2011-10917 SGLine: 4 3 31 7G
SOWAROS AND BROWN ENGINEERING '
August 30, 2012
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas CA 92024
Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification
For Planning Case No. 10 -066 MUP /DR /CDP and Grading Permit No. 10917 -SG
The grading under Permit No. 11 -784 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 of 1% to the street and /or an appropriate drainage
system.
All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management
Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II
were constructs a re operational. Maintenance covenants are in place, as required.
Engineer of Record
Randy R. Bro n R E 3 190
Date 5 L-60/ l -,) —
VVpFESS /p r,
�8 9l
ROB F,y
W No 36190 m
°C Exp 6/30/14
*5 CMU
OF CAU0
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of the above statements is documented by the
Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped, this
does not relieve the Engineer of Record of the Ultimate responsibility:
Engineering Inspector
Date
2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE • SUITE 103 • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007
(760) 436 -8500 • FAX (760) 436 -8603
VAN
' . Stewart Title of California, Inc
�stewart r,." 7676 Hazard Center Dr., 14th Floor
title of california, inc. San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 692 -1600 Phone
(619) 615 -2389 Fax
PRELIMINARY REPOR
Order Number 164293
Title Unit Number 2259
Buyer/Borrower Name: Self Realization Fellowship Church JUN 21 2011 (�
In response to the above referenced application for a Policy of Title Insurance, Stewart Title of California, Inc.
hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title
Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may
be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referenced to as an Exception on Schedule
B or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions, and Stipulations of said Policy
forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on covered Risks of said policy or
policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the
Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at
the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered
Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible
Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of
the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit
A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters,
which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title
and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report, (and any supplements or amendments thereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the
issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed
prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance a binder or commitment should be requested.
Dated as of: January 16, 2009 at 7:30 a.m.
Frank Green, Title Officer
When replying, please contact Frank Green, Title Officer
File Number: 164293 Page I of 10
PRELIMINARY REPORT
The form of Policy of Title Insurance contemplated by this report is:
❑ California Land Title Association Standard Coverage Policy
❑ American Land Title Association Owners Policy
❑ American Land Title Association Residential Title Insurance Policy
❑ American Land Title Association Loan Policy
❑ California Land Title Association Homeowners Policy
❑ ALTA Short Form Residential Loan Policy (06/16/07)
SCHEDULE A
The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:
A fee as to Parcels l and 2.
Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
The Self - Realization Fellowship Church, a Corporation, as to Lots 9 and 10, of Block 11; and Lots 7 through
11 inclusive, of Block 14;
The Self- Realization Fellowship Church, a California Religious Non - Profit Corporation, as to Lots 7, 8, and
11 through 16 inclusive, of Block 11; and Lots 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16, of Block 14;
and
Emma W. Kramer, Successor Trustee of the Emma W. Kramer and Ida M. Baichtal Trust dated January 25,
1993 (Trust II), as to Lot 14, of Block 14
File Number: 164293 Page 2 of 10
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of San Diego, and described
as follows:
Parcel 1:
Lots 7 through 16, inclusive, Block 11, of Encinitas, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof no. 148, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
June 12, 1883.
Parcel 2:
Lots 5 through 16, inclusive, Block 14, of Encinitas, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof no. 148, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
June 12, 1883.
(End of Legal Description)
File Number: 164293 Page 3 of 10
SCHEDULE B
At the (late hereof, exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions
contained in said policy or policies would be as follows:
Taxes:
A. General and Special City and/or County taxes, including any personal property taxes and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009:
1" Installment:
$949.58 Paid
2i' Installment:
$949.58 Open
Land:
$767,274.00
Improvements:
$242,966.00
Exemption:
$843,557.00
Code Area:
19074
Assessment No.:
258- 316 -17 -00
Subject to the condition that at the time of closing, proof of payment must be submitted to this
Company. Any delinquency or Supplemental Taxes or funds will be held for a period of sixty (60)
days from the date of payment.
Said matter affects: Lots 11 to 16 inclusive, Block 11.
B. General and Special City and/or County taxes, including any personal property taxes and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009:
1" Installment:
$737.09 Paid
2i' Installment:
$737.09 Open
Land:
$38,125.00
Improvements:
$17,719.00
Exemption:
$55,844.00
Code Area:
19074
Assessment No.: 258 - 316 -18 -00
Subject to the condition that at the time of closing, proof of payment must be submitted to this
Company. Any delinquency or Supplemental Taxes or funds will be held for a period of sixty (60)
days from the date of payment.
Said matter affects: Lots 9 and 10, Block 11.
C. General and Special City and/or County taxes, including any personal property taxes and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009:
1" Installment: $15,824.84 Paid
2i' Installment: $15,824.84 Open
Land: $2,682,733.00
Improvements: $394,768.00
Exemption: $0.00
Code Area: 19074
Assessment No.: 258- 316 -20 -00
Subject to the condition that at the time of closing, proof of payment must be submitted to this
Company. Any delinquency or Supplemental Taxes or funds will be held for a period of sixty (60)
File Number: 164293 Page 4 of 10
days from the date of payment.
Said matter affects: Lots 7 and 8, Block 11.
D. General and Special City and/or County taxes, including any personal property taxes and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009:
1" Installment:
$4,907.89 Paid
2'd Installment:
$4,907.89 Open
Land:
$757,701.00
Improvements:
$162,364.00
Exemption:
$0.00
Code Area:
19079
Assessment No.:
258- 294 -03 -00
Subject to the condition that at the time of closing, proof of payment must be submitted to this
Company. Any delinquency or Supplemental Taxes or funds will be held for a period of sixty (60)
days from the date of payment.
Said matter affects: Lot 14, Block 14.
E. General and Special City and /or County taxes, including any personal property taxes and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009:
1" Installment:
$4,297.65 Paid
2id Installment:
$4,297.65 Open
Land:
$835,469.00
Improvements:
$0.00
Exemption:
$0.00
Code Area:
19079
Assessment No.:
258- 294 -13 -00
Subject to the condition that at the time of closing, proof of payment must be submitted to this
Company. Any delinquency or Supplemental Taxes or funds will be held for a period of sixty (60)
days from the date of payment.
Said matter affects: Lots 15 and 16, Block 14.
F. General and Special City and/or County taxes, including any personal property taxes and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2008 - 2009:
I" hnstallment:
$6,868.42 Paid
2 "d hnstallment:
$6,868.42 Open
Land:
$1,401,880.00
Improvements:
$568,128.00
Exemption:
$947,573.00
Code Area:
19074
Assessment No.:
258- 294 -17 -00
Subject to the condition that at the time of closing, proof of payment must be submitted to this
Company. Any delinquency or Supplemental Taxes or funds will be held for a period of sixty (60)
days from the date of payment.
Said matter affects: Lots 5 to 13 inclusive, Block 14.
File Number: 164293 Page 5 of 10
G. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5
(commencing with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
Exceptions:
1. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document to
the County of San Diego, for the purpose of public highway (RS. 743), recorded November 15, 1931
in Book 738, Page 384 of Official Records.
Said matter affects a portion of said land as more particularly described in said document.
Said matter affects: Lots 9 and 10, Block 14.
2. Terms and provisions of a lease dated June 27, 1977, executed by Dennis O'Rouke dba 2nd Street
Apartments, as lessor and Web Service Co, Inc., as lessee, recorded August 1, 1977, as
Instrument/File No. 77- 310511. of Official Records.
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest
of the lessee are not shown herein.
Said matter affects: Lot 6, Block 14.
Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations
secured thereby
Amount:
$346,000.00
Dated:
April 24, 1985
Trustor:
Ronald G. Stillman and Brenda L. Stillman,
husband and wife as community property
Trustee:
First American Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation
Beneficiary:
San Diego County Local Development Corporation
Recorded:
May 3, 1985, as Instrument/File No. 85- 156306
of Official Records.
There is no recorded reconveyance or releases of item number 3. Said item may have been paid off
through a previous transaction. Please make inquiry of the record owner to establish the status of
same.
Said matter affects: Lots 11 to 16 inclusive, Block 11.
An assignment of the beneficial interest under said deed of trust which names:
As Assignee: Small Business Administration
Recorded: May 3, 1985 as
Instrument/File No. 85- 156307 of Official Records
4. Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations
secured thereby:
Amount: $750,000.00
Dated: June 27, 1991
Trustor: William L. Fisher and Margaret J. Fisher, husband and wife as trustees
as community property under the terns of such Declaration of Trust
dated November 15, 1982
File Number: 164293 Page 6 of 10
Trustee: Chicago Title Company, a California Corporation
Beneficiary: ITT Small Business Finance Corporation
Recorded: July 1, 1991, as Instrument/File No. 1991- 0321316
of Official Records.
There is no recorded reconveyance or releases of item number 4. Said item may have been paid off
through a previous transaction. Please make inquiry of the record owner to establish the status of
same.
Said matter affects: Lot 12, Block 14, Map 148.
5. Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations
secured thereby:
Amount:
$390,000.00
Dated:
July 16, 1991
Trustor:
Larry R. Entzminger, ( Entzminger)
Trustee:
Cal -West Mortgage Co.
Beneficiary:
San Diego National Bank
Recorded:
August 6, 1991, as Instrument/File No. 1991- 0392272
of Official Records.
There is no recorded reconveyance or releases of item number 5. Said item may have been paid off
through a previous transaction. Please make inquiry of the record owner to establish the status of
same.
Said matter affects: Lots 7 and 8, Block 11.
An assignment of all moneys due, or to become due as rental or otherwise from said, to secure
payment of an indebtedness and upon the terms and conditions therein in the amount of $390,000.00,
assigned to San Diego National Bank, by Larry R. Entzminger, ( Entzminger), recorded August 6,
1991. as Instrument/File No. 1991- 0392273 of Official Records.
6. Terms and provisions of a lease dated July 7, 2003, executed by Larry R. & Sandra K. Entzminger, as
lessor, and Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, d /b /a Cingular
Wireless, as lessee, a memorandum of which is recorded May 25, 2004, as Instrument/File No. 2004-
0482778, of Official Records.
The present ownership of the leasehold created by said lease and other matters affecting the interest
of the lessee are not shown herein.
Said matter affects: Lots 7 and 8, Block 11.
An Encroachment Maintenance and Removal Covenant Encroachment Permit No. 582 -PE, executed
by and between the City of Encinitas and The Self - Realization Fellowship Church, subject to the
terms, provisions and conditions contained therein, recorded July 3, 2007 as File No. 2007- 0447077
of Official Records.
8. A Covenant Regarding Real Property: "Administrative Design Review and Coastal Development
Permit ", subject to the terms, provisions and conditions contained therein, recorded July 17, 2007 as
File No. 2007- 0477888 of Official Records.
File Number: 164293 Page 7 of 10
Rights of the public in and to any portion of the property herein described lying within roads, streets
or highways.
10. Matters which may be disclosed by an inspection or by a survey of said land satisfactory to this
Company, or by inquiry of the parties in possession thereof.
H. Rights of parties in possession.
12. Note: Please inform Stewart Title of what type of title insurance coverage is being requested, so that
we may provide you with any additional requirements or exceptions that we may have or that apply.
(End of Exceptions)
File Number: 164293 Page 8 of 10
CITY <)1
I \('INI I As I \t I \I I RI \(� UI`.51(I\ MA; ,tIA1 2009
ce
APPLICATION NO.
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
LOB SITE ADDRESS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.
1105 SECOND STREET
253- 316 -17
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
SELF — REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
NAME
NAME
21S K STRFFT
MAILING ADDRESS
ADDRESS
FNrINITAS cA 92024 (760)
753 -2338
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO. CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO.
STATE LICENSE NO. & TYPE
CIVIL ENGINEER INFORMATION
SOILS ENGINEER INFORMATION
SOHARDS AND OHOWN ENGINEERING INC SHAWN CAYA
NAME
NAME
2147 NFIXASTIo- AW: STE 103
3980 HOME AVENUE
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
CA 92105 (619) 550 -1700
CARDTFF rA 920n7 (76(1)
CITY, STATE ZIPTELEPHONE NO.
41;6- 25(1(1 SAN D1FG0
CITY, STATE ZIP TELEPHONE NO.
RANDY R IR061rJ RCF 36190
RGE 2742
REGISTRATION NO.
REGISTRATION NO.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE
RE- GRADING AN EXISTING PARKING LOT.
CASE NO. -/-Q—l-
SIGNATURE
DATE SIGNED
��/J ,/ i'rt��-
�i 4,22 7-77S-2
PR M NAME
TELEPHONE ---- -------- - ----- TELEPHONE NO.---- °......-- ----....... --------------- -
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
PLANNING CASE NUMBER 60
- OL(f Mgfba kor
FOR GRADING PLANS:
FOR FINAL MAPS/PARCEL MAPS
OK FOR PLAN CHECK
FINAL MAP
PARCEL_ MAP
P NLR
1-,73)1(
DATE
\11111 \UI\ 12
w
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENGINEERING
D
SEP 2 3 2011
tNl.:l ;,EER,NG SERVICES
�'17'Y OF ENCINITAS
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1139 SECOND STREET
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
C/O COAST ARCHITECTS
624 UNION STREET
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
PREPARED BY:
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
3980 HOME AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105
3980 Home Avenue n, San Diego, CA 92105 n, 619- 550 -1700 a, FAX 619 -550 -1701
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENGINEERING
June 13, 2011
Self Realization Fellowship
c/o Coast Architects
624 Union Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Gene Chappo
Subject Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Temple Annex,
Self Realization Fellowship, 1139 Second Street, Encinitas, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:
:NY7��iDY�.1�ALl
In accordance with your request and our Proposal /Agreement dated April 27, 2011, we have completed a
preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith our findings and
recommendations.
In general, we found the subject property suitable for the proposed construction, provided the recommendations
provided herein are followed. In our opinion, the site is suitable to support the proposed improvements provided
remedial grading is performed to remove and recompact existing surficial soils that are currently unsuitable to support
settlement - sensitive improvements. We anticipate that such removals will be on the order of two to four feet from
the existing site grades. Specific recommendations are presented in the attached report.
If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity
to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
ED GF0�
S.j?VSSI
Respectfully submitted,
o No. 2215 Ir
CERTIFIED
CHRISTLAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
*
ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
Eap. 09-11
T9lF0F
Q�pFESSI,
QUO Pt1N C. C �F
CAUF��
h ya 99 y2
Lu No.GE27.1 m
IT!
1
G
s
Erp. B•30.12
Shawn Caya, R.G.E. #2748 d-. O�_..... V, *
David R. Russell, C.E.G. #2215
Dist.: (5) Client
(1) czstardtitects(g Cox 11(
3980 Home Avenue u- San Diego, CA 92105 a- 619 -550 -1700 v FAX 619 - 550 -1701
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction and Proiect Descriotion ............................................................................................... ..............................1
............ ............................... 2
............ ............................... 3
........... ............................... 3
........ ............................... 4
........ ............................... 4
........ ............................... 4
......... ............................... 5
......... ............................... 5
......... ............................... 5
................................. I...... 6
......... ............................... 6
........ ............................... 6
......... ............................... 7
......... ............................... 7
......... ............................... 7
......... ............................... 7
......... ............................... 7
.......... .............................18
........ ............................... 8
............. I.......................... 8
......... ............................... 8
......... ............................... 8
......... ............................... 9
......... ............................... 9
......... ............................... 9
......... ............................... 9
......... .............................10
......... .............................10
......... .............................10
......... .............................10
........ .............................10
......... .............................11
......... .............................11
......... .............................11
......... .............................11
........ .............................12
......... .............................12
......... .............................12
......... .............................12
......... .............................12
......... .............................12
......... .............................13
......... .............................13
......... .............................13
CWE 2110253.01
Self Realization Fellowship Temple Annex
1139 Second Street, Encinitas, Califomia
ATTACHMENTS
TABLES
.13
.14
............ .............................14
............. .............................14
............. .............................14
............ .............................14
............. .............................15
............ .............................15
............ .............................15
............. .............................15
............. .............................16
............. .............................16
............. .............................16
............. .............................16
............. .............................17
TableI: Proxitnal Fault Zones ............................................................................................................ ..............................6
Table II: CBC 2010 Edition — Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................ ..............................7
Table III: Preliminary AC Pavement Sections - Caltrans Met hod ............................................... .............................14
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1
PLATES
Plate 1
Site Plan and Geotechnical Map
Plate 2
P -1 Pit and Footing Detail
Plate 3
P -2 Pit and Footing Detail
Plate 4
Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
APPENDICES
Appendix A Boring Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C References
Appendix D Recommended Grading Specifications —General Provisions
CW'E 2110253.01
Self Realization Fellowship Temple.knnex
1139 Second Street, Encinitas, California
W
CHRISTIAN WHEFLER
ENGINEERING
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
�---. IML102210 •
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for a planned temple
annex to be constructed at 1139 Second Street, in the city of Encinitas, California. Figure Number 1,
presented on the following page, presents a vicinity map showing the location of the project.
We understand that it is proposed to construct an approximately 1,400- square -foot lateral addition on the
north and northeast portions of the existing building. The additions will basically include a teen room, two
restrooms, a storage area, a hallway and a foyer. A portion of the east wall and foundation system will receive
additional loads from the lateral addition. The interior 50 feet of the north end of the existing budding will be
converted into a 160 -seat sanctuary. The foyer will have an approximately 10- foot -high tower above it. A
terrace that will have a canvas roof and masonry pillars will be constructed along the north side of the
building. The terrace will slope upward from Second Street to an alleyway that abuts the east side of the
property. Additionally, the existing parking area north of the building will be regraded and repaved and the
existing retaining wall along the east side will be replaced. Grading is expected to consist of cuts and fills of
less than five feet from existing grades.
To assist in the preparation of this report, our firm has been given preliminary architectural drawings
prepared by Coast Architects. The architectural Site Plan was used as the base map for our Site Plan and
Geotechnical Map, which is included herewith as Plate Number 1.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Self Realization Fellowship and its consultants for
specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for
conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,
3980 Home .Avenue a, San Diego, CA 92105 m 619 -550 -1700 N FAX 619 -550 -1701
Site Vicinity Map
(Adapted from The Thomas Guide, San Diego & Imperial Counties, 2006 )
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1139 SECOND STREET
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
r SITE
1147 ;�y E 5i �
F 1
d W F ,S t
rxmr►r ,r
FAO j �1
, :. ,
nFb47A =•
t
t IV
..
1197 . z
��n::
14Euw an
iL
M �
R
�'•
�
u
F narzr
L� Y
u"'
AW
J sm"r nx
s
VIEWOW
i' R Y c SS
��
p °.u►r IyXWTF:Y
M
SKM/$
PAM'
T
=
C
L+
Y ;
CWE 2110253.01 JUNE 2011 FIGURE 1
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 2
laboratory testing and /or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed,
our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied.
PROJECT SCOPE
The scope of our preliminary investigation included: surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration,
obtaining representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the Held and laboratory data, and review
of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance
contamination, evaluation or design of storm water infiltration facilities, or any other services not specifically
described in the scope of services presented below. Based our understanding of the proposed construction,
we excavated three small- diameter borings and two hand -dug test pits in the areas of the proposed
improvements in order to explore the subsurface soil conditions and to obtain soil samples for laboratory
testing. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to:
a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed
construction;
b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our past experience with similar soil types, the engineering
properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including
bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential;
C) Describe the general geology at the site, including possible geologic hazards that could have
an effect on the proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters as
required by the 2010 edition of the California Building Code;
d) Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions,
groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems;
e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading, as necessary,
Provide design parameters for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls;
g) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of construction anticipated and
develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design;
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 3
h) Provide preliminary recommendations for asphalt concrete pavement, including the
recommended thickness of the asphalt, thickness and type of aggregate base material, and
subgrade preparation recommendations;
Prepare this report, which includes, in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a
plot plan showing the aerial extent of the geological units and the locations of our
exploratory borings, exploration logs, and a summary of the laboratory test results.
It was not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics
of the on -site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on -grade concrete and below grade
improvements. If requested, we can obtain and submit representative soil samples to a chemical laboratory
for analysis; however, it should be understood that Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice
corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering
firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter.
Iy1.1�i t�Ce�?
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of a rectangular lot, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 258- 316 -17 and as
Lots 11 through 16 of Block 11 of Encinitas (Map 148), located adjacent to and east of Second Street in the
Swarms Beach area of the city of Encinitas. The site has approximately 300 feet of frontage along Second
Street and is approximately 100 feet deep. The southerly approximately two- thirds of the property supports
an existing single -story commercial building, with a parking lot on the south side. The southern two-thirds
of this building is a concrete block and wood -frame building; the northerly third is a combination wood -
frame and concrete building. The northerly third of the property is currently utilized as a parking lot. The
site is bounded on the north by J Street, on the east by an improved alleyway, and on the south by a single -
family residence. A retaining wall up to about three feet high exists along the easterly side of the north
parking lot. Topographically, the property slopes gently to the west and southwest, with elevations ranging
from approximately 70 feet in the southwestern portion of the site to approximately 75 feet in the
northeastern portion. Vegetation at the site consists of typical residential landscaping.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011
EXISTING FOOTINGS
Page No. 4
As part of our investigation, two exploratory test pits were excavated adjacent existing structure to expose
portions of the existing perimeter foundations and observe the embedment conditions. Within test pit P -1,
which was excavated on the outside of the eastern wall near the northern end, the exposed footing consisted
of an approximately 15- inch -wide by 24 -inch -deep, continuous footing that was founded in fill material.
Within test pit P -2, which was excavated on the inside of the northern wall, the exposed footing consisted of
an approximately 16 -inch -wide by 28- inch -deep, continuous footing that was also founded in fill material.
Descriptions of the underlying soil types are presented in the following section.
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains
Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on our investigation, we have determined that the site is
underlain by Quatemary-age terrace (paralic) deposits and Tertiary -age sedimentary deposits of the Delmar
Formation, with a relatively thin veneer of artificial fill at the surface on a portion of the site. The materials
encountered within our subsurface explorations, as well as the underlying bedrock materials at the site, are
described below in order of increasing age:
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): A layer of undocumented fill material (Qaf) that ranges up to
approximately four feet thick was encountered in one of the test borings and in both test pits at the
site. The 611 encountered within our boring and test pits generally consised of brown, silty sand (SNv
that was typically moist and very loose to loose in consistency. The fill is expected to possess a low
expansion index and a high settlement potential in its present condition.
TERRACE DEPOSITS (W: Quatemary-age marine terrace (paralic) deposits were encountered in
all our exploratory explorations. These deposits can be further classified as being within the "Lower"
portions of the terrace deposits that underlie the coastal Encinitas region. The terrace deposits
underlying the site were noted to generally consist of light gray to reddish -brown, silty sand (SNv and
poorly - graded sand -silty sand (SP -SIvf) that is moist and medium dense to very dense in consistency.
DELMAR FORMATION (Td): Although not encountered within any of our explorations, Tertiary -
age sedimentary deposits of the Delmar Formation underlie the Quatemary-age terrace deposits at the
site at depths of approximately 35 feet below existing site grades. Based on our experience in the general
vicinity of the subject site, we expect the Delmar Formation materials to consist predominantly of
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 5
medium greenish -gray to light yellowish -brown, silty sand (SM) and sandy clay (CL) that is very
dense /hard in consistency.
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE: The Quatemary -age sediments at the site are generally massive and display only
subtle bedding attitudes. The bedding of the Delmar Formation materials within the vicinity of the site is
relatively flat, with dips of up to approximately 5° in random directions. Based on our experience within the
vicinity of the site, the erosional contact between the generally massive terrace deposits and the underlying
materials of the Delmar Formation is expected to dip up to a few degrees ( <4) to the southwest across the
subject site and surrounding areas.
GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered in any of our subsurface explorations. A review of
other borings in the immediate vicinity of the site indicates that localized zones of perched groundwater are
present at depth of approximately 10 to 15 feet in the vicinity of the site. These depths correspond to the
approximate elevation of a contact between different stratigraphic units within the terrace deposits. In addition, it
should be recognized that perched groundwater is present at the contact between the p=hc deposits and the
Delmar Formation, which is anticipated at an approximate depth of 35 feet below existing site grades.
TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site. However, it should be noted that
much of Souther California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quatemary -age
fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly
direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as "active' according
to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown
conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of
Mines and Geology used the term "potentially active' on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all
Quatemary -age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance
with the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-age faults as "potentially
active" except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity
during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be "potentially active' would be considered to
be "active' but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist, such as ruffeeientfy alive and me/!- defined Faults
older than Quatemary -age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However, it is generally accepted that
faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be "inactive'.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 6
A review of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately
2.2 miles southwest of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site
include the Newport- Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest, the Coronado Bank Fault Zone
to the west, and the Elsinore and Earthquake Valley Fault Zones to the northeast.
The following Table I presents the active faults that are considered most likely to significantly affect the site
over the anticipated economic lifetime of the proposed residence.
TABLE I: PROXIMAL FAULT ZONES
Fault Zone
Distance
Max. Magnitude Earthquake
Rose Canyon
2.2 miles
7.2 Magnitude
Newport-Inglewood
11 miles
7.1 Magrutude
Coronado Bank
17 miles
7.6 Magnitude
Elsinore
28 miles
7.1 Magnitude
Palos Verdes
41 miles
7.2 Magnitude
Earthquake Vallev
42 miles
6.5 Magnitude
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
GENERAL.• No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude the proposed use of the site as we
presently understand it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site
is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in this report are followed.
SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS: 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 fault most likely to have a significant
effect on the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located about T/2 kilometers southwest of the site. The seismic design
factors applicable to the subject site are provided below. The seismic design factors were determined in
accordance with the 2010 California Building Code. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered
earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented below.
Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as
the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience
the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 7
TABLE II: CBC 2010 EDITION — SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
CBC — Chapter 16
Section
Seismic Design Parameter
Recommended
Value
Table 1613.5.2
Soil Site Class
D
Figure 1613.5 3
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods 0.2 sec), S,
1.428
Figure 1613.5 4
Mapped Spectral Acceleration for 1.0 Sec Periods 1.0 sec), SI
0.540
Table 1613.5.3 ]
Site Coefficient, F.
1.00
Table 1613.5.3 2
Site Coefficient, F.
1.50
Section 1613.5.3
SA6 = MCE Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = S,
1.428
Section 1613.5.3
Sen = MCE Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = St v
0.811
Section 1613.5.4
SDs = Design Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = 2/3(%&)
0.952
Section 1613.5.4
SDI = Design Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = 2/3 SMt
0.540
LIQUEFACTION: The native materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil
density, grain -size distribution, and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions.
FLOODING: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100 -year and the 500 -year Eloodplains
according to the traps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption.
Historically, the San Diego area has been free of tsunami- related hazards and tsunamis reaching San Diego
have generally been well within the normal tidal range. It is thought that the wide continental margin off the
coast acts to diffuse and reflect the wave energy of remotely generated tsunamis. The largest historical
tsunami to reach San Diego's coast was 4.6 feet high, generated by the 1960 earthquake in Chile. A lack of
knowledge about the offshore fault systems makes it difficult to assess the risk due to locally generated
tsunamis. However, due to the site's elevation, the is considered to possess a very low risk potential from
tsunamis.
SEICFIES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or
reservoirs. Due to the site's location, it will not be affected by seiches.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our investigation, it is our opinion that the subject property is suitable for the proposed
construction provided the geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are followed. The most
significant geotechnical conditions affecting the planned construction are the presence of undocumented
artificial fill that is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement- sensitive
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 8
improvements and the potential for undesirable settlement of the existing footings that receive additional
structural loads. Based on these conditions, it is our opinion that the existing fill should be removed and
recompacted in areas to receive settlement - sensitive improvements and that existing footings that will receive
additional loads be underpinned to transfer the loads to the underlying formational deposits. Specific
recommendations are presented in the following section of this report. Additionally, we understand that an
old brick -lined seepage pit was encountered in the area to support the planned Storage /Foyer areas. Specific
recommendations regarding the seepage pit will need to be made during grading, once the extent of the pit is
determined.
The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have a significant effect on the
proposed development. The most likely geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to
seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However, construction in accordance with the
requirements of the most recent edition of the California Budding Code and the local governmental agencies
should provide a level of life -safety suitable for the type of development proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
GENERAL All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix J of the California Building
Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the recommended Grading Specifications and
Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to
grading, a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the pre- construction meeting to
provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule.
OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential
during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in
design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general
accordance with the recommendations contained herein.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing improvements
designated for demolition and any associated deleterious material This should include all significant root
material. Utilities within the building footprint to be abandoned should be completely removed and the resulting
depressions properly backfilled. The resulting materials should be disposed of off -site in a legal dumpsite.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 9
SITE PREPARATION: We recommend that the existing fill be removed from areas to receive settlement-
sensitive improvements and be replaced as properly compacted structural fill. The removal should extend
down to the contact with wmpetent paralic deposits, which will likely require the removal of at least the upper
one foot of existing parahc deposits. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, we expect that
removal depths will range from four to five feet in the area of the addition to approximately two feet in the
terrace and parking areas; however, it should be recognized that locally deeper removals may be necessary.
Laterally, the removal should extend outside the foundations to a distance equal to the removal depth below
the foundations or to the property line, whichever distance is less. Additionally, a uniform removal depth
should be established for the proposed addition. The bottom of all excavations should be approved by our
project geologist, engineer, or technician supervisor prior to placing fills or constructing improvements.
PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements
in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and approved by the geotechnical consultant or his
representative, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill and backfill material placed at the site
should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by
ASTbl Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six
to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth
material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil
technicians or project geologist Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in
maximum dimension.
All utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The
upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath flexible pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of the materials
maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the
aggregate base material and should not be part of the mass grading requirements or operation.
TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES: The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable,
temporary excavations and will need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to
maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractors "competent person', as defined in the OSHA
Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFIZ, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations
as part of the contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth,
including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.
CXVE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 10
SURFACE DRAINAGE: The ground around the proposed structure should be graded so that surface water
flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to
structure 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. Our firm should be
contacted to review the applicability of any planned Low Impact Development storm water management
systems that incorporate infiltration.
GRADING PLAN REVIEW. The final grading plans should be submitted to this office for review in order to
ascertain that the geotechnical recommendations remain applicable to the final plan and that no additional
recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated development Our firm should be notified of
changes to the proposed project that could necessitate revisions of or additions to the information contained
herein.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: Provided the existing fill soils are removed and recompacted as recommended above, the
proposed addition and terrace improvements can be supported by conventional shallow foundations. For the
property line site walls, the footings will need to extend through the existing fill and be founded in competent
portions of the underlying paralic deposits. Based on the bearing material encountered below the existing
footings, they are considered unsuitable to receive additional loads. We recommend that existing footings to
receive additional loads be underpinned. Additionally, it should be noted that it could be required to underpin
the existing footing along the northern wall if the existing masonry wall is removed; however, this will need to
be determined during construction. The following recommendations are considered the minimum based on soil
conditions and are not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a
qualified structural engineer.
EXISTING FOOTINGS: At our test pit locations, the existing footings were founded in relatively loose fill
soil. Based on this condition, it is our opinion that the existing footings should not receive additional
structural loads unless they are underpinned. Underpinning pads should have a minimum width of 24 inches
and should extend down at least six inches into competent paralic deposits. Design parameters for alternative
underpinning methods such as helical piles or tmicropiles can be made upon request.
NEW CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: New spread footings supporting the proposed addition and
terrace improvements should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade.
Footings for the proposed property line retaining walls should be embedded at least six inches into
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 11
competent terrace deposits with a minimum overall embedment of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish
grade. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches for the buildings and 24 inches for
retaining walls. Isolated footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Foundations with these
dimensions can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. For the
property line retaining walls, which will be founded in terrace deposits, this bearing pressure can be increased
by an additional 500 psf and 250 psf for each additional foot of embedment and width, respectively, up to a
maximum of 4,000 psf. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one -third for combinations of
temporary loads, such as those due to wind or seismic loads.
Reinforcement requirements for conventional foundations should be provided by a structural engineer.
However, based on the existing soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for new
continuous footings consist of at least two No. 5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and at least
two No. 5 bars positioned near the top of the footing. Where new footings abut existing footings, they
should be doweled together as specified by the structural engineer.
LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the
bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of
friction between concrete and sod may be considered to be 0.30. The passive resistance may be considered to be
equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight
against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be
reduced by one - third.
SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: Provided the recommendations presented in this report are
followed, the anticipated total and differential foundation settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch
and 1 inch over 40 feet, respectively. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete
slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks
should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements.
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated foundation soils are expected to have a low
expansion potential. The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition.
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The final foundation plan and accompanying details and notes should be
submitted to this office for review. The intent of our review will be to verify that the plans used for
construction reflect the minimum dimensioning and reinforcing criteria presented in this section and that no
additional criteria are required due to changes in the foundation type or layout. It is not our intent to review
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 12
structural plans, notes, details, or calculations to verify that the design engineer has correctly applied the
geotechnical design values. It is the responsibility of the design engineer to properly design /specify the
foundations and other structural elements based on the requirements of the structure and considering the
information presented in this report.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel or formwork in order to determine if the foundation
recommendations presented herein are followed. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level, and
square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.
ON -GRADE SLABS
GENERAL.• We expect that the floor system of the proposed addition and terrace will consist of concrete slabs -
on- grade. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil
conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of structural considerations.
INTERIOR SLAB: We recommend that the interior slab -on -grade floors be at least 5 inches thick (actual) and
be reinforced with at least No. 3 bats spaced at 12 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should extend
at least six inches into the foundations and should be supported by chairs and be positioned in the center of the
slab.
UNDER -SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: Steps should be taken to minimize the transmission of moisture
vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially damage the interior floor coverings.
Local industry standards typically include the placement of a vapor retarder, such as plastic, between two, 2-
inch -thick layers of coarse sand placed directly beneath the concrete slab. 'Phis is the most common under -
slab vapor retarder system used in San Diego County. The vapor retarder should be at least 15 mil plastic
with sealed seams and should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the interior and perimeter footings.
The sand should contain less than 10% passing the Number 100 sieve and less than 5% passing the Number
200 sieve.
EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of five inches.
Reinforcement should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking. Control joints
should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of
control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. Where patio,
sidewalk and porch slabs abut perimeter foundations, they should be doweled into the footings.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 13
A concrete mix with a 1 -inch maximum aggregate size and a water /cement ratio of less than 0.6 is
recommended for exterior slabs. Lower water content will decrease the potential for shrinkage cracks.
Consideration should be given to using a concrete mix for the driveways that has a minimum compressive
strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch. This suggestion is meant to address early driveway use prior to full
concrete curing. Both coarse and fine aggregate should conform to the latest edition of the "Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction" (`Greenbook'D.
All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints in accordance with the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) guidelines. Alternative patterns consistent with ACI guidelines can also be used.
Special attention should be paid to the method of concrete curing to reduce the potential for excessive
shrinkage and resultant random cracking. It should be recognized that minor cracks occur normally in
concrete slabs due to shrinkage. Some shrinkage cracks should be expected and are not necessarily and
indication of excessive movement or structural distress.
EARTH RETAINING WALLS
FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for retaining walls can be designed in accordance with the foundation
recommendations previously presented
EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURES: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained and restrained
earth retaining structures with level backfill surface may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid
weighing 35 and 55 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. If any other loads are anticipated, the Geotechnical
Consultant should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. All values are based on a drained
backfill condition.
If it is necessary to consider seismic pressure, it may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid
weighing 10 pounds per cubic foot, but the pressure distribution should be inverted so that the highest value is at
the top of the wall. This corresponds to an approximate pseudo-static acceleration (Ih) of 0.13 g.
WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAINS: The project architect should provide (or coordinate)
waterproofing details for the retaining walls. The design values presented above are based on a drained backfill
condition and do not consider hydrostatic pressures. Unless hydrostatic pressures are incorporated into the
design, the retaining wall designer should provide a subdrain detail A typical retaining wall subdrain detail is
presented on Plate No. 4 of this report. Additionally, outlets points for the retaining wall subdreins should be
coordinated by the project civil engineer.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 14
BACSFILL• All retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. It is
anticipated that the on -site soils are suitable for use as backfill material provided the design parameters given
herein are used in the wall design. Retaining walls should not be backfilled until the masonry/concrete has
reached an adequate strength.
PRELIMINARY ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
GENERAL.- Asphalt concrete pavement sections were calculated utilizing the Caltrans design method. The
following pavement sections should be considered preliminary and should be used for planning purposes only.
Final pavement designs should be determined after R -value tests have been performed on the actual subgrade
material. In consideration of the existing earth materials on -site, we have assumed an R -value of 25. This value
was used in determining the required structural pavement sections.
TRAFFIC INDEX: We have assumed a Traffic Index of 4.5 for the parking lot. This assumption is based on
the use of the parking lot being limited to predominantly passenger vehicles with occasional larger trucks /vans.
The project client and /or civil engineer should determine whether these assumptions are appropriate and
whether revised Traffic Indexes are warranted.
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL SECTIONS: Based on the above parameters, the following minimum
preliminary pavement section is recommended.
TABLE III: PRELIMINARY AC PAVEMENT SECTIONS - CALTRANS METHOD
Proposed Use
R -Value
Traffic Index
AC in.
Base in.
Parking Areas
25
4.5
3.0
5.0
Caltrans Highway Design Method June 26, 2006, Chapter 610.
The base material could consist of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) or Class II Aggregate Base. The Crushed
Aggregate Base should conform to the requirements set forth in Section 200 -2.2 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction. The Class II Aggregate Base should conform to requirements
set forth in Section 26 -1.02A of the Standard Specifications for California Department of Transportation. As
an alternate, the base material for the pavements may consist of Crushed Miscellaneous Base (recycled base
material) that conforms to the requirements set forth in Section 200 -2.4 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction. It should be noted, however, that Crushed Miscellaneous Base material has lower
durability characteristics than Crushed Aggregate Base or Class II Aggregate Base, which may result in a
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 15
shorter pavement life. As such, the owner of the project should approve the use of this material for the
pavement base. Asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to at least 95 % of Hveem density.
LIMITATIONS
REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications.
Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so
that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the California Building Code.
It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering
services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to start of construction
UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements
based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and
on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered It should be
recognized that the performance of the foundations and /or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed
or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any
unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be
brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary.
CHANGE IN SCOPE
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may
determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or
modified by a written addendum.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011
TIME LIMITATIONS
Page No. 16
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur
with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent
properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Government Codes may occur. Due to
such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the
suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client
recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our test pits,
surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on
the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but
shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of
professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is
made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for
consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
It is the client's responsibility, or its representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations
contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and
incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary
measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during
construction.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Five subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the site plan included herewith as Plate
No. 1 on May 16, 2011. These explorations consisted of three small- diameter, hollow -stem borings drilled
using a limited access drill rig and two hand -dug test pits. The fieldwork was conducted by or under the
observation of our engineering geology personnel.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Page No. 17
The boring and test pit logs are presented in the attached Appendix A. The soils are described in accordance
with the Unified Soils Classification. 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 either very loose,
loose, medium dense, dense or very dense.
Relatively undisturbed drive samples were collected using a modified California sampler. The sampler, with an
external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1 -inch long, thin, brass rings with inside diameters of approximately
2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30
inches in general accordance with ASTM D 3550 -84. The driving weight is permitted to fall freely. The number
of blows per foot of driving, or as indicated, are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance
of the sampled materials. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, and sealed. Bulk
samples of the encountered earth materials were also collected. Samples were transported to our laboratory for
testing.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and
Materials (AST I) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed and the
subsequent results are presented in Appendix B.
w
LU
cc
- 1-�Miw i ,
rtSMCroes
i
wm sro�rs l
Av
STNpNm.Neb6 euu
- 1-�Miw i ,
rtSMCroes
\
SCALE: 1" = 20'
tl ,o.a. rue
CWE LEGEND
- 1-�Miw i ,
rtSMCroes
\
SCALE: 1" = 20'
AU 5n T TO MATl11 fiJ
CWE LEGEND
.A461LRMC� care. b' eoA
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
..
B-3$
\
M021/G6M W41111e Prh4NV9
ARTIFICLAL FILL UNDERLAIN BY
LOWER TERRACE DEPOSITS
wn wo anrle TO ee.anm ..
LOWER TERRACE DEPOSITS
Rl nrero�ra
w
�6TM1 VIN. artTl lLBt4a MD
E
'W ./I1Nlx1 /MeuMe
/
Y
.ore. Ter s,ucwx..n oaeTrtn
�
/LJ/CAT LRY2 /KAYO M 16i
e�Nl x Nlv .ne: g1E1Y11A�
n
To LtK!¢2 e"e CVI
a ae n[+n.>z
"'" ALLEY j
I i
I P.
1
1
L\2�'
ve*�mo m
15 -11�14
II QtL
I
.°
Vigo
Ne.uolon neemox
`\RVICL.I+x rvrc Deer.
caR
\ N nwm!c
ee rW.e.T v6N�
\ or�bµ•rwmy ��um
IMOUrem M8A rn
13
11
1d
MEW,
f�
y
Hl1Yr 11�0. Y(`�
eerr�mroo(!
mwxea
QIL
8
II
elrrbe.rAenar � / .
errt nTu
AY 11var.Ilr ®.MC9s
B 13 12
SECOND STREET
I.a
Hx ADDITIph ro NL 9roWMATGt "NII IrOe. qe:/ R e¢xell owsew eavke TOM GN 6 ueww
INSTro WILDIRe �wT�oaroxsrwi ee uurraro eurow aw+.RrtxmueebAaw veo+mo AV .e
MIMA Cr neS rl010e eTA0eM1ee 1RAMJe Ill l.IeeR fosroe +e R!A]Fro Ft3le
I,Abr ST. Ta acts ve>riwr�roMenrer /7ew nrb.[x
J�\
iiwfurvAsIIl
SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP
0
Tolle)
l
8 7
� x*ru..iurxa M@A
ree er eos/tec
/ Y/LCS
N svcarwr Rze? elDS. MFN
rO�T.M£ YMlla2e P'.f1rM11!
warahn
1
i
Task! !
LD i ; = wmrha
War :IA 39
X FARTIAL TIM
..., � WIN
rnncee�
9GC� 4 6 "SA 5' K
7 �
— I
5
zo' ao'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
AU 5n T TO MATl11 fiJ
CWE LEGEND
.A461LRMC� care. b' eoA
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
..
B-3$
\
M021/G6M W41111e Prh4NV9
ARTIFICLAL FILL UNDERLAIN BY
LOWER TERRACE DEPOSITS
wn wo anrle TO ee.anm ..
LOWER TERRACE DEPOSITS
NaJ R9ML®. M /."IL..ef llWl
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
�6TM1 VIN. artTl lLBt4a MD
.L411R NRA lONRIM 1.1uM
IOJAt�r NPOVHBTv.
.ore. Ter s,ucwx..n oaeTrtn
/LJ/CAT LRY2 /KAYO M 16i
e�Nl x Nlv .ne: g1E1Y11A�
I6 /.MIT GP iw6 NPrOiVK
"'" ALLEY j
I i
I P.
1
1
L\2�'
ve*�mo m
15 -11�14
II QtL
I
.°
Vigo
Ne.uolon neemox
`\RVICL.I+x rvrc Deer.
caR
\ N nwm!c
ee rW.e.T v6N�
\ or�bµ•rwmy ��um
IMOUrem M8A rn
13
11
1d
MEW,
f�
y
Hl1Yr 11�0. Y(`�
eerr�mroo(!
mwxea
QIL
8
II
elrrbe.rAenar � / .
errt nTu
AY 11var.Ilr ®.MC9s
B 13 12
SECOND STREET
I.a
Hx ADDITIph ro NL 9roWMATGt "NII IrOe. qe:/ R e¢xell owsew eavke TOM GN 6 ueww
INSTro WILDIRe �wT�oaroxsrwi ee uurraro eurow aw+.RrtxmueebAaw veo+mo AV .e
MIMA Cr neS rl010e eTA0eM1ee 1RAMJe Ill l.IeeR fosroe +e R!A]Fro Ft3le
I,Abr ST. Ta acts ve>riwr�roMenrer /7ew nrb.[x
J�\
iiwfurvAsIIl
SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP
0
Tolle)
l
8 7
� x*ru..iurxa M@A
ree er eos/tec
/ Y/LCS
N svcarwr Rze? elDS. MFN
rO�T.M£ YMlla2e P'.f1rM11!
warahn
1
i
Task! !
LD i ; = wmrha
War :IA 39
X FARTIAL TIM
..., � WIN
rnncee�
9GC� 4 6 "SA 5' K
7 �
— I
5
zo' ao'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
CWE LEGEND
P_2 S
APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
..
B-3$
APPROXIMATE BORING LOG9770N
x1
Qaf
Q1i
ARTIFICLAL FILL UNDERLAIN BY
LOWER TERRACE DEPOSITS
QEi
LOWER TERRACE DEPOSITS
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1139 SECOND STREET
ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA
DATE. JUNE2011 = JOBNO.: 2110253.01
BY SCC /JDB PLATE NO.: 1
rl 201
e
1 AR C RITE C T5
au+PVw
b4UYe/LI
e igaiL
i wnan
1
9
i AP
�m
�it♦A
+1
1 19NE
na
SELF
Ip`
FELLOWSHIP
A1.2
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENGINEERING
a
GRADE
94" l
�.PCG 1
FOOTING 1
_ ` 1
1 I
\
P -1
PIT AND
FOOTING DETAIL
Artificial Fill
(Qaf)
Terrace Deposits (Qt,.):
Loose to Medium Dense
Terrace Deposits (Qty):
Medium Dense
I SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
Il 1139 SECOND SIREk: r
ENCINTEA.S, CALIFORNIA
DAM: JUNE 2011 1 JOB NO.: 2110253.01
NOT TO SCALE
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENGINEERING
OUTFA RETAINENG
Wald?
P -2
PIT AND
FOOTING DETAIL
P
I. - - 41NCFl PGC 1T., B . 1 -.'•.r
� a
'PCC'
FOO'ItNG' i 1
X16„
CONOLE M PIECES
UNDER FOOTING
Terrace Deposits r
(Qh)
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1 119 SECOND S'IREI .1
ENCINITAS, CALI FORNGI
DATE: JUNE 2Dll JOB NO.: 211053.01
BY: CI- IC /SCC /JDB I'1..1-Di NO.: 3
I >7Jia�Y��i�
I
r
I
I Artificial Fill
r
r
r
Terrace Deposits
(Qty)
NOT TO SCALE
Voor
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENGINEERING
�— 1 %SlopeMuvmum
YXW �C ✓l/-Y/t ri
6 -inch
Aiax.
v
a
3/4 inch Crushed Rock or
Miradrain 6000 or Equivalent
d Waterproof Back of Wall
Per Architect's Specifications
a
D _ °
4,,,
1
Top of Ground
° or Concrete Slab
°
a
°
Geofabric Completely
Wrapped Around Rock
Y y
6 -inch
%C Minimum
Minimum
(,
4-inch Diameter
x
Perforated Pipe
X
PVC Schedule 40
/.Y 7Y
RETAINING WALL
SUBDRAIN DETAIL
No Scale
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP TEMPLE ANNEX
1139 Second Street, Encintas, California
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E n a I n e e r I n g
BY ALU1
DATI -:: June 2011
3980 HOME AWNIT
TEL (4199) 551E 17100
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105
FAX. (619) 5501701
JOB NO.: 2110253.01
PL,%'I'E NO.: 4
Appendix A
Subsurface Exploration Logs
LOG OF BORING B -1
$amok Tvoe and Labnmmry Test LeCcd
Cal Maakfied Califemia Sampler CK Chunk Sample
Penemmu. Test DR Demm, Rang
SPTStandard
Date Excavated: 5/16/11 Equipment: CME 55
ST Shalb, Tube
Logged by: DJF Auger Size: 8 inch
MD Maximum Dansm DS Dmct Shn,
SO4
Soluble Sulfa. Con Cemvluluu.
Existing Elevation: 74 feet Drive Weight 1401bs @ 30" SA
Saran Anahvsu HI U.pmvnn Ind..
HA Ibdnm,ner R -V.] Rcssuncr Value
Proposed Elevation: 74 feet Depth to Water: NA Sr,
Sand Eclim alem Chl Soluble Chh,mha
PI Pl."'etr Inch.fy Ras If &Resxsm�rr
Z
s
j�
L"
O
C
..
F
U
m
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(based on Unfired Soil Classification System)
F
C`
w
F
S
SCE
w
0
74
2' /2 inches of AC over 2' /a inches of WELT. GRADED SAND (SW)
SM
over 2'h inchex of AC.
S:1
Lower Terrace Deooaits (Ot r1: Reddish- brown, moist, loose,
SILTY SAND, fine- to mechum grained, porous, upper 12 inches
19
Cal
6.8
I15.G
disturbed, becomes medium dense at 2 feet.
4
70
14
r,l
e1
112.4
8
Light - reddish brown, moist, medium dense, POORLY GRADED SAND
SP -SM
WITI I SILT, fine- to coarse-grained.
e
12
62
Yellowish -brown to light gray, moist, very dense, SILTY SAND,
—
SM
very fine- to medium - grained, micaceous, mottled.
50 -2"
C.il
16
58
Difficult drilling foam 15'/: to 1G' /a feet.
Concretion or well cemented zone.
2
54
Boring terminated at 19 feet 4 inches.
No groundwater or seepage encountered.
24
50
26
46
Symbol Legend
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
Gmunduaoer
yy�-f
Irk'
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1139 SECOND STREET
R Apparent Seepage
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
CHRISMNN■WHEELER
BY:
DATE: June 2011
• No Sample Reeovcry
E n g i n e e r l n g
Nonnpresetative Blou•
JOB NO.: 2110253
FIGURE NO.: A -1
Count (rocks present)
LOGOF BORING B -2
Samnk Tune lod laboaamev Te.a l�mend
Cal
Mwhfied CsI&,.nSampler CK Chunk Sample
Penetnram Test DR Density Rmg
SPTStanda,d
Date Excavated: 5 /16/Il Equipmene CME 55 ST
Shelby Tube
Logged by. DJ 1, Auger Size: 8 inch X113
SCM
mastmum tx .lit DS Dueet Shear
Sulublr Sulfates Con GmxAdatnm
Existing Elevation: 73 feet Drive Weight 140lbs Q 30" SA
Sm,r Analys., El Espare.on Irides
HA Hvdrmnemr RNA Rea,. Value
Proposed Elevation: 73 feet Depth to Water: NA SE
PI
Sind Pymeal.mt Chi Soluble Chlonden
pbvion Ind.= R, pl I @ Rem.tmn
Q
a
OM
O g
L
ts7 \
o
F
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(based on Unified Soil Classification System)
�' °
oC
Z
�j
e
o>
z�.
O
�JF
O
Gi
L
4
rn
f U
Q
RU's..
0
73
2 inches of AC over 'A inch of WEI.1. GRADED SAND (SW)
SM1l
over 3 inches of AC.
Ardal ;j& Fill (OQN: Brown, moist, loose, SILTY SAND, fine- to
medium - grained.
10
Cal
1
7.0
114.7
SM
tLc er Terrace Dm ao in (Ot.): Reddish - brown, moist, medium dense,
4
9
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium grained, porous.
41
f.J
`11
1235
8
5
Irght- reddish brown, moist, medium dense, P(X)RLY GRADED
SP -Sh1
l
SAND WITH SILT fine - to coarse-grained.
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
1
61
No groundwater or seepage encountered.
16
57
2
53
24
49
28
45
Symbol Legend
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1 Ground t..rcr
W
1139 SECOND STREET
!! Apparent Seepage
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
BY: DII'
DATT -:: lone 2011
No Sample Recmery
E n g i n e e r i n g
" Nonrepresetadee Rlrnv
JOB NO.: 2110253
FIGURENO.: A -2
Count (rocks present)
LOGOF BORING B -3
Sample Tstse and Laboraton Test Legend
Cil
CK Chunk>amplr
Venertatvm Test DR Ucn.. R.R
Slrl'Stmdard
Date Excavated; 5/16/11 L'gwpmmr. CNIE 55 sT
Shdbv Tube
Logged by: DJF Auger Size: 8 inch
SO4
MD M.... Drnvn DS D.., Shear
4tlub4 Sulfite, Con Cann,l.datum
Existing Elevation: 731/2 feet Drive Weight 140 lbs @ 30" SA
IIA
Sear AnilvsL 1.1 Gapans on ln&x
Fhvdromemr R -Val Renatance Value
Proposed Elevation: 73'/2 feet Depth to Water: NA Sr..
PI
Send fquisalem Chl Soluble Chlondes
plasndry In&, Acs A I @Rm.r ,n
Z
O 'I
0^
O
vSEr
e
U
Sy+
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(based on Unified Soil Classification System)
s
g�g
p<F
a
000
ab
o
0
73/2
1'/2 inches of AC over 3 inches of WELL GRADED SAND (SW)
SNI
over 4 inches of AC.
Lower Terrace Deposits (Ot 23: Brown, moist, medium dense,
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium grain d, porous.
39
Cal
5.7
115.6
Reddish -brown
4
9'/2
29
Cal
8.2
113.9
8
5'/2
SP -SN1
Light- reddish brown, mast, medium dense, POORLY GRADED
SAND WI.111 SILT, fine - to coarse- grained.
Boring terminated at 10 feet.
12
61'/2
No groundwater or seepage encountered.
1G
571/2
2
53'/2
24
491/2
28
45V2
Syrnbrd Legend
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
Groundaxter
1139 SECOND STREET
�( Apparent seepage
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
BY: DJF
DATE: June 2011
• No Sample Recovery
E n g I n e e r i n g
Nonry.rcsctaUVe Blrnv
JOB NO.: 2110253
FIGURE NO.: A -3
Count (rocks present)
LOG OF TEST PIT P -1
a's°le Type and Laboramq Teat Legend
Cal
Mu kf.,d Cddi,mu S.rk, CK (:hunk Sampk
N...on Ten UR D, c.p Rmg
SPfSrmdard
Date Excavated: 5/16/11 I:yuipmcnr. Iland Tools ST
Shdby lubc
Logged D F Bucket Size: N/A AID
gN d b Y : J SO4
M... Mh wy� DS Duect Shear
S.luble Sulfates Con Cansa6datinn
Existing iilevation: 76 feet Drive Weight N/A SA
11A
S,eve A.0,. 1(1 Fxpmilon indca
Ilydrom.na R -Val Rensmnre Value
P nscd Elevation: 76 feet Depth to Water: N/A SE
^'P eP PI
Sand P.yunalrnt Chl Soluble Chioudes
Plasnan Indci Rex 11 & Re .M tr
z
g
F^
S
c
0
$
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
System)
p1
mL
ti
Z
W
H
^
Y
H
(based on Unified Soil Classifwaaon
t5�
pCQ,1
�G
0
76
? inches of AC.
SNI
Artificial FJl (OaA: Brown, moist, very loose, SILTY SAND, fine-
to medium - grained with glass and gravel sized concrete debris.
1
5
61
2
4
W
SNI
Lawn Terrace Dmosita (Ot, l: Light brown, damp, loose to medium
dense, SI1, IY SAN I), fine- to medium- grained, porous
with animal burrows.
f K
(.2
3
3
4
72
Nledium dense
5
71
Test Pit terminated at 5 feet.
No water or seepage encountered.
G
70
7
9
S=bol Legend
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1 GroonJwnrer
1139 SECOND STREET
+? Apparent Seepage
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
BY: DJI'
DATE: tune 2011
No Sample Recovery
E n g i n e e r i n g
" Nonrepres.tam-e Blow
JOB NO.: 2110253
PLATE NO.: A -4
0.m (rocks pressor)
LOG OF TEST PIT P -2
Samyk lv ac and Labuntue "Cent Legend
Cal
AI,aYfied fildomia SamplQ CK Chunk Sample
S'.datd Nnctnum Test DR Dmnty RmR
SPT
Date Excavated: 5/16/11 Equipmenr. Iland Tools sr
shclbyTux
Logged by: DJF Bucket Size: N/A
MD ntaa,mum Dkrwy DS Duce, she.,
SDI
S,duhlc SUlGrcn Con Cm,aJuluum
Existing Elevation: 76 feet Drive Weight: N/A SA
S,vve Anil... F1 Fspannon Inge:
HA I lvdmmercr R -V'il Ras +ranee Valu.
Proposed Elevation: 76 feet Depth to Water: N/A St,
PI
Sand lym.aknt Chl Soluble Chl.mks
I'la.naty In Res I I & R,smrcm
C
°
o
V
�
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(based on Unified Soil Classification System)
p.4
pt
tsl C
^
°w
0
76
3 inch PCC Slab.
S6f
Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light brown, damp, loose, SILTY SAND, fine -
to medium - grained with gravel sbsd concrete debris.
1
75
4
I to medium dense with rootlets, possibly weathered Terrace n,
3
3
4
72
S6l
Lower Terrace DeposiTfOt,), Medium brawn, damp, medium
dense, SILTS' SAND, fine- to medium - grained, porous.
W min
West Pit terminated at 4.75 feet.
5
71
No water or seepage encountered.
6
70
7
9
Symbol Leecnd
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP
1 Gnwnd,catet
r
1139 SECOND STREET
n Apparent Seeps
■WHEELER
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
CHRIST7A�N�■
BY: DJ1+
DATE: June 2017
' No Sample Recovery
E n g i n e e r i n g
" Nonrepmsentative Rem
JOB NO.: 2110253
FIGURE NO.: A -5
Count (rocks present)
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed
are 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 and are
presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
b) MOISTURE - DENSITY: In -place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for
representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition
of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per
cubic foot, and the in -place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight.
The results of these tests are summarized in the exploration logs presented in Appendix A.
c) MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: The maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with
ASTM Standard Test D -1557. Method A.
d) DIRECT SHEAR Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope of selected
soils based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a
diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different
vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of
strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute.
e) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined
in accordance with ASTM C136 and /or ASTM D422.
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E n g i n e e r i n g
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX
1139 SECOND STREET ,ENCINITAS,C.51.0 "ORNIA LAB SUMMARY
BY: KC I DATE: JUNE ?011 I REPORTN0.:2110253.01 I FIGURE NO.: B-1
MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM D1557
Test Method: A
Sample Description: Reddish -brown, silty sand (SAD
Maximum Dry Density: 127.3 pcf
Optimum Moisture Content: 9.0
145
140
135
130
G
u
g tzs
i^
A
v
Q120
Q
115
110
105
1001 I 1 I I I F I' 1'! I; 1 1 1 l' I' i I i I! I l--. 1. , 1 1 ..t 11+k1 -i
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Moisture Content (Y.)
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX B -Z shit -St
4470 NTARA S:WTE DRIVE„ SAN DIEGO, C.iLIFORNIA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E n g i n e e r i n g BV: SCC DAIT.: JUNE 3111 REPORT N0.:2110253.01 FIGURE NO.: &2
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Samnle Tune: Undisturbed (Riepl
ASTM D3080
Speamem
Number
Dry Dematy
Mofrtum
I
Norma!
Stmt
Dial
Readr'mg
at Peak
Shear Stmrr
at Peak
Dial
Readimg
at 0.2 is.
Shear Shur
at 0.2 in.
1
111.3
9.2
720
146
1044
Ili
2
113.1
9.6
1440
240
1716
3
112.4
9.2
2880
366
2617
Strain Rate = 0.05 in /min
1.1.1
1 11
111
C
m
.4J
m
m
1500
m
ie
u
.a
H
1000
11
1
Peak at 0.2 in.
Internal Friction Angle, 0 (deg): 33
Cohesion Intercept, c (psf): 750
Direct Shear Plot
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Normal Stress (psf): 2.375 -inch Sample
1 1
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX B_1 n 51
1139 SECOND STREET, ENCINITAS, C.WFORNIA V
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
Engineering gy. SCC DATE: JUNE x-011 REPORT NO: 2110]53.01 FIGURE NO.: &3
• Shcu St ,s @NA
O Shcu Scross @�t2 m.
NA Fnadopc
ze
Ili
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Normal Stress (psf): 2.375 -inch Sample
1 1
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX B_1 n 51
1139 SECOND STREET, ENCINITAS, C.WFORNIA V
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
Engineering gy. SCC DATE: JUNE x-011 REPORT NO: 2110]53.01 FIGURE NO.: &3
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
U.S. Standard Sieves
6" 3" 2 "1'A" 1 "` /," ' /i' #4 #N #16 #31 #50 #111) #21M)
1W) 100 10
U. S. Standard Sieve Size
(in)
(MM)
6
152.40
5
127.00
4
101.60
3
76.20
2
50.80
1' /r
38.10
1
25.40
3/4
19.05
1/2
12.70
3/8
9.53
#4
4.75
#8
2.36
#16
1.18
#30
0.60
#50
0.30
#100
0.15
Hvdrometer Analvsis #200
0.075
0.05
0.005
0.001
1 0.1
Grain Size (mm)
Percent Passing
100
99
98
90
47
27
22
ASTM D422 1
LIMIT",■
11111111/0
111111111■
11111111/0
111111111E i
111111111■
IIIIIIII�■
11111111��
11111111��
11111111■
U.S.C.S.
Liquid Limit
Nulir Limit
P/ancaty Index
D ra
D�
D ao
C,
C,
Symbol
PROPOSED TEMPLE ANNEX B -1 @ 3/4' — 5'
1139 SECOND STREET, ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E n g I n e e r I n g BY: SCC DATE: JUNE 2011 REPORT NO.:2110253.01 FIGURE NO.: B-4
Appendix C
References
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Appendix C, Page C - 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 ke Spectra, Volume 5, No. 2, 1989.
Blake, T. F., 2000, Documentation for Eqfault Version 3.00, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and
Software
Boore, David M., Joyner, William B., and Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, "Empirical Near - Source Attenuation
Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity,
and Pseudo - Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra ", in Seismological Research Letters, Volume 68, Number
1, January/February 1997.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source -Zones in California
and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., 1997, Fault - Rupture Hazard Zones in California; California Division of Mitres
and Geology Special Publication 42
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 1, Scale
1:750,000.
Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California
Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200.
Kennedy, M.P. and others, 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 123.
Kem, P., 1989, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press, 73 pp.
Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L., 1992, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California
(Rock and Stiff -Sod Sites) California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 92 -1
Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego
County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 95 -02
Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California," in Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986.
Appendix D
Recommended Grading Specifications — General Provisions
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Appendix D, Page D - 1
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
;• •
1139 SECOND STREET
♦ CALIFORNIA
GENERAL INTENT
The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground,
preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the
accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and /or
the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede
the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in
conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a parr. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the
earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical
Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he
may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions
or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted for further recommendations.
If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as
questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,
construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend
rejection of this work.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Appendix D, Page D - 2
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following
American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:
Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -91
Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -90 or ASTM D -2922
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as deterrttined by the foregoing ASTM
testing procedures.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of.
All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris.
After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is
defined as natural soil which possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density.
When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to I vertical unit),
the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.
The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and
shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should
be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as
specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when
considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All
underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10
feet of the structure and properly capped off The resulting depressions from the above described procedure
should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.
This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water
lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the
Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Appendix D, Page D - 3
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements
set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3
feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the
well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of
vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill
the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in
the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low
strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory 611 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 G inches in
compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the
compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be
uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to
economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil
compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either
the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report.
When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be
carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions
is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non - structural fills is
discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Engineers discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical
Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Appendix D, Page D - 4
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by
sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of
two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over -built and cut-
back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all
fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions
section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the
Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable.
Density tests m the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems
arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the
necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction
is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer
CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during
the grading operations at intervals deteanined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,
unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be
analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are
necessary.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency.
CWE 2110253.01 June 13, 2011 Appendix D, Page D - 5
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and
compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with
acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or
the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to
the specified degree of compaction.
SEASON LIMITS
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain,
filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can
be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before
acceptance of work.
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural
ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot
subgrade, the upper twelve inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of
50 or greater when tested in accordance with the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Laboratory
Test D4829 -95.
OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil
over six inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of
placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall
pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the
cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and
recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special
footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required.
C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PLAN PERMIT NO.: 10917 SG
PARCEL NO. : 258 -316 -1700 PLAN NO.:
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1105 SECOND ST CASE NO.: 10066 / CDP
APPLICANT NAME SELF - REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP CHURCH
MAILING ADDRESS: 215 K ST PHONE NO.: 760 - 753 -2888
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024-
CONTRACTOR
LICENSE NO.
ENGINEER
PERMIT ISSU
PERMIT EXP.
INSPEC .
CHRIS MAYNE
569571
SOWARDS AND BROWN
E DATE: 10/24/11
A. 12
ON BRADY
ENGINEERING INC
PERMIT ISSUED BY
------------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS
PHONE NO.: 760 - 822 -7753
LICENSE TYPE: B
PHONE O.: 760 - 436 -8500
1.
PERMIT FEE
1,800.00
2.
GIS MAP FEE
.00
3.
INSPECTION FEE
.00
4.
INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
.00
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
.00
6.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
.00
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FE
.00
8.
TRAFFIC FEE
.00
9.
IN -LIEU UNDERGRN
.00
10.IN
-LIEU IMPROVMNT
.00
ll.PLAN
CHECK FEE
.00
12.PLAN
CHECK DEPOSIT:
.00
- - - - - --
------ - - - - --
DESCRIPTION
OF
WORK ------ -- -----------
- - - - --
SIMPLIFIED GRADING PERMIT TO GUARANTEE LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK,
DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND EROSION CONTROL. RE- GRADING OF
EXISTING PARKING LOT. SEE PLAN FOR DETAILS.
- - -- INSPECTION ------- --- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
4:: zeaQ e�
PRINT NAME
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3
?6�- f, -2 2 ��53
TELEPHONE
/ NNUMBER
`
OTHER z".,".