Loading...
2005-9156 G/PE CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Depositor Name: Vendor No. Address: �- i2r C Phone 1 o State =�- Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: I. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ Notes: / AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordin L Date Supervisor Date_�'/�►7 Department Head Date _ DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date GENERAL PROJ. !# BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER # (25 Characters limit) 101-0000-218.00-00 - - - - - - Security Deposit osit - _ TOTALS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FINANCE DATE OF REQUEST DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant DATE r,r-nr,i or a__ oiininv °.."...'� C I T Y OF E N C I N L r A c ENG??VEEF.IiG SERVICES DEPT SENT VULCAN AVE , E14C,INITAS . CA 92024 y.y L N:7 PEFill I T4 �l� �� - ,r PARCEL: NO. s3S-__ -�'��'� vL z' F0 . SITE RDDRESS : 735 ;SOUR T . S z-.5r -"; _ APPLICANT NAME, HENDRLtCK MARK ? MAILING ADDRES . 31 10 (.,t.I l z N0 DEL F._t? PHONE ; CITY : SAIN DIEGO STR�E: CL ZIP : 92108— CONTRACTOR . CHRISTINA E.N;3INEER!NGJ Pii�'NE NO. : �.60� 8 , a s, .LICENSE NO. : 764601 LICENSE TYPE.- ENGINEER PASCO ENGINEERING PHONE NO. : 8506-2559-8212 PERM-IT ISSUE DATE: 1/20/05 PEF:MIT EXP . ern:.: ? �o/06 PERMIT ISSUED BY : INSPE^TOR : ONALD QUIGG �- ------- ------ __----_- PERMIT .FEES & DEPOSITS --------------- -. 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .0 3 . INSPECTION FEE 1 , 111 . 74 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: , 00 5 . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 £ . SECURITY DEPOSIT 22 , 2:34 .. 85 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE : 223 . 00 8 TRAFFIC FEE l"0 -------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK _--------------. _ - •PER.MIT ISSUED TO GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE OF EARTHWORK, DI?A NT-.GF, PRIVATE �MPROtfEMENTS; RETAINING WALLS AND ERC ION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTRO ., THROUGH THE CITY TRA 'IC ENGINEER AND ,A. T .C.H SIDS OR EQUIV . WORK' ITV THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES TYPE A CONTRACTOR WITH REQUIRED LIABILITY INSURANCE. �� •h 'ti.. INSPECTION ------------ DATE - IN PECTOR' ,SIGN��' EE A x N 'IAL_aINSPEC "ION O1�iPA�TIt3N ;REPORT RECEIVED yR EN{'INEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 1�61 .INSPECTION�� o i v! I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY -'ORDINANCES AND STATE '`LAWS REGU'LA'TING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, ANDS 'THE' P�2OLfIS'jON� AND ONI�I`s'IONS OF ?ANY PERMIT :ISS,UED .PURSUANT TO Txis APPLICATIQ IG?3ATF�E A SIGI'ED TE 3 fJ� ,46 'RTI T NAME ` ELE"PHOE NMBEc t r � ICI,E 4iE. 4 :xNE AGENT 3.. W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING December 13, 2004 Mark Hendrick CAE 203.361.8 3110 Camino Del Rio South Cite of Encinitas Case No. 03-165 DR/CDP San Diego, California 92108 SUBJECT: UPDATE OF REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE,736 FOURTH STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Reference: 1) Report of Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation,Proposed Hendrick Residence,736 Fourth Street, Encinitas, California, 6)'Christian A heeler Engineering,Report No. 203.361.1, dated July 21,2003. Dear fir. Hendrick: In accordance with the request of NIr.Justin Suites of Pasco Engineering,we have prepared this letter to update the referenced geotechnical investigation. Based on our review,it is our opinion that the geologic/geotechnical findings and recommendations given in the investigation report remain applicable to the proposed project. 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. '^ E�. RU,k-Respectfully submitted, " ` ' ` ' V PIo.2215 < CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING CERTIFIED o ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST �0�pFEaSftj 1 Exp.09-05 \Q. H 401 OF CFO Cp1. u.,C? Z� n CO-) No.GF,15 z ac Exp.9-"' 5 Charles H. Christian,R.G.E. #00215 �FOrECI- i ac R. Russell, C.E.G. #2215 Cl I(::DRR �OFC'\t�l���� cr. (2) Submitted =• \� (2) Justin Suites a'Pasco Fn},�ncering,535 N,)rth I lighw iA,Suirc.A,Solana Reach,(;.A 920 75 `1 y \� (1) Gan•Cohen�?(:ohen cC.\s>()ciates,330 Stcecns:h•cnuc,Suitr 307,Scdana Reach.(:.\920-J, 0 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 4 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 w // GN, CHRISTIAN, WHEELER / ENGINEERING c�P/ptZ REPORT OF SITE PREPARATION AND FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 41h STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MARK HENDRICK c/o STUART NEWBY-FRASER 1326 SHERIDAN AVENUE ESCONDIDO,CALIFORNIA 92027 PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G _lugust 14,200? Mark Hendrick CWE 2050704.01 c/o Stuart Newby-Fraser 1326 Sheridan_venue Escondido,California 92027 SUBJECT: REPORT OF SITE PREPARATION AND FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS,HENDRICK, RESIDENCE,736 41h STREET,ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA References: Report of Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation,Proposed Hendrick Residence,736 Fourth Street,Encinitas,California hp Christian%Vheeler Engineering,Report No. 203.361.1,dated July 21,2003 Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with your request and with 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. The observations addressed by this report were coordinated by Mr. Stuart Fraser and were provided during the period of September 26,2005 through February 15,2007. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a developed parcel of land located adjacent to and west of 411, Street in the City of Encinitas of San Diego County,California. The lot is bounded on the north and south by developed residential lots and on the west by a bluff that descends to the Pacific Ocean. The site has approximately 50 feet of frontage along 411,Street and is approximately 146 feet deep. Prior to the earthwork addressed in this report,the property supported a one-story,residential structure located on the western portion of the site. Topographically,the site was characterized by a level building pad with a relatively steep natural bluff on the western border descending to the Pacific Ocean. Vegetation on the site included traditional residential landscaping with small to medium-sized trees,a large palm tree,a small garden and ice plant along the face of the bluff. 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 2050704.01 :August 14, 2007 Page 3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION:The existing one-stoti- residence was razed and a new two-story single- family residence over a basement/garage is under construction.The structure is masonry construction for the basement.area with an on-grade concrete slab and conventional continuous footings,and of wood-frame constnuction above grade. Permanent shoring was provided against vertical cuts around the perimeter of the basement. SCOPE OF SERVICE Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Observation of the basement and foundation excavations; • Preparation of this report. FIELD OBSERVATIONS CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Prior to our site visit,the areas to support the new construction were cleared and grubbed of existing structures and vegetation.The resulting materials were exported from the project site. BASEMENT AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATIONS:_After the installation of the permanent shoring around the perimeter of the basement area,the basement excavation was extended into competent undisturbed terrace deposits. The foundation excavations for the proposed single-family residence were observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of concrete,and were found to comply with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report. The masonry basement walls were constructed neat against the shoring. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL: It is the opinion of Christian kX'heeler Engineering that the site preparation 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 basement and foundation excavations. It is our further opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. AS-BUILT GEOLOGY: 'Phe geologic units encountered during the earthwork operations %were generally consistent with those anticipated in our referenced report of geotechnical investigation. The earthwork CWE 2050704.01 August 14,2007 Page 3 operations addressed by this report have,in our opinion,satisfactorily mitigated the potentially adverse conditions described in the referenced report. REMAINING WORK:As of the date of this report,additional work remains to be done on the site for the backfilling of retaining walls at the exterior areas of the residence,and the preparation of the subgrade courses in areas to be paved. Our firm should be contacted when these operations are performed so that we can verify their compliance with the applicable specifications. LIMITATIONS The descriptions,conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from September 26,2005 through February 15,2007. 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 H ELER ENGINEERING u icks,Supervisor Charles H.Christian,R.G.E.00215 urns R.Burdett,C.E.G. #1090 CHC/CRB/DH:mah cc: (6)SubmittedQ �\O`yAL G,- ��` `o�` B U,9, ?10 Z@ T Q J No. 1090 U NO.GE 1s 2f _ ! v CERTIFIED Exp.9-30-07 *- * ENGINEERING *1 .k j) F x r, �OFCAL�F yT OF�A1.�F0/ City of Encuiitas 505 South Vulcan.Avenue Fire ` n Encinitas,California 92024-3633 Building Tel 760-633-2600'Fax 760-943-2226 TDD 760-633-2700'wv%w.ci.encinitas.ca.us Planning Engineering Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. Name of Proiect L-e/7 W/ Name of Developer „A Pis n PA-r— 4E'A- ' I have inspected the site at address...number street name suffix and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. Signature of Engineering Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. '6 r Special Note: Please do not sign the"blue card"that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer.You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved,typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return-this form, if completed,to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled "Final Inspection". Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork,if completed. Thank you. — ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects City Of District support Services �.,yZCZYIZ�GIS Feld Operations Subdivision Engineering f 1 Vv Traffic Engineering . ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL e_o subdivision Engineering T0: 9 9 Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract inspection RE: Grading Permit No. / Name of Project Y>Z2'Y)C Name of Developer Site Location address.:, :..number. ..street.name suffix)r(10 ) ' : (bldg) I have;inspected the gradi[►g at thesubjec~site and:have:uerifie.d certificatiortaofthegad:by,.:-.* the;Enginee.r of Work, dated ;:. - •:algid certification of.,soil..`. compaction-by the Soil Engineer, �°dated - - i"am .hereby satisfied,:;that the..rough grading has been co :paste. in,.:accordance-with•the:approved plans-and!-specifications; Chapter.:23.24-,of the Municipal Code;4an&;any-other applicable": engitree,ring:st andards and--sp:ecific project requirements.,•. ;�., .:r Based=on:rny observation and the•certifications,:.l:;take no,.exception to the:isstaanoe .of:a:.: . . building permit for the lot(s) as noted or.Phase , if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However., this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other.engineering concerns, including .public road, drainage; water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monument ation;or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and Irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. (signature of Engineering inspector) (Date) (Signature of senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) )Date) Reference: Building Permit No. Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians'in-boxes.Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection.Thank you. JSG/field1doc 1 TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Enciniras, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper WAYNEA PASCO�� PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. R.C.E.29577 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101,SUITE A JOSEPH YUHAS SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 P.L.S.5211 (858)259-8212 FAX(858)259-4812 W.JUSTIN RC.E.68964 964 July 30, 2008 PE 1301 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA. 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECT NO.03-165 CDP AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 9156-G. The grading plan permit number 9156-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded"plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part Il were constructed and are operational,together with the required maintenance cove QRD SS10 Engineer of Record �� A p �e- f Date No.29M ^' Exp.3131111 q OF C Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's si re hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector Date i Very truly yours, "'D SGT` JA C. Y� LS 5211 Joseph Yuhas, L.S. 5211 1k Exp.06/30/09 Vice President of Land Surveying '�OF CAL�F�� -'4ITPY� OF El' 'NITAS - ENGINEERING SERVIr S DEPNT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: �! PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE: "! v r A �i 4, rv�-- wa 0 bpct )J rat lcd 09-MIW f, A„a�f' / S w� o� .t� �a -r MA41 a4 4- Y)wOt� �lj/des didr�. t m14429 w CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E RI N G DAILY REPORT Project Name Project# Project Address Permit# Pion file# Contractor Architect Subcontractor Engineer ❑Reinforced Concrete ❑Pre-Stressed Concrete ❑Reinforced Masonry ❑Epoxy Anchors ❑Shop Welding ❑Field Welding ❑Fireproofing Material/Equipment: Weather. Date Time Arrived: Time Departed: Hours Charged, Unless noted otherwise,the work observed is,to the best.of my,imowledge,in.compliornce with the approved planv and specifications tnspectorfTechaicion's Signature Reg..# SuperinteodenPs S'ynahumi >: ..: Date Insped- echnidan Pram or Type) 4925 Mercury='S-trect + San Diego, CA 92111 + 85'8-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WI-IEELER E N G I N E F R I N C DAILY REPORT Project Name Project# Project Address Permit# Plan File# Contractor Architect Subcontractor Engineer Material/Equipment: Weather: Time Arrived: Time Departed: Hours Charged: `y v co_ E c_a c d E a v `w o f o a Z m '6 Z a ~_ o .x c ooc E a E u w O o 0 C9 Z ° o Unless noted otherwise,the work observed is,to the best of my knowledge,in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Technician's Signature Supervisor's Signature Date 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 WAYNE A PASCO PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. R.C.E.29577 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101,SUITE A JOSEPH YUHAS SOLANA BEACH,CA 92075 P.L.S.5211 (858)259-8212 FAX(858)259-4812 W.JUSTIN SUITER RC.E.68964 July 30, 2008 PE 1301 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA. 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECT NO.03-165 CDP AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 9156-G. The grading plan permit number 9156-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached"As Graded"plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational,together with the required maintenance coves 1) SS/1 q Engineer of Record f � �� NE A p Fy Date 0 o LU No.29577 "'y Exp.3131111 s� Q 9 OF C Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's si re hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector Date Very truly yours, �J+�ND 3U�` LS 5211 Joseph Yuhas, L.S. 5211 * Exp.06/30/09 Vice President of Land Surveying '�OF CA��F�� THE ORIGINAL Or THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON JAN 25.2005 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2005-0064459 Recording Requested by: ) GREGORY SMITH COUNTY RECORDER City Engineer ) `.AN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE y g TIME 3'34 PM When Recorded Mail To: ) City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPA(-- COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor' s Parcel Work Order 156-G Number: 258-153-05 Project 3-165 A. Mark Stephen Hendrick and Sena A. Hendrick ( "OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property ( "PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows : See Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof . B. In consideration of 03-165 , OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , or any other applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same . C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties . D. OWNER agrees that OWNER' s duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant . E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney' s fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant . G. Upon OWNER' s satisfaction of OWNER' s duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant" . H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AGREED: OWNER a ` Stephen Hendrick Date Sena A. Hendrick Date (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CI E CI T Dated by (Notari�io not required) Peter Cota-Robles, Director of Engineering Services Attachment `A' Legal Description of Real Property APN 258-153-05 736 Fourth Street Lot 5 of Farrar' s Subdivision of Block 39 of Encinitas, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 42 , filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 21 , 1887 . Excepting therefrom any portion thereof or heretofore or now lying beneath the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of ,._,_ r. County of ,��,:���� t✓ On /t L ;�� before me, Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared " , Name(s)of Signer(s) personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and TRAVIS J.LIKE acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in COMM.#14494 m his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their N ;•-� Notary Public-California 0 signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon W SAN DIEGO COUNTY person(s)behalf of which the s acted, executed the instrument. My Comm.Exp.Nov 4,2007 p ( ) WITNESS my hand and official seal. i Signature of Notary Public ----------------------------------------OPTIONAL----------------------------------------- Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent f udulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: c_ Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s): ❑ Title(s): ❑ Partner- ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee E] Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator a M5 I ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Top of Thumb here ❑ Other: Top of Thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: w CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4TH STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MARK HENDRICK 3110 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92108 CE � � [ i JAN 2 0 2005 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 ENGINEERING -. July 21,2003 Mark Hendrick CWE 203.361.1 3110 Camino Del Rio South San Diego, California 92108 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE,736 4TH STREET,ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated December 4, 2002,we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith a report of our findings and recommendations. In general, our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed single-family residence and associated improvements,provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. The results of our subsurface explorations indicate that the site is underlain by Tertiary-age and Quaternary-age formational deposits that are generally overlain by a thin and irregular veneer of weathered formational materials. In our opinion, the existing veneer of weathered formational materials is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. In addition,it is anticipated that there will be areas of disturbed soil resulting from the demolition and removal of the existing improvements. However,we expect that most of the unsuitable and disturbed materials will be removed during the excavation of the proposed garage/basement level. Any unsuitable soils,as well as any soil disturbed from the removal of the existing improvements, that are not removed during the excavation of the garage/basement area, should be removed from areas to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements and be replaced as properly compacted fill. 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 4 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 C\VE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page 2 No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude continued residential use and redevelopment of the site as we presently understand it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements. The results of our quantitative slope stability analysis indicate that the existing bluff has factors-of-safety above the accepted minimum of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (pseudo-static) at and east of the 40-foot bluff top setback zone. Based on this condition,it is our opinion that the potential for a deep-seated slope failure that extends below the proposed residence is low. It should be noted,however, that this does not preclude the possibility of erosion of the bluff face as discussed in the"Bluff Erosion" section of this report. If you have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN'WHEELER ENGINEERING Charles H.Crisuan, RGE# 00215 David R. Russell, CEG#2215 CHC:DRR:tsw cc: (6) Submitted �VpFESS(pN ED Q�d H. q�Fy R. RUV�`O<C, j(y ;rte y m 4 No.2215 << a\ qqq W IU No.GE215 Z m CERTIFIEi7 ! Exp.9 30-05 ° ENGINEERING ° * GEOLOGIST f�q cF�OJECNN\ttGPQ��Q �� Exp. 09-03 \Q' OF 4MitF� `C TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description...............................................................................................................................1 ProjectScope........................................................................................................................................................................2 Findings................................................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription...............................................................................................................................................................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................4 Geologic Setting and Soil Description......................................................................................................................4 TerraceDeposits......................................................................................................................................................4 DelMar Formation.................................................................................................................................................4 Groundwater................................................................................................................................................................5 TectonicSetting..........................................................................................................................................................5 GeologicStructure......................................................................................................................................................5 BluffEdge....................................................................................................................................................................6 GeologicHazards...........................................................................................................................................................6 General.........................................................................................................................................................................6 BluffErosion...............................................................................................................................................................6 GroundShaking...........................................................................................................................................................8 Liquefaction.................................................................................................................................................................9 Flooding................................................................................................................. ...9 Tsunamis......................................................................................................................................................................9 Seiches............................................................................................................................................... .....9 ...................... SeismicDesign Parameters.........................................................................................................................................9 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability.....................................................................................................................10 General.......................................................................................................................................................................10 StabilityAnalyses......................................................................................................................................................10 StrengthParameters.................................................................................................................................................12 Methodof Analyses..................................................................................................................................................12 Resultsof Stability Analyses....................................................................................................................................13 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................................15 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................15 Earthworkand Grading...............................................................................................................................................15 General.......................................................................................................................................................................15 Observationof Grading...........................................................................................................................................16 Clearingand Grubbing.................................................................................... ...........16 ............................................. SitePreparation.........................................................................................................................................................16 Processingof Fill Areas...........................................................................................................................................16 Compactionand Method of Filling.......................................................................................................................16 LandscapeIrrigation.................................................................................................................................................17 SurfaceDrainage.......................................................................................................................................................17 TemporaryCut Slopes.............................................................................................................................................17 Foundations...................................................................................................................................................................18 ConventionalFoundations.......................................................................................................................................18 BearingCapacity........................................................................................................................................................18 FootingReinforcement............................................................................................................................................18 LateralLoad Resistance............................................................................................................................................18 SettlementCharacteristics.......................................................................................................................................19 ExpansiveCharacteristics........................................................................................................................................19 CWE 203.361.1 Proposed Single-Family Residence 736 4,h Street, Encinitas,California TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE FoundationPlan Review.........................................................................................................................................19 Foundation Excavation Observation.....................................................................................................................19 Proposed Cantelivered Portion of Residence......................................................................................................19 On-Grade Slabs.............................................................................................................................................................20 General.......................................................................................................................................................................20 InteriorFloor Slabs..................................................................................................................................................20 Moisture Protection For Interior Slabs.................................................................................................................20 ExteriorConcrete Flatwork....................................................................................................................................20 EarthRetaining Walls...................................................................................................................................................21 Foundations...............................................................................................................................................................21 PassivePressure........................................................................................................................................................21 LateralEarth Pressure..............................................................................................................................................21 WallDrainage and Waterproofing.........................................................................................................................21 Backfill........................................................................................................................................................................21 Limitations..........................................................................................................................................................................22 Review,Observation and Testing................................................................................................................................22 Uniformityof Conditions.............................................................................................................................................22 ChangeIn Scope............................................................................................................................................................22 TimeLimitations...........................................................................................................................................................22 ProfessionalStandard....................................................................................................................................................23 Client's Responsibility ......................................................................................................23 FieldExplorations.............................................................................................................................................................23 LaboratoryTesting............................................................................................................................................................24 0X/`E 203.361.1 Proposed Single-Family Residence 736 4,h Street,Encinitas,California ATTACHMENTS TABLES Table I Maximum Ground Acceleration,Page 9 Table II Seismic Design Parameters,Page 10 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan Plate 2 Geologic Cross-Section A-A' Plate 3 Geologic Cross-Section B-B' Plates 4-9 Boring Logs Plate 10 Laboratory Results Plate 11 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail Plates 12-27 Results of Slope Stability Analysis (Cross-Section A-A) Plate 28-43 Results of Slope Stability Analysis (Cross-Section B-B') APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications—General Provisions ONE 203.361.1 Proposed Single-Family Residence 736 4,h Street,Encinitas,California W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE - 736 4TH STREET ENCINITAS.CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical im*estigation performed for a proposed residence to be constructed at 736 4T'I Street,in the city of Encinitas of the County of San Diego,California. Figure Number 1 presented on the following page provides a vicinity map showing the location of the property. The subject site is located adjacent to and west of 41h Street in the City of Encinitas. We understand that the existing one-story residence will be razed and that a new two-story single-family residence over a basement/garage will be constructed. The structure will be of masonry construction for the basement area with an on-grade concrete slab and conventional continuous footings, and of wood-frame construction above grade. To aid in the preparation of this report,we were provided with a topographic site plan prepared by Kurt D. Scherer,Land Surveyor. A copy of the site plan was used as the basis for our geologic mapping and is included herewith as Plate Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Mark Hendrick and his design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way,the modified plans should be submitted to Christian Wheeler Engineering for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties,expressed or implied. - 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 SITE VICINITY MAP PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4th STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA - I 317.31667°W 117.30000°W WGS84 117.28333°W o r• q Enun I+d leach �. ! �•1t � \ ' iCounty P.,k Id Seesou ty Pars County Party Gvairn �� f 1 pw. o STATE BEACH 0 + 1 hxwatat 1m �" � y a� , 41. C{ Encinitas', IBM 91) 5 7 -�Iff a � 'l 1 • rl r4 � .r10 �.�,f i n E nil s U Ion:1✓fh�.. jMO Al t :$ awl/a,u Ic SITE See Count Pa M P.A h . f M O \ irk V •t� � m0 M X11. ijr;• -. cb �� '� to •� y 1 a Y Cardiff-by-the-Sei; Cardiff l 117.31667°W 117.30000°W WGS84 117.28333°W TN's'/MN o to t— VIT.• ®—1 7 soon Pnntd❑om TOPOI 01999 Wddffi—Pmdwt,w(ww Woo.ww)'� CWE 203.361 July 2003 Figure 1 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.2 PROJECT SCOPE Our investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface explorations,obtaining representative disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples,laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of available geologic literature and geotechnical documents pertaining to the site,and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed and construction; b) Evaluate the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed development,including the allowable soil bearing pressures,expansive characteristics,shear strength,and settlement potential; c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the site development,and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code; d) Determine the"edge of bluff'in accordance with the City of Encinitas guidelines and recommend an appropriate setback from the edge of the bluff; e) Perform a computer-assisted,quantitative slope stability analyses to evaluate the stability of the existing bluff; f) Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater,or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; g) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading; h) Recorn nen an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs; i) Provide design parameters for restrained (basement) retaining walls;and, CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.3 j) Present our opinions in this written report that includes in addition to our findings and recommendations,a site plan showing the location of our exploratory borings,geologic cross- sections through the bluff,logs of the borings,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 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 client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. In addition,our scope of service does not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination, or recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structure, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented above. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a developed parcel of land identified by as Assessor's Parcel Number 258-153-05 and as Lot 5 of Block 39 of Encinitas (Map No. 42),located adjacent to and west of 4th Street in the City of Encinitas of San Diego County,California. The lot is bounded on the north and south by developed residential lots and on the west by a bluff that descends to the Pacific Ocean. The site has approximately 50 feet of frontage along 4th Street and is approximately 146 feet deep. The property supports an existing one- story,residential structure located on the western portion of the site that is to be razed to make way for a new- two-story residence. Topographically, the site is characterized by a level building pad with a relatively steep natural bluff on the western border descending to the Pacific Ocean. The total bluff height is approximately 85 feet,with the lower portion of the bluff being approximately 30 feet in height and near-vertical. Above the near vertical portion, the slope ascends another 55 feet at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a relatively level pad. Vegetation on the site includes traditional residential landscaping with small to medium- sized trees, a large palm tree,a small garden and ice plant along the face of the bluff. CWT 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.4 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION:The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County.Based on our investigation,the site is underlain by Tertiary-age deposits of the Del Mar Formation mantled by Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The following provides a discussion of the materials encountered beneath the project area. TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):A relatively thick layer of Quaternary-age terrace deposits was encountered within each of our exploratory borings. As noted within exploratory Boring B-1,drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig in the eastern portion of the site,the terrace deposits were noted to have a maximum thickness of 55 feet.Boring B-2,drilled with a portable drill rig in the western portion of the site,did not encounter the base as the terrace deposits within the maximum explored depth of 30 feet below existing site grade. Based on the observation made within our borings and a surficial reconnaissance along the face of the bluff adjacent to the western portion of the site,the Quaternary-age terrace deposits are anticipated to extend to depths of 55 feet and 56 feet below existing site grades within the eastern and western portions of the site,respectively. Such depths correspond to the approximate elevations of 41 feet and 40 feet M.S.L.within the eastern and western portions of the site, respectively. Based on their physical characteristics and the degree of erosion along the blufftop adjacent to the western portion of the site,we have characterized the terrace deposits as"upper terrace deposits"and "lower terrace deposits". The contact between the upper and lower terrace deposits are at an approximate elevation of 288 MSL,approximately 8 feet below existing site grades. The terrace deposits generally consisted of light to medium reddish-brown to dark brown,silty sands (SM) and poorly graded sands (SP) that were moist and medium dense in consistency u-ithin the upper terrace deposits and damp to very moist and dense to very dense within the lower terrace deposits. Within the upper 1 to 1.5 feet, the upper terrace deposits were loose to medium dense and highly weathered. These weathered materials are considered unsuitable in their present state to support the proposed construction. DEL MAR FORMATION(Td):Tertiary-age deposits of the Del Mar Formation were observed within the bluff face and also encountered below the lower terrace deposits at 55 feet below the existing ground surface in exploratory Boring B-1. As described above,we anticipate that the geologic contact between the Del Mar Formation and the lower terrace deposits range in elevation from 39 feet M.S.L. within the western portion of the site to 40 feet M.S.L.within the eastern portion of the site. The CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.5 materials of the Del Mar Formation were found to be light to dark olive brown sandy silt (Tuff.)and silty sands (SM) that were moist and hard/dense to very dense in consistency. GROUNDWATER: A perched groundwater table was encountered in subsurface exploration Boring B-1 at a depth of 54 feet,near the contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying,less permeable materials of the Del Mar Formation. Minor seepage was also noted on the bluff face at this contact between the terrace deposits - and the Del Mar Formation. We do not expect the perched groundwater to provide a problem to the project as proposed. 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 active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 4 kilometers to the west of the site and several small, northeast trending,apparently inactive faults are expressed along the bluff face within the vicinity of the site.These small faults do not require a structural setback and their effect on future redevelopment at the site is considered to be nominal. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest; the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west; the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast; the Earthquake Valley Fault Zone to the east;and the Agua Blanca and San Miguel Fault Zones to the south. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE:The available exposures of the formational materials in the vicinity of the site and available geologic information indicate that the terrace deposits and the underlying Tertiary-age sediments are relatively flat-lying in the vicinity of the project site.The bedding ranges from nearly horizontal in some areas to as much as ten degrees in random directions. Our site reconnaissance and available geologic literature suggest that the bedding is predominantly dipping to the north and northwest (neutral to slightly out-of-slope with respect to the slope) at an inclination of approximately two to five degrees in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. No joints or fractures were observed within the bluff adjacent to our site,nor was there any evidence of recent blockfalls. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.6 BLUFF EDGE: The edge of the bluff is located along the top of the slope west of the residential structure. The edge of the bluff(for development purposes)is defined in the City of Encinitas Code as "the upper termination of a bluff. When the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep bluff face, the edge shall be defined as that point nearest the bluff beyond which the downward gradient of the land surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the generalgradient of the bluf." Our interpretation of the approximate "edge of the bluff',based on our on-site reconnaissance and a review of - the aerial photographs,is shown on both the site plan presented as Plate No. 1 and on the cross-sections presented on Plate Nos. 2 and 3. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude continued residential use and redevelopment of the site as we presently understand it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the existing and proposed improvements. BLUFF EROSION: Coastal bluff recession is a process which is presently occurring in much of coastal San Diego County. Typically,coastal recession occurs through five modes which include: 1) undercutting of the base of the cliff by wave action and subsequent blockfalls falls of the overlying materials;2) undercutting of the terrace deposits or other surficial material,initiated by water seepage conditions at the formational contact,and subsequent slumping of the overlying materials;and 3) deep-seated rotational-type failures. The mode of historical recession at the subject site proper and in the immediate vicinity appears to be manifested the following modes of 4) small blockfalls falls caused by erosion along the fractures and joints in the Del Mar Formation and 5) by subaerial erosion of the overlying terrace deposits caused by severe storm conditions and/or drainage conditions. The rate of erosion is variable with periods of very little recession alternating with episodes in which a block of the Del Mar Formation falls from the face of the seacliff or substantial surficial erosion occurs. The Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Adas of the San Diego Region prepared by the California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments in 1994 indicates that the shoreline risk at the site is high due to unfavorable geology,inadequate setback,and a narrow beach. The"unfavorable geology" condition is defined in the Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region by the presence of a relatively low bedrock cliff underlying a relatively thick section of unconsolidated terrace deposits. Within the vicinity of our site, the low bedrock cliff is approximately 30 feet in height and is comprised of w siltstones and sandstones of the Del Mar Formation. The upper portion is approximately 60 feet thick and is CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.7 comprised of upper and lower terrace deposits. The Shoreline Atlas indicates that no man-made shoreline protection is evident along this section of the shoreline. In order to quantify the rate of bluff top retreat of the exiting coastal bluff in the vicinity of the subject site, we have obtained and reviewed copies of the County of San Diego aerial photographs,Packet 37,D1 and D2,which were taken in 1928. These photographs were enlarged to an approximate scale of 1 inch to 570 -" feet. Our estimation of the approximate scale of the enlarged photographs was performed by scaling the distances between previous and existing street and rail line locations on the enlarged aerial photographs and - recent County of San Diego 200-scale topographic maps. Utilizing both the previously existing location of Fourth Street and the previous and current location of the rail line that exists approximately 1150 feet to the east of the subject site,we estimate that that in 1928 the edge of the bluff top to the west of the site was located between 134 feet to 143 feet to the west of the western edge of 4th street. As presented on our revised Site Plan and Geotechnical Map, the edge of the bluff top is currently located as close to 123 feet from the west of the western edge of 41h street. As such,we calculate that the edge of the bluff top adjacent to the subject site has retreated between 11 feet and 20 feet over the past 75 years. Such distances of bluff top retreat equate to an approximate mean annual rate of retreat of between 0.15 foot/year to 0.27 foot/year. This range of mean annual bluff top retreat correlates with the modified long-term estimate of seacliff retreat presented on page 24 of the referenced City of Encinitas General Plan,Beach Bluff Erosion Technical Report, of 0.2 feet/year(Zeiser Kling, 1994). The median of the range of the annual bluff top retreat for our site is 0.21 feet/year. It should be noted that the modified long-term estimate of seacliff retreat presented by Zeisler Kling is based on both shelf-slope and littoral sediment lens methods of analysis. As described in detail in the referenced Beach Bluff Erosion Technical Report prepared by Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc.,historically,bluff top and sea cliff retreat within the area of the subject site, the"Pacific View Subunit,"begins with the weakening of the lower bluff area by wave attack and, to a much lesser degree over the lifetime of any particular development,sea level rise. Such weakening of the lower bluff area results in the formation of undercut surfaces and joints that,over time,lead to rockfall and block failure within the lower bluff face. Following such failures within the lower bluff face, the middle portions of the bluff face begin to slump off and fall to the beach bench,covering any talus that may remain at the base of the bluff. As this process continues,subsequent rotational failures and erosional processes erode the middle and upper portions of the bluff face. Such rotational failures and erosional processes continue to a point where the over steepened, upper and middle portions of the bluff face reach an inclination controlled by the angle of internal friction of the terrace deposits that comprise the middle to upper bluff face. At some point, once all of the CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.8 talus has been removed from the base of the bluff face, the entire process is repeated. During our recent visits to the subject site and our reconnaissance along the base of the bluff face in the vicinity of the subject site,we noted that the lower bluff face was relatively in tact and has not experienced any recent block failures. Although no recent block failures were noticed within the bluff face below or near the subject site,block failures may be anticipated along the lower bluff area below or adjacent to the subject site within the design life (75 years) of the proposed project. The mean annual rate of bluff top retreat,0.21 feet/year,is the median of the range of the annual bluff top retreat that we have calculated for the bluff face adjacent to the — subject site. Considering this rate,we anticipate that over the design life of the proposed project, the bluff face adjacent to the subject site may retreat approximately 16 feet. The location of the daylight line of our bluff erosion plane analysis is presented on our revised Site Plan and Geotechnical Map and geologic cross sections A-A' and B-B',included herein as Plate Nos. 1, 2, and 3,respectively. It should be realized that our bluff erosion plane analysis has been performed utilizing a mean annual rate of bluff top retreat that is slightly in excess of the modified long-term estimate of seacliff retreat presented by Zeisler Kling. Furthermore,it should be understood that both the mean annual rate of bluff top retreat utilized in our bluff erosion plane analysis and the modified long-term estimate of seacliff retreat presented by Zeisler Kling represent average rates of bluff top/sea cliff retreat. As such,year to year variations in the rate of bluff top recession should not only be anticipated but also expected. As required by Section 30.34.020 D of the City's Municipal Code(as amended by ordinance 95-04 and _. Resolution 95-31),geotechnical reports for bluff top projects "shall also express a professional opinion as to whether the project can be designed or located so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project." Provided sound construction and maintenance practices,including but not limited to the recommendations of our prelinunary geotechnical report and the City of Encinitas Municipal Code,are followed,it is our professional opinion that the project can be designed and located so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project. As stated above, the design life of the project is estimated at 75 years. 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 probable earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in Table I presented on the following page. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.9 TABLE I:MAXIMUM GROUND ACCLERATIONS Fault Zone Distance Max.Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 4 km 6.9 magnitude 0.38 g Newport-Newport 17 km 6.9 magnitude 0.17 g Coronado Bank 28 km 7.4 magnitude 0.16 g Elsinore 45 km 7.1 magnitude 0.10 g Earthquake Valley 68 km 6.5 magnitude 0.05 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. LIQUEFACTION: The native materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density,grain-size distribution,and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions. FLOODING: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. Historically, the San Diego area has been free of tsunami-related hazards and tsunamis reaching San Diego have generally been well within the normal tidal range. It is thought that the wide continental margin off the coast acts to diffuse and reflect the wave energy of remotely generated tsunamis. The largest historical tsunami to reach San Diego's coast was 4.6 feet high,generated by the 1960 earthquake in Chile. A lack of knowledge about the offshore fault systems makes it difficult to assess the risk due to locally generated tsunamis. Due to the site's elevation, the developed portion of the site is not subject to tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,harbors, bays or - reservoirs. Due to the site's location,it will not be affected by seiches. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS GENERAL: In accordance with the evaluations provided above,the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site is estimated to be 0.38 g(based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone). For structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 10 percent of critical dampening,and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended(UBC Table 16-J). Based upon the site's location at approximately 4 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault Zone(fype B Fault),Near Source Factors Na equal to 1.1 and N,equal to 1.33 are also applicable. These values,along with additional seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code(UBC) 1997 edition,Volume II,Chapter 16, are presented below in Table II. TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type S, 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient C,• 0.56 N„ 16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.10 16-T Near Source Factor N,• 1.33 16-U Seismic Source Type B LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY GENERAL: The Relative Landslide Susceptibility and Landslide Distribution Map of the Encinitas Quadrangle prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that the relatively level site is situated within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 2. Area 2 is considered to be"marginally susceptible" to slope failures. The bluff area located immediately to the west of the site,however,is situated within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 4-1. Area 4 is considered to be a"most susceptible" to slope failures; Subarea 4-1 includes areas located outside the boundaries of definite mapped landslides but contains oversteepened high coastal bluffs that are subject to active sea-wave erosion and observably unstable slopes - underlain by both weak materials and adverse geologic structure. Based on our investigation, the site was found to be underlain by moderately friable terrace deposits over hard,siltstones and sandstones of the Del Mar Formation. As part of our scope of services,we have prepared quantitative slope stability analyses of the existing bluff. STABILITY ANALYSES:To analyze the stability of the subject site and adjacent bluff incorporating both static and pseudo-static methods,we utilized the topography and geology presented on the geologic cross sections A-A'and B-B',include herein as Plate Nos. 2 and 3,respectively. The on-site earth materials CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 11 incorporated in our stability analyses are described in detail in the"Geologic Setting and Soil Description" section of this report. In order to provide conservative slope stability analyses (both static and pseudo-static),we have included a piezometric surface within each analysis to represent the perched water along the contact between the Lower Terrace Deposits and Del Mar Formation that was observed within our Boring B-1 and the bluff face. The locations of the piezometric surface incorporated in our slope (bluff) stability analyses are presented on each of the computer plots of the results of our slope stability analyses. Both our static analyses and pseudo-static analyses,have been performed to address both rotational-and block- type slope failures that originate within the lower bluff areas. Additionally,although the nature of the Quaternary-age terrace deposits that comprise the middle and upper bluff areas are most conducive to circular- type slope failures,in order to conservatively analyze the stability of the bluff and"cover all types of slope failure"as required by Section 30.34.020 D of the City's Municipal Code,both static and pseudo-static bluff stability analyses have been performed incorporating circular-and block-type failure mechanisms which originate within the middle and upper bluff areas. Pseudo-static slope(bluff) stability analyses have also been performed along the trace of our geologic cross sections A-A'and B-B',which are included herein as Plate Nos. 2 and 3. It should be recognized that several methods of pseudo-static slope (bluff) stability are employed today, that much is still unknown about the effects of seismic shaking on slope deformation and failure,and that the amount of available time histories of site accelerations resulting from seismic events in San Diego County is relatively low. Based on our past discussions with the City of Encinitas'geotechnical consultant,we performed our pseudo-static bluff stability analyses using kh values equal to 0.15g and considering a factor-of-safety of 1.1 to be generally stable with regards to pseudo- static bluff stability. A full description of the results and methodologies of both our static and pseudo-static slope (bluff) stability analyses is presented below. Our slope (bluff) stability analyses and our identification of the daylight line behind the top of bluff established by our bluff slope failure plane analyses have been performed incorporating modes of failure observed during both historic and on-going bluff failures (Zeiler Kling, 1994). Furthermore,our bluff stability analyses and discussion of the site stability, specifically within the areas of the middle and upper bluff areas, have been prepared to address a situation where impact to the proposed single family residence should be negligible. As presented below, the minimum factors-of-safety which are considered stable are 1.5 for static slope (bluff) stability analyses and 1.1 for pseudo-static slope (bluff) stability analyses. Our slope (bluff) CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.12 stability and bluff slope failure plane analyses have been performed to cover a time frame (design life) of 75 years. No preemptive measures,as defined by Section 30.34.020 C of the City's Municipal Code,are proposed at the subject site. - STRENGTH PARAMETERS:The strength parameters for the earth materials underlying the subject site were estimated by the direct shear test method and our experience and judgment with similar soil types. Although no direct shear tests were performed on the in-situ materials of the Del Mar Formation,it is our professional opinion that, from comparison between similar testing within the area and the high blow counts within this material,the strength parameters and unit weights presented below and utilized in our stability analyses provide for conservative slope stability analyses. Soil T5:pe Unit Weight y Phi, Cohesion c Upper Terrace Deposits (Qtu) 120.0 pcf 350 300 psf Lower Terrace Deposits (Qd) 120.0 pcf 350 300 psf Del Mar Formation (Td) 120.0 pcf 370 1000 psf METHOD OF ANALYSES:The analyses of the gross stability of the subject site and adjacent bluff areas were performed using Version 2 of the GSTABL7©computer program developed by Gary H. Gregory,PE. The program analyzes circular,block, specified,and randomly shaped failure surfaces using the Modified Bishop,Janbu,or Spencer's Methods.The STEDwin© computer program,developed by Harald W.Van Aller, P. E.,was used in conjunction with this program for data entry and graphics display.The topography of the site and adjacent bluff areas was analyzed for both circular-type and block-type failures,originating both within the lower bluff face and within the middle to upper bluff face,and each failure analysis was programmed to run 200 random failure surfaces. Furthermore,in addition to static stability analyses,pseudo-static slope stability analyses were performed in accordance with the methodology requested by the city's geotechnical consultant, for circular-and block-type failure mechanisms. It should also be recognized that our analyses were performed incorporating failure plane termination limits both within (westward of)and outside of(eastward of) the required 40-foot bluff top setback areas. The most critical failure surfaces generated in each analysis were accumulated and sorted by value of the factor-of-safety. After the specified number of failure surfaces were successfully generated and analyzed,the ten most critical surfaces were plotted so that the pattern may be studied. Text descriptions or each of these failure surfaces,which were generated by the STEDwin©computer program,were then analyzed to determine the required locations of the static and pseudo-static daylight failure planes along each cross section. Utilizing this data,the locations of both the static and pseudo-static daylight CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 13 failure lines that display minimum factors-of-safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1,respectively,were plotted on our Site Plan and Geotechnical Map (Plate No. 1) and geologic cross sections A-A'and B-B' (Plate Nos. 2 and 3). RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSES:The results of each of our 32 stability analyses are presented on Plate Nos. 12 through 43 of this report. As described above, these analyses incorporated circular-and block- type failure mechanisms, failure scenarios that originated both within the lower bluff face and middle to upper bluff face and that terminated within and outside of the required 40-foot bluff top setback area. Each scenario incorporated both static and pseudo-static conditions. The following presents a discussion of the results of our stability analyses along the geologic cross sections A-A'and B-B'. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A':The stability analyses performed along the geologic cross section A-A'are presented on Plate Nos. 12 through 27 of this report. Specifically,Plate Nos. 12 through 19 depict bluff failure scenarios in which the origination point of bluff failure occurs within the lower bluff areas. Plate Nos. 20 through 27 depict bluff failure scenarios in which the origination point of bluff failure occurs within the middle to upper bluff areas. As presented on Plate Nos. 12 through 27, five of our eight static stability analyses demonstrated minimum factors-of-safety of 1.5 or greater. Plate Nos. 16 and 24,which displays the results of static,block-type failure mechanisms that originate within the lower and mid to upper bluff face,respectively, and temunate within the 40-foot bluff top setback area,demonstrate minimum factors-of-safety of 1.39 and 1.49,respectively. Plate No. 18, which displays the results of a static,circular-type failure mechanism that originates within the lower bluff face and terminates within the 40-foot bluff top setback area,demonstrates a minimum factor-of- safety of 1.44. This analysis demonstrates that the worst-case-scenario static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.5 is located at a point approximately 39 feet to the cast of the top of bluff. Additionally along A-A',as presented on Plate Nos. 12 through 27,all but one of our pseudo- static stability analyses demonstrated minimum factors-of-safety of 1.1 or greater. Plate No. 17,which displays the results of a pseudo-static,block-type failure mechanism which originates within the lower bluff face and terminates within the 40-foot bluff top setback area,demonstrates a minimum factor-of- safety of 1.07. This analysis demonstrates that the pseudo-static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.1 is located at a point approximately 21 feet to the east of the top of bluff. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B':The stability analyses performed along the geologic cross -_ section 13-13'are presented on Plate Nos.28 through 43 of this report. Specifically,Plate Nos.28 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 14 through 35 depict bluff failure scenarios in which the origination point of bluff failure occurs within the lower bluff areas. Plate Nos. 36 through 43 depict bluff failure scenarios in which the origination point of bluff failure occurs within the middle to upper bluff areas. As presented on Plate Nos. 28 through 43,all but four of our static stability analyses demonstrated minimum factors-of-safety of 1.5 or greater. Plate Nos. 32 and 40,which display the results of static,block-type failure mechanisms that originate within the lower and mid to upper bluff faces,respectively,and terminate within the 40-foot bluff top setback area, demonstrate minimum factors-of-safety of 1.37 and 1.49,respectively. These analyses demonstrate that the static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.5 is located at a point approximately 33 feet to the east of the top of bluff along B-B'. Plate Nos. 34 and 42,which display the results of static, circular-type failure mechanisms that originate within the lower and mid to upper bluff face,respectively,and terminates within the 40-foot bluff top setback area, demonstrates minimum factors-of-safety of 1.38 and 1.40. This analysis demonstrates that the static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.5 is located at a point approximately 30 feet to the east of the top of bluff. In consideration of the two locations of the static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.5,of 33 feet(block-type failure) and 30 feet(circular-type failure),we have used a distance of 33 feet to the east of the top of bluff to plot our daylight line of static slope failure along B-B'. Additionally, as presented on Plate Nos. 28 through 43,all but two of our pseudo-static stability analyses demonstrated minimum factors-of-safety of 1.1 or greater.Plate No. 33,which displays the results of a pseudo static,block-type failure mechanism that originates within the lower bluff face and terminates within the 40-foot bluff top setback area,demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.05. This analysis demonstrates that the pseudo-static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.1 is located at a point approximately 29 feet east of the top of bluff. Plate No. 35, which displays the results of a pseudo-static, circular-type failure mechanism that originates within the lower bluff face and terminates within the 40-foot bluff top setback area,also demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.06. This analysis demonstrates that the pseudo-static daylight failure plane which demonstrates a minimum factor-of-safety of 1.1 is also located at a point approximately 29 feet to the east of the top of bluff. We have used a distance of 29 feet to the east of the top of bluff to plot our daylight line of pseudo-static slope failure along B-B'. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 15 CONCLUSIONS In general,our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed single-family residence and associated improvements,provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. The results of our - subsurface explorations indicate that the site is underlain by Tertiary-age and Quaternary-age formational deposits that are generally overlain by a thin and irregular veneer of weathered formational materials. In our -- opinion, the existing veneer of weathered formational materials is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. In addition,it is anticipated that there will be areas of disturbed soil resulting from the demolition and removal of the existing improvements. However,we expect that most of the unsuitable and disturbed materials will be removed during the excavation of the proposed garage/basement level. Any unsuitable soils,as well as any soil disturbed from the removal of the existing improvements, that are not removed during the excavation of the garage/basement area,should be removed from areas to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements and be replaced as properly compacted fill. No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude continued residential use and redevelopment of the site - as we presently understand it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements. The results of our quantitative slope stability analysis - indicate that the existing bluff has factors-of-safety above the accepted minimum of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (pseudo- static) at and east of the 40-foot bluff top setback zone. Based on this condition,it is our opinion that the potential for a deep-seated slope failure that extends below the proposed residence is low. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the possibility of erosion of the bluff face as discussed in the`Bluff Erosion'section of this report. RECOMMENDATIONS EARTHWORK AND GRADING 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,except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the pre- construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines,if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 16 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 demolition and removal of the existing improvements at the site that are designated for removal. This removal should include all existing foundations,slabs,pavements,and above grade and underground utilities,as well as any vegetation,trees,and other deleterious materials,including all root balls from trees and all significant root material. The resulting organic materials and construction debris should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility. SITE PREPARATION:After clearing and grubbing,site preparation should consist of the removal of all weathered formational materials and soil disturbed during the removal of the existing improvements from areas to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. These materials should be removed to the contact with competent terrace deposits. The depth of the unsuitable and disturbed materials is expected to range from about one foot to three feet below the existing grades. In addition,we anticipate that the proposed residence will have a setback of approximate 5 feet from both the northern and southern property lines. As such,the removals should extend up to the property line outside the perimeter of the residence and two feet outside areas to support light exterior improvements such as the driveway. \X/here necessary to achieve planned site grades, the excavated materials should be mixed and moisture conditioned and replaced as compacted structural fill. The bottom of the excavations should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fills or constructing improvements. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and approved by the geotechnical consultant or his representative,the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture conditioned,and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: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 six inches in maximum dimension. Based on our subsurface observations and laboratory testing,we anticipate the on-site soils will be suitable for CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 17 use as structural fill. All utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION: Christian Wheeler does not practice landscape architecture. However,as presented in Section 30.34.020 B of the City's Municipal Code (as amended by Ordinance 95-04), the homeowner and contractor should realize that"Irrigation shall be limited to hose bibs or water saving irrigation systems with automatic timers. No permanent irrigation systems shall be permitted within 40 feet of the coastal bluff edge."Section 30.34.020 B of the City's Municipal Code further states that the use of ice plant should be avoided and that native and drought-tolerant plant life should be emphasized. Such provisions in the Municipal Code are intended to minimize irrigation requirements and to reduce the potential for slide hazards due to over-watering. Furthermore,we recommend that temporary irrigation systems should have shut off and control valves located to the east of the required 40-foot coastal bluff top setback area. SURFACE DRAINAGE: Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the proposed structure and the bluff top and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas,a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed building and near the edge of the bluff should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the building and bluff top without ponding. In general,we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of five percent within the first five feet from the structure. Where possible,drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices such as paved swales,gunited brow ditches,and storm drains. Eave gutters and downspouts should discharge into controlled drainage devices. TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES:Temporary cut slopes of up to eight feet in height are anticipated to be required during the proposed basement construction. Temporary cut slopes of up to ten feet in height can be excavated vertical for the lower 4 feet and at inclinations of 0.75 to 1.0(horizontal to vertical) or flatter above 4 feet. All temporary cut slopes should be observed by the engineering geologist during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as soil or equipment stockpiles,vehicles,etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. Where there is not room to construct temporary slopes, temporary shoring of the excavation sides may be necessary. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 18 Shoring and bracing may be designed using the following soil parameters: Angle of internal friction: 35.0 degrees Apparent cohesion: 300 psf Total Unit weight: 120 pcf The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable,temporary excavations and may need to shore,slope,or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor's "responsible person",as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR,Part 1926,should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height,slope inclination,or excavation depth,including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local,state,and federal safety regulations. FOUNDATIONS CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS:New continuous and spread footings supporting the proposed residence should be embedded at least 18 and 24 inches below finish pad grade for two- and three-story structures,respectively. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and 24 - inches,respectively. BEARING CAPACITY: New continuous and spread footings with the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. The bearing capacity value for conventional foundations may be increased by 300 and 800 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and embedment,respectively. These values may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCEMENT:A structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for foundations. However, based on the existing soil conditions,we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least two No. 5 bars positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and two No. 5 bars positioned approximately two inches below the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE:Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil,and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.19 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/or differential settlement is expected to be less than about one-half inch for new foundations,provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS:The anticipated foundation soils are expected to have a low expansion 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. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION:All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to constructing forms or placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation recommendations presented herein are complied with. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. PROPOSED CANTELIVERED PORTION OF RESIDENCE: Based on our review of the project conceptual architectural plans prepared by Cohn&Associates Architecture Planning,we understand that a first floor,cantilevered extension of the residential structure is proposed adjacent to the western side of the proposed residence. This cantilevered portion is to extend approximately 8 feet out from the face of the westernmost foundation and wall associated with the garage/basement of the proposed residence. This portion of the home,which is to be supported entirely by spread footings that are outside of the required bluff setback area,is the only cantilevered section proposed. Based on our review of Section 30.34.020 C of the City's Municipal Code,we understand that a first floor cantilevered portion of a structure,which does not impose unnecessary surcharge loads upon the bluff area, may be permitted 20%beyond (to the west of) the required bluff setback. The proposed cantilevered portion described above will not impose any unnecessary surcharge loads upon the bluff area. Furthermore,based on the width of this portion of approximately 8 feet from the westernmost side of the proposed residence and CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.20 the location of the required 40-foot-wide bluff top setback area, the proposed cantilevered portion of the first level is anticipated to extend approximately 8 feet into the required setback area. As such,it is our understanding that the proposed cantilevered portion will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Section 30.34.020 C of the City's Municipal Code. ON-GRADE SLABS GENERAL: It is our understanding that the basement floor system of the proposed residence will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade.The following recommendations assume that the subgrade soils have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the"Grading and Earthwork"section of this report. In _ addition,the following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. All slabs should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The minimum floor slab thickness should be four inches (actual) and all floor slabs 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 six inches. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the industry standard that interior on-grade concrete slabs be underlain by a moisture retarder. We suggest that the subslab moisture retarder consist of at least a two-inch-thick blanket of one-quarter-inch pea gravel or coarse, clean sand overlain by a layer of 10-mil visqueen. The visqueen should be overlain by a two-inch-thick layer of coarse, clean sand. The clean sand should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieves. Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on-grade slab. This may be an excess amount of moisture for some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary, the concrete mix can be designed to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards through the floor slab. 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. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.21 EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS:The proposed retaining walls which are to serve as the perimeter walls of the lowest level of the residence should be supported by the proposed conventional foundation system,which may be designed for the allowable soil bearing value presented in the"foundations"section of this report. A representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be requested to observe the foundation excavation prior to the placement of steel to verify that these recommendations have been implemented into the construction. PASSIVE PRESSURE:The passive pressure for the prevailing near-surface soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.40 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance,the friction should be reduced by one-third. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE:The at-rest soil pressure for the basement level retaining walls may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 50 pounds per cubic foot,provided there is a level backfill surface.This recommendation assumes a drained backfill conditions and no surcharge loads from adjacent foundations. If any adjacent foundations will exert loads on the proposed retaining walls,we should be contacted for additional design criteria. WALL DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFING: Proper wall drainage is required to reduce the potential for excessive pressure behind the wall. Water proofing will minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to the wall face.Retaining walls that are not properly waterproofed are subject to staining,efflorescence, and gradual deterioration of the building materials.Drainage and waterproofing details should be provided by the design engineer or project architect. A suggested wall drainage detail is provided as Plate 11. We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant be retained to observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.22 LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut 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 he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. 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 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No.23 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 Mark Hendrick 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 take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Two subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on April 25, 2003. These explorations consisted of borings excavated with a truck-mounted drill rig using hollow stem augers and a`Beaver"limited access rig using solid flight augers. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. The borings are presented on the following Plate Numbers 4 through 9. The soils are described in 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 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Page No. 24 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 samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. The undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2 and 3/8-inch inside diameter split-tube sampler ahead of the auger using a 140-pound weight free-falling a distance of 30 inches.The number of blows required to drive the sampler each foot was recorded and this value is presented on the attached boring logs as "Penetration Resistance." Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also collected in bags from the auger cuttings during the advancement of the borings and transported to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures.A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the boring logs. c) DIRECT SHEAR TEST: Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope of the terrace deposits 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. Each sample was saturated and tested separately at different vertical loads. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of these tests are presented on Plate No. 10. d) GRAIN SIZE DISTRUBUTION:The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of these tests are presented on Plate No. 10. P M � I I W U O w 'I Z Z �Z h W 3W _ W o a ZW N cr N<z < Y �1 u U ,zez Cc 2W 4 o U Z U cD y = = C) n I- N U u = U O o Z Q r O 0 O p N } O m 7 O N r I m N N C, F- )' W 8 H N _J < m W � C7 rA W W ~ a N O a 05w v w° a < r V O r y? Y a z U O LL < a c° u w w « w Z8m c N c7 cn JJ C< W IL vl _� r Uj OC ` ixW co •- ;�-� Lim V(� ,7� F- H F<-N m< O N �' JO O y V) ui U Z Z 1 0 a A Z 8N O< m r Z W ° O Z� W O I m w v Q W� J J �' W < C O CL y E-a W < a.. Ir y =W W W w tL O.}.t J co 0 O '� G IN x ° �" ¢ a w< }-► a m $ Z � w W Z< c� .. O W O w .j LU O < C W a IL m ° COE <(j Z co K W I F- G co O P• a OI o N Q cr O O ppp 0 O c p N p - N a a C o 1 x N M 1 LU ce O a U O L LJ U W N Z J C a cr a FZ- D CO O U ; _U z 1 CCW.0 cr ' O U Z U GI) _ CD N Cf) = U ui a I m Om V I o � o y ►ICI y � z c a m O v a m I W Lu- z� I vi No O o I v w r co r N C, ow W <? O oy W c4i y F- r WN < V I Z W U. Z O} Z O .: a � � W< J m 8 Z a W J� W O W ¢ a c m 1 C7 a m L6 Z J m x z O W O � uj _z J o J I z a W 2 I- = O m O m O O O O _H W W Q m U J W N 0 2E< Q o ir- LLJ w m w LO X a W ¢ ♦ .W.i a v w w IL a a w ~ 0 < m 1 N 1 01 a I O c' N � 9 / I a O COO t00 � N O p O N I LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 Date Excavated: 4/25/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: IR A300 Drill Rig Project Manager: CHC - Existing Elevation: 96.0 feet Depth to Water: 54 feet Finish Elevation: 96.0 feet Drive``Weight: 140 lbs./30" z w ° (D W�.t� SUI NL� RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS u a s z W c7 W z O Q Upper Terrace Deposits (Qt..):Dark brown,moist,loose to medium 2 dense,SILTY SAND(S\I),fine to medium-grained. Highly weathered from 0 to V/z feet. SA 4 At 1'/2 feet becomes medium dense. Cal 15 7.1 109.9 DS 6 8 Lower Terrace Deposits (QQ:\Medium reddish-brown,damp, SA 10 medium dense to dense,SILTY SAND (S\i),fine to medium-grained. Cal 36 6.1 111.8 12 14 At 12 feet becomes dense to very dense. Cal 69 5.9 103.5 DS 16 18 Light to medium reddish-brown,damp,dense to very dense,POORLY GRADED SAND (SP),medium to coarse-grained. L20 Cal 60 2.5 100.9 Boring continued on Plate No.3. PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4th Street, Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF D:�TE: July 2003 LNGINLLK1NG JOB NO. : 203.361 PLATE NO.: 4 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 (Continued) Date Excavated: 4/25/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: IR A300 Drill Rig Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 96.0 feet Depth to Water: 54 feet Finish Elevation: 96.0 feet Drive Weight: 1401bs./30" WNHILES C7 z I W O x SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W a � � � z u cn zz o Lower Terrace Deposits (QQ:Light to medium reddish-brown,damp, 22 dense to very dense,POORLY GRADED SAND (SP),medium to coarse-grained. 24 Cal 50 3.8 95.4 DS _ 26 At 26 feet becomes light to medium grayish-brown,damp to moist, SA 28 fine to coarse-grained. 30 Cal* 70 2? 94.8 32 34 Cal* 70 4.5 llnl? DS 36 38 40 Cal* 78 3.5 96? — Boring continued on Plate No.4. *Disturbed sample. . PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE W 736 4th Street,Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER, BY: HF DATE: July 2003 E N G I N L E h I N G JOB NO.: 203.361 JPLATE NO.: 5 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 (Continued) Date Excavated: 4/25/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: IR A300 Drill Rig Project Manager: CHC - Emsting Elevation: 96.0 feet Depth to Water: 54 feet Finish Elevation: 96.0 feet Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLI3S O0 o w O O v SUNINIARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS w a � z r w � � � p w s � o E� Q z2 0 Lower Terrace Deposits (Ot,):Light to medium grayish-brown,damp, 42 dense to very dense,POORLY GRADED SAND (SP),fine to coarse-grained. 44 At 43 feet becomes medium to coarse-grained. Cal 50/5" SA 46 48 At 48 feet becomes light to medium gray,very moist. 50 Cal' 50/5" 3.7 92.2 DS 52 54 Perched water table at 54 feet. 56 Del Mar Formation(Td):Light to medium olive brown,moist,dense to very-dense,SILTY SAND (S\I),fine to medium-grained,and hard, 58 u SANDY SILT(\II,). _ III 60 Cal*` 50/3" Boring continued on Plate No. 5. *No sample recoverv.*Y Disturbed sample PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4th Street, Encinitas, California CHRIS_nAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: July 2003 r N c i N t. E R i N c JOB NO.: 203.361 PL ATE NO.: 6 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 (Continued) Date Excavated: 4/25/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: IR A300 Drill Rig Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 96.0 feet Depth to Water: 54 feet Finish Elevation: 96.0 feet Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" S_ IMPLES C7 O 0 -- �.' SUNMIARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W 2 h Z U Q W ° Z z O w w Q CIO IIHHDel Mar Formation (Td)„Light to medium olive-green,moist,dense 62 Illul to very dense,SILTY SAND(S1\1),fine to medium-grained,and hard, SANDY SILT(:III.). 64 (I At 63 feet becomes medium to dark gray and olive brown,very dense, medium to coarse-grained. 66 u� 68I�II _._ 70 SI F 50/1" Practical refusal at 70 feet. 72 74 76 78 L80 PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE N736 4th Street, Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF July 2003 t. N c I N E [ R. I N G JOB NO.: 203.361 P1-1TE NO.: 7 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-2 Date Excavated: 5/5/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 96.0 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 96.0 feet Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAIMPLPS 0 o SUNMLA�RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS :) kz u C/� V) Upper Terrace Deposits (Qt..):Medium to dark brown,moist,loose 2 to medium dense,SILTY SAND(S\1),medium to coarse-grained. Highly weathered from 0-1 foot.At 1 foot becomes medium dense. 4 Cal 20 12.0 117.4 DS 6 _.. 8 Lower Terrace Deposits(Qt.):Light to medium brown,moist, 10 dense to very dense,SILTY SAND(S\I),medium to coarse-grained. Cal 52 6.4 105.9 12 14 16 Light to medium reddish-brown,damp,dense to very dense,POORLY Cal 64 5.3 103.0 GRADED SAND(SP),medium to coarse-grained. 18 L20 Boring continued on Plate No. 7. PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE -- 'Affl, 736 4th Street,Encinitas, California CHRIS-HAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: iuly 2003 1 N C. I N e e is 1 N c JOB NO. : 203.361 PLATE NO.: 8 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-2 (Continued) Date Excavated: 5/5/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLES ILI C7 v 0 W O � o Fi � C H SUNMIARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a 2 � z � Q Terrace Deposit(Qty):Medium reddish-brown,damp,dense to very Cal 58 8.0 111.5 22 dense,POORLY GILADED SAND(SP),fine to coarse-grained. Hole caving in.Slough filling to bottom. 24 26 1t 26'/2 feet becomes light brown,medium to coarse-grained. 28 30 Cal 80 3.3 99.6 - Boring terminated at 30 feet. 32 34 36 38 40 *Disturbed sample. or PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4th Street, Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: July 2003 E N G I N E r R i N c JOB NO. : 203.361 PLATE NO.: 9 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4T" STREET ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sample Number Boring B-1 @ 2-8' Boring B-1 @ 8-17' Boring B-1 @ 26-34' Sieve Size Percent Passing Percent Passing Percent Passing #4 100 100 100 #8 100 100 100 #16 100 100 99 #30 89 86 71 #50 47 36 24 #100 26 19 5 #200 18 15 2 Classification SM SM SP Sample Number Boring B-8 @ 0-6' Sieve Size Percent Passing -- #4 100 #8 100 #16 99 #30 77 #50 13 #100 4 #200 2 Classification SP DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Sample Location Boring B-1 @ 5' Boring B-1 @ 15' Boring B-1 @ 25' Description Natural Natural Natural Angle of Internal Friction 330 310 370 Apparent Cohesion 200 psf 250 psf 150 psf Sample Location Boring B-1 @ 35' Boring B-1 @ 50' Boring B-2 @ 5' Description Natural Natural Natural Angle of Internal Friction 360 370 40.50 Apparent Cohesion 200 psf 125 psf 300 psf CWE 203.361 July 2003 Plate No. 10 -�-- 1%Slo e Minimum ——— 6-inch 6-inch Minimum Max. a. • v v .,.. a ..�. •. 3/4 inch Crushed Rock or a < Miradrain 6000 or Equivalent a Waterproof Back of Wall Per Architect's Specifications da _.. �• .a .1 211 ° e Top of Ground or Concrete Slab a Geofabric Between ° •a'4 Rock and Soil a O 6-inch Minimum Minimum 4-inch Diameter Perforated Pipe PVC Schedule 40 RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 736 4th Street,Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER En g i n eer in g By. TSW DATE: July 2003 _.. 4925 MERCURY STREET TEL(858)496-9760 SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 FAX.(858)469-9758 JOB NO.: 203.361 PLATE NO.: 11 0 I � N I I I � I I � � I a o M I CI) I N M I O C) j N U I O W j L CD N Imo- co C M m I lQ la I a- a I M .Q () c r E C II Y I D co� a co O 11. a/ I eN- N m v � v .� a rZC> m c I N V .a O mOOO N ,,^^ Cu L6 L6 2 N U �p MMM V m 0 Q v ! Q C+� N 'Q N.-.O O q I 0 U L N 0-0 0� N I 0 V U— IL U O O O I w N c a.2•2 M-. I y pI W= N I m3: 16— U O O N E F-'C N p ono O U) Z. NM _a U � � 0 CL 3 U)0 0 C7 C7 rf m h O O M to 00 OO (n C>MOONIn000--T LL (R r- t" MO00 CnOO I AL L)-0 0)w OL.- O J N 000 O Q r r cn Plate No. 12 0 I v N I I I r I I CL i � j o CD j N _,.. M L O N I o i V W � � U I C I r FF- O 5, °) M m a M � •- j 'd O m N N a co IL 'CO o I N C. V c >CI .- E C o � I C d w N N (a Y O U J cu V! U a aY I N m �L I m 7 a �Z O�� Q v m � V a� vMMM Q a ` °a IA cm 2 woo° I O 0 Y L a) �-O O 0 OO V U 0 C"C`7 CMS N R LL c v L 2�C&000 i 0 0 6 0 w O-m CO M I R UOON Ca p QOM M O `o � Z NM F' 3 U) (3) �-F- 65 CD!--Omw000N of U) gcDON NO.— N U-NNMM CM'13: : �t R-0 U U a) 0)t-- cC)0 N 00 � r � � 0 Plate No. 13 0 I �t N I I i a- I I a � i CI) 1 o o j N C) I N I I j C Ltl I t N ++ U � � O CL � I O M m rn� i 4 O I V N N i M m V •c � CD I C ;a LL � TI. N m N U I J c d- �Z CD O a 0 0 0 N C9 G1 = 3Q CO M M L O Q cp_.. •U N.-.O O y U tn00� U 0 C nM M O N 0 LL C 'p L 7 'am(M C') I (a y ti U 6- O O O 000(V E F- C QC�!�.N M O O CO�-N M C a !n >L Z � (J U Q.O () N 7 F ° a C7 O 0)(0 M(n N I*- M (n N Q)st(D fl-C)0 O v�'O n LL 1Q(n(D(D(D 1�ti r,:nti ---.--•--.----c-- � W L U� N w mL•-•- O +J �O N � O O m cn Plate No. 14 _ o 1 � N I 1 I e- I � t M � I et cj j O o O I N W. M O I 0 N � I i I >W I > N I t a m ea L i N c M 3 o cr a N N v�o, I o d co CO V c >c! C 3 °O r 0 OQa I E t N m m Y O N 1-- Q� U N U J I O L1. �+ cea co (L Y T- N m Y CD �? d TTC c U) Fa- is ..._. i L •U my Ui OO N I Q� 3 Q a M M co � L- C: l Q C+- .__ CP O C-/l°°° i ` N 2 t000 I O � Y L y a0O U O C M M N co 0 a U— LL c L N X000 I d 0000 .,... N j d�2.2 M I R Cc O) .: N m3�000 j 000(V E �:QNTN m O O a 0 e-N M O d (n-z N 3 U SOU OOa.Of- d �NM�t MIo N' M to 000O m N ���NNNNNNN cM CD O J t�D N co O co r � cn Plate No. 15 0 N I I � 1 I I M I C I O M I O � N - C I O N_ I � I n I � LU i O U N L I y CO i T ~ I 0 � M O v i N N _ N :•_ y a _O1 ! M M tZ ci .- C 0 y � .y U i O CD m � o w ! r N y c V '- Q> > _ o - N I y LL C7 O C+ PC d ` N U NO00 ! Q O rr Y U C,sMMO N O U I LL Lm;t I d _.. 3 7•C d M CO M I � �_ N 0) .. 04 N UOC)N D N _ a U C � 0 U) cL 3 U) a) =3 C7 CJ NCOMCDOONCM000.- M ._�.. (nQlNCl���(OCDO�.- C6.LO U N•�- 07 L•-•� O CD +J `O N pop O U" Plate No. 16 v N j I a- I I � e- I v I O ° I N O N j d' I n w 0 I � U N ) I d co m M 'C CD V j D N n rn � N w m co .0 O G v � I E 3 >�° o _ d N c"0 CO) F- Y coo U O LL >, N N m U J _ .L ? a?Z 'a 0 U) 2 H R _.. O p)000 N I U U Z U my U)lnh d LL O c IA a ° � °°° ` � o s O C nM co N U— j LL c y �, � @3 I a> 0 0° y -C dM M M I N to= I y 1-- N 5 �3:,&000 U O O N CL C14 CN N E b) U n U r N co C O �F-Z I Q U _ U fl. O O f- �8 M co r--IO .... N )W CO r-00 a000O0r N NN LL O - N N N *k R a U 10 U•.-• O)L-- O ..1 tC N co O Q c Plate No_ 17 O I � N I I � I I CL i v I O C) N CD i M O i O N � I ti I w r 1 O U N ! +' j d H p GI �O N M W V (V N i D D M (y w I (� O j r O C 3.o L 112 I _ R - i E H U. I O LL � a I r N ,Y N I d y +. U R 'a a = i Q 2 O U) (D ._0 O)0 0 0 N I V d .i a) V Q'OMMM I Q O O- � �°° 2 uoo° 0 n000 N 00 V Y R U U N LL -0 I N CZ%1 L U O O O R � N U�v�� Q) N O O O O dN N N "C 1- C E D N — N O n �Z N M CD Iq* d 3 a� :°H CJ cl _._. COOcor0o0) m um)co U)M'-TNO)O)0--NM LL V:V:V:to q LQ In In k l4 L U-0 N CM L-- L\ O O CD J O p p m O IT Plate No. 18 O I � N I I I � I I a C) I o _.. M I N o I N ' � I n I _. w I c U N I I d G. M M � m CD N N v i C4 m d a m°°° 1 M w V p >c!•�-- I r o 2 m a oo y Y0 cu U .- v I O LL �+ o Q-3,2 i V- N m �C a) I m •V "Q N N a-- I J � 3z o ..._. 7 Q�,a0 O O N I V) V MCMM I Q ...._ , •O CL 0O0 L Q N V y O O CD co CD cp L O aOOO O V Y 0 C C-)co N I R L) U— LL c t co 000 I R N D CO n NI O N > O O o �>UOON Fo- c n!e2 E co O QO.--NM O S) t0 Hz st 3 U �Q =O~ M NN N N.N O O to O� (na-NNVh1�hN0000 LL r tk M.0 U'D N w 0)1--•- Co O J r- O a0 IT Q cn Plate No_ 19 o I N I i I � I I a i N r j O j O O CI) i N N I I ti I W U I C N I t U) i n � i 3 CO m M i M i N C � M o v N E cu LL_ C F- N '' I r N m CL z°�� p�0 O O i d -V Q�MMM V LL I Q Q E o a��oo N �- U O O m 4) n°o C5 o O co 0 �.+ V m C vM M N Y U. U C 0 I Q1 O U O O o W L .O-• C dMCI)r m N NI cO��OOO j ZO w U O O N _... N F— cc O C1 0 N c) M O 6) U) Z et 0 C � m U 0 D cO 3 O�- �d C'1 (n 1A M NCO co Ooi O CO N O^i U- c!V:st V a tnU�U) N N N N N N N N N N 4t ML U10 dw CAL•- O J N co O Q r r �► y C9 Plate No_ 20 o I � N I 1 I C I N O j O O CI j N O N i t` I I W _ M • I U L� N I rL+ Fes- a I O d co M cr- CD I N c �°ra I M C •�•CL CO Lo to V > >M e- r E G1 E °O II N I C 0 d m o m U O IL >, CL-R j N m ai > .Y m o m V N � I J a_:3 j Q V ...... O Q�000 N Q U CI V `d S M M M Q LL Q Us 0O c- rteN M M co� N `,. V Y U— LL U � -� (0 O O O j t wC a�2TM I 3 o y to N N O O O n cm OON d!�2�2 D w E O cL c; of O m ,Z rn O CL - 0 a3 U N 5 F- i5 a C7 ANON ne-�Mm LL Lei Iq .Iq IR r� rNl-.�n � IC.a U� U w m L•-•� O O O O J O O m 04 co Plate No_ 21 0 I et N I I i � I � I d N N � I v O � I O M i N O Co N j V I n 1 w I O V I L N U) 1 CL ~ I e- m j O CD =3 r A M w i (e� N I m 0 d 04 I d 'a i ti m O_ 11 2 C � d N �N F- U p IL N Y a) 'a IJ U O I J ig a�z°�� i Q tai ., O 1p>000 N i = d E Q:M(MM Q 7 000 I 0 E � 2W 6 0o i o w w a O s M C N 00 cb t) V C IL -`O 000 C �>0000 N =3-E C.MVM IQ L CC I y y U)_ I � @3000 0 U O O N N � N F- O — U CL N d 3 U 0 d 0 ^O In l--st(CN O N �t M U) C'4 C-)(n tn(000 0 LL ti GO W cq 00cq G0 (C 2] U'a C w Ql L o J o N w o o 0 Plate No. 22 C4 C) co C) CD C) 04 04 4 Z LIJ 9 04 F- M 0 :3 0) m 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ca O 7E-L —V V CD '0. 00 U') Cli >c! ------- - - - -- ------------------------I- 0 CD ----------- -- -- - -- - ------------------- ----------------------------------- E -J omo U- >% a(Dr --------- ------ -- -- -- - -- -------- C*4 . ------ ---------------------------------- V- C%4 (D m:---------- :g r4 coo _j (n CO G i(jDL-I=r-)z C', -A- -------------------------------- CU) --------- - ---------I- -------------------------------- .0 CN ';-� o)(D Lcj uj t-: S2 c" ----------- - -------------------------------- CY)CI)CI) '0 - ------ - -------------------------------- c)C:)C:� ---------- - -------------------------------- ci c;- — 0 C) C)C)C) C4 co I t0 U t C')C')_ - LL. CL) 0 0 --------- CU - --------------------------------- 04 fl- .91 U) r- C C4 CN -------------------------------- E O a0 C-4 M CD U) z O CL 0 Q U) 0.0 0 U) (D Z Cf C7 rILL (D co c)M(01.CO 0 Im ce)'T Ln LO CD(D N.0)0 Ci Ii Ci C?Ci q Ci Ci V: C0.0 0'0 CD 0)-r- O CD CD CD CD C4 co Plate No. 23 0 I � N I I I r j � I LL N I M V I C) I O M O C) j N N � I I W UI O N Fes- I C1D � I r C M i ea 7 M N N I "' M(1) a M ! , .Q v ; E a E 11 y C1 Y i Ez N v i O LL �a � ° O zO�3 m -0 a- =3 i Q v U) j F is QLLQ:MC'M C') j C I N O o O V Q E Vin 000 O ,� t L O C1 a 0 O (� CO O C"C'M C'S Cb U— LL Y ` U 4% 000 O M OM w cu aM i N C L U)Z) N X r0 O 0 O O CV 1 O•"• C1NNN t.= E O C]'O.-NM M O 2 (n I>,Z d 0) O a� U) n6H C7 C7 M CA V CflMN COCO rLIL SOU LO OOOONM ta?�A to CC) CL)CC](D t0 0•O N w 07L•- O +I C) N 00 CD O Q r � � Plate No_ 24 o I � N I I 1 a .. v M I O I M i O N I N I W U i a O N U) ! r F-- j m : M R M N i a d 0 d1 N :25 yrn� I M to a co 00 V 3 >Ci C c, ! I N Y w j c CD w m oQ a> I N FL- 0 d m 0 a�i U I O LL �+ a/ .Q d Y I T" N m °' a i .` d i J R Q_ �Z°�� m C c CO j R d a o �000 a y U M M M V Q Q LL ! Q _ a o ��°0°° o $E o I CDsO O "cM c) `to L Y U a)��000 i 0 0 0 0 d LC 0— I (II O O O I CD 75 000CV N 0 >Z•-NM M 0 O N U _ J n3 a �Q :3 C.) (n<D to to c�C O CD cOn 7 LLe-�NNNNNNNN �# t6 L U� N 4- mL•-•� O O O J O O O O � Plate No. 25 o I v N I I I � I aI C) T I M I O O O C) j N N � I r j W i U N L_ ham- I d m O O. � I Q0 0 M a Vi N i m C a N ':5 T .0 i M Om o O w V � 0 c E U u � T N Y L N F=- U I N m 4 N m CD a> p �zC) I m V c V �- N N CI) 0 o N U � )fMMM I L CL Q I a CL to Q O N E N 2 U)000 I O rte+ L N a0 O O O V -cp U C�cM M T N I m m LL Y -0 C! N .._... w.E CL CO Co M !SI N w O O O U O O N QI O`= aN N N f- C N � - — N O a O T N co @ M O Z O ti d U d C00 ?00� Q� C)MM m In In0 N NM M (n ON MM N Or-f- U-in In UA��*1-U?N UA In In It M U'p N oL•- O O J r r O O Q Plate No_ 26 O I 'a' N I � I a I M O T O o I O N I N � I � I W j U j O U) N ! r+ H I d m I O Q O M I N a � Y V j ti d CV =3 v�m : co ?o° n CO _ C � >oo v i � O 11 2 E w N r- ! C d L� U �QN I E Z o CO Q� J N L cc :2 CL Y rn� j N m ..__ y ' r V N U I J o n�zo�3 i Q C) CM a,000 N i Cy') m y U c M L6 Ui M M V CL CL C d L a T 0 - CDoO E L N 0000 co (6 0 C"MM O N I R — I LL Y ._.. .V 7� ��000 I G1 m F a��M j O `� y N 0 0 0 COON ... H•C� C� N E � >,Z� NM Ict Co f6 O _ U d 3 d 0 N ?p� Li D t�rnNVnrn.-porno L1„�NNNNNNNNN �k t4 a U'D N�- rn L•-•-� O J N co � O Q cn Plate No_ 27 co v N I I _ � I I I I r Q I N � I m M 0 C) j N_ I <D r` I G O W t U rn N d M m I to Ch I r d O Of CV N M � Q� Q cq Q _O I ,C E t .ten I N F- Y tD U. o C4 a) > m (� U J co .L c � Zo m j a tin fa- i0 c NV a O N a000 N 3 V Q:mc)M CD Q O LL C... LW. M•�• L O Q O y V(n00 0 I w I O co M N C C L L D N � L @�0o00 i w _._. U) > Q M M M C � - _ N; N R cn w O O O I trz O" dN N N cn CA — N _Q (n >'Z�NM F- co � CL a`�i 0I� ch � C7 C7 M �Ln I-ra�LOLOo0oo- LL CR0oogrnrnrnrnrnoo �$ M L U-0 N w- CAL-- m LO C14 01 tp M 5t Plate No_ 28 v N I � I I I co I r N Q I � I C)O M L I C) N 1 I tC r i O � W - I t U N d -° U) M M I V I M C4 C, °' iM Na Q� CO o M (� c >Cl- c, j e' IIN o i c �Yo 0 S2 t-j 0 U t0 u- a 0--2 N m V a) 0 __ J rn d�z Q V c F- C � ' T� D , N p�OOO I d i U O to to r L M 3 LL Q M M M <O Q W O 01 MM� N D,.pO 6 0 0 n6 O O p w O Y L N d0 O CD V U O C M M N A U— IL I t m wopp d to 76 "am M ti U)= N D1 N O O O O'= aNNN 1a `0) — Q (n 1>Z N M (nom _:)� - M M _... MM to to 0)to t0 N 1- (n N st 0 0—N M 0 W 00 �MCMM'IT-V-mot- - k M.0 0'D Ow 0)1--•- t0 J O O O O M p O N r r Plate No_ 29 _ cc v N I r I I I � r g I N � I C) � I I M O j o , N i 7 � n I OD V W 0 � r U rn N a 0 M m M - C m N N i M U N LL m _w Y N i :r (> ) N v J t0 CL(nn ! F is C j y U 0 o C9 d = N N ¢��c�oM I Q O MM� 0 D L _ W •y C`000 I O co 0 0 0 �+ U L c)c) N I IC °C O v c U) E CL-E M M ! N C�.-e-'- - = N! I (D c.- 16> UOON E 1---'E a�!�!�! (V D O O a O � TZ.-N M n � U N f°n0 :3 CL�~ M 6 C7 -' hM0�N M(DOMN U)'d'U')r-- 00 Q>O)O CO LA LL U)Ili I[7 U)to(D(D(O 40 40 CD � R� U� Nw OIL�-•� t0 •.J LO N 0) M Q r �- C7 - Plate No_ 30 CD v N I I I r d I N LO I � � I ° _ M i C) I N ' � I t0 Go W I O U v N m I CA W' Q, r I O M m m I N to m Oi ate- B _ d N `� °' °'m IM � = V c jC`?-- r O C .O E t 0 o N0 Id 0.-1 a)=U i N LL � LL u 0---Z r N c a� CO Zo�3 ' V I m C CO V :U�y(°riiori� N d 3 c s M M M LL C) Q O l G _,_.. L N a 0 0 a V 0 co CO N N I w L O X000 Q M M M d � � CV i to cn . N to CD 000 UOCAN _.... = -= -N N CD - N dF-C>L Z N M N _ U Q Q O F- M -_.. (Oe-000 Mm OO f�t�1�O LL N :�t R.0 U'D N OL.-. Q CD Q LO 04 t7CDf t M�0 �Cc � r Plate No. 31 0 v N I r I 1 CL N CA I o I M I O i N ' � I tC ! co .a w � t V N ! d I � j 7 CO m M c I t0 M - ko 'o p I m N � .o i d e a- C) o C o L a i SIC to U U j to LL a i N m c > m Ma) L) J .2� w aNi42Z°�� -p o a I Q _0 p>OOO N d `y 'V c MMM t0 LLQ.. Q r oo °O 2 O v,000 w U ,5 n CO CM° N (>j U- LL (D w , c m _... L co 0000 I w 3 3y n��M to Co c. N N! p� I (n 0 U O O N 2 - m Ol .O nor-NCo O co Z _d _ V — U d <C (J)Q _0 M �C3 f7 ...,... �O,N(DN LO O� (n t�NM NM (D 1- U-M V:'q:In(n in N 4? U M.0 L)'a C, O)L•- N W C9 C Q co 0 Plate No_ 32 a N I r I I d I N M � I O � I M i O O i N `r I n I 00 r 0 N I _ O N N v CL �oo� rn ! M � — O ; v N I I I I � (L N CD o `- M O O I N � I O I d N I N ` j O. r ~ O � n H M m t m CD I V d N n i M w 00 LLL) O ca r N m V a> v m J Co 0 U) F- A - _0 A-) 04 U' d UQ'0 MMM LO Q LL- I 01 in L 000 V 0 O) 4—CO MO N � �j>� i LL U O O O N 3 76 a--M la N U= C4: I iG y � 1 O O O _.... 0:t! a N N N � — N O U) TZ`-NM _d ~ U 0) N CL 3 0 a) = M —0 P. a M cn.. (n00 C)ONMAA'c Lo W M V;'It Lq to�tn. .ln. O O O O O O m LA N O tD M r r cn Plate No_ 34 _ cc v N I r I I I � o i C) i O O i N iz I W i r O U N I CL � I O M y C,i i m C4 N —V ! t�- d LO N q. m 9� ! M (0 t�j o >C*? R ! O C 3 C:) ! II _ d o =_ w vQ0 i yF- u J N U lL I N �+ a IL Y j Y N ti w V N C O zo NV _ _� O N p�000 N i C7 m Q MMCI) (a Q ho I 01 3a c,_, ay. m ��000 p r--c� MM O N m O U- I LL --- L >0000 w c ac2 MM IC N �@ N I n I N '6 UOON E U C>',-z6-N CO O �F- a U - U L 3 tD In 0 7 F th C7 C7 M O M O M M M M-0 0 C-T f`f`W mm_O N N 4t M L U'0 N r- 00 L•- CI tC J N Qf tip C m Plate No. 35 _ ca v N I I r I I ! (C d I N � N C) I M i O _ N I _ I <O r m c i co M (a i ) r r _ N N N r ! M cc a � . o V ! N E C U) y CD E t a I y H U- >+ n N m V °- v J A(/1 N (9 �' ! m 7 L c d r z C) I F•' RS _ 2 U) L O 0 O O N d Ui Ld I O. U N � j L O_ -C a'�b')M(O Q =3 LL I C1 v. M O a) OOO O ... L L N QOO° 0 C"MM° i LL Y U C N>�000 w 0000 c,5��� I to N 3 cu N; �G U U) I CA o00 O a0NN a� F C "040 M u Z r N CO O - CL 3 M v N 7 0 F- M N lh(D(D O O N r(D V) U)tO M co CO(M(n CO O C)LO LL O- NM":"t":(D(D(D (V N(V CV N(V N N N(V � lC L U'6 N y- m L•-•-� m Plate No. 36 ca v N I r t I I a- N C) I 0 � I M O L I O N � I � 1 t0 W 00 U (D I t d � I m CO O I = M I 7 C N d a v N CD d o �°m I M LO °o i C v HMO 0 d 13 —0- ' Er co LL d L) 0 U I N 2 aY i T- N co �L N N00O m co = a �QaMMM w I Q O 0000 I 0 cn 0 C AMMO I O ° U- r LL ���000 i C _ 0 0 0 0 0. .M-•M Ia 3 U j NI CO N I r- ���000 O U O O N N f-- C aC-4 C4N M N w N �O TZrNM O n - ci a 3 co ii ink :3- M M Nc`•)LO C:)rq ON (n�0 N OrMC01� LL U7 CD CD CD f- ti �-rr�rrrrrr � 14L U� Nom- O7L•-•� t0 m LO N Q7 tC�D C") r r Plate No. 37 v N I j I � I � c0 N (D I O r I CO I O N I I j tD W 00 I V- U I w N j f- I Q. r m 1 CD C N C1 w� I to m M i L 0 N �- r d N c i M y= 'a. i ti V M j r O II E i C d v j �D LL �+ I 04 'm0 N N f9 p r m 3 O C7 d T T V T M d Q�CJM i Q LL Q) O O O W y V U) 0 0 O y AM M O j CO a U c LL p w>�OOO C 0 0 0 0 c = O M M M 3 cn N N 0 @ 3 0 0 0 --- 'O COON Ff C fl.��� th cr ;5) N�Z N M O a CN( D j p 7 yo` f C7 eh M Cf t-LO t0 N 1-C0 (n Of a000e-Mst V In CO LL.noomrnrno!rnrnrnrn 4t R a v-o N o)c•- co m � N Q�1 t�0 M C7 Plate No. 38 v N I I r j I � I � caD I N I O r o I O N i i I � W 00 •� U I w d ~ i o. r m I L C0 c W N M i 00 M N ! a O a V N Y -D c') eO k- C 7 0''•' I M .Q O � O d I d Et N Y omo IM3 JaY i N U) I ~ V � J - •L m m _ � i N V L aoC)0 N C7 d .•�. O m i d �Q M�M :9 O a,_0 0 0 I 0 _.. W E QNj ` N ! V L p �M M U. I IL a c U- U �0 0 0 w C 0000 m N J� c a�.M-� w L U) 3 (E°°° ,.._ In 0 c O.NNN � >'Z N ch m ~ Q — v CL N �D 3 r� U (n w a0 F_ M MO)�MMCO 000�(D (n Mh 000)00� Nc`') LL CM M(M CM q: 'ct'ct tt k C5.0 U'O N w O L•- t0 m LO N CD CD w M r r N Q Plate No_ 39 v N I � I I � I � oaO I T N iri I 0 i M o j C) , N V 1 i I W CO U L I 1- N I � r 00 M w c M N d � T N 0 ! "' � a G) o - V .a :9-0 R vg'U I N H U) i ca LL ?� d i eN- N m ti Y (D J • w N (O p m O o a�z° . F- a .., mo O N ao co O N j d 0I = d V C-O M M M a Q O ..,. d 000 m a) 2 n0000 v Y I ��000 I w U O O O Sc.2�2 M tO UI I L CO:3 N N 04 O'= dN 0404 N � N N (n T Z.-N M H O — U d N t0 n0 C 30' M C7 C! M r'N O) O N e-�M1- (n MO)0 N��to LL�d:W �.. .� :It -- t0 m U7 N CD m C T T 'y^ V Plate No_ 40 m N I � I 1 I to N ui I O M � I o N � 1 W i to 00 O I d � N I m � M � i M N I L m CL C N L � I = Y rn rn � °' � C. o D C) _ i C 0.V >°o'� o _ C Y Q_z s I NH O�.O cu J EL V � U J IC d o d a000 N j d ma>viuir- tG n . Q M co M j y c a i 00 m E t a`a)) a o c=; U tVC c o M M E i a I �+ U > O O O I W .__ u 0 0 0 IQ c 'O' c Q'.M-- I L Ni N N 0 0���0 0.c L)C) M Z) E UO0>-,Zo -N c') cu rn O — � � 3 M n 0 m n_ U U) N OF 0 a� M tn,�t-�tLO M Ih ON W)t- (n0000000.- N co.- •N NN � NN � m CD Q LO N M Q r r cn cn C7 Plate No. 41 co N I I r j I � I d � c� N L 1 O M r I O O 1 N � I n w 00 I � N j i o. m O Cfl ? i A M of I co m O a m N o ! r) o� (D ! �"'• a V i r O rn �� L °�� I Q V a ��p�000 N i C9 m Z d U Q�c)mco j ( Q W � , 7 C I L '0 C n O° 0 E N U y00a I (� UC aM co O N LL fl ! O O 0000 V) w C d 2 r r to C � 'a CA c0 dN N N N 5 d J_ 0 T Z-N (h M O _ U Q N t0 o 0 (n Q�H M - tD001--0 �00� U)4m 00N m Y)r OWN LL IT IT 'IT Lq 3t lC L U'v N 0.0•- n co J tn N to M Q Plate No. 42 m v N I j I I d (D N 0o I M ! O O I N 'ct I n I W I � d F- N t C. m 0 Cfl IA M N ! `� .a o d N a, v� ! M N := 0 moo- CL w 00 �CD ! C L .. � E w i •£ m L •U a> � •N U R o cu U L I c0 �- >, N m a/ J�Y a) I e� N Rf i o s C 0 Cl) ! N V o X000 N j d1 = a LLQ�MMM C) a` M L W = O n OOO ! O W a) U QOO ! V p C'-'MM� I Y U cl,> I c`7 0000 t0 L Nov tG N 0 _. t` CY) U a N N N F- N � 4) T �H Z r N CO U - U d N U Q 7 F M 0 LO LO M M.0 U•0 N••-. m L•- to m N N Q M r r to Plate No. 43 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix A,Page A-1 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. Boore,David M.,Joyner,William B.,and Fumal,Thomas E., 1997,"Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration,Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra",in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68, Number 1,January/February 1997. California Coastal Commission,Report of Third Party Review,Bluff Stabilization Procedures,706-730 Neptune Avenue,Encinitas,California,dated January 24, 1990,Application No.: 6-89-136-G. California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments,Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region,Volume I and 11,December 1994. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998,Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source-Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. - California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996,Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe,7.5' Quadrangles,;DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Christian Wheeler Engineering. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,Proposed Single-Family Residence,412 West"E" Street,Encinitas,California,dated September 5, 2002,prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering,CWE Project No. 202.447.2. Christian Wheeler Engineering. Response To Third Party Geotechnical Review,Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,Proposed Single-Family Residence,412 West"E"Street,Encinitas,California., dated March 6,2003, prepared by Christian Wheeler Engineering, CWE Project No. 202.447.3. City of Encinitas Municipal Code, Sections 30.34.020,B, C,and D as amended by Ordinance 91-19 and Resolutions 95-31 and 95-32. City of Encinitas General Plan,Beach Bluff Erosion Technical Report,dated January 24, 1994,prepared by Zeiser Kling Consultants,Inc.,PN 93181-00. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix A,Page A-2 REFERENCES (continued) Cohn +Associates,2003,Floor Plan,Proposed Hendrick Residence,Fourth Street,Encinitas, California. Earth Systems Design Group,Preliminary Geotechnical Report,Ocean Front Slope Erosion,300-400 Blocks of Neptune Avenue,Encinitas,California;dated June 26, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, Geotechnical and Geological Investigation,Neptune II Project,470 through 554 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas,California;dated October 26, 1992. Earth Systems Design Group, Geotechnical and Geological Investigation,Clayton Sea Bluff, 638 Neptune Avenue,Encinitas, California;dated October 26, 1992. Geopacifica,Inc.,Third Party Geotechnical Review,412 West"E"Street,Encinitas, California,APN: 258- 073-18,Case No. 02-260 DR/CDP,dated January 13,2003. GeoSoils,Inc.,Preliminary Geotechnical evaluation,Proposed Addition,462 Moonlight Lane,Encinitas,San Diego County, California,W.O. 2431-A-SC,dated May 27, 1998. Jennings,C.W., 1975,Fault Map of California,California Division of Mines and Geology,Map No. 1,Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy,Michael P.,Tan,Sean Siang, Chapman, Rodger H., and Chase,Gordon W., 1975,Character And Recency of Faulting,San Diego Metropolitan Area, California,California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 123. Kern,P., 1989,Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County,Pickle Press,73 pp. Scherer,Kurt D.,Topographic Survey Plan,Date of Survey:June 16,2000. Shepardson Engineering Associates Inc.,Geotechnical Investigation,Coastal Bluff Stability, Favero Residence,452 Neptune Avenue,Encinitas,California;dated March 1, 1993;Project No.: 93133-01. Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. Geologic Reconnaissance, Fogelstrom Residence, 510 Neptune Avenue,Encinitas,California;dated March 28, 1988;project No. 8821049. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix A,Page A-3 REFERENCES (continued) Southern California Soil and Testing,Inc. Geologic Reconnaissance and Observation of Existing Erosion Protection Walls, 680-682 Neptune Avenue,Encinitas,California;dated April 16, 1990;project No.9021048. 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 95-04. Treiman,J.A., 1984,Fault Map Rose Canyon Fault Zone,California Division of Mines and Geology,scale 1:100,000 Treiman,Jerome A., 1993,The Rose Canyon Fault Zone,Southern California,California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 93-02. Wesnousky,S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes,Quaternary Faults,and Seismic Hazards in California",in Journal of Geophysical Research,Volume 91,No. B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS City of San Diego, 1975,Ortho-Topographic Map,Sheet: 370-1665,Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet. PHOTOGRAPHS Aerial Fotobank Inc., 1995-96,San Diego County,Page 1247. Lenka's Aerial Atlas, 1995,San Diego County,Page 1247. San Diego County, 1928,Packet 37,Photographs D1 and D2,Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet(approximate). San Diego County, 1953,Flights 14M,Photographs 21 & 23,Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet(approximate). San Diego County, 1970,Flight 2,Photographs 4 and 5;Scale: 1 inch= 2000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1973, Flight 36,Photographs 5, 6 and 7;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet(approximate). San Diego County, 1978,Flight 13B,Photographs 16 and 17;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). CWE 203.361.1 1 July 21,2003 Appendix B,B-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 736 4TH STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing,compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the - accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian 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 - American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix B,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 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix B,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. CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix B,B-4 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- 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%rill 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 CWE 203.361.1 July 21,2003 Appendix B,B-5 the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION:The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground,compacted fill,and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS:Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of -- placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: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. w CHRISTIAN WHEELER I N G I N I I R I N C REPORT OF ADDITIONAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTING RETAINING WALL BACKFILLS HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4th STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR MARK HENDRICK C/o STUART NEWBY-FRASER 1326 SHERIDAN AVENUE ESCONDIDO,CALIFORNIA 92027 PREPARED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 ry Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER 1 N G I N I I K INC. May 7, 2008 Mark Hendrick C%X'E 2050704.02 C/o Stuart Newby-Fraser 1326 Sheridan Avenue Escondido, California 92027 SUBJECT: REPORT OF ADDITIONAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTING,RETAINING WALL BACKFILLS, HENDRICK,RESIDENCE,736 4,h STREET,ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA References: 1) Report of Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation,Proposed Hendrick Residence, 736 Fourth Street,Encinitas,California by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report No. 203.361.1,dated July 21,2003 2) Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Hendrick Residence,736 Fourth Street,Encinitas,California by Christian Wheeler Engineering,Report No. 2050704.01,dated August 14,2007 Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with your request,Christian Wheeler Engineering has prepared this report to summarize the results of tests conducted in the backfill materials along the northern,eastern,and southern sides of the recently constructed residence that were previously placed and not observed by a representative of our firm and the test results of the replaced backfill material. Our geotechnical services were coordinated by Mr. Stuart Newby-Fraser,and were provided periodically from March 12,2008 through April 16, 2008. PLAN REFERENCE: In order to depict the relative locations of our field tests, a drawing of the site was made by our field personnel. The drawing is reproduced as Plate No. 1 of this report. 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 2050704.02 May 7, 2008 Page 2 SITE HISTORY:A new two-story single-family residence over a basement/garage was recently constructed at the subject site.The structure is of concrete-masonry construction for the basement area with an on-grade concrete slab and conventional continuous footings,and of wood-frame construction above grade.The observations of the basement and foundation excavations were provided during the period of September 26,2005 through February 15,2007 and were summarized in our referenced Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests dated August 14, 2007. During the construction of the new residence the basement retaining walls were backfilled and our office was not contacted to observe or test the backfill. SCOPE OF SERVICE Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering during the course of the retaining wall backfill operations consisted of the following: • Performing relative compaction tests in the previously placed backfills material; • Providing recommendations to remove the previously existing unsuitable backfill material; • Periodic observation of the retaining wall backfilling operation; • Performing relative compaction tests in the newly placed backfills; • Performing laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determinations on the soil used for the backfill;and, • Preparation of this report. FOUNDATION OBSERVATION:Prior to the construction of the basement retaining walls,the foundation excavations for the basement walls were observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of concrete,and were found to comply with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report as summarized in our referenced Report No. 2. SUBDRAIN:During the removal of the previously existing backfill materials from behind the basement retaining walls, a subdrain system was observed behind the walls.The drainage board subdrain system was placed prior to the original wall backfill operation. WALL BACKFILL:The previously existing backfill material,which was not originally observed or tested by our firm,was tested on March 25,2008 and April 3,2008. In general, the backtill materials were below the required 90 percent of material's maximum dry density. "Therefore, these soils were CWE 2050704.02 May 7, 2008 Page 3 removed and replaced per our recommendations. The lower portions of the walls were backfilled with crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric and the upper portion of the walls were backfilled using stockpiled sandy soils which were removed from behind the walls. The backfilled soil was placed in thin horizontal lifts which were watered to near optimum conditions and compacted in place by means of reciprocating compactors to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SUMMARY OF TESTS FIELD TESTS: Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the soil backfill 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 a degree of relative compaction that was generally representative of that achieved in the backfills for the retaining walls.The locations of these tests are presented on the attached plates. LABORATORY TESTS:The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the predominate soil encountered in the backfill were performed in our laboratory by ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91,"Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort." The test was conducted in accordance with the methodology prescribed for the grain-size distribution of the soils tested. The results of this test are presented on the attached Plate No. 2. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL:Based upon the field and laboratory tests it is our opinion that the basement retaining wall backfill was placed substantially in accordance with our recommendations, the standard grading requirements of the City of Encinitas,and the California Building Code.This opinion is based upon our observations of the backfilling operations and the results of the density tests taken in the field. LIMITATIONS The descriptions, conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from April 10, 2006 through August 7, 2006. 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 CWE 2050704.02 May 7,2008 Page 4 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 service on this project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our firm. Respectfully submitted, _ CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING ' F SIp CP V V � NQ.GE2!5 -7. m £.��� 6 Exp.9-30-09 MM Charles H. Christian,R.G.E. 00215 it G�cO GP Q' c: (6) Submitted sTgTF F CAL�F��� � O O d z ° til a � z w r J 0 d G� t z T H o m }- -�r n m SUMMARY OF TESTS Project:Hendrick Residence RETAINING WALL Relative Com action Tests ASTM D2922-91 Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type :Moisture Dry Max. °io Rel. (feet) (°/o) Density Density Comp. `* (Pcf) R��G'1 3/25/2008 E East Side of Residence..............i......�S:g......L..........1..........5........�:.........d.....100:1......;.....1 1:4.....;......��.......... R ..................,..............................:.......................................... 95.8 1 100.8 124.4 81.0 RW2 3/25/2008 North Side of Residence ................................. ... ....... ..................................................................... 93.8 i 7.3 115.7 : 124.4 93.0 R\Y/3 3 5 008 North Side of Residence.......... ........t..........................................;.....................;.....................;..................... . /2 - ................................................................................. 124.4 85.E RW4 3/25/2008 E South Side of Residence......... .. ...., ....... ... .............................. ;. 3:8 R�jG'S 3/25/2008 East tiide of Residence .. „ 1 .3 € 1 10.1 105.3 124.4 84.6 ..... ...... :.. ................ :................ 13 9 104.3 124.4 83.8 RVG 6 3/25/2008 South Side of Residence .. ..... ...... .. ... .. .. .• •••• ................... .. 90.8 1 ...........�......a........... RW7 3/25/2008 North Side of Residence • 91.8 1 � ..11.3 ..4.. .107.3 ..•.. ..124.4 ...;......8(i.3..... ...................................:...................... .. ........ ... ... ..... .:.....................;.....................:..................... RW8 3/25/2008 € East Side of Residence € 90.8 i .... .........6......14.0 109:1......,....1�1:4...........��:......... .. ..1 .........................5.....................5... .... ............................................................................... 1 E 15 2 96.3 124.4 77.4 RW9 E 3/25/2008 E North Side of Residence............:......89.8......a....................b...........:........y................................................................ ..................s..............................,............................................ RW10 4/3/2008 North Side of Residence 91.8 1 •• ............................p................................... ................................:..... ...... ... .1�:?. :.. .109:�....... .1.. ........... ...:.:........ RW11 ' 4/3/2008 c North Side of Residence.......... 90.8 .... .........1........ .......7:�....... .....113:�...........124:4.....;......`1:4...... .................. .......................................................................... ... 3.8 108.1 124.4 86.9 RW12 E 4/3/2008 North Side of Residence . • ..... ..... €... 89 8 .. RW13 4/3/2008 South Side of Residence ... ........ .. .................................................:.......................................................................................... . 1 11.6 116.4 124.4 93.6 86.8 1 13.7 106.9 124.4 85.9 R�`U14 - 4/3/2008 South Side of Residence „,„......... ... .. ..e..............................:...............................................................................................a.. ..y.. RVG'15 4/3/2008 North Side of Residence 89.8 ..1....... 3.0 111.0 1 4.4 89.... ........................................................................................................:... .. ..... ................. 008 8.9 123.5.. 124.4 99.3 ..:... :.. .. RVU16 E 4/16/ North Side of Rest...mSF......... I..........1......... ....................:.........................................:..................... ................................... s... ,................... 93.8 1 9.7 117.6 12...4 94.5 RW17 € 4/16/2008 North Side of Residence.,...... .. ..... ..... ........ .. ....... ..................a.......................... :............................................ ,... ....... b. R\V18 4/16/2008 North Side of Residence : 94.8 1 . . ... .................................................................................................:................. ... a 124 4 94 0 ... ,.....................116.9 / 1 9.. ..20... 12...4 ......96.9 10.1 RW19 ' 4/16 2008 • South Side of Residence 93.8 : .....................:.....................:..................... ......................................................................................................a....................p..........:......... ;....................... 123.2 124.4 99.0 RW20 E 4/16/2008 South Side of Residence ....... •„ ..... ...... ..:... 2 East Side of Residence 93.8 ... .. ..... RW_1 4/16/2008 1 9.4 122.4 124:4 . 98.4 ........................................................................................................:....................... RW22 4/16/2008 E East Side of Residence E 93.8 1 7.1 € 121.0 124.4 E 97.3 Perviouly existing unsuitable backfill,which was removed and replaced as properly compacted backfill. ** Finished grade elevation assumed to be 95.8 feet. N L-kXI1 fUM DRY DENSITY and OPT11NIUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 1557-91 USCS optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Soil Type Description Class (%) Density(pcf) 1 Dark brown,SILY SAND 8.2 124.4 lzc -f 63 - X65 C DP/.N CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING REPORT OF SITE PREPARATION AND FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 41h STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA SEP - 4 2001 _J PREPARED FOR: MARK HENDRICK c/o STUART NEWBY-FRASER 1326 SHERIDAN AVENUE ESCONDIDO,CALIFORNIA 92027 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 ENGINEERING August 14,200? Mark Hendrick CWE 2050704.01 C/o Stuart Newby-Fraser 1326 Sheridan_venue Escondido,California 92027 SUBJECT: REPORT OF SITE PREPARATION AND FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS,HENDRICK,RESIDENCE,736 41h STREET,ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA References: Report of Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation,Proposed Hendrick Residence,736 Fourth Street,Encinitas,California by Christian Wheeler Engineering,Report No. 203.361.1,dated July 21,2003 Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with your request and with the requirements of Section 1701.5.13 of the California Building Code,Christian\`G heeler Engineering has prepared this report to summarize our observations of the earthwork operations at the subject site. The observations addressed by this report were coordinated by Mr.Stuart Fraser and were provided during the period of September 26,2005 through February 15,2007. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a developed parcel of land located adjacent to and west of 411, Street in the City of Encinitas of San Diego County,California. The lot is bounded on the north and south by developed residential lots and on the west by a bluff that descends to the Pacific Ocean. The site has approximately 50 feet of frontage along 411'Street and is approximately 146 feet deep. Prior to the earthwork addressed in this report,the property supported a one-story,residential structure located on the western portion of the site. Topographically,the site was characterized by a level building pad with a relatively steep natural bluff on the western border descending to the Pacific Ocean. Vegetation on the site included traditional residential landscaping with small to medium-sized trees,a large palm tree,a small garden and ice plant along the face of the bluff. 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 g C\X'E '?0070-1.01 August ust 14, 2007 Page 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION:The existing one-store residence was razed and a new two-story single- family residence over a basement/garage is under constriction.The structure is masonn construction for the basement area with an on-grade concrete slab and conventional continuous footings,and of wood-frame constriction above grade.Permanent shoring was provided against vertical cuts around the perimeter of the basement. SCOPE OF SERVICE Sen-ices provided by Christian\Xlieeler Engineering during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Observation of the basement and foundation excavations; • Preparation of this report. FIELD OBSERVATIONS CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Prior to our site visit,the areas to support the new construction were cleared and grubbed of existing structures and vegetation.The resulting materials were exported from the project site. BASEMENT AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATIONS: After the installation of the permanent shoring around the perimeter of the basement area,the basement excavation was extended into competent undisturbed terrace deposits. The foundation excavations for the proposed single-family residence were observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of concrete,and were found to comply with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report. The masonry basement walls were constructed neat against the shoring. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL: It is the opinion of Christian%Mieeler Engineering that the site preparation 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 basement and foundation excavations. It is our further opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. 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 CWE 2050704.01 August 14,2007 Page 3 ' operations addressed by this report have,in our opinion,satisfactorily mitigated the potentially adverse conditions described in the referenced report. REMAINING WORK:As of the date of this report,additional work remains to be done on the site for the backfilling of retaining walls at the exterior areas of the residence,and the preparation of the subgrade courses in areas to be paved. Our firm should be contacted when these operations are performed so that we can verify their compliance with the applicable specifications. LIMITATIONS The descriptions,conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from September 26,2005 through February 15,2007. 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 WH ELER ENGINEERING ugl icks,Supervisor Charles H.Christian,R.G.E.00215 urns R.Burdett,C.E.G.410 0 CHC/CRB/DH:mah cc: (6)Submitted ¢ \ONAL G O0 f�� �f++ Q N o 1090 C'� o NO,GE215 CERTi IEC UP.q-3Q-07 * * ` NGiNEERiNG * GrO'L.OGiST t Xr 10 08 �OFCA1aF FOF CA��FU HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For 736 FOURTH STREET APN: 258-153-05 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For D V E Mark Hendrick 3110 Camino Del Rio South SEP 17 San Diego, CA 9218 ENGINEERING SERVICES PE 1301 CITY OF ENCINITAS PREPARED BY: -_ a� iyr1E AA p �f PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A No. 29577 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 Exp,3431707 Im (858)259-8212 CIVIL DATE: 8/31/04 �QFCALIFOQN�P �� WAYNE A. ASCO, RCE 29577 DATE Hendrick Hydrology Report PE# 1301 12:17 PM 9/112004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION............................................................................... CONCLUSION............................................................................. PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ......................0 POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.....................D HYDRAULIC AND SIZING CALCULATIONS...................................E APPENDIX................................................................................ Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve Runoff Coefficients Hydrology Map Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/11/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 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-developed condition for lot at 736 Fourth St. The subject property is physically located approximately 200 feet south of the intersection of F St. and Fourth St.,Encinitas California. The property is geographically located at N 33°2'32" E 117°17'45". Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of one lot located at 736 Fourth Street. The existing site slopes down to the street from the rear property line. The site has an existing average slope of 0.67%. Storm water on this site sheet flows west to east until it reaches Fourth Street. The drainage then flows from north to south along Fourth Street. The road conveys the drainage south. The existing 100 year runoff at the southeast corner of the site is 0.23 cfs. Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the removal of a single family residence and the construction of a single family residence, yard area and driveway. After completion of the project all proposed drainage will maintain existing runoff destinations. Runoff will flow into a series of yard drains, then will flow into a sump pump, and then will be pumped out onto Fourth Street and continue existing street flow conditions. Proposed 100-year 24-hour storm runoff at the southeast corner of the site is 0.39 cfs. The runoff will be carried to the sump pump through fundamentally two 4"PVC pipes(see plan). These pipes and area drains have been sized to adequately convey this runoff. Some of the proposed runoff will be conveyed in a 4" drainpipe towards the south of the property. The sump pump will be sized to handle a 50-year 24-hour storm. Proposed 50-year 24- hour storm runoff at the sump pump will be 0.35 cfs. (See section D for sizing calculations) Methodology and Results The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is"A". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo 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. Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q100to the appropriate points of discharge. Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 C. PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 ++++++++++*+++++++*++++++++++++++++++++++*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite. A Solana Beach, CA 92075 +***++++++++++++*+++****** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *******+**++*++***+****+** + * 100 YEAR PREDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS + * 736 FOURTH STREET, ENCINITAS - HENDRICK RESIDENCE * PE 1301 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FILE NAME: 1301PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:00 09/01/2004 ------ ---------------------- ----- ------------ ----------- - - USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL-INFORMATION------------------ ------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 2 500 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES)3 00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ 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 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.20 IS-CODE----21---------- ------------------------------ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COE FFICIENT O 4800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 96.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 90.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 14.060 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)3.381 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) _ SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 0.23 _ ==TOTAL-AREA(ACRES) 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) END OF STUDY SUMMARY: 0.14 TC(MIN.) = 14.06 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Hendrick Hydrology Report PE# 1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 D. POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 **#+***++*x+**++**x*++***++**+*******#+***+*x+***+******+***+********x+***** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1992-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 **++**++***+**++*x+##**+++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *+***+*x+**x**+**++*+#*++* + * 100 YEAR POSTDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS * 736 FOURTH STREET, ENCINITAS - HENDRICK RESIDENCE * PE 1301 FILE NAME: 1301P100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:07 09/01/2004---------- -------------- --------- ------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:------------------ --------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES)3.00 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ 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 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.20 IS-CODE----21---------- ------------------------------ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTO .4800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTHS 25.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = .75 75 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 95.55 0.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 6.011 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.849 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.39 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: 0.14 TC(MIN.) = 6.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.39 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Hendrick Hydrology Report PE# 1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 +++rr+++r+++++r++r+++++rrr++++rr++rrrr+++r+++r++r+++++rr+++rrrr++++++rr+++r+PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD RCONTROL DI HYDROLOGY fe STRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 **+****+r++++*++rr++++r*** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY + * 50 YEAR POSTDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS * 736 FOURTH STREET, ENCINITAS - HENDRICK RESIDENCE + * PE 1301 FILE NAME: 1301P50.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:04 09/01/2004 ----------------------- ---- ----------------------- ------------------ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:------------------ ------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 50.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.200 3.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ 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 +r+rr++++++++r+++r++r+r++++++++r++rr++r+++++++r+2+20+ * ++++21+++++++++r FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO-NODE -----------IS---CODE-------------------- ------------------------ ---------- - »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< _-_ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTO .4800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTHS �5 25.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 95.55 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 0.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 6.011 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ 50 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSIT ( CH/HOUR) = 5.147 O35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.35 --TOTAL-AREA(ACRES)-°---- -0.14---TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)-°- - END OF STUDY SUMMARY: 0.14 TC(MIN.) = 6.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 E. HYDRAULIC AND SIZING CALCULATIONS Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 736 Fourth St. - Hydraulic Calculations Area Drain Inlet Calculations CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap= 3.0(P)(D^1.5) /3• DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE 8� REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR Q?00 CFS P 3* CAPACITY CFS INLET NODE D TYPE. n/a 0.39 4 1 3 4.00 12"x 12"YARD DRAIN Worksheet Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\program files\haested\academic\fmw\1301.fm2 Worksheet 4"PIPE AT 1% Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Diameter 4.00 in Discharge 0.27 cfs Results Depth 0.27 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 0.74 ft Top Width 0.26 ft Critical Depth 0.29 ft Percent Full 80.40 Critical Slope 0.008866 ft/ft Velocity 3.59 ft/s Velocity Head 0.20 ft Specific Energy 0.47 ft Froude Number 1.19 Maximum Discharge 0.30 cfs Full Flow Capacity 0.27 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.009648 ft/ft Flow is su ercritical. FlowMaster v5.17 Academic Edition Page 1 of 1 09/01/04 CT 06708 (203)755-1666 12:25:57 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, Cross Section Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\program files\haested\academic\fmw\1301.fm2 Worksheet 4"PIPE AT 1% Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.27 ft Diameter 4.00 in Dischar ie 0.27 cfs 4.00 in 0.27 ft • 1 VD H 1 NITS FlowMaster v5.17 Academic Edition Page 1 of 1 0g101l04 CT 06708 (203)755-1666 12:26:02 PM Hoestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 736 FOURTH STREET PE 1301 F. APPENDIX Hendrick Hydrology Report PE#1301 12:17 PM 9/1/2004 � fit it lab r3 w pa svgLt lb MUL askllg ; A all 311 fat z Ux o M p Imperial County a r L•_A j MALL SLAtt ! _- AEAIL AEALI .rf•'''• :r U ?�_, •"SQS• •• :` °�•..... :�••-.... jr-ter" f N •� `t G S6ALl 77N 7" as Wut SYAtt •-�0:• -_�A cQ • •T i• ,.� �-mot:• ; 3� 1 __ I 1 {•I •I'' � �.ate •'Zt ` • V i`, Ly Ai iL St1tl 1 YxR 0 C, Mdtt .W.LLL 0 v omm".4 1 ilk 41� Id 4-4 :Z:'m all imperial COLMIN _J6 st.KL ALALL r, of 40 .. . ....... . 14: MALL IV V% Ilk SL.LL& A)E.LLt 4.0 �nr..y 33 j F � s tab t f itsM z • U imperial County F � CD Sn -, r,. :�� t i• .r-� rte;' Sl.9Ll f' f•�•�©� •J� r �y r tt a t` y ,;' :5J6 ::~— �r U r f6� ��rev r, ..�• �. � 0ce ' ~ _gam• •.i•�i6 O °.,\�`C AE.LLL �r ne,elt y y O L b ba n n CCCC s— WAWAWM .:,O.M:I,rAWOWSWlW moi�lar f MMWA�AWMWA�WOW fAsimmem MKIFA means Ewmaj"gu FAIFAW 'AW,mrAmwAl frAw r man W A Ir, in A IFAM MVAIHIIIII 1111 �W== -EE '=A==-- 71= -sun WMM=F,9irA A mono MrAw'AWAarAW f�ltrAIFAW" ��os rri��r�►`ris AM �Allllll minor, m MINI ME` M IWW-1 owl' pri Id V, &WARJUIVA M M r Bill NEWU EVA K, aw'd 0 OM HINNIMEN VA WA if' ?A' HIM N der.' y l r rya 1 ,Et j „i�� yk �y j y''h1 Y yam. / ���}1, 1±.�"'.'.lq � - �y lV.. { �.•,. r � 'r' .._�t`�� �," TU -�4.F�'�:�...1i��/ ,Yj;•'yY is1' ^Rw s' q.. !�n S,sg x .. f 4a 1 ! • - l" , i � w r- t• . �... ".../'0,,. J� ®,. . iii ., �;,.,,. r �4 till AI WOW a, TABLE 11.--INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued Limitati Map Soil Hydro- Erodibility conv logic from b sue° group g _ LfE Las Flores-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: Las Flores-------------------------------------------- D Urban land-------------------------------------------- D LpB Posas fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes---------- D Moderate 2---- Sligh LpC as Posas fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes---------- D Moderate 2---- Sligh LpC2 Las Posas fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, D Moderate 2---- Sligh eroded. 9 to 15 percent slopes, D Moderate 2---- Slig LpD2 Las Posas fine sandy loam, h eroded. LpE2 Las Posas fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, D Moderate 1--- Sli eroded. LTE as Posas stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent D Moderate 1--- Mode slopes. LrE2 Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent D Moderate 1--- Mode slopes, eroded. LrG Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent D Severe 1----- Mode slopes. _ C Moderate 2--- Mode LsE inne clay loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes----------------- Mode= LsF inne clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------------- C Severe 1----- Lu Loamy alluvial land-------------------------------------- B Severe 16---- Slig_ LvF3 Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded: Loamy alluvial land-------------------- D Severe 1----- Seve Huerhuero-------------------------------------------- D Severe 1----- Seve Mdde land------------------------------------------------ D M1C rina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes---------- A Severe 2----- Sli , M1E .na loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes--------- A Severe 2----- Sli cca coarse san o pereen slopes-------- Severe 16 MnB cca coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes----------- B Severe 16 MoA ecca sandy loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes---------- B Severe 16 MpA2 ecca B Severe 16 fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, eroded----- Seve MrG tamorphic rock land------------------------------------ D Severe 1----- MvA ttsville loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes------ A Severe 2----- Sli " MvC ttsville loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes------ A Severe 2----- Sli MvD ttsville loamy coarse sand, 9 to IS percent slopes----- A Severe 2----- Sli MxA ottvville loamy coarse sand, wet, 0 to 2 percent D Severe 2----- Sli slopes. __ D Severe 16---- Sli OhC livenhain cobbly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---------- D Severe 16---- Sli OhE livenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes----------- D Severe 1----- Mode. OhF livenhain cobbly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes---------- OkC livenhain-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Olivenhain------------------------------------------- D Urbanland------------------------------------------- D a OkE livenhain-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: - D Olivenhain------------------------------------------ Urban land-------------------------- --------------- D PeA Placentia sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes-------------- D Severe 9----- Sli PeC Placentia sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes______________ D Severe 9----- Sli PeC2 Placentia sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded------ D Severe 9----- Sli PeD2 Placentia sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded----- D Severe 9----- Slig, PfA Placentia sandy loam,. thick surface, 0 to 2 percent D Severe 16---- Slig slopes. PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent D Severe 16---- Sligh slopes. ------------------ D Moderate 2 Py Playas-------------------------------- - ' . See footnotes at end of table. 36 W q O 03 C az C.4 en oo OR M N A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 1 v �O u 00 w IIR U M Cp• C O G C O C C C C C O d C p O O O. C o aOOs cn O. [ o en u rn oo +� c- r o v e C 3 V h N h h v1 n � OR ao o0 ° � ° No 0 0 0 �o o b o o c o c o 0 0 Q o 0 E s C u s � � u O t� R o0 00 N '^ 000 oo0 y p a G C C MC C C. C C G p p C O ° ) cc aF V V N N h 000 000 0�0 C a s C Oe u C E' 0 !C W r R U of w w V V V 1. O V v aaaaQ3a3a � a � �' � w w �p- W Ei O woo h 50 C,4 ca O � ` � � � w a a ° U ° ° � •3 u rn too b O °° °° °' b ° '° w' C m —co 45 ° E" v u v o OR eoc W b o o C4� AL a a a a L��' a d V o a o z a c c c �+ �'�' � S a uUr C 3 Z u •v •a`"i .0 v > v m p to U U PAZ cn A I" M fl.. a 4 , Z J I N 8 W I w I , ji 1 , . 1 O d O O Z II v'• v II °' Qppl II v �• v' � eti a U u N I A lu N " i ' A u 1 IINI n ; Ul a IM ft I ;j N'I I' gia 1 1 1 w -- CHRISTIAN WHEELER AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HENDRICK RESIDENCE 736 4th STREET a ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR MARK HENDRICK c/o STUART NEWBY-FRASER 1326 SHERIDAN AVENUE ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92027 PREPARED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER. E N G I N E E K I N G June 11,2008 C)X'E 2050704.03 Mark Hendrick c/o Stuart Newby-Fraser 1326 Sheridan Avenue Escondido,California 92027 -- SUBJECT: AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT,HENDRICK,RESIDENCE,736 41h STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA References: 1)Report of Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation,Proposed Hendrick Residence,736 Fourth Street,Encinitas,California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering, Report No. 203.361.1,dated July 21,2003. 2) Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests,Hendrick Residence,736 Fourth Street,Encinitas,California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering,Report No. 2050704.01,dated August 14,2007. 3) Report of Additional Field Observations and Relative Compaction Testing,Retaining Wall Backfills,Hendrick,Residence,736 4th Street,Encinitas,California, by Christian Wheeler Engineering,Report No.2050704.02,dated May 7,2008. Ladies/Gentlemen, In accordance with your request,our proposal and agreement dated August 19,2005,and the requirements of Section 1704.7 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 and backfills that were placed during the grading of the project as of the date of this report. The observation and testing services addressed by this report were coordinated by Mr. Stuart Fraser and were provided during the period of September 26,2005 through April 16,2008. INT RODUCTION AND PROTECT DESCRIPTION SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a developed parcel of land located adjacent to and west of 4th Street' the City of Encinitas, California. The lot is bounded on the north and south by developed residential lots and on the vest by a bluff that descends to the Pacific Ocean. The site has approxi tely 50 ma "- 4925 Mercury Street 1 San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 t FAX 858-496-9758 Page 2 June 11,2008 CWE 2050704.03 feet of frontage along 4ffi Street and is approximately 146 feet deep. Prior to the earthwork addressed in this report,the property supported a one-story,residential structure located on the western portion of the site. Topographically,the site was characterized by a level building pad with a relatively steep natural bluff on the western border descending to the Pacific Ocean.Vegetation on the site included traditional o he face of landscaping with small to medium-sized trees,a large palm tree,a small garden p lant along the bluff. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION:The existing one-story residence was razed and structure o tw -storY masonry gle- family residence over a basement/garage has been constructed on the property.The construction for the basement area with an on-grade concrete slab and conventional continuous footings,and of wood-frame construction above grade.Permanent shoring was provided against vertical cuts around the western,southern,and northern sides of the basement. _SCOPE-OF SERVICE Services provided by Christian Wheeler Engineering during the course of the earthwork consisted of the following: • Observation of the basement and foundation excavations; • Performing of relative compaction tests in the backfills placed; - • Performing laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture determinations of the backfill soils;and • Preparation of this report. FIELD OBSERVATIONS CLEARING AND GRUBBING:Prior to our site visit,the areas to support the new construction were cleared and grubbed of existing structures and vegetation.The resulting materials were exported from the project site. BASEMENT AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATIONS:After the installation of the permanent shoring around the perimeter of the basement area,the basement excavation was extended into competent undisturbed terrace deposits. The foundation excavations for the proposed single-family residence were observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of concrete,and were found to comply with the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report. Page 3 June 11,2008 CWE 2050704.03 OBSERVATION OF RETAINING WALL BACKFILL:As described in our above-referenced reports, recent site grading and construction activities have resulted in the placement of backfill behind portions of the of the basement and garage retaining walls on-site. Plate No. 1 of this oon test depicts mbers are presented on distribution of the backfilled soils that we observed and tested (the compaction this plate) and the location of gravel backfill placed along the west side of the home's western basement wall. The areas of the site where terrace deposits (undifferentiated between"upper"and"lower' crop out at or very near (<1 foot) the ground surface are also depicted on Plate No. 1. It should be noted that relatively narrow strips of backfill along the eastern portion of the south side of the residence rete d along k prior south t our e of the eastern basement wall were backfilled and subsequently covered with con testing of the backfill in these areas. As such,we cannot provide comment on the compaction of these narrow strips of backfill. SUBGRADE AND BASE PREPARATION:The subgrade preparations generally consisted of minor cuts and fills to designed grades,with soils being scarified,moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base course materials were placed in thin,uniform lifts,moisture operated reciprocating compactor to at least 90 percent of conditioned and compacted by means of manually the maximum dry density within the sidewalk areas adjacent to the subject site. FIELD AND i ARORATORY TESTING FIELD TESTS:Field tests to measure the relative compaction of the backfill placed behind portions of the basement walls 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 backfill. 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 soil 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. 3. Page 4 June 11,2008 CWE 2050704.03 CQNCLUSIONS GENERAL:With the exception of the relatively narrow strips of backfill adjacent to the southeast corner of the residence that were not observed or tested by our firm,it is the opinion of Christian with Ee�eering that the site preparation addressed by this report has been performed in general accordance recommendations presented in the referenced geotechrucal report, the grading requirements of the City of Encinitas and the California Building Code. This opinion is based upon our cfill behind portions of the - and foundation excavations as well as our recent compaction testing of th e back fill retaining walls. It is our further opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction. AS-BUILT GEOLOGY:The geologic units encountered during the earthwork operations were generally consistent with those anticipated in our referenced report of geotechnical mace deposits on. Specifically, referred to excavations for the basement of the residence penetrated the near surface to our referenced literature as the"Upper Terrace Deposits" or"Qtu" and was founded entirely within light brown to medium reddish-brown,dense,silty sands (SM) that we have identified as"Lower Terrace Deposits"or"Qtl". As was observed in our exploratory borings drilled on-site during April and May of 2003 and during the excavation and grading operations addressed herein, the geologic contact between the upper and lower terrace deposits was observed by our personnel at an approximteelevation e basement excavation on- sea level(MSL). No free groundwater or seepage conditions were observed site. The earthwork operations addressed by our reports of filed observations and compaction testing have,in our opinion,satisfactorily mitigated the potentially adverse geologic conditions described in the referenced report of preliminary geotechnical investigation. No unforeseen geologic or geotechnical conditions were encountered during site grading or construction. REMAINING WORK As of the date of this report,we understand that no significant,additional work remains to be done on the site. If,however,any appreciable fills or backfills are still to be placed,our firm should be contacted when these operations are performed so that we can verify their compliance with the applicable specifications. LIMITATION The descriptions,conclusions and opinions presented in this report pertain only to the work performed on the subject site during the period from September 26,2005 through April 16,2008. As limited by the scope Page 5 June 11,2008 CWE 2050704.03 of the services which we agreed to perform and the exposure of retaining wall backfill areas to facilitate our compaction testing,the conclusions and opinions presented herein are based up on 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 bwas performed,and n codes manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the report,no warranty,the or implied,is given or intended and specifications. With the submittal of this rep , be with respect to the services performed by our firm,and our performance of those services the should not s required construed to relieve the grading contractor of his responsibility to perform his w by the applicable building codes and project specifications. Christian Wheeler Engineering sincerely appreciates the opportunity to provide professional services contact ntact our s project. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate i firm. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN HEE ER ENGINEERING oug1� Hicks,Supervisor�� &C 4-6-- David R.Russell,C.E.G. 2215 Charles H. Christian,R.G.E. 00215 CHC:DRR:DH cc: (6)Submitted PpFESSrp ���ED DEp,o 6e 5H.Cy y52 A. BUSS 'Ji Q No. 2215 2 No.GE215 z �, CERTIFIED 5 0 Exp•9-30-09 � * ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Exp. 9-09 �Q �f'f9 7'ECHNoQ��Q- OF CA����Q� —F C;AP') Project:Hendrick Residence SUMMARY OF TESTS RETAINING WALL i�i Will Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. Test No. Date Location Elev. (feet) (%) Density Density Comp. ** (pct East Side of Residence 95.8 .. 7.2 1 124.4 80.5 25 2008 ...............................................................z....................;....................;.....100:1.....a.....................;..................... RW1....;....3� .. ..............�........................... i € 95.8 1 @ 6.8 100.8 1 124.4 81.0 North Side of Residence RW2 1 3/25/2008 '• ,....115.7.........................:............... ... .............. .....................•........;....................... 1 7 .... ............... North Side of Residence 93.8 3 RW3 1 3/25/2008....i........................................................................t.....................a....................e........9.5 a... 124.4 ...... ..............a.......................... e 1 '• 106.4 }.....................,......85.5 RW4 3/25/2008 ; South Side of Residence 92.8 ;•••••••••••••••••• ...............................................................................................................93.3.....r................. : 1 RW5 3/25/2008 East Side of Residence 10.1 105.3 124.4 84.6 ...................................................... .............................::............... 90.8 1 1 1 12.9 104.3 .....12.... .;.....53:8..... RW6 1 3/25/2008 South Side of Residence h„•„•,,,,,,,,,•,•..;....................;. 11.3 ; 107 3 124.4 86.3 ..................q.............................q.............................. .North Side of Residence............:....... ......z........1.........6............0.....1.....109.i....s..................... �..................... RW7 1 3/25/2008 91.8 a..............................�. : 90.8 1 1 East Side of Residence •• •' RW8 3/25/2008 q.....................s...... :................ 1 1 1 15.2 124.4.........��:�..... 14. : '• 1......... .°. North Side of Residence 89 8 ......... ..^ . 25 2008 ............................................«....................>.................. RW9 ..e....3/....�..............�............... 918 1 1 ••10.7....x....09 6.....1.....124.4 ...1 88.1 """""""" North Side of Residence .. RW10 € 4/3/2008 ..:... ...... . : 7.9 113 """""""" E North Side of Restdence 90.8 124 4....,......91 4 RW11 4/3/2008 ....................................................................................... ;.. ..13 8. ..°....�o.:�....;.....124.4 ...;... .....,.................. ............................ 1 b.....................i..... RW12 ' 4/3/2008 North Side oEResidence 89.8 ....................;....................a.........8:1.. 1 93.6 �......... 8 1 11 6 @ 116.4 124.4 86.9 a..............................�............... : 89. RW13 1 4/3/2008 South Side of Residence 6.8..... ..........1........;..... ....... ......... ................................................. 8 13.7 106.9 RW14 1 4/3/2008 South Side of Residence ................................q............. d.. . ...........o........... ..;.....124. 4 • ....... .. .0 124. ....a............................................... 89.8 111 North Side o..Residence : 13.0 4 RW15..a.....4�3�2008 e....................a....................b...................s....................a............. ................�................ 93.8 ? 1 1 8.9 123.5 124.4 .. North Side of Residence 99 3 RW16 € 4/16/2008 ................................ .. .. ..... ..............................:................ ;... . North Side of Residence 93 8 ..s.. . ^' ...9'7 RW17 € 4/16/2008 ...e.....................a.............. ...e....................e.... ............................. 94.8 1 10.1 ' 117.6 � 124.4 E„„94;,,•„ ..................a........... ..... ... .... North Side of Residence RW18 1 4/16/2008 ;.......93......... ............. ...................... .. ..120 6.... 116:.... .....124.4 . .....94:�. ... :.................................. 93.8 .... ... .. South Side of Residence '• RW19 € 4/16/2008 1 .................................L.....................,....... ;....123 2....;.....124.4 ..... .... ........................................ 93.8 ' ...............,...... 8 South Side of Residence ......a....................8.........:6.......a....................;.....................,..... RW20 4/16/2008 �............... 122.4 1 124.4 ........a .............................. ......................-S-i..... 93.8 1 9.4 € East Side of Residence � ' RW21 4/16/2008 :..........................................................................21....... .:..... ...:... ................................. 93.8 1 7.1 1 121.0 1 124.4 € 98.3 RW22 4/16/2008 € East Side of Residence *Perviouly existing unsuitable backfill,which was removed and replaced as properly compacted backfill. **Finished grade elevation assumed to be 95.8 feet. Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type :Moisture Dry Max. %Rel. (feet) (%) Density Density Comp. (pcfJ Drivewa .......SG.......p.........1......... .......� ....... .....123.2....;....124.4.....;.......`...:�..... .......SGl 1 5/9/2008 ..........................Dnvewa .................. z........ q................................ 7.3 120.2 124.4 ......`.....:�..... SG2 1 5/9/2008 Y...........................: a...................;..................... 4.......� .......L................. .............................f......................... ' Ci Street Overla t :V 5 9 2008 .....................P..................'.......SG....... .... 1 121.3 124.4 ........ SG3 / / .................................... ...... SG 1 7.4 118.6 ;..... . ............. 124.4 95.3 SG4 ? 5/9/2008 Ci Street Overla BASE Test No. Date Location Elev. Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. %Rel. (feet) (%) Density Density Comp. (pct Sidewalk area Base Bl ' 6/17/2008....:.........................................................................t.....................;........2......... ......13:�...... ....113.4....=.....122:1...........`��: �. .. ....................... . 112.3 1 122.1 .. "'°"""' Sidewalk area Base 2 iL7 , B2 6/17/2008 area...........................................6................. 112.5.. 22.1 a................ .......................................... Base 6.. B3 € 6/17/2008 Sidewalk a .. ..:... .. 12.5.. 111.6 122.1 2 '......91.4 a.. Base ..................... Sidewalk area 4 ... •• 2 ' B4 E 6/17/2008 1 ... i................... ..... ..... .. 117.0 5.8 r.. ;.. ...11.6 ............................................... ' Base 2 '; 1 ............ ..................,........ 122.1 9 B5 6/17/2008 1 RETEST#B1 Plate No.2 CWE 2050704.03 June 2008 _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Soil Type 'Moisture Dry Max. 'Rel] Elev. mp Test No. Date Location (feet) Cla) Density Density COmP. Base 2 RETEST#B4 Dry USCS optimum Moisture Maximum Soil Typ Description Class C/0 Density(pc� Dark brown,siLY SAND Sm 8.2 124.4 Recycled Class 11 Base GM 10.9 122.1 — plate N^. ) ��mu Cn9� 20507o4vj 1m K-i .v i CL 04 CL -C"000000007* C �a 4 ` 9 cn co ooc r-Lo m zcn^' � vmo 8Mrg co Vr� D :n DDS o to m ® 1' x r' o 0 � r ® x = n ® m `0 z m U r ® wm _ 7 O ni ✓� 0 31,0 0 u oU) � W lll� c F; rn K-i .v i CL 04 CL -C"000000007* C �a 4 ` 9 cn co ooc r-Lo m zcn^' � vmo 8Mrg co Vr� D :n DDS o to m ® 1' x r' o 0 � r ® x = n ® m `0 z m U r ® wm _ 7 O ni ✓� 0 31,0 0 u oU) � W lll� a c c c) rn D O to a a. ]7 O -1 00 O 04 m on C r U z � X N O I z � y N � � 0 °7, r_I 0 ;zu '11 gii Zf . m rrt C) O J N W C-) -4 m 4-- >7> z m N N O z fTIN r O m X r- < m a7 z o0• z t7 0 ez ,� C) m m I J b eaegm z h �\ C a C< A rt s 2 O I a 1„ D -n w � Lo nN a CO C {" •--r W I z al z- v-- i ® _ Rl x z ~ O N <N 1� G) Z S co _0 AL Kr x oZ �v m O'm Zr Rl n O0 a Z� r m Tz m n �' r1 am N --4 0 07, l Ln c Z C = j CD z z w �p r m N UI ` t0 Ln -< o om- N D tD O C�J <O N a N W r ON z O m -V O 0 c F c c) !t D O X a m 0 v O a. ]7 O -1 00 O 04 g on C + U z � X N O I z � y N � � 0 °7, r_I 0 ;zu C) Zf . C on rrt C) O J N On r N I m 4-- >7> N W r ON z O m -V O 0 c F c c) mp O n " O D O X a m 0 v O a. ]7 O -1 00 O W g ? + U z � X N °� I z � y r 0 °7, r_I 0 G) r- O c) o z m -V O 0 c F c c) mp O n " O D O X a m 0 v O a. ]7 O -1 00 O - �$ g ? V) m U z � x a > °� n C> � y r = r_I TI C) Z .J Cz C) O n -1 O c) O >7> z m N N O z fTIN r O m X r- < m a7 z o0• z t7 0 m < m r 0 O � C) m m I J b Z C a C< w s 2 O I a 1„ D -n nN G) m CO C r o> z- v-- i ® _ Rl x z ~ O 0 °zm o G) Z Z wm mr + z vc min 0 m mm 0 mm T N O t� a > °� ° z � y _ � rTl = rn n C) Z ■ Cz oz CD C" >7> O fN N N O vn fTIN m O a7 z o0• z t7 0 U1 1 to C) m m I J b Z O C< w s x a I a 1„ nN a ma o> z- v-- i ® _ Rl x ~ O 0 °zm o �� so Z Z AL cn �v m Rl n z Tz N "� am n0 n x z < m czi "'Z ii -< o om- C�J <O z - z m z mo r Z N [A < rn r*m (n m z - r o o m - m r t r rim m `�N D n0 .-{Q m Z Jt TI i p C s-4 { O' 1 g"' , ❑�Y4f L m p rn r No vri v "p �+ w 6 O -.. Ln L4 to Cos a o - '.'•'' mo .. E 0 r� D C rn � g 0 m r m a PO o — -- 0 m ,� .... -• .. o m cn m A9 IINES a� to L4 v ...... OVERViE • ........... ................ � N A C ' ni cn 8 ......� z v ��p3 m a q m 1N3Yi3r� j0 w ET o j• m 4 T rl N tp W OHO L ono to a� cc m C 0 m 3 0 T N A J 3P r rim m `�N D n0 .-{Q m Z Jt TI i p C s-4 { O' 1 g"' , ❑�Y4f L m p rn r No vri v "p �+ w 6 O -.. Ln L4 to Cos a o - '.'•'' mo .. E 0 r� D C rn � g 0 m r m a PO o — -- 0 m ,� .... -• .. o m cn m A9 IINES a� to L4 v ...... OVERViE • ........... ................ � N A C ' ni cn 8 ......� z v ��p3 m a q m 1N3Yi3r� j0 w ET o j• m 4 T rl N tp W OHO L ono to a� cc m w-ixr v(uo �csmg _� N 4 0 C- 0 C 4 1 m 3 0 T N A {A 3P N 2 S m rn = rn n C) Z ■ co CD C" >7> N O vn O m O a7 w-ixr v(uo �csmg _� N 4 0 C- 0 C W z 3 O N 2 = rn = n C) Z o7� 77 >7> C7 m rr- vn .4 m m M a7 z z an 0 0 0) C) m m j J b w s x a I a 1„ .t 1, 11 t I 11 -- II ca II 11 I PACIFIC III OCEAN lI II I� III .III 1 lI lI 1 1 1 } Ii 1 11 1 1 11 II I I w EXISTING HOUSE 1111 } 1 I 1 I 5.65 IE 4,45 FG 95.75 T MIE 9- } } } 1 EXISTING BERM Iii EDGE- OF I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 BLUFF TO REMAIN "'�; 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 I 95.4 ra 1 1 4 o I 1 APPROXIMATE" r✓ A 1 1 1 l i 11 II EDGE OF BL �F�j 'f I 1 I 1 I LANDSCAPE AREA FOR STgRMWATEA I' POLLUTION CONTROL. NOT TO BE� V I 1 I MODIFIED ITHOUT PERMIt FROM CITY FE 95.75 (� ,DRAIN. e 95.6 • ��� {! .�� 95 T6 .65 ill , IEi94.65 IE 94M II t i c I I t FG 195.75 +a 95.5 • {1 I l 1 l } 1 12" NDS CA CH 111 +, it II II 11 l� (TYPICAL) EQUAL X i'y TO 95.65 FG i 11 li 1 1 II 1 1 ` AREA BACEFILLED Ili l } 1 1 1 i ( WITH illl I 1 1 I GRAVEL X111 11 Il I, 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 I .I I II i 111 } l i jI1V 1 1 I 1 I 111 t 1 I 1 l' 1111 I I 11 ! j 1111 1 I 1 1 1 . 4" PVC PIPE @ 1%-� FOOTING DETAILS NOT -A- PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH. PLANS FOR DETAILS) ►SECTTON BUILDING WALLS NOT -A- PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DETAILS) NOT TO SCALE BUILDING WALLS NOT -A- - PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DETAILS) YI'yb1'-+ rt l - .r- " - l • CUUHL CICC VC IHIL 4 MY II" I G QC 2ooS- a�2ai�'C�3 %�� %v TOP COVER 96.3 I 9 95.75 "" _ INV EL IN - 91.0 FG 95.75 INV EL OUT = 95.6 cl 76 1 TG 95.65 TG 95.65 TG 95.65 INV SUMP = 90.0 Qt IE 93:85 IE 95.65 91 IS CLM GUTTER & SIDEWALK TO ,G 9 ado A°-' EX2S PA TREE BE REMC VED AND REPLACED PER FG 75 / DST DN OF CITY ENGINEER S ' 21' 2 " W i12.50't TO BL - ''_'�`_"� 1.!, EXIST SIDEWAL lo'm Qaf 17 ., 9 _- !` $ " 7 ]5 16 10 Qaf �@ i%.. PVCL@ 1 %4., o PRGPOSEB-•C -2�" � J� _ r SIBEWA61�- dNBERBRAiN ,r,/ 5 - = 5 ' FL 95.45 EXIST SEWER LATERAL FG 9 .7 j XIST BUILOItJ (F 1 1> °U T CONTRACTOR BE LOCATED BY Qt i PROPOSED RESIDENCE TO 5- , 1 Qt EXIST SAS METER %` I( FF�.AJ'EM NT,`�.%J Tw@FS s5.75 1° Z Qaf "�o� I PVC @ 1% 1 *. /I METER BOX �.,,��, -►^.� ''r 1 BW @FS 92,91 ' ' L EXIST EDGE 1� SEE AACIT C"AL DRAWINGS OF P VEMENT s ` OA BUILD G WALLS EXIST PALM TO, TO 92.9 -" W 2 ILgS,� ` -rat �aw7 ( BE RELOCATED NIE X1.5 ;3 TYPE ;C= B . 95.75 -- - =, rJ+ RET ,W sG 5 95 sG 6 CENTERLINE 6 S�iia t W L4 �E Qt _y4 /4 % �. 31 7 �' Ar dR,ti " •. /I p • CONCRETE ORIVEWA ( C0t15 r9vcTw ad LIEV 0�'i"i �S EXIST GRA (TYP.) I j- . ° B 4" PCC OVER 6" �`' ` a .q• ,r •'•• Ja...::1"'z . °. '4 a 5@SO 11'@:3 ; CLASS II A8 �%I�$.7"%ay.[1 •�' 40' BLUFF SETBACK FF= 89.75�I,r` i`` I 16% o ^ (,■ •. - •� .. - i. °, .. ,/`� - -./... ✓"` -•-''� �..� .� : �+-i' a.-.� 's =-� DESS a . TG x92.91 .'I �+ 7. OIBE AEIEOCATEID SG FS 9725 I OR EQUAL TE 9$.75' sG ! o 4 Fi, X53 95.s Qt TYPE "C -1" TW @FS 95.75 41 4 g 2 .TW @F 9 ° ,BRAIN T ERT FOR BMP GRAPHIC SCALE RET WALL TYPE 'G -1 8W @FS 92.91 .. NOT TO BE MO FIEO WITHOUT FG 95.75 TO 95.65 -1 AET WALL. BW @F 55 5 LF isle 4" B A PERMIT FRO THE CITY & TO °� .(� . }} g BE PROPERLY INTAINED IN IE 93.75 Y 99 PVC 1 I ' TG • 95 65 -° I �d _._ " s GOOD WORKING �� 0 10 20 30 �- NOTE: ANY WORK OR DISTURBANCE '�-•Z" x a•• c8 .r ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY PROPOSED POWER POLE EX 6" VCP SEWERLINE LOCATION REQUIRES A LETTER OF PERMISSION (RATTSC = �� _;•'; °` ScREav FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER L� FsLoCl; A rr .�Cx, =;�lll� 4 A5 6' SKMAER FP07ECTO � 162.3 1629 6.7 CFS i rt?ROf',05ED -- *#6E 1,DENCI PROPERTY LINE 5.00' Ex SEE ARCH DRAWINGS FOR -. �' %'•_ 314• 1 3� STARLESS STEEL NON- RETAINING STUCCO 143.5 4.3 CFS WALL HEIGHTS 99.25 FS 99.25 ``f �- FF�''99,:25 . °' TW @FS 56% ENTRY _ FIRS?;iFLOOR 43 CFS PROPOSED TYPE "C -3" .a • ,• MASONRY RETAINING WALL 95.75 66% >- 6.3 CFS BACK OF WALL 2" OFF PL '• STAIM.ESS STEEL. T_ TWAT FLOW RATE TREATED FLOW RATE TOTAL: 44 CFS TOTAL: 21.6 FLOW RATES BAST: ON U908STR CTE'O MOWS Ty 4" PVC PIPE @ 1%-� FOOTING DETAILS NOT -A- PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH. PLANS FOR DETAILS) ►SECTTON BUILDING WALLS NOT -A- PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DETAILS) NOT TO SCALE BUILDING WALLS NOT -A- - PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR DETAILS) YI'yb1'-+ rt l - .r- " - l • CUUHL CICC VC IHIL 4 MY II" I G QC 2ooS- a�2ai�'C�3 %�� %v TOP COVER 96.3 I 9 95.75 "" _ INV EL IN - 91.0 FG 95.75 INV EL OUT = 95.6 cl 76 1 TG 95.65 TG 95.65 TG 95.65 INV SUMP = 90.0 Qt IE 93:85 IE 95.65 91 IS CLM GUTTER & SIDEWALK TO ,G 9 ado A°-' EX2S PA TREE BE REMC VED AND REPLACED PER FG 75 / DST DN OF CITY ENGINEER S ' 21' 2 " W i12.50't TO BL - ''_'�`_"� 1.!, EXIST SIDEWAL lo'm Qaf 17 ., 9 _- !` $ " 7 ]5 16 10 Qaf �@ i%.. PVCL@ 1 %4., o PRGPOSEB-•C -2�" � J� _ r SIBEWA61�- dNBERBRAiN ,r,/ 5 - = 5 ' FL 95.45 EXIST SEWER LATERAL FG 9 .7 j XIST BUILOItJ (F 1 1> °U T CONTRACTOR BE LOCATED BY Qt i PROPOSED RESIDENCE TO 5- , 1 Qt EXIST SAS METER %` I( FF�.AJ'EM NT,`�.%J Tw@FS s5.75 1° Z Qaf "�o� I PVC @ 1% 1 *. /I METER BOX �.,,��, -►^.� ''r 1 BW @FS 92,91 ' ' L EXIST EDGE 1� SEE AACIT C"AL DRAWINGS OF P VEMENT s ` OA BUILD G WALLS EXIST PALM TO, TO 92.9 -" W 2 ILgS,� ` -rat �aw7 ( BE RELOCATED NIE X1.5 ;3 TYPE ;C= B . 95.75 -- - =, rJ+ RET ,W sG 5 95 sG 6 CENTERLINE 6 S�iia t W L4 �E Qt _y4 /4 % �. 31 7 �' Ar dR,ti " •. /I p • CONCRETE ORIVEWA ( C0t15 r9vcTw ad LIEV 0�'i"i �S EXIST GRA (TYP.) I j- . ° B 4" PCC OVER 6" �`' ` a .q• ,r •'•• Ja...::1"'z . °. '4 a 5@SO 11'@:3 ; CLASS II A8 �%I�$.7"%ay.[1 •�' 40' BLUFF SETBACK FF= 89.75�I,r` i`` I 16% o ^ (,■ •. - •� .. - i. °, .. ,/`� - -./... ✓"` -•-''� �..� .� : �+-i' a.-.� 's =-� DESS a . TG x92.91 .'I �+ 7. OIBE AEIEOCATEID SG FS 9725 I OR EQUAL TE 9$.75' sG ! o 4 Fi, X53 95.s Qt TYPE "C -1" TW @FS 95.75 41 4 g 2 .TW @F 9 ° ,BRAIN T ERT FOR BMP GRAPHIC SCALE RET WALL TYPE 'G -1 8W @FS 92.91 .. NOT TO BE MO FIEO WITHOUT FG 95.75 TO 95.65 -1 AET WALL. BW @F 55 5 LF isle 4" B A PERMIT FRO THE CITY & TO °� .(� . }} g BE PROPERLY INTAINED IN IE 93.75 Y 99 PVC 1 I ' TG • 95 65 -° I �d _._ " s GOOD WORKING �� 0 10 20 30 �- .� '�-•Z" x a•• c8 .r FLOW PROPOSED POWER POLE EX 6" VCP SEWERLINE LOCATION OF TOTAL (RATTSC FILTER OPOD S ScREav PER t NIT L� FsLoCl; A rr .�Cx, =;�lll� 4 A5 6' 9 .95 TW @FS 95.75 1 Iu a�.aa FS 97.75 J BW @FG 95.75 IE 93.55 7W @FS 95.75 TW@FS 95.75 TW @FS 99.25 TW @FS 99.25 TW @FS 97.7 BIL8PS 95.75 BW @FS 89.75 BW @FG 95.75 BW @FG 95.75 BW @FG 95. J / NO, To SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR NON - RETAINING STUCCO WALL J J Ji J CWE LEGEND ,J 0 - PROPERTY LINE i `- 4" PVC PIPE @ IX FOOTING DETAILS NOT -A- PART OF THIS PLAN (SEE ARCH, PLANS FOR DETAILS) ° TW 98.17 I- tAlbl rALM( BW @F6 95.7!f tf PROPOSED TYP C -3" MASONRY WALLS ,r- EX 6" ACP 95.75 WATERLINE ' 24" WIDE NOS 178 CHANNEL DRAIN 1' OR EQUAL RELATIVE COMPACTION TEST Qaf STRUCTURAL BACKFILL Q# - TIERP -A.CF, ;"aF,POSITS - LIMITS OF BACKFILL GATE VALVE 4" PVC PIPE 0 1% /'' STEEL COVER ELEV 96.3 INV OUT =95.6 f CHECK VALVE 4" PVC PIPE 0 19 INV IN =91.0 �'TAJ1.�D �• '�-•Z" x a•• c8 btu i\ERD>A FLOW PROPOSED POWER POLE EX 6" VCP SEWERLINE LOCATION OF TOTAL (RATTSC FILTER OPOD S ScREav PER t NIT 11(SIALL i- u€ FsLoCl; A DDsslONS 6vEK 4,, cwu 4 A5 6' SKMAER FP07ECTO L- HYDROMATIC SK60A2 NON CLOGGING SUBMERSIBLE PUMP W 10.6HP, 175ORPM, 230/1__-/60 MOTOR AND INTERGRAL LEVEL CONTROL SWITCH (SEE SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS PER BARRET ENGINEERED PUMPS) OR EQUAL INV PUMP =91.0 DETAIL C No. 29577 Exp. 03/31/07 z 11 1 vkvs P- p9oP REvrloort �6 "Xt6 PCC C "}I;lI%N i ues HUM. C)NSTALL TURF REirdPot3GE�w/ ?u1LFga°cic / ovi^�: 611 GUlsS II A•� MOT TO SGRLE FLOW SPECIFICATIONS 24 FLOW SCHEMATIC -ORM BOOM SKIMMER THROAT GRATE ...a . t TURBULENCE .. DEFLECTOR SIDE VIEW p Ofl TOTAL SQL FLOW DESCRIPTION OF BASED ON F INC+&S OF TOTAL (RATTSC FILTER OPOD S ScREav PER t NIT LNOBSTfi XTEO FEET PER DDsslONS OPENINSS SECp�J SKMAER FP07ECTO 100% 162.3 1629 6.7 CFS BY -PASS a Ex ,4.' •• 314• 1 3� STARLESS STEEL 62% 143.5 89.0 4.3 CFS FLATTENED 0TAMTED 12 9/16 . °' mmzm SCREEN 10 x !0 NESFI 56% 143.5 80.4 43 CFS STAINLESS STEEL .a • ,• 2DE 9� 66% 156.1 106.1 6.3 CFS STAIM.ESS STEEL. TWAT FLOW RATE TREATED FLOW RATE TOTAL: 44 CFS TOTAL: 21.6 FLOW RATES BAST: ON U908STR CTE'O MOWS GRATE ...a . t TURBULENCE .. DEFLECTOR SIDE VIEW DETAIL D NOT TO SCALE REVISIONS APPROVED DATE 0 REFERENCES DA TE BENCHMARK SCALE PLANNING & BUILDING i BM APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWIlJG NC US &GS BRASS DISK STAMPED "L RESET PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPR GRADING PLAN FOR 1952" IN FLAGPOLE AT PACIFIC VIEW REVIEWED , ELEMENTARY HORIZONAL 1 " e t0' / I DATE: �xi2 BY: BY: - 736 4TH STREET 915^ C R.C.E. NO. 29577 DATE: I /2 0/ OS DATE: / o 0s vERracaL CIA W7iYNE PASCO APN• 258 - 153 -05 DA E: EXP. 3 -31 -07 PLANNING CASE NO: 03 -165 SHEET 2 OF 3 EL =91.18 DATUM: MSL (1929) \ \Server \]ob file5\13O1.Pr012 12112004 PE 1: W-0 a SKIMMER PROTECTED ,4.' •• BYPASS COURSE SCREEN 12 9/16 . °' MEDIUM SCREEN END VIEW ; , •• .a • ,• FINE SCREEN • ' ' • ,CONCRETE STRUCTURE ,•4 ' DETAIL D NOT TO SCALE REVISIONS APPROVED DATE 0 REFERENCES DA TE BENCHMARK SCALE PLANNING & BUILDING i BM APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWIlJG NC US &GS BRASS DISK STAMPED "L RESET PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPR GRADING PLAN FOR 1952" IN FLAGPOLE AT PACIFIC VIEW REVIEWED , ELEMENTARY HORIZONAL 1 " e t0' / I DATE: �xi2 BY: BY: - 736 4TH STREET 915^ C R.C.E. NO. 29577 DATE: I /2 0/ OS DATE: / o 0s vERracaL CIA W7iYNE PASCO APN• 258 - 153 -05 DA E: EXP. 3 -31 -07 PLANNING CASE NO: 03 -165 SHEET 2 OF 3 EL =91.18 DATUM: MSL (1929) \ \Server \]ob file5\13O1.Pr012 12112004 PE 1: W-0 HENDRICK RESIDENCE SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP DATE: JULY 2008 JOB NO: 2050704.03 BY: CHC /DRR /MAH PLATENO.: 1 gwlm IRISTIAN WHEEL] F GI NE.E R:I N