Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2005-9300 G
T. , City O ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering November 17, 2008 Traffic Engineering Attn: San Diego County Credit Union 501 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Steven and Geri Jones 3373 Calle Margarita APN 264-240-14 Grading plan 9300-G Final release of security Permit 9300-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a full release of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Certificate # 0066022231-40 in the amount of$ 25,270.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc rely, Debra Gei rt Engineering Technician 4�Finance ch Subdivision Engineering nage r Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Steve and Geri Jones Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper A t C s T y' C E # � t x �, u � t �, CN � JEERING f ti STS SERVIE 4 .. sC?� $ tiJLCAF AE ENS. ' AA ��``�wWWwAA�J D I Ind G P t b 1.M I T 4 ?:, 3' d y 't, NER. ,Mp T _ PARCEL NO. 264-240-140,0 LAOBTE ADDRESS : 3 3;3 tLW�E MARGARITA 3. tAPPLICANT r . TEiE 4'AILI NG ADDRESS : N fi P CITY: ENCIvITAS � WISHBONE WAY fi ,yf =; P STATE: CA 2IP : PHONE N '� : 7 607, 20 2024_ CONTRACTOR : TALBOT CONSTRUCTION LICENSE NO. : 600036 PHONE N 6p°4 . ENGINEER LOGAN ENGINEERING I:Try=ENSE ;`I YP PERMIT IS B " '�EI73 PIC)Z�1E I�t `6l- 13 + PERMIT P . DATE: 7/22 INS,.PECT .R: `ODD BAUMB' li PER-MIT ISSUED B� > �� f --------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS' --- I . PERMIT FEE 00 4 „4 ; INSPECTION 'EE 2 . PLAN (,HE,--'K DEPOSIT. 5 , PLAID CHECK FEE -„ �71 . GC� 4 . INSPECTION �"?Egf�SI'T: 0. 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE ' ()o SECURITY DEPOSIT i OCR S : 0 . S . TR�AFF't� 6 3 0 ----- Y__ � . FEE 00; DESCRIPTION �,F WORD PE'RGMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE �1RMANCE OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE P R APPROVED PLAN 9'?00—G, CONTRACIsR TO MAINTAIN W.A . T.C.H . STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC 'CONTRc€L PLAN . I�ER DATED 9,//2_2/05 APPLIES . v x ' i 1 INSPECTI�JN _ d � '13ATE INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT . RECEIVED ENGINEER: CERT`. RECEIVED ` , . SOUGH GRADING INSPECTION � � , FINAL k INSPECTION ,., Z. I HEREBY- CKNOWLEDGE THAT I .IAA tT +� IN FO MA 3Y I C RECT AND' xAC Fd E T4 Cf R#PI,y z BFI{ LL'CkN AN ` SAWS R ” €'HAt x C I`I` G 1}I� 5 �1E ` LATI I4tG XCAVA T I NG ANI ,GR b I.fl,TG; ANb THE pR I S I N "AND �s �iNY P 'I' I t D. PURtTA js N'I TQ `H S APPL- C£iT I41!Y s 3s kt .� 3.IGNATURE i , J,' � S. 11��,,,,, !''!ma�yy�p°{yY�(J..(y ry "*• {; y t7WNER 2 AGEN r OT f W= ": Y FROM LOGAN ENG'G 7805103152 (THU)NOV 13 2008 11:OVST. 11:02/No, 7512194019 P RANCHO COASTAL ENGINEERING Single Source Development Consultant November 13, 2008 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION TALBOT RESIDENCE-DRAWING NO. 9300-G The grading under permit number 9300-0 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 with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum oi'1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low act Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Managem t Practices as sho ' on the drawing and required by the Hest Management Practice anu 1 Part II we constructed and are operational, together with the required mainte ce oven`int(s) p1ROFFSS,o D glas E. Log 26, \y 0 2 aF ° uj OF CAI.IP�P�\P r Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped mud will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector.- � Dated: Pla Wing Civil Surve StrucWral 1635 S. Rancho Santa Fe Rd„Ste.204 Rancho an Marcos, A 92078��Phon - e(760)510-3152,Fax:(760)510-3153 w^++'r.reesd.com i • Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Structural • Surveying �^ February 23, 2005 , p4� City of Encinitas Engineering Department RE: HYDROLOGY EVALUATION—THE TALBOT RESIDENCE '; CALLE MARGARITA, OLIVENHAIN- CITY OF ENCINITAS `'' Please allow this letter to serve as the hydrology study for the subject residence. Based on several site visits, it is our professional opinion that there is little or no off-site drainage entering onto this lot. Therefore, the only drainage affecting this lot is the lot area itself, which is approximately 40,000 s.f. Based on the County of San Diego Design and Procedure Manual and assuming urban single-family residential conditions, we would conservatively predict no more than 2.0 cfs in a 100-year storm, for the entire lot. It is our professional opinion that typical drainage devises utilized for single family residential construction, i.e., brow ditches, sheet flow, swales, berms and area drains will be more than adequate to handle the anticipated drainage for this residence. In addition, appropriate BMPs, both during and after construction, will be implemented to the City's satisfaction. As Engineer of Work for this residential grading plan, we respectively request your acceptance of this hydrology evaluation. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact this office or respond, as such, with plan check comments. 4Douglas GINEERING a Ua C 39726 '1 . ogan, R.C.E. 39 726 ExP. 17.31.05 Principal �* Office: 1635 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road, #204 • San Marcos, CA 92069 Mailing: 132 N. El Camino Real, PMB-N • Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone 760-510-3152 • Fax 760-510-3153 Email: dlogan @connectnet.com CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER LNG RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW COMMENTS PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALLE MARGARITA, OLIVENHAIN AREA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUWI I i TTE ? TO: TAL 130T Cl TOM BUILDING 776 PANCI-3U S.�%NTA ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 SUBMITTED 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 �A� CHRISTIAN \A,/HEELER INCIN EE ]: ING August 2, 2005 Talbot Custom Building 770 Rancho Santa Road C\XE 2040878.02 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Steve )ones SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 3RD PARTY REVIEW COMMENTS, DRAWING#9300-GIZ, i'ROPOSED SINGLE-FAAIILY RESIDENCE, CALLE MARGARITA, I:NCIN1 1TAS, C:ALI) ORNIA. Ke;c-r<nccs:. 7 R�l�u;? of Prclim�i:ar� C;euted�nical In estigauc�n, Proposcd �,largarita, Obvenhain Area, Encinnas, Cal:.ornia", nc reed 17),(��l,,ristian \\7 �' p iccler Ent,:ncenng, report No. 20-10578.01, dalFdN�r,ember 10, ''004. ?) "Grading and Erosion Conuxol Plan for: The Talbot—Doub]c LL Residence" by Logan Engineering (Drawing No. 9300-G), PIol Date Februar-,23 2005. 3) "Review Memorandum, Third Part-Review, Drawing#9300-GR, Calle Margarita (Double LL) area, APN 264-240-14, b)'Geopacifica Inc., dined June 9,2005. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Mr. Doug Logan, this report has been prepared to provide the additional geotechnical information requested -xithin the "Review Aemorandum" referenced above. The issues that require our response and our response to each issue are presented below. Issue No. 1: Document#1 appears -.vas prepared -without reference to Document#2. Page 15 of Document#1 provides for the geotechnical review of grading plans. The geotechnical consultant needs to provide a geotechnical grading plan review report. 4925 Mercury Street San Diego, CA 921 11 , 858-496-9-60 FAX 858-496-9-1758 CWT, 20.10878.02 August 2,2005 Page 2 We have rci-iewed the referenced grading plans (Document#2). Based on our review, it is our opinion that the recommendations presented in Document#1 have been properly incorporated into the proposed grading plan. Items?; The Document#1 needs to include to the references a listing of pertinent soil/geological maps/reports reviewed as part of this project investigation. The listing should include aerial photographs reviewed and a discussion section in the text of the report relative to the findings. -Appendix A of this report presents a revised list of references, topographic maps, and aerial photographs utilized in the preparation of our original report of preluninarl' eotechnical 1nC•e5tiI.ation as Kell ;is this report. No z } geomorphic conditions or evidence of l:1ndsh'dinr•, err adjacent to the subject site,were obser�-ed during either on g our rcr Jew of the referenced aerial pla�,�,,rraphs ft•rnn 1928 to 1996. Additionally- the subject site is and-6,ped within all of the referenced aerial pl, 'graphs. rctcrencec ph��;o�rrapl�� from 1953 to 19`% , C depict the stte and adjacent are:�a to <rtil�,• supl,nrt an unimproved rcadwav, which runs north to south, alpproxir�pateh- along the current ali >nment of Calle Margarita. The referenced photographs from 1945 and 1928 depict no development in the area of the subject site. The photographs fi-otn 1960, 1953, and 1945 provide the clearest resolution of the subject site and surrounding areas and do not depict our geomorphic or topographic c,•idence to suggest that]andsliding has occurred either on or adjacent to the subject site. Item No The Document#1 was performed using only shallow exploration by backhoe to depths of 12 feet maximum. The project is located in hillside terrain with relief greater than 30+ feet. Please justify why deeper exploration and sampling was not performed. Our backhoe-excavated trenches were generafly extended to the depths necessary to establish both the contact elevation behveen the surficial soils and the underlying Tertiar-}-_age formational deposits and to determine the depth to the competent portion of said formational deposits. To this end, our trenches ',iere h-picall3 extended to depths ranging from 8 to 12 feet below the existing grade, with one of our trenches (T-2) being extended to 15 feet. In our opinion, these depths «-ere sufficient to explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced b�- the proposed construction. -Additionally' it should be noted that although there is 30+ feet of relief ,vithin the project area it is spread over a horizontal distance of approxl-rpately 200 feet, which gives the area an inclination ranging from approsunateli-(>:1 (H;�,� to 7:1 (H:��. Given this range of relativeh•gentle slope inclinations, it is our opinion that deeper exploration and sampling not necessary and th-a t C\\F 204OS78.02 August 2, 2005 Page 3 Potential slope failures,if any, Would be located a sufficient distance to the east of the project area (see Item #5). J Items L- The Document#1—Plate #1 with exploration locations should be rovid onto the project plans with asoil/geologic cross The soil/ section provided through the hillside reli geologic cross section should be used in the preparation of a hillside slope tN analysis. The cross section should include geologic structure. pe stability The requested plan and cross-section are provided on Plate Numbers 1 and 2, res ecuvel report. It should be noted that bedding orientations of the Santiago Formation included oil tile prolccr plan were originall} measured within three of our exploratoil,test trenches Burin our in,csti"atic>n for Document #I- howc�. .. g those measurements �vere inadvertentlN. onutted From our trench ]o,�s. \s rcqucsted, "N-c have pc•rformc d a t stanilin•aml-,sis of the l � cxcviC"J_ )f the ' d gco*cehn istin� Rsidr. � on our -i• the t , i;�1s compr;,ing the (�.isting !. , idcnufled as cllt~tone's of the Sar,ti .le are hormat�on and n �icalh' cor„i,st of light ro medium}•cllowlsh- brown to gral•ish-bromm, sandy clay- (CL) thar is to hard in con"�istcncj Based on our direct shear tesun.q, the formational material N as determined to hay c a Erica the results of C and a cohesion (c) of 37; friction angle (�) of 21 1 ounds per square foot. It should be noted that our test \v;is performed oil a remolded san,1?le 900- o direct shear ( ) f the Formational material and, as suds, , it is our opinion that these strength parameters represent a I'M'consen'auve it of the in-situ st i] strength. The anal`,ses of the gross stability-xvere performed using Version 2 of the GSTAB c computer program developed by Garry H. Gre o 3 L70 specified, and randomlj-shaped failure surfacesu sing tile e'Modified d Bisl tnzlI -es circular, block, 1\Iethods- the STLD«in© com titer Program, 'OP,)anbu or Spencer's P p gram, developed by Harald W. Van Aller, P. E., was used in conjunction with this program for data entri•and graphics display Due to the generally n favorable bedding orientation of the Santiago Formation, the existing slope was anal g neutral to type Failures originating within the]over slope face and was not anah�zed for block-t)-Pe F analyzed for circular- Each failure anah'sis was programmed to run 900 random failure surfaces that terrain P allures. locations above the slope. The results of our gross stability analyses ated at random exi are presented on the attached Plate No. 3, indicate that the e�is i7g slopethas a stingnUulside, which safet3'of 153. n factor-of- Item No 5: --__ The project slope stability analysis in addition to the hillside analysis should include proposed cuts and fills and the analysis should be included for review. C\CZ 2040878.02 !August 2, 2005 Page 4 As requested,-,ve have performed gross stability analyses of the site including the proposed cuts and fills. These anal ses ',v ere performed as described above; ho��e�er, u e have additionally erfortned pseudo-static analysis using a peak ground acceleration of 0.24 p a earthquake coefficient of 0.15. The results of these gross stabilig��1 sesetit#1) and a horizontal the attached Plate Nos. 4 and 5,indicate that the proposed site will have a�milni1nun�fact r-of- on of 1.53 and 1.11 for static and pseudo-static slope stability,respectivcl-. It s]� factor-of-safe the critical failure surfaces are generally located well to the east(+ should be noted that area. — 4� feet) of the proposed project IF YOU have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our office.°I?PO1�nitt to be of professional set--ice is sincerely appreciated. e This Rcsprctfuil� `��?�tnilred, CHRISTLIN XX IEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christi;ul,RGE # 00215 � gn=us R. BurdetC;�C-T.U��� (:11C:r.RB:scc logo cc: (2)tiuhmirtcCj (3) I,. ;(;irt lin�inccnn�•. 13?N. I:I Cirmiru,]Zcal..tiuitc N. 1{ncinita..,C.1 9-'J24 aED GF �cN,LS IT A cc li �V'o Gf215 z m * G ir5 ZO (iE(k,pplST ' UP. _f aF _--------------_ .. East A- West 40 A' Callc iAIargarira 340 [26(0 3'n i I ?GO G Lr o j' GLE-EMILY RESIDENCE JOB moo.: zu�+os�s PLATE NO.: L L IR O - O CD M Q N ch (O 0 LO 0 0 N p 0) tt N N c W a Q) L 00 L p r CN .� m L m d M p U 00 =1 L r cn Q. n cn .�. LL U I V) CN CD T- > a � � L) I ►� � x N U m l4 LL C _U @ UOO T ) Q U Z3 m. p C �, �a (U a; o)o o N (� N CO .0 CAN O r d 0 ¢v Q _N _ 0 -° n N Q)w O O L L p' N U U)Un C) '- CLr` L a:) a r�o v � o C M co �o LL CD _. N N > O O Q� w cv ? C ary R F C CM — C) \. 0 Q. co z � \ ) V) p �p CD M c`JMmm M� V-V V 4P to UI�Un In lf')U-)2)to St M-0 U TJ a) LO C14 CD V M M M Op p C) z; i/ C14 Nr Plate No. 3 0 O • M I� O a N co v N O LO . O N O 1t N N m LL) O O N w 00 aa) _O d Cr S� N c 7 N cn C •L U co L U r L 2 c t Q) Lo U LO LL ry \ N L"I t > �S C/) = a �Z m Q � °' c R ^O Q CD E zm °°cm) �T O a, N ...,NN Q. CL U C - N O N O O O • L //L t- U� O ', U c - U CI4 R W -�) O LL N U stn d 1� E a� N .. Cn y E @ O O, co O a° O O ~Dv'--r C.0 O U C/)�Z rN • 1 U �C) ~� \ 4t M.0 ch ° O �.- i�- �h .T M cm M C O C)14, -- CN CV Plate No. 4 0 0 r� � � o N O LO C3 C) N 0 N � O m N CD c W co a) O a� L cc) N w AT O d O °_ 3 N a U � •L cp 'a U V d C Q7 m3 3 0 0 ° w o m \ = tI3 C j U N O LL U N aY \ LO N m c r L) � N U L U U,2 O p p I m fn a a -,Z g—^p o o N 0 LL Q N N _ r O d IZ E C- Q O N -9 OCOO /• i L c0 O U to U)p w I7 U _. L Q1-p 0 6i � 0 C co CO U 00 m C) _ O N N 75 )0 0 w ILQ W t0 a*-N m N (� cn - - O E co E — m m a CL 0, O 0 >,z N d; U r \ Cl) LL M M Cl) Cl) M - N N is Plate No_ 5 CWE 204087S.02 August 2, 2005 appendix A, Page A-1 REFERENCES Anderson, J.G.;RockwcI], 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, 1959. Blake, T.F.,2000, EQF-AULT,a Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal,acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, Version 3.0,Thomas F. Blake Computer Seri ices and Software,Thousand Oaks,California. Boore, David i\I.,Joyner,William B., and Fumal, 'Filon E. 1997 "Empirical Near-Source_attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground_acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, d Pseudo-.absolute Acceleration Response Spectra„,in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68, Number j "]'art-/Fcbruai-j 1997. Cnlif()rnia L)ivisi"n1 ()f Mines and Geol(_)T 1995, NI, ps of hnu��n_AetiVe Fault Near Source Zones in (:alifornia Portions of Nevada. Calif rn.a D,�isiev� of'',Lines and GeOl.ogj-, 1997, Guidelines for L :iluaung and �Iitiga.r>> �•,.isniic Hazards in < ilifornla, Special Publication 117. California Di-,-ision of Mines and Geology-, 1996, Geo1()_�ic ;' I:,ps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, DMG Open-File Report 96-02. COLlnty\\7de Flood hlsurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073CIO53F (panel 1053 of 2375), prepared by the Federal Emergenc37 l\Ianagement Agency, effective date June 19, 1997. 1 Tart, E.\\'., 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Division of I\Iines and Geology Special Publication -l2. Jennings, C'W” 1975 Fault I\lap of California California Div is' of I\Iines and Geolog\-,i\fap No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. Ie'ennedy, 1\Iichael P. Tan, Sean Siang, Chapman, Rodger H., and Chase, Gordon \\%. 1975, Character And Recency- of Faulting, San Diego i\letropohtan _area, California, California Div is' of \lines and Geology Special Report 123. CWE 2040878-02 August 2, 2005 Appendix A, Page r\-2 REFERENCES (continued) here, P. 1959, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego Count, Pickle Press, 73 pp. Fan, S.S., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego AIeuopolitan.area, San Diego Count•, California, California Division of Nblies and Geology Open-File Report 95-04. Treiman, J.A., 1954 Fault 1\Iap Rose Canyon Fault Zone, California Division Of Alines and Geology, scale 1:100,000 Trciman, Jcrome A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, California Division of Mnes Open-File Report 93-02. 1956, es, Qu:_�rnart haults, and Seismic I Ia;:rds in C�: cal Rcscarcl-., voluniC 91, N; 1312,pp 12.557 to l?.� No: cmlicr TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS Co,,a�t of San Diego, 1960,Topographic 1vfap,Sheet: 326-1701, Scale: I inch = 260 fee,_ Count-of San Diego 1952, Ortho-Topographic Map, Sheet: 326-1701,Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet. PHOTOGRAPHS .-serial Fotobank Inc., 1995-96, San Diego CountA,, Page 11.15. Lenka's Aerial atlas, 1995, San Diego Count, Page 1148. San Diego Count', 1925, Packet 38, Photographs E4 and E5, Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego Count', 1945, U.S. Navv, Photograph 1; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego Count, 1953, Flighta�T--NT Photographs 72, 73, and 74; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approxinmate). C\\L 204OS78.02 August 2, 2005 Appendix A, Page A-3 PHOTOGRAPHS (continued) San Diego County-, 1953, Flight AXN-81\1, Photographs 15 and 17; Scale: finch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, '1960, Flight 3, Photograph 90; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet(approximate). San Diego Count, 1960, Flight 1 Photographs 54, 55, and 56;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet(approximate). San Diego Count-, 1967, Flight 1, Photographs 183 and 184;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet(approximate). San Diego COUnrV-, 1970, Flight 5, Photographs 21 and 22; Scale: 1 inch= 2000 feet (approximate). Diego Counn-, 1970, Flight 6, Phr>tut r>>1 ;;� _1 and 22; Scale: 1 inch= 2000 feet (approximate). San Die ,_, C�nu�t�,. P)71,hi NA� „NIS(� 164, PhotO�>raphs 49-3 45 and -3942.Scale: 1 !nch= 1()00 fec Sal-, Dic,go Count, 1971, Flight 29, Ph,,tographs 41, 421, 43% 44; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet )approximate). San Diego County 1977, Flight N.15.:Aj I:1ZOS, Photograph 124; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1975, Flight 1913, Photograph 29: Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego Count\-, 1978, Flight 19C, Photograph 1;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego Count-Y, 1983, Photographs 608 and 609;Scale: 1 inch= 2000 feet (approximate). San Diego Count-, 1959, Flight 1, Photograph 173;Scale: 1 inch= 2000 feet (approximate). CHRISTIAN \VHEELER EN (1- 1N [- [ f: ING REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALLE MARGARITA, OLIVENHAIN AREA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: BOT CUSTOM BUILDING 70 RANCHO SANTA ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 SUBMITTED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street San Diego, CA 92111 - 858-496-9-60 < FAX 858-496-9758 CHRISTIAN \N/HEELER E N G I N E S I: I N G November 10, 2004 Talbot Custom Building C%\E 20408-178.01 770 Rancho Santa Road Encinitas, California 92024 _Attention: Steve)ones SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, CALLE MARGARITA, OLIVENHAIN AREA, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated September 30, 2004,we have completed a prelin-unan7 geotechnical investigation for the proposed single-family-residence. We are presenting herewith a report of our findings and recommendations. In general, Nve found that the subject site is suitable to support the proposed single-family residence, provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. We have determined that the northwestern portion of the project area is underlain by Tertiat�• age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a laver of residual soil, the northeastern portion is underlain by Tertiary--age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a layer of fill, residual soil and slopewash. The remaining portion of the proposed project area was determined to be underlain by Tertian-age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a layer of fill and residual soil. Materials of the Santiago Formation-,vere also encountered at the surface within the southeastern portion of the site. The etisting fill, residual soil, slope�vash and the upper few feet of the Santiago Formation are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements, and«-ill need to be removed from areas to support improvements and/or till and be replaced as structural fill. The sire is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards thhat«-ill have a significant effect on the proposed development. The most significant geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. Ho•,vever, construction in accordance-,with the 4925 Mercury Street � San Diego, CA 92111 858-496-9760 FAX 858-496-9758 wm " CHRISTIAN \A/HCELER FNCINFI- i: i \ (; REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALLE MARGARITA, OLIVENHAIN AREA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA `\JJ %70 SUBMITTED TO: BOT CUSTOM BUILDING RANCHO SANTA ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 SUBMITTED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street San Diego, CA 92111 - 858-496-97 60 FAX 858-496-9758 t CHRISTIAN WHEELER INC'. INEI I'� ING November 10, 2004 Talbot Custom Building CWE 2040878.01 7 70 Rancho Santa Road Encinitas, California 9202 4 _attention: Steve Jones SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, CALLE MARGARITA, OLIVENHAIN AREA,ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated September 30, 200.1,-,ve have completed a preliminary-geotechnical investigation for the proposed single-family residence. We are presenting herewith a report of our findings and recommendations. In general,we found that the subject site is suitable to support the proposed single-famil`-residence, provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. We have determined that the northwestern portion of the project area is underlain by Tertiary-age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a layer of residual soil, the northeastern portion is underlain by Tertiary--age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a 12yer of fill, residual soil and slopewash. The remaining portion of the proposed project area -,vas determined to be underlain by Tertian'-age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a lover of fill and residual soil. Materials of the Santiago Formation were also encountered at the surface-,within the southeastern portion of the site. The e-Xisting fill,residual soil, slope-xash and the upper few feet of the Santiago Formation are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements, and will need to be removed from areas to support improvements and/or till and be replaced as structural fill. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have a signi:*icant effect on the proposed development. The most sienificant geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activiry along one of the re gional active faults. However, cons=ction in accordance"with the 4925 Mercury street , San Diego, CA 92111 858-496-9760 <F FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 2 requirements of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and the local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safety suitable for the type of development proposed. If you have an)- questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity- to be of professional sern°ice is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully- submitted, CHRISTLAN \\HEELER ENGINEERING Charles H. Christian,RGE # 00215 Curtis R. Burdett,+'CEG`# 1090 CHC:CRB:scc:wm cc: (6) Submitted " ED Gg �, N `��{ U fVc GE?I5 Z m No 1090 Cr - ` 1 Fxp 9-30-05 � GERT!FEED !1 ENGINEERING fin, GEOLOC,iST t �� Exp. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Project Description...............................................................................................................................1 ProjectScope........................................................................................................................................................................2 Findings................................................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription...............................................................................................................................................................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions............................................................................................................3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description......................................................................................................................3 ArtificialFill.............................................................................................................................................................4 ResidualSoil............................................................................................................................................................4 Slopexvash.................................................................................................................................................................4 SantiagoFormation................................................................................................................................................4 Ground-water...............................................................................................................................................................5 Tectonic Setting............................................ GeologicHazards...........................................................................................................................................................6 GroundShaking...........................................................................................................................................................6 Landslide Potential and Slope Stabiliti ...................................................................................................................6 Liquefaction.................................................................................................................................................................7 Flooding.................................................... Tsunamis......................................................................................................................................................................7 Seiches.......................................................................................... 7 .................................................................... Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................................7 Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................8 Gradingand Earth,,vork.................................................................................................................................................8 General.........................................................................................................................................................................8 Observationof Grading.............................................................................................................................................8 Clearingand Grubbing..............................................................................................................................................8 Site Preparation............................. Processingof Fill Areas.............................................................................................................................................8 Compactionand Method of Filling.........................................................................................................................9 SelectGrading....................................................................................... ...............9 ........................................................ SlopeConstruction.....................................................................................................................................................9 SurfaceDrainage.........................................................................................................................................................9 Temporan,Cut Slopes.............................................................................................................................................10 SlopeStabilin..................................................................................................................................................................10 General.......................................................................................................................................................................10 ErosionControl.........................................................................................................................................................10 FoundationRecoirunendations...................................................................................................................................11 General.......................................................................................................................................................................11 ConventionalFoundations.......................................................................................................................................11 FootingSetbacks.......................................................................................................................................................11 BearingCapacitN.................................................................... FootingReinforcing................................................................................................ ...11 ............................................... LateralLoad Resistance................................................................................................................. 2 SettlementCharacteristics.......................................................................................................................................12 ExpansiveCharacteristics........................................................................................................................................12 FoundationPlan Review.........................................................................................................................................12 Foundation Excavation Obsen-ation .....................................................................................................................12 SolubleSufates..........................................................................................................................................................12 Cat E 2040878.01 Proposed Single-Familt- Residence Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California SeismicDesign Parameters.....................................................................................................................................13 On-Grade Slab..............................................................................................................................................................13 General.......................................................................................................................................................................13 InteriorFloor Slabs..................................................................................................................................................13 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs..................................................................................................................14 ExteriorConcrete Flatwork....................................................................................................................................14 EarthRetaini ig\Valls...................................................................................................................................................14 Foundations...............................................................................................................................................................14 PassivePressure........................................................................................................................................................14 AlivePressure..........................................................................................................................................................14 Waterproofingand Subdrain..................................................................................................................................14 Backfill........................................................................................................................................................................15 Lirritations..........................................................................................................................................................................15 Review, Observation and Testing................................................................................................................................15 Uniformit}, of Conditions.............................................................................................................................................15 Changein Scope............................................................................................................................................................15 TimeLimitations...........................................................................................................................................................16 ProfessionalStandard....................................................................................................................................................16 Client's Responsibility...................................................................................................................................................16 FieldExplorations.............................................................................................................................................................16 LaboratoryTesting............................................................................................................................................................ 17 ATTACHMENTS TABLES Table I Maximum Ground_acceleration, Page 6 Table II Seismic Design Parameters, Page 13 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Nlap,Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1A Topographic Surrey 1v,fap Plate 113 Site Plan. Plates 2-8 Trench Logs Plate 9 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail APPENDICES _appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications—General Provisions C\WE 2040878.01 Proposed Single-Family Residence Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California Wog CHRISTIAN NAIHEEEER CNGINLI11\1ING PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALLS I\Z-kRGARITA. OLI 7ENFLNIN AREA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNL% INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation performed fora proposed single- family residence to be constructed on a vacant lot located at the south end of Calle Margarita, in the Olivenhain area of the tiny of Encinitas, California. Figure Number 1 presented on the following page provides a vicinity map sho\iing the location of die property. The subject site consists of an undeveloped, rectangular-shaped parcel of land,identified as assessor's Parcel Number 264-240-14. We understand that it is proposed to construct a one and two-store, custom home"vidh an attached garage,a one-story,guesthouse, and a vanishing-edge swimming pool on the western portion of the property,and a drive-\vay at the eastern portion of the site. The custom home and the guesthouse are expected to be of wood-frame construction with conventional shallow foundations.The southern portion of the proposed custom home and the attached garage-,ill have an on-grade concrete floor slab,while die remaining portion of the custom home«ill have a raised-\wood floor system. The guesthouse will have a raised--,wood floor system. Grading is expected to consist of cuts and fills of less than about 15 feet from existing grades. Cut and fill slopes will be constructed at an inclination of 2:1,horizontal to vertical. To aid in the preparation of this report,we were provided ;klith a topographic survey-map for die subject site. A copy of this map%vas modified to show our geologic mapping and is included herewith as Plate Number IA. In addition,we were also provided with a site plan for the proposed project,prepared by Brent Fre=erhd, dated October 13, 2004. A copy of tus plan is included herewith as Plate Number 1B. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Talbot Custom Building and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in and way, die modified plans should be submitted to Christian \Nlheeler Engineering for review to determine their conformance-,,irih our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface Mvesugation, laboratory testing and/or 4925 Mercury Street T San Diego, CA 92111 : 858-496-9760 � FAX 858-496-9758 SITE VICINITY MAP (Adapted from Thomas Brothers Maps) PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALLE MARGARITA,OLIVENHAIN AREA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA North .............. Nc- I wy AA IGO .................. 2......... LA 3ELLA n <D �OLLOW RD LU ED WA PD ESPER14J14 Art- . ......... c"My POSE CIR 43� -w-SITE ��fqAN D FOPTN \A XN ----------------- v. 'V, zo, I T O2OO4 Thoma! C-\N,-E ?040878 November 2004 Figure I C\CB 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 2 recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our reconunendations prepared in accordance-,vith generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This %varrann•is in lieu of all other\varranties, express or implied. PROJECT SCOPE Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples,laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory-data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of sen-ice did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination,recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold Within the structure, or any other sen-ices not specifically described in the scope of set-vices presented below. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction; b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed development,including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential; C) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the site development, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code; d) address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; C) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading, and address the stability-of the proposed cut and fill slopes, and temporary construction slopes; f) Provide design parameters for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls; g) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design; C\ZB 20.10878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 3 h) Present our professional opinions in this report,which includes in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summary of the laboratonr test results. Although a test for the presence of soluble sulfates %z7thin die soils that may be in contact-with reinforced concrete were performed as part of the scope of our services,it should be understood that Christian\heeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is considered necessary-,we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes uh this field to consult,,vith them on this matter. The result of this test should only be used as a guideline to determine if additional testing and analysis is necessary. Additionally,our approved scope of service did not include assessments of hazardous substance contanhination, the formation of mold within the proposed structure,or any other services not specifically described. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of an undeveloped,rectangular-shaped parcel of land,located at the south end of Calle Margarita, in the Olivenhain area of the city of Encinitas, California. The lot is identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 264-240-14, and as Lot 2 of Map (12816). The lot measures about 279 feet in width along the street at the front and extends back from the street about 326 feet on the south side and 340 feet on the north side. The lot is bounded on the«vest by Calle Margarita, and on the remaining three sides by residential properties. An on-site concrete drainage ditch is located to the east of the proposed building pad at the eastern portion of the site. This ditch appears to extend to the adjacent property to the south. A natural swale exists to the east of the drainage ditch and covers a majority of the northeastern portion of the site. The south-north trending s\vale runs in a do,,vnward direction to-,vards the northeast corner of the site. Topographically-, the proposed building area of the lot lies on a gently to moderately descending slope, with elevations ranging from about 342 feet in the south-western corner to about 314 feet in the northeastern portion. Vegetation on-site consists of low, sparely scattered indigenous grasses, brush and a few small trees. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION:The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Plwsiograplhic Province of San Diego County. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and review of pertinent,readty available geologic literature,eve have determined that the north-,vestern portion of the project area is underlain by Tertian--age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain b�-a layer of residual CWE 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 4 soil, the northeastern portion is underlain by Tertian--age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a layer of fill, residual soil and slopewash. The remaining portion of the proposed project area was determined to be underlain bj,Tertian—age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a layer of fill and residual soil.Materials of the Santiago Formation were also encountered at the surface-,v7thin the southeastern portion of the site. Each of the encountered soil units is discussed below. ARTIFICIAL FILL: Fill material-,vas encountered at the surface within our exploratory trenches,T-1, T-2,T-4,T-6,and T-7. The layer of fill had a thickness of approximately 12 inches to 2 feet.The existing fill material generally-consisted of light to medium yelloxvish-bro�,xn, silty sand(SA7 ,titli some clay and gravel.The fill material was typically damp to moist and loose to medium dense in consistency-. The existing fill is expected to possess a "low"Expansion Index and moderate settlement potential. The fill is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. RESIDUAL SOIL: A layer of residual soil was encountered at the surface within our exploratory trench T-3,-,vhich was excavated at the north,,estern comer of the lot. A layer of residual soil was also encountered below the fill material within our exploratory- trenches, T-1,T-2,T-4,T-6, and T-7. The residual soil ranged in thickness from 2'/�, to 3 feet.The residual soil generally consisted of medium brown, clayey sand-sandy clay (SC-CH) that was typically moist, and medium dense/stiff in consistency. This material is expected to possess a "low" to "medium" Expansion Index and moderate settlement potential.The residual soil is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. SLOPEWASH: A layer of slopewash material vas encountered below the residual soil within our exploratory trenches,T-4,T-6 and T-7. The thickness of the layer was approximately 2 to 3'%2 feet. The slopewash material generally consisted of light to medium y-ello-,wish-bro-,m, sandy clay (CL),that was moist and soft to medium stiff in consistency. Based on our experience\kith similar soils, the existing slopewash is expected to possess a"medium"Expansion Index,low strength parameters and moderate settlement potential in its current state. The slopewash material is considered unsuitable in their present condition to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): Tertiary-age materials of the Santiago Formation were encountered at the surface within our exploraton• trench T-3, which was excavated at the southeastern portion of the lot. ''\Iaterials of the Santiago Formation-,were also encountered below the layer of residual soil«ithin test trenches T-1 through T-3, and below the later of slopewash within our test trenches T-4,T-6 and T-7. The formational materials generally consisted of Lght to CWE 3040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 5 medium vello„vish-brown to grayish-broxvn, sandy clad, (CL) that,.vas moist and stiff to hard in consistency. The upper approximately 4 feet of the formational materials were weathered. Based on our experience with similar soil types,the formational materials are expected to have a"medium” Expansion Index. With the exception of the upper few feet, the materials of the Santiago Formation are expected to possess high strength properties low settlement potential,and are considered suitable in their present condition to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was not encountered in any of our subsurface explorations and we do not anticipate that any groundwater-related problems-,will be encountered either during or after the proposed construction. However,it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after consruction and landscaping are completed at a site,even where none were present before construction.These are usually minor phenomena and are often die result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the anticipated construction and landscaping,it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when dhev occur. TECTONIC SETTING: It should be noted that rnuch of Southern California,including the San Diego County area,is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones drat consist of several individual,en echelon faults that generally-strike in a northerly to northwesterly-direction. Some of these fault zones (and die individual faults\vidhin the zone) are classified as "active" according to the criteria of the California Division of I\Iines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 rears). The Division of 1`luhes and Geology-used the term "potentially- active" on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning.pct and identified all Quaternary-age faults as "potentially active" except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity>during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be"potentially active"would be considered to be "active"but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist, such as rugirentl),active and well-defined. Faults older than Quaternar--age are not specifically-defined in Special Publication 43, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be"inactive". The nearest active fault zone is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located approximately 11 kilometers to the ,%lest. Other active fault zones in die region that could possible affect the site include die Coronado Bank and C\\'E 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 6 San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest, die Elsinore,Earthquake Valley,San Jacinto,and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast,and the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GROUND SHAKING:A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The mazimutn 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 sun-imarized in Table I presented below. TABLE I: MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS Fault Zone Distance Max. Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 11 km 6.9 magnitude 0.24 g Newport JIngle-,vood 22 km 6.9 Magnitude 0.15 g Coronado Bank 35 km 7.4 Magnitude 0.14 g Elsinore (Julian) 40 krn 7.1 Magnitude 0.11 g Earthquake Vallee 61 km 6.5 magnitude 0.06 g It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements. It should be recognized that Southern California is an area that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considered economically feasible not technologicall`, Practical to build structures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related hazards. Construction in accordance with the Inlnimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code should nhinitmize damage due to seismic events. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY:As part of dhis uhvestigation we reviewed the publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego]Metropolitan Area" by Tan, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibilin. The subject site is located in Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 3-1. Area 3 is considered to be "generally susceptible" to slope movement; subarea 3-1 classifications are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites within dhis classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. Due to the relatively competent nature of the underlying materials, the potential for deep-seated landsliding is considered to be low. C\\1-2040878.01 November 10,200.1 Page No. 7 LIQUEFACTION: The materials at die site are not anticipated to be subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil densiti•,grain-size distribution, and depth to ground water. FLOODING: The site is not located Nvithin either a 100-rear or a 500-rear flood zone according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management agency (Panel 191.1F). TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Based upon the location of the site it will not be affected by tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or resen-mrs. Due to the site's location,it is considered to have a negligible risk potential for Seiches. CONCLUSIONS In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the proposed construction provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. Based on the results of our investigation,we have determined that die northvx,estern portion of the project area is underlain by Tertian--age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a layer of residual soil, the northeastern portion is underlain by Tertian-- age materials of the Santiago Formation dhat are overlain by a layer of fill,residual soil and slopewash. The remaining portion of the proposed project area was determined to be underlain by Tertiary-age materials of the Santiago Formation that are overlain by a laver of fill and residual soil. Materials of the Santiago Formation were also encountered at the surface Nvitlhin die southeastern portion of die site. The existing fill, residual soil, slopewash and the upper few feet of die Santiago Formation are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements, and will need to be removed from areas to support improvements and/or fill and be replaced as structural fill. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that v.-l have a significant effect on the proposed development. The most significant geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activin�along one of the regional active faults. However, construction in accordance with the requirements of the most recent edition of the uniform Building Code and die local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safer-suitable for die n-pe of development proposed. CW E 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the cite 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\Nheeler Engineering should be present at the pre- construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines,if necessart,,and to review the earthwork schedule. OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance u-ith the recommendations contained herein. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the complete removal of all vegetation and other deleterious materials from die portions of the site that will receive improvements. This should include all root balls of the trees and all significant root material. The resulting organic and deleterious materials should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility-. Discing of vegetation into the surficial soils is not considered an acceptable method of removal of vegetation. SITE PREPARATION: After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should consist of the removal of all existing fill, residual soil, slope,,vash, and the upper two feet of the Santiago Formation that are not removed by planned grading, and replace them as structural fill. The removals should extend to the contact with the competent materials of the Santiago Formation. Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, the thickness of the unsuitable soils is expected to be about 8 feet, but may be thicker in localized areas. The removals should extend five feet outside all portions of the site that will receive fill and/or improvements. The bottom of tine excavations should be approved by our project geologist, engineer,or technician supen-isor 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 and approved to receive fill, dne exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture conditioned,and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. No other special ground preparation is anticipated at this time. C\\,E 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 9 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 dn•density as determined b}-AST1\1 Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content,in lifts six to eight inches thick, th each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris,roots,vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum dimension. However,in the upper two feet of pad grade,no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allo-,ved. Fills should be benched into all ternporan• slopes and into competent natural soils when the natural slope is steeper than an inclination of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Kegs should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes. The keys should extend at least 12 inches into firm natural ground and should be sloped back at least two percent into the slope area. Slope keys should have a minimum width of 10 feet. Utility trench backfill Nvitlnin five feet of the proposed structures and beneath driveways, concrete flat,vork,and pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dr}- density. SELECT GRADING: The on-site soils are expected to have a "low" to"medium"expansive potential. Therefore no expansive material should be placed I'yithin (4) feet of the proposed finish pad grade. However,if any expansive soil is encountered during grading that is proposed to be used as fill material, it should be mused with other on-site soils to produce a non-detrimentally-expansive mixture of soil. Wherever detrimentally expansive soil is determined to occur naturally within four (4) feet of finish pad grade,it should be removed and replaced with non-detrimentally expansive material. SLOPE CONSTRUCTION: Cut and fill slopes may be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 or flatter (horizontal to vertical). Compaction of fill slopes should be performed by back-rolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill is being placed,and track-walking the face of the slope«hen the slope is completed. As an alternative, the fill slopes may be overfilled by at least three feet and then cut back to the compacted core at the design line and grade. Keys should be made at the toe of fill slopes in accordance with the recommendations presented above under"Compaction and Method of Filling." SURFACE DRAINAGE: Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the proposed structures and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed buildings should be graded so that surface�:%-ater flows rapidly away from die building without ponding. In general,we recomnnend that the ground adjacent to C\\T-- 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 10 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. TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES: Temporary-slopes of up to about 8 feet in height are anticipated during the grading operations. Temporan cut slopes for retaining walls of up to 8 feet in height can be excavated vertical for the lower 4 feet and at an inclination of 0.75 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter above 4 feet. Our firm should be contacted to observe all temporary cut slopes during grading in order to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as those from soil or equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed Nvithin 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. Specific recommendations for shoring are presented in the following section. 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 OSI-L-� 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 Elie 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. SLOPE STABILITY GENERAL: The proposed cut and fill slopes for die proposed project will have slope ratios of 2.0 horizontal units to 1.0 vertical unit(2:1) or flatter,with maximum heights of about 14 feet. Provided our recommendations are follo-,ved,it is our opinion that the proposed slopes will be stable in regards to deep-seated slope failure and surficial slope failure. It is our opinion that the proposed slopes«ill have a factor of safer-against failure in excess of the normaNy required mininurn safety factor of 1.5. EROSION CONTROL: The placement of cohesionless soils at the face of slopes should be avoided. Slopes should be planted as soon as feasible after grading. Sloughing, deep rd Ling and slumping of surficial soils may be anticipated if slopes are left unplanted for a long period of time, especially during the rainy season. Irrigation of slopes should be carefully-monitored to insure that only the minimum amount necessan, to sustain plant life is used. Over-irrigating could be extremely erosive and should be avoided. C%\T- 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 11 FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgments,the proposed custom home and guesthouse may be supported by conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. The following recommendations are considered the minimum based on anticipated soil conditions after site grading and are not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. X11 foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: It is our opinion that the proposed structures may be supported by conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. Spread footings supporting the one- and two-story portion of the custom home should be embedded at least 12 and 18 inches below finish pad grade,respectively. Continuous footings should have minimum%vidths of 12 and 15 inches for the one- and t-,vo-story portions of the custom home,respectively. Spread footings supporting the one-stop,guesthouse should be embedded at least 12 inches below finish pad grade,and should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Retaining walls footings should have a minimum embedment of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated footings and retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. FOOTING SETBACKS: If footings for the retaining walls or any structures such as the guesthouse are proposed adjacent to the top of a slope,we recommend that a minimum horizontal setback from the outer edge of the footing to the adjacent slope face be provided. In general,die minimum setback from tie slope face recommended is eight feet.The building setback distance from the top of slopes may be achieved by using deepened footings. Footing setback is measured from competent soil and should neglect any loose or soft native soils that may occur at the top of a natural slope. Plans for any footings that will not comply u7th the specified setbacks should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for specific review and approval prior to construction. BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional footings with the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 800 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of embedment depth and 350 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of-,idth,up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. This value may be increased by one-third for conhbinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural engineer. Ho-,vever, based on the expected soil conditions,we recommend that the minimum C\\T 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 12 reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least two No. 5 bars positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and t\vo No. 5 bars positioned approxinhately m,o inches below the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted b`-friction between die 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 0.35. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that 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 b��one-third. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be about one inch and one inch in every forty feet, respectively, 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 necessarilj7 an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: Provided our recommendations N;6thin the"Select Grading" section of this report are followed, the foundation soils are expected to have a "low"expansive potential.The reconunendations vidhin this report reflect these conditions. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: 11e 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 footing excavations should be observed by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the preparation of this report. -All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level,and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SOLUBLE SULFATES: The water soluble sulfate content was determined for a representative soil sample from the site in accordance Nvith California Test:Method 417. Soil N-6th a soluble sulfate content of 0.20-2.00 is considered severe. Soil Stith a soluble sulfate content of 0.10-0.20 is considered moderate. Soils with a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent are considered to be negligible and no special recommendations are needed. The result of this test indicate that the representative soil sample had a soluble C\\T;2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 13 sulfate content of 0.241 percent, which is considered "severe". Based on the result of our test,we recommend that cement type "V" and a concrete to ,eater ratio of(0.45) be used for the project. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on our Deterinmistic Seismic Hazard analysis, the 1\lasirtium Ground Acceleration at the site is estimated to be 0.24 g(based upon a Maximum Magnitude Seismic Event of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault). For structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampenig, and Soil Profile Ti-pe Sc are recommended (UBC Table 16-J). Based upon the location of the site approsiumately 11 kilometers east of the Rose Canton Fault (Type B Fault),Near Source Factors N,equal to 1.0 and N, equal to 1.0 are also applicable. These values, along pith other seismically related design parameters from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition,Volume II,Chapter 16,utilizing a Seismic Zone 4 are presented in tabular form beloxr. TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Design Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type Sc 16-Q Seismic Coefficient C. 0.40 N, 16-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56N, 16-S Near Source Factor N. 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor N,- 1.0 16-U Seismic Source Type B ON-GRADE SLAB GENERAL: It is our understanding that a poruon of die custom home and the attached garage will have a concrete slab-on-grade. Tlie following recomrnendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS:The m_t iumum floor slab thickness for the on-grade portion of the house and the attached garage should be four inches (actual),respectively-. All floor slabs should be reinforced-x-itli at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each-,vay. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. The garage slab mai- be constructed independent of the garage perimeter footings. Ho,,vever,if the garage slab and footings are poured monolithicallc, the slab reinforcement should extend into the perimeter foundations at least six inches. CNNT--20-10878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 14 MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the industry- standard that interior on-grade concrete slabs be underlain b� a moisture retarder. \\'e 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 later of coarse, clean sand. The clean sand should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 -ice indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from and No. 200 sieves. Our experie about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on-grade slab. This ma} be an excess amount of moisture for some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary-, the concrete tnix can be designed to help reduce the permeabilitN of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards through the floor slab. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FI-ATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minitnum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flat,vork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. 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 die American Concrete Institute specifications. EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for proposed retaining galls should be constructed in accordance with the reconnmendations for shallow foundations presented previously in this report. PASSIVE PRESSURE:The passive pressure for die anticipated foundation soils may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. \ hen combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of"unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures\vitln level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 and 50 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These values assume a drained, nondetrimentally expansive (E.I <50) backfill condition and do not consider any surcharge pressures. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN: Waterproo ling details should be provided by the project architect. A suggested ,gall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 9.We recommend that C\V'E 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 15 the Geotechnical Consultant be requested to observe all retaining wall subdrains to verift-proper construction. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or claret-soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until die masonry has reached an adequate strength. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that die}'may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian\Xlneeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance-,yith the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes itn the event that subsurface conditions differ from dnose 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 appreciable 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 die soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in dais report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to d-ie 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,,ve may determine if the reconunendations 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. C\\'E 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 16 TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur Nvith the passage of time,whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years ,,11thout a review by us verifiing the suitabilin,of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services,we comply 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, sun-e`°s, and explorations are made,and that our data,innterpretations,and reconunendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We-,611 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,,varrannll of any hind 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 sen-ices, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the client's responsibility, or their representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for die 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 Ills subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATION'S Seven subsurface explorations -, ere made at dne locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on October 15, 2004. These explorations consisted of trenches excavated using a Case 580 backhoe. The field-,vork vas conducted by an engineering geologist. C\VE 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 17 The explorations were carefully logged«hen made. The trench logs are presented on the follo-,ving Plate Numbers 2 through 8. The soils are described in accordance-,v7th the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density- of granular soils is given as eery loose, loose, medium dense, dense or eery dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft soft,medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. Disturbed and "relatively undisturbed" samples of a pical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (-ASTI\1) 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 ,vere determined for representative soil samples. This information xvas an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency-,tith 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 trench logs. c) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum drti-density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTNI Standard Test D-1557,Method A. The results of these tests are presented below. Sample Number Trench T-2 @ 4'-10' Sample Description Light to medium gray, sandy clay(CL) Maximum Dry Density 104.6 pcf Optimum-Moisture Content 19.011/10 d) DIRECT SHEAR TEST: A Direct shear test eras performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.37 5 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented on the following page. CWE 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 18 Sample Number Trench T-2 @ 4'-10' Sample Description Remolded to 90% .-angle of Internal Friction 21° Cohesion 375 psf e) EXPANSION INDEX TEST:An Expansion Index test on a remolded sample was performed on a representative sample of die existing subsoil. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing die#4 standard sieve. The sample\vas brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230± 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The speciten was then compacted in a 4-111ch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer-,vith porous stones at the top and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 psf),and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The sample was saturated, and die change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became norr uhal. The expansion index is reported below as die total vertical displacement times 1000. Sample Number Trench T-2 @ 4'-10' Initial Moisture 15.0 % Initial Dry Density- 98.1 pcf Final Moisture 31.6 Expansion Index 84 (I\Iedium) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distributions was determined from a representative soil sample in accordance with ASTI\1 D422. The result of this test is presented below. Sample Number: Trench T-2 @ 4'-10' Sieve Size Percent Passing #4 100 #8 93 #16 80 #30 71 #50 66 #100 J9 #200 42 CWT-2040875.01 November 10,2004 Page No. 19 g) SOLUBLE SULFATES:The soluble sulfate content was determined for a sample of soil likely to be present at the foundation level.The soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. The result is presented below. Trench T-2 @ 4'- 10' 0.241 -io (SO4) i � I i J i j � 0 ( L r I nO z 1 > z i Ci fL- f 5forMo0K ,( CA5U5 - RM COY: PITNIf FU RIP 760-49-0050 196-9760•FAX 858496-9758 - - -- ---- 10/ 13/2004 A.P. - - 10-25-04 SCe I" - 20' NO.: 16 I LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-1 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AKN Equipment: 580L-xith 18" bucket Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N;A SAMPLES �i , O O H SUl\II\L-�RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS �4 r U ID rT1 c� �n c z Artificial Fill (Oaf):Light to medium�cllo�;ash-brown,damp, Ch loose to medium dense,GRAVELLY SILTY SAND (SJ`I , fine to Ch 17.5 1(11.5 medium-gained,x'k ith minor clay. 4 Residual Soil: Nfedium brown,moist,medium dense,CLAYEY S,1ND-SANDY CLAY (SC-CHI. C1: 19.9 99.4 6 Santiago Formation (Ts—Light to medium orangish-brown to greenish-gray,moist, stiff to ee stiff,SANDY CLAY CL Ch 15.0 1112 8 Llpper 4 feet weathered,mottled,and poorly indurated. 1t 8 feet becomes eer'v stiff to hard vith abundant shells and fossils. 10 Practical refusal at 8 feet. 12 14 16 18 L20 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California Cl IRISTIAN \Vl-1LLLLR BY: HF DATE: November 2004 C 1 G I N C I I� I N G JOB NO. : 20 40878 PLATE NO.: 2 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-2 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AKNI Equipment: 580L with 18" bucket Pro)ect Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to V7ater: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLE'S _ C7 r G SU-M-1\LARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS z Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light to medium }'cllo\�ish-brown,damp to moist,loose to medium dense, GRAVELLY SILTY SAND (SAl), CK t_.0 t09.7 fine to medium-grained. Residual Soil: Medium brown,moist,medium dense,CLAYEY CK 15.9 104.5 S:1ND-SANDY CLAY (SC-CL . CK 11.8 102.7 SA G Santiago Formation (Tsai:Light to medium gray,moist,stiff, 19.0 104.6 DS SANDY CLAY (CL),with interbedded siltstones and claystones -,tiith MD 8 gypsum laycrs,iron staining. Expansion Indcx=84 (Medium) CK 22.4 97.9 SS Upper 4 feet weathered,poorly indurated,mottled. 10 At 7/2 feet becomes eery-stiff. CK 12 At 12',,2 feet becomes very stiff to hard. CK 19.5 103.4 14 CK 16 Practical refusal at 15 feet. 18 20 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE or 1P;a Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California Cl-1fZi II AN \'\!'HELLIK BY: HF DATE: November 2004 1_ N [; I N t l I: I N G lOB NO. : 2040878 PLATE NO.: 3 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-3 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AKN Equipment: 580L-with 18" bucket Project l\lanager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A S,AJ\1PLES C n SU1\1,1\1ARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a � � � z _D v O 1~ z � Residual Soil: Afedium bro\an,damp to moist,medium dense, CLAYEI'SAND-SANDY CLAY (SC-CH). Ch 9.5 112.9 Santiago Formation (Tsa): Light to medium gray,moist,stiff, SANDY CLAY ((-L),vrith iron staining,interbedded siltstones and 6 claystones with gypsum lavers. Upper 2'/2 feet weathered,poor iv indurated,mottled. 8 At 5'/z feet becomes stiff to very stiff. At 7 feet becomes-,•ell indurated.At 7'/z feet becomes stiff to ver}- stiff. 10 Test trench terminated at 10 feet. 12 14 16 18 L,0 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Calle Margarita,Encinitas, California L_IiRIS11AN WHEELER B�': HF DATE: November 2004 rNc. i i_ rr. i JOB NO. : 2040878 PLATE NO.: 4 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-4 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AI�N Equipment. 580L-,with 18" bucket Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to eater: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive\Weight: N,/A SAMPLES a C O H SUb111\IARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W p W c n ED C H Q � � Z Z Artificial Fill (Qaf): Light to medium brown,dry° to damp,loose to medium dense,SILTY SAND-CLAYEY SAND (S;`I-SC), fine to CK medium--rained. CK 14.7 101.2 4 Residual Soil: Medium brown,moist,medium dense, CLAYEY SAND-SANDY CLAY (SC-CL). CK 6 Slopewash (Qs-w): Light to medium yellowish-bro,,vn,moist, soft to stiff,SANDY CLAY (CL),«6th iron staining,mottled. CK 20.0 87.8 8 Santiago Formation(Tsa): Olive-gray,moist,stiff,SANDY 10 CLAY (CL),-,vell indurated.At 9'/2 feet becomes vcq stiff to hard. CK 12 Test trench terminated at 12 feet. 14 16 18 20 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE or !A Cal-le Margarita, Encinitas, California CH MS11:\N WI-IFLLEIZ BY: HF DATE: November 2004 C � CI Apt [= r i nG JOB NO. : 2040878 PLATE NO.: 5 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-5 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AKN Equipment: 580L with 18" bucket Project:Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES ILI - SLii1Il\L-CRY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a a �� z r 11 u z2 Q Santiago Formation (Tsai: Light to medium brownish-gray,dry to Ch 4.6 99.6 damp,medium stiff,SANDY CLAY (CL),poorly indurated. Upper G feet ,�•eathere(l. 4 At 4 feet becomes light gratis, stiff to vcre stiff,v-,-ell indurated. Ch 11.4 1111 G 1t 6 feet iron stained laycr present,becomes er}'stiff. 8 At T./z feet becomes light to medium brown,een stiff to hard. CK At 8'/2 feet becomes light graN. CIS 10 Test trench terminated at 10 feet. 12 14 16 18 20 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE � or Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California C[ MS11AN W/1 IF[ LEI' BY: HF JDATE Nm•ember 2004 1. IN int4. aiNc JOB NO. : 204088 PLATE NO.: 6 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-6 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AKN Equipment: 580L with 18" bucket Project 1\1anager: CHC Existing Elcvation: N/A Depth to\Pater: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A SAM LES l� x SU11INIARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS U v z v Li, U O Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light to medium brown,damp to moist,loose 2 to medium dense,SILTY SAND (SA1), fine to medium-grained,with minerals. Residual Soil: Medium bro\vn,moist,medium dense,CLAYEY SAND-SANDY CLAY (SC-CH). Slopewash(Qsw) Light to medium yellou-ish-brown to greenish-griN•,moist, soft to medium stiff,SANDY CLAY (CL). 8 Santiago Formation (Tag)_- Gray,moist, stiff to hard,SANDY CLAY (CL),vt rh abundant iron staining. 10 Test trench terminated at 9 feet. 12 14 16 18 20 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California CHP,1 IIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: Nm,ember 2004 JOB NO. : 2040878 PLATE NO.: 7 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-7 Date Excavated: 10/15/2004 Logged by: AKN Equipment: 580L-,ith 18" bucket Project 1\1'anager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A S A113LES W 0-1 W Z o SUMP L-�RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS _ w E~ Q Artificial Fill (Qao: Light to medium brown,damp to moist,loose to medium dense,SILTY SAND (SI\1), fine to medium-grained,with minor clae. 4 Residual Soil: i\ledium bro,.;•n,moist,medium dense, CLAI 'EY SAND-SANDY CLAY (SC-CH). G Slopewash(Qsu,)Light to medium yellowish-brown to gray,moist, soft to medium stiff,SANDY CLAY (CL),weathered. 8 Santiago Formation(Tsai Grayish-brown, moist,ven,stiff, SAND)'CLAY (CL),fine to medium-grained,with slight iron staining. 10 1t 8//2 feet becomes ven,stiff. Test trench terminated at 9 feet. 12 14 16 18 20 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE Calle Margarita, Encinitas, California CHRIS11AN \'\'HEELER BY: HF DATE: November 2004 �_ . c. i :. ttaI % lOB NO. : 2040878 PLATE NO.: 8 Slo c Minimum 6-inch 6-inch'Minimum Max. a � v a a 3/4 inch Crushed Rock or ° Miradrain 6000 or Equivalent a NVaterproof Back of WaH Per Architect's Specifications 121 d Top of Ground a . . or Concrete Slab 0 Geofabric Between a° o..o Rock and Soil ,O a nC X/�Z i 6-inch Minimum mU� XxVXI.1 Minimum 4-inch Diameter J( Perforated Pipe PVC Schedule 40 RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale i Or PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ri C.ALLE MARGARITA,OLIVENHAINAREA CHRI5TP\N WHEELER ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. I \ c, i � rriti � c BY: \ "M DATE: November 3004 49 5 i11[RCl'It�'Clltla�l' TI51..(858)496-9 761! SAN DILGO,c:�!.iro�?v�:�9_>>> OB NO.: ?0408,8 � t�.-L�.(ssn)acs-9?ss � 17.X1'E'NO.: 9 C\XT_ 2040878.01 November 10, 2004 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. Blake, T.F.,2000,EQFAULT,A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources, Version 3.0,Thomas F. Blake Computer Sen-ices and Software,Thousand Oaks,California. Boore,David M.,Joyner,William B.,and Fumal,Thomas E., 1997, "Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground VelocitN, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra",in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68, Number 1,Januan-/Februan'1997. 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-, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and'Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,Special Publication 117. Courit wide Flood Insurance Rate Map, I\lap No. 06073C1053F(panel 1053 of 2375),prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agencil, effective date)une 19, 1997. California Division of IMines and Geology, 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of die San Diego Metropolitan area. Hart, E.\\-'., 1994,Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Division of Mines and Geolc,M�Special Publication 42. Jennings, C.\y'., 1975, Fault?\lap of California, California Division of I\Iunes and Geology \lap INTO. 1, Scale 1:750,000. Kern, P., 1989, Earthquakes arid Faults in San Diego County,Pickle Press, 73 pp. \�esnouskv, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternar,- Faults, and Seismic Hazards ur California" it Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986. CWE 2040878.01 November 10,2004 Appendix B,B-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALLE I\1ARGARITA. OLI�TENHAIN AREA ENCINITAS_CALIFORNLA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary,geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian%X'heeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It ,vill 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%vas 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-\york. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the folloNying American Socien- for Testing and 1\Iaterials test methods: C\\'. 2040878.01 November 10, 2004 appendix B, B-2 \lax' um Densin- & Optimum Moisture Content-ASTM D-155 7-91 Density- of Soil In-Place-ASThi D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing AST1\1 testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. AD 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. _U 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 dn-density. \\lien the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds ?0 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 aide 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 nvo (2) percent. AD 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 necessan-by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. -All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath an),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 ,vith acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sever lines or]each 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 Y,-i11 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 belo-,v finish grade or 3 C\\E 2040878.01 November 10, 2004 Appendix B, B-3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap-,vdl 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\vith lo\v 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«rill 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. \X1zen the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled Ntith 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. NN'hen 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. C\V-E 2040878.01 November 10,2004 .-appendix B,B-4 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction b5 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 will be surficialla 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 daj,of such conditions bv,,vritten communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a dai y 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 preliminarM•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 C\\E 2040878.01 November 10,200-1 Field obser-v, 3uon br the Geotechnical En -�Ppendr� $ B-� compaction o Engineer or leis re perations so that he can es Presentati,-e shall be acceptable stand press his made aids of tac opinion regarding the filling the obse P rice. Neither the grrding the confor g and r�'ation and presence of the mance of the testing shall release Geotechnical En grading t«th the specified degree gree of com Grading Contractor From grneer or his representative or paction. m his duty to compact all fill material to SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be Placed Burin Filli"g operations shall not g unfavorable weather be resu condrtiOns' «7r err ;-ork is be achieved, med until the inter Damaged site co proper moil rupted by hea,�-rain, editions hire content and acceptance of��,orh resulting den si g from weather or,, '°{the Fill 'Leis of materials can God shall be repaired before RECOIITMENDED GRADING SPE SPECIFICATIONS _ SPECIAL PROVISI RELATIV E COMPACTION: The ONS ground, corn mrnmlum de plcted fill, and gree of compacted backfill s COmpact,on to be obtained subgrade the upper sis inches should be co hall be at least 90 percent For compacted natural mpacted to °r street and at least 95 percent relati�.e parking lot EXPANSIVE SOILS:DeLt. com rmentall- pactron. 50 or grey ter When tested 3 expansive soil is in accordance defined as cla�•e s «ith the Llnifor 3 °fi which has m Buildin an expansion index of OVERSIZED g Code Standard 29-2 o 'er G inches in ��TERIAL. O�ersi2ed fill material is diameter. Oversized gen erall Placement aterials . defined herein nt of such material is should as rocks provided not be placed in F or lumps of soil shall pass through a No by the Geotechnical En ill unless recommendations of 4 L�•S• Standard Sieve, gmeer. 1�t least 40 percent of the fill soils TRANSITION LOTS: \�7rere trans'should ns between be undercut cut and Fill occur«�rhin recompacted a min 'num of one foot the as structural backfill. below the proposed bull special 'structural In certain base of the ding Pad, the g reinforce cases that«Quid proposed footings u meet or a combing be addressed - ungs and red ired Lion of Spec] rn the geotechn, re pecraI footing reinfor cement and Port, undercutting be ou4 zb -19" E 279.19' - N TO'POGRAPHIC SURVEY PORTION OF LOT 2 MAP 12816 CITY OF ENCINIrAS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STATE OF CALIFORNIA byw,[� o 1� ®1 L ``END T'i'? APPROXIMATE TEST TRENCH LOCATION SLOPEWASH SANTIAGO FORMATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT :■ SHALLOW SURFICIAL FILLS & as RESIDUAL SOIL NOT MAPPED CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 Mercury Street • San Diego, CA 92111 • 858- 496 -9760 • FAX 858- 496 -9758 PROPOSED SFR BY; CHC /WM /HC DATE: 11 -08-0 I PLATE NO.: 1 ou4 zb -19" E 279.19' - N TO'POGRAPHIC SURVEY PORTION OF LOT 2 MAP 12816 CITY OF ENCINIrAS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO STATE OF CALIFORNIA byw,[� o 1� ®1 L ``END T'i'? APPROXIMATE TEST TRENCH LOCATION SLOPEWASH SANTIAGO FORMATION GEOLOGIC CONTACT :■ SHALLOW SURFICIAL FILLS & as RESIDUAL SOIL NOT MAPPED GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 60 (IN FEET) 1 INCH = 20 FEET NOTES TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED MAY 4, 2004. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 2.0 FEET. HIGHLIGHTED AT 10' INTERVAL. rHIS MAP IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE PROPERTY LINES ARE PER MAP 12816 PROTRACTED FROM FOUND RECORD MONUMENTS. B',rNCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS TOP OF MANHOLE PER IMPROVEMENT P:_ANS. ELEVATION = 344.60' LEGEND I tD +SPHALT PAVED STREET @2 ASPHALT DIKE 3 SEWER MANHOLE CuNCRETE '.PATER METER BOX :;ArER VALVE © CABLE TV ,;UNCTION BOX j @7 FIRE HYDRANT ON CONCRETE PAD ® METAL GUARD POST 9 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER j 10 CCNCRETE DRAINAGE DITCH tt FOOD & `,'ARE FENCE t2 P OPOSED PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT PER MAP 12816. t3 PEN SPACE ,EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON MAP 12,816. ,OCATION OF EASEMENT SCALED FROM SAID MAP. --� — PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE 10' CONTOUR LINE LABELED CONTOUR SPOT ELEVA 10NOF EXIST. SURFACE FILE NAME: JONES.DWG PLOT DATE: 05 -28 -04 M r_. " r (_ N t I I; t CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 Mercury Street • San Diego, CA 92111 • 858- 496 -9760 • FAX 858- 496 -9758 PROPOSED SFR BY; CHC /WM /HC DATE: 11 -08-0 JOB NO.: . 2040878 PLATE NO.: 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 60 (IN FEET) 1 INCH = 20 FEET NOTES TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED MAY 4, 2004. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 2.0 FEET. HIGHLIGHTED AT 10' INTERVAL. rHIS MAP IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE PROPERTY LINES ARE PER MAP 12816 PROTRACTED FROM FOUND RECORD MONUMENTS. B',rNCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS TOP OF MANHOLE PER IMPROVEMENT P:_ANS. ELEVATION = 344.60' LEGEND I tD +SPHALT PAVED STREET @2 ASPHALT DIKE 3 SEWER MANHOLE CuNCRETE '.PATER METER BOX :;ArER VALVE © CABLE TV ,;UNCTION BOX j @7 FIRE HYDRANT ON CONCRETE PAD ® METAL GUARD POST 9 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER j 10 CCNCRETE DRAINAGE DITCH tt FOOD & `,'ARE FENCE t2 P OPOSED PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT PER MAP 12816. t3 PEN SPACE ,EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON MAP 12,816. ,OCATION OF EASEMENT SCALED FROM SAID MAP. --� — PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE 10' CONTOUR LINE LABELED CONTOUR SPOT ELEVA 10NOF EXIST. SURFACE FILE NAME: JONES.DWG PLOT DATE: 05 -28 -04 M r_. " r (_ N t I I; t