The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-501 G City O fENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering August 13, 2008 Attn: Union Bank of California 200 W. D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Elizabeth Venrick 2159 Glasgow Avenue APN 260-413-32 Grading Permit 501-GI Final release of security Permit 501-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0219109832 in the amount of$ 9,092.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Since ely, Debra Geis " y Lembach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Elizabeth Venrick Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper City 0 0NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT EY initas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lemshment/Stonnwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 13, 2008 Attn: Union Bank of California 200 W. D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Elizabeth Venrick 2159 Glasgow Avenue APN 260-413-32 Grading Pen-nit 501-GI Partial release of security Pen-nit 501-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0219109824 in the amount of$ 27,276.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, Debra Geis rt ay Le bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Elizabeth Venrick Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 76o-633-2700 t-14 recycled paper NOV-02-2007 14:11 FROM: 058 259-4012 TO:7607459657 P.002/002 "YNE A.PA SCO PA=ENGINEERM3„ INC. R.C.E.A9577 6635 NORTH HIGHWAY 101,SUITE A JOSEPH YUW SOLANA BEAM,CA 92475 PA-9,621r (858 259-8212 FAX(658)2594812 ►x.JusrnN sWER R.c.F 60%4 November 2,2007 PF.. 1568 City of Encinitas ):n.ginecring Services Permits 505 S. Vulcsw.Avenue LIncinitus,CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for gara.go& art studio portion of Grading Permit Into.501-G To Whom, It May Concern: Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code,dais letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter. ;Cor the above referenced site,As the Eugi.neer of Rcoord for the subject property. I hereby state that the rough grading for this project has been camplcted in conformance with the approved plan and regWreinents of ft City of Encinitas,Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B), The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and.sbown on the approved grad-big plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Location Per Play Per Field Measurcrnent Future Garage 220.0' 220.0' avg. - Future Art Studio 220.0' 220.0' avg. -k NOTE A major portion of the Fad is covered by a stockpile.Pad elevations shown above are verification of the undisturbed pad in the vicinity of the walls. If you should have saty questions in reference to the information listed above,please do wt heshate to contact this office. Very truly yours, CO ENGINEERING, INC. 'a h � a r, Director of 1.w.d Surveying 6406 Llrta:i(ZUV( Ib:1N ti5tl49b'�(b6 GHRISIiAN WHEELER EN PAGE 02 . W CHRISTIAN WHEELER E: Nr-; I N C r R 1 N C. Elizabeth Venrick CWF-21070146.05 3179 Glasgow C-.miff by the Sea.California 92007 smT JEC-r: VERIFICATION OF GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO,2159 GLASGOW AVENUE,ENCINITAS,CALIPORNIA. Refcrcncr. Report of Prclbminary Geotechnical Tnvcstipdon,Proposed(iar..tgc and A9rt Studio,2159 Glasgow Avenue,l-ncirutas,California,PrOand 8y Christian NvAieeler Engineering,Report No. 2070146.01,dated March 22,2007. Tadics and Gentlemen: In accordance.with the your request,we have prepared this letter to confirm that Chri.tiara Wheeler Engineering has provided gconechnical ohsenrations and teming scrvices during tha ruass grading Operations for building pad aF th r sulx ect site. It is the opinion of Christian Wheeler Engineering that the soil angineerirng and engineering geologic aspects of the gtoding are in compliance with the approved geotechnical reports anti the gmdingprans.This opinion is based upan cm:nbst:rvatiam of the earthvmfk operations,tht tcn$ts of the density Nests taken in the field,and the maximum d.rnsity tests pr_rform.cd in our laborn.tory. It is our Curdier opinion that this portion of the site is suitable fcyr the praponed construction_'A 6n21 9mr1ing apart for the entire project is currently being prepared and%vill lit submitted upon compiction. If eon.,have any qucstians regarding tTiis report,please do not hesitate to contact thi.;ofAcc. This csppo,xuiuty to 1�e of professional ecrvice is sim-PzrOY appreciated, Ruipcctfully sulmutted, CKRTSI.T,1i�WFWELER ENGINEERING q ESs ti��N Cyr, No.tiEPi6 C.lrtrlra FT_Christian,R.G.E.00215 Exp.9.30.09 4,925 Mercury Street # San Dic9o. CA 921 11 + 858-496.9760 # FAX 858-496.9759 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For VENRICK PROJECT GP DRAWING: APN: 260-413-32 CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA Prepared For ELIZABETH VENRICK 2159 GLASGOW AVE. CARDIFF, CA 92007 PE 1568 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. . NC. FESS/, �- 3S N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A BUST/�y `�OLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 3 C 6 rn ' APR ! DATE: 4-9-07 REVISED: CIVIL q ��P �OFCAL* r W. JUSTIN S TER RCE. 68964 DATE Vennck Hydrology Reporc PE# 1568 9:16 AM 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION A CONCLUSION.............................................................................B PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ......................0 POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.....................D APPENDIX................................................................................E Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve Runoff Coefficients Hydrology Map �:)r,rick Hydro;ogy Report '� I' ' 56€ 2:16 Af-I 4'10/20C- HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post-development conditions for the lot located at 2159 Glasgow Ave. The subject property is physically located approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of, Birmingham Dr. and Glasgow Ave., Cardiff, California. The property is geographically located at N 33° 01'22", E 11716134". Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of a single family dwelling and a detached garage. The existing topography slopes from the westerly corner of the lot to the easterly corner. The location of the existing home divides the lot into two sub-basins which converge at the easterly corner. The existing vegetation consists of grasses and some decorative landscaping. _ The storm water on this site sheet flows onto neighboring uninhabited wooded properties to the east of the subject property. The existing 100 year runoff at the southeasterly corner of the lot is 0.78 cfs. Post- Development Conditions - The proposed development consists of demolition/removal of the existing garage and asphalt driveway and the construction of a new structure containing a two-car garage/art studio as well as a new concrete driveway. The project proposes to intercept runoff from northerly properties using a D-75 drainage ditch to protect the new driveway and structure. This runoff will be conveyed east and will outlet at the easterly end of the lot where it will maintain it's existing course. Runoff from the proposed driveway and existing yard area will maintain existing conditions. A series of rip-rap energy dissipaters are proposed to slow the flow and biofiltration swales will treat all runoff. Total runoff at the easterly corner after development is 0.76 cfs. Methodology and Results The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Q1oo is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post-development runoff coefficients, used to analyze the both conditions, were obtained from Table 3-1 of the June 2003 revision of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. J`r rial Hvarofogy report P7 513 9:'6 F N 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. drainage system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q1ooto the appropriate points of discharge. 'Venrick H%ldroloc Report PE# 15';6 9:16 4M 4:1012 1107 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 C. PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Je hick H%,droFo-:y.,, Repor. PE r 1 568 9:1,� AN, 4/'�0/200' HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 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(acs) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering 535 N.Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach,Ca 92075 **************************DESCRIPTION OF STUDY************************** *PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT *PE 1568 VENRICK *PASCO ENGINEERING 4-9-07 FILE NAME: 1568PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:38 04/09/2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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)= 4.00 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 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.9000 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 NITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 100.00 UPSTRFF M ELEVATION= 229.00 DOWNS" REAM ELEVATION= 219.00 ELEVi,TIO1, DIFFERENCE= 10.00 ;,jBAREA.�)VERL_1ND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 1.67: Venrick Wdrology Reoor, PF# "568 2:16 AM 4/10/200;" HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 *CAUTION:SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.16 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET)= 219.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 215.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET)= 36.00 CHANNEL SLOPE= 0.1111 CHANNEL BASE(FEET)= 2.00 "Z"FACTOR= 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR=0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)=500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.661 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 0.16 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 1.85 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET)= 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 0.32 Tc(MIN.)= 6.32 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.16 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 1.85 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.20= 136.00 FEET. _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.661 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.60 TC(MIN)= 6.32 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS= 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.)= 6.32 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR)= 5.66 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES)= 0.18 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)AT CONFLUENCE= 0.60 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< Venrick Hydrol-,-v Report PE# 568 9:16 AM 4: i 0/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 229.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 219.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 10.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 4.846 *CAUTION:SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.18 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS= 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.)= 6.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR)= 5.86 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES)= 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)AT CONFLUENCE= 0.18 **CONFLUENCE DATA** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.60 6.32 5.661 0.18 2 0.18 6.00 5.856 0.06 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. **PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 0.76 6.00 5.856 - 2 0.78 6.32 5.661 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.78 Tc(MIN.)= 6.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.20= 136.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TC(MIN.)= 6.32 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.78 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Veririck Ayarology Repo-. PE t- 1568 9:16 AM 4/10/20'- HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 D. POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Venrick Hydrology Report PE# 158 916 AM 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 **************************************************************************** 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 535 N.Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach,Ca 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY************************** *POST DEVELOPEMENT HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT *PE 1568 VENRICK *PASCO ENGINEERING 4-9-07 FILE NAME: 1568PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:42 04/09/2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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)= 4.00 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 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.9000 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC fl)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= '00.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 228.00 DOWNSTREAM ELLVATION= 218.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 9.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 1.7)0 Venrick Hydrology Report PE# ',568 9:16 AM 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE L I0 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET)= 218.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 215.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET)= 20.00 CHANNEL SLOPE= 0.1750 CHANNEL BASE(FEET)= 2.00 "Z"FACTOR= 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR=0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)=500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.787 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 0.32 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 2.98 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET)= 0.05 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 0.11 Tc(MIN.)= 6.11 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.32 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.05 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 2.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.20= 120.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.787 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.33 TC(MIN)= 6.11 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS= 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.)= 6.11 RAINFALL INTENSITY(I I-CII/HR)= 5.79 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES)= 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)AT CONFLUENCE= 0.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< Venrick Hydrology Report PL 4 156F 9:1 f AM 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 142.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 228.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 218.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 9.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 6.603 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.505 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.26 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.26 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS= 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.)= 6.60 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR)= 5.51 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES)= 0.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)AT CONFLUENCE= 0.26 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 119.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 229.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 224.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 5.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 7.058 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.274 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.14 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.20 IS CODE= 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE(EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)= 224.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 219.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET)= 22.00 MANNING'S N= 0.010 - DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 0.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 7.88 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH)= 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES= 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS)= 0.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 0.05 Tc(MIN.)= 7.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.20= 141.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.20 T )NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 51 Ven-';k Hvdroiogy Report F # 1566 9:16 AM 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)= 219.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 218.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET)= 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE= 0.0304 CHANNEL BASE(FEET)= 2.00 "Z"FACTOR= 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR=0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)=500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 4.957 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): - USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 0.14 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 1.15 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET)= 0.06 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 0.66 Tc(MIN.)= 7.77 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.05 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.14 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.06 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 1.15 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.20= 187.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 4.957 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.5200 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 0.03 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.08 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.21 TC(MIN)= 7.77 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE= 1 ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS= 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.)= 7.77 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR)= 4.96 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES)= 0.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)AT CONFLUENCE= 0.21 **CONFLUENCE DATA** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.33 6.11 5.787 0.06 -- 2 0.26 6.60 5.505 0.09 3 0.21 7.77 4.957 0.08 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR _ STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RA-E"TABLE ** S'REAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) Venrick Hycrology Repon °E # ,568 P".6 P IJ; 4/10/2007 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENRICK PROJECT PE 1568 1 0.76 6.11 5.787 2 0.76 6.60 5.505 3 0.73 7.77 4.957 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 0.76 Tc(MIN.)= 6.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.20= 187.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TC(MIN.)= 6.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.76 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Venr!_-, ' ;ydrology Report PE# 1568 9:"6 AM 4/10/2037 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR VENR/CKPROJECT PE 1568 - _ - _ _ - _ E. APPENDIX - _ - _ _ _ _ Ve irich Hydnz|ocy Report _ PE# .5G8Q:1GAyW4/1O/2OO7 7 i i ' f i / / O \ \ Lil uj o ..........__.. i i � � I O I I I � i N i � M ► ! Q I V I � I — cj i I � • `I LI_ uj j, I f w ; .1 /1 W'�2t E 7585 ; l � � O � O .O� � ► � O 4C) I � rj �► . 1 ► i J ' ' I i Cd 0 cd 15; o eq sit b 401 b Imperial County &I F4 b. ..............mar: ...... .......... 46 ................... .... .... ccl AX.9L, Qr.. ........... AF 110- ......... ..... ............... .......... SV.9LL StALL 0 . ......• c) in M.ILL Al C%1 % ...... . .......... 0 .OE.L L L 0 C.) cd Mrl M 4 07 42 > 2; 0 4-4 �3 0 0 e v 4 0 1H 45 a (-M fl, Iss 0 > t. of U en b e 8 Imperial Count\,- ra 6 ........ . L- f ............... ............. . .................... . ..............*.................. % . ......... b. .. .........% Aw_9LL t. .... ..... ............ . ........ SV.9 L L St.91 L CO. --------- J, =.ILL .00.L t t SL.LLL a 10 .OE.L L t �� aaaaaai�-/G� i a E—SH A Cam! a..........r....•.. ��..�� `a. viA.Wj �ta►tam/�I��\��.�\gA..Oa�i��tt♦ aa�aa�a�awawl// �•� MW DC=.= SIMONE ONE NEU WON Now mown NE MM:, -OWAMARK mom lMSMMKA rAmFAff"maWIMlMW minmmWE Mmm GC�.L= AM ii�aw..lww..w��•s�/��.ls._ww_7w��aw�iw�.�.a..imoaa�� ii�l.��.l��►��r�w.w►��wl�_/�wlwa�..m..va ��—�� as/il��lt�rtl■►lll�I-W�� I�-awwal.YaW.d//wig/�i♦ IwAffm EWA= s�—��= = Qi.a��/�itaTiL7G71�"-'�►L�aa��7i��aaa�aeawL�.uiaia��anaas t�a�aa�al.�"\G'Gr.�r�►�r�ir�a�/��rrwlCaai aaa�aaa�ira\ko.r��w ia�a =IrA s• s rww•�t_r�l/ w! =wt•e•� Baaa.w�saam M=wm� mamma VA WA WERRE MAWA am noun 1019W UNKI MF AIXA9, Milo= _c a v1 - V' c, N [- O M .--. c, D\ N h v1 I- C M N O O O L- O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 Od O O_ tp C L G v u CO 4. O IC N V1 W '�t n O ON 00 00 () M M ¢t `C V' ['t- t,� OC 00 a Gr O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C p w. h n � ` C O G C eu cs vi N oc v; � � u p N � C'1 '7 '7 Y7 Y1 h V'• t� l"� 00 00 OC 00 CO R - p O O O O O O b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - u U � c% di Q _ a _. O " Ci 00 oC N Iq � � � O M M h U u N N M M �t ri, v: V•) \O C- ['-: DD 06 CC a V. .'� C O O O O O O C O Ci O G O O O ^,7 CO ce u .D u E 0.i O .✓ G" O O to O O an O %n O O N O O U qn V7 00 00 oc 01 c, C, y en C cm M c1 •C � �1 rn of cn w •` v u C U d V, U u �.. �.. �... �.. �. O O O O •cj U E < < E E a a �D :D 8 U a Q C [ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q p •rV.. cc u O O G1 M en O N N '-;i tr N -,r u� C Zj v •y �y � r cs c: c1 is r e3 ci iC C C •G •C •C •C •C •C •C •C .fl Q �•• ti r •D •3 r. lu y vO 'C 'U 6~i v a r U .y .N N .� .y .v .y .y In U C « ,� au u u u u u u U u u u V ,� F C O w G J — u O rn is G cn ct cz o O o c C .] ._t .7 r r r r -• U U 'd - T H •C •� •C 'a •C 'O •� •� r c3 r c- r_ .� u u u 'G G • > C4 `' o y U Cd o o U N b �' �' �' aCi epi a0i U 0 O C z p 'v •in v: Q Q (a Q � •� r s a r tz r � �. •0 u •C 3 iv CD �. G G C O G •w •bu. tu. t. :3 C .b 'p z uti u u u E E E u u u u u u c- u II II cn IA ca a .0 a .�1 a 1' x �x o U U U U U z N N N N cc co h C9 tJ C9 -•N .N .N wl CO LX CL n^c r- I_ o o 4- p. - U E „ 0 0 N n t t I 1 +- T 7w d - �+ a Xe''` er ` O C+T L G O C G •-+ O ate. dQ� O L - • V^ 2 s = N z - C 10 T O G N r \ N O A c c N N•• + n n � f p <g I 7 C�I Y O r •n V - _ �n O G 1 s U O r O O O a C 0 C Y L L L L O_ O L U A N N n r tl1 a r L U N rpm O O� i- C►.. C � • N I i C N T p O o prr w^ Y Y 1 _c U L r 0 0 1 C U V I 'C I Z m•- I t:... J C iN e c— O Q N ' o • 1 1 1 _10— n r o r t M n n 10 0 _ a o •- 1 r N ZYU e�v� OY E ID CA O L O p fn1 N C Wt - pt C 9 p O o } 00 L O • OC p � } q0 N p - •e J s t 0] 4 U m O a N 7 C V o < O 8 o 00 L L- o �.. r oa 1�1 L N Gtr .0�� L L Ot 0 L M = N Z V a d 6 �O} en � , O qt o i O L+ n o N O 1 1 1 IrI 0 u _.. i O O�Q- r Oz O d .m a.O. L s+ l:7 J ^t- tOC1 en C U c GA H N G Oo C O = C U ~ ob f I[1 p o G O d ? O } ZO O O C CO^ N 'O IC UN ct E t t oa to 1_ �oC = c5 Oa 0 N i- N b b lei ++ Q O > LNL b C _ C O� U p L o } O 1 g O c c c c c } {v s U ✓. O O O O o1]LL aD ' v C G O} 4- O .. •+" CN �N H h d "a O +► < S = L w CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: ELIZABETH VENRICK r c/o EDWARD M. EGINTON,ARCHITECT,INC. 515 SOUTH GRANADOS AVENUE SOLANA BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92075 -- PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER I N G I N E E K I N G December 3,2007 Elizabeth Venrick CWE 2070146.04 2159 Glasgow Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 SUBJECT: REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING, PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO,2159 GLASGOW AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Reference: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,Proposed Garage and Art Studio, 2159 Glasgow Avenue,Encinitas, California,prepared by Christian Wheeler -- Engineering,Report No. 2070146.01, dated March 22,2007. Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with your request, our proposal for services dated October 9,2007,and the requirements of Section 1701.5.13 of the California 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 performed in the fills that were placed during the grading of the project. The observation and testing services addressed by this report were coordinated by MW Construction and were provided during the period of October 17 through October 19,2007. INTRODUCTION AND PROTECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a developed,nearly rectangular-shaped residential lot, located at the address of 2159 Glasgow Avenue,in the Cardiff area of the city of Encinitas, California. The site is bounded on the west by Glasgow Avenue,on the east by a natural canyon,and on the remaining sides by developed residential properties. Prior to the grading addressed in this report, the property supported a two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage and other associated improvements.The detached garage was located in the northeast portion of the site and was accessed 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92 11 1 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 2070146.04 December 3,2007 Page 2 from Glasgow Avenue via a paved driveway.The project area is located in the northern portion of the site,in the area that supported a pre-existing detached garage and a natural slope that ascends toward the adjacent property to the north. Vegetation on-site generally consists of typical residential landscaping with flora growing on the slopes surrounding the existing residence.Various medium-size trees also exist within the property. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: It is our understanding that a new garage with art studio space will be constructed in the place of the demolished pre-existing garage.The proposed structure is expected to be a single-story,wood-frame structure with an on-grade concrete floor slab,and will be supported by conventional shallow foundations. It is also proposed to construct a site retaining wall up to seven feet in height on the western and northern sides of the proposed garage/art studio.A portion of the retaining wall will be incorporated into the northern wall of the proposed detached garage/art studio. The retaining wall is expected to consist of masonry block construction and will be supported by conventional shallow foundations. PLAN REFERENCE: In order to augment our understanding of the designed configuration of the project, our firm was provided with a grading plan for the site prepared by Pasco Engineering,Inc.,of Solana Beach,California,bearing an approval date of August 31,2007. 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 the earthwork operation. SCOPE OF SERVICE Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Periodic observation of the earthwork operations; • Providing field recommendations for elements of the earthwork not specifically addressed by the referenced geotechnical report; • Recording the approximate elevations and limits of significant geotechnical elements; • Performance of relative compaction tests in the fills placed; • Performance of laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determination tests on the soils encountered in the earthwork;and, • Preparation of this report. CWE 2070146.04 December 3,2007 Page 3 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING GRADING CONTRACTOR: The earthwork addressed by this report was performed by Roberts General Engineering,Contractor's License No.A813645. The primary equipment utilized by the contractor in the work consisted of a Caterpillar 963B track-loader,a PC 12844 excavator, and a water hose. SITE PREPARATION:The site preparation consisted of the removal of the artificial fill from the northeasterly portion of the proposed building pad and replacing it as structural fill.The soils exposed at the bottom of the removal excavation consisted of competent undisturbed terrace deposits,which were scarified,moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to fill placement. The remaining portions of the proposed building pad exposed undisturbed terrace deposits at the designed finish grade elevation.As such, a transition line was created due to the removal depths necessary in the northeasterly portion of the pad. Field recommendations were provided to perform an undercut to at least 3-feet below pad grade in the cut portion of the pad or, as an alternate to performing the undercut,extend the foundation excavations for the proposed building through the fills and into the underlying undisturbed terrace deposits. The owner elected to perform the undercut,which is detailed in the following paragraph. In addition,undisturbed terrace deposits were exposed in the driveway area,as anticipated in our referenced report.The driveway area was scarified and additional fill material was placed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. TRANSITION UNDERCUTS: In order to lessen the potential for differential settlement which could occur due to the dissimilar characteristics of soils in `cut'and`fill'conditions, the cut portion of the pad was undercut. The undercut extended to at least three feet below the designed finish-grade elevation. The lateral limits extended approximately 3 feet outside the building footprint.The soils exposed at the floor of the excavation were scarified,moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to the placement of fill materials. Fill materials were then placed as described in the following`Fill Placement'paragraph.The approximate limits of the transition undercut are shown on the attached plate No. 1. FILL PLACEMENT: Fill materials consisting of the on-site silty sands were typically placed by the loader and excavator in relatively thin,uniform lifts. Moisture conditioning was applied as needed and compactive efforts were then performed by means of track-walking with the laden loader to attain a minimum of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. CWE 2070146.04 December 3,2007 Page 4 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD TESTS: Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the fills were conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 2922-91;"Standard Test Methods for Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods." The locations of the field tests were selected by our technician in areas discerned to exhibit relative compaction that was generally representative of that attained in the fill. The results and approximate locations of the field tests are shown on the attached plates. LABORATORY TESTS:The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the soils predominately encountered in the earthwork were performed in our laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort." The tests were conducted in accordance with the methodology prescribed for the grain-size distribution of the soils tested. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate No. 2. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL: It is the opinion of Christian Wheeler Engineering that the earthwork addressed by this report has been performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report, the grading requirements of the City of Encinitas and the California Building Code. This opinion is based upon our observations of the earthwork operations, the results of the density tests taken in the field,and the maximum density tests performed in our laboratory. It is our further opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. Our recommendations for the minimum design of foundations for the proposed structures, originally presented in the referenced geotechnical report,are in our opinion, still suitable based on the as-graded conditions. AS-BUILT GEOLOGY:The geologic units encountered during the earthwork operations were generally consistent with those anticipated in our referenced report of geotechnical investigation. The earthwork operations addressed by this report have,in our opinion, satisfactorily mitigated the potentially adverse conditions described in the referenced report. REMAINING WORK At the date of the completion of the field testing addressed in this report, additional work remains to be done on the site for the backfilling of utility trenches and retaining walls, and the excavation of foundations. Our firm should be contacted when these operations are performed so that we can verify their compliance with the applicable specifications. CWE 2070146.04 December 3,2007 Page 5 LIMITATIONS The descriptions,conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from October 17,2007 through October 19,2007. 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. Christian Wheeler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide professional services on this project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our firm. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING l ug s 'cks,Supervisor Charles H. Christian,R.G.E. 00215 Curtis R. Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 CHC/CRB/DH:mah/dd cc: (1) Submitted �QNAL GF QPoFESS/p tv`�c' R. BV Gro (5) Edward M. Eginton,Architect,Inc. g H.Cy9 p`` e~\� No. 1090 - 2� No.GE215 v Z CERTIFIED Z m * ENGINEERING Wa Exp.9-30-09 M GEOLOGIST Exo. 10-00 07ECHN\C,PP�S?- TFOF CA\-\FAQ\ DF CAt�F� -1 T 1-C L J-4 P�- R!j" H 3Ec'3IN RE TA-Ti*V 1 fji—- kik—i_ PLEP IDE I— 4EF r T11 -D 24 \v .......... % ri iu 4 2 f 12 Qt 213.81 f 3 Qaf 1 It Qt 71 213.5 fog It Apr A' .......... r. 10, 2 SCALE:1" 101 ------- F01 /lp!lROX1114A r .41 F) bl, Py TIN CWELEGEN-D Ej A llN'j ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDERLAIN BY TERRACE DEPOSITS O �j RELATIVE COMPACTIN TEST =213-5 ELEVATION AT BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION TRANSITION UNDERCUT LIMITS OF GRADING LIMITS OF REMOVALS NRICK RESIDENCE SITE P R 2007=JO B N 0,: 2070146.04 In I lK 1�-I I \N It I I 11,,, /)DS PLATF NO.: I SUMMARY OF TESTS Project:Venrick Residence \LASS GRADING Relative Com action Tests ASTM D2922-91 lest No. Date Location Elev. Soil Ttye .Moisture =, a %Rel. (feet) (°%) Comp. 1 10/1?;'2(10? : Bottom of Removal c�i East Wall 214.0 --- r =------------------- 1 2 10/17/2007 :---- -- -- 5.9 107.4 111._6_ 96.2 East Portion of Pad i 5 4 ----=---- --------------------------' ----- -; 1 10/17/2007 East Portion of Pad -----_ ._106 5 111 ----------•-------------- ----- 216.0 : : 1089 ---f'-- x__.95.4 1 : 5.6 4 • 17. -- -- 111.6 9�� 10/1?/2007 : East Portion of Pad _ _ 6.1 105.2 111.6 94.3 --- ...------- _�_ _217.0 1 --- ;"10/1-i?00? : North Portion of Pad 217.0 1 .............................. - 5.8 104.3 111.6 93.5 - -- - - ---------- =----------- ' G ---18/200? Center --South Portion of Pad 215._0 1 10 8/ - - ---------- 6.6 105.2 111.6 94.3 , 10/18 ----- West Portion of Pad : 215.0----- r --1--- : -- --- 94. 8 : 10/18/2007 "" 6.3 : 107.2 111.6 96.1 '2.16_.0 r _i._._: ............• ` NW Portion of Pad ___ 9.2 --- -- 9 10/18/2007 : East Portion of Pad - ----" -°' --•--------------103.5 : 111.6 � �92 7 ---- ----•-------------- ---------- -' 219.0 1 7.4 : 107.6 ---111.6 ------------- --------------------�.......... - - 10 10/18/2007 Center of West Portion of Pad 218.0 1 t ------------------ ----------------------' 8.3 105.5 111.6 94.5- -- ..---10-•- 11 10/18/2007 SW Portion of Pad : _219.0 1 7.1 104.9 111.6 94.0 12 10/18/2007 ;Center of East Portion of Pad(F.G. : 220.0 2 g ----•-------------- _- •------•--------•- ---------------------------- __2_ : 109.5 113.8 96.2 13 : 10/18/2007 :Center of West Portion of Pad F.G.: 220.0 2 ":"" --- -- ---- = �_ 7.4 10?.4 -- 14 10/19 ..... South Slope of Dnvewa -- 8 -- 4 = ...............--- ----- -------- 1 10.3 : 107.3 111.6 .: 96.1 --------- 15 10/19/2007 South Slope of Dnvewa --- ------------------------------L---------- --y ; 221.0 1 12.0 104.8 111.6 93.9 16-__:_I()/19/2007 : East Dnvewa 218.. ----1"---T----------.;-.__------''_._' • --- ----------------------------- y 9.4 103.5 111.6 92.7 17 : 10/19/2007 : -: Dnvewa -- • y------------- - 220.0 1 10.0 : 105.1 : 111.6 94.2 18 : 10/19/2007 : Y----------------------•--------.-....---•------- Driveway 221.0 2 9.1 : 108.2 : 113.8 - 95.1 ---19 10/19/2007 : ---------- ---------------------•------ - -- �-------------- -- Driveway---------- 223.0 : 2 . ---6---------- 8.0 108.7 113.8 95.5 lL-1NINIUM DRY DENSITY and OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 1557-91 Soil"Type Description USCS Optimum ,Ioisture :Maximum Dry " Class (0//.) Density(pco 1 Reddish-brown,SILTY SAND SIV1 13.8. 111.6 2 Orangish brown,SILTY SAND SM 11.0 113.8 Plate ? w CHRISTIAN WHEELER L N G I N I L K I N G REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: ELIZABETH VENRICK c/o EDWARD M. EGIN'TON,ARCHITECT, INC. 515 SOUTH GRANADOS AVENUE SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 SUBMITTED BY: -- CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 r s I 4925 MerCUry Street ♦ San Diego, CA 921 1 1 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER FN (, INFERINC. March 22,2007 Elizabeth Venrick CkXT 2070146.01 c/o Edward M. Eginton,Architect, Inc. 515 South Granados Avenue Solana Beach, California 92075 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO, 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Dear Ms. Venrick: In accordance with your request and our Proposal dated February 6, 2007,we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject property. In general,we found the subject property suitable for the proposed garage/art studio and a site retaining wall provided the recommendations presented herewith are followed. We have determined that the project area is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits that are mantled by a layer of fill material in the southeastern portion and by topsoil in the remaining portions of the project area. The most significant geotechnical condition that will affect the proposed construction is the fact that the existing fill, topsoil and the upper portions of the terrace deposits were found to be very loose to medium dense in consistency, and are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. We anticipate that the cuts for the proposed improvements will remove most of the unsuitable materials and will expose relatively competent terrace deposits. However, where this is not the case,remedial grading and deeper footings for support of the proposed improvements will be required. Specific recommendations regarding the proposed construction are presented in the body of the attached report. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have a significant effect on the proposed construction. The most likely geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However, construction in accordance with 4925 Mercury street ♦ San Diego, CA 9211 1 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N L L K I N G REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed garage/art studio and a site retaining wall to be constructed at 2159 Glasgow Avenue,in the Cardiff area of the city of Encinitas, California. Figure Number 1,presented on the following page,provides a site vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property. The subject site is a developed, nearly rectangular-shaped residential lot, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 260-413-32 and as Lots 29-31 of Block 42 of Cardiff A (Map 1334). The site currently supports a two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage, landscaping, and other normally associated improvements. We understand that the existing detached garage is to be demolished and that a new garage with art studio space will be constructed in its place. The proposed structure is expected to be a single-story,wood-frame structure with an on-grade concrete floor slab,and will be supported by conventional shallow foundations. It is also proposed to construct a site retaining wall up to seven feet in height to the west and east of the proposed garage/art studio. A Portion of the retaining wall will be incorporated into the northern wall of the proposed detached garage/art studio. The retaining wall is expected to consist of masonry block construction and will be supported by conventional shallow foundations. Grading is expected to consist of cuts of up to six feet from existing site grades. To aid in the preparation of this report,we were provided with a set of plans for the project prepared by Edward M. Eginton,Architect, Inc., dated January 9, 2007. A copy of the site plan from the set of plans was modified to show our geologic mapping and the locations of our exploratory test pits,and is included herewith as Plate No. 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Elizabeth Venrick and her design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the 4925 Mercury street ♦ San Diego, CA 92 1 1 1 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 2070164.01 March 22, 2007 Page No. 2 the requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building Code and the local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safety suitable for the type of development proposed. 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, CHRISTLAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Wad Mokhtar, Staff Engineer Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. # 00215 avid R. Russell,C.E.G. #2215 CHC:CRB:scc:wm cc: (5) Submitted (1) Elizabeth Venrick UFESS/O QED GF � O H.C � P R U oS Ci No. 2215 ((3 6 No.GE215 z r-ri 1 ° CERTIFIED `r Exp.9-30-07 * * ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST tP) Exo 09-07 ` FOFCAQ gTFcc)PC 0F TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Project Description................................................................................................................1 ProjectScope......................................................................................................................... Findings..................................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription................................................................................................................................................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions.............................................................................................4 Geologic Setting and Soil Description....................................................................................................................4 ArtificialFill.............................................................................................................................................................4 Topsoil......................................................................................................................................................................4 TerraceDeposits...................................................................................................................................................4 Groundwater..................................................................................................................................................................5 TectonicSetting.............................................................................................................................................................5 GeologicHazards.............................................................................................................................................6 GroundShaking............................................................................................................................................................6 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability...................................................................................................................6 Liquefaction....................................................................................................................................................................6 Flooding..........................................................................................................................................................................6 Tsunamis....... 7 Seiches..............................................................................................................................................................................7 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................................7 Recommendations................................................................................................................................................8 Gradingand Earthwork..................................................................................................................................8 General............................................................................................................................................................................8 Observationof Grading..............................................................................................................................................8 Clearingand Grubbing................................................................................................................................................8 SitePreparation.............................................................................................................................................................8 TemporaryCut Slopes.................................................................................................................................................9 Processingof Fill Areas..............................................................................................................................................9 Compactionand Method of Filling........................................................................................................................9 SurfaceDrainage.........................................................................................................................................................10 GradingPlan Review.................................................................................................................................................10 Foundations ....................................................................................................................................................10 General..........................................................................................................................................................................10 Dimensions...................................................................................................................................................................10 BearingCapacity..........................................................................................................................................................10 FootingReinforcement.............................................................................................................................................1 l LateralLoad Resistance............................................................................................................................................11 SettlementCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................................11 ExpansiveCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................................11 FoundationPlan Review...........................................................................................................................................11 Foundation Excavation Observat ion............................................. ....................................................................12 SeismicDesign Parameters......................................................................................................................................12 On-Grade Slab................................................................................................................................................12 General..........................................................................................................................................................................12 InteriorFloor Slab.................................................................. 2 CWT_ 2070146.01 Proposed Garage and Art Studio 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Encinitas, California Under-Slab Vapor Retarders...................................................................................................................................13 ExteriorConcrete Flatwork.....................................................................................................................................14 EarthRetaining Vlalls....................................................................................................................................14 Foundations..................................................................................................................................................................14 PassivePressure..........................................................................................................................................................14 EquivalentFluid Pressures.......................................................................................................................................14 W'aterproofing and Subdrain...................................................................................................................................15 Backfill...........................................................................................................................................................................15 Limitations...........................................................................................................................................................15 Review, Observation and Testing.................................................................................................................15 Uniformityof Conditions................................................................................ Changein Scope..............................................................................................................................................16 TimeLimitations.............................................................................................................................................16 ProfessionalStandard.....................................................................................................................................16 Client's Responsibility.....................................................................................................................................16 FieldExplorations...............................................................................................................................................17 Laboratory Testing ATTACHMENTS TABLES -. Table I Maximum Ground Acceleration, Page 6 Table II Seismic Design Parameters, Page 12 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 - PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan Plates 2-10 Test Pit Logs Plates 11 Laboratory Test Results Plate 12 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications-General Provisions CWE 2070146.01 Proposed Garage and Art Studio 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Encinitas, California SITE VICINITY MAP (Adapted from Thomas Brothers Maps) PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STiin[n 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA i ATE North j `` � AV o BU1�C IRE AV o Q FS AV _. 16 PAW � � � w t SAN <;I�MpNT '• �� ° x' I ,ME - EL LID TaFF •• �` 1, O p� �+ STATE x �.9`� ��' '.` `ti Q 10 c W o DR BEACH p NIE ¢ Q HIIST LAS DALE y c BRISAS 7OW cac�vtEf�\ �� \ v qR � WY c 'F�� 1 •. 9G� o c ( �1 l't 0rZAN cc St NO lk i ©2005 Thoma, C.AX'E 21)7/0 1 16.01 \LARCH 2007 Figure 1 C\XT 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 2 modified plans should be submitted to Christian Wheeler Engineering for review in order to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,laboratory testing and/or recommendations are warranted. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally - accepted engineering principles and practices.This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. PROJECT SCOPE The scope of our preliminary investigation included: surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples,laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. 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 proposed structure, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction; b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our experience with similar soils, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction,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 proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the California Building Code; d) Address potential construction difficulties that 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, as necessary; Provide recommendations for temporary construction slopes; CWE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 3 g) Provide design parameters for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls; h) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design; i) 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. It is not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired,we can submit representative soil samples to a chemical laboratory for analysis. Further,it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary,we recommend that the developer retain an engineering firth that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a developed, nearly rectangular-shaped residential lot, located at the address of 2159 Glasgow Avenue,in the Cardiff area of the city of Encinitas, California. The site is bounded on the west by Glasgow Avenue,on the east by a natural canyon, and on the remaining sides by developed residential properties. The property currently supports a two-story, single-family residence with a detached garage and other associated improvements. The detached garage is located in the northeast portion of the site and is accessed from Glasgow Avenue via a paved driveway. The project area is located in the northern portion of the site,in the area that currently supports the detached garage and a natural slope that ascends toward the adjacent property to the north. Site topography is characterized by two moderately steep slopes with inclinations ranging from about 1.5:1 (H:V) to about 2.5:1(H:V) that descend from Glasgow Avenue and the residential property to the north to a relatively level pad that supports the existing improvements. Elevations across the site generally range from about 227 feet in the northwestern corner to about 217 feet within the building pad and about 213 feet in the southeastern corner of the site. Vegetation on-site generally consists of typical residential landscaping with flora growing on the slopes surrounding the existing residence. Various medium-size trees also exist within the property. C\VE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 4 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located within the Foothills Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations,and analysis of readily available,pertinent geologic literature,we have determined that the project area is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits that are mantled by a layer of fill material in the southeastern portion and by topsoil in the remaining portions of the project area. These materials are described below: ARTIFICIAL FILL(Qao:An approximately 3'/2-foot-thick layer of fill material was encountered within our test pit P-5,which was excavated in the area to support the southern end of the proposed retaining wall. In addition,an approximately 4-foot-thick layer of fill,associated with the backfill behind the northern wall of the existing garage,was encountered within our test pit P4. The encountered fill generally consisted of light yellowish-brown,poorly graded sand-silty sand (SP-SM) that was typically damp to moist and very loose to loose in consistency.The fill material is expected to possess a low expansion index and a moderate settlement potential in its present condition,and is considered unsuitable to support settlement-sensitive improvements. TOPSOIL: An approximately 6- to 12-inch-thick layer of topsoil was encountered at the surface within our test pits P-1, P-3,P-4 and P-7,which were excavated within the project area. In addition, approximately 1 foot to 2 feet of topsoil was also encountered at the surface of our test pits P-2 and P-6,which were excavated in the sloping areas to the north and east of the project area,respectively. In general, the topsoil consisted of light brown to dark grayish-brown,silty sand(SNI) that was dry to moist and loose to very loose in consistency.The encountered topsoil is expected to possess a low expansion index and a moderate settlement potential in its present condition,and is considered unsuitable to support settlement-sensitive improvements. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Quaternary-age terrace deposits were encountered below the fill material and topsoil within our test pits P-1 through P-7.Terrace deposits were also encountered at the surface of our test pit P-8,and are expected to underlie the entire project area.This soil generally consisted of light yellowish-brown to medium reddish-brown,poorly graded sand-silty sand (SP- Slvl) that was typically damp to moist and loose in the upper weathered approximately 1'./z to 31/2 feet and medium dense to dense below those depths."These deposits are expected to possess a low expansion index,a moderate settlement potential in the upper weathered portions,and a low settlement potential in the remaining portions below. With the exception of the upper weathered C'vX'B 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 5 portions, the existing terrace deposits are considered suitable in their present condition to support settlement sensitive improvements. GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered in our subsurface explorations and the do not expect any groundwater related conditions during or after the proposed construction. However,it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after construction and landscaping at a site even where none were present before construction.These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the _ anticipated construction and landscaping,it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site. However,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 that consist of several individual,en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as "active" according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term"potentially active"on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 trillion years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-age faults as "potentially active"except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be "potentially active"would be considered to be "active" but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist, such as sufi ently active and well defined. Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be"inactive". A review of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located -- approximately 5 kilometers west of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank Fault Zone to the southwest, the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone to the northwest and the Elsinore and Earthquake Valley Fault Zones to the northeast. CkVE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GROUND SHAKING:A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum ground accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum magnitude earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. TABLE I: MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATION Fault Zone Distance Maximum Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 5 km 7.2 Magnitude 0.43 Newport-Inglewood 21 km 7.1 Magnitude 0.18 -- Coronado Bank 28 km 7.6 Magnitude 0.18 Elsinore- uhan 46 km 7.1 Magnitude 0.10 Earthquake Valle 67 km 6.5 Magnitude 0.05 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 possible that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the existing and proposed improvements. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication,"Landslide Hazards in the Northern 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. According to this publication, the site is located in Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 3-1, which is considered to be"generally susceptible" to landsliding and includes gentle to moderate slopes. Based on the competent nature of the underlying formational materials,it is our professional opinion that the potential for slope failures within the site is low. 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. CNX,T- 3070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 7 TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Due to the site's elevation and location, the risk of the site being affected by a tsunami is considered low. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,harbors,bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location,it should not be affected by Seiches. CONCLUSIONS In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude the construction of the proposed garage/art studio and retaining wall provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. Based on our investigation, we have determined that the project area is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits that are mantled by a layer of fill material in the southeastern portion and by topsoil in the remaining portion.The existing fill, topsoil and the upper portions of the terrace deposits were found to be very loose to medium dense in consistency and are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. We anticipate that the cuts for the proposed improvements will remove most of the unsuitable materials and will expose relatively competent terrace deposits; however, we anticipate that the shallow cuts in the southeast portion of the project area will expose the unsuitable material. In this area, the existing fill will need to be removed and replaced as structural fill in order to support the southern section of the proposed retaining wall. In addition, the disturbed soils resulting from the demolition of the existing garage will need to be removed and replaced as structural fill. Furthermore, footings supporting the proposed garage/art studio and northern section of the proposed retaining wall will need to extend through any remaining unsuitable soils if exposed and be embedded into the underlying competent portions of the terrace deposits. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have a significant effect on the proposed construction. The most likely geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However,construction in accordance with the requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building Code and the local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safety suitable for the type of development proposed. CWE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas,and the Recommended -- Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix B,except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading,a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the preconstrucdon meeting to provide additional grading guidelines,if necessary,and to review the earthwork schedule. OBSERVATION OF GRADING:Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed,and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. CLEARING AND GRUBBING:Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing improvements that are designated for removal. This removal should include all existing foundations, slab, pavement and utilities as well as any vegetation,and other deleterious materials,including all significant root material. The resulting organic materials and construction debris should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility. SITE PREPARATION: Site grading is expected to consist of cuts of up to 7 feet from existing site grades.We anticipate that the cuts for the proposed improvements will remove most of the unsuitable materials and will expose relatively competent terrace deposits. However,we expect that not all of the unsuitable soils will be removed by the planned cuts in the southeast portion of the project area.Therefore, site preparation should consist of removing the existing fill from the area to support the southern section of the proposed retaining wall and replacing the removed soils as structural fill. The removals should extend to contact with the underlying terrace deposits. Based on our subsurface exploration, the fill material in this area had a thickness of about T/i feet, but may be thicker in localized areas. Horizontally, the removals should extend at least three feet outside the area to support the proposed retaining wall footings. In addition, the disturbed soils resulting from the demolition of the existing garage will need to be removed and replaced as structural fill. Furthermore, the soils exposed in the area to support the proposed garage/art studio on-grade slab vill need to be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent relative CkVE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 9 compaction. The bottom of the excavations should be approved by our project geologist,engineer,or technician supervisor prior to placing fills or constructing improvements. TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES:Temporary cut slopes of up to about 10 feet in height are anticipated to be required during the construction of the proposed retaining wall. Temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet in height for retaining wall construction can be excavated vertical for the bottom 4 feet and at an inclination of 1.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter above the vertical portion. Our firm should be contacted to observe all temporary cut slopes 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 might be necessary. If shoring is required, recommendations can be provided. 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 "competent 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. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out and approved to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture-conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. No other special ground preparation is anticipated at this time. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING:All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above 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 our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum dimension. However,in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed. C\XT 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 10 Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath the concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SURFACE DRAINAGE: The ground around the proposed structure should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general,we recommend that the ground adjacent to structures slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff - can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of at least five percent within the first three feet from the structure. Gutters and downspouts should discharge into controlled drainage devices. GRADING PLAN REVIEW: The final grading plan should be submitted to this office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented,and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated development plans. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgment,it is our opinion that the proposed garage/art studio and retaining wall may be supported by conventional 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. DIMENSIONS: Conventional spread footings supporting the proposed garage/art studio should extend through any remaining unsuitable soils that are not removed by the proposed cuts and be embedded at least 6 inches into the underlying competent portions of the terrace deposits with an overall minimum embedment of 12 inches below finish grade. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Isolated footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings supporting the northern section of the proposed retaining wall,which will include the northern side of the proposed garage/art studio,should extend through any remaining unsuitable soils and be embedded at least 6 inches into the underlying competent portions of the terrace deposits with an overall minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footing supporting the southern section of the proposed retaining wall should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and should have a minimum width of 24 inches. BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional spread footings with a minimum embedment of 18 inches into the compacted fill material and a width of 24 inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of CWE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 11 2,000 pounds per square foot. Conventional spread footings with a minimum embedment of 6 inches into the competent terrace deposits and a width of 12 inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot These values may be increased by 800 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of embedment depth and 350 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width, up to a maximum of 4,000(pso for compacted fill and up to 6,000 (pso for the terrace deposits. These values may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCEMENT: The project structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for foundations. However,based on soil conditions,kve recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings should consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned two inches below the top of the footing. 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 0.30. 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 foundation settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and 1 inch in 40 feet,respectively,provided the recommendations presented in our forthcoming 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 may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils are expected to have a low expansive potential. The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition. 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. C\v,TE 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 12 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to the placement of forms or reinforcement in order to verify that the footings have the proper dimensions and that the soil conditions are as anticipated during the formation of our foundation recommendations. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on our Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis, the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site is _ estimated to be 0.43 g (based upon a Maximum Magnitude Seismic Event of 7.2 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault). For structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening,and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended(UBC Table 16-J). Based upon the location of the site at approximately 5 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault(Type B Fault),Near Source Factors N. equal to 1.0 and N, equal to 1.2 are also applicable.These values,along with other seismically related design parameters from the Uniform Building Code(UBC) 1997 edition,Volume II,Chapter 16,utilizing a Seismic Zone 4 are presented in tabular form below. 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, 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor N,. 1.2 16-U Seismic Source Type B ON-GRADE SLAB GENERAL: It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed garage/art studio will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the anticipated soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of structural considerations. INTERIOR FLOOR SLAB: The minimum floor slab thickness should be four inches (actual) and the interior floor slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be 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 C\X'E 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 13 six inches. The garage slab may be constructed independent of the garage perimeter footings,but the slab and foundation should have a felt strip between them. If the garage slab and footings are constructed monolithically, the slab reinforcement should extend into the perimeter foundations at least six inches. UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS:Steps should be taken to minimize the transmission of moisture vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially damage the interior floor - coverings. Local industry standards typically include the placement of a vapor retarder,such as visqueen, between two,2-inch-thick layers of coarse sand placed directly beneath the concrete slab. This is the most common under-slab vapor retarder system used in San Diego County. The vapor retarder should be at least 15-mil visqueen with sealed seams and should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the interior and perimeter footings. The sand should contain less than 10%passing the number 100 sieve and less than 5% passing the number 200 sieve. Although the system described above has historically performed adequately,national standards for the installation of vapor retarders below interior slabs are changing as evidenced in currently published standards including ACI 302,"Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction" and ASTM E1643, "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs". Rather than placing the vapor retarder between the two sand layers,both of these standards recommend placing the sand capillary break layer onto the subgrade with a vapor retarder _ placed above the sand and the concrete placed directly onto the vapor retarder. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these installation procedures. An advantage to placing concrete directly onto a vapor retarder is that it eliminates the layer of sand between the slab and vapor retarder. This layer of sand typically contains moisture prior to the placement of concrete and can receive more moisture during the curing and construction processes. This moisture can be retained in the sand layer for an extended period of time until the concrete moisture decreases to the point at which the excess sand moisture is absorbed by the concrete and transmitted up through the slab. This process can take many months depending upon the environmental conditions. One disadvantage to placing concrete directly onto a vapor retarder is that removing the sand layer from _.._ directly beneath the concrete restricts the ability of the concrete to lose moisture on both the top and bottom surfaces during the initial curing period. Variations in the drying rate between the top and bottom surfaces can result in increased concrete cracking,curling, and other finishing issues. The drying rate differences and their potential side effects can be minimized, however,with suitable finishing and curing procedures. CkX`E 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 14 Recognizing the stated benefits and limitations of these standard below-slab vapor retarder systems, the owner and designer should select the system that they believe is most suitable for this project considering the construction schedule and planned floor coverings. It should be understood that neither of the described systems provides a"waterproof barrier". It should also be understood that slab concrete contains free water and should be allowed to reach equilibrium in an environment similar to that anticipated in the completed structure prior to installing floor coverings. We recommend that the flooring installer perform standard moisture vapor emission tests prior to the installation of all moisture- sensitive floor coverings in accordance with ASTM F1869 "Standard Test Method for Measuring Moisture Vapor Emission Rate of Concrete Subfloor Using Anhydrous Calcium Chloride". EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK: Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Control joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. Where patio slabs,walkways and porch slabs abut perimeter foundations, they should be doweled into the footings. EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for the proposed retaining walls should be designed using the recommendations for shallow foundations presented previously in this report. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the anticipated foundation soils may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.30 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one- third. EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURES: The equivalent fluid 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 55 pounds per cubic foot,respectively. An additional 20 pounds per cubic foot should be added to the above value for 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill and an additional 13 pounds per cubic foot should be added to the above value for 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office C\*GT 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 15 should be contacted for the necessary in.rease in soil pressure. These values assume a drained, nondetrimentatly expansive(E.I.<50) backfill condition. WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN: Waterproofing details should be provided by the project architect. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 12.We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant be requested to observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. BACKFILL: A11 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 Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts,specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. Ir should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may 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 Engineer so that lie may make modifications if necessary. C\X'E 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 16 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. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can,however, occur with the passage of time,whether they are 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 are 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 Clients,or his 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 CkVE 20701.16.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 17 take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Eight subsurface explorations were made on February 27, 2007 at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1. These explorations consisted of test pits excavated with hand tools. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. The exploratory test pit logs are presented on Plate Numbers 2 through 10. The soils are described in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular _. soils is given as 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 chunk samples and bulk samples were collected by hand. Samples were placed in plastic bags and were transported to our 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 test pit logs. c) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a sample of the on-site soils was determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test C',&T 2070146.01 March 22,2007 Page No. 18 D-1557, Method A. The results of this test are presented on Plate No. 11. d) DIRECT SHEAR TEST: A Direct shear test was performed to determine the failure envelope of a representative sample of the on-site soil based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented on Plate No. 11. LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-1 Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC - Existing Elevation: 223 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES ILI �% z -- U OO U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a F z U Topsoil: Light brown,dry,loose,SILTY SAND (Sill),very fine to 1 medium-grained,with organics and abundant rootlets,porous, highly friable. CK 3.4 101.8 Terrace Deposits Qt): Orangish-brown,damp to moist,medium dense,POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-S�f),very fine CK 4.5 110.6 3 to medium-grained, friable,slightly weathered. At 2 feet becomes moist. Porous from 1 to 2 feet. At 2'/2 feet becomes medium reddish-brown. At 3 feet becomes dense. 4 Test pit terminated at 3Y2 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 6 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO }� 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California C I IRIS I IAN WI II 1 1.1 R BY: tfW DATE: 'March 2007 N I I R I N JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 2 SLOPE LOG NUMBER P-2 Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 226 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 226 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES C.i z o H g o SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a Z 'n W ° V) Topsoil: Medium grayish-brown,dry to damp,very loose,SILTY 1 SAND (SCI),very fine to medium-grained,with rootlets. 2 Terrace Deposits (Qt):Light yellowish-brown,moist,loose to c:K 3 medium dense,POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SDI), very fine to very coarse-grained, porous, friable. Highly weathered from 2 to 3'/z feet. CK \At 3'/z feet becomes medium reddish-brown and medium dense. 5 Test pit terminated at 4 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 6 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California C I IRIS I IAN W1 II 111 R BY: IN[W DATE: March 2007 u 1 11 1 IN JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 3 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-3 Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 220 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A S;1 MPLES -- v z o w (D o� "1 .0 r SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a a z z �75 o Topsoil: Dark gray,damp,loose,SILTY SAND (SNI),very fine to 1 medium-grained,with rootlets. Terrace Deposits fOt):Light yellowish-brown to medium reddish- CK 2.5 107.1 2 brown,moist,medium dense,POORLY GRADED SAND-SI'.,TY SAND (SP-S,\1),very fine to very coarse-grained,porous, friable. At 2 feet becomes dense. 3 Test pit terminated at 2 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO ' 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California C 1 II,,IS I IAN \VI II 1 1.1 It BY: NMI DATE: March 2007 ii 1 `' JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 4 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-4 NORTH Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 222 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES z o W o o �~ 0 20 SUMNUL RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W a y z W�W Ca W o V� O E� Topsoil: Light brown,damp,loose,SILTY SAND (SNI),very fine to 1 medium-grained,with rootlets. Terrace Deposits(Ot): Light yellowish-brown,damp,loose, POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SN\ ,very fine to very CK 2.7 104.6 coarse-grained, friable. Highly weathered from '/2 to 3'/2 feet. 3 - 4 At 3V2 feet becomes medium reddish-brown to light yellow,medium dense. CK 5.1 106.2 DS _.. MD 5 Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. G 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California I IR IS I IAN \'VI II 1 1.I R BY: M\X/ DATE: March 2007 N I I I` I ~ JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 5 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-4 SOUTH Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC _.. Existing Elevation: 222 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES � z o v � � 0 o SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS � W o (n o Artificial Fill(Qaf): Light yellowish-brown,damp,loose,POORLY 1 GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SM),very fine to very coarse-grain 2 3 CK 4.4 103.5 4 Terrace Deposits (01): Medium reddish-brown to light yellow,moist, _.. 5 medium dense,POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SM), very fine to very coarse-grained, friable. G Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California I KIS I I W w11 II 11.1 R BY: 1\fw DATE: March 2007 JOB NO. : 2070146 PL.-1TE NO.: 6 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-5 Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 218 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAM LGS z x J a � (Z-4 H SLMN111RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a Z � 0� z CIO Artificial Fill (Qafl: Light yellowish-brown,damp to moist,very I loose,POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-STv�,very fine to very coarse-grained,with rootlets. 3 CK 7.7 __. } Terrace Deposits (Qt):Light yellowish-brown to light reddish-brown, moist,loose to medium dense,POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY S SAND (SP-SNP ,very fine to very coarse-grained, friable. Cal 7.7 102.4 Highly weathered from 3'/z to 6'/z feet. 6 7 At 6,/2 feet becomes medium dense. Cal 9.3 115.0 Test pit terminated at 7 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 8 9 10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California C I III IS I 1,\N W1 II 1 1.1 R BY: `rw DATE: March 2007 JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 7 SLOPE LOG NUMBER P-G Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC -- Existing Elevation: 218 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES z o w o W� SUMNLXRY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a N Topsoil: Gravish-brown,dry,loose,SILTY SAND (Sl\/),very fine to 1 medium-grained,with rootlets. Terrace Deposits (Qfl: Medium reddish-brown,moist,medium CK 2 dense, POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SM),very fine \to very coarse-grained,porous, friable,moderately weathered. 3 Test pit terminated at V/z feet. No groundwater or seepage. - 4 5 6 7 8 9 L10 PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO ' 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California c I II\15I INN WI II I1.I R BY: �fw DATE: March 2007 R I _JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 8 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-7 Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment Hand Tools Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 221 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES i� SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a ` z w PQ -2 ago ' z o PQ Topsoil: Grayish-brown,damp to moist,very loose,SILTY 1 S_1ND SN ,very fine to medium- ained,with rootlets. Terrace Deposits (Qt):Yellowish-brown,damp to moist,loose, POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SNI),very fine to very coarse-grained, friable. At 2 feet becomes moist. 3 Highly weathered from '/z foot to 3'/z feet. At 3'/z feet becomes medium dense. CK - 4 Test pit terminated at 3'/2 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 5 - 6 7 8 9 Lin PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO ' 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardiff by the Sea, California C I1RISI1,\N WI II 1 1.1 R BY: "\1W DATE: 'larch 2007 N I 1 1, 1 N JOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 9 LOG OF TEST PIT NUMBER P-8 Date Excavated: 2/27/2007 Logged by: DF Equipment: Hand Tools Project Manager: CHIC Existing Elevation: 218 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 218 feet Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES � z o H 2 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a 3 4 u W 0 O 0 Terrace Deposits(Qtl: Light yellowish-brown,damp,loose, 1 POORLY GRADED SAND-SILTY SAND (SP-SN\ ,very fine to very coarse-grained. Disturbed from 0 to 11/2 feet. At V/z feet becomes medium reddish-brown and medium dense. Test pit terminated at 3'/2 feet. No groundwater or seepage. 3 _.._ 4 5 6 -n 7 8 9 Lo PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 Glasgow Avenue, Cardi if by the Sea, California C I IRISII \N \�Vl II I H R BY: 2\IW NTE: 'March 2007 i i N i iii 1� DOB NO. : 2070146 PLATE NO.: 10 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Sample Location: Test pit P-4 @ 3.5'-5' Sample Description: Reddish-brown, SP-SM Maximum Density: 111.6 pcf Optimum Moisture: 13.8 DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080) Sample Location: Test pit P-4 @ 3.5'-5' Sample Type: Remolded to 90 Friction Angle: 300 Cohesion: 150 psf (:AX 1 2()7U146.()l March 2007 Plate No. l l I I �-- r/.Slope Minimum G-inch $ G-inch Minimum Max. ' v a . ° 3/4 inch Crushed Rock or 1\Iiratl G100N or Equivalent '� •;p d Waterproof Back of Wall ° Per Architect's Specifications 'a v ° 12" Top of Ground or Concrete Slab • c f ° GeofabricCompletely �' a Wrapped Around Rock � �• y/YXn Y/Y X�x 6-inch 7� �C Minimum /.y Minimum < 4-inch Diameter �( Perforated Pipe X ,� PVC Schedule 40 !/J'N RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 GLASGOW AVENUE ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA CHR ISTIA\' WHEELER BY SCC I).AH Nl;\W-112007 H (KiS)4v6,J 7Gu I \K(858)47e-9758 1013 No .: 3070146.01 1)1,.A I F NO.: 12 CWE 2070146.01 March 22, 2007 Appendix A 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, Xilliam 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",CDMG 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. Countywide Flood Insurance Rate Map,Map No.06073C1044F (panel 1044 of 2375),prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date June 19, 1997. Kennedy, M.P., 1975,Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California;California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Kern, P., 1989, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press,73 pp. Tan, S.S., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern 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 Geophvsical Research,Volume 91,No. B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986. CkyT 2070146.01 March 22, 2007 Appendix B - 1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED GARAGE AND ART STUDIO 2159 GLASGOW 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 Ell 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 Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the __. work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer,substandard conditions are encountered,such as questionable or unsuitable soil,unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following .lmerican Society for Testing and Materials test methods: CWE 2070146.01 March 22, 2007 Appendix B - 2 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 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content,compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. 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 compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. 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 C`VE 2070146.01 March 22, 2007 Appendix B - 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. 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. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report,when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of CkX'E 2070146.01 March 22,2007 appendix B -4 two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- 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 least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results,the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained,at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding,joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. - ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. CWE 2070146.01 March 22, 2007 Appendix B - 5 SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. IvMien work is interrupted by heavy rain, tilling 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 American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Laboratory Test D4S29-95. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over six 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: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum 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. 4. ALLMASONRYWORKSHALLBELAIDUPSTRAIGHTANDTRUEWILILALI701NTSTOOLED. ANDEVENLYSPACED NOCUTBLOCKS SHALLBE USED UNLESSABSOLUTELYNECESSARY, AND THENONLYCUTWITHAMASONRY SAW UPONCOMPLETION,THEMASONSHALLCUT OUTAND REPLACE ALL BROKEN OR CHIPPED EXPOSED MASONRY ORDEFECTIVE JOINTS. ALL LOOSE OR EXCESS MORTAR AND GROUT SHALL BE REMOVED AND ALL SURFACES CLEANED AND LEFT FREE FROM MORTAR AND OTTIER STAINS RESULTING FROM THE WORK. USE OPEN ENDED CONCRETE BLOCK FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS. 5. ALL GROUTING SHALLBERODDEDTO INSURE COMPLETE FILLING OFALLCELLS. SETALL /S v G AS & REQUIRED ANCHOR BOLTS, HOLD DOWNS, ETC., IN PLACE WITH RIGID SPACERS BEFORE Oq• ARTr�T S.. DIO GROUTING INSPECTION IS CALLED FOR CLEAN -OUT OPENINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM OF ALL CELLS TO BE OROUT- FILLED OVER FOUR FEET IN A SINGLE POUR SEALCLEAN- OUTSBEFOREPOU RING. MASONRYSHALLSETUPFORAMR- UMUMOFTHREE DAYS BEFORE GROUTING BEGINS, 6. BACKFJLLING FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS & H A I L NOT BEGIN UNTIL MASONRY OR I i •• ; , ` CONCRETE RETAINING MEMBERS HAVE ATTAINED A 21 -DAY IN PLACE STRENGTH MINIIYMU PROVIDE HORIZONTAL SUPPORTS FOR RETAINING WALLS UNTIL CONCRETE , SLABSARE POURED, AND/OR ALLBACKFILLINGOPERATIONIS COMPLETED. BACKFJLLING OF ALL MASONRY AND /OR POURED CONCRETE RETAIN ING WALLS SHALL BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT PRODUCE A SURCHARGE OR OTHER HORIZONTAL FORCE ON .' SUCH WALLS BYEAVyFQUIPMENT, ETC.. ALLDRAINLINESANDWATERPROOFINGSHALL H ; BE IN PLACE AND PROPERLY PROTECTED DURING BACKFILLING OF WALLS. yA ' 414, .. �`•'�• � 7. MORTARFORALLMASONRYWORK, NOTTOBEPAINl -ED, SHALLBE COLOREDASSELECTED BY OWNER VERIFY WITH OWNER. �f* 4 8. SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ALL MASONRY MATERIALS THAT ARE CALLED FOR TO VERIFY COLOR, SIZE, SHAPE, TEXTURE, ETC.ATTWE OF BIDDING FOR O WNERS'ANDARCHMECTS' APPROVAL. SHEET METAL RESIOENG ' _ NEW 4" THICK CONCRETE DRIVE AND RESIDENCE 1. FLASHING SHALL BE AS CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWING OR AS REQUIRED TO MAKE A i PATIO WITH PATTERN AND TEXTURE COMPLETE WATERPROOF CONDITION THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT. FABRICATE AND SIMILAR TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE �- INSTALLFZASHINGANDSHEETMETALINACCORDANCEWITHTHELATESTS .M.A.C.N.A. 'To THE SOUTH, WITH 2' WIDE STANDARDS. - 'ALTERNATE COLOR PATTERN. , •: 2. ALL WORK SHALL BE NEAT AND UNIFORM WITH MITERED JOINTS AT CORNERS AND ANGLES. BROKENMEMBERS SHALLFINISH WITHTRUE, STRAIGHT,AND SHARPLINES, AND SHALL BEACCURATELY COPED ATJNTERSECTIONS. ALLFLASHING SHALLBE GALVANIZED. STEEL 22 GAUGE MINIMUM ORAS NOTED. Q PARTIAL PLAN OF DRIVE ZY PATIO THICKEN EDGE OF 3. SECURE FLASHING WITH CLEATS OR OTHER CONCEALED FASTENERS WITHOUT ` SLAB TO 8 "x8" NAILING THROUGH METAL WHEREVERPOSSIBLE. SPACE NAILS, RIVETS, ETC., AT &" O.C. 3 91=1 0 . MAXIMUM. 4. PROVIDE GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS WHERE CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWINGS. i 5. GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE EXTRUDED ALUMINUM WITH BAKED ENAMEL j FINISH. VERIFY COLOR SELECTION WITH OWNER- ROUGH CARPENTRY SEE SHEET #S -I FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. ,LUMBER SHALL BE CLEARLY GRADE MARKED. I 2. SILL PLATES SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR PROVIDE 6" CLEARANCE FROM FLOOR SLAB TO.FINISH GRADE. (1`MUMLIM) 3. STUDS, PLATES, BLOCKING, SILLS SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR #2 GRADE OR BETTER. ALL j POSTS AND BEAMS 4X4ANDLARGERTOBE #1 D.R.. ALLWALLSSHALLBEFRAMEDWITH i 2 X 4 STUDS AT 16" O.C. UNLESS NOTED OTPIERWISE. ALL STUDS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS FOR FULL HEIGHT OF WALL. 4. ALL HORIZONTAL FRAMING LUMBER, JOISTANDRAFTERS MALL BE DOUGLAS FIR #2. 4X _ BEAMS, GIRDERS,AND LARGER SHALLBE DOUGLAS FIR #I UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. 5, PLYWOOD: THE TOTAL EXTERIORWALLAREASOFTHISNEWRESIDENCESHALLBESHEARPANE. REMOVE EXISTING WITH 3/8" THICK CDX PLYWOOD WITH 8d NAILING AT 6" ON CENTERS EDGES AND 12" ON ASPRALT DRIVE CENTERS FIELD, UNLESS OTHE R WI S ENO T EA _ .. - - ALL PLYWOOD SHEAR PANELS `SHALLBE` STRUCTUILA 1,-Oijx (24-0) TH CKNESS'AND NAILINGAS CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWINGS. ALL SHEARWALLS SHALL BENAITEDNOT APL D: USE COMMON NAILS ONLY. A. 'ALL SHEAR WALLS AS CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWINGS SHALLBE TOTALLYPANELED FOR ITS TOTAL LENGTH AND HEIGHT, INCLUDING OPENINGS, WITH AS LARGE AS i - POSSIBLE PIECES CUT FROM SINGLE 4' X 8' SHEETS, OR LARGER. THE SHEAR FOUND 314" PIPE PER \ to rye PANELLING SHALL EXTEND FULL HEIGHT OF WALLS TO FLOOR SHEATHING OR TO Ei •• CORNER RECORD 4186. TO ROOF SHEATHING. SHEAR PANELS SHALLNOT END AT CEILING FRAMING UNLESS / N NOTED. NO PATCHING OR SCABBING PIECES SHALL.BE ALLOWED. STAGGER ALL JOINTS MINIMUM OF 2' WHEN HEIGHT OF WALL IS OVER 8'. PROVIDE BLOCKING WHEN CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWINGS, ORAT THE TOPS OF ALL 8 FOOT HIGH PANEL \ N JOINTS. PROVIDEIIORIZON' T' ALBLOCKINGA 'I'THETOPSOFALLPANELI011VTS. 5'fAR'I' � N PLYWOOD AT BOTTOM (PLATE CONNECTED TO FOUNDATION WITH ANCHOR BOLTS) OF WALLS. REVIEW L AYOLIT WITH AR( iIi'IFCT BEFORE STARTING FRAMING. 1 �['PTG� ( MEND END \ Q� p HOLES CUT IN PLYWOOD SHEAR PANELS FOR ELECTRICAL BOXES SHALL BE CUT �r W I'i L ■ 'w 1 r a Q op a NO LARGER THAN 1 /Z" CLEARANCE ALL AROUND BOXES. WHERE HOLES ARE CUT ®P_8 APPROXIMATE TEST PTT LOCATION p IOFPHD231A1 LARGER THE TOTAL SHEET OF PLYWOOD SHALL BE REPLACED.1 Q p 4 4 �.. ., Qaf ' ARTIFICIAL,FMLOVER a , , v a 4. . ryh1 B. ROOF DIAPHRAGM PLYWOOD SHALLBE 5/8" THICK STRUCTURAL I1 CDX (32 -16) WITH Sd AT 6" O.C., AT EDGES AND 12" O.C. AT FIELD, UNLESS NOTED OTIIDRWISE ON THE Qt, 'TERRACE DEPOSM DRAWINGS.. < Qt TERRACE DEPOSITS. e 4 °�: Q $ e C. TIM SAME THICKNESS OF PARTICLEBOARD SHEATHING, AS DESCRIBED Q a 4 N OF THE 1997 UBC, MAY BE USED FOR ALL SHEAR WALLS INSTEAD OF PLYWOOD AS n CALLEDTOR ON THE DRAWINGS, WHICH IS BASED ON THE TABLE B -B I ` GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION Q q 23 -I1 -$ 1 AND 23- 11 -E -2 OFTHE 1997 UBC. THIS CHANGE IS ALLOWED BY CODE. . GEOLOGIC CONTACT p DIAPHRAM SHEATHING NAILS OR OTHERAPPROVED SHEATHING CONNECTORS SHALL p BE DRIVEN SO THAT THEIR HEAD OR CROWN IS FLUSH WITH THE SURFACE OF THE 4 �• pi SHEATHING. Q' Q W 4 6. METAL CONNECTORS SHALL BE THIN GAUGE CLIPS BY SIMPSON ORAPPROVED EQUAL, i AND SHALL BE GALVANIZED. ALL HOLES SHALL BE FILLED: WITH NAILS OR BOLTS OF . i ap • 4 \ V • \ PROPER SIZE AS REQUIRED BY THE MANUFACTURER., ALL HARDWARE SHALL HAVE. ` "ZM", TRIPLE ZINC COATING. A SIMPSON SHALL BE THE BASIS FOR THE DESIGN OF ALL HANGERS, PLATES, STRAPS, \ ETC. ALL SUBSTITUTES SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE VALUES BASED ON SIMPSON a ' .q4 - n� �� p PRODUCTS. - IT SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROOF TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR ANY SUBSTITUTIONS. 4d •. d 7. MEMBERS SHALL BE CUT SQUAREAND To ACCURATE LENGTHAND NEATLYASSEMBLED WITH FULL BEARING. THE FRAMING SHALL BE-INSTALLED PLUME, LEVEL, STRAIGHT \, TRUE, AND TO EXACT SIZES AS CALLED FOR ON THE DRAWINGS. PROVIDE SUFFICIENT QUALIFIED W0 _ILAND SUPERVISORS WIiO SHALLBEP,M)ENTATALLTIMESDURJNG EXECUTION OF THIS PORTION OF TLm WORK. ' p • 4 .� CAREFULLY SELECT INDIVIDUAL FRAMING PIECES SO THAT KNOTS AND OBVIOUS DEFECTS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH PLACING BOLTS OR PROPER NAILIN G OR MAKING 4 \ CONNECTIONS. 8. INSTALL ALL NAILING BLOCKS AND BACKING NECESSARY FOR ATTACHAMNTS FOR 4 •Q GROUNDS, TRIM AND FIXTURES. VERIFY WITH OWNER ANY SPECIAL ATTACHMENT ' REQUIREMENTS SUCHAS TOWEL BARS, GRAB BARS, HOOKS, SHELVING; CURTAINS, ETC. Q DO ALL REQUIRED CUTTING, FURRING AND BACKING FOR OTHER TRADES. 9. ALL BOLT HEADS AND NUTS THAT BEAR ON WOOD SHALL BE PROVIDED WPJJd METAL TR V E ,�'Qs�� ' WASHERS. BOLTS SHALL HAVE 7 DIAMETER MINIMUM END DISTANCE AND 4 DIAMETER p MINIMDIvT EDGE DISTANCE CLEARANCES. NORTH 10. STARTERBOARD SHALLBE IX6$ 4SWITHOUTKNOTHOLESATALLEXPOSED OVERHANGS, v UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. NO ROOFING NAILS SHALL PENETRATE THESE BOARDS AT a • EXPOSED CONDITIONS, i IL NAILING SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL CODE AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE .TA BLEN0.23- 11 -B -1 NAILING SCHEDULE. =1.EIATIQNS TIED TO C0 NTY 200 SCALE 12. ALL EXTERIOR WOOD STUD WALLS AND MAIN CROSS PARTITION SHALL BE SHEAR PANELED FROM SLAB TO TOP PLATT;. GRAS CALLED FOR 13. BLOCKING: AT RIDGE LINEAND AT EXTERIOR WALLS ON TRUSSEDROOFS - GARAGE AND ART STUDIO ADDITION CHRISHAN WHEELER I, N G I N L 1: It I N G DATE MARCH 2007 JOB NO.: - 2070146.01 BY: CHC /WM/JDB PLATE NO:' 1 TOPO. #310-16833 13OUNDARY 'PIED TO CORDER RECORD 11954 AREA ALCULATIONS r=xvE;x. t2. Sr Ftt2ST FtAUt2. = t t"13 sr _�XfsTr 'R -•��, a'E.r.,.�r.�p �t- C'c�C2. X9.3 S.�r 'Soo s.fz mm1w AT LT ISTO"t`.. to atIlOt-rrw = �� s1r, W < • •}= ExtsZ. Bo(L4plijA 40-C- = 2707 E•Xts(-. LtaZ covmr� 142£D g.F, L o-c CO loan. E j54 t s. . • �Ztoi "�.�r 22Ca 1 4 R A- I -Z 24. to Lo'T LOtEE-RAG ART STUDIO 374 SIP FOUND 314" PIP@ PER CORNER RECORD 4496. GARAGE 467 SF WALL BACKFILL 2171 GLASGOW PROVIDE 1" DIAMETER WATER LINE IN FRONT OF EXISTING HOUSE PRESSURE REGULATOR TO EACH NEW HOSE BIB. 'TIE INTO EXISTING WATER LINE (APPROXIMPTELY) ASSESSORS NO. 260 - 413 -32 111 Q' y P-6 1 1 DISN XPATa£ O`t >L Qt. ; ii. Z G ' (�-p� / V f/ ZN _ 2 z a ENERGY DISSIPATER - Z lu EDGE OF Q� Q 3 .SEE.PLANLABOVE O - FOYNDIMNREOM /� . ry �_ Qaf , -- FOUND 1 "F1RE. _ W `+ Qt N W a low Q 0 REMOVE EXISTING \ CONCRETE PATIO �� co N co ti 'w�R C'S A�'t C-;-7i CUT, V ..mi Qi ,PROVIDE 5 NEW HOSE W Ln BIBS AROUND PROPERTY •crm N AS SHOWN- PROVIDE A .• •1" DIAMETER WATER LINE TO EACH. HOSE BIBS ARE NOT TO BE CONNECTED TO THE STRUCTURE VICINITY MAP LBEY `b ISSUE l'1 U rn h7 L) L it co W < • 0 U-aN�i O � 4 W U w F G]W 2E F? Z.: 0 Z - W� > .. - _.Q Q. N Q G Q Z m 0 o W� U) 111 Q' y P-6 1 1 DISN XPATa£ O`t >L Qt. ; ii. Z G ' (�-p� / V f/ ZN _ 2 z a ENERGY DISSIPATER - Z lu EDGE OF Q� Q 3 .SEE.PLANLABOVE O - FOYNDIMNREOM /� . ry �_ Qaf , -- FOUND 1 "F1RE. _ W `+ Qt N W a low Q 0 REMOVE EXISTING \ CONCRETE PATIO �� co N co ti 'w�R C'S A�'t C-;-7i CUT, V ..mi Qi ,PROVIDE 5 NEW HOSE W Ln BIBS AROUND PROPERTY •crm N AS SHOWN- PROVIDE A .• •1" DIAMETER WATER LINE TO EACH. HOSE BIBS ARE NOT TO BE CONNECTED TO THE STRUCTURE VICINITY MAP LBEY `b ISSUE l'1