 -G 1951 & 1953 San Elijo Encinitas, California I have reviewed the following documents: 1. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Klaiwater Plaza, CWE 2040289.02, prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering, dated May 11, 2004 2. Grading Plans for Klaiwater Executive Plaza, Sheets 1 thru 7 of 11, WO no. 03- 023, prepared by Pasco Engineering, undated 3. Plans for Temporary Shoring of Klaiwater Executive Plaza, Sheets SH -1 thru SH -4, WO No. 421558, prepared by Flores Lund Consultants, undated SUMMARY OF REVIEW The preliminary Geotechnical report, prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering, provides sufficient and plans appear to address the requirements of the City of Encinitas, except for the following items that require clarification /comment/professional statements: (it should be noted that these need to be addressed now, more items may need clarification based upon additional review of those items) 1. The Shoring plans (Document 3) refer to a soils report by Christian Wheeler Engineering. A copy of that report needs to be provided. 2. The Geotechnical Engineer needs to address the following: 3. Recommendations of construction and placement of the shoring including method for testing of tied -back anchors. 4. Method or recommendations for monitoring the movement of the excavations. 5. Recommendations for the need for dewatering temporary and permanent means. 6. The soils report needs to address the depth of excavation for the garage. The soils report anticipated excavations up to 20 feet. Shoring plans have excavations Page 2 of 2 10/8/2004 9140 -G greater than 35 feet. The water encountered in the exploratory borings was encountered at 27 feet. 7. The soils consultant should address dewatering or water issues which may occur 8. All grading, shoring, and foundation plans should be reviewed and wet stamped by the geotechnical engineer. 9. All grading, shoring and foundations should be observed and properly tested by the geotechnical engineer • An as built report prepared by the consultant after the grading and construction must be submitted to the city for review. The report must include the results of all compaction tests, soldier piles, anchor testing, as well as a map depicting the limits of overexcavation, observed geologic conditions, locations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, and location and elevation of all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. CONCLUSION Based on our review, the submitted documents do not provide adequate data/information to meet the requirements of, and current geotechnical standard of practice within, the City of Encinitas. The geotechnical consultant has not provided adequate data/information to justify the project in conformance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. From: James F. Knowlton CEG 1045 /RCE 55754 9140 -G san elijo W '3 -023 CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G October 27, 2004 BWA Financial, LLC CWE 2040289.05R P. O. Box 6759 Snowmass Village CO 81615 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SHORING PLANS, PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA References: 1) Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report No. 2040289.02, dated May 11, 2004. 2) Structural Plans for: Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Burkett & Wong, Engineers & Surveyors, dated October 14, 2004. 3) Shoring Plans for: 10awiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Flores Lund Consultants, dated October 5, 2004. 4) Third Party Review, Drawing #9140 -G, 1951 & 1953 San Elijo, Encinitas, California, Gy Geopacific Inc., dated October 1, 2004. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of the City of Encinitas, we have reviewed the above referenced Third Party Review memorandum prepared by the City's geotechnical consultant. We are presenting herein our response and the additional information requested in the memorandum. For convenience, we have presented each of the review comments followed by our response. 1) The shoring plans refer to a soils report by Christian Wheeler Engineering. A copy of that report needs to be provided. We have attached hereto a copy of our report titled " Additional Shoring Design Recommendations, Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated August 30, 2004. We assume that this is the report being requested. 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858 - 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858- 496 -9758 CWE 2040289.05 October 20, 2004 Page No. 2 2) The Geotechnical Engineer needs to address the following. See following. 3) Recommendations of construction and placement of the shoring including method for testing of tied -back anchors. See attached report (reference No. 3 above). 4) Method or recommendations for monitoring the movement of the excavations. See attached report (reference No 3 above). 5) Recommendations for the need for dewatering temporary and permanent means. Our geoteclinical report (reference No. 1 above) estimated that the groundwater table would be at an elevation of approximately 50 feet. At the time the report was prepared, the site plan providing the on -site elevations was not completed and no information was provided on the actual site elevation. Based on a review of the site grading plan now available and die depth of die groundwater observed in Boring B -2, it appears that perched ground water will be encountered in the northeast portion of the site, where the proposed excavation is the lowest, at an elevation of about 52 feet. This is about 1.5 feet higher than the lowest portion of the excavation of the parking garage, which is proposed as 50.55 feet, and about six inches lower than the lowest portion of the garage floor slab. It can be noted that the groundwater was perched within the lower three feet of the sandy terrace deposits, which overlies silty clays of the Delmar Formation. Boring B -1 encountered the perched groundwater at an elevation of about 53 feet in the southwest portion of the site. The lowest elevation for the garage excavation will be about elevation 53 feet and the lowest elevation for the floor slab elevation will be about 54.47 feet. Based on the above information, we expect that there will be some perched groundwater exposed in the parking garage elevation and in the footing excavations. Thus, there will be a need to provide for dewatering during the construction of the subterranean parking garage. Since die groundwater will be below the slab elevations, it appears that a permanent dewatering system will not be necessary. Based on the close proximity of the water to the floor slab, the architect should detemune if any special waterproofing would be required for the underside of the slab and perimeter walls. It may also be advisable to add an additive to the lower concrete floor slab to reduce the permeability of the concrete. 6) The soils report needs to address the depth of the excavation for the garage. The soils report anticipated excavations up to 20 feet. Shoring plans have excavations greater than 35 feet. The water encountered in the explorations was encountered at 27 feet. When the CWE 2040289.05 October 20, 2004 Page No. 3 geotechnical report was prepared, there were no plans to indicate that the garage excavation would extend to the depth that is shown on the grading and excavation plans and the shoring plan. However, since the excavation will be shored and tie -back anchors will be installed to support the lateral loads on the shoring's soldier piles, it is our opinion that the excavation can be made as planned. It is further our opinion that the shoring system proposed will safely support the excavation, and that it is unlikely that any distress will occur to the adjacent properties or public right -of -way due to the planned garage excavation. In regards to the groundwater, see our previous response to Item #5. 7) The soils consultant should address dewatering or water issues which may occur. As discussed in Item #5, the lower few feet of the excavation for the subterranean garage and the footing excavations at the bottom of the garage excavation will encounter a perched water condition. The top of the perched water is expected be below the finish floor slab elevation. As previously stated, it will likely be necessary to provide for some dewatering during the construction of the lower level of the subterranean garage. However, we do not anticipate the need for any permanent dewatering system. At this time, it is our opinion that designing the structure and garage lower floor slab for hydrostatic pressure will not be necessary. However, the structural engineer may want to consider some minor hydrostatic pressures on the walls and lower floor slab and the architect may want to consider the waterproofing issues. 8) All grading, shoring, and foundations plans should be reviewed and wet stamped by the geotechnical engineer. We have reviewed the grading plan, shoring plans and the foundation plans for the proposed office building. We will be happy to wet stamp such plans under the heading of "Reviewed by ". 9) All grading, shoring and foundations should be observed and properly tested by the geotechnical engineer. The grading will be limited to making the excavation for the subterranean parking garage and possibly some minor grading along the front of the building. We recommend that the excavation be periodically observed by our project geologist to verify that the soil and geologic conditions are as anticipated in the preparation of our geotechnical report. The installation of the shoring for the excavation should also be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that the soldier piles and tie -back anchors are installed as per the plans and our recommendations. Further, all footing excavations for the building should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant. CWE 2040289.05 October 20, 2004 Page No. 4 10) An as built report prepared by the consultant after the grading and construction must be submitted to the city for review. The report must include the results of all compaction tests, soldier piles, anchor testing, as well as a map depicting the limits of the overexcavation, observed geologic conditions, locations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, and the locations and elevations of all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. An as-built report will be prepared by the geotechnical consultant after the grading and construction to verify that our recommendations have been complied with and that the shoring and foundations were constructed as per our recommendations. This report will include the results of all compaction tests performed in fill, retaining wall backfill and utility trench backfill and a plan showing their location. The report will also include a summary of the geologic observation made of the excavation, the installation of the soldier piles and the installation and testing of the tie -back anchors. No overexcavation is expected to be necessary at this time; however, if any is performed, we will provide a plan showing the limits of the overexcavation. We anticipate that the retaining wall subdrains will be connected to the building sump, constructed at the lower level of the parking garage. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING V V�QFESS H Cy9 �`p Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 W v No. GE215 z m cc: (1) Submitted °C Exp. 9 -30 -05 M (2) Gafcon: Mike Clark <!> � (2) Pasco Engineering, Inc.: Larry Pitkin 9�OF CALlFO�a (1) Schultz Architecture: Ted Schultz (1) Burkett and Wong: Keith Mountain w CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING REPORT OF OBSERVATIONS AND RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTING PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA - 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: RIENER KLAWITER BWA FINANCIAL, LLC 1735 WESTMINSTER DRIVE CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858 - 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858- 496 -9758 r W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING r- February 23, 2006 BWA Financial, LLC C`A'E 2040289.17 r" 1735 Westminster Drive Cardiff, California 92007 r- SUBJECT: REPORT OF OBSERVATIONS AND RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTING, PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, 953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Reference: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, 953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering, dated May 11, 2004. Ladies /Gentlemen, In accordance with your request and with the requirements of Section 1701.5.13 of the Uniform Building Code, Christian Wheeler Engineering has prepared this report to summarize our observations of the earthwork operations at the subject site, and to present the results of relative compaction tests conducted in the backfills placed behind the retaining wall, as well as in the subgrade, aggregate base courses and the asphalt concrete placed at the project site. The observation and testing services addressed by this report were coordinated by representatives of PCL Construction Services and were provided during the period of March 21, 2005 through November 30, 2005. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land located at the address of 1953 San Elijo Avenue in the Cardiff area of the city of Encinitas, California. The property was previously occupied by four single -story structures that included, a restaurant, a single - family residence, a small office building and a coffee house. Prior to the grading addressed in this ,.., report, the property was relatively flat. The property measures about 130 feet along San Elijo 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858- 496 -9760 + FAX 858- 496 -9758 ^ CW E 2040289.17 February 23, 2006 Page 2 Avenue and is approximately 140 feet deep. The lot is bordered to the west by San Elijo Avenue and by commercial properties on the remaining sides. The vegetation was limited to typical commercial and residential landscaping which includes a few small trees, bushes and low grasses. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: The existing structures and associated improvements were razed to make way for a new office building. The proposed new building will be a two- story, 14,800 - square -foot structure, constructed over two levels of subterranean parking. The below grade portion of the structure consists of shotcrete walls supported by conventional spread footings. The on -grade portion of the garage has a concrete floor slab. The above grade portion of the building consists of steel -frame construction. Shoring was required to stabilize the vertical cuts that were necessary to construct the subterranean garage. PLAN REFERENCE: In order to augment our understanding of the designed configuration of the project, our firm was provided with an undated grading plan for the site prepared by Shultz _ Architecture, Planning and Interior Design, of San Diego, California. Plate No. 1 of this report is a reproduction of the plan, modified to show the approximate locations of our field tests and the relevant limits of contact with the encountered geologic units. SCOPE OF SERVICE Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Inc. during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: •- • Periodic observation of the work in progress, • Observations of soldier beam tieback borings and tieback installation, • Confirmation of the suitability for the foundation soils exposed by the garage excavation, • Performance of relative compaction tests in the retaining wall backfM at the interior of the garage structure, subgrade, aggregate base course, asphaltic concrete associated with the improvements made to San Elijo Avenue., • Performance of laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determinations on the soils encountered during the work, and, • Preparation of this report. ^ rR CWE 2040289.17 February 23, 2006 Page 3 SITE PREPARATION The site preparation generally consisted of the placement of the shoring and the excavation for the proposed subterranean parking structure. The bottom of the excavation was observed by the Geotechnical Consultant, and was found to consist of competent Terrace Deposits. Groundwater was encountered at approximate elevations ranging from 52.0 to 55.0 feet above Mean Sea Level during the excavation of the subterranean parking structure. A temporary subdrain system was installed to dewater during the construction. This drain was extended below the floor slab and was oudetted into a sump that pumped to lower the groundwater below foundation level. The subterranean slab and retaining walls were constructed to account for hydrostatic pressure that would occur after the dewatering had ceased. FIELD OBSERVATIONS GENERAL: Our field representatives performed observations of retaining wall backfill in the garage structure as well as the preparation of subgrade and aggregate base course materials and subsequent asphalt concrete placement in the San Elijo Avenue roadway improvements. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL: In general, the retaining wall backfill operations consisted of soils being placed in uniform lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted by means of a walk behind sheepsfoot wheel and /or a manually operated reciprocal compactor. SAN ELIJO AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS: The subgrade preparations consisted of minor cuts and fills to designed grades, with soils being scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density for paved areas. Due to localized instability in the subgrade, the upper 4 inches of the subgrade was removed along the west side of San Elijo. In this area stabilization fabric was placed and covered with base material. It is our understanding that the City of .- Encinitas public works inspector approved the Tensar BX 1200 stabilization fabric. Aggregate base course materials were placed in thin, uniform lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted by means of single and /or dual drum vibratory compactors to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Asphalt concrete placement was monitored for temperature during laydown operations. The contractor performed compactive efforts of the asphalt concrete using smooth drum vibratory compactors, as well as a pneumatic tire compactor, to attain at least 95 percent relative compaction. CkXTE 2040289.17 February 23, 2006 Page 4 OUTSTANDING LOW COMPACTION RESULTS: Our records indicate that there are areas represented by test results that are below the recommended relative compaction of 95 percent of maximum dry density. These records show that one base test, and one asphaltic concrete test located on San Elijo Avenue indicate marginally low compaction with no retesting performed. The base test and asphaltic concrete test had a relative compaction of 94.0 and 93.9 percent, respectively. Though not necessarily indicative of potential problems that could occur with low compaction, our office cannot verify that these areas were reworked and /or recompacted to recommended values. Experience has shown that unit weights produced by asphalt cores are typically higher than the values produced in the field. Therefore, if retests are to be performed we recommend the coring method. TIEBACK INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS: The tieback installation for the shoring for the proposed executive plaza project was observed by the Geotechnical Consultant, and were found to comply with the recommendations presented in the shoring plan. FOUNDATION OBSERVATIONS: The foundation excavations for the proposed executive plaza project were observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of concrete, and were found to comply with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD TESTS: Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the backfills, subgrade, aggregate base courses and asphalt concrete, were conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D .— 2922 -91, "Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil- Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods," and ASTM Test Designation D2950 -91, "Test Method of Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Method. The locations of the field tests were selected by our technicians in areas discerned to exhibit a degree of relative compaction that was generally representative of that achieved in the backfills, subgrade, aggregate base course and asphalt concrete placement. The locations of these tests are presented on the attached plates. LABORATORY TESTS: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the predominate soils encountered in the backfills, subgrade and aggregate base courses were performed in our laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D 1557 -91, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort." The test was conducted in accordance with the methodology prescribed for the grain -size distribution of the soils tested. The maximum density CWT 2040289.17 February 23, 2006 Page 5 determination for the asphalt concrete placed at the subject site was performed in our laboratory by ASTM D 1559 -89, "Standard Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus." The results of this test are presented on the attached Plate No. 2. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the field and laboratory tests, it is our opinion that, with the exception of the areas represented by the two aforementioned low compaction test results, the backfills, subgrade, aggregate base courses and asphalt concrete were placed and compacted in accordance with our recommendations, the City of Encinitas requirements and the Uniform Building Code. It is our opinion that the low relative compaction test determined for the base and the asphaltic concrete pavement, which were only slightly lower than the minimum specified value, should not have a significant adverse effect on the performance of the pavements due to the marginally low test results. LIMITATIONS The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from March 21, 2005 through November 30, 2005. As limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, the conclusions and opinions presented herein are based upon our observations of the work and the results of our laboratory and field tests. Our services were performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice in the region in which the earthwork was performed, and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the described work with applicable codes and specifications. With the submittal of this report, no warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services performed by our firm, and our performance of those services should not be construed to relieve the grading contractor of his responsibility to perform his work to the standards required by the applicable building codes and project specifications. OXT- 2040289.17 February 23, 2006 Page 6 Christian Wheeler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide professional service on this project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our firm. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTL -kN WHEELER ENGINEERING _ I ou a Hicks, Supervisor QP0FESSlp� L No.GE215 z m Cr Exp.9 30 07 Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. 00215 * cFOc�N��P� �P CHC /DH: mas CFCA� -�F� cc: (2) Submitted (4) PCL Construction Services, 4690 Executive Dr., Suite 100, San Diego, CA, 92121 SUMMARY OF TESTS Project: Klawiter Executive Plaza RETAINING WALL Relative Compaction "Pests ASTM D2922 -91 Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. % Rel. (feet) (° o) Density Density Comp. (pcf) R\X'l ; 11/16/2005 Center Basement Wall South 53.0 2 7.7 110.3 : 119.4 : 92.4 r --------------- r ---------------- - - - - -- ---- r ---------- 1---------- ti----------- r---------- T---------------------- R��'2 : 11/16/2005: Center Basement Wall South 53.0 2 7.3 109.8 ; 119.4 : 92.0 - ----•---------------•-----------.------------------------- •--- ....... ---- - - - - -- --------•-------------.----------•----------- 3 : 11/16/2005 % Center Basement Wall South 55.0 2 7.5 108.3 119.4 % 90.7 _% 11/17/2005 : Center Basement Wall : 55.0 % 2 % 7.8 % 115.3 : 119.4 : 96.6 L .... --- .------ . L. _.._.. ....... _............... _. __...L.. .. J.. _._.....J...........L........__ L. .... J_..._._____ R 11/17/2005 Center Basement Wall 57.0 2 8.4 114.6 119.4 96.0 SUBGR_-1DE Relative Compaction Tests ASTM D2922 -91 Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. % Rel. (feet) ( %) Density Density Comp. (pcf) _SG1 : 3/21/2005 : West Side San Elijo Ave. : SG 2 8.1 114.1 119.4 : 95.6 SG2 : 3/21 /2005 : West Side San Elijo Ave. _ _ _ _ _: SG : 2 : 8.3 : 114.7 : 119.4 : 96.1 _........ L ........ .......L....................... L.......... J.. ........J...........L.......... J.......... J........' -_ SG3 3/21 /2005 West Side San Elio Ave. SG 2 5.8 114.9 119.4 96.2 B -SSE Relative Com action Tests ASTM D2922 -91 A Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. % Rel. (feet) ( %) Density Density Comp. (pcf) B1 : 3/22/2005 : - -... San Eo Ave_ North Side : Base : 3 % 5.6 130.1 : 135.0 : 96.4 - -- - - -• - - --- • - - - - - • . --- li ............ •--------------------- -................................. .---....---- B2 : 3/ 22/2005 : San Elijo Ave. Middle of Area : Base : 3 : _ 5 : 132.8 : 135.0 : 98.4 -- - ------ - -I - . ........-- ;--- - - - - -- ----------- ; •---- - - - -J- __ - - - -J- - - -I- -------- L-------- -- J........... B3 /22/2005 San Eh "o Ave. South Side Base 3 5.8 126.9 135.0 94.0 ASPI- 1LTIC CONCRETE Relative Compaction Tests ASTM D2950 -91 Test No. Date Location Elev. AC Type Moisture Wet Max. % Re]. (feet) ( %) Density Density Comp. (pco AC1 : 3/22/2005 : San Elijo Ave North Side Base : __AC1 : N/A : 146.1 : 147.0 : 99.4 - - --- - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - -• -- -- ...------- •---- ........ ----..----•-----•------ ..........----- ._...- - - - - -. AC2 % 3/22/2005 : : : : % : . --------- L•-- •----------- L----- San Elijo Ave. South Side Base AC1 N/A 146.5 : 147.0 997 •- - - - - -- -------------------L. --- - - - -.. J---- - - -... J..--- .._...L..-- - - - - -- L - - - - - - - - - - J...-- - - - - -- AC3 % 3 22 2005 San Eh'o Ave. North Side _WC AC2 N/A 136.5 : 143.7 95.0 / / : J -- ---- - - - - -- ' - - -- ------------- ------- - - - - -- ------ .....� -- ;--•------•,---•------- .. - -- r--- ------r...----........... - -- AC4 3/22/2005 San Elio Ave. South Side WC AC2 N/A 134.9 143.7 93.9 •-• CWE 2040289.17 Plate 2 Rf.AHIMUM DRY DENSITY and OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 1557 -91 USCS Optimum 'Moisture Maximum Dry Soil Tt pe Description Class ( ° %o) Density (pcf 1 Tan, SILTY SAND SM 8.0 129.5 Brown, SILTY S_ \NIA Ski 9.8 119.4 3 1 Class II Base CW 8.7 135.0 I\LAXINfUM DENSITY veem Method ASTM D1560 -2 AC Tvpe Description \Maximum Density (pco AC1 3/4" _-1R4000 147.0 _vC2 1/2" AR4000 143.7 r� r CWE 2040289.17 Plate 3 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING SEP 3 ENGINEERIN CITY Of EPJ., i! +' — REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: RIENER KLAWITER BWA FINANCIAL, LLC 1735 WESTMINSTER DRIVE CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 SUBMITTED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9211 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858- 496 -9760 + FAX 858- 496 -9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING May 11, 2004 BWA Financial, LLC CWE 2040289.02 1735 Westminster Drive Cardiff, California 92007 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated 1\Iarch 19, 2004, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject development. We are presenting herewith a report of our finding and recommendations. No geotechnical conditions were found that would preclude the construction of the proposed office _ building provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. Based on our investigation, we have found that the site is underlain by Quaternary -age terrace deposits and Tertiary -age deposits of the Dehnar Formation that are mantled by relatively thin layers (+ 2 to 4 feet) of artificial fill. The terrace deposits and Delmar Formation are generally dense to very dense or hard and suitable to support the proposed construction; however, the existing fill is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement - sensitive improvements. Based on the excavation depths required for the proposed subterranean garage, we anticipate that the garage footings will be founded within the competent terrace deposits. For the associated exterior improvements, the existing fill material will need to be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Specific recommendations are presented in the "Site Preparation" section of this report. 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858- 496 -9760 + FAX 858 - 496 -9758 CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 2 If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christian, RGE # 00215 urtis R. Burdett, CEG # 1090 CHC:CRB:scc:shv cc: (2) Submitted / QE Nq� �D G� (=1) 1\leracon Corportion / �S H CH�j� F Itc;� 2 m "10.1 10.1 2 0E -? - W U No. GE215 z rn U CERT .-- - Exp.9 - 30 - 05 70 ENWNEE j j ; r: * * GvOIDQ,�ST CFA ?ECII GP P Erp. 10-04 � CAL1FOe�`'' TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Project Description ........................................................................................ ..............................1 ProjectScope .................................................................................................................................. ..............................2 Findings .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 3 SiteDescription .......................................................................................................................... ..............................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................... ............................... 3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description ....................................................................................... ............................... 3 ArtificialFill ................................................................................................................................. ............................... 3 TerraceDeposits ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 4 DelMar Formation ..................................................................................................................... ..............................4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... ............................... 4 TectonicSetting .............................................................................................................................. ............................... 5 GeologicHazards ........................................................................................................................ ..............................5 GroundShaking ............................................................................................................................. ............................... 5 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability ...................................................................................... ............................... 6 Liquefaction .................................................................................................................................... ............................... 6 Flooding ........................................................................................................................................... ............................... 6 Tsunamis .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 6 Seiclles .............................................................................................................................................. ............................... 6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... ............................... 6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 7 Grading and Earthwork ........................ ............................... General ............................................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Clearingand Grubbing ................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 SitePreparation .............................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Processingof Fill Areas ................................................................................................................ ............................... 8 Compactionand Method of Filling ............................................................................................ ............................... 8 TemporarySlopes .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 SurfaceDrainage ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 9 Foundations ................................................................................................................................ ..............................9 y General ............................................................................................................................................. ............................... 9 ExpansiveCharacteristics .............................................................................................................. ..............................9 ConventionalFoundations .......................................................................................................... ............................... 9 BearingCapacity ........................................ ............................... ......................10 .............................. ............................... FootingReinforcing ...................................................................................................................... .............................10 LateralLoad Resistance ................................................................................................................ .............................10 SettlementCharacteristics ............................................................................................................. .............................10 FoundationPlan Review .............................................................................................................. .............................10 Foundation Excavation Observation ......................................................................................... .............................10 SeisnucDesign Parameters ....................................................................................................... .............................11 On -Grade Slabs ......................................................................................................................... .............................11 InteriorFloor Slabs ........................................................................................................................ .............................11 InteriorFloor Slabs ........................................................................................................................ .............................11 1\4oisture Protection for Interior Slabs ....................................................................................... .............................12 EarthRetaining W alls ................................................................................................................ .............................12 PassivePressure ............................................................................................................................. .............................12 ActivePressure ............................................................................................................................... .............................12 Backfill.............................................................................................................................................. .............................13 Limitations..................................................................................................................................... .............................13 Review, Observation and Testing ........................................................................................... .............................13 CW`E 2040289.02 Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza 1953 San Elijo avenue, Encinitas, California Uniformity of Conditions ..................................................... ............................... ..................13 ............................... Changein Scope ........................................................................................................................ .............................13 TimeLimitations ....................................................................................................................... .............................14 ProfessionalStandard ............................................................................................................... .............................14 Client's Responsibility .............................................................................................................. .............................14 FieldExplorations ......................................................................................................................... .............................14 Laboratory Testing ATTACHMENTS TABLES .— Table I Maximum Bedrock Acceleration, Page 5 Table 1I Seismic Design Parameters, Page 11 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan Plates 2 -5 Boring Loas Plate 6 Laboratory Test Results Plate 7 Retaining wall subdrain detail APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications — General Provisions r r CWE 2040289.02 Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 SAN ELI - 10 AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION r— This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for a proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, to be constructed at 1953 San Elijo Avenue, in the city of Encinitas, California. The location of the project site is indicated on the following Vicinity Map, presented as Figure Number 1. The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land located at the subject address. The property is presently occupied by four single -story structures, a restaurant, a single - family residence, a small office building and a coffee house. We understand that all existing structures and associated improvements will be razed to make way for a new office building. The new building will be a two- story, 14,800- square -foot structure, constructed over two levels of subterranean parking. The below grade portion of the structure is expected to consist of either shotcrete walls or cast -in -place concrete walls supported by conventional spread footings. The on -grade portion of the garage will have a concrete floor slab. The above grade portion of the building is expected to be wood -frame construction. Grading is expected to be limited to making the approximately 20- foot -deep excavation for the subterranean garage. To aid in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a set of plans prepared by Shultz Architecture, Planning and Interior Design, dated February 25, 2004. A copy of the site plan was used as a base map for our site plan and geologic mapping, and is included herein as Plate Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of BWA Financial, LLC and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, ^ laboratory testing and /or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally r �^ 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92 11 1 ♦ 858- 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858 - 496 -9758 SITE VICINITY MAP (Adapted from Thomas Brothers Maps) PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA North E ti 4 A u _.. � C—) 1 ,'1: �— < . V � �4 i._.�� 7STC� :F ,r - IF t 4, A �V FS r i f tc�- r` 16 E SAN' C ELfjo -- .STATE wJ BEACH P P4 -� rc ti C" SITE HD r r � >� `. `•• ��' t� , ', s � � iv2U04 Thama: CWE 2040289.02 May 2004 Figure 1 CWT- 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 2 accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or i-nplied. PROJECT SCOPE Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination, recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structures, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction; b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed development, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential; -- c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the site development, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code; d) Address potential construction difficulties drat may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading, and provide design criteria for temporary construction shoring; E) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design; CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 3 g) Present our professional opinions in this report, which includes in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summary of the laboratory test results. ` Although tests for the presence of soluble sulfates within the soils that may be in contact with reinforced concrete were performed as part of the scope of our services, it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is considered necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. The results of these tests should only be used as a guideline to determine if additional testing and analysis is necessary. Additionally, our approved scope of service did not include assessments of hazardous substance contamination, the formation of mold within the proposed structure, or any other services not specifically described. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land located at the address of 1953 San Elijo Avenue in the Cardiff area of the city of Encinitas, California. The property is presently occupied by four single- .-. story structures, a restaurant, a single - family residence, a small office building and a coffee house. Topographically, the property is relatively flat. The property measures about 130 feet along San Elijo Avenue and is approximately 140 feet deep. The lot is bordered to the west by San Elijo Avenue and by commercial properties on the remaining sides. Vegetation is limited to typical commercial and residential landscaping which includes a few small trees, bushes and low grasses. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based upon the results of our subsurface exploration and analysis of readily available, pertinent geologic literature, we have determined that the site is underlain by Quaternary -age terrace deposits and Tertiary -age deposits of the Delmar Formation that are mantled by artificial fill. Each of the encountered soils are described below in order of increasing age: ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): A layer of man - placed fill material was encountered within both of our exploratory test borings. The fill layer extended to a depth of about 2 feet below the existing grade CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 4 within test boring B -1 and 4 feet below grade within test boring B -2. The fill material generally consisted of medium brown, silty sand (Slut). The existing fill material was typically dry to moist and loose. Based on our experience with similar soils, the existing fill material is expected to possess a "low" Expansion Index (EI < 50), low strength parameters and moderate settlement potential in its current state. Based on its moderate settlement potential, the existing artificial fill material is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support the anticipated loads of the proposed addition. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Quatemary -age terrace deposits were encountered below the artificial fill within both of our exploratory test borings. In general, the terrace deposits were noted to consist of alternating layers of light gray to medium reddish - brown, clayey sand (SC), reddish -brown r to medium gray, sandy clay (CL) and light grayish -brown to reddish - brown, silty sand (Slut). These deposits were generally moist to a depth of approximately 25 feet and very moist to saturated below, and medium dense to very dense or very stiff to hard in consistency. These deposits are expected to possess "lo-,v" to "medium" expansion potentials, moderate to high strength parameters and low settlement potential. The terrace deposits are considered suitable in their present condition to support settlement- sensitive improvements. DELMAR FORMATION (Td): Tertiary-age deposits of the Delmar Formation were encountered below the terrace deposits within our exploratory boring B -2. Although not encountered within all of our subsurface explorations, the Delmar Formation is expected to underlie the entire site. In general, the Delmar Formation materials exposed at the site consisted of light grayish -brown to dark red, silty clay (CH) that was moist and hard in consistency. Based on our visual classification, the Delmar Formation is expected to have a "low" to "medium" Expansion Index, and relatively high strength properties and low settlement potential. The Delmar Formation is considered to be suitable in its present condition to support settlement- sensitive improvements. W 00 A*0S GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was encountered within our exploratory boring at approximate dep of 27 feet to 30 feet b elow existing si�s. These depths correspond to an approximate elevation of 50 feet above Mean Sea Leve Due to the site close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, relatively small variations in the local groundwater table may be expected. Based on our measurements of the local groundwater table and analyses of the local tide cycles, it is our opinion that the maximum expected groundwater level at the site is approximately 51 feet above mean sea level (MSL). As such, we do not C \X!`E 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 5 anticipate that groundwater will be present at or near the elevation of the basement floor slab of the proposed structure. TECTONIC SETTING: No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary- age fault zones whhich typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north - westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approsinately 3.6 kilometers west of the subject site. Other active fault zones ii the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank Fault Zone to the southwest and the San Jacinto, Elsinore and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GROUND SHAKING: A likely geologic hazard to affect dhe site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The matinum ground accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum magnitude earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones dhat could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. TABLE I: MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS Fault Zone Distance Maximum Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 3.6 km 6.9 magnitude 0.39 g Newport- Inglewood 20 km 6.9 magnitude 0.16 g Coronado Bank 27 km 7.4 magnitude 0.17 g Elsinore Qulian) 47 km 7.1 magnitude 0.09 g Palos Verde 68 km 7.1 magnitude 0.07 g Earthquake Valley 68 km 6.5 magnitude 0.05 g CAVE 2040389.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 6 Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structures. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in area 3 -1. Area 3 is considered to be "generally susceptible" to landsliding. Subarea 3 -1 includes slopes that are considered to be at or near their stability limits due to a combination of steep slopes and weak materials. Although most slopes within Subarea 3 -1 do not currently contain confirmed landslide deposits, they can be expected to fail, locally, when adversely modified. LIQUEFACTION: The near - surface soils encountered at the site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain -size distribution and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions. FLOODING: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100 -year and the 500 -year floodplains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The site will not be affected by a tsunami. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location, it will not be affected by seiches. CONCLUSIONS No geotechnical conditions were found that would preclude the construction of the proposed office building provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. Based on our investigation, we have found that the site is underlain by Quaternary -age terrace deposits and Tertiary-age deposits of the Delmar Formation that are mantled by relatively thin layers (± 2 to 4 feet) of artificial fill. The terrace deposits and Delmar Formation are generally dense to very dense or hard and suitable to support the proposed construction; however, the existing fill is considered unsuitable in its present condition to CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 7 support settlement- sensitive improvements. Based on the excavation depths required for the proposed subterranean garage, we anticipate that the garage footings will be founded within the competent terrace deposits. For the associated exterior improvements, the existing fill material will need to be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Specific recommendations are presented in the "Site Preparation' section of this report. In addition, no geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude the proposed development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. Other than the potential for seismically induced groundshaking described herein, the site should be safe from geologic hazards at the conclusion of construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented and sound construction practices are followed. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK r GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minim requirements of the city of Encinitas, and the recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of Christian Vlheeler Engineering should be present at the pre - construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements, and the removal of all foundations, slabs, existing utilities, vegetation, and construction debris from the portions of the lot that will receive improvements. This should include all root balls from the trees to be removed and all significant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off -site in a legal dumpsite. SITE PREPARATION: After clearing and grubbing, the site preparation should consist of the removal and replacement of the Fills from the areas to support the settlement- sensitive improvements. Based on the results of our exploratory borings, we anticipate that existing fills have a thickness ranging from about 2 to 4 feet, but may be thicker in local areas. The excavation for the subterranean garage is expected to remove all fill materials and should expose the competent terrace deposits. If the terrace deposits are not CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 8 exposed by the excavation, as anticipated, the overexcavation of the unsuitable bearing soils should be performed and the excavated soils should be replaced as compacted fill. Prior to placing fill or constructing improvements, the bottom of all excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant to verify that competent soil has been reached. It may be necessary to deepen the removals in localized areas in order to reach competent material. The removals should extend from property line to property line. The existing on -site material is considered suitable for use as structural fill provided that it is properly blended and moisture conditioned. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and approved by the geotechnical consultant or his representative, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: Structural fill materials placed at the site and all utility trench backfill should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the latest edition of ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fill and backfill should be placed at or slightly above the optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, ... roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. Based on — our subsurface observations and laboratory testing, we anticipate the removed soils will be suitable for use as structural fill. TEMPORARY SLOPES: Temporary slopes of up to about 20 feet in height are anticipated to be required during the proposed construction for the retaining walls for the subterranean garage. Temporary slopes of up to 20 feet in height, for retaining walls, can be excavated vertical for the bottom four feet and _ at an inclination of 0_75_to 1.0 horizontal to vertical) or flatter above. All temporary cut slopes should be observed by the engineering geologist during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as soil or equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. Where there is not room to construct temporary slopes, temporary shoring of the excavation sides may be necessary. CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 9 The design of shoring will need to consider the foundation loads of the adjacent structures. Temporary shoring may be designed using the following soil parameters: Angle of internal friction: 35 degrees Apparent cohesion: 200 psf Total Unit weight: 120 pcf Unit Skin Friction: 800 psf _ The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor's "responsible person ", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. SURFACE DRAINAGE: Surface runoff into graded areas should be minimized. Where possible, drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non - erodible devices such as paved swales, gunited brow ditches, and storm drains. Drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed structures and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgments, it is our opinion that the proposed office building may be supported by shallow conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. The following recommendations are considered the minimum based on soil conditions and are not intended to be lieu of -- structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated foundation soils are expected to have a "low" expansion potential. The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: Spread footings supporting the proposed structures should generally be embedded at least 24 inches below finish pad grade, which is considered to be below the floor C\VE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 10 slab and sand blanket. Continuous and isolated footings supporting the structure should have minim widths of 18 and 24 inches, respectively. BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional spread footings alith the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 900 pounds per square foot and 350 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of footing depth and width, respectively, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. Additionally, the bearing capacity may be increased by one -third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural engineer. However, based on the existing soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least two No. 5 bars positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and two No. 5 bars positioned two inches below the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one - third. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be less than about one inch and one inch in 40 feet for new foundations, respectively, provided d recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented, and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated construction. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing concrete to determine if the foundation recommendations CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 11 presented herein are complied with. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS In accordance with die evaluations provided above, the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site is 0.24 g. This was estimated using a Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis in conjunction with a Maximum Magnitude Seismic Event of 6.9 magnitude along die Rose Canyon Fault Zone. For structural design purposes, a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening, and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended (UBC Table 16-J). Based upon the site's distance of approximately 3.6 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault (Type B Fault), Near Source Factors N equal to 1.14 and N, equal to 1.39 are also applicable. :additional recommended seismically related design parameters are to be obtained from dhe Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, utilizing a Seismic Zone 4. TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC — Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16 -I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type Sc 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient C. 0.40 N 16 -R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56 N, 16 -S Near Source Factor N. 1.14 16 -T Near Source Factor N,• 1.39 16 -U Seismic Source Type B ON -GRADE SLABS GENERAL: It is our understanding that the lower garage floor will have a concrete slab -on- grade. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. All slabs should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. GARAGE FLOOR SLABS: The minimum floor slab thickness should be five inches (actual) for the garage floor slab and four inches (actual) for non - traffic areas. All floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 12 inches on center each away. Slab reinforcement should be CWE 2040289.02 Nfay 11, 2004 Page No. 12 s supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid - height in the floor slab. The slab reinforcement should extend into the perimeter foundations at least six inches. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the industry standard that interior on -grade concrete slabs be underlain by a moisture retarder. We suggest that the subslab moisture retarder consist of at least a two- inch -thick blanket of clean coarse sand overlain by a layer of 10 -mil visqueen. The visqueen should be overlain by an additional two- inch -thick layer of coarse, clean sand. The sand should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieves. Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on -grade slab. This may be an excess amount of moisture for some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary, the concrete mix can be designed to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards through the floor slab. EARTH RETAINING WALLS PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.40 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one -Hurd. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 and 50 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. This value assumes a level and drained backfill condition and does not consider any surcharge pressures. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. Waterproofing details should be provided by the project architect. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 7. We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant be requested to observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. CWT 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 13 BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Consultant and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian \X- 'heeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations or temporary slopes might be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Consultant so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. r CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 14 TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of the Client, or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Two subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the Site Plan included herewith as Plate Number 1 on April 6, 2004. These explorations consisted of test borings drilled with a CME 55 Drill Rig. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. The trench logs are presented on Plate Numbers 2 through 5. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification. In addition, a verbal CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 15 textural description, the vet color, the apparent moisture, and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. Relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also collected in bags from the auger cuttings and returned to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) MOISTURE - DENSITY: In -place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in -place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the boring logs. c) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the existing fill were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D -1557, ,r. Method A. The results of this test are presented on Plate Number 6. c) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: Three direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based of typical foundation soils on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. The sample was tested at different vertical loads and at a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented on the attached Plate No. 6. CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Page No. 16 d) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: An Expansion Index test on a remolded sample was performed on a sample of the existing fill. This test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 + 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimen was then compacted in a 4- inch - diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 pso, and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 —_ minutes. The sample was saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nonunal. The expansion index is reported on Plate Number 6 as the total vertical displacement times 1000. e) SOLUBLE SULFATES: The soluble sulfate content was determined for a sample of soil likely to be present at the foundation level. The soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance ,with California Test Method 417. The results are presented on Plate Number 6. LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B -1 Date Excavated: 4/6/200=1 Logged by: TSW Equipment: C1JE55 Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water- 27 feet Finish Elevation: N /A Drive Weight. 140 lbs. SAMPLES p W z (U o O y �. � a o O U O H o E, cn SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a � � N � z U � Q � zz- C >1 ° O � � C) Q Artificial Fill (Qaf1: Medium brown, damp to moist, loose, ....... ................_.._. SILTY SAND (STNM), with gravels. _ _._.._......._._...__._..... i ___.._...._...._.__..._._ ._ ___.._.._......_.._._._........ Terrace Deposits (Qt: D m lediu brown to reddish- brown, moist, Cal 22 medium dense, CI AYEY SAND (SC), moderately weathered, slightly p orous. Cal 50/5" 53 115.8 G Light reddish -brown and light grayish- brown, moist, dense, CL AYEY SAND- POORLY GRADED SAND (SC -SP). __.____..........._ ......__..........._........._. _..._..__.. ,' ICI'' :_...... _ __ :I _�. _.._..._._............._._ .... ......... ........ ... ..... _..... 'Medium gray and light red, moist, very stiff to hard, SAND'V CL Y CL �.__.Z .__.__. .._........ _ ............ _.._.__ _..___._....._.__.._....._..-_-._._....__..__........_.._. ..-- •-- ..........._.._......... 10 Light reddish -brown and light grayish- brown, moist, dense to very Cal 50/5" 11.1 123.5 dense, CLAYEY SAND (SC). 14 Cal 50/5" 11.5 125.3 16 Medium reddish- brown, moist, very stiff, SANDY CLAY (CL). 18 ......_.....`.:...... _ _____ __ _._� —_ _ _..._._._ ................. . . .. .. .__...--- ._. .................. .......... Medium reddish - brown, moist, dense, CLAYEY SAND (SC). Cal 50/5" Boring continued on Plate No. 3. PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: May 2004 C N G 1 N 1: E. K 1 N C JOB NO.: 2040289 PLATE NO.: 2 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B- 1(Continued) Date Excavated: 4/6/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: CNIE55 Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: 27 feet Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs. SAi\R'LFS -- z o x U V �1-0 �2 SUNINL -kRY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a �� z 5 tn Q � o ° z �H 14 Q Terrace Deposits (Qt): Light grayish -brown and reddish- brown, III moist, dense to very dense, SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED ` SAND (SAf -SP), fine to medium - grained. 24 Cal I 50/4" -1.1 UP9.8 __._.... _ .__.._ _ ._._.._... ...._.._..___ ...__...__._.....___.._....._.. __._...._... ... 26 Medium reddish- brown, moist to very moist, dense, CL Vi EY SA ND SC . _.... -_.. . ___��Z.. _ _ _, � _M _ _ _._..._.. _..._... ...........__...._._..__._..... .... - ... ....... .. ........... _ ... .........._............ _. Light to medium reddish - brown, saturated, dense to very dense, SILTY SAND- POORLY GRADED SAND (SM -SP), medium to 30 very coarse-grained. Perched groundwater at 27 feet. G11 50/5" 1 173 11 3.1 Boring terminated at 30 feet. 32 34 36 38 0 PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, California CHRIj71AN WHEELER BY: HF XTE: May 2004 r. N C.1 N C r R 1 N G JOB NO.: 2040289 1PLATE NO.: 3 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B -2 Date Excavated: 4/6/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: CNIE55 Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: 30 feet Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs. , ANIPLES W z o 4 O U c Q V) SUNINVMY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a a z W W o E/) Q W p Artificial Fill (Qaf): Medium brown, damp to moist, 2 loose, SILTY SAND (S; \l). - C „1 1 11.8 117.6 4 Terrace Deposits (Ot): Dledium reddish - brown, moist, medium c.1 38 10.3 1' 1.5 6 dense, CL.-1YEY SAND (SC), moderately weathered, slightly porous. Ds _. .- ....... - ----- ... . ... -- - - - _ -.... - ... -.... - - ... - if 111 Medium gray and light red, moist, very stiff to hard, SANDY C.11 50/5” 11.6 122.6 CLAY (CL). r1, `S A; Medium gray and light red, moist, dense, CLAYEY SAND (SC). 14 ( I'll 50 1-1.5 1-1-1.9 16 18 20 AN l\ledium reddish - brown, moist, very stiff, SANDY CLAY CL). Boring continued on Plate No. 5. PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, California CHK1511AN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: May 2004 E N G I N E E R I N G JOB NO.: 2040289 IPLATE NO.: 4 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B -2 (Continued) Date Excavated: 4/6/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: CME55 Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: 30 feet Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 1401bs. SAINIPLrS IS C7 SUNMIARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a a 3 Q � o ° r-4 Q Terrace Deposits (Qtl: Medium reddish - brown, moist, very stiff, SANDY CLA Y�CLJ . Cal 36 D� 12 ...� __ —_ _ ___ __ _ __ _�...__ Dledium reddish- brown, moist, dense, CLAYEY SAND (SC). 24 .._...._....__.- _ -____ _:_.. _ __ _. -___ _. _ ..____._— _------------ .__....._...__.._ ..... ..... i .... .. __.._._..._...._._ ._..._......_.__... _........... ;Medium reddish- brown, moist, dense, SILTY SAND- POORLY I GRADED SAND (SM -SP). Cal �� � 1 50/6" 5.2 I W.3 I! 28 �� _ ___ — _ - ___ __ _ _....._._._ _ ............. _..._..._....._..... ..........................._... _.............. Medium reddish - brown, moist, dense, Cl.-1YEY SAND (SC). 30 Cal 51'5.5' 17.6 112.1 Medium reddish- brown, saturated, dense, SILTY SAND-POORLY 2 GRADED SAND (SM -SP). 34 Del Mar Formation Mar Formation (TdL: Light gra)-ish -brown and dark red, moist, hard, SILTY CLAY (CH). C.11 E 75 19.6 11)'7.7 36 38 41) Cal 5()/5" Boring terminated at 40 feet. PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA VJ 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: EIF DATE: May 2004 E N G I N E E P L I N G JOB NO.: 2040289 1PLATE NO.: 5 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED Ki.A\W'ITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 SAN EL110 AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DENSITY/ OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT Sample Number: Boring B -2 @ 4' -8' Description: Tan, silty sand (SN\ NIaximum Density: 129.5 pcf Optimum I\loisture Content: 8.0% DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Sample Number: Boring B -1 @ 20' Description: Natural Angle of Internal Friction: 41 degrees Apparent Cohesion: 600 psf Sample Number: Boring B -2 @ 4' -8' Description: Remolded to 90 Percent Angle of Internal Friction: 34 degrees Apparent Cohesion: 100 psf Sample Number: Boring B -2 @ 21.5' Description: Natural Angle of Internal Friction: 33 degrees Apparent Cohesion: 1250 psf EXPANSION INDEX TEST Sample Number: Boring B -2 @ 9' -12' Initial 1\101sture: 8.3 Initial Dry Density: 106.0 pcf Final Moisture Content: 22.7% Expansion Index: 46 (Low) WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS Sample Number: Boring B -1 @ 0' -2' Soluble Sulfate Content: 0.022% (SO,) Sample Number: Boring B -2 @ T -12' Soluble Sulfate Content: 0.008% (SO,) CkXB 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Plate No. 6 I I l L �— 1' % Slope Minimum 6 -inch 6-inch Minimum Max. y °a 3/4 inch Crushed Rock or Afiradrain 6000 or Equivalent � a ° Waterproof Back of \Y/all a Per Architect's Specifications n . a a ° 12" ° Top of Ground or Concrete Slab ° Geofabric Between Rock and Soil a , 0 6 -inch Minimum Minimum 4 -inch Diameter Perforated Pipe PVC Schedule 40 RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL _v No Scale i PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA CHRI-STIAN WHEELER FNCINrr.ItINc BY: SI IN DATE: May 2004 4925 NIFRCURY STREET T •ret- (858) 496 -9760 SAN MLGO, CALL t)RNIA 92111 FAX (858) 469 -9758 JOB NO.: 2040289 1 NO.: 7 CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Appendix A, Page Al REFERENCES Anderson, J.G.; Rockwell, R.K. and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra Volume 5, No. 2, 1989. Blake, T.F., 2000, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from 3 -D Fault Sources, Version 3.0, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Thousand Oaks, California. Boore, David M., Joyner, William B., and Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, "Empirical Near - Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo - Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra ", in Seismological Research Letters, Volume 68, Number 1, January/ February 1997. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and mitigating Seismic Hazards in California ", CDIAG Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, M.P., 1980, Recency and Character of Faulting Offshore Metropolitan San Diego, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 40 Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 1996, Geology of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California; California, Division of Mines and Geology, Plate 1 Kern, P., 1989, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press, 73 pp. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 95 -03. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California," in Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986. CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Appendix B, Page B1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1953 SAN EL11O AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and /or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian \X lheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or lie shall recommend rejection of this work. Tests used to deterinine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: CAVE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Appendix B, Page B2 Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -91 Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -90 or ASTM D -2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 12 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground, which is defined as natural soil that possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for preparation of natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the '- Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a qualified Structural Engineer. CWE 2040289.02 Nfay 11, 2004 Appendix B, Page B3 FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. Wien the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- ... structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of ._ two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over -built and cut- r CWE 2040289.02 May 11, 2004 Appendix B, Page B4 r back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at r least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. �-- Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily Feld report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the r preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. CWE 20.10289.02 play 11, 3004 Appendix B, Page B5 SEASON LIMITS - Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. Wlien work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper twelve inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the ASTAI Test D 4289 -95. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: WI transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minunum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. 1 ;t THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON FEB 22 2005 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2005- 0145144 AREGCR'Y J SMITH COUNTY RECORDER RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ) TIME: 3:51 PM CITY CLERK ) CITY OF ENCINITAS ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND PXMOV COVENANT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. A.P.N.: 2t'7c.�— 3 osl As encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A," as the owner of the Benefited Property described in paragraph two, Attachment "A," to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A," as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows: 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumberancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shali use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purposes described in paragraph four, Attachment "A." 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefitted Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. 5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permitee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property. 7. Upon abandonment, revocation completion, Permit shall, at no cost to the city, return City Property to its pre - permit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. Encroachment Maintenance Permit.doc 8. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefitted Property, and restore the City Property to its pre - permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the costs incurred. 9. If either party is required to incur.costs to enforce the provisions of this conversant, the . prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this convenant are a lien upon the Benefitted Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefitted Property any past due financial obligation owing to city by way of this convenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim, or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non - negligent manner, in accordance with the terms of the permit. 12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permitee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. 13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement must first be singed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this day of 200. AGREED AND ACCEPTED: -__, TE Z )4 Dated *. Dated i0P 1✓ 04 (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached) City o E c ni as RE Encroachment Maintenance Permit.doc CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 41:4'�'�:'r -4• f h State of California ss. r County of ( •� Z., 2G_00 before me RJay P16 ,/Q oe. R>�TirNe h P0 (3�/� ,r Qn Date Name and Title of Officer (e.9 'Jane Doe. Notary Public) p ersonally ap peared I� E7�i/� CD7?�7 y p Name(s) of Signers) ;rsonally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence; to be the person(s) whose name(s) s0/ re RANpA �, IMILLJOUR subscribed to the wRer/their instrument and �v30 acknowledged to me t she /they executed > P! Cs the same in thorized saw .�� capacity(ies), and that by her /their MY ExP. ,pn, 6.2007 signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) t acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above Sign ure of Notary Public OPTIONAL " Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ' Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Individual Top of tr,umb here El Corporate Officer — Title(s): ' ❑ Partner- Limited - General S I ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator El Other: ' Signer Is Representing: t © 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave. P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth. CA 91313 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll-Free 1 - 800 -876 -6827 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of n County of _ C On 4kf �R before me, tllkr'I ✓I �021 Date Name and Title 0( Officer (e.g.. 'Jane Doe No lery Public) personally appeared nVIP - �i��i� �a0 , , Name(s) of Signer(s) r l personally known tome – r"*dem - -to-be-the-p€m& sj whose name( is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /ahft liey executed the same in his/her iak authorized capacity(tes), and that by hisPher/their signature(, on the instrument the erson* or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, ROlIM �• PRICE executed the instrument. _ commbaon # 1447278 Notay KdAc - CaOm° WITNESS my hajdnd official seal. San Dlpo County My Comm. bq*w Oct 26, 200 Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and-could prove fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number oages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's N e: ❑ Individual ❑ In ' idual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ orporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee I It ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Top thumb here ❑ Other: Top at thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ® 1994 National Notary Asaocialion • 8236 Rernmel Ave.. P.O. Box 71 B4 -Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Can Toll­-Free 1 -600- 876-6027 ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT # PARAGRAPH ONE: Permittee: BWA Financial 1735 Westminster Drive Cardiff, CA 92007 PARAGRAPH TWO: Benefitted Property: APN # 260 - 351 -05 and 06 1951 and 1953 San Elijo Ave. Cardiff, CA 92007 PARAGRAPH THREE: City roperty. Portion of the right -of -way of San Elijo Ave. directly west of 1951 and 1953 San Elijo Ave, Cardiff, CA 92007 PARAGRAPH FOUR: Purpose: For the installation of leave -in -place tie backs along the west portion of the proposed site excavation, to support temporary shoring. Excavation and shoring per submittals in Plan Check #9140 -G (Grading) and 9140 -I (Improvements). ATTACH "B" DETAIL OF PERMAAENTENCROAChEMENT17V SAN ELIJO A VENUE NORTH OF BIRMINGHAM AVE. x�—� -- x -- � X__ x x � I i € x - , 1 —1 Lu x x a 1 LOTS C & D OF x MAP 1469 i 1 AP2V:260- 351 -05,06 a —,` x x— -�( �! APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TIE BACKS IFOR SHORING SYSTEM. TENSION TO BE 1 3 RELEASED WHEN PERMANENT BUILDING WALLS ARE CONSTRUCTED X REFERENCE CITY OF ENCINITAS DRAWING LL SHORING TIE -BACK DETAI S AND X_ x x x ' --� X � rD LL t s � GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " =20' 0 20 40 60 r GAFCON, INC. OCT 2 9 2004 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING RECEIVED October 27, 2004 BWA Financial, LLC ORIGINAL CWE 2040289.05R P. O. Box 6759 Snowmass Village CO 81615 C 0 Py SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND SHORING PLANS, PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTWE PLAZA, 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA References: 1) Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report No. 2040289.02, dated May 11, 2004. 2) Structural Plans for: Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Burkett & Wong, Engineers & Surveyors, dated October 14, 2004. 3) Shoring Plans for: 1 Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Flores Lund Consultants, dated October 5, 2004. 4) Third Party Review, Drawing #9140 -G, 1951 & 1953 San Elijo, Encinitas, California, Gy Geopacific Inc., dated October 1, 2004. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of the City of Encinitas, we have reviewed the above referenced Third Parry Review memorandum prepared by the City's geotecllnical consultant. We are presenting o � herein our response and the additional information requested in the memorandum. For � convenience, we have presented each of the review comments followed by our response. - u r- a � - 1) The shoring plans refer to a soils report by Christian Wheeler Engineering. A copy h of that report needs to be provided. We have attached hereto a copy of our report tided " Q Additional Shoring Design Recommendations, Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San o Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated August 30, 2004. We assume that this is the C E-'' .� c report being requested. q Q a 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858 - 496.9760 + FAX 858- 496 -9758 CWE 2040289.05 October 20, 2004 Page No. 2 2) The Geotechnical Engineer needs to address the following. See following. 3) Recommendations of construction and placement of the shoring including method for testing of tied -back anchors. See attached report (reference No. 3 above). 4) Method or recommendations for monitoring the movement of the excavations. See attached report (reference No 3 above). 5) Recommendations for the need for dewatering temporary and permanent means. Our geotechnical report (reference No. 1 above) estimated that the groundwater table would be at an elevation of approximately 50 feet. At the time the report was prepared, the site plan providing the on -site elevations was not completed and no information was provided on the actual site elevation. Based on a review of the site grading plan now available and the depth of the groundwater observed in Boring B -2, it appears that perched ground water will be encountered in the northeast portion of the site, where the proposed excavation is the lowest, at an elevation of about 52 feet. This is about 1.5 feet higher than the lowest portion of the excavation of the parking garage, which is proposed as 50.55 feet, and about six inches lower than the lowest portion of the garage floor slab. It can be noted that the groundwater was perched within die lower three feet of the sandy terrace deposits, which overlies silty clays of the Delmar Formation. Boring B -1 encountered die perched groundwater at an elevation of about 53 feet in the southwest portion of the site. The lowest elevation for die garage excavation will be about elevation 53 feet and the lowest elevation for die floor slab elevation will be about 54.47 feet. Based on the above information, we expect that there will be some perched groundwater exposed in the parking garage elevation and in the footing excavations. Thus, there will be a need to provide for dewatering during the construction of the subterranean parking garage. Since the groundwater will be below the slab elevations, it appears that a permanent dewatering system will not be necessary. Based on the close proximity of the water to the floor slab, the architect should determine if any special waterproofing would be required for the underside of the slab and perimeter walls. It may also be advisable to add an additive to the lower concrete floor slab to reduce the permeability of the concrete. 6) The soils report needs to address the depth of the excavation for the garage. The soils report anticipated excavations up to 20 feet Shoring plans have excavations greater than 35 feet. The water encountered in the explorations was encountered at 27 feet. When the CWE 2040289.05 October 20, 2004 Page No. 3 geotechnical report was prepared, there were no plans to indicate that the garage excavation would extend to die depth that is shown on the grading and excavation plans and the shoring plan. However, since the excavation will be shored and tie -back anchors will be installed to support the lateral loads on the shoring's soldier piles, it is our opinion that the excavation can be made as planned. It is further our opinion that the shoring system proposed will safely support the excavation, and that it is unlikely that any distress will occur to the adjacent properties or public right -of -way due to the planned garage excavation. In regards to the groundwater, see our previous response to Item #5. 7) The soils consultant should address dewatering or water issues which may occur. As discussed in Item #5, the lower few feet of the excavation for the subterranean garage and the footing excavations at die bottom of the garage excavation will encounter a perched water condition. The top of the perched water is expected be below the finish floor slab elevation. As previously stated, it will likely be necessary to provide for some dewatering during the construction of the lower level of the subterranean garage. However, we do not anticipate the need for any permanent dewatering system. At this time, it is our opinion that designing the structure and garage lower floor slab for hydrostatic pressure will not be necessary. However, the structural engineer may want to consider some minor hydrostatic pressures on the walls and lower floor slab and the architect may want to consider the waterproofing issues. 8) All grading, shoring, and foundations plans should be reviewed and wet stamped by the geotechnical engineer. We have reviewed the grading plan, shoring plans and the foundation plans for the proposed office building. We will be happy to wet stamp such plans under the heading of "Reviewed by ". 9) All grading, shoring and foundations should be observed and properly tested by the geotechnical engineer. The grading will be limited to making the excavation for the subterranean parking garage and possibly some minor grading along the front of the building. We recommend that the excavation be periodically observed by our project geologist to verify that the soil and geologic conditions are as anticipated in the preparation of our geotechnical report. The installation of the shoring for the excavation should also be observed by the geotechnical consultant to verify that the soldier piles and tie -back anchors are installed as per the plans and our recommendations. Further, all footing excavations for the building should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant. CWE 2040289.05 October 20, 2004 Page No. 4 10) An as built report prepared by the consultant after the grading and construction must be submitted to the city for review. The report must include the results of all compaction tests, soldier piles, anchor testing, as well as a map depicting the limits of the overexcavation, observed geologic conditions, locations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, and the locations and elevations of all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. An as -built report will be prepared by the geotechnical consultant after the grading and construction to verify that our recommendations have been complied with and that the shoring and foundations were constructed as per our recommendations. This report will include the results of all compaction tests performed in fill, retaining wall backfill and utility trench backfill and a plan showing their location. The report will also include a summary of the geologic observation made of the excavation, the installation of the soldier piles and the installation and testing of the tie -back anchors. No overexcavation is expected to be necessary at this time; however, if any is performed, we will provide a plan showing the limits of the overexcavation. We anticipate that the retaining wall subdrains will be connected to the builduig sump, constructed at the lower level of die parking garage. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING �`' H. Ci ! ci` Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 z cc: (1) Submitted U No. GE215 z rZmn Exp.9 -30 -05 (2) Gafcon: Mike Clark * �k �J. (2) Pasco Engineering, Inc.: Larry Pitkin q�orCAl1E0��\Q (1) Schultz Architecture: Ted Schultz (1) Burkett and Wong: Keith Mountain CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING August 30, 2004 BWA Financial, LLC CWE 2040289.03 1735 Westminster Drive Cardiff, California 92007 SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL SHORING DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS, PROPOSED KLAWITER EXECUTIVE P LAZA,_ 1953 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Reference: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Klawiter Executive Plaza, 1953 San Elijo Avenue, Encinitas, California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering, dated May 11, 2004. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Na. Russ Eamshaw, we have prepared this report to provide additional recommendations for shoring at the proposed project. We understand that shoring with a height of up to about 20 feet is proposed that will require the use of tieback anchors. The following presents our recommendations for the design of tieback shoring. SHORING OF TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS SHORING DESIGN AND LATERAL PRESSURES: For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that retained soils having a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Cantilevered shoring is normally limited to excavations that do not exceed approximately 15 feet in depth in order to limit the deflection at the tops of the soldier piles. For heights of shoring greater than about 15 feet, the use of tieback or braced shoring is recommended. For the design of tied back braced shoring, we recommend the use of a trapezoidal distribution of earth pressure. The recommended pressure distribution for the case where the grade is level behind the shoring is similar to that recommended for walls below grade except that the maximum lateral pressure should be taken as 28n pounds per square foot, where (I-I) is the height of the shoring in feet. 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858 -496 -9760 + FAX 858- 496 -9758 CWE 2040289.03 August 30, 2004 Page No. 2 In addition to the recommended earth pressure, die upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets should be designed to resist an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot on all sides adjacent to streets to account for the effects of the adjacent street traffic. However, if the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. DESIGN OF SOLDIER PILES: Soldier piles should be spaced no closer than three diameters, center to center. The allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the sods below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 700 pounds per square foot per foot of depth from the excavated surface. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile that is below the planned excavation level should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed passive loads to the surrounding soils. The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of tie -back anchor loads where approved. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.50. This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean -mix concrete, and between the lean-mix concrete and the retained earth. In addition, the soldier piles below the excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. The frictional resistance between the concrete encased soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 800 pounds per square foot. LAGGING: Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. The soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will likely be less due to arching in the soils between the soldier piles. We recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi - circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 300 pounds per square foot at the mid -point between soldier piles, and negligible at the soldier piles. Timber lagging may be used between the soldier piles to support the exposed soils. If lagging is to be left in- place, treated lumber should be used. If possible, structural walls should be cast directly against the shoring to eliminate the need for backfilling of a narrow space. Special provisions for wall drainage and waterproofing, such as the use of a prefabricated composite drain, should be used where the structural walls are cast directly against the shoring. ANCHOR DESIGN: Tieback friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads on the shoring soldier beams. For preliminary design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is CWE 2040289.03 August 30, 2004 Page No. 3 defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees from the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. The anchors should extend at least 20 feet beyond the potential active wedge; this provision is to provide global stability for the shored wall as opposed to adequate friction for the anchors. For preliminary design purposes, it may be estimated that if conventional drilled post - tension grouted anchors are used, the average friction may be assumed to be 800 pounds per square foot. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge should be used in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on centers, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action. In no event should the anchors extend less than the minimum length beyond the potential active wedge as given above. The designer should be aware that the vertical component of the total anchor load will act as a downward load on the shoring system. ANCHOR INSTALLATION: The anchors may be installed at angles of approximately 15 to 20 degrees below the horizontal. This variation is provided in order to avoid conflicts with utility lines in the street areas. The angle of inclination should be as little as possible to provide the maximum horizontal resistance. Except for possible localized water seepage, the anchors are not expected to extend below water table. We recommend that a qualified contractor be contracted to install the anchors. The anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip out, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge plane. To minimize chances of caving, we suggest that the portion of anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand or slurry tight and flush with the face of the excavation. As an alternate the anchor rod may be sheathed to the surface of the shoring and grouted full depth with concrete. ANCHOR TESTING: Since the actual load- carrying capacity of tieback anchors will depend on various site - specific factors, the tieback capacity should be verified by load testing. Prior to the installation of the production anchors, the geotechnical consultant shall select at least two tieback anchors for load testing. A load shall be placed in four equal increments on the anchors up to 200% of the design load. The maximum load shall be held for 24- hours. At least six additional production anchors will be selected for a similar "quick" 200% load tests to confirm the friction values assumed for design. If satisfactory tests are not achieved on the initial anchors, the anchor diameter and /or length should be increased until satisfactory test results are achieved. All production anchors should be pre- tested to at least 150 percent of their design capacity. The anchor tests should be performed in accordance with the Post - Tensioning Institute procedures and their acceptance criteria should be used to determine if the anchors are acceptable. Christian Wheeler Engineering should be retained to observe the tieback anchor installation and testing of the completed anchors. The shoring contractor should provide all appropriate testing equipment, including CWE 2040289.03 August 30, 2004 Page No. 4 properly calibrated hydraulic jacking equipment, pressure gauges, and dial gauges for measuring tieback anchor movement. All anchor testing shall be performed under die observation of our firm. DEFLECTION: It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that, with properly designed and installation of the shoring, this deflection will be less than about one inch at the top of the shoring. It is our opinion that this magnitude of deflection will not be detrimental to the underground utilities and other improvements in the streets surrounding the subject project. If greater deflections occur during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to reduce settlement of any adjacent structures or of utilities in the adjacent streets and driveways. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater lateral earth pressure could be used in the shoring design. MONITORING: A means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of the soldier piles at horizontal intervals of approximately 50 feet. We will be pleased to discuss dais further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, ���ES H. C.y 9 ' ¢ l F �� CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING u v No. GE215 z m Exp 9 -30 -05 \� cP � Charles H. Christian, RGE # 00215 OFCAbl CHC:scc cc: (2) Submitted (1) Gafcon, 701 `B" Street, San Diego, California 92101; Attention: Russ Eamshaw (1) Flores Lund Consultants; via facsimile (858) 566 -0627; Attention: Raymond Flores PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 FAX (858) 259 -4812 WAYNE A. PASCO R.C.E. 29577 HYDROLOGY STUDY For KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA V City f Y Encinitas, CA SEP 32404 ENGINEERING SERVICES City of Encinitas Work Project No.: 03 -023 DR/CDP /EIA. CITY of ENCINITAS City of Encinitas Grading Drawing #: PREPARED FOR: REINER KLAWITER 1735 WESTMINSTER DRIVE CARDIFF,CA 92007 (760) 612 -9833 DATE: September 2, 2004 A. C IO O� cu No. 29577 Lu °C Exp. 3/31/07 zo 7k � � CiV{L a � ®F CALIF GJ a�-U 3 WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 DATE \ \ServeNob files\Hyd rol ogy & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:30 PM 9/3/2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Existing Conditions 1.2 Proposed Project 1.3 Hydrologic Unit Contribution 1.4 Post - Developed Anticipated Pollutants 1.5 Summary of Results and Conditions 1.6 Conclusions 1.7 Methodology 2.0 Introduction 2.1 County of San Diego Criteria 2.2 City of Encinitas Standards 2.3 Hydrology Model Output 3.0 Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.1 Post - Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.2 Attachments 4.0 Isopluvial Maps Runoff Coefficients Existing Condition Hydrology Map (pocket) Proposed Condition Hydrology Map (pocket) \ \ServeNob files\Hydrology & Hydra ulics \1286F Klawiter\1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction This Hydrology Study, for the Klawiter Executive Plaza, has been prepared to analyze the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the existing and proposed project site. This report intends to present both the methodology and the calculations used for determining the runoff from the project site in both the pre - developed (existing) conditions and the post- developed (proposed) conditions produced by the 100 year 6 hour storm. 1.2 Existing Conditions The project site is located in Cardiff by the Sea, and is bound by San Elijo Ave to the west, commercial development to the north and east, and a fast food restaurant to the south. The subject property is physically located along the easterly side easterly side of San Elijo Ave, as shown on the vicinity map below. canta FA Dr ivo m u CU ti O Cl � d C CC p CZ C tv 3rm S� • � b3 ro �" a a ` n � s PA P G ,� o c WUNTITY NEAP NTS \ \Server\job files \Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter\1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 The existing, essentially rectangular shaped, project site is currently is occupied by two restaurant establishments. The existing parcel consists of hardscape, five structures — two of which are restaurants, and the other three are one story structures, open space with minimal landscaping along the street frontage, and a single block wall approximately 45 in length is located between the two primary structures (the restaurants) The drainage characteristics of the site consist primarily of sheet flow from the east to the west, which ultimately discharges into San Elijo Ave. Eventually the drainage from the site reaches the San Elijo Lagoon about a quarter mile away. 1.3 Proposed Project The intent of proposed projects is to develop the existing site into a multi - level, multi -use executive plaza. The proposed development consists of grading to create a pad suitable for the construction of the multi -level structure including two levels of underground parking, associated underground utilities, the construction of a concrete drive leading to the below ground parking levels, the construction of retaining walls for the patios and numerous landscaped planters as well as two water features. The underground construction will require full build out of the lot, essentially creating an underground concrete structure with the two above ground levels of the multi -use plaza and attractive hardscaped, landscaped and featured open space to be built upon it. With this design hydrology becomes a significant factor in the construction logistics of this project. Dealing with storm water is a significant concern and a great deal of effort has gone into incorporating a sustainable storm drain system into the design of this project. All rainfall intercepted by the roof of the structure will be piped internally to the basement ( -2 level). The runoff from the ground level and from the trench drains across the proposed driveway and walkway areas shall be directed to the basement level ( -2 level). Storm water from both the roof and ground level, once piped down to the basement level will be treated in a storm water quality treatment device, pumped back to the surface and discharged into San Elijo Ave via D -27 sidewalk underdrains. Area drains located in the landscaped planter areas will intercept storm water runoff from collected planters and convey it also via D -27 sidewalk underdrains into San Elijo Ave. Storm water runoff and other runoff from all covered areas, particularly the basement garage levels, will be conveyed through internal piping to the -2 level. This water is of particular concern with regards to pollution and water quality due to its direct association with vehicle use and spills. Because of the great potential of this water to impact water quality most adversely, this water will be treated in an oil /grease separator and then filtered through an approved hydrocarbon filter. After the two stage treatment this water will be pumped back \ \Server\job files \Hydrology & Hydra ulics \1286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 up to an elevation suitable to be discharged via gravity into the public sanitary sewer system. 1.4 Hydrologic Unit Contribution As identified by the San Diego Basin Plan, the proposed project site drains within Escondido Creek Watershed, specifically San Elijo Lagoon Hydrologic Sub Area (904.61). See Table 2 -2 & 2 -5 attachment "A ". According to the California 1998 and 2002 CWA 303d list published by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, there are impaired water bodies that are associated with the San Elijo Lagoon. The pollutants and stressors listed include bacterial indicators, eutrophic, and sedimentation and siltation. The bacterial indicators are most likely the result of water fowl and migrating bird species that make the lagoon a nesting and foraging areas. The eutrophic condition is most likely the combination of upstream degradation of water quality primarily from the direct discharge of agricultural runoff into streams and other tributaries, and the additional oxygen depletion due sedimentation and siltation. The sedimentation and siltation is potentially the result of numerous point and non -point sources as well as the topographic nature of the outletting channel, in particular the sediment transport and erosion of our coastal beaches, a natural process. Drainage from the site ultimately discharges to the Pacific Ocean at the ocean outfall of San Elijo Lagoon, but the site does not directly discharge into the lagoon itself. The path of discharge from the pre - developed and post - developed is as follows: initially discharged into San Elijo Ave, conveyed in the gutter to a curb inlet, conveyed in a MS4 storm drain and discharged into the lagoon. 1.5 Post - Developed Anticipated Pollutants The proposed project will most closely resemble the anticipated pollutants associated with commercial developments. Table 4.3 included at the end of this section, illustrates the pollutant categories typically associated with various categories of development. In this case the commercial development priority project category has been highlighted to illustrate the pollutant categories that will be addressed by the post- construction BMPs proposed for this project. Pollutants of concern, listed in Table 4.3, are grouped in the following categories: Sediment — sediment is defined as rock or soil particles that characterized as materials that are susceptible to erosion and are then transported and or deposited by wind, water, ice, or gravity. Sediment becomes a condition of concern when the concentration of sediment in a liquid causes the turbidity (concentration of suspended solids in a liquid) to increase. The potential results of high turbidity in our rivers, streams, and other receiving waters include the \ \Server\job files\Hydrology & Hydra ulics \1286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 reduction of spawning habitat, smothering bottom dwelling organisms, the suppression of aquatic vegetative growth, and fish kills due to clogging of fish gills. Nutrients — nutrients are defined as substances that an organism must obtain from its surroundings for growth and the sustainment of life. Nutrients are typically inorganic substances, which are most commonly found as mineral salts such as nitrogen and phosphorous. The primary sources of nutrients in urban runoff are eroded soils and fertilizers. High concentrations of nutrients can result in loss of dissolved oxygen in water, the release of toxins from sediment, decay of organic matter at an accelerated rate all which can be detrimental to aquatic life. Another result of the discharge of nutrients to receiving water is excessive aquatic plant and algae growth, which is also defined as eutrophication. Metals — metals are defined as chemical elements that are various opaque, fusible, ductile, and typically lustrous substances; which are good conductors of electricity and heat, form cations by loss of electrons, and yield basic oxides and hydroxides. Metals of concern are lead, copper, mercury, zinc, chromium and cadmium. Primary sources of metals of concern are raw materials that are constituents of non -metal products such as adhesives, paints, other coatings and fuels. High metal concentrations in storm water can interfere with reproduction and be toxic to aquatic organisms and other wild life. Organic Compounds — organic compounds are defined as a carbon -based substance consisting of two or more chemical elements. The organic compounds of concern typically originate from pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, solvents and hydrocarbons. These substances usually adhere to sediment and grease and at high concentrations result in health hazards to all forms of life. Trash and Debris — trash and debris are defined as substances such as paper, plastics, food and or yard wastes that have been haphazardly discarded. Trash and debris can be forms of organic matter and the degradation of which can result in a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Water with a high concentration of BOD result in low water quality and in worst case scenarios can result in septic conditions. Oxygen Demanding Substances — oxygen demanding substances are defined as anything that can be oxidized in the receiving water with the consumption of dissolved molecular oxygen. These materials are usually biodegradable organic matter but also include certain inorganic compounds. The consumption of dissolved oxygen (DO) poses a threat to higher forms of aquatic life that must have oxygen to survive. The levels at which the DO concentration becoming threatening to aquatic life varies drastically between various species. \1Server\job files \Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter11286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 Oil and Grease — oil and grease are defined as organic compounds with high molecular weight. Primary sources of oil and grease as pollutants of concern are motor oils, waxes, and fats and grease from restaurants and food processing operations. High concentrations of oil and grease result in low water quality as well as poor water aesthetics. Table 4.3 - Anticipated and Potential Pollutants from the Project Area General Pollutant Categories Priority Trash Oxygen Bacteria Project Heavy Organic & Demanding Oil & & Categories Sediments Nutrients Metals Compounds Debris Substances Grease Viruses Pesticides Detached Residential X X X X X X X Development Attached Residential X X X P P (Z) P X Development Commercial Development P P P (z) X P (5) X p(3) p(5) >100,000 ft Automotive Repair X Xc4x5) X X Shops Restaurants X X X X Hillside Development X X X X X X >5,000 ft Parking Lots P P X X P X p Streets, Highways & X P X X (4) X P (5) X Freeways Retail Gas Outlets X X�4� X X X = anticipated P = potential (1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on -site. (2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas. (3) A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products. (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons. (5) Including solvents. \ \Server\job files \Hydrology & Hydra ulics\1 286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 1.5 Summary of Results and Conditions The existing peak discharge from the site is 1.29 cfs, and is associated with a time of concentration (Tc) of 7.31 minutes and a total area of 0.43 acres. The post - developed condition peak discharge is 1.83 cfs, and is associated with a Tc of 7.66 minutes and the same total area as the existing conditions. Therefore the development will increase the peak discharge from the 100 -year 6 hour storm by 0.54 cfs. 1.6 Conclusions The proposed development and proposed storm drain design will be capable of not only safely conveying the 100 -year storm runoff flow, but has included many instruments into the storm drain system design to ensure that the discharge from the project site is the best possible quality and will not poise any significant impact or threats to the water quality of the San Elijo Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean, or the public storm drain system. In addition the proposed development and storm drain design will not significantly alter the existing drainage patterns. The increase in storm water runoff to the existing curb and gutter will not create an increase in potential for flooding or create an increase in erosion. The peak discharge determined in post - developed conditions is a conservative number since the majority of the drainage from the site will be collected, conveyed to -2 level, treated and then pumped back out to the street. This process will take attenuate the discharge. In addition the peak discharge from the proposed project site will not be a function of simply calculating the tributary area of the site and modeling it with its associated runoff coefficients and intensity, but more a function of the pumping system and its associated piping. It is with these above reasons that it can be concluded that there will be no impact to the downstream storm drain facilities or an increased potential of flooding. Since a major goal of this project is to ensure that all storm water quality issues are addressed to the maximum extent practical, the peak discharge for the proposed site will be utilized to adequately size the components of the storm drain system for this project. In particular the peak discharge as modeled by this report, will be relied upon to ensure that the treatment devices will be sized adequately to ensure that not only the 85 percentile runoff flow and volume are treated, but a flow much greater than the first flush condition. \ \ServeNob files\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 1.7 References "San Diego County Hydrology Manual, revised June 2003, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section. "Drainage Design Manual, City of San Diego, April 1984, addendum March 1989. "Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance /Chapter"; City of Encinitas, Engineering Services and Community Development Department, revised November 2002. \ \Server\job files\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter\1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 h W W V) 0- z • • • U CCQCl- w • J • • • • • • • • • • • > m 10 U O J O • • • • • • • • • • • a Y Y Co 4 Q M • N N • • • • • • • N • • N • a 04 m ? N N ffi ' w y 9 a Q c O J w H F F ► . w cc w m d m T W X W U N m • Y 6 m • • • • • • • • • • c c o 2 J J J J a E a >� 06 66 ca ca Q w > • • • • • • • • • • ` • o U u' Z Z Z u c w LLJ ci • m m m cn V w 2 W g c m LL Cr CA 2 C( to ) a T O L a L O U m � d W O C) • • • • • • • L cn _ = Q — z O O o o O • • • • • • • o Z m a 0D Q C9 d' • • • • • • • • • • • n W N a �' � c J o z gDz • • • • • • • • • • • m m IZ LL O M Cl) N N N �t M M M M N N N m Z3 Z .t0 CO CO w cc 0 w LA LO Lo ko U b U 0 u L6 L6 L6 6 L6 L6 L6 L6 tri o T CD C ' w = m 3 m C N .- N D J a L CD w a z w ° � ' y A O L m w•V Y Y C o Y l6 co W Y Y Y m Y U L C C 3- 47 y C m G m •- ` O C C o U o c U U V > U U U Y C) U �+ m N u) °� v o ° x_ �° ° o m a� �' m c m m U 0 3 O 9 :o o o m C) a 'a f0 O o m m o o r u�i v O ` p v = C N � m m cc w N w m 1 z U a m x o W w w-j -_A w w m :° C) m :° m m w a G G D C C C U) VJ y (n co co U) J • � N U N LL m w F m a o� rn m E 0 fi 0 o = � r c G O q O L r � C T O a cc 3 J m W 4 Q Q ��oCCn= m ° m c `o ° 0 > c 0 Of a U L V 2 2 O °p O �w — zo • O • • • • • ma g rm z z m g� s = mQ�¢ • 0 • • • • • r m m O N.1 C T O 0 O z • 0 • ••• 0 V O O �- e- N CO O �-- N CO c o V e ° o g C O Un Un to to Lq R tD 0 �D to 4 LL. o r O O m o ¢ 0 v" _ t 0 a O E m o W 15 0 3 0 -0 3 ,. q c n n n > >, a O p a t N CD N N N -0 O 10 .G Q O m O Q m O ? N J Q U) N N cn Q C/3 (n m Q x m 4 c 3 Q m 2= 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 m 3 c m m _U o Y 1° 'L 7 O m Q m W V • ° = Y > C N 3 c ° m o a 0 z z T o o -- c�3 .c 4 u W n o r n 0 c c — 0 n m m a �m o 0 0 0 W U 0 o c Z G L o 0 0 c° E c E o c C m e 0 U) D n ° N = o 0O W AA♦♦ df N Y O L m -0 m U U O 7 C y IM o //W Q 'O m O p � p m T c L m c Y mod' ii m W 7 7 co O -p u G a m n m _> o Q _ to cn Q Q L C C O m vmi m t m c a O cc c m v 3 v m 0 e r r c °° m L mm 0 R x o m w Q m m m F fd N W J �..' �, F F - F 3 O W IL Z LJJ 1� LLJ cv �, • O 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this report utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, Q =CIA. The RM formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (1) is equal to: = 7.44xP xD -0.64-5 Where: I = Intensity (in /hr) P6 = 6 -hour precipitation (inches) D = duration (minutes — use Tc) Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed. The RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow (typically in cubic feet per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons per minute (gpm)). The RM equation is as follows: Q =CIA Where: Q= flow (in cfs) C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff (runoff vs. infiltration /evaporation /absorption /etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area, in inches per hour. A = drainage area contributing to the basin in acres. The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number. 2.2 County of San Diego Criteria As defined by the County Hydrology Manual dated June 2003, the rational method is the preferred equation for determining the hydrologic characteristics of basins up to approximately one square mile in size. The County of San Diego has developed its own tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing storm water runoff for areas within the county. The County has also developed precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100 -year, 6 -hour storm). 11ServeNob files\Hydrology & Hydra ulics11286F Klawiter11286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient, C. The runoff coefficient is dependent only upon land use and soil type and the County of San Diego has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied to basin located within the County of San Diego. The table categorizes the land use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated runoff coefficient, C, for each soil type class. The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths under 100 feet, and is dependent on land use and slope. 2.3 City of Encinitas Standards The City of Encinitas has additional requirements for hydrology reports which are outlined in the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Please refer to this manual for further details. \ \Server\job files\ Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter\1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 3.0 HYDROLOGY MODEL OUTPUT 3.1 Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output \ \Server\job files \Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 858- 259 -8212 phone 858 - 259 -4812 fax + * + # # # * # + # * + * + * + * # # # + + # +#* DESCRIPTION OF STUDY # + # + + * # # + + * # * + * # + + * + * # * # *+ * 100 -YEAR 6 -HOUR STORM HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF: * * KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA - EXISTING CONDITIONS * PE 1286 FILE NAME: C: \AES- DATA \1286 \100- PRE.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 00:39 09/03/2004 ------------------------- ------------------------------------ -- USER - SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER - DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) - - - (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0 .018 /0.018 /0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)* (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* - - FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------- ------------------------ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): - SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 84.02 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 81.28 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.74 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.818 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/ HOUR) = 5.393 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.61 -- FLOW - PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 52 ------------------------------ ----------- -- - - - - -- » »>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 81.28 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 76.83 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 95.15 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0468 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.61 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 3.24 (PER LACFCD /RCFCSWCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.49 Tc(MIN.) = 7.31 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 195.15 FEET. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH /HOUR) = 5.157 *USER SPECIFIED (SUBAREA): SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29 TC(MIN) = 7.31 --------------- -- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 TC(MIN.) = 7.31 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.29 ------------------- - - - - -- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 3.2 Post - Developed Hydrologic Model Output \ \Server\job files\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1286F Klawiter \1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 858- 259 -8212 phone 858- 259 -4812 fax * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * + # * + * * * + + * # # +* * 100 -YEAR 6 -HOUR HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF: * KLAWITER EXECUTIVE PLAZA - PROPOSED CONDITIONS * PE 1286 + FILE NAME: C: \AES- DATA \1286 \100- PRO.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 00:45 09/03/2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)* (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< - - --------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 75.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 80.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 79.75 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 0.95 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.034 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.43 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 79.75 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 76.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 183.34 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0172 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.50 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.001 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.13 .TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.84 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.66 Tc(MIN.) = 7.66 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.83 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.09 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 258.34 FEET. ----------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.43 TC(MIN.) = 7.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.83 ------------------ - - - - -- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 4.0 ATTACHMENTS \ \ServeNob files\Hydrology & Hydraulics11286F Klawiter\1286 HYDRO- 01.doc PE # 1236 3:21 PM 9/3/2004 Gun -t F34 IL -' — w al c � V) V1 V) h N V1 V1 V' V O0 OO O0 h M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O aO O � U � G U N � � w [- O O1 OO o0 r• r OG O0 O0 ' N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z. t U U W N oo -. -- v oo c - t- r- U N 00 o0 W O p Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O C y O c 71 c��J • C r O I- -q 00 V1 V) (, OG Q0 OO OC U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^O HE C- O O V) O O V1 O kn O ° V1 O O Vn u U G O N N M V V V) ZO o0 w oC C, C, C1 44- 4: F" 0-.4 CO y n 0" C W y = °' c n O U c 0 0 t. U ai N O O O O O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q U � � � � U b c r Q A Q A Q Q o N O O Q\ M M O V' M � � cc cs r cd cd cs as cs c: `, U � G C a �• C C G G C C G C C G C13 ai V U U ai ai a a a a 0 o is c c , _ o r ' aw � r a� U _ U ° a�i cs ca ca a vi <U v 5 r z C7 O "IZ3 b y o v -o - rx P� c)� v m ;, a y a a a a o 4 > nn r m m � z S a o O � U a a a a .�' .' cc r. ca cu aOi •y 'y '� Q Q Q d aCi ', '� '� ' c^ac aCi b b Z Q Q Q ? a a a Q Q c > cc Q cs c o 0 0 0 o o 0 p o° v) Cl .] .a -S x U U U U U* 0 .- Q z Y f m � ti 0 z D ( U7 < F m o � o n m j L,; m m f n ry 4 On�U -i zn ►-► m -, r' �-+ 'T1 Ut Z -b, n O L co -iZC) r �- , m jo=cno 33 ommm© C o (na -, Z O r`o2m3 " i ; CD W C) ►- , � = ro ° m m•tO .� z $:. .. , H N n 2 } r n x Cn �� z ni cn p C-) 1 m lco x z � m C) rn 1_ m LAJ N) (n - rz 0 on rn � Z co r..tr ° o Tj D � o � o c� rn �` � � o w i N w n /^� 4� ti 0 i w cn i 0 0 rn a m m R m CD ru m N 0 PASCO ENGINEERING 1858) 259 -8212 535 N. FfWY i01, STE . A qn► ANA RFArN rn 4an7;� rn ti { n 1 O i k r ,j E z� m z �a SAN ELUO AVENUE m 0 3 � � m Ln _ rrl - m . m c�vonc M Z Q) ° c Oorcn'Z r` Z W Z N N 27 28'00" W 60.02' ` "G) N 27 28'00 60.02 Z1- m - Ti o ----------------------- ■------------------- --� - -- M --rr cn titi nom cn 1 r no m�zzm / z' o m Z o -jwo � - ru m rrl' / U) 1 / i < 2 � 0 N 1 i n z r n r / z / v) i Ka w i O N 1 1 � Q) / o Ka rrl rn f f (f) �G i� Z n m 1 t � D C) C rTl a ;� 1 t rT m C) 1 x Z m o f 1 om a t f I ti °lo ° o / 1 o � � Q) ----------------------- --- - -� ,os 3 jT,ezZz S .�tiI m g x o r o m < Zo -- n � o Lo i w b ;�► rn Lyl n 4j ` 1 d n �b 2 0 w 0 Q d m V m 0 N °° R , z o PASCO ENGINEERING (858) 259 -8212 535 N. F WY 101, STE . A qni ANA RFArH re QP07r-i NoText NoText