Loading...
2001-7254 G/I ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement mprovement Projects 1=T c nZtas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering March 23, 2005 Traffic Engineering Attn: Gulf Insurance Group 110 W. A Street Suite 1805 San Diego, California 92101 RE: Wastal, Randy 2211 Encinitas Boulevard CDP 01-066 Grading Permit 7254-G Final release of security Pen-nit 7254-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the one-year warranty inspection. Therefore, a release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond B3 4223532, in the remaining amount of$44,750.00, is hereby released in entirety. The original bond amount was $187,560.00. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher Senior Civil Engineer Vinance Le ach Manager Financial Service Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Randy Wastal Debra Geishart File Enc. ,i,'nir.s r Alto:1 a - n ,n / ENGINEERING SER V ICES DEPARTMENT City of Capital Improvement Projects EYwin tas District Support pp rt Services Field Oper Sand Rep)enishment/Stormw ter Coomplian es Subdivision Engineering March 30, 2004 Traffic Engineering Attn: Gulf Insurance Group 110 W. A Street Suite 1805 San Diego, California 92101 RE: Wastal, Randy 2211 Encinitas Boulevard CDP 01-066 Grading Permit 7254-G Final release of security Permit 7254-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control all n eeded to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the r improvements and initiates the beginning of the one-year warrant g admg and improvements. Therefore, a reduction of the security deposit is eriited d for the Performance Bond B3 4223532, in the amount of$187,560.00, is hereby $44,750.00. The document original will be kept until the bond is released Y educed n the one-year warranty inspection has been approved, in entirety and Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. (760) 633- Sine ely, Mas� % th Maher Senior Civil Engineer y L bach Finance Manager Financial Service Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Randy Wastal Debra Geishart File Enc. TEI. 760-633-2600 i FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper BARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023-0348 (760) 753-9940 July 21 , 1998 Marino Construction 4405 Manchester Ave. Suite 106 Encinitas , California 92024 Att: Mr. Randy Wastal Subject: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Two Story Office Building 2211 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas , California 92024 Dear Mr. Wastal , In response to your request, we have geotechnical investigation at the ubjecptes to fora the proposed Office buildings . Preliminary P posed The findings of the investigation, n laboratory test r this re g and foundation design results and recommendations for gradi. gn are presented in Port From a gntechnical point of view, is suitable for the it is our opinion that the site recommendations in this repor�paredimplem nted Burin and construction Provided the phase . g the design If you have any questions , please contact us at (760) 753- Respectfully submitted, 9940 . A.R. BARRY ASSOCIATES GFESS�p�,I ��Q �O�RT R. A.R. Barry, P. E. Q �L��, coo119 Principal En pine r w z Exp. 3/31/02 m -a cF � 9TFOF CAL1F���\P PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 2 story Office Bldg. 2211 Encinitas Blvd Encinitas, California 92024 Prepared For Marino Construction 4405 Manchester Avenue, Suite 106 Encinitas , California 920247 July 21 , 1998 W.O. P-1581 Prepared By: A.R. BARRY AND ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas , CA 92023-0348 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION„ • • . • • • _ • • • • • . • • • • - SITE CONDITIONS. " ' • - • • • . . . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . ' • . . • � • • " • " " ' • • • • • . . . . 2 SITE INVESTIGATION. , • • ' • • � • • • • " " ' • • • • • • . . • LABORATORY TESTING. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • , • . • GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS. . , , • . • • • • • ' • " " • • • • . . 3 A. SOIL. • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. EXPANSIVE SOIL. . . . . . . . . . . , " • . . . . . . : . . . . . . 3 C. GROUNDWATER. , " " " • • • • • . . D. LIQUEFACTION. • " • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ­ , . 4 A. GENERAL. • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. GRADING. . ' • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. FOUNDATIONS. " • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. SLABS ON GRADE. . . . , • • ••: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 E. RETAINING WALL. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 F. DRIVEWAY. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • . • G. DRAINAGE. • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. FOOTING INSPECTION „ • • • . . " • • • • • • • • � • � " " " ' • • 7 I. PLAN REVIEW. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIMITATIONS. • • " ' • ' • • � � • " ' • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • " • . . . 8 APPENDIX APPENDICES A. . „ . • • • .VICINITY MAP SITE PLC (SHOWING APPENDIX B„ LOCATION OF TEST - • • •GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PITS) July 21, 1998 W•O• #P-1581 INTRODUCTION Page 2 This report Presents the results investi Of our Preliminary geotechnical gation. The purpose of and characteristics of this study is to evaluate the earth the nature materials underlying the Property and their influence on the proposed 2 story off1Ce building. SITE CONDITIONS The property is located on the south and Candy La west corner of Encinitas Blvd. Slopes Lane in the city of Encinitas, California. The pro e upward from Candy Lane to the P rty Per cent west at an avera for approximately 100 ge rate of 4 approximately 10 feet and graduall Per cent y increases to to the westerl Slope to feet y property line. A fill high forms the northerly Property Property is vacant and vegetation line. The grass. consists of local weeds and PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plan for the project are being Prepared by M Architect r• Steve Shackelton, and provides for a 2 story wood frame office 9 and o building with covered Parking parking, SITE INVESTIGATION Two backhOe trenches were excavated to a maximum depth Earth materials of 10 feet. encountered were visually classified and logged by July 21, 1998 W• O• #P-1581 our field engineer. Page 3 Bulk samples were obtained and transported to our laborator Y for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified throu examination in accordance with gh laboratory the System. Unified Soil Classification The final classification is shown on the enclosed Logs GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The soils encountered in trench #1 ne consists ar the westerly of brown to tan Property line fine to medium relatively small amou grained silty sand with a nt of silt. relatively The soil is in general in a loose -state to the #2 at bottom of the excavation. Trench the lowest elevation of the lot near line contains the easterly clayey sand and Property with sandy clay to 5 feet and underlain fine to medium grained sand. Expansive Soil Detrimentally expansive soils were however if encountered in trench #2, mixed with the silty sand at the higher elevations on the lot the potential for expansion o expansion to the mixture will Potential in the low Produce an medium range, July 21, 1998 W.O. #P-1581 Groundwater Page 4 Groundwater was not encountered in ou r test trenches-. Groundwater ,problems are not anticipated during constructio Lctuefact1on n• The soils on the site are not induced considered subject liquefaction due to such factors to seismically Particle size and as soil density,lack of groundwater. y, sand C7----_--'JO—Lul—"6_AINID_RECOM—MM—ENDATIONS Ge The on site soils are suitable for t for the support of the he proposed grading Project and reco Proposed structures, mmendations in this r eport Provided the are implemented grading, and construction Phase. uring the design, se Graff Genes Grading will consist of removal 5 to 6 feet and recompaction of a of loose soil approximately in the building pad. Durin a level building pad will be created, g recompaction shall include 5 feet removal and a minimum area of re-compaction See Gradin beyond the building Specifications, Appendix B g line. Foundation Footings for the proposed should be July 21, 1998 W•O• #P-1581 a minimum of Page inches 5 nches wide and founded grade. Footin a minimum of 18° gs founded a minimum of below designed for 18 below a bearing value grade may be indicated °f 1500 above Psf• The bearin is for the total g value This Y 33 of dead and applied value may be increased b live loads. loading, includin percent for short durations of g the effects of wind and seismic for Resistance to lateral ateral load may be provided b the base of foundations and y friction acting at Of friction 3 passive earth Of 0, Pressure. A coefficient should be used with dead-load for ces. A passive earth pressure of 250 Pounds per square fill penetrated to a foot, per foot maximum of Per depth of design. 1500 pounds should be used in the Steel reinforcement should consist of 4-#4 bars, 2 the bottom of the footin placed 3" from footin g and 2 Placed 2" below the top of the g• As an option 2 #5 bars may be used, one top one bottom. Slabs on rade If slab on grade is Planned it should be a minimum Of 4. 0 inches thick and reinforced in both inches directions with No. 3 bars, on center. The slab be should Placed 18 sand underlain by a minim blanket which incorporates mil um 4-inch moisture a minimum 6. 0-sture barrier in i Visqueen or floors . its center, for moisture Utility trenches sensitive clean sand to at the slab should least one foot be bedded in above the top of the conduit, then s ► July 21 , 1998 aoe #P-1581 ► backfilled g 6 with the on-site granular minimum of 90 materials Percent , compacted ► °f the laborator to a However, sufficient) y maximum Y compacting dry density. or break g the backfill de ► shallow Utility Posits may damage Y lines. Therefore backfill in the trenches - minor settlement is anticipated of the ► reduce the pated in these shallow Possibility of cracks areas. To Provided with ccurring, the slab th additional reinforcement to should be I bridge the trenches. Retainin Walls Retaining walls should be designed in accordance with soil perimeters : the following Soil T Fluid Equivalent Addition al Uniform Unrestrained e (pCF) Walls pressure (pSF) Native Soil Restrained 33 Walls (Level Backfill) 6xH* *H= Height of wall in feet Walls should be adequate) hydrostatic y drained to Pressures , prevent build-up of Footings should be designed in accordance With the preN,ious foundation recommendations. Dr1a� The follow. g recommendations guidelines are submitted for pavement construction Preliminary nstruction and are based expansive soils condition in °n a non- the upper 12" of subgrade. July 21, 1998 W. O. 0-1581 Page 7 AS�halt Concrete The driveway section should consist 4 . 0 inches of of 2. 0 inches Class of asphalt over II base. The Class II base and the upper 12 inches of the subgrade deposits should 95 Percent of the max be compacted to a e laboratory imum dry densit minimum of subgrade should consist y• The upper 12" of non-expansive of Paved areas should soil. Pavement. be protected from moisture migrating under Dr aiQe All roof water should be collected l and conducted location via non-erodible to a suitable devices. Roof Pad water should be directed are reco rected mended. to residence y from foundations a suitable location. and around the french drain Pad water should should be constructed not pond. A installed at around the structure and the lowest elevation of a sump to provide the lot, or regrade the area drainage to encinitas Blvd. drai Footin Ins ections Structural footing excavations representative should be of this inspected by a steel. . firm prior to the placement Of reinforcing July 21, 1998 W-O• #P-1581 Plan Review Page 8 A copy of the final bwilding plans should be submitted ubmitted for review, to this prior to the Additional r initiation of construction. ,recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the responsibility rovision that it is Y of the owner the or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations the project Of given herein to the ' s architects attention incor and/or engineers so that Porated into the plans. they may be If conditions encountered during those described in construction appear to differ this report, our from that we may office should be notified so Y consider whether or not modification responsibility for construction s are needed. No Specifications compliance with design gn or r concepts, on- unless given in this report site review is assumed is construction. performed during the course of The conclusions and recommendations current of this report date. In time aPA1Y as of the however, Changes can whether caused occur on a by acts of man Property Properties. °r nature Additionally, on this or Y, chan adjoining brought ges in professional about by legislation the standards or maY be Consequently, expansion of Y the conclusions knowledge, and recommendations may be rendered wholly or of this Partially report Y invalid by events beyond our -TulY 21, 1998 W.O. #P-1581 control. Th Page 9 This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied u pon after the passage of three years. The professional judgments presented On our assessment herein are founded of the technical Partly understanding of data gathered, the proposed Partly on our general construction and partly on our experience in the geotechnical field. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office at 753-9940. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, A.R. BARRY AND ASSOCIATES �L PROFESSP A.R. Barry. P.E. ����Pe``�TR 'Y�y Principal Engine G00119 < 2 fW m Exp. 3/31/02 ,P>9 OTECHN�GP��P �OFCALIF�� July 21, 1998 W-O• #P-1581 Page 10 TR LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES E_ N +� D CLASSIFICATION TP-1 0-1 . 0 SM DESCRIPTION Tan fine to medium sand, slightly mois grained silty 3. 5 ' -5 ' SM - loose Brown fine to medium sand loose to moderately silty 5 � -10 ' SM Y dense, moist Tan to reddish bro grained silt � fine to medium of Bottom y sand, moderately dense. excavation 10 ' No Groundwater TP-2 0-4., Top SM looseO1l-Black wet silty sand, 4"-2 ' SM Tan fine to medium loose to Moderately silt Y dense Y sand 2 ' -9 , . moist SM Tan to reddish bro grained silt wn Y sand moderately dense. fine to medium Bottom of excavation 9 ' No Groundwater i � PI ::> ENpIX A I i • �` � Y. bts ` A ,Ny Ell 1 �.LIA Y. WrQM)x3 � SlA G, vlA LA f AmAk,n.uvMM3! A WW °s& t aw r '� !f AV t _ IM 1 _13f „13 r = c s cAE57 I CIS�� � "g YIA \� G A VIA ~✓�Q 1 0�.IIY� (ALA tli lam 3 `•yl'oa•#rjf � rl AV $e `■�NI�� E CT E CT l N Cl ♦ �g � R � > M Av rO�A7 • lq 3AV931 YM Ifl y � � � �. '� S NAPDO �5'�.j A K� r AV M I s s Itlas v"me " S r brA, s � +V/1t A •r"' a�a r a rAL V VA �, F.: Lb a VW ql;* vld at 2 t P� • Ar hl •rKt•w v ek rm < .w E Horan v�►%n3,aY9 .�. lTW AV _ f4 •1,i ► i��r 'Al N e . l �� IL6I7tlY15/ to rt `rot ` st ._ EY Av .�V~♦ �l _ J"__-� yk' `�.y9�A3 7gy� �3= �» CEA t t_t 0ry sACP �.�� � 8 tto9>" tst t - awls Soh o �T3F3ra3 ar 5F 1 p,C I I i I I I m I I � I , i cv I I � � I 1p Z r� I � 3NVl AONVO O1 I - , N w o_ a , I Z z — cc u J < a m CL >. a: o 0 o uj z 1 _ 4j j I ? N to _N ,,, Q J I LL vo �_ i '` a -- z ol w ICI W p U cn I LL OI z 1 � ILLI w T I I I Q a_ i a N F. a 0 0 o w , I APF ::> EN [DING � APPENDIX B RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GRADING 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 soil to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report are a part the recommended grading specifications and would supersedef the provisions contained herein in case of conflict. INSPECTION AND TESTING A geotechnical engineer should be employed to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications . It will be necessary that the geotechnical engineer or his representative make adequate observations so that he may provide a memorandum that the work was or was not accomplished as specified. Deviations from these specifications will be permitted only authorization from the geotechnical engineer. I upon written i g responsibility of the contractor to assist the gshould h l the engineer and to keep him apprised Of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide the memorandum to the owner and governmental agency as required. If in the opinion of the geotechnical engineer, substandard conditions such as questionable soil, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.poor moisture control ,are contractor should stop construction until the the remedied. encountered,conditio are Unless otherwise specified, fill material should be compacted by the contractor while near the optimum moisture content to a density that is no less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test No. D1557-78 or other density test methods that will yield equivalent results . CLEARING AND PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All trees , brush, grass and other objectionable material should be collected, piled and burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance , free from unsightly debris . APPENDIX B Page 2 All vegetable matter and objectionable material should be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the fill is to be Placed, and any loose or porous soils should be removed or compacted to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer. The surface should then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 Percent (5 horizontal to 1 vertical) , the original ground should be stepped or benched as shown on the attached plate. Benches should be cut to a firm, competent soil condition. The lower bench should be at least 10 feet wide and all other benches at least 6 feet wide, ground slopes flatter than 20 percent should be benched when considered necessary by the geotechnical engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials for compacted soil should consist of any material imported or excavated from the cut areas that in the opinion of the geotechnical engineer is suitable for use in construction fills. The material should contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in size and should contain at least 40 percent of material smaller than 1/4 inch in size. (Materials greater than 6 inches in size should be placed by the contractor so that they are surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks will be permitted. ) No material of a perishable, spongy or otherwise improper nature should be used in filling. Material placed within 36 inches of rough material that contains no rocks or hard lumps should be select in size and that swells less than 3 p greater than 6 inches specified later herein for compacted feill)ntand esoak d compacted under (an axial pressure of 150 psf. Potentially expansive soils may be used in fills below a depth of 36 inches and should be compacted at a moisture greater than the Optimum moisture content for the material. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING OF FILL Approved material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness . Each layer should 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 to a minimum specified density with adequately sized equipment, either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. Compaction should be continuous over the entire area and the equipment should make APPENDIX B Page 3 sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the fill . When moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the geotechnical engineer, water contractor until the moisture content is �asuspe b fi d ded by the When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill material should be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. The surface of fill slopes should be compacted and there should be no excess loose soil on the slopes. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION Identifying Criteria Group Symbol Soil Description COARSE-GRAINED (more than 50 percent larger than #200 sieve) Gravel (more than 50 percent larger than #4 sieve but GW Gravel, well-graded smaller than three inches) gravel-sand mixture, Non-plastic little or no fines GP Gravel, poorly grad- ed gravel-sand mix- ture, little or no fines GM Gravel, silty, poor- 1Y graded, gravel- sand-silt mixtures GC - Gravel, clayey, Poorly graded, grav- el-sand-clay mixture Sands (more than 50 percent smaller than #4 sieve) SW Sand, well-graded, gravelly sands , little or no fines SP Sand, poorly graded, gravelly sands , little or no fines APPENDIX B Page 4 SM Sand, silty, poorly graded, sand-clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED (more than 50 percent but smaller than #200 sieve) Liquid limit less than 50 ML Silt, inorganic silt and fine sand, sandy silt or clayey-silt- sand mixtures with slight plasticity CL Clay, inorganic clay Of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Liquid limit greater than 50 OL Silt, inorganic , silts and organic silt-clays of low Plasticity MH Silt, inorganic, silts micaceous or diatomaceous fine, sandy or silty soils elastic silts CH Clay, inorganic, clays of medium to high plasticity, fat clays OH Clay, organic , clays of medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat, other highly organic swamp soils APPENDIX B Page 5 INSPECTION Observation and compaction tests will be made by the geotechnical engineer during the filling and compacting operations so that he can state whether the fill was constructed in accordance with the specifications. The geotechnical engineer will make field density tests in accordance with ASTM Test No. D1557-78. Density tests will be made in the compacted materials below the surface where the surface is disturbed. When these tests indicated that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the specified density, that particular layer or portion should be reworked until the specified density has been obtained. The location and frequency of the tests well be at the soil engineer' s discretion. In general, the density tests will be made at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 500 cubic yards of embankment. PROTECTION OF WORK During construction, the contractor should Properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide Positive drainage and prevent ponding Of water. He should control surface water to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The contractor should take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas and until such time as erosion control features have been installedermanent drainage and BARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023-0348 r� (760) 753-9940 l5 September 21, 2001 ;L Dolphin Communities Randy Wastal ;.ERIN 4405 Manchester Ave. Suite 106 Of FT Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Two Story Office Building 2211 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California 92024 References : DESIGN AND PLANS PREPARED BY STEPHEN SHACKELTON, ARCHITECT Dated 3/12/01 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Two Story Office Building 2211 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California 92024 Dated 8/21/98 Dear Mr. Wastal, In response to your request, we have reviewed the above referenced plans and report in regards to the development of the referenced property. This updated evaluation is based on a site inspection and review of the referenced plans and geotechnical report, dated 8/21/98 From a geotechnical point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed office building, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phase. If you have any questions, please contact us at (760) 753-9940. Respectfully submitte A.R. BARRY ASSO E /O fill F .R. a r E. w Principal Engine * c XP.3�3si01 FP. September P 2001 W.O.#P-1581-1 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Based on a visual inspection of the subject property and the adjacent properties, the site conditions remain essentially the same since the time of the referenced preliminary geotechnical investigation. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plans for the project were prepared by Stephen Shackelton, Architect. The plans provide for a two story office building and parking area. ' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our review, the recommendations presented in the referenced report are compatible with the geotechnical conditions ' on the site. Final building plans should be reviewed by this office prior to submitting the plans to the city of Encinitas. Seismic The review of available geologic maps including Maps of Known Active Faults Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada published by ICBO (1998) indicate that the nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 8 kilometers south west of the subject site. The Rose Canyon Fault is a class B fault capable of generating a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. The l�il _ September 21, 2001 W.O. #P-1581-1 Page 3 following seismic factors are in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Parameter Table Symbol Factor Seismic Zone Factor 16-I Z 0.4 Soil Profile Type 16-1 SD Seismic Coefficient 16-Q Ca 0 .44Na Seismic Coefficient 16-R Cv 0.64Nv Near Source Factor 16-S Na 1.0 Near Source Factor 16-T NV 1.08 Seismic Source Type _ B Maximum Moment Magnitude. . . . . . . . . .6.9 Slip Rate, SR. . . . . . . . . . . .1.5 mm/yr. Licruefaction In accordance with reference #4 (Planning Scenario For A Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology) the site is not located in an area of seismically induced liquefaction. The soils on the site are not considered subject to seismically induced liquefaction based on such factors as soil density, soil type, and lack of groundwater. September 21 P 2001 W.O. #P-1581-1 Page 4 Foundation Footings for the proposed structure should uld be a minimum of 15 wide and founded a minimum of 18" below grade. Footings founded a minimum of 18" below grade may be designed for a bearing value of 1500 psf. The bearing values indicated above are for the total of dead and applied live loads. These values may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. , Resistance to lateral load will be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 should be used with dead-load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds should be used in the design. Minimum requirements for reinforcing steel should be 4-#4 bars, 2 placed 3" from the bottom of the footing and 2 placed 1.5" below the top of the footing. .Reinforcin steel for g the retaining walls will be designed by the structural engineer with the soil parameters given in this report. September 21, 2001 W.O.#P-1581-1 Page 5 Sla bs on grade Slab on grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars, placed 18 inches on center. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 4-inch sand blanket which incorporates a minimum 6 . 0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier in its center, for moisture sensitive floors. Utility trenches underlying the slab should be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit, then backfilled with the on-site granular materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However, sufficientl y compacting the backfill deposits may damage or break shallow utility lines. Therefore, minor settlement of the backf ill in the trenches is anticipated in these shallow areas . To reduce the possibility of cracks occurring, the slab should be provided with additional reinforcement to bridge the trenches. Retainincx Walls Retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the following soil perimeters: Equivalent Fluid Pressure (p.c.f. ) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 At-Rest 45 Passive 45 90 250 All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system. September 21, 2001 W.O.#P-1581-1 Page 6 Footing Insipections Structural footing excavations should be inspected by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. Plan Review A copy of the final building plans should be submitted to this office for review, prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project' s architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into the plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report,P our office should be notified so that we may consider whether or not modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during construction. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. September 21, 2001 W.O.#P-1581-1 Page 7 Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge, consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of three years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. If you have any questions, leas p e call us at (760) 753-9940. Respectfully submitted, A.R. BARRY AND ASSOCI A.R. Barry, 000118 i Principal Engine EXP. 3/31102 d'>,y�TfCHN��p�: CFCALO", September 19, 2001 W.O.# P-1581-1 REFERENCES 1. Plans prepared by Stephan Shackelton Architect,itect, dated 3/12/01 2. UBC 1997 Addition. 3 . Maps Of Known Active Fault Near Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions Of Nevada, Published by (I.C.B.O. ) 1998 California Division And Mines And Geology. 4 . Planning Scenario For A Major Earthquake San Diego Tijuana Metropolitan Area, Published By I.C.B.O. 1990. rigs i M- 1 Ip fix- ANN �� yi 1����I��.;•:�:,� �s'�'� ,��.�;.�:,���w� ��sa • � tip„ p.��i-!�-�'��•�����^ r�-'_•� .`����� � �'�(► iag PW • • 6 cow IL . r _► /• �I. .ter.. • �� �� � I�*( '��11�. �' •ice•r���Cv C-u,�°'� � -•A. :�.;. 1Ac`A'. �' � �' F9v^�s,.�A _�._. I x - o(aA 1 io�'Y 1/� � ���� � �.iJ�'■ �E7�r,;j�v, �V;ti t N xJ�,��u�J�yXiu `� ^J'. V� ��,• �. �� 1x7 � (` } i�r 1 i 11���� I�,�1 ../�� [{'� 9 ��+ d n ,�,r tlx s° a l �t�+i��l•x,� y���� �• � ,k `� : t ' •1 ,� t,�t �tr• t ;+ I f' l 1• ,] I rr 11 ld I .tl c �� 4 e.•f 7 M i. BARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023-0348 D E C Q (760) 753-9940 January 17 , 2002 ��� 1 2,002 San Dieguito Engineering, Inc. i 4407 Manchester Ave. Suite 105 ENGINEERING SERVICES Encinitas, California 92024 CITY OF ENCINiTAS Att: Mr. Ivan R. Fox Subject: PERCOLATION TEST DATA FOR INFILTRATOR CHAMBER, Proposed Two Story Office Building 2211 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California 92024 Dear Mr. Fox, In response to your request, we have performed percolation tests adjacent to and along the southerly property line at 2211 Candy Lane for the proposed infiltrator chamber. A total of 6 holes were drilled. Two 2 foot diameter holes were advanced to a depth of 10 ' and 5 ' with a bucket rig by McKenna Construction. These holes were located at the lower elevation adjacent to Candy Lane. The 5 foot deep hole caved in after the rain that followed the drilling. An additional 4 holes were drilled with a two man gasoline powered auger on December 28, 2001. These 6" diameter holes were excavated to a depth of 3 ' and 5 ' along the length of the infiltrator to the west of the 2 ' diameter holes and 1 to a depth of 5 ' adjacent to the 2 ' diameter hole that caved. All holes were presoaked for 4 hours before percolation data was taken, as required by the County Health Department for leach line testing. Percolation test data is presented below with Percolation Test Hole Location Plan overlaying the Site Grading Plan. If you have any questions, please contact us at (760) 753-9940. Respectfully submitt SSfO A.R. BARRY ASSO G00119 Z A.R. Barry M Principal Engine Exp. 3131/02 Pte' t'.'. 0 CHN�G q OFCa'`1 January 17 , 2002 W.O. #P-1581-2 Page 2 PERCOLATION TEST DATA TEST HOLE DEPTH BELOW DIAMETER PERCOLATION RATE NUMBER EXISTING GRADE OF HOLE MINUETS PER INCH 1. 3 feet 6" 26 m/in. 2. 3 feet 6" 24 m/in. 3 . 3 feet 6" 30 m/in. 4 . 10 feet 24" 70 m/in. 5 . 5 feet 6" 22 m/in. L=17.47' R=1251.00 =;.t _ •LIGHT POLE ,A=0'48'01" TW=102.5 —1 1 BW=98.8 1 1 5 z 1 1 h TW=106.0 z J 1 cn 3W=98.6 L"- II N m 2q ; ' Q N 1 CA �' p .5 l o q w C -TW-104.5 f BW=98.4 1 i 1 I9 3 TW=103.6 F W.=97.4 �c C B 03.5 =96.9 I BW=96.9 i l ' f `\; I t U) C) ° U) �C O v � p = M F- w � w U � V J M J M LL Z � Z LL r D C) a) 0) Cz v of U W Lf) � J U U) O> 0 Q h M w CV r 0 " 0 U) N a w �- N O U LwL V) l U) O N L 4 'i .4 O 00 a 0 U O 0 0 co W ~ E Z a U) O D v o3), v z o Z p O V Q U� U o 0o w o 0 N g � o J O Z O � Q o 0o n~= - o W Q U G w U)>- Q p CS Z � � Q ° � CD 00000 (00 Ue d w N d Q 00 CO 00 O Q a Q Q N M N Lo Lo O y V Q M F- O O O M r r s- W ca = M > N Z w A CL w 0 p Z W Q w m c� w0 > �U x �= 00 w O u xz a. Z w z z U) El p w ( � g F w U U Z � _' d QW > ww J W W m > -1 p w 00 w W w p F- F- F- �= x 0 0 co N Z w ix 00 - --- --.._ a a.--U----U - a __�_� GRATE CALCULATIONS PROJECT NAME: MARINO CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NUMBER: SDE 4508 REFERENCE: CANDY LANE GRATE LENGTH (ft) 1.00 GRATE WIDTH (ft): 1.00 PERIMETER (ft): 2.00 (2 SIDES EFFECTIVE) P/2 (ft): 1.00 TOTAL AREA A(sf): 1.00 A/4 (ft): 0.25 HEAD INCREMENT(ft): 0.02 STARTING HEAD (ft): 0.30 ENDING HEAD (FT): 1.00 GRATE HEAD WEIR ORIFICE VALUE OVER FLOW FLOW USED GRATE Q Q Q ft) (cfs) (cfs cfs 0.30 0.49 0.49 0.32 0.54 0.54 0.34 0.59 0.59 0.36 0.65 0.65 0.38 0.70 0.70 0.40 0.76 1.36 0.76 0.42 0.82 1.46 0.82 0.44 0.88 1.57 0.88 0.46 0.94 1.68 0.94 0.48 1.00 1.79 1.00 0.50 1.06 1.90 1.06 0.52 1.12 2.01 1.12 0.54 1.19 2.13 1.19 0.56 1.26 2.25 1.26 0.58 1.33 2.37 1.33 V sI- U"IT1f2_-e 0.60_ 1.39 2.50 1.39 GUTTER DEPTH AT CROSS GUTTER PRE DEVELOPMENT Worksheet for Irregular Channel Project Description Worksheet GUTTER FLOW PRE C Flow Element Irregular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Slope 024000 ft/ft Discharge 1.45 cis Options Current Roughness Methc)ved Lotter's Method Open Channel Weighting wed Lotters Method Closed Channel Weighting Horton's Method Results Mannings Coefficiei 0.016 Water Surface Elev 93.96 ft `�'`' [,l�',<r Elevation Range 1.70 to 94.63 Flow Area 0.4 ft' Z� I tie ON C U 702 Wetted Perimeter 4.25 ft Top Width 4.05 ft Actual Depth 0.26 ft Critical Elevation 94.01 ft Critical Slope 0.007367 ft/ft Velocity 3.27 ft/s Velocity Head 0.17 ft Specific Energy 94.12 ft Froude Number 1.74 Flow Type Supercritical Roughness Segments Start End Mannings Station Station Coefficient 0+00.00 0+02.00 0.015 0+02.00 0+18.00 0.016 Natural Channel Points Station Elevation (ft) (ft) 0+00.00 94.20 0+00.50 94.20 0+00.66 93.70 0+02.00 93.83 0+18.00 94.63 'Project Engineer.San Dieguito Engineering,Inc u:\ldata lengineeringW5081h&hW508.fm2 San Dlegulto Engineering,Inc FlowMaster v6.0 1614e] 09107/01 08:06:46 AM 0 Haestad Methods,Inc, 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 GRATE CONNECTOR, NORMAL DEPTH Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Worksheet GRATE CONNE( Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formu Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.011 Slope 010000 ft/tt Diameter 8 in Discharge 1.32 cfs Results Depth 0.51 ft �a Flow Area 0.3 ft' Wetted Perime 1.41 ft Top Width 0.57 ft Critical Depth 0.54 ft Percent Full 75.9 % Critical Slope 0.008661 ft/ft Velocity 4.64 ft/s - Velocity Head 0.34 It Specific Energ, 0.84 ft Froude Numbe 1.16 Maximum Disc 1.54 cis Discharge Full 1.43 cis Slope Full 0.008544 ft/ft Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer.San Diegulto Engineering,Inc u:\ldata\engineering\4508\h&h\4508.fm San Dieguito Engineering,Inc FlowMaster v6.0[614e] 1)9/07/04 08:32:29 AM 0 Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 N � v N rn rn t Z .o .4 p r- > c D\ Z (n a Az x >z(n c> IN�93 P rn m � \n > Z � 1 . t� > M > N0 l7Q O .' i N Nv m CO m 4 rn • � v(0m0 z ''' G� o)o(nm i n mW , E Q 4 X0 p� EA -1 Q► rn A rn Na Z °z mrrnxrn p oo v > ONV �. ad C,V� d� N M � � zm air O . = N (n -� C Z 7% MI o my I om o co C2 � N o W A. A ig O • p 0 r*r n -A I !V p i,,, o // \ \ z m r O �ICJyJ •� . \\ ' .\ 'TNiti � Z0 39VJ 9N3 oiin93IQNGS 9EZBEV609L LS:bT Z00Z/ET/80 SUPPLEMENTAL HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS CANDY LANE 7254-G V U 1G APR 0 � LNG j�EEA1NGSERV�IC�ES �r y^ENCINIT Ef PREPARED BY: SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. 4407 MANCHESTER AVE, SUITE 105 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 DATE: APRIL 5, 2002 UU �7lff f�n� . lirr~?hl "' '1 � wa3 F4 f r-, t')o 4- 1 i fL 6e e-,�-,u toc-o r,f kX J2lf krrk(A Cm, C-,"&Oyf clr 1POCIT-PImt -To PG-` Al 0,6 ON IZ 17(Zo\/1 V2 e,cf-L Pe-Ar-- CLA%A3 w es To 6,4, t IZUK-S SDE 4508 Grslit�_Swale.Calculations T, `G Channel Calculator a� Given Input Data: Shape Advanced Solve for Depth of Flow Flowrate _2.7700 cfs = Q,ov Slope 0.0200 ft/ft Manning's n 0.0375 Height 12.0000 in Bottom Width 24.0000 in Left Radius 5.0000 in Right Radius 5.0000 in Left Slope 0.2900 ft/ft(V/H) Right Slope 0.2900 ft/ft(V/H) Computed Results: Depth 4.3443 in Velocity ­2.2'7­33- fps Full Flowrate 22.1585 cfs Area 5.5663 ft2 Perimeter 111.5702 in Flow Area 1.2185 ft2 Flow Perimeter 56.5968 in Hydraulic Radius 3.1003 in Top Width 55.3813 in Percent 36.2023 % Critical Information: Critical Depth 3.7755 in Critical slope 0.0341 ft/ft Critical velocity 2.7494 fps Critical area 1.0075 ft2 Critical perimeter 52.5122 in Critical hydraulic radius 2.7628. in Critical top width 51.4583 in Specific energy 0.4423 ft Minimum energy 0.4719 ft Froude number 0.7800 Flow Condition Subcritical u:1 data\engineering\4508\hd\grass_channel.wk1 4-1-02 3/Z 42 Q of PIPE FLOW CALCULATIONS PROJECT NAME: MARINO CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NUMBER: SDE 4508 COMMENT: 7254-G DIAMETER 6.00 AREA 0.20 Cd 0.62 FL ELEV 92.26 CL PIPE 92.51 INFILTRATOR HEADWATER TOTAL Q 2 ELEVATION HEAD Q/PIPE PIPES 92.80 0.29 0.53 1.05 92.81 0.30 0.54 1.07 92.82 0.31 0.54 0.00 92.83 0.32 0.55 1.11 92.84 0.33 0.56 1.12 92.85 0.34 0.57 1.14 92.86 0.35 0.58 1.16 92.87 0.36 0.59 1.17 92.88 0.37 0.59 1.19 92.89 0.38 0.60 1.20 92.90 0.39 0.61 1.22 92.91 0.40 0.62 1.24 92.92 0.41 0.63 1.25 92.93 0.42 0.63 1.27 ,x/ 92.94 0.43 0.64 1.28 92.95 0.44 0.65 1.30 92.96 0.45 0.66 1.31 orm- I F" 92.97 0.46 0.66 1.33 92.98 0.47 0.67 1.34 92.99 0.48 0.68 1.35 93.00 0.49 0.68 1.37 WEIR IN BOX p Worksheet for Sharp Crested Rectangular Weir Project Description Worksheet _IN BOX WEIR Type Sharp Crested Rectangul Solve For Headwater Elevation Input Data Discharge 1.45 cfs Crest Elevation 32.56 ft Tailwater Elevation 32.76 ft 'e—_ Discharge Coeffici( 3.33 US Crest Length 2.00 ft F Number of Contrac 0 _ f> � Results �� N Headwater Elevation )2.96 ft Headwater Height Abo% 0.40 ft Tailwater Height Above 0.20 ft 13 I _ Flow Area 0.8 ft' — Velocity 1.79 ft/s Wetted Perimeter 2.81 ft U�LJW - Top Width 2.00 ft TIC QN- 10� \ �L-LW jN g2AV — % 0.ta� r1 b�• to �?� '—_- SEGT o r•) = 1 �-- 3 t sLs Project Engineer:San Dieguito Engineering,Inc u:\1 data\engineering\4508\h&h\4508.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering,Inc FlowMaster v6.0[614e] 04/05/02 04:40:34 PM 0 Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 CRITICAL FLOW IN BOX Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet _FLOW IN BOX Flow Element Rectangular Chi Method Manning's Formi Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.015 Slope 007073 ft/ft Bottom Width 1.92 ft Discharge 1.45 cfs Results Depth 0.26_ft 1Fs S uin CV_ T7 V'rt M>vp7m 1,Q Flow Area 0.5 ftz Wetted Perim( 2.44 ft ►`) S�l'1 "t Top Width 1.92 ft Critical Depth 0.26 ft Critical Slope 0.007073 ft/ft Velocity 2.90 ft/s Velocity Head 0.13 ft Specific Eneq 0.39 ft Froude Numb, 1.00 Flow Type 5ubcritical Project Engineer:San Dieguito Engineering, Inc LIMdata\engineering\4508\h&h\4508.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering,Inc FlowMaster v6.0[614e] 04/05/02 04:30:51 PM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 NOR 4,L FLOW IN D-25 FROM BOX TO l AB -� �� :4 Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet _D-25 Flow Element Rectangular Chz Method Manning's Formi Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.015 Slope 019000 ft/ft Bottom Width 1.92 ft .� Discharge 1.45 cfs Results _ Depth 0.19 ft 1— UP T—)-1 Flow Area 0.4 ft' Wetted Perimi 2.30 ft Top Width 1.92 ft Critical Depth 0.26 it Critical Slope 0.007073 ft/ft Velocity 3.99 ft/s Velocity Head 0.25 ft Specific Eneq 0.44 ft Froude Numb 1.62 Flow Type supercritical Project Engineer:San Dieguito Engineering,Inc u:\1 data\engineering\4508\h&h\4508.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering,Inc FlowMaster v6.0[614e] 04/05/02 05:19:02 PM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROLOGY STUDY For 2211 ENCINITAS BLVD, PARCEL 4, PM 7474 GRADING PLAN, 7254-G Y 'T 1 PREPARED BY: SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. (760)753-5525 Date: March 16, 2004 T7, Ail ISO 06 kr- 7)4 Worksheet . 4- Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Earthen Swale Flow Element Triangular Char Method Manning's Forrr Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coeffic 0.030 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 1.00 H :V Right Side Slope 1.00 H :V Discharge 0.05 cfs Results Depth 0.20 ft Flow Area 0.0 ft' Wetted Perimi 0.58 ft Top Width 0.41 ft Critical Depth 0.17 ft Critical Slope 0.046805 ft/ft Velocity 1.22 ft/s Velocity Head 0.02 ft Specific Enerc 0.23 ft Froude Numb, 0.67 Flow Type 3ubcritical Project Engineer:Barry Munson u:\ldata\engineering\4508\h&h\4508conc-swale.fm2 San Dieguito Engineering Inc FlowMaster v7.0[7.0005] 03/16/04 09:43:27 AM ©Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 or--7- /z ToTA-L = 0, Ac_ Of) Q,/-- 61A 0.�{O ��, S S)< U , 3 C�� - 0 E �' ' i . ,4 oo q y C, 430 zo VROFES C 81 CIVI f9TFOFt CAU , I J I hhO W �.L r = ar E 25.00' f- ,._I� _...._.....__......_.... I Ts� N 15'45 32-_ -- �•Y . _ _ . . ._. • .Q � ---mss, 4 00 LO I w • 6 N I .. ......... 8 , F- Q � 0 ( rn I 8 S 66=M1 v v Q `.• �� 4 ° 0;CP tY, rnrn` rnrn W i o` 'V •i • • , • } 00 a LU I , a .. x'86=M . .... _ •--._.. � � � _. ._ ....- .._.... . - I -#__..._ , ` ^ 00 I i i - _ I I • II '"� W L�.• 1 � � co I a. 2b- 66 �. Ol 6 0 t=M1 • 3W� °� l uj w } i c s_..__... Co 00 -- t� _ L ...... 2% ............... .: 1 J. .: 4:1 i 55.6— `n °' N 15' 5'37" E 1 LO r�i Mo o°° ° °' urn oLO CD it It r - " }' L °° 00 0 �,• " °: o rn 11 II m o p �I II m LO iF-CD ^ .-0 Q