C1.110
°'e PISMO BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
e V_
Agenda Item #7.B
SUBJECT/TITLE:
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, TUNNEL COMPLEX, AND ELEVATOR
TO ACCESS A NEW CABANA AND POOL ABOVE AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION NO. 2022-009. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 114 BLUFF DRIVE WITHIN THE ONTARIO RIDGE (A-1) PLANNING AREA AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL (PR) ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND IS APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION. APN: 010-562-010
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the proposed project and provide direction to staff regarding approval of Project P21-000087 for a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for the construction of a tunnel complex with a new garage and elevator to access a new cabana and pool upslope of an existing single-family residence; and adopting Categorical Exemption No. 2022-009.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is an approximately 1.21-acre lot, located at 114 Bluff Drive within the Ontario Ridge Planning Area in the Planned Residential Zoning District (PR, 1983 Code). The project site is Lot 10 of Tract 1618 and is subject to the Tract 1618 Conditions of Approval and standards outlined in the Archaeological Overlay, Hazard Protection Overlay, and Architectural Review Overlay. The site is situated on a sloped marine terrace with a nearby vertical bluff located across Bluff Drive, a private access road for the Tract.
The site is developed with an existing single-family residence, three-car garage, driveway, and ornamental landscaping. A vicinity map is included with Attachment 2.
Protect Description
The proposed Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit will allow for the construction of a new 2,040-square-foot cabana, 1,157 square-foot pool deck, and pool. Access to the cabana is proposed via a new 638-square-foot bulkhead (entrance) and 2,156 square-foot tunnel complex. An approximately 60-foot elevator shaft will connect the tunnel to the cabana by way of an elevator.
The proposed project and improvements will be entirely within the approved building envelope, behind and upslope from the existing single-family residence. The project will result in approximately 3,963 cubic feet of cut and fill. Approximately 2,263 cubic feet of material will be exported from the site.
The subject property is within the Coastal Zone and is appealable to the Coastal Commission.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 1
General Plan
The General Plan designates the subject property for low-density residential land uses as part of the Ontario Ridge Planning Area, which is an area containing 24 single-family residential lots and a 9-acre open space/recreation trail parcel. The Tract is an ocean oriented, privately gated residential neighborhood with a backdrop of the coastal foothills.
Properties in this area are developed with large single-family homes and associated accessory uses. The subject property was approved as part of the Ontario Ridge Specific Plan and the Tract was recorded with the requirement for "building envelopes" on each lot to limit construction to areas with a natural slope of less than 30% and below the 200- foot elevation contour.
Land Use Element Policy A-4 — Hillside Development Regulations The project is subject to Land Use Element Policy A-4, which states:
LU-A-4 Hillside Development Regulations
Development shall be prohibited on lands with slope in excess of 30 percent and above the 200 ft. contour.
The lot was approved as part of the Tract with a building envelope to limit residential development to areas with a natural slope of less than 30% and below the 200-foot elevation contour. Land Use Element Policy A-4 implements this requirement by prohibiting hillside development on steep hillsides. The proposed development appears consistent with this policy because the tunnel, cabana, and pool area will occur entirely within the delineated development envelope on slopes of up to 27% and will not extend beyond the 180-foot contour elevation. However, to accommodate the improvements and limit impacts to the natural hillside, the tunnel is being constructed, which may not have been the intent of the Policy.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy CO-11 — Slopes Under 30% The project is proposed within the approved development envelope on slopes estimated at 27%. As such, the project is subject to General Plan Policy CO-11, which states:
CO-11 Development Regulations — Slopes Under 30%
Development in all foothill areas with slope under 30% shall comply with the following:
a. Erosion. A drainage and erosion control plan shall be required prior to approval of discretionary permits. Erosion control methods shall be implemented and maintained during and after construction b. Landscaping. After completion of construction and before occupancy of the structure, landscaping shall be installed per approved landscape plans.
Landscape plans shall include the following:
• All cut and fill areas shall be revegetated predominantly with native species that require little water and blend with the natural landscape; and,
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 2
• Landscaping and trees shall be planted to soften and partially obscure structures from the view shed below. Attention shall also be given to conserving the views from the development.
• Development approvals shall incorporate a landscape management plan, which shall include a monitoring program.
c. Sensitive Habitats. Development in the coastal foothills shall minimize removal of natural vegetation and shall preserve sensitive habitats.
Development adjacent to areas considered to have environmentally sensitive habitat(s) shall be designed to minimize impacts that could degrade the habitat.
d. Grading. Development shall be designed to minimize grading and emphasize natural landforms. Techniques shall include contour grading, use of daylight cuts and fills, use of 3:1 and 4:1 slopes, and generally limiting cuts and fills to no more than 15 ft. in height.
e. Views. Development shall be planned to take advantage of views of the ocean and surrounding hills. Such views shall not only be from private properties but also from the public streets and open space systems.
The project addresses many of the items noted above through such methods as drainage and erosion control, reduction of visible grading and removal of natural vegetation, and providing landscaping to screen the cabana and deck. However, the proposal also includes a 16.78' cut at the cave entrance upslope from the existing residence, excavation of up to 170 linear feet into the hillside for the tunnel, and excavation of up to 60 feet in depth for the elevator shaft (see Attachment 6 page A1.1). CO-11 requires development be designed to minimize grading and impacts to natural vegetation, hillsides, and landforms. The design and concept of the tunnel is unique and one that all but eliminates surface and visible grading, ultimately protecting the natural hillside, however, this technique may not have been the intent of the Policy.
To evaluate whether the proposed design achieves the intent of the Policy and assess the impact the project would have on the existing geologic conditions of the site, a Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Hazards Report was prepared by Earth Systems Pacific (Attachment 5). Geologic hazards are those conditions that present a risk to life, of substantial loss or damage to property, or damage to the environment. Following a thorough evaluation of the project scope and site conditions, Earth Systems Pacific recommended incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the conditions of approval, as outlined in the Resolution. As such, there are no concerns related to geologic hazards and the proposed project design could be supported by the existing conditions at the site.
To further evaluate whether the proposed project is the most appropriate design, the applicant prepared an alternative showing access to the cabana area consistent with CO-
11. This design included a driveway and multiple terraces in lieu of the tunnel and elevator that increased grading of the natural slopes, removed excess vegetation, and resulted in a more visible area of disturbance (Attachment 6 — Page A1.2). So, while it met the Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 3
grading requirement outlined in Policy CO-11(d), it further impacted resources outlined for preservation in Policy CO-11(a) — (c).
The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation because the project is in the low-density residential land use category which allows for construction of single- family residences consistent with the density factor of the general plan and Ontario Ridge Specific Plan. Based on the discussion and evaluation above, the project appears to be the most appropriate design and consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy A-4 and Conservation and Open Space Element Policy CO-11. An evaluation of the pertinent General Plan policies for this property is included in Attachment 3. 1983 Zoning Code
The project site is zoned Planned Residential (PR) under the 1983 Zoning Code (the "Code"). In accordance with Section 17.033.020 of the Code, single family residences in the PR zone are conditionally permitted uses. Permits for Tract 1618 and the Ontario Ridge Specific Plan were approved by the City in 1990.
The proposed project will develop the lot in compliance with Tract 1618 and the Ontario Ridge Specific Plan standards. Standards for setbacks, lot coverage, height, floor area, and parking are met with the proposed project. A complete evaluation of the Code, Tract 1618, and Ontario Ridge Specific Plan requirements are included in Attachment 3.
Table 1: Pro'ect Requirements and Standards
Max Lot Max Min Height
Lot Size Coverage Building Planting Limit Setbacks Area Area HL-3
25' above
80% max center of
of building building
1983 40% max envelope 40% min footprint at existing site
Zoning = Sides — 10'
Code 5,000 sf 29,262 sf grade. Rear— 10' Standards 21,954 sf 21,954 sf
23,408 sf EG = 176' at
center of
cabana
19.5% 32.9% 79.2%
Proposed 54,886 sf 10' (186') Sides — 10' (existing) Rear— 208'
10,073 sf 9,642 sf 43,458 sf
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 4
Architectural Style and Character
The applicant proposes a Modern Contemporary architectural style, which includes a sand finish white stucco, a flat single ply roof, glass guardrails, travertine patio tiles, and white aluminum clad doors & windows. The proposed style and materials are consistent and compatible with the existing design of the primary dwelling. Several of the residences on Bluff Drive are Modern Contemporary, and other examples of architecture within the Tract include Spanish, Mediterranean, Craftsman, and Cape Cod styles.
Environmental Review
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it has been determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding construction of accessory structures based on the above referenced studies and analysis. A copy of the Categorical Exemption has been included as Attachment 4.
Public Notification
A notice of public hearing was posted at City Hall, on the City's website, at the project site, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, and published in the New Times on April 14, 2022. The meeting agenda and staff report were posted at City Hall and on the City's website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. As of the writing of this report, no correspondence for the project has been received.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The project, as conditioned, meets the development standards in the Code and is compatible with the neighborhood both in terms of architecture and size (Attachment 3).
It appears the project is consistent with the pertinent General Plan Policies; however, this is a unique design that may not necessarily have been the intention of the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy CO-11 which seeks to minimize grading and impacts to natural landforms. While the project all but eliminates surface impacts to native vegetation and the natural landform, it results in extensive sub-surface grading, which CO-11(d) seeks to mitigate. Based on an analysis of geologic hazards and review of an alternative design, it appears the proposed design will not have an impact on geologic hazards and is preferable in terms of reducing impacts to native vegetation and natural Iandforms. As such, staff has prepared a Resolution for approval (Attachment 1) but is leaving it up to the Planning Commission to find the project design consistent with the General Plan policies as outlined in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the project (see Resolution for Approval, Attachment 1)
2. Modify and adopt the prepared Resolution approving the project;
3. Do not adopt the prepared Resolution and direct staff to return with a new resolution and appropriate findings for denial of the project; Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Development Standards and Policies
4. Categorical Exemption 2022-008
5. Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Hazards Report
6. Project Plans
Prepared by: Meeting Date: April 26, 2022
Michael Gruver, Associate Planner, AICP
Reviewed by: Megan Martin, Planning Manager
Community Development Director Approval: Matthew Downing, AICP Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 6
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC-R-2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROJECT P21-000087 FOR A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TUNNEL COMPLEX WITH A NEW GARAGE AND
ELEVATOR TO ACCESS A NEW CABANA AND POOL UPSLOPE OF AN EXISTNG SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ADOPTING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION NO. 2022-009. APN: 010-562-010
WHEREAS, Thierry and Carol Thaure ("Applicants") have submitted an application for a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for the construction of a 2,156 square-foot tunnel complex with a new garage and elevator to access a new 2,040 square foot cabana and 1,157 pool deck and pool upslope of an existing single-family residence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on April 26, 2022, at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is exempt per Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing that the following circumstances exist:
A. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
1. The project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, exempting construction of accessory structures to an existing residential use.
2. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations because the project is in the low-density residential land use category within the Planned Residential zoning designation which allows for construction of single-family residences consistent with the density factor of the general plan.
3. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres and is surrounded by similar and comparable residential uses.
4. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species because the site is within a tract currently developed with other existing single-family residences and ornamental landscaping.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 7
5. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality because the project, as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable Zoning Code and California Building Code standards.
6. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT:
1. The project improvements comply with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30220) of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
2. The construction of a 2,156 square-foot tunnel complex with a new garage and elevator to access a new 2,040 square foot cabana and 1,157 pool deck upslope of an existing single-family residence is appropriate in size so as to be compatible with the adjacent residences and structures as the proposed development falls within the range of other similar residences and their accessory structures within the Tract and in the immediate vicinity.
3. The architectural and general appearance of the tunnel system, pool cabana, and related improvements is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and compatible with the architectural style, building materials, and massing with other residences in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan/Local Coastal Program and General Plan Land Use Plan category of`Low-Density Residential'.
5. The proposed development is compatible with the nearby existing uses and not detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons living or working in the surrounding area of the proposed project because the proposed use includes the development of an accessory structure to an existing single-family residence, where other single-family residences with similar improvements exist within the same Tract and in the immediate neighborhood.
6. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the orderly development of improvements in the surrounding area and will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city because the proposed use is similar to other residential development in the immediate neighborhood.
7. The proposed development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood because the proposed use is similar to other residential development in the immediate neighborhood and maintains a similar Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 8
scale and character to other development in the same Tract and Planned Residential zone.
8. The proposed project will not significantly alter existing natural landforms because the project site does not contain prominent natural landforms.
9. The height, bulk, and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent area and with the surrounding views and other Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan considerations as designed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Pismo Beach hereby approves Permit No. P21-000087 and accepts Categorical Exemption 2022-009, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
UPON MOTION of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing Resolution is hereby approved and adopted the 26th day of April, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:
Approved: Attest:
Andrew Jones Elsa Perez, CMC
Chair Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF PISMO BEACH CONDITIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 26, 2022
PERMIT NO. P21-000087, CDP / ARP
LOCATION: 114 BLUFF DRIVE, APN: 010-562-010
The conditions set forth in this permit affect the title and possession of the real property that is the subject of this permit and shall run with the real property or any portion thereof.
All the terms, covenants, conditions, and restrictions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the owner and applicant, his or her heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns. Upon any sale, division or lease of real property, all the conditions of this permit shall apply separately to each portion of the real property and the owner (applicant, developer) and/or possessor of any such portion shall succeed to and be bound by the obligations imposed on owner (applicant, developer) by this permit.
AUTHORIZATION: Subject to the conditions stated below, approval of Permit P21- 000087 grants planning permits to construct a 2,156 square-foot tunnel complex with a new garage and elevator to access a new 2,040 square foot cabana and 1,157 pool deck upslope of an existing single-family residence as shown on the approved plans with the City of Pismo Beach stamp of April 26, 2022. Approval is granted only for the construction and use as herein stated; any proposed changes shall require approval of amendments to these permits by the City of Pismo Beach.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This permit shall become effective upon the passage of 20 days following the receipt of notice of this action by the California Coastal Commission, provided that an appeal has not been filed to the City Council within 10 working days or that an appeal has not been filed to the California Coastal Commission within the above 20 days. The filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date until an action is taken on the appeal.
EXPIRATION DATE: The applicant is granted two years for inauguration (i.e. building permits issued and construction begun) of this permit. The permits will expire on April 26, 2024, unless inaugurated prior to that date. Time extensions are permitted pursuant to Zoning Code Section 17.121.160 (2).
ACCEPTANCE OF PERMIT AND CONDITIONS: The property owner and the applicant (if different) shall sign these Conditions within ten (10) working days of receipt; the permit is not valid until signed by the property owner and applicant.
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT: I have read and understood, and I will comply with all applicable requirements of any law or agency of the State, City of Pismo Beach and any other governmental entity at the time of construction. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be my responsibility. I agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City as a result of the action or inaction by the City, or from any claim to attack, set Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 10
aside, void, or annul this approval by the City of the project; or my failure to comply with conditions of approval. This agreement shall be binding on all successors and assigns.
I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD, AND I WILL COMPLY WITH ALL ATTACHED
STATED CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT
Approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2022.
Owner/Applicant Date
Owner/Applicant Date
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 11
CONDITIONS, POLICIES, AND SELECTED CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT NO. P21-000087
LOCATION: 114 BLUFF DRIVE, APN 010-562-010
Conditions as indicated below have been deemed to be of a substantive nature on the basis of the Planning Commission's decision. These conditions cannot be altered without Planning Commission approval.
A. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT:
BUILDING DIVISION
1. All construction shall conform to the edition of the applicable California Building Code (CBC) or California Residential Code (CRC), the California Plumbing Code, the California Mechanical Code, the California Electrical Code, the California Energy Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code, including City of Pismo Beach amendments, in effect when an application for a construction permit is submitted to the Building Division.
2. An application for a Building Permit remains valid for 365 days after the date of filing. If a permit is not issued by this date, the application shall expire. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant must confirm that Planning approvals remain valid and then submit a new application, plans and documentation and pay a new plan review fee.
3. All required documents essential to the design of the project shall be submitted with the construction permit application. No deferred submittals, such as truss details, fire sprinkler plans, metal fabrication drawings, etc., are allowed.
4. City of Pismo Beach policy requires a soils investigation for all new buildings and additions where the new floor area will exceed 500 square feet. The soils engineer shall evaluate soils in the area of the proposed structure and offer appropriate recommendations. The soils report shall be unique to this lot and current (dated less than 2 years prior to permit application date) and submitted with the building permit application.
5. Underground electric service conductors are required.
6. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system is required at the new structure. [§ R313.2, R313.2.1 CRC]
7. The location of this project is in a noise critical area identified by the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Interior community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) with windows closed, attributed to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. Provide an acoustical analysis report, prepared Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 12
under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit. The report shall show:
• Topographical relationship of noise sources and dwelling site. • Identification of noise sources and their characteristics, predicted noise spectra at the exterior of the proposed dwelling structure considering present and future land usage.
• Basis for the prediction (measured or obtained from published data), noise attenuation measures to be applied, and an analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction showing that the prescribed interior noise level requirements are met.
• If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be non- openable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation to provide a habitable interior environment.
8. The project is located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is subject to the requirements of Section R327 of the CA Residential Code.
9. All conditions of the Planning Permit, such as required lot mergers, a required subdivision map, public improvement design documents, mitigation measures and any other requirement of the City shall be completely satisfied prior to Building Permit issuance for the project. No building permits for a part of the overall project will be considered, such as early grading, foundation only, partial demolition, etc.
PLANNING DIVISION
10. COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Planner shall confirm that the construction plot plan and building elevations are in compliance with the Planning Commission's approval and these conditions. Project shall comply with these standards:
Item Approved
Lot Area 54,886 sf
Building Height 10' (186')
Building Floor Area 9,642 sf 32.9%
Lot Coverage 10,073 sf (19.5%)
Planting Area 43,458 sf (79.2%)
Setbacks Sides — 10'
Rear— 208'
11. COLORS AND MATERIALS. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those shown on the color board as reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on April 26, 2022.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 13
12. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. The project shall comply with all recommendations of the Earth Systems Pacific Geotechnical Engineering And Geologic Hazards Report dated August 3, 2021.
13. LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLANS. Landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing the entire site shall be submitted by the project applicant to the City for review and approval by the project planner. Detailed calculations shall be provided on the face of the plan indicating the provision of a minimum of 40% landscaping provided for the project site. The Plans shall be consistent with Chapter 15.48 of the City of Pismo Beach Municipal Code. The landscape plan shall include the following provisions:
a. Use of low-water-using irrigation systems. Drip irrigation shall be used. b. Landscape Design Plan (including a plant list that only uses drought tolerant of local native plant varieties).
c. Irrigation Design Plan.
d. Tree list, including mature height of all trees not to exceed the height of the residence.
e. Landscaping square footage shall be calculated based on the lot size after any dedication.
f. The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requires City provided forms for Prescriptive Compliance water use to be submitted with the Building Permit Plans.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
14. Engineering standard conditions (notes): Shall be placed on the plans at time of submittal. A copy may be obtained through the Engineering Department.
15. Project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and specifications and in accordance with all applicable City Ordinances. The decision of the City Engineer shall be final regarding the specific standards that shall apply.
16. Appropriate City standards shall be referred to on the plans and shall be included on a detail sheet within the plan set.
17. Encroachment Permits are required prior to any/all work in the public right of way. City Streets are to remain open to through traffic at all times. A traffic control plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval prior to detours or rerouting of traffic. Excavation within the streets shall be covered or backfilled and paved prior to the end of work each day. No temporary or long term parking, storage, or disposal of construction equipment or materials within the right-of-way shall occur without prior issuance of an encroachment permit.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 14
18. The applicant shall provide a current title report to the Engineering Division.
19. Driveways and driveway approaches shall be located and constructed per City of Pismo Beach standards. Profiles shall be provided for all interior driveways.
20. The Owner and/or owner's contractor are to take precaution against damaging road surfaces. Note: The existing street sections adjacent the property may be substandard and may be subject to damage by heavy loading/equipment during construction. The owner is responsible for protection against and/or repair of, at owner's expense, any/all damage incurred during and/or due to construction.
21. Erosion and Drainage control features are to be available to be placed in the event of rain or other erosive action to prevent any sediment or refuse from leaving the site. Erosion control devices shall be installed and in place following daily construction activities. The applicant shall notify the Engineering Division of any changes in construction which will require additional erosion control measures. No Building Permits will be issued without prior approval of the Engineering Division and an approved erosion and sediment control plan and construction schedule. Erosion control measures shall be in place and approved by the Engineering Division prior to the start of construction.
Grading and Drainage Plans
22. A Preliminary Soils and/or Geology Report providing technical specifications for grading of the site shall be prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer.
23. All grading and drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and subject to approval by the City Engineer.
24. The project shall conform to the City's Storm Water Discharge Ordinance.
25. Post Construction Requirements: In order for the proposed development to maintain conformance with the City's Regional Stormwater Permit, implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) source control, site design, and stormwater treatment onsite or at a joint stormwater treatment facility shall be required. The stormwater design shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and in addition shall provide mitigation for post development runoff versus pre- development runoff. A Stormwater Control Plan application shall be submitted.
26. A Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) shall be submitted.
27. Calculations and/or a drainage report must be submitted with the plans.
28. The applicant shall submit a composite utility plan.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 15
29. All off-site public improvement plans shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The improvements shall be designed and placed to the Public Works Department Standards and Specifications.
30. An Erosion and Drainage Control Plan shall be submitted in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance. The plan shall reflect "Best Management Practices" as proposed in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, and shall include both temporary measures (to be used during construction, and until permanent measures are completed/established) and permanent measures. Plan shall include both source control and perimeter containment measures. All Drainage and Erosion Control Measures shall be designed and/or sized by a qualified professional.
31. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan per the State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity shall be provided for any site that disturbs greater than or equal to one acre, including projects that are less than one acre that are part of a larger plan of development or sale that would disturb more than one acre.
Utilities
32. The applicant shall install all utilities.
33. All utilities shall be extended to the boundaries of the project.
34. Sewer System Requirements. Applicant is required to show the existing location of the Sewer Main in the street and location of the sewer lateral, if existing, on the plans. If no lateral exists or existing lateral is in poor condition, then applicant is responsible for all costs, materials and labor for the installation of a new lateral. If existing sewer lateral is to be utilized, the applicant must have a video inspection performed of the sewer lateral to confirm the condition and material of the lateral and provide the Public Works department with a copy of the video for review. Show size and type of all sewer lines.
35. Water System Requirements. Applicant is required to show the existing location of the Water Main in the street and location of the existing water lateral, if existing, on the plans. The size of the proposed lateral and proposed water meter shall be shown on the plans. If existing lateral is inadequate for the proposed water meter, then applicant is responsible for all costs, materials and labor for the installation of a new water lateral. Show size and type of all water lines. Minimum water lateral and meter size is 1".
36. All wire utility services to the project shall be located underground.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 16
B. CONDITIONS TO BE MET DURING CONSTRUCTION:
BUILDING DIVISION
1. SITE MAINTENANCE. During construction, the site shall be maintained so as to not infringe on neighboring property, such as debris and dust.
PLANNING DIVISION
2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS. In the event unforeseen archaeological resources are unearthed during any construction activities, all grading and or excavation shall cease in the immediate area and the find left untouched. The Building Official shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, Native American, or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate. The qualified professional shall evaluate the find and make reservations related to the preservation or disposition of artifacts in accordance with applicable laws and ordinances. If discovered archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case when human remains are discovered during construction, the Building Official shall notify to county coroner. If human remains are found to be of ancient age and of archaeological and spiritual significance, the Building Official shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The developer shall be liable for costs associated with the professional investigation.
3. Certification of compliance with the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to foundation approvals. A final report certifying compliance with the soils report or grading plans shall be submitted to the Building Division prior to final approvals.
4. A licensed surveyor or engineer shall verify pad elevations, setbacks, prior to foundation inspection, and roof elevations, prior to roof sheeting inspection, when determined necessary by the Planning Department.
C. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO REQUEST FOR A FRAMING INSPECTION:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. ROOF HEIGHT. Prior to requesting a framing inspection, a licensed surveyor shall measure and certify the height of the building including anticipated finishing materials. Height to be certified as shown on approved plans.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 17
D. CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION AND ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPING. All landscaping and irrigation systems shown on the approved plans shall be installed by the applicant and shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Project Planner prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
BUILDING DIVISION
2. Prior to Building Division final approval, all required inspections from the other various divisions must have been completed and verified by a city inspector.
E. CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO ONGOING COMPLIANCE:
1. ROOF-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. All roof-mounted air conditioning or heating equipment, vents or ducts shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Project Planner.
2. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. All applicable requirements of any law or agency of the State, City of Pismo Beach and any other governmental entity at the time of construction shall be met. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.
3. HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant, as a condition of approval, hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City as a result of the action or inaction by the City, or from any claim to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval by the City of the applicant's project; or applicant's failure to comply with conditions of approval. This condition shall be binding on all successors and assigns.
4. The property owner and the applicant (if different) shall sign these Conditions of Approval within ten (10) working days of receipt; the permit is not valid until signed by the property owner and applicant.
-END-
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 18
ATTACHMENT 2
-
f'
�y • _��r + ,-. �.� ,� � � -fit� ."ems►. _ as AL&
SWIMk - 7
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 114 Bluff Drive - P21-000087 7.13 - 19
•�r•t
� �.�'�1 •'Psi � w� a "i4' n `����, ti
t _
KIL
1 Will
if
Ar
r�
Aerial View
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 114 Bluff Drive - P21-000087 7.13 - 20
ATTACHMENT 3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND POLICIES
P21-000087 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT /ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT 114 BLUFF DRIVE - APN 010-562-010
Table 3-1 -General Plan Policies
Policy# Policy Consistency Issues
Land Use Element(LUE)
LU-A-1 The Ontario Ridge area should be designated for Low None.
Density Residential development and Open Space with
There is an existing trail
an emphasis on preservation of the Ontario Ridge in its system that runs along the
natural setting and with public access and recreation bluff edge for the length of along the ocean bluffs.
the subdivision.
LU-A-2 The upper slopes and hillsides of Ontario Ridge are None. subject to an open space easement and shall be
restricted to agricultural open space for limited cattle The open space easement is in place and each lot has an
grazing. No structures shall be permitted in this area. approved building envelope.
LU-A-4 Development shall be prohibited on lands with slope in None. excess of 30 percent and above the 200-foot contour.
The approved building
envelopes for the tract were
approved in 1990, in
compliance with this policy.
Design Element(D)
D-2(a) Building and Site Design Criteria. None. a. Small Scale. New development should be Planning Commission will designed to reflect the small-scale image of the city perform Architectural rather than create large monolithic buildings.Apartment, Review. condominium and hotel buildings should preferably be
contained in several smaller massed buildings rather than one large building. Building mass and building surfaces such as roofs and exterior walls shall be highly articulated to maintain a rich visual texture and an intimate building scale. Maximum height, setback, and
site coverage standards to achieve the desired small-
scale character will be regulated by City ordinance.
Except where specified otherwise by this Plan or further limited by the implementing ordinance, the maximum
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 21
Table 3-1 - General Plan Policies
Policy# Policy Consistency Issues
height standard for new buildings shall not be more than 25 feet above existing natural grade in Neighborhood
Planning Areas A through J, and Q; and not more than 35 feet above existing natural grade in the remaining portions of the Coastal Zone.
Conservation and Open Space Element(CO)
CO-5 Protect Archaeological Resources None.
Archaeological and paleontological resources are A phase 1 study(Gibson, declared to be important to be conserved. The City shall 1997)was completed for the have available a map that identifies the possible location original residence; no of archeological resources. materials were found.
As part of the CEQA process for all new development
projects, all known or potential archaeological resources shall be fully investigated by a qualified archaeologist recognized by the state Historic Preservation Office.
Appropriate protections shall be determined as part of
the review process including:
a. Locations within the city known to have a high
probability of occurrence of archeological sites
shall be zoned in the Archeological Resources
overlay district.
b. Sites of statewide or national significance shall be nominated for inclusion in the Registry of
California Historic Landmarks or National Historic
Landmark Program. CO-7
c. Specific recommendations prepared by the
archaeologist shall be incorporated into project
approval including: avoidance of portions of sites
containing resources, minimizing the impacts of
the development on the archaeological resources,
preserving a full archaeological record, and/or
partial site dedication, and providing a native
American monitor onsite to observe excavations
in locations where there is a possibility of
discovery of human remains.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 22
Table 3-1 - General Plan Policies
Policy# Policy Consistency Issues
CO-6 Construction Suspension None.
Should archaeological or paleontological resources be The project is conditioned disclosed during any construction activity, all activity that to comply with this could damage or destroy the resources shall be requirement. Refer to suspended until a qualified archaeologist has examined Condition of Approval No. the site. Construction shall not resume until mitigation B-2. measures have been developed and carried out to
address the impacts of the project on these resources.
CO-11 Development in all foothill areas with slope under 30% Amount of cut and fill shall comply with the following: associated with the tunnel may not be consistent with
a. Erosion. A drainage and erosion control plan shall be the intent of CO-11 to required prior to approval of discretionary permits. minimize grading and Erosion control methods shall be implemented and impacts to natural maintained during and after construction landforms.
b. Landscaping. After completion of construction and
before occupancy of the structure, landscaping shall be a. Erosion and drainage installed per approved landscape plans. Landscape plans plan provided. Drainage shall include the following:
All cut and fill areas shall be revegetated pipes will be installed • predominantly with native species that require little and will tie into existing water and blend with the natural landscape; and residence's drainage • Landscaping and trees shall be planted to soften system. and partially obscure structures from the view shed b. Landscaping provided to below. Attention shall also be given to conserving screen views to pool the views from the development. deck.
• Development approvals shall incorporate a c. No sensitive habitats landscape management plan, which shall include a located onsite. monitoring program. d. The project involves cuts c. Sensitive Habitats. Development in the coastal of 60'deep at the foothills shall minimize removal of natural vegetation and elevator and 16.78'at shall preserve sensitive habitats. Development adjacent to areas considered to have environ- mentally sensitive the cave entrance. habitat(s) shall be designed to minimize impacts that Planning Commission could degrade the habitat. will need to determine if d. Grading. Development shall be designed to minimize this an appropriate use grading and emphasize natural landforms. Techniques and consistent with shall include contour grading, use of daylight cuts and Policy CO-11. fills, use of 3:1 and 4:1 slopes, and generally limiting cuts e. Views are not impacted and fills to no more than 15 ft. in height. by the new development.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 23
Table 3-1 - General Plan Policies
Policy# Policy Consistency Issues
e. Views. Development shall be planned to take advantage of views of the ocean and surrounding hills.
Such views shall not only be from private properties but also from the public streets and open space systems.
1983 Zoning Overlay Zone Related Issue
Code Section Conditions
Number
17.063 Archaeology and Historic Sites(A) COA# B-2 None.
Requires archaeological surface A phase 1 study(Gibson, survey for all sites in this zone; 1997)was completed for additional study or mitigation may the original resdience; no be required depending on results of materials were found. survey.
17.069 Architectural Review Overlay N/A None.
Zone
Planning Commission will
(Chapter 17.069) -Zoning Code
perform Architectural
Section 17.105.120(1) and Section Review.
17.069.020(3) note required
Planning Commission review to
ensure the construction is an
appropriate size, structures
compatible with adjacent structures,
the immediate neighborhood, and
Planning Area visual quality.
17.078 Hazards and Protection Overlay N/A None.
Zone A Coastal Bluff Evaluation
(Chapter 17.078) - New structures was completed as part of shall be set back a sufficient distance the original Tract 1618 from bluff edge to be safe from the approvals. Development threat of bluff erosion for a envelopes were
minimum of 100 years.The City shall established consistent determine the required setback with this requirement. based on the criteria listed in Section New development is
17.078.050. more than 300'from the
top of the bluff and is not
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 24
impacted by bluff
erosion.
Table 3-2
1983 Zoning Code Development Standards
Planned Residential (PR)
Ontario Ridge Planning Area
Item Permitted/Required Code Section Proposed Complies? ZONING CODE - Planned Residential (PR)
Lot Area 5,000 sf 17.102.060 54,886 sf Yes
Building 25'above the center of Specific Plan 10'(186') Yes Height building footprint at existing
site grade. EG = 176'at 17.102.010
center of cabana
Building 80% of building envelope Specific Plan 32.9%/9,642 sf Yes Floor Area 29,262 sf= 23,408 sf.
Lot 40% of 54,866 sf= 21,954 sf Specific Plan 19.5%/ 10,073 sf Yes Coverage max.
Planting 40% of 54,886 sf= 21,954 sf Specific Plan 79.2%/43,458 sf Yes Area minimum
Side, rear 10'- side Specific Plan 10'- side Yes setbacks 100'- rear 208'- rear
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 25
ATTACHMENT 4
C,ly 0,0 CITY OF PISMO BEACH
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
0 To: County Clerk-Recorder's Office From: City of Pismo Beach County of San Luis Obispo 760 Mattie Road
1055 Monterey Street, Suite D120 Pismo Beach, CA 93449-2056 San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Project Title/ CEQA No.: Categorical Exemption No.: 2022-009 (Permit#:P21-000087) Project Applicant/ Email/ Phone: Thierry& Carol Thaure (425)208-5503 thierry(a)triflocv.com Project Location—Address: 114 Bluff Drive
Project Location —City: Pismo Beach
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
A request for a Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review Permit for the construction of a tunnel complex with a new garage and elevator to access a new cabana and pool above an existing single-family residence
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Pismo Beach Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Thierry& Carol Thaure Exempt Status (check one):
❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268)
❑ Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)) ❑ Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)) ❑x Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: [15303(e)] ❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
The project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption because it consists of the construction of accessory structures to an existing single-family residence in a residential Lead Agency Contact Person: Michael Gruver
Contact: (805) 773-4658
Email: [email protected]
If filed by applicant:
• Attached certified document of exemption finding.
• Has a notice of exemption been filed by the Public Agency approving the project? ❑ yes ❑ no ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signature: _. Title: Associate Planner Date: 4/14/2022 ® Signed by Lead Agency 1 ❑ Signed by Applicant
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 26
ATTACHMENT 5
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REPORT
THAURE RESIDENCE POOL AND CABANA
114 BLUFF DRIVE
PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA
August 3, 2021
Prepared for
Mr. Thierry Thaure
Prepared by
Earth Systems Pacific
4378 Old Santa Fe Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Copyright © 2021
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 27
0 0% Earth Systems
"I'Mmw 4378 Old Santa Fe Road I San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 1 Ph:905.544.3276 1 www.earthsystems.com August 3, 2021
FILE NO.: 304596-001
Mr. Thierry Thaure
114 Bluff Drive
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
PROJECT: THAURE RESIDENCE POOL AND CABANA
114 BLUFF DRIVE
PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Hazards Report
CONTRACT
REF: Earth Systems Pacific Proposal to Provide a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation and Geologic Hazards Assessment, dated May 5, 2021, Doc.
No. SLO-2105-015.PRP
Dear Mr. Thaure:
As requested, and in accordance with the referenced proposal,this geotechnical engineering and geologic hazards report has been prepared for use in the development of plans and specifications for the proposed improvements at 114 Bluff Drive in Pismo Beach, California. Geotechnical recommendations are presented herein for site preparation, grading, utility trenches, foundations, interior slabs-on-grade, pedestrian flatwork, retaining walls, swimming pool design, drainage and maintenance, and observation and testing. This report also describes the general geologic characteristics, identifies existing and potential geologic hazards, and discusses the impacts the geologic conditions may have upon the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to have provided services for this project and look forward to working with you again in the future. If there are any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Earth Systems Pacific
DRAF' i
Copy to: Love Architecture,Attn.: Mr. Don Love
Condor Earth,Attn.: Mr.Scott Lewis
Doc. No.: 2108-001.SGR/cr
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 ii 7.B - 28
O"Azr
Table of Contents
COVERLETTER................................................................................................................ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 1
3.0 SITE SETTING ................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................... 3
5.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 4
6.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE AND GEOLOGIC PROFILE ........................................................ 4
7.0 GEOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 4 GeologicSetting............................................................................................................ 4 Faulting.......................................................................................................................... 5 Groundwater................................................................................................................. 8
8.0 SEISMICITY .................................................................................................................... 8 EarthquakeHistory ....................................................................................................... 8 Ground Motion Analyses.............................................................................................. 9 Seismic Design Category............................................................................................. 10 Seismic Design Parameters......................................................................................... 10
9.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS................................................................................................... 11 Surface Ground Rupture............................................................................................. 11 Seismically Induced Settlement.................................................................................. 12 SlopeStability.............................................................................................................. 12 RockFall ...................................................................................................................... 13 Flooding....................................................................................................................... 14 Tsunami and Seiche Potential..................................................................................... 14 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ..................................................................................... 14 Radon .......................................................................................................................... 15
10.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 15
11.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................... 16 SitePreparation .......................................................................................................... 18 Grading........................................................................................................................ 18 UtilityTrenches........................................................................................................... 20 Foundations ................................................................................................................ 21 Slabs-on-Grade and Exterior Pedestrian Flatwork ..................................................... 24 RetainingWalls ........................................................................................................... 27 Drainage and Maintenance......................................................................................... 31 Observation and Testing............................................................................................. 32
12.0 CLOSURE...................................................................................................................... 33 TECHNICAL REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 35 Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 iii 7.B - 29
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Figure 1 —Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Exploration Location Map
Boring Log Legend
Boring Logs
• ESP 2021
• Condor Earth 2021
APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
• ESP 2021
• Condor Earth 2021
APPENDIX C Figure 3a — Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3b— Regional Geologic Map Legend
Figure 4— Historical Seismicity Map
Figure 5 — Rock Fall Potential
Figure 6— FEMA Flood Zone Map
Figure 7 — Indoor Radon Potential Map
APPENDIX D Seismic Tables and Charts
APPENDIX E Seismic Settlement Calculations— Unsaturated Soil Settlement for Boring 1 (ESP 2021)
APPENDIX F Typical Detail A: Pipe Placed Parallel to Foundations Tremie Method
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 iv 7.13 - 30
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed project will consist of constructing a pool with an attached spa and a single-story cabana located upslope from the existing residence at 114 Bluff Drive in Pismo Beach, California (see Figure 1 — Site Vicinity Map for project location). The project will also consist of a tunnel that will run from the northern end of the existing driveway,where a shotcrete retaining wall will be constructed, and below the pool/spa/cabana to an elevator shaft that will connect to the cabana;the tunnel,shotcrete retaining wall and elevator work will be addressed by Condor Earth.
We understand the construction sequencing will consist of constructing and completing the tunnel/wall/shaft first, followed by the pool/spa/cabana.
We understand that the proposed pool and attached spa will have footprints of 500 and 64 square feet, respectively,while the cabana will have a footprint of roughly 3,000 square feet.The cabana will be single-story, with finished floor at Elev. 167.5 (per plan set by Love Architecture 2021), and the pool and spa will be 5 to 10 feet deep, with pool bottom ranging from roughly Elev. 162.5 to 157.5. The pool and spa will be supported by cast-in-place, drilled concrete caissons while the cabana will be supported by slabs-on-grade over conventional shallow foundations. Maximum dead plus live areal pressures for the pool on the order of 800 psf have been assumed, while maximum wall and column loads on the order of 2 kips per linear foot and 15 kips, respectively, have been assumed for the cabana. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required to support the cuts at the back wall of the cabana, with walls up to 10 feet tall for the pool and spa. The pool/spa/cabana is located uphill and to the north of the existing residence and will be accessed from the driveway adjacent to the residence via a tunnel and elevator shaft, both of which will be investigated and designed by Condor Earth and are not included in the scope of this investigation. Additional improvements will consist of flatwork, landscaping, and utilities. Drainage basins or low impact development/best management practices (LID/BMP) features requiring infiltration testing have not been identified as being part of the project, and therefore have not been addressed.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of work for this report included a field reconnaissance by a registered geotechnical engineer and a certified engineering geologist, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing of samples obtained during the field investigation, geotechnical, and geologic analyses of the data, and preparation of this report. The analysis and subsequent recommendations were based on the findings from our field and laboratory testing, the proposed development described herein, and our experience with similar projects.
Fditg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 1 21074Br.13A
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
This report and geotechnical recommendations are intended to comply with the considerations of Sections 1803.1 through 1803.7, J104.3 and J104.4, as applicable, of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), and common geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practice in this area under similar conditions at this time. The geotechnical test procedures were accomplished in general conformance with the standards noted, as modified by common geotechnical engineering practice in this area under similar conditions at this time.
Geotechnical recommendations for site preparation,grading, utility trenches,foundations,slabs- on-grade, exterior pedestrian flatwork, retaining walls, drainage and maintenance, and observation and testing are provided in this report. This report also describes the general geologic characteristics, identifies existing and potential geologic hazards, and discusses the impacts the geologic conditions may have upon the project. The items above are presented to guide the development of project plans and specifications. It is our intent that this geotechnical/geologic report be used exclusively by the client to form the geotechnical/geologic basis of the design, and in the preparation of plans and specifications. Application beyond this intent is strictly at the user's risk.
This report does not address dewatering and other issues in the domain of contractors such as, but not limited to, site safety, loss of volume due to stripping of the site, shrinkage of soils during compaction, excavatability, shoring, temporary slope angles, construction means and methods, etc. Analyses of the soil for mold potential, asbestos in man-made products, lead, radioisotopes, hydrocarbons,or chemical properties are beyond the scope of this report. Ancillary features such as temporary access roads, and non-structural fills are not within our scope and are also not addressed.
As there may be unresolved geotechnical issues with respect to this project, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to provide consultation as the design progresses, to review project plans as they near completion to assist in verifying that pertinent geotechnical issues have been addressed and to aid in conformance with the intent of this report. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, or location of improvements, or if any assumptions used in the preparation of this report prove to be incorrect,the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are verified or are modified in writing. The criteria presented in this report are considered preliminary until such time as any peer review or review by any jurisdiction has been completed,conditions are observed by the geotechnical engineer in the field during construction, and the recommendations have been verified as appropriate or modified in writing.
FdMWiog Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 2 21o74Br.5U
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
3.0 SITE SETTING
The site is located at the northern portion of the property at 114 Bluff Drive in Pismo Beach, California (see Figure 1 — Site Vicinity Map in Appendix A for location). The approximate coordinates and elevation of the center of the project area, as obtained from the Google Earth website (Google Earth 2021), are latitude 35.1762N, longitude 120.7112W, and 170 feet above mean sea level, respectively. The site is located within the Ontario Ridge/Sunset Palisades neighborhood planning area of the City of Pismo Beach (Pismo Beach 2014).
The existing residence is located on the southern portion of the site while the proposed improvements will be located upslope from the residence on the northern part of the property.
The site is bounded at the north by Ontario Ridge, at the south by the existing residence and Bluff Drive beyond, and at the west and east by residential properties.The site is generally unimproved and generally surfaced by wild grass and low shrubs. The slope ascends to the north at an average gradient of 3:1 (horizontal:vertical)to about a maximum elevation of 575 feet at the bluff behind the property.
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Two exploratory borings were drilled in the project area on May 19, 2021 by Taber drilling with a CME-55 track mounted drill rig, equipped with 4-inch outside diameter solid stem auger and an automatic trip hammer for sampling. The borings, labelled 131 and B2 (ESP 2021) in Figure 2 — Exploration Location Map, were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 31.5 feet below the existing ground surfaces (bgs). Taber drilling also performed two borings for Condor Earth, labelled C131 and CB2 (Condor Earth 2021) in the Exploration Location Map, which were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 64 feet bgs.
Soils encountered in our borings (131 and 132) were categorized and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM D 2488-17. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A, along with a Boring Log Legend. In reviewing the boring logs and legend, the reader should recognize that the legend is intended as a guideline only, and there are a number of conditions that may influence the characteristics observed during drilling. These include, but are not limited to, the presence of cobbles or boulders, cementation, variations in soil moisture, presence of groundwater, and other factors. Consequently, the logger must exercise judgment in interpreting the subsurface characteristics, possibly resulting in soil and bedrock descriptions that vary somewhat from the legend. The reader should also consider the sampler type used when reviewing the blow counts.
FdMWiog Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 3 2107-($15U
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
As the borings were drilled, soil samples were obtained using a ring-lined barrel sampler (ASTM D 3550-17 with shoe similar to D 2937-17). Standard penetration tests were also performed (ASTM D 1586/1) 1586-18) at selected depths. Bag soil samples were obtained from the auger cuttings. The borings were backfilled with grout, per the requirements of the governing jurisdiction, and capped with soil.
5.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Selected soil samples were tested in our laboratory for unit weight and moisture content (ASTM D 2937-17, modified for ring liners), expansion index (ASTM D 4829-11), maximum density and optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557-12), cohesion and angle of shearing resistance (ASTM D 3080/3080M-11, recompacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density and to in-situ density, and modified for consolidated, undrained conditions), grain size distribution by sieve analysis (ASTM D 1140-17) and consolidation (ASTM D 2435/D 2435M-11). Unconsolidated undrained triaxial shear strength testing (ASTM D 2850) was subcontracted to Cooper Testing Labs in Palo Alto, California. The results of the laboratory tests for our investigation, as well as the results from Condor Earth, are presented in Appendix B.
6.0 GENERAL SUBSURFACE AND GEOLOGIC PROFILE
Below the surface in both Borings B1 and B2, colluvial deposits were encountered to the maximum depth explored of approximately 31.5 feet bgs. The colluvial deposits are assumed to overlie marine terrace deposits and shale bedrock of the Monterey formation, although the terrace deposits may not be represented. The colluvial deposits generally consisted of sandy, silty and clayey soils with varying amounts of gravel in a slightly moist to very moist condition.
The sands had a loose to medium dense consistency and the silts and clays were stiff to very stiff.
Subsurface water was not encountered in either boring.
Similar conditions were logged in Borings CB1 and CB2 by Condor Earth to the maximum depth explored of approximately 64 feet bgs. Please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A for a more complete description of the subsurface conditions.
7.0 GEOLOGY
Geologic Setting
The site lies upon a prism of colluvial material shed from the adjacent slope, this prism forms a transition between the mountains of the San Luis Range to the north and marine terrace deposits 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 4 21074B17-5
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
to the south, and in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California (CGS 2002). The colluvial prism is assumed to overlie a seaward sloping accumulation of near shore marine sediments and alluvium deposited on an emergent wave cut platform that has been uplifted by regional tectonic forces. The colluvial prism laps onto marine terrace deposits that extend to the south where steep cliffs step down to the active wave cut platform of the Pacific Ocean. The terrace is pinched out as it approaches Pirates Cove, and extends down the coast to Pismo Creek, where the creek channel has incised and truncated the wave cut platform.
This portion of coastal central California has been described in the context of seismotectonic domains by Clark and others (1994). Each domain is separated by major, predominantly quaternary, boundary faults. Pismo Beach is within the triangular shaped Santa Maria basin-San Luis Range domain, which is bounded by the offshore Hosgri fault zone to the west, the Los Osos fault system on the northeast, and the Santa Ynez fault to the south (Clark et al 1994).
Tectonically, the region is dominated by the Los Osos and the San Luis Range faults (Lettis and Hall 1994).
According to the Geologic Map of the Pismo Beach Quadrangle by Wiegers (2011), the project site is underlain by bedrock of the Monterey formation (Tmc),which is a bedded shale comprised of layers of chert and diatomite (see Figures 3a and 3b — Regional Geologic Map and Legend).
Our subsurface exploration performed for this site encountered unconsolidated colluvial deposits of poorly graded sand (SP) to silt (ML) to clay (CL), generally with gravel that appear to have been primarily derived from the Monterey shale. Mixtures of silty sand and sandy lean clay are most prevalent. These soil types are consistent with the geologic units and geomorphology observed and although they are not the same as what has been mapped by Wiegers,the colluvial prism is consistent with the environment in which it was observed, and the map unit Qop2 mapped by Wiegers south of Bluff Drive and to the east.
Faulting
Faults are classified by the State of California based on the likelihood of generating ground motions and surface rupture. The classification system applies to known faults that have been compiled by numerous researchers through various methods of investigation. The State evaluates faults with documented ground rupture during the last 11,700 years and considers them for inclusion in Earthquake Fault Zones requiring investigation (A-P Zones), which encompass traces of Holocene-active faults, as defined by the State's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (California 1972). The State's guidance is intended to prohibit developments 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 5 2107-($15U
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults (CGS 2018). Other active faults capable of generating strong ground motion are present in the region but are not included in A-P Zones because they do not meet the criteria of "sufficiently active and well-defined." Significant Faults
The site is within a seismically active region and the project will experience seismic shaking during its design life. Known faults and fault systems within the region that potentially could generate earthquakes affecting the site include the San Luis Range, Los Osos, Hosgri-San Simeon, Oceanic- West Huasna, Rinconada, and San Andreas faults. These are several of the known faults that could produce seismic shaking at the site; other unknown faults may exist in the region and movement on any known or unknown faults in the region could affect the proposed development during its design life.
The closest significant mapped fault to the site is the late Pre-Holocene San Luis Bay fault of the San Luis Range fault system. This fault, along with the Wilmar Avenue fault, is considered a bounding fault of the San Luis Range, which has been tectonically uplifted on the northeast side of the fault. The distance of the San Luis Bay fault from the site is poorly constrained as it appears to be offshore from Shell Beach and cannot be observed directly. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) considers the fault to be located less than 2,000 feet south of the site (USGS 2021a). The closest Holocene-active fault to the site included in an A-P Zone is the Irish Hills segment of the Los Osos fault, located approximately 3.9 miles northeast of the site; the zoned portion of the Los Osos fault is located approximately 6.2 miles north of the site (Treiman 1989, CDMG 1990). The regional faults and locations of historic earthquake events are depicted on Figure 4—Historical Seismicity Map in Appendix C.The faults considered in our analysis are listed in Table D-1— Fault Parameters, in Appendix D.
San Luis Range Fault System
The San Luis Range fault system consists of a series of west-northwest trending faults that include the Santa Maria River, Wilmar Avenue, Oceano, San Luis Bay, and San Miguelito faults. The Wilmar Avenue fault extends from northern Nipomo to Pismo Beach, where it is exposed in the ocean bluff at the end of Wilmar Avenue. At this location, Pleistocene terrace deposits are displaced in the face of the bluff. The San Luis Range fault (south margin) is considered capable of a magnitude 7.49 earthquake (USGS 2014).
FdMWiog Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 6 2107-(B15N
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
Los Osos Fault
The Los Osos fault zone is comprised of four distinct segments. From northwest to southeast the segments are Estero Bay, Irish Hills, Lopez Reservoir, and Newsom Ridge (Lettis and Hall 1994).
The Los Osos fault is approximately 3.9 miles from the site. The Irish Hills segment of the Los Osos fault, located approximately 6.2 miles to the north, is the closest Holocene-active fault to the site included in a State Earthquake Fault Zone under the Alquist-Priolo Act (Hart and Bryant 2007). Parts of the Estero Bay segment are also included in a County designated special studies zone (SLO Co 2021). The Los Osos fault is considered capable of a magnitude 7.15 earthquake (USGS 2014).
Hosgri-San Simeon Fault System
The Hosgri-San Simeon fault system lies offshore approximately 10 miles west of the site. A northwest-trending strike-slip fault,the San Simeon fault extends from offshore of Ragged Point to just offshore of San Simeon Point,where it joins the northern end of the Hosgri fault; from this point the Hosgri fault extends to an ocean shelf 2 miles west of Point Buchon, and then trends toward the Point Sal area. The fault system is considered Holocene-active and is included in an A-P Zone between San Simeon Point and Arroyo de le Cruz (CDMG 1986b). The Hosgri-San Simeon fault is considered capable of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake (USGS 2014).
Oceanic-West Huasna Fault
The Oceanic-West Huasna fault zone separates the Santa Lucia and San Rafael Mountains from a series of distinct tectonic domains stretching from Cambria to the western Transverse Ranges (Lettis et al 2004). This Fault system trends northwest-southeast for approximately 75 miles and is located about 10 miles northeast of the site. The Oceanic-West Huasna fault is considered capable of a magnitude 7.2 earthquake (USGS 2014).
Rinconada Fault Zone
The Rinconada fault zone lacks obvious Holocene offset and therefore does not meet the State's criteria for inclusion in an A-P zone; nonetheless, it is considered an active fault and is included as a seismic source in regional models. The Rinconada fault is a northwest trending high angle fault that forms the boundary between two dissimilar geologic terranes. Northeast of the Rinconada fault is the Salinian Block, composed of crystalline plutonic and metamorphic rock overlain by a thick sequence of marine sedimentary rocks. Southwest of the Rinconada fault is the Coastal Block, composed of Franciscan melange overlain by marine sedimentary rocks 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7 21074Br.13�
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
(Dibblee 1976). The Rinconada fault is mapped as several anastomosing strands with the seismogenic plane modeled approximately 15 miles northeast of the site. The Rinconada fault is estimated to be capable of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake (Cao et al 2003).
San Andreas Fault
The San Andreas fault is considered the potential source of the largest regional earthquake. The San Andreas fault has a total length of approximately 671 miles and is divided into segments based on geometry and known historic behavior with some segments capable of earthquakes up to magnitude 7.5 (Cao, et. al. 2003). Simultaneous rupture of more than one segment can cause an earthquake of magnitude 8 or more. The Cholame-Carrizo segment is located approximately 43 miles east of the site, is approximately 125 miles long and is in an A-P Zone (CDMG 1986a).
This fault ruptured during the magnitude 7.9 earthquake in 1857.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the four borings (ESP 2021 and Condor Earth 2021), which were drilled to a maximum depth of 64 feet. No publicly available groundwater well data was available in the immediate site area (CDWR 2021). Perched groundwater may occur following periods of heavy rainfall on the wave cut bench, which is interpolated to be at an approximate elevation of 48 feet, or more than 50 feet beneath the site. Groundwater at this elevation is not anticipated to impact the project.
8.0 SEISMICITY
Earthquake History
The historic seismicity in the site's region was researched using a catalog of historical California earthquakes (ANSS 2021). We compiled the epicentral distance for earthquakes within the search parameters: Richter magnitudes ranging from 5.0 to 9.0, within a 65-mile radius from the site, from 1800 to December 2020. The epicentral distances should be considered estimates, particularly for earthquake data prior to 1932, when modern instruments were first used to record earthquake data. The site coordinates used in this search were 35.1762 degrees north latitude and 120.7112 degrees west longitude. Figure 4— Historical Seismicity Map presented in Appendix D, graphically depicts historical earthquake epicenters, their corresponding magnitudes, and the faults within the general region of the project. 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 8 2107-($15U
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
Results of the search indicated that within the search parameters, 30 earthquakes with magnitude greater than or equal to 5.0 have occurred within 65 miles of the site. The largest magnitude earthquake that occurred during the 220-year time period was the November 4, 1927 Lompoc earthquake. The closest earthquake to the site occurred approximately 8.6 miles from the site on September 5, 1922 and had an estimated magnitude of 5.5. The historical earthquakes are presented in Table E-2—Historical Earthquakes in Vicinity of Project Site, M>_5.0, in Appendix D.
Historical earthquakes that resulted in damage within the region include the Lompoc earthquake of 1927. This event is believed to have occurred on the offshore Hosgri fault (Helmberger et. al. 1992). The event triggered a tsunami that was measured by tidal gauges at San Francisco and San Diego and liquefaction phenomenon, including sand boils, at several locations within and around Lompoc. Reportedly, structures were damaged in Arroyo Grande and Guadalupe (SCEDC 2020).
On December 22, 2003, a 6.6-magnitude earthquake occurred approximately 6 miles northeast of San Simeon, California and approximately 41 miles north of the site. Analysis by the USGS and the University of California indicates that the event had a thrust (reverse-faulting) displacement (EERI 2005). The earthquake occurred in the vicinity of the northern end of the Hosgri-San Simeon fault and resulted in significant damage in Paso Robles and Oceano.
Ground Motion Analyses
In accordance with the 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16 (2017, 2018), an assessment was made to determine the need for employing "Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures" to calculate the ground motion parameters for the project. In accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16, Site Class "E—Soft Clay Soil", was chosen based on an average penetration resistance of less than 15 blows per foot, as stipulated in Section 20.3.2 and Table 20.3-1. The mapped ground motion values were obtained from the Structural Engineers Association of California website (SEAOC 2021) using ASCE 7-16 (2017) for Site Class E. The value Ss is 1.047, greater than 1.0, and S1 is
0.380g, greater than 0.2; therefore, per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, the project requires site- specific ground motion analyses. We performed a site-specific ground motion analysis to develop the seismic design parameters in accordance with Sections 11.4.8, 21.2, and Supplement 1 of ASCE 7-16 (2017, 2018).
Flitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 9 21o74Br.s39
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
A risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) modeling procedure was performed in accordance with ASCE 7-16, including a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) and a Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA). These analyses are based on knowledge of the regional tectonic setting, geology, and seismicity. We utilized the United States Geologic Survey Unified Hazard Tool (USGS 2021b) to compile ground motion data to perform the PHSA and the Third California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) database (USGS 2013) and NGA-West2 ground motion prediction equations (PEER 2015) to perform the DSHA, as described in Section
21.2.1.1 (Method 1) of ASCE 7-16, to estimate the peak ground motion corresponding to the uniform hazards earthquake and MCER, which has a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
For our DSHA analysis we modeled the San Luis Range fault as the causative fault, located 0.4 miles from the site. The San Luis Range fault is a reverse-oblique slip fault and we specified a 45- degree dip and hanging wall conditions for the attenuation relationships. A magnitude of 7.49 was used as a basis to model fault rupture. The primary seismic risks are from earthquakes generated by the local San Luis Range, Shoreline, Los Osos, Hosgri, Oceanic-West Huasna, and Rinconada faults and the more distant San Andreas fault. Although these listed faults are thought to potentially generate the most severe seismic shaking any regional fault could produce seismic shaking at the site. The calculated deterministic spectra are presented in Table D-3 — Deterministic Spectral Response Values, in Appendix D.
The 2019 CBC seismic design criteria are based on a Design Earthquake that produces ground motion z/ of the lesser of an earthquake with 2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years, or maximum 84th percentile of the mean deterministic MCE.
Seismic Design Category
Section 1613.2.5 of the 2019 CBC states that structures classified as Risk Category 1, 11 or 111 that are located where the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-second period, S1, is greater than or equal to 0.75 shall be assigned to Seismic Design Category E, others shall be assigned to Design Category D. The mapped S1for the site is 0.380, less than 0.75; therefore,the site should be assigned to Seismic Design Category D. The site falls under Risk Category II, per Table 1604.5 of the 2019 CBC.
Seismic Design Parameters
This site may be subject to strong ground shaking due to potential fault movements along regional faults including the San Luis Range fault, whose proximity and magnitude potential was 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 10 21074B17.40
Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
considered during our site-specific analysis. The minimum seismic design should comply with the 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16. The resulting seismic coefficients considering Site Class E are given in the table below.
Table 1: Seismic Parameters (2019 CBC/ASCE 7-16)
Seismic Design Category D
Site Class E
Mapped and Code Based Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Response, SS 1.047 g
1 second mapped Spectral Response, S1 0.380 g
Design Earthquake Ground Motion
Short Period Spectral Response, Sos 0.863 g
1 second Spectral Response, SM 1.026 g
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) 0.506 g
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
Short Period Spectral Response, SMs 1.295 g
1 Second Period Spectral Response, SM1 1.539 g
Site Amplification Factors
Short Period Site Coefficient, Fa 1.00
1 Second Period Site Coefficient, F, 4.00
Vertical Site Coefficient, Cv 1.31
Risk Coefficient (Short Period), CRs 0.899
Risk Coefficient (1 Second Period), CR1 0.905
Vertical accelerations are typically A to % of the horizontal accelerations but can equal or exceed the horizontal accelerations depending upon the fault type, local site effects and amplification.
Acceleration values provided are estimates only. Table D-4 — Site Specific Spectral Response Values, in appendix D, presents the design spectra and values.
9.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Surface Ground Rupture
Surface ground rupture generally occurs at sites that are traversed by, or lie very near to, an active fault. The site is not located in any State Earthquake Fault Zones (Hart and Bryant 2007) and there are no mapped faults crossing the site. The closest mapped Holocene-active fault to Hfniging Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 11 21o74Br.A
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
the site is the Los Osos fault system, located approximately 3.9 miles northeast. The San Luis Range faults (San Luis Bay, Oceano, Wilmar Ave., Olson, and Santa Maria River faults) are considered active but are not included in A-P Zones. The closest strand of the San Luis Range fault system to the site is the San Luis Bay fault modeled by the USGS approximately 2,000 feet from the site. This fault is likely offshore from the site and its location is poorly constrained.
Although the potential for surface fault rupture to occur at the site is considered very low, the potential for surface rupture cannot be ruled out entirely in seismically active areas.
Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction
The site is in an area of low liquefaction potential, as mapped by the County of San Luis Obispo (2021). Based on the anticipated groundwater level of at least 50 feet below finished site grades, we concur with the mapping by the County of low liquefaction potential at the site.
Unsaturated Soils
We evaluated the unsaturated soil layers in Boring 1 (ESP 2021), which we considered representative for our analysis. We used the work of Pradel (1998)to perform our analysis,which required input parameters for PGA,earthquake magnitude and corrected penetration resistance, among others. The corrected penetration resistance included that for hammer energy ratio, where the hammer on the drill rig used was measured at an energy ratio of 88 percent (Taber 2021), resulting in an energy ratio (CE) of 1.47, which was applied to the calculations.
Our analyses indicated that seismically induced settlement corresponding to unsaturated soils could be up to 0.4-inch from existing site grades. Cuts and/or earthwork required for site development will extend to at least 5 feet below existing grades, thus reducing the potential seismic settlement to roughly %-inch. Please see the unsaturated soil settlement calculations in Appendix E for more information on the parameters used.
Slope Stability
The site is in an area of high landslide potential, as mapped by the County of San Luis Obispo (2021). No indications of deep-seated landslides were evident from a review of public domain aerial imagery or our subsurface exploration. Indications of rock fall were observed during our site reconnaissance and the potential is discussed further in the next section. The potential for a deep-seated global slope failure is considered low.
9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 12 2107--(B17.sU
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
Rock Fall
Rock fall is a common form of mass wasting that involves the dislodging and rapid downslope movement of individual rocks and rock masses (Cruden and Varnes 1996). Rock fall hazard at any location is governed by the potential mobility of a rock and the rock's durability. The mobility of a rock is dependent on the attachment or embedment of the rock, the position of the rock on the slope, and the shape of the rock. A rounded rock with little or no embedment located on a steep slope presents a greater potential to mobilize than a tabulate shaped rock at the toe of a slope. Likewise, a rock only presents a hazard if it is strong enough to withstand being mobilized the distance required to relocate to a location where it can do damage or harm. If the rock is highly fractured or weak it will disintegrate into small inconsequential pieces before it can do damage and the hazard is minimal. Strong rock with few internal discontinuities can travel a considerable distance and present a hazard to locations down slope from the origin.
Rock fall events are commonly associated with severe weather and rainfall, which can reduce the stability of outcrops and boulders through active erosion of soil from around the base of a boulder or by increasing the pore water pressure beneath a boulder. These mechanisms may work individually or together.
Earthquakes produce forces that can dislodge boulders or fracture bedrock outcrops.
Earthquakes are known to trigger rock fall (McCalpin 1996), and Keefer (1984) stipulates that earthquakes of magnitude 4 and larger can trigger rock fall. The site is less than 1 mile from several active faults, including the San Luis Range fault (USGS 2013), which is considered active and capable of a magnitude 7.49 earthquake (USGS 2014). The USGS reports that a peak ground acceleration of 0.29 g is likely based on a magnitude 6.7 earthquake with the probability of 10 percent in 50 years, or a 475-year return interval (USGS 2021b).
The site is located on the south flank of Ontario Ridge, which slopes up to the north from the residence and proposed improvements approximately 400 feet at about a 30 percent gradient.
A resistant sandstone bed (Edna member of the Pismo formation, map symbol Tpeb on Figure 3a), outcrops near the top of the ridge. Evidence of rockfall from this sandstone bed was observed as isolated boulders in nearby lots and in the pipeline right-of-way on the property.
One example of these isolated boulders is presented as Figure 5—Rock Fall Potential, in Appendix C. The sandstone boulders observed in the project area are characteristic of the sandstone bed located near the top of Ontario Ridge and are significantly different from the siltstone of the Monterey formation that is exposed in the coastal bluff and is thought to underlie the site at Flitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 13 21074$1:A�
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
depth. The presence of these sandstone boulders indicates that rock fall has occurred from the sandstone bed and that the boulders are sufficiently strong to travel at least as far as Bluff Drive, where 2 boulders were observed; therefore, the site is in an area susceptible to rock fall. The hazard from rock fall at the site is considered moderate.
Flooding
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06079C1337H (FEMA 2017), the site is located within Flood Zone X, which indicates areas of minimal flooding, outside of any mapped flood zone. The flood hazard zone for this site is presented on Figure 6—FEMA Flood Zone Map in Appendix C. The site is not within any mapped downstream inundation zone for dam failure
Tsunami and Seiche Potential
According to the State of California Tsunami Inundation Zone map for the County of San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach Quadrangle (CEMA 2009), the project site does not lie within a Tsunami Inundation Zone. The pool and cabana are located at approximate elevations between 157.5 and 167.5 feet above sea level, and the tunnel portal invert is at an approximate elevation of 120 feet above sea level;the tsunami runup elevation, reported by the ASCE Tsunami Hazard Tool is 56.99 feet (NAVD88) with no regional earthquake induced ground subsidence anticipated; therefore, the potential for a tsunami to flood the site is considered very low (ASCE 2021).
A seiche is a water wave that can be generated in a reservoir, lake or pond as the result of barometric pressure anomalies or long-period seismic waves generated by strong local earthquakes or larger earthquakes at farther distances. The site is not within proximity to any impounded or natural bodies of water that could produce a seiche; however, after the proposed pool is constructed and filled, it will be a body of water with the potential to create a swimming pool seiche that potentially could impact the residence in the event of an earthquake.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos minerals are generally limited to only a few types of rocks known to be present in the central coast area of California; these are ultra-mafic igneous rocks and their metamorphic equivalents, which include serpentinite and some types of schist. There are no naturally occurring asbestos-bearing rock formations known on the site. The site is underlain by colluvial deposits derived from the local shale bedrock and their weathering products, which are not asbestos-bearing geologic units. Therefore, the potential for naturally occurring asbestos on the site is considered very low.
9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 14 21074$14A
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
Radon
Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless gas present in certain soils and rock, which is derived from the decay of uranium atoms. The occurrence of radon correlates with the presence of specific minerals, and its concentrations in soil or rock will vary depending on the mineralogy of the surrounding bedrock, temperature, barometric pressure, moisture and other factors.
Prolonged exposure to elevated levels of radon is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.
The route of exposure is via inhalation.
High radon levels are associated with some occurrences of the Monterey formation, specifically map symbol Tmb, in the vicinity of the project. The colluvial materials observed during our investigation contain gravels that are derived from the upper Monterey formation, map symbol Tmc. Because the member of the Monterey formation associated with the site is not the member associated with high radon potential, we consider the potential for radon to pose a hazard at the site to be low. According to the State of California interactive data viewer, the site is in an area mapped as low radon potential (California Dept. of Conservation 2021). The Indoor Radon Potential Map is presented as Figure 7 in Appendix C.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
In our opinion, the site is suitable, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, for the construction of the proposed improvements as described in the "Introduction" Section of this report, provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented in the design and construction. The primary geotechnical engineering concerns are the potentials for strong ground shaking, rock fall, static and seismic differential settlement, and radon. The upper soils were tested and found to be nonexpansive; therefore, no special measures with respect to expansive soils are considered necessary.
Strong Ground Shaking
The site is in a region of high seismic activity,with the potential for large seismic events that could generate strong ground shaking. A seismic analysis was undertaken to provide seismic acceleration design parameters. Our methods and the results of the seismic analysis are presented in the "Seismicity" Section of this report. Additional information is available in Appendix D—Seismic Tables and Charts.
9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 15 2107-(B17A5
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
Rock Fall
The site is on the lower flanks of a slope where a resistant sandstone bed is exposed near the top of the slope. Boulder-sized fragments of this sandstone were observed on the lower parts of the slope, indicating that rock fall has occurred in the past and will likely occur in the future. The random nature of rock fall cannot easily be reduced, therefore predicting the timing, size, and trajectory of rock fall is not possible. Developments in rock fall susceptible areas will always have a level of irreducible, inherent risk. Engineered mitigation of rock fall may be accomplished through scaling of unstable material, using rock bolts to secure potentially unstable boulders, or constructing a specialized fence or barrier. Because the source areas are located beyond the property boundaries, engineered mitigation through bolting or scaling is not feasible.
Specialized rock fall protection barriers are available that could be constructed on the property to reduce the potential for rock fall to strike the proposed improvements or existing residence.
The owner should assess their acceptable level of risk and consider if a rock fall protection system is appropriate.
Static and Seismic Differential Settlement
Differential settlement can occur between structures supported on different foundation types, where the pool and spa will be supported by cast-in-place, drilled concrete caissons while we understand the client desires to support the cabana on slabs-on-grade over conventional shallow foundations in order to reduce project costs. Post-construction total settlement (static plus seismic) of the caisson-supported pool and spa is anticipated to be on the order of%-inch, while total settlement of the cabana supported on conventional shallow foundations could be up to 1- inch. The structures mentioned above will be constructed immediately adjacent to each other; therefore, the difference in total settlement (differential settlement) between the pool and spa, and the cabana may be on the order of%-inch.
Radon Potential
The architect/engineer should incorporate appropriate measures in the design and construction of the proposed improvements, as needed, to mitigate the low potential for radon activity.
11.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are for improvements constructed as described in the "Introduction" Section of this report. If locations, elevations, structural loads, etc., change, the recommendations contained herein may require modification. In developing the following 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 16 2107-(B1 A
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
recommendations, it was assumed that irrigated landscaping or flatwork will be installed within a zone of at least five feet around the perimeter of all improvements; the intent is to keep the soils in a relatively uniform moisture condition year-round.
Unless otherwise noted, the following definitions are used in the recommendations presented below. Where terms are not defined,definitions commonly used in the construction industry are intended.
• Cabana Area —The cabana area is defined as the area within and extending a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the foundations for the cabana. The cabana area includes any retaining walls, the deck adjacent to the pool and spa, covered walkways or other improvements that are connected to the structure and that are intended to act in a manner similar to it.
• Swimming Pool and Spa Areas—The footprints of the swimming pool and spa, including pool and spa retaining walls.
• Sitework Retaining Wall Areas — The areas within and extending a minimum of 3 feet beyond the foundation limits of all sitework retaining walls. • Flatwork Areas—The footprints of all areas to receive exterior pedestrian flatwork. • Grading Area —The entire area to be graded, including cabana, swimming pool and spa, flatwork, and sitework retaining wall areas.
• Existing Grade— Elevations of the site that existed as of the date of this report. • Finish Pad Grade — The elevation in the building area where earthwork operations are typically considered to be complete. It does not include any sand or gravel that might be placed below slabs-on-grade in association with vapor protection for the slabs. • Subgrade — The elevation of the surface upon which a sand cushion/nonexpansive imported material or aggregate base will be placed for exterior pedestrian flatwork. • Scarified — Plowed or ripped in two orthogonal directions to a depth of not less than 8 inches.
• Moisture Conditioned—Adjusting the soil moisture to optimum moisture content, orjust above, prior to application of compactive effort, unless stated otherwise. • Compacted/Recompacted — Soils placed in level lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density, based on maximum dry density by ASTM D 1557-12 and field density by ASTM D 6938-17a,or other methods acceptable to the geotechnical engineer and jurisdiction.
FdMWiog Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 17 21074$1 AA
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
Site Preparation
1. The ground surface in the grading areas should be prepared for construction by removing vegetation, large roots, debris, organic topsoil, and other deleterious materials. Existing utility lines (if applicable) that will not remain in service should be either removed or abandoned. The appropriate method of abandonment will depend upon the type and depth of the utility. Recommendations for abandonment can be made as necessary.
2. Voids created by the removal of materials or utilities described above should be called to the attention of the geotechnical engineer. No fill should be placed unless the underlying soil has been observed by the geotechnical engineer.
Grading
1. Following site preparation, the existing soil within the cabana area should be removed to a level plane at a minimum depth of 5 feet below lowest existing grade or 5 feet below finish pad grade, whichever is deeper. The exposed soil surfaces should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.
2. Following site preparation, the existing soils within the pool and spa areas should be removed to a level plane at a minimum depth of 5 feet below lowest existing grade or to 6 inches below the bottom of the pool and spa shells, whichever is deeper. The bottom of the overexcavation should mimic the shape of the pool to the degree practicable. The exposed surfaces should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.
3. Following site preparation, the existing soils within sitework retaining wall areas should be removed to 1 foot below bottom of footing elevation or to 5 feet below lowest existing grade, whichever is deeper. The exposed surfaces should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.
4. Following site preparation, the existing soils within exterior pedestrian flatwork areas should be removed to subgrade elevation. The exposed surfaces should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted.
5. In any remaining grading areas, the prepared surfaces should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted.
9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 18 2107-($1:90
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
6. The previously removed soils may be replaced in recompacted lifts to finish pad grade within the cabana area, to 6 inches below the bottom of the shell within pool and spa areas, and to finish grade within sitework retaining wall areas.
7. All fill soil (site derived or imported) should be placed in uniform lifts across the particular building or improvement area being constructed; these soils should not be mixed or placed in non-uniform layer thicknesses.
8. Imported fill, if required, should be nonexpansive, and equal to or better than the site soils with respect to strength and compressibility characteristics. All imported fill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer before being brought to the site and should be monitored for quality during placement.
9. Nonexpansive materials are defined as soils (imported or site derived)that fall in the GW, GM, GC, SP, SW, SC and SM categories per ASTM D 2487-17, and that have an expansion index of 10 or less (ASTM D 4829-17).
10. All materials used as fill should be cleaned of any debris and rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter. When fill material includes rocks,the rocks should be placed in a sufficient soil matrix to ensure that voids caused by nesting of the rocks will not occur and that the fill can be properly compacted.
11. If the soils are overly moist so that they become unstable, or if the minimum recommended compaction cannot be readily achieved, drying the soil so that it is nearer optimum moisture content may be necessary. Placement of gravel layers, geotextiles, or geogrids may also be necessary to help stabilize unstable soils. Additional over- excavation may also be recommended to correct unstable conditions or if soft or loose conditions are encountered during grading. No fill should be placed in any grading area if the underlying soil is unstable. Recommendations for stabilization should be provided at the time of construction.
12. The recommended soil moisture contents should be maintained throughout construction, and during the lives of the structures and sitework improvements. Failure to maintain the soil moisture content can result in loosening of the soil and disturbance, which are an indication of degradation of the soil compaction. If soils near improvements such as 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 19 21074$1:9a
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
foundations, flatwork, etc. are disturbed, damage to those improvements may result.
Soils that have been disturbed should be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted.
13. Permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) gradient, unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
14. The architect/engineer should designate any special measures for grading operations, as needed, to mitigate the low potential for radon activity.
Utility Trenches
1. Utility trenches adjacent to foundations should not be excavated within the zone of foundation influence, as shown in Typical Detail A in Appendix F.
2. Utilities that must pass beneath foundations should be placed with properly compacted utility trench backfill and the foundation should be designed to span the trench.
3. A select, noncorrosive, granular, easily compacted material should be used as bedding and shading immediately around utilities. The site soil or approved import soil may be used for trench backfill above the select material. In exterior pedestrian flatwork areas, trench backfill should match the thickness of any flatwork support section, such as sand or aggregate base.
4. In general,trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density.
5. Prior to applying compactive effort, trench backfill should be moisture conditioned.
Trench backfill should be placed in level lifts not exceeding 6 inches in loose thickness and compacted to the minimums recommended above.
6. Compaction of trench backfill by jetting or flooding is not recommended at this site.
7. Long-term settlement of properly compacted imported sand should be assumed to be about 0.25 to 0.5 percent of the depth of the backfill. Where trenches are backfilled with site soils, the anticipated settlement would be about twice that of imported sand.
Improvements that are constructed over or near trenches should be designed to accommodate the potential for settlement.
94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 20 21o74Br.s5R
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
8. The recommendations of this section are minimums only and may be superseded by the architect/engineer based upon the requirements of pipe manufacturers, utility companies or the governing jurisdiction.
9. The architect/engineer should incorporate appropriate measures in the design of the utility systems to mitigate the low potential for radon activity.
Foundations
Drilled, Cast-in-Place Concrete Caissons— Pool, Spa and Associated Retaining Walls
1. The caissons may be designed using a downward (compressive) allowable skin friction value of 500 psf. The caissons should be embedded a minimum of 10 feet below the bottom of the pool liner or grade beam, whichever is deeper; however, at least 10 feet of vertical separation should be maintained between the bottom of the caisson and the top of the tunnel below. No end bearing capacity should be used in the calculations.
2. Using the skin friction value above, caisson settlement is anticipated to be on the order of%8-inch, with corresponding differential estimate estimated to be on the order of 1/16- inch over a horizontal distance of 25 feet. Condor Earth has confirmed that relaxation of the tunnel, and corresponding settlement of the soil above the tunnel, will be negligible.
Based on this information, negligible settlement of the soil resulting from tunnel construction is anticipated, and the caisson settlement estimates above would be applicable for estimated post-construction settlement.
3. An allowable skin friction value of 350 psf can be used for short-term tension (uplift) conditions. The self-weight of the caissons may be neglected in the determination of loading, however it may be included, if needed, for resistance to uplift.
4. The allowable skin friction values for the caissons may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind or seismicity are included. Foundations should be designed using the seismic parameters provided in the "Seismicity" Section of this report.
5. An ultimate passive resistance based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf up to a maximum uniform pressure of 2,000 psf, acting over 2 caisson diameters, may be taken for resistance to short term lateral loads. The structural engineer should apply an appropriate factor of safety to the ultimate values presented above.
Kwgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 21 21o74Br.s5A
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
6. As foundation design progresses Lpile parameters can also be provided as needed.
7. Vertical or lateral capacity should not begin until at lateral distance of at least 7 feet from caisson to slope daylight is achieved.
8. Grade beams between caissons should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep. Minimum grade beam reinforcement should consist of one No. 4 rebar, top and bottom.
9. For no reduction in vertical capacity due to group effects, caisson spacing should be at least three caisson diameters. Caissons should not be constructed closer than three caisson diameters to each other without approval from the geotechnical engineer.
10. For no reduction in lateral capacity due to group effects,caisson spacing should be at least six caisson diameters. Caissons constructed closer than six caisson diameters to each other should be evaluated for group effects.
11. Although subsurface water was not encountered in the explorations, seasonal perched water may be encountered during the caisson drilling operations, depending on the time of year the caissons are constructed;therefore, caisson reinforcing should be designed to accommodate a minimum 5-inch diameter tremie pipe for concrete placement. The reinforcing should also be designed to facilitate removal of any casing during concrete placement, and additional coverage over reinforcing steel is recommended to account for any difficult concrete placement conditions. All water encountered should be removed from the caisson excavation prior to placing concrete, or the concrete should be tremied.
The tremie method is described in Appendix F.
12. Loose debris and slough material from the bottoms of the caisson excavations should be removed by means of a clean-out bucket.
13. Concrete used in caissons should be placed at a slump between 6 and 8 inches in dry excavations and between 8 and 10 inches when placed under water. The concrete in the upper 8 to 10 feet of the caissons should be mechanically consolidated following placement.
94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 22 21o7kBr.5U
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
14. The caissons should not deviate from a plumb line taken from the center of the caisson by more than 2 percent of the caisson length, from the top to the point of interest.
Adequate caisson oversize may be assumed to provide required tolerance.
15. All caisson excavations should be filled with concrete on the same day as they are drilled.
If this is not practicable, the caissons should be secured in a safe manner in conformance with OSHA requirements or other applicable safety standards until concrete can be placed. Any caisson excavation that has not been filled with concrete on the same day as it was drilled should have the surfaces "freshened" by extending the rotating auger into and out of the hole several times, immediately prior to placement of the concrete. The bottom of the hole should then be cleaned out again by means of the clean-out bucket.
16. Caisson excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during drilling operations to confirm the subsurface conditions and prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Special inspection of reinforcing steel and concrete placement for caissons should also be provided.
17. Soils in grade beam excavations should be moistened to optimum moisture content or just above, and no desiccation cracks should be present, prior to concrete placement.
Conventional Shallow Foundations—Cabana and Associated and Sitework Retaining Walls
1. Continuous and spread footings may be used to support the proposed cabana and associated retaining walls, and sitework retaining walls. The footings should be constructed with minimum overall depths of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade within 7 feet laterally of any adjacent slope. The foundations should bear in firm engineered fill, as described in the "Grading" Section of this report. Footing excavations should be horizontal and stepped as needed to bear in uniform material.
2. Continuous footings and grade beams should be reinforced, at a minimum, by two No. 4 rebar, one at the top and one at the bottom, or as required by the architect/engineer.
Spread footings should be reinforced in accordance with the requirements of the architect/engineer.
3. Footings bearing into firm engineered fill may be designed using maximum allowable bearing capacities of 1,650 psf for dead loads and 2,500 psf for dead plus live loads. Using these criteria, static total and differential settlement are expected to be on the order of 94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 23 21o7-Br.
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
%-inch and %-inch, respectively. Total and differential seismic settlement from unsaturated soils is anticipated to be on the order of %-inch and less than %-inch, respectively. Based on the estimates above, combined (static plus seismic) settlement is estimated to be on the order of 1 inch and %-inch over a horizontal distance of 25 feet for total and differential settlement, respectively. Condor Earth has confirmed that relaxation of the tunnel, and corresponding settlement of the soil above the tunnel, will be negligible. Based on this information, negligible settlement of the soil resulting from tunnel construction is anticipated, and the settlement estimates above would be applicable for estimated post-construction settlement.
4. Allowable capacities may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind or seismicity are included. Foundations should be designed using the seismic parameters provided in the "Seismicity" Section of this report.
5. In calculating resistance to lateral loads, ultimate passive equivalent fluid pressures of 350 pcf may be used for foundations bearing in engineered fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 may also be utilized in the design. The lateral capacities are based on the assumption that the soil adjacent to the foundations is properly compacted. Passive and friction resistance components may be combined in the analysis without reduction to either value. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the values presented above.
6. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during excavation and prior to placement of formwork, reinforcing steel or concrete. Soil in foundation excavations should be moistened to optimum moisture content or just above and no desiccation cracks should be present prior to concrete placement.
Slabs-on-Grade and Exterior Pedestrian Flatwork
Interior Slabs-on-Grade
1. Interior slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced and doweled to foundations per the specifications of the architect/engineer.
At a minimum, interior slabs should be reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 24 inches on center each way, placed as directed by the architect/engineer. All structural slabs should contain minimum rebar meeting the criteria of ACI 318-19,Section 24.4(ACI 2019). At a minimum, foundation dowels should be lap spliced to the slab rebar. The size and spacing of the dowels should match the size and spacing of the slab rebar.
FdMWiog Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 24 2107-($17554
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
Exterior Pedestrian Flatwork
1. Exterior pedestrian flatwork should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. Minimum reinforcement for exterior pedestrian flatwork should consist of No. 3 rebar placed at 24 inches on-center each way.
2. In conventional construction, it is common to use 4 to 6 inches of sand beneath exterior pedestrian flatwork. As the site soils are nonexpansive, this common practice would be suitable at this site. If additional cost savings are desired with minimal potential for loss of support, exterior pedestrian flatwork can be constructed directly over compacted site soils.
3. Flatwork should be constructed with frequent joints to allow articulation as the flatwork moves in response to seasonal soil temperature and moisture variations. The soil below flatwork should be moisture conditioned prior to casting the flatwork.
4. Flatwork at doorways, and at other areas where maintaining the elevation of the flatwork is desired, should be doweled to the perimeter foundations, at a minimum, by No. 3 dowels lapped to the flatwork rebar at 24 inches on center. In other areas, the flatwork may be doweled to the foundation or the flatwork may be allowed to "float free," at the discretion of the architect/engineer. Flatwork that is intended to float free should be separated from foundations by a felt joint or other means.
Moisture Vapor Transmission
1. Due to the current use of impermeable floor coverings, water-soluble flooring adhesives, and the speed at which buildings are now constructed, moisture vapor transmission through slabs is a much more common problem than in past years. Where moisture vapor transmitted from the underlying soil would be undesirable, slabs should be protected from subsurface moisture vapor. A number of options for vapor protection are discussed below; however, the means of vapor protection, including the type and thickness of the vapor retarder, if specified, are left to the discretion of the architect/engineer.
2. Where specified, vapor retarders should conform to ASTM Standard E 1745-17. This standard specifies properties for three performance classes; Class A, B and C. The appropriate class should be selected based on the potential for damage to the vapor retarder during placement of slab reinforcement and concrete. Unless it is determined that a permeance of 0.10 perms will not allow vapor to accumulate beneath moisture- 94uming Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 25 2107-($1:59
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
sensitive flooring, adhesives, stored products and/or equipment, then a vapor retarder permeance of 0.010 perms is recommended, per ACI 302.1-15 (2015). Permeance of vapor retarders should remain below 0.010 perms after the conditioning tests of ASTM E 1745-17. It should be noted that ASTM E 1745-17 has the same permeance threshold for Class A through Class C (0.1 perms). The class that is chosen will make a difference in how resistant the vapor retarder is to punctures and tears, but it will not insure any better permeance values to protect floor coverings.
3. Several recent studies, including those of American Concrete Institute Committee 302 (ACI 2015), have concluded that excess water above the vapor retarder increases the potential for moisture damage to floor coverings and could increase the potential for mold growth or other microbial contamination. The studies also concluded that it is preferable to eliminate the typical sand layer beneath the slab and place the slab concrete in direct contact with a Class A vapor retarder, particularly during wet weather construction. However, placing the concrete directly on the vapor retarder requires special attention to using the proper vapor retarder, a very low water-cement ratio in the concrete mix, and special finishing and curing techniques.
4. Another option that may be a reasonable compromise between effectiveness and cost considerations is the use of a subslab vapor retarder protected by a sand layer. If a Class A vapor retarder is specified, the retarder can be placed directly on the subgrade. The retarder should be covered with a minimum 2 inches of clean sand. If a less durable vapor retarder is specified (Class B or C), a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand should be provided, and the retarder should be placed in the center of the clean sand layer. Clean sand is defined as a well or poorly graded sand (ASTM D 2487-17) of which less than 3 percent passes the No. 200 sieve.
5. Regardless of the underslab vapor retarder selected, proper installation of the retarder per ASTM E 1643-18a is critical for optimum performance. Where utilized, the vapor retarder should be placed a minimum of 1 inch above the flow line of the drainage path surrounding the structures, or 1 inch above the area drain grates if area drains are used to collect runoff around the structures. As required by ASTM E 1643-18a, all seams and utility penetrations should be properly sealed. At terminating edges of the vapor retarder, the vapor retarder should be effectively sealed with accessories specifically designed to seal the material to new or existing concrete; details for edge sealing of the vapor retarder should be provided by the architect/engineer. 94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 26 2107--($1:
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
6. If the sand is used between the vapor retarder and the slab, it should be moistened only as necessary to promote concrete curing; saturation of the sand should be avoided, as the excess moisture would be on top of the vapor retarder, potentially resulting in vapor transmission through the slab for months or years.
7. Positive drainage away from the structure should be maintained; see the "Drainage and Maintenance" Section of this report for additional discussion of this issue. If water is allowed to pond near the structure, it may seep into the ground and migrate laterally through cracks or utility penetrations in the foundation, ultimately gaining access above the vapor retarder.
Slabs-on-Grade - General
1. To reduce shrinkage cracks in all interior and exterior slabs-on-grade, the concrete aggregates should be of appropriate size and proportion, the water/cement ratio should be low,the concrete should be properly placed and finished, contraction joints should be installed, and the concrete should be properly cured. This is particularly applicable to slabs that will be cast directly upon a vapor retarder and those that will be protected from transmission of vapor by use of admixtures or surface sealers. Concrete materials, placement, and curing specifications should be at the direction of the architect/engineer; AC 302.1R-15 (ACI 2015) is suggested as a resource for the architect/engineer in preparing such specification.
2. To provide stability for curbs adjacent to exterior pedestrian flatwork, they should be set back a minimum distance equal to one-third the height of any adjacent descending slope, but not less than 5 feet from the tops of slopes. Alternately, curbs may be deepened to provide stability. The geotechnical engineer should review, on an individual basis, any situation where curbs must be deepened to meet this recommendation.
3. The architect/engineer should incorporate appropriate measures in the design of interior slabs-on-grade to mitigate the low potential for radon activity.
Retaining Walls
1. Retaining walls should be supported directly on caissons for the pool and spa or founded in firm soil that has been recompacted per the "Grading" Section of this report for walls within the cabana area or for sitework. Foundations for cabana area and sitework retaining walls should have minimum overall depths (not including any keyway) of 18 inches below lowest grade within 7 feet laterally of any adjacent slope. 94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 27 2107-B1.SU
Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
2. Retaining wall footings should be reinforced in accordance with the requirements of the architect/engineer; minimum retaining wall footing reinforcement should consist of two No. 4 rebar, one at the top and one at the bottom.
3. Retaining wall design may be based on the following parameters:
Table 2: Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Parameter Backfill Type Value
Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure 35 pcf
At-rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure 50 pcf
Onsite Soils and Imported
Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressure 350 pcf
Sand/Gravel
Maximum Toe Pressure 2,500 psf
Coefficient of Sliding Friction 1 0.40
4. No surcharges are taken into consideration in the values presented in the previous paragraph. The maximum toe pressure is an allowable value; no factors of safety, load factors or other factors have been applied to the remaining values. With the exception of the maximum toe pressure, these values will require application of appropriate factors of safety, load factors, and/or other factors as deemed appropriate by the architect/engineer.
5. The upper foot of backfill behind all retaining walls should consist of native soil, except in areas where pavement or exterior pedestrian flatwork will abut the top of the wall. In such cases, the gravel should extend to the aggregate base or other material below the improved surface, as appropriate. If gravel backfill is utilized, the gravel should be encased in a permeable synthetic filter fabric conforming to standard specification section 96-1.02B—Class C (Caltrans 2018).
6. The active and at-rest pressures presented in Table 2 are applicable to a horizontal retained surface behind the wall. Walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every two degrees of slope inclination.
7. Under the 2019 CBC, the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) must be used for determining seismic pressures on walls. Further, Section 1807.2.2 of the 2019 CBC requires that dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures be provided bythe geotechnical Hfniging Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 28 2107-B1.55a
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
engineer for walls retaining more than 6 feet of backfill. The Structural Engineers Association of California website (SEAOC 2021) was used to determine the MCER-based Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) for a Seismic Design Category "D" project. The resulting PGAM was 0.506 g. Then, using the methods presented by Lew et al. (2010) and this PGAM, it was determined that no incremental increase in lateral soil pressure above the static active equivalent fluid pressure for flexible (cantilevered) walls was required for the native soils; however, a pressure increase of 6 pcf was determined for imported sand or gravel backfill. Flexible (cantilevered) walls retaining over 6 feet of backfill should be designed using these incremental seismic pressures. Walls retaining 6 feet or less of backfill need not be designed for seismic pressures.
8. Recent research by AI Atik and Sitar(2010)confirmed that for flexible (cantilevered)walls, particularly those over 12 feet tall, an increase in soil pressure does occur under significant seismic accelerations. Further, they found that the increase is due to the out- of-phase interaction between the soil and the flexible wall. When considering rigid walls (i.e. those designed using at-rest criteria); however, they found that the incremental increase due to seismicity was typically less than 50 percent of the static wall pressure.
Consequently, no incremental increase in lateral soil pressure is recommended for the design of walls where the static design utilizes the at-rest equivalent fluid pressure and they are designed with factors of safety and earth load factors of at least 1.5.
9. In typical structural design methods for retaining walls such as those found in Section 1605 of the 2019 CBC, lateral soil pressure is multiplied by a load factor of 1.6. According to Lew et al. (2010), a load factor of 1.6 is too conservative for seismic loads; this paper suggests that the seismic increase in lateral pressure be separated from the static active pressure and that a load factor of 1.0 be used for the seismic increase. Further, Al Atik and Sitar (2010) found that pressure increases due to seismic earth loads were minimal for walls retaining less than 12 feet of backfill. While Al Atik and Sitar's research is generally accepted among geotechnical and structural engineers in California, it is not entirely acknowledged by the CBC, as the CBC sets the height below which seismic loads may be ignored at 6 feet. Given this disparity, it is suggested that caution be used not to over-engineer walls retaining between 6 and 12 feet of backfill.
10. Long-term settlement of properly compacted silty sand site soils or imported sand or gravel retaining wall backfill should be assumed to be about 0.25 to 0.5 percent of the 94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 29 21o74Br.s59
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
depth of the backfill. Improvements that are constructed near the tops of retaining walls should be designed to accommodate long-term settlement.
11. All retaining walls should be drained with perforated pipe encased in a free-draining gravel blanket. The pipe should be placed with perforations facing downward, and should discharge away from foundations and other improvements in closed conduits to the existing storm drainage system within Bluff Drive. The gravel blanket should have a width of approximately 1 foot and should extend upward to approximately 1 foot from the top of the wall backfill. The upper foot should be backfilled with native soil, except in areas where exterior pedestrian flatwork will abut the top of the wall. In such cases, the gravel should extend to the imported nonexpansive material, sand, aggregate base, or other material below the improved surface, as appropriate. To reduce infiltration of the soil into the gravel, a permeable synthetic filter fabric conforming to Standard Specifications Section 96-1.02B —Class C (Caltrans 2018), should be placed between the two materials.
Manufactured synthetic drains, such as Miradrain or Enkadrain are acceptable alternatives to the use of gravel, provided that they are installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.
12. Walls facing areas where moisture transmission through the wall would be undesirable should be thoroughly waterproofed in accordance with the specifications of the architect/engineer.
13. The architect/engineer should bear in mind that retaining walls by their nature are flexible structures, and that surface treatments on walls often crack. Where walls are to be plastered or otherwise have a finish applied, the flexibility should be considered in determining the suitability of the surfacing material, spacing of horizontal and vertical control joints, etc. The flexibility should also be considered where a retaining wall will abut or be connected to a rigid structure, and where the geometry of the wall is such that its flexibility will vary along its length.
14. The architect/engineer should incorporate appropriate measures in the design of retaining walls to mitigate the low potential for radon activity.
Flitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 30 2107kBr._fiR
0Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021
Pismo Beach, California
Drainage and Maintenance
1. Per Section 1804.4 of the 2019 CBC, unpaved ground surfaces should be finish graded to direct surface runoff away from foundations and other improvements at a minimum 5 percent grade for a minimum distance of 10 feet. The site should be similarly graded to drain away from foundations, and other improvements during construction. Where this is not practicable due to other improvements, etc., swales with improved surfaces, area drains, or other drainage facilities, should be used to collect and discharge runoff.
2. All eaves of the buildings should be fitted with roof gutters. Runoff from flatwork, roof gutters, downspouts, planter drains, area drains, etc. should discharge away from foundations and other improvements, and into closed conduits to the existing storm drainage system within Bluff Drive, and in accordance with the requirements of the governing agencies. Erosion protection should be placed at all discharge points unless the discharge is to a pavement surface.
3. To reduce the potential for planter drainage gaining access to subslab areas, any raised planter boxes adjacent to foundations should be installed with drains and sealed sides and bottoms. Drains should also be provided for areas adjacent to the structures and in landscape areas that would not otherwise freely drain.
4. If soils are disturbed during construction, stabilization of soils by vegetation or other means, during and following construction, is essential to reduce erosion damage. Care should be taken to establish and maintain vegetation. The landscaping should be planned and installed to maintain the surface drainage recommended above. Surface drainage should also be maintained during construction.
5. Maintenance of drainage and other improvements is critical to the long-term stability of the site and the integrity of the structures. Site improvements should be maintained on a regular basis.
6. Finished flatwork surfaces should be sloped to freely drain toward appropriate drainage facilities. Water should not be allowed to stand or pond on or adjacent to slopes, and exterior pedestrian flatwork, or other improvements as it could infiltrate into the AB and/or subgrade, causing premature deterioration of flatwork or other improvements.
Kwgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 31 21074B17-1
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
7. All exterior drains, retaining wall drains, and drain outlets should be maintained to be free-flowing. Care should be taken to establish and maintain vegetation. Vegetation and erosion matting (if utilized) should be maintained or augmented as needed. Irrigation systems should be maintained so that soils around structures are maintained at a relatively uniform year-round moisture content and are neither over-watered nor allowed to dry and desiccate.
8. To reduce the potential for disruption of drainage patterns and undermining of structures, fill areas, etc., all rodent activity should be aggressively controlled.
Observation and Testing
1. It must be recognized that the recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and rely on continuity of the subsurface conditions encountered.
2. It is assumed that the geotechnical engineer will be retained to provide consultation during the design phase, to interpret this report during construction, and to provide construction monitoring in the form of testing and observation.
3. At a minimum, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to provide:
• Professional observation during grading, trench backfill, and foundation construction
• Oversight of special inspection and compaction testing grading, trench backfill, and foundation construction
4. Special inspection of grading and backfill should be provided as per Section 1705.6 and Table 1705.6 of the 2019 CBC. The special inspector should be under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. At a minimum, the following items should be inspected and/or tested by the special inspector:
• Stripping and clearing of all existing improvements, vegetation, and deleterious materials
• Overexcavation to the recommended depths
• Fill quality, placement, moisture conditioning and compaction Kwgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 32 2107--($1:
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
• Utility trench backfill
• Foundation excavations
• Retaining wall drains and backfill
5. A program of quality assurance should be developed prior to beginning construction. At a minimum, the program should include all geotechnical items shown on the testing and inspection schedule of the approved plans. It should also include any additional inspection items required by the engineer and/or the governing jurisdiction. These items should be discussed at a preconstruction site meeting among a representative of the owner, the geotechnical engineer, special inspector, the project inspector, the engineer, and contractors. The geotechnical engineer should be notified at least 48 hours prior to beginning grading operations.
6. Locations and frequency of compaction tests should be per the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. The recommended test location and frequency may be subject to modification by the geotechnical engineer, based upon soil and moisture conditions encountered, size and type of equipment used bythe contractor, the general trend of the results of compaction tests, or other factors.
12.0 CLOSURE
Our intent was to perform the investigation in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the locality of this project under similar conditions. No representation, warranty, or guarantee is either expressed or implied. This report is intended for the exclusive use by the client as discussed in the "Scope of Services" Section. Application beyond the stated intent is strictly at the user's risk.
This report is valid for conditions as they exist at this time for the type of project described herein.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report could be rendered invalid, either in whole or in part, due to changes in building codes, regulations, standards of geotechnical or construction practice, changes in physical conditions, or the broadening of knowledge.
If changes with respect to the project become necessary, if items not addressed in this report are incorporated into plans, or if any of the assumptions used in the preparation of this report are not correct, this firm shall be notified for modifications to this report. Any items not specifically addressed in this report should comply with the CBC of other applicable standards, and the requirements of the governing jurisdiction.
Kwgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 33 21074BI
Maw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
The recommendations presented in this geotechnical report are based upon the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site and may be augmented by additional requirements of the client, or by additional recommendations provided by the geotechnical engineer based on peer or jurisdiction reviews, or conditions exposed at the time of construction. If Earth Systems Pacific is not retained to provide construction observation and testing services, it shall not be responsible for the interpretation of the information by others or any consequences arising therefrom.
This document, the data, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein are the property of Earth Systems Pacific. This report shall be used in its entirety, with no individual sections reproduced or used out of context. Copies may be made only by Earth Systems Pacific,the client, and the client's authorized agents for use exclusively on the subject project. Any other use is subject to federal copyright laws and the written approval of Earth Systems Pacific.
Thank you for this opportunity to have been of service. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office at your convenience.
End of Text.
Flitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 34 21o74Br.
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2019. "Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete." Document 318-19.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2015. "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction." Documents 302.1R-15.
Al Atik, L. and Sitar, N. 2010 October. "Seismic Earth Pressures on Cantilever Retaining Structures." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (10), American Society of Civil Engineers.
ANSS (Advanced National Seismic System). 2021. comprehensive earthquake catalog, accessed at. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2017. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures (7-16), Standards ASCE/SEI 7-16.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2018. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures Supplement 1, effective December 12, 2018.
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2021. ASCE Tsunami Hazard Tool, ASCE Tsunami Design Database v. 2016-1.0, accessed at https://asce7tsunami.online/ ASTM International. 2020.Annual Book of Standards.
CBSC (California Building Standards Commission). 2019a. California Building Code (CBC). CBSC.
CBSC (California Building Standards Commission). 2019b. "Title 24." California Code of Regulations. CBSC.
California Department of Conservation. 2021. Interactive web maps, accessed at https:Hmaps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/#webmaps California Geologic Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Note 36.
California Geologic Survey. 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones "A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California", Special Publication 42.
California Geologic Survey. 2019. "Checklist for Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings." Note 48.
CGS
California,State of. 1972. Department of Conservation, California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.5,Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 35 2107-($1:
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (continued)
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2018. Standard Specifications.
Cao, Tianqing; Bryant, William A.; Rowshandel, Badie; Branum, David; and Wills, Christopher J. 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003.
CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology). 1986a.State of California Special Studies Zones, Cholame Quadrangle, Official Map, Effective July 1, 1986, scale 1:24,000.
CDMG,California Division of Mines and Geology. 1986b. Official map ofAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones, San Simeon Quadrangle: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:24,000.
CDMG, California Division of Mines and Geology. 1990. State of California Special Studies Zones, San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, Official Map, Effective January 1, 1990, scale 1:24,000.
CDMG (California Division of Mines and Geology). [1997] 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. CDMG.
CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2021. Water Data Library, Retrieved from http://water.ca.gov/waterdataIibrary/
CEMA (California Emergency Planning Agency). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Pismo Beach Quadrangle, State of California, County of San Luis Obispo, dated July 1, 2009, scale 1:24,000.
Clark, Douglas G., Burton Slemmons, S.John Caskey, and Diane M. dePolo. 1994. "Seismotectonic Framework of Coastal Central California", in Geological Society of America, Special Paper 292, Ina B. Alterman, Richard B. McMullen, Lloyd S. Cluff, and D. Burton Slemmons eds.
Condor Earth. 2021. Tunnel Site Plan and Profile for Thaure Residence.
Cruden, David M. and David J. Varnes. 1996. Landslide Types and Processes, in Landslides Investigation and Mitigation,Transportation Research Board, Special Report 247,A. Keith Turner and Robert L. Schuster eds.
Dibblee, T.W.,Jr. 1976. The Rinconada and Related Faults in the Southern Coast Ranges, California, and Their Tectonic Significance, USGS Professional Paper 981.
DSA (Division of the State Architect). 2016 October. IR A-4.13. Geohazard Report Requirements:
2013 and 2016 California Building Code.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). 2005.The San Simeon, California, Earthquake, December 22, 2003, report#2005-01.
Fditg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 36 2107--(B1:
Paw Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 Pismo Beach, California
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (continued)
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Association). 2017. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06079C1337H, dated May 6, 2017.
Google Earth. 2021. Google Earth [website], retrieved from:
http://www.google.com/earth/index.html
Hart, E. W. and W. A. Bryant. 2007 revised. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Idriss, I. M. 1994. Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, in EQSEARCH v. 3.0 update, User's Manual, dated April 30, 2000
Keefer, D.K. 1984. Landslides Caused by Earthquakes, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 95, pp. 402-421
Lettis, W. R., and T. N. Hall. 1994. "The Los Osos Fault Zone, San Luis Obispo County, California", in Geological Society of America, Special Paper 292, Ina B.Alterman, Richard B. McMullen, Lloyd S. Cluff, and D. Burton Slemmons eds.
Lew, M., et al. 2010. "Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements." Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Convention Proceedings.
Love Architecture. 2021. Limited Architectural Plan Set for 114 Bluff Drive, Pismo Beach, CA 93449.
McCalpin,James. 1996. Paleoseismology,Academic Press, San Diego, New York, Boston, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2015. Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West ground motion attenuation models and database, accessed at https:Hngawest2.berkeley.edu/
Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. General Plan and Local Coastal Program, adopted November 1992, certified by California Coastal Commission May 1993, updated April 1, 2014.
Pradel, Daniel. 1998. Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils.
San Luis Obispo, County of. 2021. Department of Planning and Building, Land Use View, interactive web, https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning- Building/Information-Systems/Services/Land-Use-View.aspx. 94ugitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 37 2107Ja1:54�
0�/ Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana August 3, 2021 � Pismo Beach, California
TECHNICAL REFERENCES (continued)
SCEDC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center). 2020. Significant Earthquakes and Faults, Chronological Earthquake index, https://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/lompocl927.html SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California). 2021. "Seismic Design Map Tool." Retrieved from: https://seismicmaps.org/
Taber Exploration and Testing. 2021. SPT — Hammer Energy Measurements, Brown Hammer, West Sacramento, CA.
Treiman, J. A. 1989. "Fault Evaluation Report FER-200, Los Osos Fault Zone, San Luis Obispo County, California." California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Evaluation Report FER- 200.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2013. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast,Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time Dependent Model, USGS Open File Report 2013- 1165.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2014. Earthquake Scenario Map,a web based interactive tool to access single segment and multi-segment earthquake magnitudes, retrieved from:
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=14d2f75c4f4619336d ac0d14e1e468
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2021a. The National Map, a web based interactive tool to access public domain mapping products and data, retrieved from:
https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2021b. "Unified Hazard Tool." United States Geological Survey. Retrieved from: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Wiegers, Mark 0., 2011, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Pismo Beach 7.5' Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California: A Digital Database, Revised 10/21/2011, scale 1:24,000 9�wgitg Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 38 2107--($1:
APPENDIX A
Figure 1—Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map
Boring Log Legend
Boring Logs
• ESP 2021
• Condor Earth 2021
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 69
a
Baca
Je
- r t
ck-
did � t �lisade's
PROVIDED •• 1 NOT • SCALE SITE VICINITY MAP Date
Earth Systems Pacific Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana June 20 4378 Old Santa Fe Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
roject No.
• I Bluff Drive •14 . 0
01 • •, • • •6 6 9764-26-2022
Pismo Beach, California :o
B1
C VENT SHAFT
4 aowxlzoR TUNNEL- A
zz.o•wxlasR
a.00 X s.00 �-'----
22,00
0° www.earthsystems.com 114 Bluff Drive 304596-001 �annir�8y -i i sio�"i(i ° ��i4c� 7� -26-2022 Pismo Beach, California 7 B _F-0.1e2 0 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
Earth Systems Pacific MAJOR GROUP TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH.
Y DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL
WELL GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR 800000 J GW NO FINES 000000
0 w GP MIOXOTURESRLY RLITDTLE OR NOED LFI'NES OR GRAVEL-SAND O 0 a o GM SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,NON-PLASTIC BORING W LL# FINES
LOG Z o=N GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,PLASTIC Q Q r m FINES
=w> _2L
_
y
LEGEND SW WELL GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR NO FINES uJ g SP POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR NO U) � FINES
Q2 SM SILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT MIXTURES,NON-PLASTIC FINES SAMPLE/SUBSURFACE GRAPH. O SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,PLASTIC FINES WATER SYMBOLS SYMBOL
U) ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,SILTY OR CLAYEY CALIFORNIA MODIFIED J FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY O :5 CL INORGANIC
NIC CLAYS
CLAYS,SILTY WOC MEDIUM LAYS,LEAN CSLTIICIITY,GRAVELLY
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST(SPT) p N
0 z w GLPLASTICITYAYS
RASILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW = _
SHELBY TUBE W o=N
Z w� n MH INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY BULK O Q x w OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS J w_
SUBSURFACE WATER 0 o N N CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS DURING DRILLING = W y ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC Z = OH SILTS �.
SUBSURFACE WATER
AFTER DRILLING — W PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 0
OBSERVED MOISTURE CONDITION
DRY SLIGHTLY MOIST MOIST VERY MOIST WET (SATURATED)
CONSISTENCY
COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS
BLOWS/FOOT DESCRIPTIVE TERM BLOWS/FOOT DESCRIPTIVE TERM SPT CA SAMPLER SPT CA SAMPLER
0-10 0-16 LOOSE 0-2 0-3 VERY SOFT 11-30 17-50 MEDIUM DENSE 3-4 4-7 SOFT 31-50 51-83 DENSE 5-8 8-13 MEDIUM STIFF OVER 50 OVER 83 VERY DENSE 9-15 14-25 STIFF 16-30 26-50 VERY STIFF
OVER 30 OVER 50 HARD
GRAIN SIZES
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING #200 #40 # 10 #4 3/4" 3" 12" SAND GRAVEL
SILT&CLAY COBBLES BOULDERS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE
TYPICAL BEDROCK HARDNESS
MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
EXTREMELY HARD CORE,FRAGMENT,OR EXPOSURE CANNOT BE SCRATCHED WITH KNIFE OR SHARP PICK;CAN ONLY BE CHIPPED
WITH REPEATED HEAVY HAMMER BLOWS
VERY HARD CANNOT BE SCRATCHED WITH KNIFE OR SHARP PICK;CORE OR FRAGMENT BREAKS WITH REPEATED HEAVY
HAMMER BLOWS
HARD CAN BE SCRATCHED WITH KNIFE OR SHARP PICK WITH DIFFICULTY(HEAVY PRESSURE);HEAVY HAMMER BLOW
REQUIRED TO BREAK SPECIMEN
MODERATELY HARD CAN BE GROOVED 1/16 INCH DEEP BY KNIFE OR SHARP PICK WITH MODERATE OR HEAVY PRESSURE;CORE
OR FRAGMENT BREAKS WITH LIGHT HAMMER BLOW OR HEAVY MANUAL PRESSURE SOFT CAN BE GROOVED OR GOUGED EASILY BY KNIFE OR SHARP PICK WITH LIGHT PRESSURE,CAN BE SCRATCHED WITH FINGERNAIL;BREAKS WITH LIGHT TO MODERATE MANUAL PRESSURE VERY SOFT CAN BE READILY INDENTED,GROOVED OR GOUGED WITH FINGERNAIL,OR CARVED WITH KNIFE;BREAKS WITH
LIGHT MANUAL PRESSURE
3 a
TYPICAL BEDROCK WEATHERING
N
MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
UNWEATHERED NO DISCOLORATION,NOT OXIDIZED
J SLIGHTLY WEATHERED DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION IS LIMITED TO SURFACE OF,OR SHORT DISTANCE FROM,FRACTURES:SOME
FELDSPAR CRYSTALS ARE DULL
m MODERATELY DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION EXTENDS FROM FRACTURES,USUALLY THROUGHOUT;Fe-Mg MINERALS ARE WEATHERED 'RUSTY",FELDSPAR CRYSTALS ARE"CLOUDY"
HIGHLY WEATHERED DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION THROUGHOUT;FELDSPAR AND Fe-Mg MINERALS ARE ALTERED TO CLAY
TO SOME EXTENT,OR CHEMICAL ALTERATION PRODUCES IN SITU DISAGGREGATION m OMPOSE DISCOLORATION OR OXIDATION THROUGHOUT,BUT RESISTANT MINERALS SUCH AS QUARTZ MAY BE UNALTERED; R MPLETELY ALTERED TO CLAY
Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 1
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer PAGE 1 OF 2
DRILL RIG: CME 55 Track Rig JOB NO.: 304596-001
AUGER TYPE: 4" Solid Stem DATE: 5/20/2021
v, Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana SAMPLE DATA
_ a o 114 Bluff Drive J w
a U Pismo Beach, California � � i
w z cn z
w � } of
as w L) I— � � m
U w w n cn OJ tY
DDO� DRII(N PUM) ] Lu
Z o °°
SM SILTY SAND: brown, loose, slightly moist
(Colluvium) 0.0-5.0 0
s
- 4
SC CLAYEY SAND: brown, moist,fine gravel 5.0-6.5 61.8 20.7 4 - 5
6 /
y
- 4
10.0- 11.5 75.1 24.6 4
- 5
1,
12 13
14 - 7
5 medium dense,very moist 15.0- 16.5 84.2 25.7 7 - 8
16 1/
SC CLAYEY SAND W/GRAVEL: brown, medium 18.0-23.0 0 dense,very moist, fine to coarse gravel
- 11
20.0-21.5 94.2 23.7 14
- 18
�s
- 8
zs 25.0-26.5 87.5 27.6 10
- 12
26 LEGEND: Ring Sample O Grab Sample Shelby Tube Sample SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 73
Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 1
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer PAGE 2 OF 2
DRILL RIG: CME 55 Track Rig JOB NO.: 304596-001
AUGER TYPE: 4" Solid Stem DATE: 5/20/2021
v, Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana SAMPLE DATA
_ a o 114 Bluff Drive J w
Pismo Beach, California � � w z i cn z
cj ww Q � p n � ' O �
nn ��nn H J w
Q3Q)0 E D IE NNU PU M)m z o 00 a
SC CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL: brown, loose,
very moist
>y
- 7
so 30.0-31.5 78.0 25.3 7
- 8
3,
32 End of Boring @ 31.5'
- No subsurface water encountered
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
4/
18 49
50 51
52 53
LEGEND: 11111110 Ring Sample O Grab Sample p Shelby Tube Sample SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 74
Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 2
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer PAGE 1 OF 2
DRILL RIG: CME 55 Track Rig JOB NO.: 304596-001
AUGER TYPE: 4" Solid Stem DATE: 5/20/2021
v, Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana SAMPLE DATA
_ a o 114 Bluff Drive J w
Pismo Beach, California � � w z i cn z
cj u Q � p n � ' O �
0 6 SM SILTY SAND: dark brown, loose, slightly moist (Colluvium)
5 SP POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT: brown 2
loose, very moist, trace fine gravel 5.0-6.5 67.4 19.2 5 - 6
6 /
y SC CLAYEY SAND: brown, medium dense, very 7 10 moist 10.0- 11.5 90.6 25.7 7
- 9
1,
12 13
increase in gravel 6
5 15.0- 16.5 91.7 25.0 8
- 11
16 1/
13 19
- 8
20.0-21.5 86.7 26.9 11
- 14
CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, very moist,
_ some fine gravel
�s
- 8
23 25.0-26.5 87.0 28.2 8
- 10
26 LEGEND: 11111110 Ring Sample O Grab Sample p Shelby Tube Sample SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 75
Earth Systems Pacific
Boring No. 2
LOGGED BY: S. Hemmer PAGE 2 OF 2
DRILL RIG: CME 55 Track Rig JOB NO.: 304596-001
AUGER TYPE: 4" Solid Stem DATE: 5/20/2021
v, Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana SAMPLE DATA
_ a o 114 Bluff Drive J w
Pismo Beach, California � � w z i cn z
cj ww Q � p n � ' O �
nn ��nn H J w
mM D IE NNU PU M)m z o 00 a
CL SANDY LEAN CLAY: brown, stiff, very moist,
some fine gravel
>y
- 9
so 30.0-31.5 80.4 31.1 9
- 10
3,
32 End of Boring @ 31.5'
- No subsurface water encountered
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
4/
18 49
50 51
52 53
LEGEND: Ring Sample O Grab Sample p Shelby Tube Sample SPT NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. It applies at the location and time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and times.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 76
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Division Group Group Name
Symbol
GW Well-graded Gravel(with Sand)
GW-GM Well-graded Gravel with Silt(and Sand)
v GW-GC Well-graded Gravel with Clay(and Sand)
o Gravel GP Poorly graded Gravel (with Sand) o (%gravel >
d %sand) GP-GM Poorly graded Gravel with Silt(and Sand) z
a, GP-GC Poorly graded Gravel with Clay(and Sand) o £
o GM Silty Gravel(with Sand)
� GC Clayey Gravel(with Sand)
c7 SW Well-graded Sand (with Gravel)
d �
c
a) SW-SM Well-graded Sand with Silt(and Gravel)
o a`,
a SW-SC Well-graded Sand with Clay(and Gravel) 0 Ln
Sand SP Poorly graded Sand(with Gravel)
(%sand >_
%gravel) SP-SM Poorly graded Sand with Silt(and Gravel) `o
E SP-SC Poorly graded Sand with Clay(and Gravel) SM Silty Sand (with Gravel)
SC Clayey Sand(with Gravel)
ML Silt(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy Silt(with Gravel),Gravelly Silt(with Sand) o, CL-ML Silty Clay(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy Silty Clay(with Gravel),Gravelly Silty Clay(with Sand) U1 •�—� Silt or Clay
a LL Organic Clay(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy organic Clay(with Gravel),Gravelly organic Clay(with `o 'F OL Sand),organic Silt(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy organic Silt(with Gravel),Gravelly organic Silt RE o with Sand
o MH Elastic Silt(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy elastic Silt(with Gravel),Gravelly elastic Silt(with Sand) vz
Silt or Clay CH Fat Clay(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy fat Clay(with Gravel),Gravelly fat Clay(with Sand) o LL>_ 50 Organic Clay(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy organic Clay(with Gravel),Gravelly organic Clay(with OH Sand),organic Silt(with Sand or Gravel),Sandy organic Silt(with Gravel),Gravelly organic Silt (with Sand)
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat and other highly organic soils Note: Percentages are by dry weight. Soil classifications based on some criteria that are not shown.Group Name items in parentheses may or may not apply, depending on percent of sand or gravel.
Coarse Grained Soil Definitions Split-barrel,3-inch O.D.,2.43-inch I.D.
Fraction Particle Dimension or U.S.
Standard Sieve Size/No.
Boulders Above 12" Split-barrel,2.5-inch O.D., 1.93-inch I.D.
Cobbles 12"to 3"
Standard Penetration Test(SPT),2.0-inch O.D., 1.375-inch I.D.
Gravel
coarse 3"to 3/4"
fine 3/4"to No.4 Shelby Tube
Sand
coarse No.4 to No. 10
medium No. 10 to No.40 Disturbed sample
fine No.40 to No.200
No recovery
CONDOR EARTH Groundwater level during drilling
LOG LEGEND AND Subsequent groundwater level
C0NQ0R SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Pla6ning Commission Agenda 4-26-2022Note:O.D.=outside diameter I.D. =inside diameter 73 - 77
LOG OF BOREHOLE NO. PROJECT NUMBER: %5& Z CDHDOIIJIRTHTECHMAGIES,11t 201163 Brim Low
PROJECT NAME:`r %avrc, 'fuelrel c—A 51 a t4-
Saw CA MM
PAGE 1 of LOCATION: jl q C31 v 9A TD, e;s r►,e V eAcf. CA- rm( as CONDOFf
COORDINATES: 3 S. 1 -4 61 -4 112.b 3-
REFERENCE POINT FOR DEPTH MEASUREMENT, C rounck Sur iP a.cc- SURFACE CONDITION:-rop Scr 1 ELEVATION OF PIEZOMETER COLLAR:
DIRECTION OF BOREHOLE: \/cr4%c, ,`, . INCLINATION FROM HORIZONTAL: cl o TOTAL DEPTH: 9 ' DATE STARTED: S/!7 2 1 DATE COMPLETED: 5 1 CONTRACTOR: 'Fc, 6 t,r
DRILL RIG: C M E 5 ' 'rrcc !� (Z 1{ DRILLER: -ro6 tj
LOGGED BY: K ee7 DRAWN: APPROVED:
NUMBER OF CORE BOXES: 3 STORED:
�?? •ho �• S � 6 s cc.l mod, � ' b s
REMARKS r`cl`' j C e en+ 11 1, e M- c P, rn v zoo ; ; 0zmD , m D Z C]Z _ O D M O >
rn
Z r CDZ O G� r e� O Z
DESCRIPTION
� z
I�Z En +lu cam#
^/ a I IV 50l G - Sllxy SAP n •/ gr��l(SP1
III NIA +i/,p
�usre, acy- gr[g 6ruwn/c�r5 -{Z, 5!•g�ffy rv+�ir�, 1 1 3) 11' arrJ�l�. F- G Sand, F_rv, grcuC III �'=" 2.5, ri'io vcrj Lousc, t-rocc c.fa.�, ruokl eks sr IOU% N 21�1� CDI.I_IJVIVON
CIG►toey;5AWV
fs((tnno 8wk grew
zi 31 I R. Sc.,
. C Sg r ` M` 0 rCA-Ct r POL"11, 9raCte,( I I
q VL=2 3 PS z`i , 1 1 1 6a
1 v 1'iL 51,;/'/117 •• (h rd"um 'Dch sz , n-o;v- 1ncrepsir15 dat �Iql"f r2 In CT CAs�h5 g( c%%rcC ,Tracc Chatrcvu {� too 0 d
b/�ISsf�r `�rQUC 0-+1t4s, Qn9vl u•! f—.0 4)'j.v 1, 1 1 1 T0' •• In CrlA r
IS 13� ,o11s/IIf Za K --
Sc%�Cl7 CLAY r. GlayrLy 5C)rJ.6
Ilf
df.k cjrryir� br�v..r•, (1+oir�, LJw it+ MrA
11't4ll�f"!I F-G Sa..LI j F - t►+ e�rGt4cl CAn,J vinr)r Cok,5; v-G III 100 19
vlrllr�fib � I
ill
L.LRy r-1 g ra+•<<� S+;4'p, r` s+ t- lrctiG III 2-I F-C o�ru+-cc � ! I
YiS1L1S( A 2o,s - g/4- .yper Y11-29.F+/a ( 1 I f�l� 73 asr1 III
5JwJ�1�
III too 7;� I1y s
I11
• III 5'd 29
�0.5er5 or- sF�t+
q1}���cl Q 1 III 1 no 3 1 Increasrnt� c�rati'-c,C
III
sl�ra�� , 7 III 41) 33 ,539
III too 3 SL IM ub
III
111
/S R .• trtrrti5115 gCCAw ,r,( a-& 511A& III 3-+ III ILI
for+rs Tarr Rrcl; ti� 39 '
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 78
LOG OF BOREHOLE ' NO. c3 -z PROJECT NUMBER: t Z. COFNWRIJIRTH=N0l.OGN16,q�C, PROJECT NAME:
S- CA BUM
PAGE 1' of 2 LOCATION: I ICI 31.rf1 +7r, Pis�� [�cc�, GR Fmc.esndar�th
CONDOR'
COORDINATES: A p ra x 3$.- I-4 6 H u-e - 1 Z.d. `q 11 0`I W REFERENCE POINT FOR DEPTH MEASUREMENT' Cr..,,j SurA—ce SURFACE CONDITION: T-op soil ELEVATION OF PIEZOMETER. COLLAR: 1 L DIRECTION OF BOREHOLE: 1 er+ c.a- INCLINATION FROM HORIZONTAL: CIO TOTAL DEPTH: (, DATE STARTED: j 1 l YJ 11 DATE COMPLETED:
CONTRACTOR:
DRILL RIG: G 1?m C- 5 5 DRILLER: 'T-u 6 LOGGED BY: K G ei DRAWN: APPROVED:
NUMBER OF CORE BOXES: .7- STORED:
v ; (a f 60 s
REMARKS fle -c ee" 5n1+ 0 - 30' scr-een 30'- b Ll ' ' sa-ck 29 ' GL1 2(�'- 29 • ruuA—, cp► �bC
rrr'I r- D Z�.O � 0 z m a z Qcr� -a n 0 o m n
0 z 0 x m o ;
0 > n z 0 � m N
z 0 y c) DESCRIPTION 0 Z
z 0 m
0 z
C alNl A as lcl
a121 I'11+: ' : f�lAT1yE 5Dlr- ` SiIke ,5ANV 4 5rav, Sf (he lLur. 6enSG, aarl, rr 6ruwr•, dry fv . III Nil; NJp 1�171b Sl+jlk1, ftjo%S.J', r+-C sa..d� r-"` bra.-cl. 1 I 1 4'- �llr� �ouSC- I I I lLou N •'
_ C d r_L-Uy�ym _ si+�t� ,yfav-el�y SAND��SP) I I 1 +-llN1Sf 1. � '' .[ovSGr clar k a,rt� �rn wr� sH..c1� F-M rJrc,vct� an5u-tom,. CIGrs I I N
.1 L
5f`�r f l InGrPr5I(15 S? I{- in lhcr�li.k� �rLrra, r•5 I I I c1 uy1 C`7%-f 5, Lrf 1 1 1
• I� II.Z�
bILr�16 R III
in crc c sti r -j C161,7 I ( I
GfL1 15 I 1 1 sa M 10b Wek ?X.)f'•r r opt r.� laOrr3, t. vcry f-I
bl�/�1`I R ` ' �,�,s�4- -�I'l.r� ►,Se, o•�-t- N i I �,,. IN 1L31.
III
is 16I IncR-tis��� clG�l g rJd ak;w o.t c-.,+cc4- III
`�� SaTdy s; I4y CGAy
�sIIsir-l1z 9, z
v e c,� 54-:.Grp ci c., IG g r ej i6 f J m s n, J;j 4- I I I 20 1576 ).-j C,j11`1)I) ahrJr-lRr tlar}s, flc.� h- i►�ccC Q1Frl�c;4y I I I 7v �t3FS a sf�F�F, rnc.-rgSin I
crs�
N gJlolril�l R )I - ?L.- 23 PY 19, vv= qj_3 cC p• -2"S.o-/_ III S`tS - very s�,�'F, coo rse sQ. I
�l�lylg � 111 Z qos
S�-1 YTS i^GKd.f,rc> j—JY% 9(CA�/'[-L I I I
25 I�1 a III
�fYl �'l�� R '1rG[C Goc rUvcC �� l,�ct �c III +au Zlr 9!5 o g �
P III C1zs-
SJ s/r,Jb o a Iel`61�� •L7c�avc � `y (ZIP)d,U rhois-l-, 1 1 1 Joe 9 A L
0 0 C°arsc S*ALk MCc�;vr'• 5rat VVL,focxlj 9r4LCLC 1 1 1 Ar. 7w Ir.r III Sa 32 q-i a�
III
5 fW. �f�1�J,1 tZ 5�-:•f'j-', dark. 5rzy brn,.+�, tm�tsk, rh-c sr<..�, I'� 11'1 9rG,rL.� , Gin .-Ic/ GIGIj'S f GI�GfL��,Cu}`Pf�1rL I I I �-� I. 100� 41-7-11,4-3 I i
r lnfrrtr�.) cor.,rsc_ sand arxd t:�r-uL_c_(_ I III 3a'
sl9florro R vx Lk KAII0 . 5-6t.,�r
5 III o �7
Q� ircrc-cs;0.5 ret t G _G grc,,,,
$AN1),(5f� �C� I I 1 lab Wz 10L43
lM rd t
_ wil cu++IC ClLrr.k- 9 rc y brLxvn
M - L Surd , �- C grayc�, G1nr� uL�r L1�r�f 1 I I 4M 1lnu • j.o a-c CuC�rsl gralwC, u Cc c s i u_,L wr+ Qo ye rs O Z� 1 1 1 !nn Il`I�
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 79
LOG OF BOREHOLE NO. C a-Z PROJECT NUMBER: 656 Z CONDOR FJWM TECHHOLOGIE69 W.
PROJECT NAME: Th av re- -TEA re I + S ha P4, sano P.O.CA 05M PAGE of LOCATION: 1`I �'61 v C F ��(o Dr, Q�sn� � �c�c�- Gl�
GONDOW °=
a n D vwm 0 0zz rn z C -o 1 0 M n
0zo = v o �
O > n z ;0m
z 0 A DESCRIPTION o z
zz o m
0 z
2+, u'
c.r
�/�!*1►0 � • � .� — _ � I I I N�A Map �� 5Z 12vv _ 111
J, ��t I�'�fG�'t��G✓P� kJl �•�i'� CG•�� � I I I !15� 5�{ t?��
G ��j��1+tij►L R c fj' Vecrcas-1s Glory L� 4 fib nn Col�cs� � I ! 5s +ZI N `' {NcGI sa d, 'Co-rsr sa��\ � n.r[I,_ n•• i S` l3z�
Lj" S
p I I I rpm Ssr + Stir
Incrc s��`,1 tiny u, d c„l.c5ipn ,Rrrct Luafae
+uo az r�r10
1 . •y
III yd 1-4 1435
65- 111 � O�; n� Tcrn,',,,.,4ecl
Nu Gw rlll
IIII
IIII
�p tinb ! I I I
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
Ilil
IIII
Ills
IIII
IIII
sill
IIII
IIII
IIII
II11
IIII
IIII
IIII
rill
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
IIII
Ills
IIII
IIII
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 80
8562 Thaure Residence Core Box Photos
"Thaure Residential
Tunnel
CET#8562
Boring B-1
Box I of 3
7.5'—17.0'
- - i
L_
IMG 0475.JPG
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
CET#8562
Boring B4
Box 2 of 3
17.0'—25.0' x
N
I M G_0476.J P G
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 81
8562 Thaure Residence Core Box Photos
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
C ET#8562
Boring 8-1
Sox 3 of 3
25.0'—38.5-
i
. .... . ......
I
r w
w �
IMG_0477.JPG
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
coo#8562
Boring S-2
Box 1 of 7
I
.. f }
1 I
IMG 0479.JPG
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 82
8562 Thaure Residence Core Box Photos
r
Thaure 3esidential
'runnel
CET#8562
Boring B.2
Sox2,of7
i
IMG 0480.JPG
I
Thaure Residential
Tunnel CET#8562
Boring B-2
Box 2 of 7
11.5•-at.�'
a
N
IMG_0481.JPG
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 83
8562 Thaure Residence Core Box Photos
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
CET#8562
Boring B-2
Box 3 of 7
21.0'—31.0'
- V
.. ........... ............
IMG 0482.JPG
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
CET#8562
Boring B-2
Box 4of7
31A"—41.0'
i
— .. -- - -
I
I p
N
I�
V
IMG 0483.JPG
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 84
8562 Thaure Residence Core Box Photos
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
CET#8562
Boring B-2
Box 5 of 7
41.0"—SIX
N
I
......... — — :cte
F
..
nn
Y
W �
.......i................................... L........ ............ _ IMG 0484.JPG
Thaure Residential
Tunnel
CET#8562
Boring B-2
Box 6 of 7
51.5'—61.5'
• I
V� I
IMG_0485.JPG
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 85
8562 Thaure Residence Core Box Photos
Thaure Residential s
Tunnel
CET#8562
Baring B-2
r Sox 7 of 7
s 61.5"—64.0" 1
N �
_.
1 :,::....,..M
........
I M G_0486.JPG
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 86
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 87
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
BULK DENSITY TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2937-17(modified for ring liners) June 4,2021
BORING DEPTH MOISTURE WET DRY
NO. feet CONTENT,% DENSITY,pcf DENSITY,pcf 1 6.0-6.5 20.7 74.5 61.8
1 11.0-11.5 24.6 93.6 75.1
1 16.0-16.5 25.7 105.9 84.2
1 26.0-26.5 27.6 111.7 87.5
1 31.0-31.5 25.3 97.7 78.0
2 6.0-6.5 19.2 80.3 67.4
2 16.0-16.5 25.0 114.6 91.7
2 21.0-21.5 26.9 110.1 86.7
2 31.0-31.5 31.1 105.4 80.4
CB2 31.5-32.0 28.6 115.7 90.0
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D4829-19
BORING DEPTH EXPANSION
NO. feet INDEX
1 10.0- 11.5 17
2 5.0-6.5 2
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 88
I 0"Mmat,w
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63/07;D 1140-017 Boring#1 @ 11.0-11.5' June 4,2021
Clayey Sand (SC)
Sieve size % Retained % Passing
#200(75-µrn) 80 20
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 200
100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- --------- -------- --------------------------- 80 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
70 1
-- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------- ------ -----I---- -------
60 -
-------------
-------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------- -- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________ ----------------------------------------------------------------- -
W40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0W 30
00 -----------------------:--:--:--:--:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------__________-- -- -----------------------
----------------------
----------------- ------- -- - ------ ---------- --------------------------------------------------
-
20 100 -- --
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE,mm
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 89
I 0"Mmal,W
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63/07;D 1140-017 Boring#1 @ 26.0-26.5' June 4,2021
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
Sieve size % Retained % Passing
#200(75-lim) 80 20
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 200
100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- -------------------------- 80 ---------------------------- --------------------------- Ur
70 ---------------------------------
60 -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------------------------- ----------- 50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- I------------------------- ---------------------------t------------------------------------------ W 40 -
--------------------------- --------------------- ----_________-_______________ W 30 ----------------------------___------__________--------------------------- PO
20 -
------- -----
10 ------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 0 ---------------
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE,mm
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 90
I 0"Mmal,w
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422-63/07;D 1140-017 Boring#2 @ 16.0-16.5' June 4,2021
Clayey Sand (SC)
Sieve size % Retained % Passing
#200(75-µrn) 63 37
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 200
100 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 90 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- --------- -------- --------------------------- 80 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
70 1
-- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------- ------ -----I---- -------
60 -
-
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --
-
--- ----------------------------- ---------- W40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- 0W 30
00 -----------------------:--:--:--:--:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------__________-- - ------------------------
---------------------
----------------- ------- -- - ------ -------- --------------------------------------------------
-
20 100 -- --
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE,mm
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 91
I 0"Mmal,11111W,
Thaure Residence 304596'001
Poo| & Cabana
MOISTURE-DENSITY
PROCEDURE USED: B June 4, 2U2l
PREPARATION METHOD: Moist Boring#[email protected] 5.0' RAMMER TYPE: Mechanical Brown Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed)
SIEVE DATA: MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY:O9.4pcf
Sieve Size Y6 Retained (Cumulative) OPTIMUM K8D|STURE:21.2Y6 3/4" O
3/8" 4
#4 27
/w
99 98
97 96
s
w
� m
�
92 p/
ww m
�
�
� m
w
85 I- --
84 m
82 � � I I :i---L- --t�---A---
m n o u w o /6 n m m 20 o 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 a 32 33 34 o MOISTURE CONTENT,percent
------- Compaction Curve ----- Zero Air Voids Curve Planning CDDl[DiGGi0O Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 92
��
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D3080M-115(modified for consolidated,undrained conditions) June 4,2021
Boring#1 @ 0.0-5.0' INITIAL DRY DENSITY:80.5 pcf Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT:21.2 Compacted to 90%RC,saturated PEAK SHEAR ANGLE(0):33° COHESION (Q 573 psf
SHEAR vs. NORMAL STRESS
3,000
2,500
2,000
w
O.
E- 1,500
d
W
x
1,000
500
0 0 500 11000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NORMAL STRESS,psf
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 93
��
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
DIRECT SHEAR continued ASTM D 3080/D3080M-115(modified for consolidated,undrained conditions) Boring#1 @ 0.0-5.0' June 4,2021
Silty Sand with Gravel(SM)
Compacted to 90%RC,saturated SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed) SAMPLE NO.: 1 2 3 AVERAGE
INITIAL
WATER CONTENT,% 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2
DRY DENSITY, pcf 80.5 80.5 80.5 80.5
SATURATION, % 53.3 53.3 53.3 53.3
VOID RATIO 1.054 1.054 1.054 1.054
DIAMETER, inches 2.410 2.410 2.410
HEIGHT, inches 1.00 1.00 1.00
AT TEST
WATER CONTENT,% 39.6 40.2 40.6
DRY DENSITY, pcf 81.5 83.7 84.5
SATURATION, % 100.0 100.0 100.0
VOID RATIO 1.028 0.976 0.958
HEIGHT, inches 0.99 0.96 0.95
2,000
-------------
w 1,500
vi
486 psf
rA - - =971 psf
F- 1,000 - - - ---- 1,942psf
uA
W
x
Z 500
r
0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION,inches
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 94
��
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D 3080/D3080M-115(modified for consolidated,undrained conditions) June 4,2021
Boring#1 @ 21.0-21.5' INITIAL DRY DENSITY:94.2 pcf Clayey Sand with Gravel(SC) INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT: 23.7% Compacted to in-situ density,saturated PEAK SHEAR ANGLE (0):43° COHESION (C): 586 psf
SHEAR vs. NORMAL STRESS
3,500
3,000
2,500
w
y
a
v1
�W
a
2,000
a
w
x
1,500
1,000
500
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NORMAL STRESS,psf
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 95
��
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
DIRECT SHEAR continued ASTM D 3080/D3080M-115(modified for consolidated,undrained conditions) Boring#1 @ 21.0-21.5' June 41 2021
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
Compacted to in-situ density,saturated SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.65 (assumed) SAMPLE NO.: 1 2 3 AVERAGE
INITIAL
WATER CONTENT,% 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7
DRY DENSITY, pcf 94.2 94.2 94.2 94.2
SATURATION, % 83.1 83.1 83.1 83.1
VOID RATIO 0.755 0.755 0.755 0.755
DIAMETER, inches 2.410 2.410 2.410
HEIGHT, inches 1.00 1.00 1.00
AT TEST
WATER CONTENT,% 31.7 29.0 29.4
DRY DENSITY, pcf 95.5 98.0 100.5
SATURATION, % 100.0 100.0 100.0
VOID RATIO 0.731 0.687 0.645
HEIGHT, inches 0.99 0.96 0.94
2,500
2,000
w
y
Q" 486 psf
1,500 - \ - - -971 psf
fGiti] -- 1,942psf
1,000
W
x
500
0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION,inches
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 96
��
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435/D2435M-11(2020) June 4,2021
Condor Boring#2 @ 31.5-32' DRY DENSITY: 90.5 pcf Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL) MOISTURE CONTENT: 28.6% Ring Sample SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.70(assumed)
INITIAL VOID RATIO:0.863
VOID RATIO vs. NORMAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM
0.950
0.900
calculated initial vad ra i
0.850 Satwated
V •
O
I •
D 0.800
•
R
A
T
I 0.750
•
O
•
0.700 • •
•
0.650
0.1 1 10 100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS,ksf
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 97
��
Thaure Residence 304596-001
Pool & Cabana
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D 2435/D2435M-11(2020) June 4,2021
Condor Boring#2 @ 31.5-32' DRY DENSITY: 90.1 pcf Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL) MOISTURE CONTENT: 28.6% Ring Sample SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 2.70(assumed)
INITIAL VOID RATIO:0.870
VOID RATIO vs. NORMAL PRESSURE DIAGRAM
0.950
0.900
0.850
V •
O •
I •
D 0.800
•
R
A •
T
I 0.750
O
•
0.700
0.650
0.1 1 10 100
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS,ksf
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 98
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc.
937 Commercial Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
C®PER Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test
ASTM D2850
4.0 N
Y
N
2.0 s
0.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Total Normal Stress,ksf
-Sample 1 Sample Data
Stress-Strain Curves Sample 2 1 2 3 4 Moisture% 23.7 25.7 28.2 -�Sample 3
Dry Den,pcf 94.2 90.6 87.0
�Sample4 Void Ratio 0.789 0.860 0.938
6.00 Saturation% 81.0 80.7 81.2
Height in 4.95 5.01 5.02
Diameter in 2.41 2.40 2.40
5.00 Cell psi 8.3 4.2 11.0
Strain % 15.00 12.32 15.00
Deviator, ksf 5.399 5.426 5.125
Rate%/min 1.00 1.00 0.91
4.00 in/min 0.050 0.050 0.046
y Job No.: 218-146
y Client: Earth Systems Pacific
Project: 304596-001
N 3.00 Boring: 1 2 2
Sample:
o Depth ft: 21.0 11.5 26.0
Visual Soil Description
2.00 Sample#
1 Olive Brown Clayey SAND w/Gravel
2 Dark Brown Clayey SAND w/Gravel
1.00 3 Dark Brown Clayey SAND w/Gravel
4 Remarks:
0.00 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0
Strain,%
Note:Strengths are picked at the peak deviator stress or 15%strain which ever occurs first per ASTM D2850.
PlanningI I - - -
Particle Size Distribution Report
C C O d 6
C C C � C G .0 pp VV O N M a (O 0 't N 100
I I ! I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 w I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I UL
so I I I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I f ! I I tY 4o
� I I I l l 11 I I I I I I I 30 1
I I I I I I I ! I f u l l 20 I I I [ I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I
0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
%+3" %Gravel %Sand %Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
0 20 50 14 9 4 3
Test Results(ASTM D6913& ASTM 131140) Material Description Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Mottled brown well-graded gravel with sand Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail)
1 Inch 100
3/4 Inch 80 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318)
112Inch 57 PL= 39 LL= 64 PI= 25 318Inch 46#4 30 Classification
#8 18 USCS (D 2487)= GW AASHTO (M 145)= A-2-7(0) #16 12 Coefficients
930 8 D90= 22.1126 D85= 20.5972 D60= 13.6043 #50 6 D50= 10.6348 D30= 4.8474 D15= 1.8035 #100 4 D10= 0.9094 Cu= 14.96 Cc= 1.90 #200 3.0
Remarks
F.M.�5.97
Date Received: 5/26/21 Date Tested: 5/28/21
Tested By: MPW
Checked By: JML
Title: PM
(no specification provided)
Location: CB-2 Date Sampled:Sample Number: 64655 Depth: 56' GULFSHORE Client: Condor Earth
Project:
t: Tliaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
EXPLORATION AND TESTING Proect No: 21-180 Figure Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 100
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60 ,
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils /
/
5D — /
O
/
/
40 i
w /
a /
z �
30 -
U
g /
/ O
20 Oi
10 CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH
D
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL Pl W40 %<#200 USCS • Clayey sand 47 23 24
Project No. 21-180 Client: Condor Earth Remarks:
Project: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft •Material/sample description was provided by Condor Earth.
•Location: CB-I Depth: 9` Sample Number: 64650
GULF SHORE
EIPLBAATIQN AND IESTIN6 Figure
Tested By: FI Checked By: JML
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 101
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60 /
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils /
/
50 /
/ 4,
/
0%
40 x /
w /
z /
U 30 -
uF'j /
a / 3V
20 Q�
10 C,L.ML ML or OL MH or OH
i
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS Sandy Clay 52 23 29
Project No. 21-180 Client: Condor Earth Remarks:
Project: `I'liaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft •Material/sample description was provided by Condor Earth.
•Location: CB-2 Depth: 17' Sample Number; 64653
GULF SNORE
EIPLORNilON AND TESTING Figure
Tested By: BGS Checked By: JML
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 102
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60 t
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils /
/
50 /
/ 11
O
/
40 /
x /
w /
z /
30 U
W /
/ p
20 A§
10 t
CL M
///// A'11LV11 ML or OL MH or OH
0 / �1 I I I I I 1 -1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
LIQUID LIMIT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS • Mottled brown well-graded gravel with sand 64 39 25 7 3.0 GW Project No. 21-180 Client: Condor Earth Remarks:
Project: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
•Location: C13-2 Depth: 56' Sample Number: 64655
GULF SHORE
EIPLORATIQN AND TESTING Figure
Tested By: FI Checked By: JML
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 103
MOISTURE CONTENT & UNIT WEIGHT TEST RESULTS
Sample Wet Unit Dry Unit Moisture
Identification Depth,ft. Weight, Ib/ft.3 Weight, Iblft.3 Content, CB-1 20.5' 113.5 87.4 29.8
CB-2 17' 120.3 96.3 25.0
Test Method: ASTM D2216,ASTM D2937
PROJECT NUMBER: 21-180 1 May 29, 2021
Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
3362 Fitzgerald
GULFSHORE R Pncho hone:(916)939 411 a 42
EXPLORATION AND TESTING FAX:(916)635-4315
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 104
36 Total Effective
C,psi 6.99 6.94
deg 22.1 26.1
TanM 0.41 0.49
24 a
vi
a�
w
m
12 0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Total Normal Stress, psi
Effective Normal Stress, psi ---
6❑ Sample No. 1 2 - 3
Water Content, % 24.9 24.9 24.9
50 _ Dry Density, pcf 90.8 90.8 90.8 @ Saturation, % 78.5 78.5 78.5
s Void Ratio 0.8563 0.8563 0.8563
40 - Diameter, in. 2.45 2.45 2.45 Height, in. 5.15 5.15 5.15
2 Water Content, % 31.3 30.9 30.5
to s0 N Dry Density, pcf 91.3 91.9 92.5 N Saturation, % 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 Void Ratio 0.8455 0.8341 0.8223
a 20 Q Diameter, in. 2.45 2.50 2.56 Height, in. 5.14 4.88 4.64
Strain rate, in.lmin. 0.008 0,008 0,008
10 Back Pressure, psi 50.0 50.0 50.0 L---I- - Cell Pressure, psi 53.5 60.4 70.8 0 Fail. Stress, psi 25.0 33.3 46.0 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Total Pore Pr., psi 51.8 53.3 55.8 Axial Strain, % Ult. Stress, psi
Total Pore Pr., psi
Type of Test: 61 Failure, psi 26.7 40.4 61.0 CU with Pore Pressures a3 Failure, psi 1.7 7.1 15.0 Sample Type: Driven liner Client: Condor Earth
Description: Clayey Sand
Project: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
Specific Gravity=2.70 location: CB-1 @ 8.5'
Remarks: Material/sample description was Sample Number: 64649 Depth: 8.5' provided by Condor Earth. Proj. No.: 21-180 Date Sampled:
[D GULF SNORE
Figure EXPLORA7III III TESTING
Tested By: MPW Checked By: JML
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 105
75 ,i 75 2
60 i 60
—
0 45 45
W
0 U) d �
c� 0 30 a� 0 30
OW o —(a0- '> d '>
a) a�
Eo 15 1 15
a 0
0% 5% 10% 0% 5% 10%
75 3 75
&0 —- I 60
0 ro 95 (n 45
V) � � 0 (D
rim a (�5
0 30 0 30
OW o a
I 'j d 'j
a)
0 15 F � 15
Va o
0% 5% 10% 0% 5% 10%
60 Peak Strength --
Total Effective
a= 6.47 psi 6.23 psi
i
a= 20.7 deg 23.8 deg
40 tan a= 0.38 0.44
i
i�
Q i
6 �
20 i
i
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 p, psi
Stress Paths: Total Effective———
Client: Condor Earth
Project: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
Location: CB-I @ 8.5' Depth: 8.5' Sample Number: 64649
Project No.: 21-I80 Figure Gulf Shore Construction Services, LLC Tested By: MPW Checked By: JML
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 106
33 Total Effective
C, psi 4.61 4.12
deg 23.1 27.8
Tan 0.43 0.53
22 zip
vi
N
d7
a='
(6
L
� 11
0 0 i1 22 33 44 55 66
Total Normal Stress, psi
Effective Normal Stress, psi ---
so 1 1 1 1 1 1Sample No. 1 2 3
Water Content, % 26.0 26.0 26.0
50 Dry Density, pcf 89.5 89.5 89.5 ro Saturation, % 79.3 79.3 79.3
e Void Ratio 0.8842 0.8842 0,8842
40 3 Diameter, in. 2.40 2.40 2.40 Height, in. 6.00 6.00 6.00
N
2 Water Content, % 32.4 32.0 31.3 cn 30 2 in Dry Density, pcf 89.9 90.4 91.3 Saturation, % 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ta
~ Void Ratio 0.8747 0.8651 0.8452
20 ¢ Diameter, in. 2.40 2.42 2.46 iI Height, in. 5.99 5.82 5.60
Strain rate, in./min. 0,008 0.008 0.008
10 Back Pressure, psi 50.0 50.0 50.0 Cell Pressure, psi 53.5 60.4 70.8
0 Fail. Stress, psi 17.8 28.5 40.3 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Total Pore Pr., psi 50.6 52.8 55.2 Axial Strain, % Ult. Stress, psi
Total Pore Pr., psi
Type of Test 61 Failure, psi 20.6 36.2 55.9 CU with Pore Pressures a3 Failure, psi 2.9 7.6 15.6 Sample Type: Driven Liner Client: Condor Earth
Description: Sandy Clay
Project: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
Specific Gravity= 2.7 Location: C13-2 @ 23.5'
Remarks: Material/sample description was Sample Number: 64654 Depth: 23.5' provided by Condor Earth. Proj. No.: 21-180 Date Sampled:
[B GULF SNORE
Figure 11 EXPLORMI®N All iEtil11111i
Tested By: MPW Checked By: JML
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 107
75 1 75 2
60 i 60
� I
� N 45 M N 45
N N N N
D U) Q fn
m o 30 w `0 30 -
o is o io
- 0 is m
0 15 0 15
0 0
0% 3% 6% 0% 3% (3%
75 3 75 4
60 i 60
a N 45 - N 45
dU) a
L
� o 30 - mo 30
o isFU
`o m
m a�
15 - Q 15
0 0
0% 3°/n 6% 0% 3% 6%
30 Peak Strength
Total Effective
a= 4.24 psi 3.65 psi
a= 21.4 deg 25.0 deg
tan u-= 0.39 0.47 �
i
20 �
i
i
i
a
10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 p, psi
Stress Paths: Total Effective———
Client: Condon'Earth
Project: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft
Location: CB-2 @ 23.5' Depth: 23.5' Sample Number: 64654 Project No.: 2 1-180 Figure Gulf Shore Construction Services, LLC Tested By: MPW Checked By: JML.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 108
California State Certified Laboratory No.2153 C E R C 0 a n a l y t i c a
1100 Willow Pass Court,Suite A
8 June,2021 Concord,CA 94520-1006
925 462 2771 Fax.925 462 2775
Cust.No.1225225 7 Job No. 9 www.cercoanalytical.com Ms. Kate Gabriel
Condor Earth Technologies, Inc.
188 Frank West Circle, Suite I
Stockton, CA 95206
Subject: Project No.: 8562
Project Name: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft,Pismo Beach, CA Corrosivity Analysis—ASTM Test Methods
Dear Ms. Gabriel:
Pursuant to your request, CERCO Analytical has analyzed the soil sample submitted on May 26, 2021.
Based on the analytical results,this brief corrosivity evaluation is enclosed for your consideration.
Based upon the resistivity measurements, the sample is classified as "moderately corrosive". All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.
The chloride ion concentration was none detected at a reporting limit of 15 mg/kg.
The sulfate ion concentration was none detected at a reporting limit of 15 mg/kg.
The pH of the soil was 6.79 which does not present corrosion problems for buried iron, steel, mortar- coated steel and reinforced concrete structures.
The redox potentials was measured at 360-mV which is indicative of potentially "slightly corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic soil conditions.
This corrosivity evaluation is based on general corrosion engineering standards and is non-specific in nature. For specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations or consultation, please call JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. at(925) 927-6630.
We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if you require further information,please do not hesitate to contact us.
V ry truly yours,
C CO NALYTIC , C. ff
1-
Darby Howard,J . P.E. I
President is
JDH/jdl
Enclosure
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 109
California State Certified Laboratory No.2153
C E R C 0
®.. analytical
Client: Condor Earth Technologies,Inc. 1100 Willow Pass Court,Suite A Client's Project No.: 8562 Concord,CA 94520-1006 Client's Project Name: Thaure Residential Tunnel and Shaft Date Samples Not Indicated 925 462 2771 Fax.925 462 2775 Date Received: 26-May-21
www.cercoanalytical.com
Matrix: Soil
Authorization: Signed Chain of Custody Date of Report: 8-Jun-2021 Resistivity
Redox Conductivity (100%Saturation) Sulfide Chloride Sulfate Job/Sample No. Sample I.D. (mV) pH (umhos/cm)* (ohms-cm) (mg/kg)* (mg/kg)* (mg/kg)* 2105179-001 C13-1,5' 360 6.79 - 6,800 - N.D. N.D.
Method: ASTM D1498 ASTM D4972 ASTM D1125M ASTM G57 ASTM D4658M ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 Reporting Limit: - - 10 - 50 15 15 Date Analyzed: 3-Jun-2021 3-Jun-2021 - 27-Ma -2021 - Y 4-Jun-2021 4-Jun-2021
* Results Reported on"As Received"Basis
N.D.-None Detected
C eryl McMillen
Laboratory Director
uality Control Summary-All laboratory uali ntrol ra e r e to be within established limits 7.B - anning CommisTioigAgenva`� 2 -e No.1
APPENDIX C
Figure 3a — Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3b— Regional Geologic Map Legend
Figure 4— Historical Seismicity Map
Figure 5 — Rock Fall Potential
Figure 6— FEMA Flood Zone Map
Figure 7 — Indoor Radon Potential Map
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 111
l `
~ 65 1 75 3 8f' 1` ` 8 48 wpms Tpm
74 ��\ 1 Tpe t8 -
�cs 6�'e _ Tp l f 24 Tp z9\ _ Tpeb 1 r' ~~�1 L �� Q a / IN
rf52 I /j _Tbc .� 1`\ Y 'r� \\ \ / Tpeb \\ �Tpbc Qya, A \
- / I r/�lTpb� / �TPb��1 �J f TP9f\1 3\�\\\=1 -�INDIAN � Tpms I
4TP 1 (�` Clr1 1 / �� \ �
Tp _ kNQg23
I 1 �T ) \ �8\i7 40 40 \�
26 S l
Tps .� LP(
ti \
MQy AWE, `tr �� �—— k
15 Qya2 ' ��- gAi1}r TP95 _-7 T g\\� ��rpes Tpe �- f !Lei es Wa / rrF. 8\ '•`.\ \��r,`.. \� \ \ \� 48 17 (Tpb 20 �' ___ _ ��\ \� QYa31
, \\ \
P\ �, r Tps �\ �I \�" \\� rj�Qya�`� 1�\ zo�1 L 8 241 8r Tpg �\
T _ } �/ 1�
�888� e r ^TpmPg \ \\ 31
� i?� I 15}\ 21�� i
T .P b� t�
8 T °To
�2e 11 ` _ Tpbd l� .-.__. ,1\Qye �J IJ: 4 J 8' Tpbc 27 >Tpb) 14 \k zo 1 I -T f � /�f��4 �TP9d `Pgs
�—� \ ti
mb
35-� bc� / / _ Z �� Qya2 �� 29 75
Tpeb
8 Tps ~`Tmc To 0 \ \� \ J'~ Qyaz l �` ` \17.\ / 11 \ Tpms ` Tpm' - Tp9 y 1
\\ Y \ Tpeb Tp -- TPg Tpm 8 TP9 �T Tod p 25 81__T 11Z� a T g
QI � 21 Tmc `�_ — � �B,�F_ ��QBo����j���T� \\\\\S\�p�i��� Tpes' \ Tot ///40 �Z2 Ica Tpm J, J r Tpms j�� f z� Tpms�M J �� ���� 1�\TpeV� �z� �� Tpeb / \-
\ I /�\14
Tm \\ oop, \ ��\-5 Tp S — Tpe U
24 ���� Tpms
\ 32 27
50 21
N \SITE Tpeb �\ \ \ Tpm 38 30 Tpm 17 1
QDPi \ \ 3Y
Source:Wiegers,Mark,O.,2011,Preliminary Geologic Map of the Pismo Beach 7.5'Quadrangle,San Luis Obispo County,Caligornia:A Digital Database,scale 1:24,000 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3a 4378 Old Santa Fe Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana Date July 2021
www.earthsystems.com - email: [email protected] 114 Bluff Drive Pro ect No. (805) 544-3276 Pismo Beach, California 304596-001 Plannina Commission Aaenda 04-26-2022 1 17.13 - 112
Legend
Landslide depos'
QIS �olocene)— Highly fragmented to largely coherent landslide Old Surficial Deposits deposits. Very old alluvial valley and pediment deposits(middle to early Pleistocene)—Tan silt Young Surficial Deposits Qvoa and fine sand deposited on a gently sloping pediment surface extending down the northeast side of the San Luis Range into San Luis Obispo Valley. Mapped as Paso Qye Young eolian deposi�g to ene t late Pleistt Gene Stationary sand dune Robles Formation by Hall(1973). Lacks channel conglomerates. Much of the unit deposits. Well-soHe°d w�ite to�rown windb�own and. appears gradational with underlying sandstone of the Squire Member of the Pismo Young alluvial valley deposits,undivided (Holocene to late Pleistocene), Formation(Tps)and may in part be residual soil developed on that unit(Nitchman, Qya sand,silt,and clay-bearing alluvium deposited on flood-plains and along ted 1988).
Locally divided by relative age(2=youngest,1=oldest). Surfaces on young deposits are Very old paralic deposits(middle to early Pleistocene) undissected and lack soil development. Surfaces on older deposits are slightly dissected QVOp consisting of beach and near shore sands and grave1XWA9et8r6f&8N,AtInd and display weak soil development: alluvium. These deposits rest on emergent wave-cut platforms preserved by regional Young alluvial valley deposits,Unit 2 uplift. Well preserved terraces are found about 400 feet above sea level on slopes Qya2 north and northwest of Pismo Beach. These terraces are estimated to be older than 560 ka(Hanson and others,1994).
Young alluvial valley deposits,Unit 1
Qyal
Old Surficial Deposits Pismo Formation(lower Pliocene to upper Miocene) Old alluvial valley deposits(late to middle Pleistocene F_M Squire member—Massive,white,calcareous,fine-to medium-grained quartzose to QOa I arkosic,silty sandstone. Sand grains subrounded to subangular;�5-80%quartz, above active flood plains and channels.These deposi off pedoge c souls.Consists T sc 15-20%feldspar,less than 15%mafic minerals(Hall,1973). Contains lenses of white, slightly dissected and capped by moderate to well-developed pedogenic soils. Consists P well-rounded pebbles and cobbles of Monterey and Obispo Formation clasts north of of relatively thin deposits of gravel,sand,silt and clay-bearing alluvium overlying Edna Fault. Basal conglomerate of rounded chart and basalt cobbles near mouth of eroded bedrock surfaces and older sediments. Forms low rounded topographic rises in San Luis Obispo Creek. Bioturbated with greenish glauconitic sand coatings and clay San Luis Obispo Valley. Locally perched on isolated strath terraces. and silt interbeds in footwall of Wilmar Avenue Fault at Pismo Beach(Nitchman,1988).
Old paralic deposits(late to middle Pleistocene) Tpsc-Conglomerate of rounded chart pebbles near middle of unit on north side of QOp1 3 beach and nearshore sands and gravels covereVOy%otffiVMf 9R80aVA@?Risi gf Edna Fault. deposits rest on emergent wave-cut platforms preserved by regional uplift. Marine deposits Tpb Belleview member—Light-gray bedded,resistant sandstone and interbedded siltstone. consist of well-sorted sand and gravel locally containing fossils and shell fragments. T bd Sandstone medium-grained;60 d quartz,tat feldspar,locally interbedded rock fragments
Overlying non-marine cover consists of poorly-sorted sand,silt,gravel and clay deposited P (Hall,1973).Tpbc - Interbedded,buff claystone,siltstone and fine-grained by slope wash and alluvial processes. Divided by relative age(3=youngest,1=oldest). sandstone. Claystone speroidally fractured. Sandstone beds locally fossiliferous.
Estimated ages of deposits are as follows(Hanson and others,1994): Tpbc Tpbd-Well-bedded diatomaceous siltstone,claystone and silty diatomite.
Old paralic deposits,Unit 3—80 ka
QOpg Gregg member—Massive white,buff-weathering sandstone,soft to resistant, Tpgf medium-grained;65%quartz,30%feldspar,clay 4%,mafic minerals 1%(Hall,1973).
Old paralic deposits,Unit 2—120 ka Tpgs—Well-bedded sandstone,beds 2 inches to 2 feet thick. Tpgf—Massive buff QOP2 Tpgdpg Tpg siltstone. Tpgb—Locally bituminous sandstone. Tbec—Chen pebble conglomerate.
Tb Tpgd—Diatomaceous siltstone.
QOp1 Old paralic deposits,Unit 1—210 ka-430 ka Tpgc Miguelito member—Brown to buff interbedded siltstone and claystone,moderately resistant,well-bedded,beds generally 2 to 4 inches thick. Locally includes beds and lenses of siliceous and dolomitic siltstone and friable,locally bituminous sandstone Monterey Formation(upper to middle Miocene)—Bedded,resistant chert,color TpmsE (Hall,1973). Opaline and porcelaneous shale is present in the western part of the Tms Tmt varies from white and gray to brown and reddish-brown,weathering to chalky map area. Tpms—Poorly bedded siltstone,diatomaceous siltstone and sandy Tmc white. Brittle,conchoidal fracturing,commonly sheared,beds%to 6-inches thick, siltstone. The Miguelito Member consists of basinal mudstones in the west and south commonly laminated,locally interbedded with diatomite(Hall,1973). Tmd—White parts of the map area that interfinger with coeval inner shelf sandstones of the Edna Tmts Tmd to buff diatomite with minor tuff,opaline chert and tuffaceous sandstone. Trots— member to the east.
Tmb Tuffaceous siltstone,locally interbedded with dolomitic siltstone and opaline chart. Edna member—Buff,massive arkosic to quartzose sandstone,fine-to coarse-grained; Trot—White to blue-gray tuff,very fine-to coarse-grained,locally includes virtic tuff TpeS Tpet quartz 80-95%,feldspar less than 5-15%(Hall,1973). Tpeb—Bituminous sandstone and tuffaceous sandstone. Tms—Brown to white siltstone with some claystone. zones within Tpe. Oil can be seen leaking from exposures near Price Canyon Oil Tmb—Tan to yellowish-white siltstone and dolomitic claystone locally tuffaceous Tped Tpe Field and oily sandstones are exposed on the ridge north of Shell Beach.Tpec— or interbedded with chart Basal conglomerate and/or breccia with clasts 1/,-inch to several feet in diameter of Tpe c Tpeb Monterey chert,dacite and Franciscan debris. Clasts commonly angular and poorly sorted but locally rounded and well-sorted. Basal conglomerate overlying Monterey Formation well exposed at Shell Beach. Tpes—Massive medium-to coarse-grained pebbly sandstone,locally calcareous and fossiliferous. Tpet—Hard,buff to gray tuffaceous sandstone,locally siliceous and bituminous. Tped—Fine-grained dolomitic sandstone.
Source:Wiegers,Mark,O.,2011,Preliminary Geologic Map of the Pismo Beach 7.5'Quadrangle,San Luis Obispo County,Caligornia:A Digital Database,scale 1:24,000 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP LEGEND FIGURE 3b 4378 Old Santa Fe Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana Date 21 www.earthsystems.com - email: es earths stems.com Julyct N ®r.
Y P@ Y 114 Bluff Drive Project No. (805) 544-3276 Pismo Beach, California 304596-001 Plannina Commission Aaenda 04-26-2022 1 17.13 - 113
ea M 6.5 doh
... 'r, �,ri�.e'� L r ` , 3/10/1922 * M5.5 Fault Classification (Regional)
8/18/1922 �
M 6.5 .r " . '�; f x Historic 0 Late Quaternary 0 Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone O 12/22/2003
_ M 5.5
1/2/1853 . i� 0/51877 1.3 Holocene 0 Quaternary Lr 4 1 2G2
'{ I so de 1 �' Source: California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California (2010) Rc,,les fPas4 It I
R-.1)Ies) '
+, • '141A; - O
�s titi , M 5.5 0 Historic Earthquakes, 1769 to 2015 - California (Magnitude 5.0-plus) 4/27/1908
Templeta�l ti ;� ', O Richter magnitude www.earthsystems.com - email: [email protected] Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana July 2021 �1/ 805 544-3276 114 Bluff Drive Pismo Beach, California Project No.
304596-001
Resistant outcrops of bituminous sandstone are -
present high on the slope above the project and
residences on Bluff Drive.This outcrop has
characteristics that are different from the adjacen
shale units.The boulders on the slope can be
attributed to rockfall from the resistant sandstone
layer with a high level of confidence because of
r�
- the identifiable characteristics. _ t This large boulder,approximately the size of a
+ - car,likely rolled down the slope from the sand s stone outcrops.
r
7R7$'• LIP ;
w� 4.._• boo
a •
* Large angular boulders can be seen in this
photograph that are a result of weathering
of the resistant outcrop.They will undoubtably - - - s move down slope under the influence of
M.1 gravity over time.
0 _ These 2 boulders likely rolled down the slope from the sandstone outcrops
kkk
31 1 «1 M Y r
EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC ROCK FALL POTENTIAL FIGURE 5 4378 Old Santa Fe Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana Date July 2021
www.earthsystems.com - email: [email protected] 114 Bluff Drive Pro ect No. (805) 544-3276 Pismo Beach, California 304596-001 Plannina Commission Aaenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 11
National Flood Hazard Layer FI RMette :a` FEMA Legend
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT 120°42'59"W 35°10'49"N
Without Base Flood Elevation(BFE)
Zone A,V,A99
SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth zone Ae,AO,AH,Ve,AR
Sail L"IRSObis O(LZoU3il J HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard,Areas
_ of 1%annual chance flood with average "t depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile Zone
tom. 1 Future Conditions 1%Annual
LIM Chance Flood Hazard zone x
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
OTHER AREAS OF - Levee.See Notes.zone x
FLOOD HAZARD f"jWj Area with Flood Risk due to LeveezoneD AREA OF MINIMAL F0001),HAZARD NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zonex O� X Q Effective LOMRs
n Lem
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zoneD
T-RSO
GENERAL __- Channel,Culvert,or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES 11 1 I 1 1 I Levee,Dike,or Floodwall
�aC Cross Sections with 1%Annual Chance
V * 17•s Water Surface Elevation
T 03 a- - - -Coastal Transect
* ...w.ay.M.,. Base Flood Elevation Line(BFE) • Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
———— Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER _ Profile Baseline
t FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
a -
❑ Digital Data Available N
f
SITE .� El No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS ® Unmapped
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
done VE
� �T F6$t� This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
Feet 1:6 000 accuracy standards
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC FEMA FLOOD ZONE MAP FIGURE 6 4378 Old Santa Fe Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana Date July 2021
®r.
www.earthsystems.com - email: [email protected] 114 Bluff Drive Pro ect No. (805) 544-3276 Pismo Beach, California 304596-001 Plannina Commission Aaenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 11
Low
� Moderate
}
Low
--74111111111110
High High
High
Low
Low
Avila Beach
Low
High
SITE i High
N g
Source:California Geological Survey,Interactive Web Maps,Indoor Radon Potential,after SR 208,not to scale,accessed at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/radon/ EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC INDOOR RADON POTENTIAL MAP FIGURE 7 4378 Old Santa Fe Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana Date July 2021
www.earthsystems.com - email: [email protected] 114 Bluff Drive Pro ect No. (805) 544-3276 Pismo Beach, California 304596-001 Plannina Commission Aaenda 04-26-2022 1 17.13 - 117
APPENDIX D
Seismic Tables and Charts
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 118
Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana 304596-001 Table D-1
Fault Parameters
Upper Lower Avg Avg Avg Trace Mean
Seis. Seis. Dip Dip Rake Length Fault Mean Return Slip Fault Section Name Distance Depth Depth Angle Direction Type Mag Interval Rate (miles) (km) (km) (km) (deg.) (deg.) (deg.) (km) (years) (mm/yr) San Luis Bay 2011 CFM FM3.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 10.0 90 na na 16 B' 6.3 San Luis Range 2011 CFM,FM3.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 12.0 52 na na 79 B' 7.2 San Luis Range(So Margin)FM3.2 0.5 0.9 0.0 12.0 45 37 90 115 B 7.1 0.2 Shoreline FM3.1,3.2 3.5 5.6 0.0 12.0 90 na na 23 B' 6.5 Los Osos 2011 CFM FM3.1,3.2 3.9 6.3 0.0 12.0 45 208 90 58 B 6.9 0.5 San Luis Range-Oceano 2011 CFM,FM3.1 4.8 7.8 0.0 12.0 45 na na 21 B' 6.6 San Luis Range-Pecho FM3.1,3.2 5.0 8.1 0.0 12.0 90 na na 26 B' 6.6 Hosgri FM3.1,3.2 9.7 15.7 0.0 6.8 80 59 180 171 B 7.3 2.5 Oceanic-West Huasna FM3.1,3.2 9.9 15.9 0.0 7.0 58 49 na 122 B' 7.1 Casmalia 2011 CFM 13.6 21.9 0.0 12.0 75 na na 48 B' 6.9 East Huasna 2011 CFM FM3.1,3.2 15.1 24.2 0.0 15.0 90 na na 74 B' 7.2 Rinconada 2011 CFM FM3.1,3.2 15.3 24.7 0.0 8.5 82 233 180 123 B 7.5 1 Lions Head 2011 CFM FM3.1,3.2 19.9 32.0 0.0 12.0 75 29 90 65 B 6.7 0.02 South Cuyama FM3.1,3.2 21.1 34.0 0.0 13.9 33 210 na 83 B' 7.5 La Panza FM3.1,3.2 22.1 35.6 0.0 13.9 51 45 na 72 B' 7.3 Hosgri(Extension)FM3.1,3.2 22.3 35.9 0.0 7.5 80 79 na 29 B' 6.4 San Juan FM3.1,3.2 34.2 55.1 0.0 13.0 90 243 180 82 B 7.1 1 Los Alamos 2011 CFM FM3.1,3.2 35.8 57.7 0.0 12.0 30 na na 27 B' 6.9 Santa Ynez River FM3.1,3.2 36.0 58.0 0.0 12.0 70 na na 73 B' 7.1 San Andreas(Cholame)rev FM3.1,3.2 42.9 69.1 0.0 12.0 90 51 180 63 A 6.8 89 3.5 Morales(West)FM3.1,3.2 44.6 71.8 0.0 8.6 32 49 na 28 B' 6.8 San Andreas(Parkfield)FM3.1,3.2 46.0 74.0 0.0 10.2 90 50 180 36 A 6.4 13 20 Santa Ynez(West)FM3.1,3.2 47.6 76.6 0.0 9.2 70 182 0 80 B 6.9 2 San Andreas(Carrizo)rev FM3.1,3.2 48.6 78.2 0.0 15.1 90 224 180 59 A 6.8 89 3.5 Los Alamos extension FM3.1,3.2 51.1 82.3 0.0 12.0 30 na na 22 B' 6.8 San Andreas(Creeping Section)FM3.1,3.2 57.7 92.8 0.0 12.0 90 227 180 121 A 6.8 89 9 Red Mountain FM3.1,3.2 59.5 95.7 0.0 14.1 56 2 90 101 B 7.4 2 Morales(East)FM3.1,3.2 60.1 96.8 0.0 8.6 32 14 na 18 B' 6.6 Ozena FM3.1,3.2 60.2 96.9 0.0 13.9 33 na na 41 B' 7.2 Lost Hills FM3.1,3.2 61.6 99.1 4.2 12.0 29 233 na 33 B' 6.8 Mission Ridge-Arroyo Parida-Santa Ana FM3.1,3 69.2 111.3 0.0 7.6 70 176 90 69 B 6.8 0.4 North Channel FM3.2 69.8 112.4 1.1 4.5 26 10 90 51 B 6.7 1 Pitas Point(Upper)FM3.2 70.3 113.2 1.4 10.0 42 15 90 35 B 6.8 1 Big Pine(West)FM3.1,3.2 70.8 113.9 0.0 11.0 50 2 na 18 B' 6.5 Pitas Point(Lower,West),FM 3.1 72.3 116.4 1.5 8.8 13 3 90 35 B 7.2 2.5 Great Valley 14(Kettleman Hills)FM3.1,3.2 72.4 116.6 8.1 22.5 22 215 90 24 B 7.1 1.5 Oak Ridge(Offshore),west extension FM3.2 73.0 117.4 0.0 3.1 67 195 na 28 B' 6.1 Channel Islands Western Deep Ramp FM3.1,3.2 73.2 117.8 4.8 12.5 21 204 90 62 B' 7.3 Great Valley 13(Coalinga)FM3.1,3.2 75.1 120.9 9.1 15.2 15 226 90 32 B 7.0 1.5 San Andreas(Big Bend)FM3.1,3.2 75.7 121.8 0.0 15.1 90 198 180 50 A 6.8 89 3.5 Reference:USGS OFR 2013-1165 (CGS SP 228) Based on Site Coordinates of 35.1762 Latitude,-120.7112 Longitude Mean Magnitude for Type A Faults based on 0.1 weight for unsegmented section,0.9 weight for segmented model(weighted by probability of each scenario with section listed as given on Table 3 of Appendix G in OFR 2008-1437).Mean magntude is average of Ellworths-B and Hanks&Bakun moment area relationship.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-2 &USTEMS PACIFIC 7.13 - 1619/2021
Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana 304596-001
Site Coordinates: 35.176 N 120.711 W
Table D-2
Historical Earthquakes in Vicinity of Project Site, M>=5.0 Epicenter Distance
Latittude Longitude from Magnitude
Day Year (Degrees) Site(mi) MW
9/5 1922 35.30 120.70 8.6 5.5
99/99 1830 35.35 120.65 12.5 6.0
7/28 1902 34.80 120.40 31.4 5.8
12/7 1906 35.50 121.20 35.5 5.7
7/31 1902 34.70 120.30 40.3 5.8
4/27 1908 35.60 120.20 41.0 5.5
11/4 *1927 34.60 120.90 41.2 7.1
2/1 1853 35.70 121.10 42.3 5.5
12/22 2003 35.70 121.10 42.3 6.6
5/30 1877 35.70 120.30 42.9 5.5
3/10 1922 35.75 120.25 47.4 6.3
8/18 1922 35.75 120.25 47.4 5.7
9/28 2004 35.82 120.37 48.4 6.0
6/8 1934 35.79 120.29 48.5 6.0
1/12 *1915 34.60 120.20 49.2 5.7
6/28 1966 35.81 120.27 50.3 6.0
11/22 1952 35.76 121.27 51.1 6.2
2/14 1987 35.96 120.70 54.1 5.2
9/29 2004 35.95 120.50 54.7 5.1
11/16 1956 35.95 120.47 55.1 5.0
12/28 1939 35.97 120.92 56.0 5.2
11/5 1969 34.65 121.50 57.6 5.5
9/13 1975 36.00 120.55 57.6 5.1
11/2 1955 36.00 120.92 58.1 5.2
3/3 1901 36.00 120.50 58.1 6.4
2/26 1932 36.00 121.00 59.1 5.0
9/17 1991 35.81 121.45 60.3 5.0
2/2 1881 36.05 120.55 61.0 6.0
5/6 1881 36.05 120.55 61.0 5.5
1/9 1857 36.10 120.65 63.9 6.1
From full earthquake catalog in USGS OFR 2008-1437h as updated with current events through 2019. For events with an asterisk,alternate solutions are given in Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 120
Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana 304596-001
35.1762 -120.7112 Lat/Long
Table D-3-Deterministic Spectral Response Values
Deterministic NGA Response Spectra for Largest Median Earthquake Ground Motion Average of NGA:Abrahamson-Silva-Kamai(2014),Boore-Stewart-Seyhan-Atkinson(2013),Campbell-Bozorgnia(2013), Chiou-Youngs(2014),and Idriss(2013)
Mean Spectra Response from Attentuation Relationships
ASK14 BSSA14 CB14 CY14 114 Average Max 84th
Median Median Median Median Median Mean Percentile Period Sa Period Sa Period Sa Period Sa Period Sa Period Sa Sa Input Variables (sec) (g) (sec) (g) (sec) (g) (sec) (g) (sec) (g) (sec) (g) (g) Weight: 0.25 Weight: 0.25 Weight: 0.25 Weight: 0.25 Weight: 0.00 M 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.62 0.00 - 0.00 0.483 0.966
7.49 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.46 0.01 0.43 0.01 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.486 0.973 R RUP 0.02 0.42 0.02 0.43 0.02 0.44 0.02 0.62 0.02 - 0.02 0.478 0.956
0.50 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.40 0.03 0.44 0.03 0.62 0.03 0.03 0.462 0.924 Rye 0.05 0.38 0.05 0.43 0.05 0.45 0.05 0.62 0.05 - 0.05 0.470 0.941
0.00 0.075 0.43 0.075 0.50 0.075 0.49 0.075 0.62 0.075 0.075 0.512 1.024 V530 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.61 0.10 0.53 0.10 0.67 0.10 - 0.10 0.578 1.156 180 0.15 0.64 0.15 0.74 0.15 0.55 0.15 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.677 1.353 FRV 0.20 0.75 0.20 0.85 0.20 0.58 0.20 0.94 0.20 - 0.20 0.778 1.556 1 0.25 0.87 0.25 0.90 0.25 0.66 0.25 1.10 0.25 0.25 0.883 1.767 FNM 0.30 1.03 0.30 0.97 0.30 0.76 0.30 1.23 0.30 - 0.30 0.997 1.995 0 0.40 1.26 0.40 0.98 0.40 0.90 0.40 1.41 0.40 0.40 1.135 2.326 W 0.50 1.26 0.50 0.96 0.50 0.96 0.50 1.55 0.50 - 0.50 1.186 2.490
17.00 0.75 1.12 0.75 0.81 0.75 1.02 0.75 1.64 0.75 0.75 1.145 2.519 ZTOR 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.59 1.00 - 1.00 1.098 2.525
0.00 1.50 0.87 1.50 0.74 1.50 0.94 1.50 1.32 1.50 1.50 0.967 2.321 Z 2.5 2.00 0.69 2.00 0.66 2.00 0.83 2.00 1.13 2.00 - 2.00 0.826 2.066 999.00 3.00 0.46 3.00 0.44 3.00 0.58 3.00 0.70 3.00 3.00 0.547 1.423 dip 4.00 0.33 4.00 0.30 4.00 0.35 4.00 0.43 4.00 4.00 0.353 0.953 45 5.00 0.25 5.00 0.22 5.00 0.23 5.00 0.27 5.00 5.00 0.243 0.657
7.50 0.14 7.50 0.11 7.50 0.09 7.50 0.11 7.50 - 7.50 0.111 0.300
10.00 0.08 10.00 0.06 10.00 0.05 10.00 0.05 10.00 10.00 0.061 0.166 Median Deterministic NGA Spectral Curves --*--ASK14
3.00 -)IF BSSA 14
-dr-CY14
2.50 m --YFC814
c
m 2.00 - 114
w tMax 84th Percentile Sa
1.50 m
1.00 <;�Ez
a
0.50 0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Period(seconds)
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26v2Q22STEMS PACIFIC 7.13 - 1 9w,I3/2021
Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana 304596-001
35.1762 -120.7112 Lat/Long
Table DA-Site Specific Spectral Response Values
Probabilistic and Deterministic Response Spectra for MCE compared to Code Spectra for 5%Viscous Damping Ratio
GeoMean Site
Probab.2% Max Rotated Max 84th Determ. Site Specific Site Specific Specific in 50 year Probab.2%in Percentile Lower Limit MCE,Ground MCE 2019 CBC Design 2019 CBC MCE 50 year MCEr Determ.MCE MCE Determ.MCE Response Spectrum MCE Spectrum Design Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum Spectrum (SaM) Comparator Spectrum (Sa) Spectrum Natural Period (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6b) (7) (8) (9) T 2475-year 2475-year (3)-1.00=scahg Max(3),(4) Min(2),(5) Max(6),1.5*(8) 2/3*(7) (seconds) (ASCE 21.2.1) (ASCE 21.2.1.1) (ASCE 21.2.2) (ASCE 21.2.2) (ASCE 21.2.2) (ASCE 21.2.3) (ASCE 21.2.3) (ASCE 21.3)
0.00 0.506 0.500 0.966 0.966 0.966 0.500 0.500 0.419 0.333 0.279
0.05 0.658 0.651 0.941 0.941 0.941 0.651 0.651 0.527 0.434 0.351
0.10 0.810 0.801 1.156 1.156 1.156 0.801 0.801 0.635 0.534 0.423
0.15 0.963 0.953 1.353 1.353 1.353 0.953 0.953 0.743 0.635 0.496
0.20 1.117 1.104 1.556 1.556 1.556 1.104 1.104 0.852 0.736 0.568
0.30 1.315 1.331 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.331 1.331 1.047 0.887 0.698
0.40 1.337 1.354 2.326 2.326 2.326 1.354 1.354 1.047 0.903 0.698
0.50 1.359 1.439 2.490 2.490 2.490 1.439 1.439 1.047 0.959 0.698
0.75 1.180 1.252 2.519 2.519 2.519 1.252 1.252 1.047 0.834 0.698
1.00 1.000 1.177 2.525 2.525 2.525 1.177 1.177 1.047 0.784 0.698
1.50 0.807 0.950 2.321 2.321 2.321 0.950 0.950 1.013 0.633 0.676
2.00 0.614 0.751 2.066 2.066 2.066 0.751 0.751 0.760 0.500 0.507
3.00 0.405 0.513 1.423 1.423 1.423 0.513 0.513 0.507 0.342 0.338
4.00 0.285 0.374 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.374 0.374 0.380 0.249 0.253
5.00 0.213 0.288 0.657 0.657 0.657 0.288 0.288 0.304 0.192 0.203
8.00 0.134 0.182 0.362 0.362 0.362 0.182 0.182 0.190 0.121 0.127
10.00 0.122 0.165 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.165 0.165 0.122 0.110 0.081 CRS: 0.899 The value of Fa used in Column(3)is defined CR1: 0.905 within ASCE 21.2.2 Supplement 1.This Fa value Site Coefficients Site Specific To: 0.238 =0.2*SD1/SDS only applies within Column(3). FPGA 1.27 Site Specific Ts: 1.188 =SD1/SDS Fa 1.00 Probabilistic spectrum from 2014 USGS Ground Motion Mapping Program adjusted for site conditions F 4.00 and scaled to represent maximum response in a horizontal plane,in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section
21.2 Mapped MCE Acceleration Values
PGA 0.463 g
Risk Coefficients have been applied to Column(2);If Method 1 was utilized the Risk Coefficients, Ss 1.047 g CRS and CR1 are presented above,if Method 2 was utilized the Risk Coefficients were obtained from S1 0.380 g the USGS Risk Targeted Ground Motion Calculator( https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/rtgm) .
Site Class E
Reference:ASCE 7-16,Chapters 21.2,21.3,21.4,21.5,11.4,and 11.8 Risk Category II Calculation Utilized ASCE7-16, Section 21.2.1.1-Method 1 Site-Specific Design Acceleration Values
Short-Period Seismic Design 1-Second Period Seismic PGA, 0.506 g Category: Design Category: SDS 0.863 g D D SDI 1.026 g
Site-Specific
Vertical Coefficient(Cv) MCER,5%damped,Spectral Response
1.31 Acceleration Parameter
S,s 1.295 g
1 g=980.6 cm/sec`=32.2 ft/sec` SM1 1.539 g PSV(ft/sec)=32.2(Sa)T/(2p)
Key: Probab.=Probabilistic, Determ.=Deterministic,MCE=Maximum Considered Earthquake EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC 6/23/2021
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.13 - 122
APPENDIX E
Seismic Settlement Calculations—
Unsaturated Soil Settlement for Boring 1 (ESP 2021)
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 123
Project: Thaure Residence Pool and Cabana Methods: Liquefaction Analysis using 1996&1998 NCEER workshop method(Youd&Idriss,editors) Job No: 304596-001 Journal of Geotechnical and Enviromental Engineering(JGEE),October 2001,Vol 127,No. 10,ASCE Date: 7/29/2021 Settlement Analysis from Tokimatsu and Seed(1987),JGEE,Vol 113,No.8,ASCE Boring: B1 Data Set: 1 Modified by Pradel,JGEE,Vol 124,No.4,ASCE EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION: SPT N VALUE CORRECTIONS: Total(in.) Magnitude: 6.65 7.5 Energy Correction to N60(CE): 1.47 Automatic Hammer Induced PGA,g: 0.51 0.37 Drive Rod Corr.(CR): 1 Default subsidence MSF: 1.36 Rod Length above ground(feet): 3.0 0.4 GWT: 50.0 feet Borehole Dia.Corr.(CB): 1.05 upper 50 ft SETTLEMENT(SUBSIDENCE)OF DRY SANDS Calc GWT: 50.0 feet Sampler Liner Correction for SPT?: 1 Yes Required SF: 1.30 Remediate to: 3.0 feet Cal Mod/SPT Ratio: 0.63 Threshold Acceler.,g: #N/A Minimum Calculated SF: #N/A Nc= 8.3 Base Cal Liquef. Total Fines Depth Rod Layer Tot.Stress Eff.Stress Eff.Stress Rel. Trigger Equiv. M=7.5 M=7.5 Liquefac. Post volumetric Induced Shear Strain Strain Dry Sand Depth Mod SPT Suscept. Unit Wt. Content of SPT Length Thick at SPT Depth at SPT Design GVt rd CN CR Cs N1(6o) Dens. FC Adj. Sand Ka Available Induced Safety FC Adj. Strain Subsidence p Gmax Tav Strain E15 Enc Subsidence (feet) N N (0 or 1) (pcf) (%) (feet) (feet) (ft) po(tsf) m p'o(tsf) p'o(tsf) Dr(%) AN1(60) N1(60)cs CRR CSR* Factor AN1(60) N1(60)cs (%) (in.) (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) 7 (in.)
0.000
5.0 9 6 1 75 10 2.5 5.5 5.00 0.094 0.76 0.094 0.094 1.00 1.70 0.75 1.00 11.2 40 1.1 12.3 1.00 0.133 0.241 Non-Liq. 1.1 12.3 0.23 0.14 0.063 258 0.031 8.4E-04 1.5E-03 1.2E-03 0.14
15.0 9 6 1 75 20 6.0 9.0 #### 0.225 1.83 0.225 0.225 0.99 1.70 0.75 1.00 11.2 40 4.5 15.7 1.00 0.169 0.239 Non-Liq. 4.5 15.7 0.14 0.17 0.151 434 0.073 7.0E-04 9.4E-04 7.2E-04 0.17
18.0 15 9 1 100 20 11.0 14.0 3.00 0.363 3.35 0.363 0.363 0.98 1.70 0.78 1.00 19.4 53 5.2 24.6 1.00 0.276 0.236 Non-Liq. 5.2 24.6 0.06 0.02 0.243 641 0.116 4.9E-04 3.8E-04 2.9E-04 0.02
24.0 32 20 1 117 60 21.0 24.0 6.00 0.888 6.40 0.888 0.888 0.95 1.09 0.94 1.00 32.1 68 10.0 42.1 1.00 1.200 0.231 Non-Liq. 10.0 42.1 0.03 0.02 0.595 1,199 0.279 4.3E-04 1.8E-04 1.3E-04 0.02
28.5 25 16 1 112 20 26.0 29.0 4.50 1.176 7.92 1.176 1.176 0.94 0.95 0.99 1.00 22.9 57 5.4 28.3 0.97 0.351 0.234 Non-Liq. 5.4 28.3 0.06 0.03 0.788 1,209 0.363 6.3E-04 4.1E-04 3.2E-04 0.03
31.5 36 23 1 98 20 31.0 34.0 3.00 1.438 9.45 1.438 1.438 0.92 0.86 1.00 1.00 30.0 65 6.0 36.0 0.91 1.200 0.243 Non-Liq. 6.0 36.0 0.04 0.01 0.963 1,449 0.433 5.5E-04 2.7E-04 2.1E-04 0.01 NCEER(1997)Curve
of Liquefaction(19 Resistance Post-Liquefaction Volumetric Strain Ref: Tokimatsu N -C *C *C *C *C *N MAG-4 217 q &Seed(1987) 1(60) - N E B R s p= 0.67*po Nc= ( ) CR =0.75 for Rod lengths 10m 'cav= 0.65*PGA*po*rd
0.5 0.5 =min(1,max(0.75,1.4666-2.556/(z(ft))0-5)) Gmax= 447*N1(60)CS(113)*p0.5 CN =(1 atm/p'o)0"5,max 1.7 a= 0.0389*(p/1)+0.124
Cs =max(1.1,min(1.3,1+N1(so)/100))for SPT without liners b= 6400*(p/1)(-o.6)
0.4 0.4
z za z ss
MSF =10 ' /M ' Y= [1+a*EXP(b*tiav/Gmax))/[(1+a)*Tav/Gmax) Ev 0.2% z =Depth(m) E15=Y*(N1(60)cs/20)-1.2 � =
E �Ev=0.5% pa = 1 atm=101 KPa=1.058 tsf EEC= (Nc/15)0.45*E15 S= 2*H*E,, i7 0.3 0.3
Of -Ev=1%
n �
+Ev=2% rd =(1-0.4113*zA0.5+0.04052*z+0.001753*zA1.5)/(1-0.4177*zA0.5+0.05729*z-0.006205*zA1.5+0.00121*zA2)) N -Ev=3% AN1(60) =min(10,IF(FC 0.710.6,IF(Dr<0.5,0.8,0.7))-1) T
-Ev=10%
� /
U • SPT Data D, (N` (60y70)0.5
0.1 0.1 CSReq =0.65*PGA*(po/p'o)*rd CSR* =CSReq/MSF/K6
CRR7.5 =(0.048-0.004721*N+0.0006136*NA2-0.00001673*NA3)/(1-0.1248*N+0.009578*NA2-0.0003285*NA3+0.000003714*NA4))
0.0 N =N1(60)CS
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N1(60)clean sand SF= CRR7.1,1atm/CSR*
Clean Sand N1(60)
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 124
APPENDIX F
Typical Detail A: Pipe Parallel to Foundations
Tremie Method
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 125
TYPICAL DETAIL A
PIPE PLACED PARALLEL TO FOUNDATIONS
2' min.
Compacted backfill
M OR
ID=m�ID=m ,
I MMM
- \ °
m=mom=m
NE
GOING n
TF�mii�i�miii � .7 4
ID=IDID=ID/ /
Pipe _���_��_����������
Foundation
All trench excavation to be
above 1:1 plane as shown �� \ / -- Zone of foundation influence 1 1 No excavation allowed below
1:1 plane as shown
Compacted sand bedding and shading
per project specifications
SCHEMATIC ONLY
NOT TO SCALE
4378 Old Santa Fe Road
Earth Systems Pacific San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8116 (805)544-3276 • FAX (805)544-1786
E-mail: [email protected]
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 126
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR TREMIE PLACEMENT OF
CONCRETE IN CAISSON CONSTRUCTION
The following are general guidelines only and may be subject to modification by the architect/engineer and/or geotechnical engineer.
1. Concrete should be placed in caisson excavations by means of a tremie pipe when the depth of water in the excavation cannot be limited to a maximum of 3 inches, and/or inflow less than 1-inch in 5 minutes, per FHWA, or when the freefall of the concrete would result in the concrete striking the rebar or excavation walls as it falls.
2. The concrete should be pumped to the tremie pipe. Alternately, a hopper with a tremie pipe attached should be used if approved by the architect/engineer. An"elephant's trunk"should not be used to place concrete under water; however,an elephant's trunk may be used to direct the fall of the concrete in dry excavations. The elephant's trunk should be of sufficient length to prevent the concrete from striking the rebar or excavation walls as it falls.
3. Concrete for dry excavations should be designed for, and placed at, a slump of 6 to 8 inches. Concrete to be placed below water should be designed and placed as a "flowable" mix with a minimum slump of 8 to 10 inches or should be designed and placed as "self-consolidating concrete." Suitability of high slump (>8 inches) concrete should be verified by slump flow, slump flow velocity and visual stability testing.
4. The tremie pipe should consist of rigid steel pipe segments with waterproof joints. Gravity tremie pipes should be 6 inches in diameter or at least 6 times the maximum concrete aggregate size (whichever is greater) and should be longer than the deepest caisson excavation. Pressurized tremie systems (pump lines) may be smaller than 6 inches to accommodate rebar spacing or other factors.
5. The tremie pipe should be lowered with caution through the center of the reinforcing to within 1-foot of the bottom of the excavation; however, the tremie pipe should not be allowed to penetrate into the muck on the bottom of the hole.
6. The pump hose and tremie pipe should be "slicked"with Portland cement slurry. No clay, bentonite, or other material should be used unless approved by the architect/engineer and geotechnical engineer.
7. Pumping of the concrete should begin immediately after the reinforcing and the tremie pipe have been placed in the excavation and the excavation and reinforcing have been inspected. The tremie pipe should not be raised until the concrete surface in the caisson excavation is at least 5 feet above the bottom of the tremie pipe. The bottom of the tremie pipe should then be kept at least 5 feet below the top of the concrete until the pour is completed.
8. The concrete should be pumped until all muck, laitance, and unsuitable concrete has been lifted above the top-of-caisson elevation. All muck, laitance, and unsuitable concrete should be immediately removed from the excavation.
9. Self-consolidating concrete need not be vibrated during the pour, unless directed by the architect/engineer. For other than self-consolidating concrete,vibration should not be started until the concrete pour is completed and the muck, laitance and unsuitable concrete have been removed. Then, only the upper 5 to 10 feet of the concrete should be vibrated. Additional concrete may be added as necessary during vibration. The vibrator should not be allowed to contact the reinforcing.
10. During the pour, if the tremie pipe has to be removed from the concrete, (e.g., to allow removal of casing), it should be reset at the top of the concrete. The tremie should then be purged as directed by the inspector, and then immediately lowered to at least 5 feet below the top of the concrete as the concrete is being pumped. All degraded concrete should be lifted with the continuing pour and removed from the top of the caisson.
11. For a more thorough and in-depth discussion and recommendations on this topic, please refer to"Guide to Tremie Concrete for Deep Foundations" by the Joint EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group (Second Edition —2018) available at http://www.dfi.org/VIEWPUB.ASP?tid=CPF-2015-DRSH-1 .
12. Unless unavoidable due to equipment or supply breakdown,all caisson excavations should be filled with concrete on the same day they are drilled.
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 Tremie-(7agon12(720
PROJECT
NEB CABANA & TUNNEL PROJECT AREAS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE NEW CABANA EXISTING & TUNNEL
GENERAL PLAN POLICY - GP CO-11 (E) DWELLING 5,443 S.F. d. GRADING. DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE GRADING AND EMPHASIZE114 B UFF DRIV 114 BLUFF NATURAL LANDFORMS. TECHNIQUES SHALL INCLUDE CONTOUR GRADING, USE OF DAYLIGHT PROPOSED DRIVE CUTS AND FILLS, USE OF 3:1 AND 4:1 SLOPES, AND GENERALLY LIMITING CUTS AND FILLS TO NO TUNNEL: 2,516 S.F.
MORE THAN 15 FT IN HEIGHT. THE TUNNEL APPROACH MINIMIZES SURFACE GRADING AND EXPOSED PORTAL: 638 S.F. PISMO BEACH, MAINTAINS THE NATURAL LANDFORMS. THE DAYLIGHT CUT & FILL METHOD HAS BEEN CABANA PATIO: 1,157 S.F. CALIFORNIA 93449 UTILIZED AT THE CABANA FOR A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 10.04 ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE AT THE PISMO BEACH, CA 93449 CABANA (UNDER ROOF): 2,040 S.F.
CENTER OF THE BUILDINGS FOOTPRINT . THE MAXIMUM CUT HEIGHT IS 14.78 FEET WHICH OCCURS IN ONE LOCATION PER KEYNOTE 16 / C1.1. MINOR GRADING NEAR PORTAL 1 TO 2:1 TOTAL SITE AREA: 54,886 S.F. LOVE MAXIMUM SLOPE PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE HEIGHT OF PORTAL WALLS. WITH AN INDUSTRY ;'---1-------O-`- nta-rio._Ridge-- Trail © (E) PERVIOUS SURFACES: 47,293 S.F. �,y��
LEADING TUNNEL DESIGNER AND EXTENSIVE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES,A SAFE AND 101 a (E) IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 7,593 S.F. ARCHITECTURE AFFECTIVE GRADING DESIGN HAS BEEN PROPOSED. p (N) IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 3,835 S.F. VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS a _ CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 11,428 S.F. COMMERCIAL PISMO BEACH ZONING CODE - HAZARDS OVERLAY 17.078.030 F(7) Avila Seaa ' t TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 17,709 S.F. v �40 -A1
F. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. IN REVIEWING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR '-- 1-0 01°1°0'0'0,° pp
HILLSIDE AREAS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE FOLLOWING '°�� TOTAL BUILDING ENVELOPE: 29,262 S.F. n 111100,1100 1101010+0101010
'�9 MAX BUILDING AREA RATIO: 9,642 / 29 262 = 33% 10011 Pirates Cove Beach Q 114 Bluff Drive ---"-�"-- ------------"--"- + '
1. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AND APPEARANCES BY MEANS OF LAND 3tes Cove Lookout Q " MAX. LOT COVERAGE: 10,723 / 54,886 = 19.5% SANORA, CA 95370 CONFIGURATION, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE WORK DESCRIBED IN 209.532.0361 T4.0 SHOTCRETE WALL DETAILS �F of 02*`x<< THESE DOCUMENTS. ANY CONDITIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE WORK SHALL F cl � IMMEDIATELY BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE WORK SHALL CODE COMPLIANCE T5.0 GARAGE TUNNEL PLAN NOT PROCEED IN THE AREAS OF CONFLICT UNTIL SUCH CONFLICTS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: T6.0 GARAGE TUNNEL PROFILE AND SECTIONS SHEET TITLE NICK ZOETEWEY THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH TITLE 24 AND 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL
2. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DRAWING SCALE OR PROPORTION. T7.0 GARAGE TUNNEL DETAILS EARTH SYSTEMS PACIFIC CODE (CRC), CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
3. CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH CGBSC AND THE CITY OF 4378 OLD SANTA FE ROAD (CPC), CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, (CF(C), T7.1 GARAGE TUNNEL DETAILS
PISMO BEACH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CENC) AND THE LOCAL MUNICIPAL CODE. T7.2 GARAGE TUNNEL DETAILS PROJECT 805.234.9474 POOL DATA
4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A FIRE EXTINGUISHER ON SITE PRIOR TO STARTING WORK AND BUILDINGS UNDERGOING CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION SHALL BE IN VERIFY IT REMAINS ACCESSIBLE AND IN OPERABLE CONDITION WHILE WORK IS IN PROGRESS. A101 TITLE PAGE POOL DESIGNER: ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, (FIRE SAFETY
5. EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION.
VIRGINIA KIPKA DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION) AND CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2016 CALIFORNIA A102 BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY
6. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH. DRUMMOND & SONS POOLS BUILDING CODE, (SAFEGUARDS DURING CONSTRUCTION). A103 POOL AREA
7. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLACEMENT OF SAFETY DEVICES 19970 MCKEAN ROAD A104 NEW POOL PLAN SHEET # SUCH AS FENCING, BARRICADES, SAFETY TAPE, ETC., AND SHALL FOLLOW ALL APPLICABLE SAN JOSE, CA 95120 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY REGULATIONS. 408.809.7420 A105 POOL EQUIPMENT PLAN T*O Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 128
PROJECT
SYMBOL LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS
x FENCE LINE I I I I I I RETAINING WALL AC ASPHALT CONCRETE IP IRON PIPE NEW CABANA ss SEWER MAIN pG PG&E BOXAP ANGLE POINT GB GRADE BREAK
w BM BENCH MARK GM GAS WATER MAIN cY GAS METER BLDG BUILDING HP HIGH POINT & TUNNEL G GAS MAIN BOW BACK OF WALK LT LIGHT ETC- ELEC/TELEPHONE/CABLE FT-5-1-1 TELEPHONE BOX CB CATCH BASIN MH MANHOLE LE 114 BLUFF OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC CF CURB SIG SIGNAL BOX CO CLEAN F ACE PP POWER O OUT PVC POLYVINYL PIPE DROP INLET AT CURB FAZO CABLE T.V. BOX COL COLUMN RB REBAR J�� T DROP INLET COR CORNER RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE DRIVE ® STORM DRAIN MANHOLE LE ELECTRIC BOX CONCMPC CONCRETE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SDO STORMY US DRAIN
FIRE HYDRANT �T TELEPHONE MANHOLE CMU CRN CROWNETE OF STREET UNITS SL SS SOINT EWERON SLOPEFH PISMO BEACH, 0 WATER WELL 0-0 STREET LIGHT DI DROP INLET STP STEP WATER VALVE ✓P JOINT POLE EG EXISTING GRADE STR STAIRS CALIFORNIA 93449 EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT TOP TOP OF SLOPE
WM WATER METER PPS POWER POLE FD FOUND TOE TOE OF SLOPE FL FLOW LINE TW TOP OF WALL
Cs SEWER MANHOLE GUY WIRE FF FINISH FLOOR W WATER O Co SEWER CLEANOUT FOW FACE OF WALL WL WALL HSE HOUSE COR WM WATER METER
® MONITORING WELL GR GRASS WV WATER VALVE LOVE
GM GAS METER
IP IRON PIPE DI-1.5FL TOP OF GRATE -1.5' FLOW LINE
ARCHITECTURE
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
I I I I I ��U�1U101p1p1p10°/°
UNOCAL PIPELINE
FOUND IRON PIPE WITH EASEMENT PER I I I I I 0 1 110°11001 , p o0"
1 PIN IN MONUMENT WELL 1 I I I I
1°;1
LOCAL BENCHMARK 16 MAPS 26 i i i i i 101°1°1°/1°I ELEVATION = 107.83' I I I I I 101 1 I I I I I I I I I I 9155 CURBARIL AVENUE I I I I I i j I I I I I ATASCADERO,CA 93422 I I I I I CENTERLINE OF 10' WIDE
209.535.1907
WATERLINE EASEMENT
[email protected]
PER 16 MAPS 26
FOUND 1" IRON PIPE IS 4819" I
1 i i i i i PER 16 MAPS 26-\ os I I I I I I I I I
S15'30'45"W 533.63'M I I I
I I I
I I I I I
L/ -- -- -- -- -- - ----- ---- ----i36..D8'- OP-MALL- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --I - I -I -- - -- - E E i 121.76' ONCRETE I fi I I I GO G�l P i I J I I I I ORv� 0 W L
ONCRETE
�RF *
INVESTIGATION AS TO SUBSURFACE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT ALONG BLUFF DRIVE AS SHOWN. �` 02 <O WOULD AFFECT THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. ELEVATION = 107.83' OF CP�-�
3. IT WILL BE THE ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY SETBACK AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCY. BASIS OF BEARINGS:
SHEET TITLE
4. THE SIGNED AND SEALED ORIGINAL DRAWING OF THIS MAP THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT IS BASED ON FOUND CONSTITUTES THE FINAL WORK PRODUCT. MBS LAND SURVEYS WILL MONUMENTS ALONG THE NORTHERYL LINE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ELECTRONIC VERSIONS OF THIS MAP PROVIDED TO BASED ON 16 MAPS 26 OTHER PARTIES. BEARING = N 70'24'01" W
5. THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON WERE COMPILED FROM S ITE DATA:
RECORD INFORMATION (I.E. RECORDED MAPS OR DEEDS) AND ARE NOT ADDRESS: 114 BLUFF DRIVE
INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE TRUE OR ACTUAL BOUNDARY LINES OF THE TWILLPROPERTY. TO
REQUIRE A COMPLETEDETERMINE BOUNDARYSURVEY,ACTUAL
BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 010-562-010 THE PARCEL TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING OF PROPERTY MONUMENTS AND THE FILING OF A CORNER SURVEY
RECORD OR RECORD OF SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW (LS ACT SEC. 8762). APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONAL TIES FROM THE BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN TO PHYSICAL FEATURES (E.G. BUILDINGS, FENCES, WALLS OR TREES, ETC.) SHOWN ON THIS MAP CAN BE DERIVED BY SCALING THE FINISHED WORK PRODUCT WHICH IS PLOTTED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP AT THE SCALE INDICATED. HOWEVER, DIMENSIONAL TIES DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE DIGITAL PRODUCT (AUTOCAD DRAWING) ARE NOT LOT 10 OF TRACT 1618 AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN BOOK 16 AT ACCURATE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR DETERMINING BUILDING PAGE 26, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA SETBACKS OR THE PLACEMENT OF ANY PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE LOCATION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN ONLY BE PROPERLY AT THE REQUEST OF THIERRY THAURE DESIGNED WHEN IT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY SURVEY OF SHEET # THE PARCEL, OTHERWISE, MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE MAY BE GRAPHIC SCALE MICHAEL B. STANTON, PLS 5702 NECESSARY DURING CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH AGENCY SETBACK 20 0 10 20 40 3559 SOUTH HIGUERA ST.
REQUIREMENTS. 1 inch = 20 feet _ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 • • 805-594-1960
ext ext Tel
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 129
PROJECT
REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
DIAL TOES FREE CONTINUOUS PERIODIC NEW CABANA TYPE SPECIAL SPECIAL
® 1-800-422-4133 INSPECTION INSPECTION & TUNNEL, AT LEAST TWO DAYS 1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW SHALIOW FOUNDATIONS ARE X BEFORE YOU DIG ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGIN BEARING CAPACI TY. -
2. VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTEINDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE 114 BLUFF UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAREACHED PROPERMATERIAL. X
3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL - X DRIVE MATERIALS.
4. VERIFY USE OF IROPER MATERIALS,DENSITIES AND LIFT
THICKNESSES DURING PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF COMPACTED X - PISMO BEACH FILL.
j i i i i i 5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL,INSPECT SUBGRADE - CALIFORNIA 93449 L AND VERIFY THAT SITE HAS BEEN PITPARED PROPERY. X I I I I I
j I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
#
I I I I I
� I I I I I I U I I I I LOVE 0=20'01'53" /� '; 1 22 20 14 3 R=300.00' // % (136.08 TOW) (165.50'TOW) (168.50'TOW) (171.00'TOW) I p I I I I (121.76'FS) (16o5.00'FG) (✓16 8.00 (✓17 0.50'FG)L=104.88 ✓ 0 I11 W4' 1I1 1I 1I 1I ARCHITECTURE URE / (135.5 FG)
1 / VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS (136.22'TOW) (181�50'TOW) 1 j 1 1 CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL (136.00'FG)
5 � COMMERCIAL /i, r - - - -- -- (130.47'Tow) --- 10 14 .� ♦ - - -- - 1 1 1 1 (130.00'FG) �y ♦ I I I I ii� n ! I � ;- 1
n 9 ► I I---------- 1
11 ; � ✓� �• �' --- �� _ (124.10 TOW) 1 �i 7 18 � I I 11 ; �� (121.30'FS)
I 1 ------ -- - --- -
II ---------------------------- - - -- --- -- - 11 1 ------------ - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- - _______ III N15'31'25" 556.31'M IIJ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I►
' II
If (159.40'TOW) (165.50'TOW) (168.50'TOW) (171.00'TOW) I U I I I II ' 8 14 (155.40'FG) (160.00'FG) (163.00'FG) (166.50'FG) 22 20 I I I 1 I I I W I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS I I I I I SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE I I I I I FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND I I I I I PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED I I I I I
I I I I I TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION I I I I I BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS I I I I I PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND I I I I I SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN WITH THE ARCHITECT I I I I I WITHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL
GENERAL NOTES GRADING NOTES KEYNOTES AVERAGE SLOPE SOILS REPORT CONSTITUTE PRIMA HE ERESTRIACIE RESTRICTIODENCE OF NS.
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.
1. OWNER AND OR OWNER'S CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTICT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FROM DAMAGE DURING THE CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE
1. LOT GRADING SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE LATEST 1. PROPERTY LINE, TYP. BUILDING ENVELOPE: 29,262 sf PREPARED BY: EARTH SYSTEMS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND
TING CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND SHALL
COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. NOTE: THE EXISTING STREET SECTIONS MAY BE SUBSTANDARD AND THE CONTRACTOR EXISTING CBC EDITION. ZONE 1: BUILDING PAD DATE: AUGUST 3, 2021 REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT SHALL PROTECT THE PUBLIC INFRAS-RUCTURE FROM DAMAGE BY HEAVY LOADING/EQ UIPMENT DURING THE COURSE 2. DRAINAGE SHALL BE CARRIED TO THE STREET OR OTHER IMPROVED AVERAGE SLOPE: 5%2. EXISTING RESIDENCE -O REMAIN.NO WORK IN THIS AREA. FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
OF CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR, AT OWNER'S EXPENSE,ANY/ALL DAMAGE TO PUBLIC DRAINAGE DEVICE VIA A NON-EROSIVE DRAINAGE DEVICE. 3. PROPOSED CABANA&POOL. SEE SHEETS T.0-A4.1 &A101 -A105. % OF AREA: 6,482 /29,262 =22.00% INFRASTRUCTURE INCURRED DURING AND/OR DUE TO CONSTRUCTION,TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO GRADING OR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ALTER EXISTING ZONE 2: DRIVEWAY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATES
4. PROPOSED TUNNEL. SEE SHEETS T1.0-T7.2.
2. WHERE DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER, DAMAGED PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER AND DRAINAGE COURSES OR CONCENTRATE DRAINAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AVERAGE SLOPE: 12.5% PREPARED BY: MBS LAND SURVEYS 08/06/21 PRE-APP SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER_ 5. EXISTING 14.32'TALL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN. % OF AREA: 1,927 /29,262 =6.50% DATE: MARCH 26,2019 10/04/21 PLANNING PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. 6. (E) CONCRETE V DITCH TO REMAIN. ZONE 3: BELOW EASEMENT 12/21/21 PLANNING
3. ENCROACHMENT PEZMIT(S) MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY/ALL WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAY. AVERAGE SLOPE: 28.6% GRADING TOTALS
4. CITY STREETS ARE TO REMAIN OPEN TO THROUGH TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO TEMPORARY OR LONG TERM PARKING EROSION CONTROL STANDARD NOTES 7. (E) 12" SQUARE CATCH BASIN TO REMAIN. /o° ° OF AREA: 14,200/29,262 =48.50/o
OR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS SHALL OCCUR WITHOUT PRIOR ISSUANCE OIF AN 1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE FULLY INSTALLED AT ALL TIMES. 8. (E) 6" :'ERFORATED PVC DRAIN LINE WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC WITH PERFORATIONS ZONE 4: ABOVE EASEMENT ELEMENT CUBIC YARDS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. FACING DOWN IN 12x12 GRAVEL TRENCH CONNECTED TO STREET GUTTER. ° TUNNEL & SHAFT 2,625
2. ALL SITE ACCESSES SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST EROSION AT ALL TIMES AVERAGE SLOPE: 33.0%
5. A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR ANY DETOURS OR REROUTING OF TRAFFIC.. DURING CONSTRUCTION,IT THAT WORK IS NOT BEING PERFORMED ON THE SITE,INCLUDING EVENINGS„ 9. (2) 3" DIA. CAST IRON DRAIN LINES THROUGH CURB TO GUTTER TO REMAIN. % OF AREA: 6,653 /29,262 =23.00% EXTERIOR STAIRS 44 SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE TRAFFIC CONTROL IN AND AROUND THE WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. SUCH PROTECTION MAY BE REMOVED TO 10. (N)NDS 12" SQUARE CATCH BASIN WITH 6" DIA. DRAIN DOWN TO TRENCH DRAIN LINE AVERAGE SLOPE OF BUILDING ENVELOPE =23.37% CABANA 400 DRAWN BY SITE. THIS MAY INCLUDE BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNS,FLASHING LIGHTS,BARRICADES AND FLAG PERSONS PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE DURING WORK HOURS IF AND WHEN IT IS NOY BELOW. RETAINING WALLS 44 DON LOVE AS DIRECTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR THE CIT'V ENGINEER. REQUIRED DUE TO WEATHER CONDITIONS. TOTAL CUT: 3,113 CUBIC YARDS
6. EXCAVATION WITHIN THE STREETS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TRAFFIC RATED STEEL PLATES OR BACKFILLED AND 11. (N) 6" WIDE TRAFFIC RATED TRENCH DRAIN.
3. THE FIRST DOWNSTREAM STORM DRAIN INLET SHALL BE PROTECTED PER TOTAL FILL: 850 CUBIC YARDS PAVED, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER,PRIOR TO THE END OF WORK EACH DAY. DETAIL. 12. (N) 6" DIA. PVC DRAIN LINE FROM (N) TRENCH DRAIN. INTERCEPT(E)6" DRAIN LINE TO TOTAL EXPORT: 2,263 CUBIC YARDS GUTTER.
7. EROSION AND DRAINAGE CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE SITE. EO A�'C
4. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST WIND AN D WATER EROSION, 5 ti EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL IE INSTALLED AND IN PLACE FOLLC'' ING r AILY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE 13. (N) 6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN LINE WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC WITH PERFORATIONS ��o�p, LO�F��c PER DETAIL, IMMEDIATELY UPON PLACEMENT. FACING DOWN IN 12x12 GRAVEL TRENCH. PROJECT AREAS � O � n� APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION OF ANY CHANGES E4 CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL REQUIRE 5. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE FULLY ESTABLISHED ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES OR OTHER CHANGES TO THE EROSION CONII'ROL PLAN. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL. 14. (N) 6" DIA. PVC DRAIN LINE TO INTERCEPT (E) STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. EXISTING * C 35361 �
8. WASTE MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE WASHED INTO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO OWNER
6. IN THE EVENT OF OFF-SITE EROSION, THE?ROPERTY OWNE AND/OR HIS SOIL, PAINT, STUCCO, GROUT, COLOR COAT, CONCRETE DUST, SAW RESIDUES, GRINDINGS, OIL, ETC. 15. SEE SHEET T2.0 FOR AREA OF OVEREXCAVATION. (E)DWELLING 5 443 S.F.
ASSOCIATED COSTS OR DAMAGES. 02*0' OQ- REPRESENTATIVE(S) SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANUP AND ALL PROPOSED O F CP�-��
9. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THE PROJECT FLONTAGE(S) SHALL BE SWEPT DAILY AND KEPT FRE?E OF DIRT, 16. LOCATION OF TALLEST VERTICAL CUT. 136.00 FG- 122.22 FS + 1.00 SLAB= 14.78 FEET.
TUNNEL: 2,516 S.F.
DUST AND DEBRIS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT,THE 7 EROSION CONTROL PLANS REPRESENT THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE 17. PREPARE SUB GRADE BELOW POOL AND CABANA PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FRONTAGE(S) SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND REPAIRS COMPLETED AS DIRECTED TO THE SOILS REPORT. EXPOSED PORTAL: 638 S.F. SHEET TITLE PROTECTION. FURTHER MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED,TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. CABANA PATIO: 1,157 S.F.
SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER IN THE EVENT OF INADEQUACY OR 18. ARROW INDICATES DII!ECTION OF SURFACE FLOW,TYP.
CABANA (UNDER ROOF): 2,040 S.F.
FAILURE. 19. SEE SOILS REPORT FOR SUB-GRADE PREPARATION AT PAID AND POOL. PAD CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A SOIL OL CIVIL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE (GRADING TOTAL SITE AREA: 54,886 S.F. PRELIMINARY LEGEND SYMBOLS PERFORMED IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFCRMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND IS POST CONSTRUCTION STANDARD NOTES SUITABLE TO SUPPORT THE INTENDED STRUCTURE. (E) PERVIOUS SURFACES: 47,293 S.F. GRADING TC DENOTES TOP OF CURB (E) IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 7,593 S.F. & �f� � 20. OWNER SHALL PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ADJACENT TO FS DENOTES FINISH SURFACE �� �� 1� 1. POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE MET TO THE SATISFACTION FD DENOTES FINISH DECK G ADDITION TO SATISFACTION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR AT TIME OF FOUNDATION (N) IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 3,835 S.F. DRAINAGE FC FLOW CHANNEL �� G ��✓ OF THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL. INSPECTION. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 11,428 S.F.
FF DENOTES FINISH FLOOR �� �� 2. THE CITY OR A THIRD PARTY SHALL REQUEST INSTALLATION OF PLAN FL DENOTES FLOWLINE 21. OPTIONAL TERRACED PLANTERS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. SEE SITE SECTION, SHEET TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 17,709 S.F.
CO DENOTES SEWER CLEAN OUT STRUCTURAL CONTROL MEASURES (APPLICABLE TO PROJECT SUBJECT TO AI.I. MAXIMUM RETAINING HEIGHT=6'-0",TYP.
FG DENOTES FIMSH GRADE POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 2-5. IT IS THE OWNERRS/CONTRACTOR_S GM DENOTES GAS METER 22. TOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE = 17,709 S.F.
WM DENOTES WATER METER RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE CITY AND THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR DURIN G BRK DENOTES BRICK INSTALLATION. A REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF PROPER 23. CUT AREA AS SHOWN TO 2:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE. SHEET #
TOW DENOTES TOP OF WALL
INSTALLATION INCLUDING PICTURES. 24. EQUIPMENT PAD WITH 4'HIGH CONCRETE SCREEN WALLS ON 3 SIDES & SCREEN 20' 10' 0' 20' 40' PLANTINGS ON OPEN SIDE. c 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" • Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 130
PROJECT
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
NEW CABANA
I I I I & TUNNEL
I I I I I
I I I I I
114 BLUFF
I I I I I
DRIVE
A=20'01'53" /i'i' u i i i II II R=300.00' 1 " PROPOSED CABANA o I I I I I / o 141 2/4 I PISMO BEACH, L=104.88' / , I S ///
// ' — — ---- ---- ---- ---- -------0'45"W 533.63'M CALIFORNIA 93449 S15'3 I I I -- //
//
PROPOSED
„
LOVE
TUNNEL
I I I I I I
(N) RETAINING u — SPA
WALLS
// % / I ------- -------
_ _ � � ► - --7 ' I I I I N �, ARCHITECTURE o
10 f - - 1 _ �o �l I i I I VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
° o it - - I - - - - -� �� - ♦ i I i I I Q 00 COMMERCIAL SITE SECTION j ,% I i�' — _ —_—_ _ ^I''—� _ ' i i i i SITE SECTION m 3 ®® ®a LL
s Poo o O o O 11 l i I I% 1 i 1 i I I I I I � N � pp1110 p ' r RETAINING WALL ; ' h _ i = I I I I 1 o �o oFo i 010 oa 0p10
ii% 11 I I I A r PLANTERS ' oo ��oIp'0120XII;
1 0 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1
20gr-10�rr +o 1p
01 101o1010 01�1f0I0
I I I I i _J I I I I I 1010f o II II %\ I 0 I I I I 1 fo011 SURGE TANK I I / ' I I I I 1 LA
9 I — _ EQUIPMENT PAD ►1 I l i I ; I ' I I I I 9155 CURBARIL AVENUE 11; S 1 I ; - I I I I I ATASCADERO,CA 93422 11 ' _____ ' �� , W/4' HIGH CONC. ; � I � I I I don a�lowea chiteoture.net 11 p ' 1 ' _°'— I' SCREEN WALL oo �% ; 11k.
11 11 ---- -
r
II ; ii , I I I I I N15'31'25"E 556.31'M
Ili i p � I I I I I ~ W I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
i I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE
FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND
PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED
TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION
BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS
PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND
I I SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN WITH THE ARCHITECT I I WITHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH ! I I ! I I THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL i I I CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE I I ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN I I DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE I I PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.
I I CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE I I RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND I I
I I EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND SHALL I I REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT I I FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
I I
I I
I I
I I
DATES
08/06/21 PRE-APP
I I
10/04/21 PLANNING
I I
12/21/21 PLANNING
I I
I I
I I
PROPOSED CABANA w/
ROOF MOUNT SOLAR
I I
+10.04'ABOVE AVERAGE
NATURAL GRADE @
CENTER OF BLD'S
FOOTPRINT (25'MAX) — DRAWN BY i i I I i i DON LOVE I I I I I I I I (E) RESIDENCE
E
E� A C.
I I
q v�t, p.LD LO�Ftiij�` +24.91'ABOVE AVERAGE
i I NATURAL GRADE
J II-I-1 -IF]
l F- `' ' i N III Irtl i �
I
PROPOSED TUNNEL i 1i i i i �� �RF 02*�� 0�2 I � � II II II
119.17 ii ii ii I I I I OF GARAGE F.F. I i s a
I SHEET TITLE 104.17' I i I
I
LWR
I �
I I
I I
OVERALL
SITE PLAN
PROPERTY LINE BUILDING ENVELOPE BUILDING ENVELOPE PROPERTY LINE 30'-0" 10'-0" SITE SECTION SITE SECTION PIPELINE EASEMENT EASEMENT SHEET #
20' 10' 0' 20' 40'
n , n ALI
SCALE: 1 _— 20'-0"
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 131
PROJECT
NEW CABANA
& TUNNEL
114 BLUFF
DRIVE
PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 93449
LOVE
ARCHITECTURE
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
0 p 090�p�0
1 tool 01p1 /010�010/0
00 �ip1p1010101010/0
o® 10 01 10 0101010
moo 11p01100110
101010101010101
I I I I I 01010,011 I I I I I 011 I I I I I
I I I I I 9155 CURBARIL AVENUE j I I I I I ATASCADERO,CA 93422 I I I I I
I I I I I 209.535.1907 I I I I I [email protected] I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
0=20'01'53" ��' (N) TERRACED (N) CONCRETE R=300.00' /i PLANTERS TYP. STAIRWAY AT L=104.88' GRADE
//
�// ' / -t�--��-� I I I I -- -- -- ----- ---- / '30'45"W 533.63'M I I I #//% I I I I I I I I
#�
# // 1 i` \ WALLS I I I I I #
/ L :EA:[
I I ✓ I l 0 1s
1 _ 24'-0"
100/
Z O THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
_
� SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE
I // / 1— i i I I I I LW FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND SITE SECTION I /// / 1�) {� \J -- / I ' I I I I I I SITE SECTION In PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION
L
BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS
L / / roo I I I I I .--� --- --- -- -� J_-- --------------------------------------- I " \ / PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN WITH THE ARCHITECT
N WITHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH
\
M THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL I I I I I Q O
CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
/,/ / � i I � � �I __ i � 0 I I I I I ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE
/1 ( / i--__ 1� \ _ \ / 0 I I I I PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. // i l 1 i , \ 1 \ y / � /�f i I I I I CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE // / / (N)
3-CAR -- \\ i I I I EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THEJOB AND SHALL It
fit l 1 ; 1 GARAGE / \ i I I I I REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT g I \ --------/1� .5 \l ------- FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 11 �_
1 1 i I
I I
I
` �
u--- ► ----- I I _I _ I p PATH ----------------------- I - I I DATES
N15*31'25"E 556.31'M
' I -, I i i g PRE-APP II
II I i i I 10/04/21 PLANNING p � I ►I I I I I TERRACED REVISED CABANA DESIGN i I i i I i 12/21/21 PLANNING YARDS WITH WITH ELEVATOR&
I SYNTHETIC TURF TUNNEL REMOVED I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
DRAWN BY
I I I I I
DON LOVE
I I I I I
I I I I I
A Rc
\vet.o�p.LD LO��.vij�`
* C 35361
�
OF CP�-��
SHEET TITLE
SITE PLAN
ALTERNATIVE
DESIGN
SHEET #
20' 10' 0' 20' 40' A1 *2
SCALE: 1 - 20'-0"
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 132
PROJECT
NEW CABANA
& TUNNEL
114 BLUFF
DRIVE
PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 93449
26'-0"
12'-8�2 16'-8" le
9'-4" LOVE
8'-8y2't 4-0 6-0 20-0 13 -8
ARCHITECTURE
- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
III REF IIIII - , COMMERCIAL PANTRY
8 -8 0°0
1'°1KITCHEN x °0j_� 10 0p100�011 015r-4r x 10r-6r u110°°11 010100100'0110s® 1 0 1011 °'100� ,° '10' 11 1°1
I I
9155 CURBARIL AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CA 93422
209.535.1907
------- ------ ------ ------- --� I I [email protected] I I
I I
SPA ! I __ _ STORAGE j
I 8'-8" x 20'-0" I
I
' I
DINING o
I 13 -0 x 14-2 I
' I I
I I
I
■
L — -- -
i nor - - - -- - -- - N
rar I M
i
i
I I I
i
I i
I
I
i
I
I
i
i THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE
/ / I FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND I / PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED / TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION
BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS
i
PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND
I SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN WITH THE ARCHITECT \ WITHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL
I - - CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE 1 I AA ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN GALLERY ERY - DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE I N I— PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.
CONTRACTORS
i
1 ` VERIFY AND BE
RESPONSIBLE SHALL FOR ALLDIMEN IONS AND
i
I EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND SHALL POOL I I �2 r REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT 8'0rr FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
� I
DATES
08/06/21 PRE-APP
I
10/04/21 PLANNING
I 12/21/21 PLANNING
I -
N
I
■
I
I
I 0 I
BATH I -
0 13'-4" x 9'-5"
0 I DRAWN BY
DON LOVE
RillI I
I I I
I I
------- ------ ------ ----- - -- I 14'-0" 5 D AR
LO�Ftiij�`
Ak
j I GYM I * C 35361 24'-8" x 24'-8" I
.O
o f 0 P�
I c
I I I
I I
I
SHEET TITLE
-- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -
I
FLOOR PLAN
39'-8"
PROPOSED
CABANA
SHEET #
A2 * 1
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 133
PROJECT
NEW CABANA
& TUNNEL
114 BLUFF
DRIVE
PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 93449
_ -- LOVE
ARCHITECTURE
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
10' 0 p 090�°10o
0101
1 1p10101°10
00 �i01p10101°�°f0'°
SOUTH ELEVATION 1 0 101 '°°'°'
o�°a
1 �001�0°ff
10f0101°/f
0� 1
1 9155 CURBARIL AVENUE
ATASCADERO,CA 93422
209.535.1907
[email protected]
--_-- 1�7 THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE
FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND
PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED
J TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION
BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS
I�
PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND
i WEST ELEVATION WITHOUT PREJUDICPECIFICATIONSME.AIN VISUAL CONTACTWITH
THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL
_ I III
CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE
PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.
--ram _- --- `--`- - ---`
CONTRACTORS
SHALL FOR ALL VERIFY
BE
RESPONSIBLE AND
------ - ----- - ----- -- EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND SHALL
REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT
------ ------_ -- --- _ - _ __-= j/ 3 FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
DATES
08/06/21 PRE-APP
10/04/21 PLANNING
12/21/2 1 PLANNING
'` `
DRAWN BY
PERSPECTIVE DON LOVE +184.00' = 10.04 ABOVE
NATURAL GRADE
CENTER OF BLD'S j 5Eo ARcy FOOTPRINT (25' MAX) o LO�Fv +180.4' -A
HIGH POINT * C 35361
+173.95' _
— — — — — — — — — —
NATURAL GRADE o F o 2* @ CENTER OF F c P�
BLD'S FOOTPRINT
+171.00' F.F. SHEET TITLE
DARK SKY LIGHT FIXTURE,
STUCCO TO MATCH (E) +167.5' SEE SHEETA4.1 RESIDENCE IN COLOR & LOW POINT
TEXTURE EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
CABANA
EAST ELEVATION
SHEET #
All
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 134
PROJECT
NEW CABANA
& TUNNEL
114 BLUFF
41 DRIVE
PISMO BEACH,
CALIFORNIA 93449
LOVE
ARCHITECTURE
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
}� 100j 0
0 ' 1
CABANA ROOF EXTERIOR WALLS -
1 � oo
°ARMORPDXY ELASTOMERIC COATING MATCH EXISTING �_ ° � o o� , + •� : ®-�® aolo LIGHT GRAY, NON-SLIP WHITE, SAND FINISH70 o� + x y _ +
.- « s!r y 1i�'bb!�"�';,.y I' 't'-•��5' M \ ( Al Mw2 .•.c,�., k. 1 '�c' -s„`�� ;.yy� _ '�� �` 9155 CURBARIL AVENUE
•
` !r ATA RO 3422 � �. '•. ti , .� :. �+Ka ,'r-�'- .�,. „'.-.,�. - � � , - ,� _ _�.__ - S 209.535.1907 C A 9 .. - ..• p r a, \r.,it ..,.`� - rw_ �y, � • � -_ ,.- [email protected] - .,. r ..'• tea',:-'� •,5' r! )'N .. - _ `
>s i•fix, �^� t ,!� �i� trt � z t��^_ � � � r
r, .T
$. t � r' � ��I�_ ly.,�. , a;rl� ..II",��1�.� •,� vn r''� • .�J ♦ i• r K . f'i c- _ P�. .k,'f�V�E" f,•Fiw, �` •' Y/;' - _ • _. ,stir ;;�' r_• Y .:;:'r r. l C,'2 h ,.,., rfr • '�[ r - '� g a `,.1+r' i I '! - '•�,�,ryr t a ! '".s'' .�,c� 'i� `fu{� ,/E �r3i.. f it xt�'.Y„. _� .-Oro:,C2 J
S 4 %Nib.00�
_ � „y 'Ea - '..�' � p, ,,.yy vf.•J,A�K�r�'S� �k,`',' i ..��- � �• ` i -�.s �� �j �- 1./r _ �e�11 �• ..�1�,P,..Y'�1 � ,_�'� ' _. ,i\ "r u 5 �/[ ��"�` 'I>�' ':n. .• ♦ � � `•• � �� 'Ts-y` -.di _1-� �.: � �u� .a,-''i•� � eh' V \- �" �.2 t5��, yga,�..RL'0 cr :;- � �' � r�_ _ •�3 y4 Yr Y4reY' a � - - • ,t -'y�:Ci,i' - ► :.I ,G� ..f t r w -;1 `�` � >-�. � �1 � - .�- ��, ':r — fR fi, ii/'h•, j ` A�+?`,ty'�i �`'yM, ,�, -f1?.,.r�1` r I /,�� :ti,.- t. }..'�, `rt�.�:. '. ; ; • - d..�_"�/�,. �" ,? ,`r�! � £;t'^ 7` J �..,Y.'�'� _fir I 'a � + -��'._I n ,'- € y' ♦ � •�' d.;. .c. f0. ,�(7°�. ,?+,. �. /� ii.is a- �Si,;-. r "`b,�: r...� Al
�! / # �l..R.1 n ig. tfniJ/� \ 1 F:' /6{Ali ♦ � •I'�� t�, �r9' �Mz-�? r r"' � / '• .Y
r y��v ct• •IC
,J ♦ 'I 'i✓' � r >>'; ' i';•... ,� . w 'S?�.it .-31s..a•�r .,.�i 4 'r.. .4;.. I III I ',s ,, >.; ��,P i �' J •, ••� / q . „ee: 1� ; .Q I I ti � ^tis r 11 I L=Ft �` 1 N'� .1 1 ii ij•���i � y,.' •� �� .v , �; '.cl• .:e,.r '� "j q, ..�,. fi•':y THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Y:1 , 6
•� /'��". S r� F♦1' „' �`�i=+ SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE r. i • yyF y i [ �� ' �r iS• �� ;l��'J ., !��tr J FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND .�� �/H,r a s- i� r i �.> v }'.+ 1 x j j,') it a `:��- y PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED , r , VIEW FROM 122 BLUFF DRIVE 1 � • �,/ p$ Jx � ` ' TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION ' - . • . ' ��l6r� .:��110, E�x. x wl�[aek 1 �ir'lih rl : e. x ,. ',. mnar�ra3asma�slw.a>vo.'mac.x��cawawaammr. ,•�. .♦scae.nar.z.:a�e_�.,:� _.... BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS ,+ • =! ! J •,.� •• PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND •[ _ .a „- -. SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN WITH THE ARCHITECT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH
• r J41P .► I,- THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL � 1�L, '��( -• '"" .. CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE • r ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN
4p DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE • • - r— f PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. •�~ �'r • ?` ♦• `��j , ` j ' CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE ' • �7 • ! , •• Y �� ` ►� , Y •. ` EXISNSIONS AND
TING NSIBLE FOR ALL CONDITIONS ONITHEEJOB AND SHALL
•- ♦ �� �� 'f • • '•� ' REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT ,� - �'• OR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. • DATES 08/06/21 PRE-APP
• . ;��` •1 — '' : t 10/04/21 PLANNING ��-��- �4, 12/21/21 PLANNING .. •
i I AERIAL VIEW -
r
DRAWN BY
DONLOVE
vu
ve
��' 1L r �
y7 'lt' 11fR�i •V� Y,f^
jers �, 1`����`•'a.ad
• ji i� _ C 35361
K j
.• x ` ..• -a• - to "' � OF CPS\
SHEET TITLE
r �
--- PERSPECTIVES,
FIXTURES &
FINISHES
EXTERIOR LIGHTING POOL DECK
. . • . __ SHEET # WAC CALIBER LED OUTDOOR DARK SKY DOWNLIGHT OUTDOOR TRAVERTINE PAVERS 10 INCH, BLACK FINISH, WS-W36610-BK LIGHT FINISH VIEW FROM DRIVEWAY A4* 1 Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 135
PROJECT
NEW CABANA
& TUNNEL
114 BLUFF
DRIVE
S 15° 3 0 ' 45 "W 5 3 3 . 6 3 ' M I PISMO BEACH, x CALIFORNIA 93449
2 1 I I
ZONE 1 I x
LOVE
o ` f I x
o ,
ARCHITECTURE
I I
VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
10 I i I I 1 IQ 0 0, 1 o a 611 0 I I I I U 1 '0 0101 01°Io I _
,01010,01°�°+°�
— — o I I 1 I I 10,01 0,1
9155 CURBARIL AVENUE
ATASCADERO,1O CA 93422
209.535.1907
[email protected]
j ZONE 3 i .............
I I ZONE 6
I 11
V /
_ - I
\ I x
I I CD
I I
---- - - -L__ 1 - I E GMT EM-' W CD �� ; L - 1 I I I
THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE
I F� 0 I I I I 0 I 0 I I I FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED AND
PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED
j r n I i I I I I I I TO SUCH USE. REPRODUCTION OR PUBLICATION lJ I BY ANY METHOD,IN WHOLE OR IN PART,IS I I I I PROHIBITED.TITLE TO THESE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS REMAIN WITH THE ARCHITECT
- --------- ---- WITHOUT PREJUDICE. VISUAL CONTACT WITH x THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL
L I I CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.WRITTEN
DIMENSIONS ON THESE DRAWINGS SHALL HAVE
On o. I I I PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.
CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY AND BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND
a I I EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE JOB AND SHALL I REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT II v O. ZONE 4 I I I I FOR RESOLUTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. rL` I I x I I o L(( I I
I I I Ir � 9c r y I i I DATES ZONE 2 — — t — — — 08/06/21 PRE-APP 10/04/21 PLANNING
12/21/21 PLANNING
N 150 31 25 E 556 . 31 M I x x
DRAWN BY
I DON LOVE
5 � A Rc
\vet.o�p.LD LOI,.vij�`
SYMBOL SURFACE NOTES QTY. DETAIL LANDSCAPE AREAS LANDSCAPE NOTES * C 35361
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY. WATER CONTAINER SIZE NOTE: LANDSCAPE AREAS BEYOND PROPERIIY Q BOUNDARIES NOT COUNTED IN AREA BREAKDOWN NEW AUTOMATIC YARD IRRIGATION CONTROLLEE AS REQUIRED BY(CGBC 4.304.1. ,p A. PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL ZONE CONTROL. SEE LANDSCAPE AREAS CALCULATIONS. Ix /RF 02 STRELITZIA REGINAE BIRD OF PARADISE 12 MEDIUM #5 HYDROZONE AREA 1 - 400 S.F. B. MANUFACTURER: RAIN BIRD. O F C P,\, << HYDROZONE AREA 2 = 400 S.F. 2. PROVIDE HEMLOCK BARK MULCH OVER WEED CLOTH 1N ALL PLANTER AREAS,TYP.
HYDROZONE AREA 3 = 1,056 S.F.
° BOUGAINVILLEA SPP. BOUGAINVILLEA 15 LOW #3 HYDROZONE AREA 4 = 100 S.F. SHEET TITLE HYDROZONE AREA 5 = 100 S.F.
HYDROZONE AREA 6 = 435 S.F.
ECHIUM CANDICANS PRIDE OF MADEIRA 7 LOW #5 TOTAL LANDSCAPING= 2,491 S.F. (FASTUOSUM) LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO EACH & BEAUCARNEA STRICTA BOTTLE PALM 10 LOW 24"BOX PLANT VIA DRIP SYSTEM IRRIGATION (NOLINA STRICTA)
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER.NLLOWANCE (MAWA) PLAN MAWA PER YEAR= 43,244 GALLONS, 57.81 HUNDRED
CHAMAEROPS HUMILIS MEDITERRANEAN FAN 6 LOW #5 CUBIC FEET, .13 ACRE-FEET PALM
r
ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE (ETWU)
ETWU PER YEAR= 27,212 GALLONS, 36 HCF, .08 ACRE-FEET SHEET # ETWU COMPLIES WITH MAWA : 27,212 <43,244
8' 4' 0' 8' 1 6'
SCALE: 1/8 — 1'-0"
Planning Commission Agenda 04-26-2022 7.B - 136