2004-1488 G/I/CN CITY OF ENCINITAS
APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE
Vendor No.
Depositor Name:
S
Phone No.
Address:
tale ZAP
DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1 C,
1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER /�/ �✓
2. RELEASED AMOUNT:
3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $
Notes: fT ,. `��'��- /!/s����� ✓ / / f `���/%% C%��
AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordinat
Date
Supervisor _ Date O(�
Department Head Date
DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept
Date
GENERAL PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
LEDGER # (25 Characters limit)
101-0000-218.00-00 - - - - - - Security Deposit - ______
TOTALS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
.LUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
PROCESSED BY
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FINANCE
DATE OF REQUEST _
DATE
DATECIICK REQUIRED Next Warrant
F, ____ _
CITY OF ENCINITAS
APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE
Depositor Name- ' f Vendor No.
I
Address: Phone No. !�
T:z:�,
State Zip
DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION:
I. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER
2. RELEASED AMOUNT: $
3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ `
1�7z�-1
Notes:
AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordinator/ Date
Supervisor Date
Department Head Date
DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date
GENERAL PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
LEDGER # (25 Characters limit)
101-0000-218.00-00 - - - - - - Security Deposit - ______
TOTALS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
.LUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
PROCESSED BY _--— --
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FINANCE
DATE OF REQUEST
DATE
DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant ___
t
c � �
5 {
k AX
3 kF +et 7 •Y' t'
y
t: t f*,". .c t�s tM 5 .3 r "� �C`yi-t 4 r t 3�
4
viz se. sI X
C r ? �" w �* �,.aa 7 t k-': `1
+
h ,r
F F33M!t d1X � & 1 ly
4 t
}
L
s
} t
V4 r=' �"r
yh!
Tri-Dimensional Engineering.,
E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G S U R �E�G
E Y I N G
HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY
DeBruin Residence
Parcel C PM 14660-Golden Trail
Vista, California
APN # 179-270-46
L�
,
t-�
Prepared for:
Dave DeBruin
and
The City of Vista
�ESS!
3 �-u� .t �r
. cz�js
« Exp.
OF CA \F
Prepared by:
Tri-Dimensional Engineering, Inc.
March 1, 2004
P. O. Box 791 •Poway, CA 92074 .(858) 748-8333 •Fox (858) 748-8412
February 29, 2004
Table of Contents
Cover Sheet I
Table of Contents 2
Summary and Findings 3-5
Summary and Current Conditions 3
Scope and Purpose 3
Calculation Methods 4
Existing Watershed Contribution 4
Flow Areas and Critical Sections-Discussion 5
Conclusions 6
Declaration of Responsible Charge 6
Maps Exhibits and Appendices
Drainage Map`A'
Drainage Map `B' (Attached on the back cover)
Stream Sections Drawing
Appendix A-Flow Characteristics Charts(Complete Results)
Appendix B-Charts,Graphs,Formulas, Tables used in design
Appendix C-Calculations and Results(Specific to each flow cross-section)
Appendix D—Detention Basin Design
Appendix E—Inlet Capacity Analisis
__ 2
February 29, 2004
SUMMARY AND CURRENT CONDITIONS:
This site is located adjacent to and east of 1081 Golden Trail in Vista, California. Single-
family dwellings to the east, west, north and south border the 1.63-acre irregular shaped lot. Site
topography consists of gentle terrain sloping downhill to the south. A natural drainage swale
parallels the easterly property line and carries surface runoff waters to the south. Total difference in
elevations at the property is approximately 35 feet and varies between 445 and 410 feet(MSL).
Drainage swale is lined with heavy brush and smalls trees. Vegetation on the remaining property
consists of moderate native grasses and brush. Some outcrops of granite rocks are apparent on site
as well as adjacent properties)
SCOPE AND PURPOSE: This is a hydrology/hydraulic study to determine runoff in the
existing natural drainage swale and to determine the adequacy of the proposed drainage pipes,
ditch and gutter in the event of a time-of-concentration 100-year-storm. As well as to maintain the
existing direction and amount of runoff discharge from this property by using a detention pipe(See
Drainage Map `A', Drainage Map `B', Appendix A - Flow Characteristics Charts and Appendix D
-Detention System Design.
1 Preliminary Soils Investigation for Proposed Single Family Dwelling Golden Trail Vista
California APN#179-70-3 8. by North County Compactation Engineering, Inc.
3
February 29, 2004
CALCULATION METHODS: The Rational Method was used to determine total flow quantity
at time of concentration for a 100-year-storm for each critical area. Where noted, the following
equation was used to calculate time of concentration:
(11.9)(L)3
0.385
Tc = H (plus 10 min for natural channels)
- Where noted,the following equation was used to calculate rainfall intensity:
i= 7.44(P6)(D)-0.645
Where noted, the manning equation, as follows, was used to determine flow quantities and
sections of flow:
Qcap=A * V, where
_ V=(1.49/n) * r2/3 * s U2
Where noted, the following equation was used to approximate coefficient of runoff, C, for
drainage areas with multiple coefficients:
C = KCArea 1)(AArea 1)+(CArea2)(AArea2)+...] / [AAreal+AA e.2+••.
Where needed, the Bernoulli equation (along with Q=AV above) was used to determine
flow characteristics:
p1/Y+Z1 +V2/29=p2/Y+Z2 +V2/2g+hi
EXISTING WATERSHED CONTRIBUTION:
The easterly natural drainage swale collects runoff from an approximate 7 acre portion of
the hillside north of the site (see Drainage Map `B' ). The proposed Ditch on the top of the cut
slope along the northerly property line collects runoff from approximately 0.61 acres north of the
property. The access driveway collects runoff from approximate 0.89 acres from the northwesterly
side of the property(see Drainage Map `A').
4
February 29, 2004
FLOW AREAS AND CRITICAL SECTIONS:
Once storm flow quantities were determined, flow cross-sections were analyzed to
determine the properties of the 100-year-storm flow. Please refer to Drainage Map `A' and
Drainage Map `B' for hydrology drainage basin areas and to the Stream Sections Exhibit for flow
cross section locations. The attached data sheet (Excel) is a summary of the flow cross-sections
and all pertinent hydraulic data. Conditions were analyzed for (1) pipe adequacy, (2) Brow ditch
capacity, (3) open charnel adequacy, (4) head water depth and pipe adequacy for the proposed
culvert, (5) detention system adequacy, and (6) Inlet capacity.
(1) Pipe capacity and adequacy were analyzed and appear in the attached `Flow
Characteristics' chart (Appendix A) (Flow sections A, AX, B, C, CD for pipe capacity)
(See Appendix C for detailed results for each flow section). Refer to Drainage Map `A'
for flow cross-section locations.
(2) Brow ditch was analyzed for capacity to carry runoff from outside areas `X' and `Y'
(See Appendix C for detailed results for each section)
(3) The proposed access driveway channel that will carry runoff from area `X' was
analyzed to determine adequacy. (See Appendix C for detailed results for the flow
cross-section).
(4) Area YZBCDAX will be discharged through a proposed 30" CMP pipe. See Appendix
B for Headwater depth for concrete pipe culvert with inlet control. See Appendix A for
the Flow Characteristics Chart and Appendix C for detailed results for this section.
(5) The Detention System was designed so that maximum discharge rate from the site
would remain the same as it was prior to construction (See Map B Existing Conditions
and Map A Proposed conditions). See Appendix A' for Q Characteristics.
(6) Inlet capacity to determine depth of ponding water over a D-8 CB Type G-1 was
determined for flow X (see Appendix D for inlet capacity calculations).
5
February 29, 2004
CONCLUSIONS•
This study indicates that, if the project is constructed per plan, the storm drain system at
the subject site will be adequate to handle 100-year-storm conditions.
Modifications to the proposed system would warrant a re-evaluation of the hydraulics by
Tri-Dimensional Engineering, Inc.
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE:
I hereby declare that I am the Civil Engineer of work for this project, that I have exercised
responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of the Business
and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards.
I understand that the check of the project drawings and specifications by the County of San
Diego is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as engineer of work, of my
responsibilities for project design.
o�
3 - -04fA%
John S. Co y R E 062716 Date NO 0062716 S3
Exp. 06--30-k .- �►
s
f9
VI
6
February 29, 2004
Maps, Exhibits and Appendices
7
i
jI
w
\
D�Q5
f
y4 ♦ 3
CD
1
II o `L
I Ili i
)POSED
Try-Dimension alN V Inr�A I N A G E MAP 'A'
;ALE.
J P.O. BOX 701 POWAY, CA 92074 ($58)748- 33
I /
I \ ~✓ \ SYMBOL
0�
y;
OL' 440
W 3 7
1 lJ,
L/ l�
I �
I
ri-Dimensional En _pITIONS
iTM 01NEERINO o PL N1 0 P M 'B '
\ P.O. BOX 791 POWAY, CA 92074 (85748-88 Y 1 1
C
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
-
_
STREAM SECTIONS
4.26 4.42 NG
Q=29.23 cfs
SECTION I TRIBUTARY AREA: YZBCD
4.29 5.52
430— NG
424— —424
Q=34.66 cfs
SECTION 2 TRIBUTARY AREA: YZBCDAX
February 29,2004
Appendix A
Flow Characteristics Charts
8
k ti (O O O O O M N d O M U.) r M 0
f� LO Ln M M r (p 0p 0 O In M ll) LO
.-. U( CO O O cr I' Cl) O N M Cl) co O N (p 0
UO.m N N Ln LA O N 0 0 0 0 O N M M
- 0)■f� CO M O O O r Lo Ico (p O 00 O O
cn
■c0 LO LO V ON 000 It 00M
Q o O IO 0 0 r O r-: O O O O O ti c6 c6
N ■
O O (O (O 0 Cfl CO CO i� Cr I� O (o (O m
U co d ct 'IT V d V (OIng0 0 "t -4- '1-
6:6 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 66 LS O
N M'M M M M M M cM M co M co co co M co
� � � '� � � � �f lt; V d th at ll� Nt
M — M:0 00 00 0 00 00 M c6 00 00 CD 00 00 tO 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
N 0'0000000 0000 00 00
^ L6 lui 0 Ln Ln U7 Ln 6 In Lo Lo 0 Lo Lo Lo Lo
Lo E
av
c � i
m
U) a�
5 i° ~ E
E O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m c`�ia .� .� m o iu co u .Zi 15 5 co ca .c m
d c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
D D a) a) () () a) a)
' O a) N c'c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
N a O'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U a U U U 01010 U U U U U U U U U U
N w ■
•` C ■
a) '
a� c 0:0 a) a) m a) a) m a) a) m m a) a) a) a)
E .EIE .E E E E E E E E E E E E E
'-
o c'c S c 5 .9 .9 c c I.G
c c c c c c
c �' $ ESE E E E E E E E E E E E E E -E
tL �°
m I m a) a� a� m a� a� a� m a) a) a) 0 0 a)
.Ln y N U) w m w Ln Ln rn vn v) w v) U)
i 000
o XX ocomco
LL �IX <K1 Q N 00000 m >N } �
0 0
LL J
U
� (n d
O
Z W
t .LA M r
OL ■� r
'3 I� 00
lO � N ONO ONO N Cl? W O COO
> Q ■LO LO O M O M (0 (M O (O LA r-
v ■ T
75 r
O
■O O O O O O N O N Q CO M LA CO p
r
CO Il- CO CO M CO 00 co r ti 0 CO CO CO
C LA M O O V• V' M N M M CO CA N CO CO
Z a O co N N LA LAO O O O O O N M M
O U
p
M LA tf)
C .O
,9 O O
to
Io O O
�+ C1
—(CL))
O O CO
o to O
C7 ■ O O
N
QN G1 .t-o O ■r-
IO l LA 1717
O N ■
aC0 OL I.- Co of
W J W 'LA V. V
V C ■O O O
•a v 00 3
>,
_ 'M im _M _M _M _M _M _M co
C 10 O O O O O O O O O
V O O O O O O
w
Q j ,NN000 � V N 00 C14 CMO LOA
d _O N 0 0 0 0 0 O O T7 O
V U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
m .� .� ■ N CO N eN- N V CO CO O
_ v a cn •`
co
o Q o
U i� O O
CO ■w N N
Q I> N
.p = \° \° 2 ZZ Z °
M 0 N c M O O
p ■UpOO) V p � o (O ZW WLA
(/) O CA N �-
o cn cn
U- ;U0@) o) 0 @ P2 Ma.
Ivm > aam � > v U wugu� �
Q > > U
.O V• a CL NCV 'T d d W O
N N 00 r- r N V' CO CO p W co
3
I U U
O ■ >( X m m m
XIX Q Q Q Q 1>-IN m U D U m } }
February 29, 2004
Appendix B
Charts, Graphs, Equations, Tables used in Design, Other
Calculations
9
e
s
e
•
e
...------ -0-MCCOMM
MAN
EVA cup
MAN ,
uE ERIS' a ONE
2111 ME
in M
�� ■ ri■■■■■ ■■■■■ ..
MIN I
:: • ' - MM /�II: ���1r,1111111H1111 �mid
ISO 1 11111 ..■ ■■
10FAWAW- Al
-:
v��v�vv�vvv.�vvvv►J�v�J.r s vs J�r I v�v��vv�vvr J.evvv.—v e.v n-v v.....
v.v�v�vv.vvv-v.v�vv�Jv. J�v� svvvvv�J�sv�v�=MwJ vvvv�v v..vv.vvv.....-ME.OMM
vvs.J�vvvv.vv�v..v v.v v v..... -- v.
avav�vv�vvv-vvvs AW"r�AWA�A v► .sJ V�v�.J.v�vv�.J V�vvvv.vvvvv�v..vv.-vv.....ve�-��ve •
v�vvv�s�J�J V►e•.J V�v�J VV�•J VS�v��J�v�vv�•J�®v�a..vv..--.....m����� -
==�tl �vv�W�A�F/T J�J1/./�r—AJ WA.��W��IF��s/
A /R�amJ VV�W�/vZ��v� l ��s'.I =� -- IBM=
—�tEI � l� --!l
A �M zw ==F -t � Mvm �ttl
MORNMEMMEMMM ME—MM=
- e
===M/'rte—�AWMMM=M —e/•--rr.---t..ee.e----l=
v�v��vv�v.��J V►.v.J�M��vvrJ V-��vv►�vv►J�v��vvv--vvvv.�v..vv.vvveee.e--.�-�
v.emv�svrJV►.v►rvvrJV VrJ�.��JV�v►JV V V��JV V V V VS�J V��vv�v�.vvvv-�v..vv.svve.ee.s.-l-�
==FAWAIWAIr" �J VerJ V�.J VV..�����v�.•ev�vvv-�s.v..vv..vve...e----�v-
v�ev.v'���J��'s�
t■t��t�I��/t�I■ I .tttt/1�i�Jt/0�t����t��tttttt■tl.all■MOM
�
re���r�r s/�r�r��I�����rr������.u..tttt■....■■■�■!w -
%M%JWI JsI rtI%l /,.■.....■■■■■■■■!!�
SHE
MOM
/II///MUMOIAMME 110001 MO MOMMEM on EM
Wl /WAMMM M� r-■IMMINEEM 111111111■■■■■■■■■■N
M%WA r"!/= ��wommm 111111111■■■■■■■■■■■
rWWA Y/r/AWAMEMANION 111111111■■■■■■■■■MO -
A WAW� /� ■■m==�1111111111■1�1■■■■■■ .
r■��rs�mr"Mmw� ■■■MMM�111111111���■�■�■■■� ..
MA WJWAWA�A
Now, MFAM�MVAM M ■M ■MMI 111111111111111■■■■■
r J
N -
C
N l- O M — G1 G1 N U, v-; U;
^.D U
v 3
00 00
U � �O �O (� !� 00 CO 00 G� -
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U � N
lu o
U Q
C/] y
w O\ to
UO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
V) C
r, Fr y O
1-'r O [� �t o0 W N V) \O \O \D O M M L N
00 W W C\ r L
Q O O O C O O O O O O C O O O O
4:.
U
* O O V) C C vn O Ul O O v) O O c E
0 O N N M Ln "D 00 w 00 C\
-
M
U c cn
v] v1 v) n vj En [n n U C
W O O O O O O O O O
a� a> Q Q Q Q N p �?
o o o j o
z 4 N N d I� N b rn n ti CL
U Rs U O c n o ca
C; 4°_ z
CJ TJ t7 -O 72 72 'D G N U N v cn
cn cn V) c V) C ~
C r
ai (U
C/) L
— ` lu
V1 cn V} 'cn u N C� C:S [C C3 CC •3 O~ O y `
cn
o
L e y —
E a o z
� � O L II II
E E � = ¢ v
a �
EQUATION
E 11.91-3 0.385
Feet Tc = l
DE /
5 00 Tc = Time of concentration(hours)
L = Watercourse Distance(miles) l
00o AE = Change in elevation along
3 00 effective slope line(See Figure 3-4)(feet)
- Tc
Hours Minutes
2000 4 240
3 180
- 1000
900
800 2 120
X00
600 100
\ 90
500\ 80
400 \ 70
300 \duo/P 1 60
\ 50
200 \
\ 40
\ L
\ Miles Feet
\ 30
100 \ 1
4000 20
\ 18
3000 16
50 0.5 \
\ 14
40 2000 \
\ 12
1800 \
30 1600 \ 10
1400 \ g
1200 8
20 1000
900 7
800 6
700
600 5
10 500
4
400
300 3
5
200
A E L Tc
SOURCE:California Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940)
F I G U R E
Nomograph for Determination of
Time of Concentration (Tc)for Natural Watersheds 3-3
HazMat/County Hydrogeology Manua llWatershed Nomograph.FHS
Watershed Divide\
Design
Point
L
Watershed
Divide
Area "A"
Area "B"
AE Design Point
Effective Slope Line (Watershed Outlet)
Stream Profile
L
Area "A"=Area "B"
SOURCE:California Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940)
F I G U R E
Computation of Effective Slope for Natural Watersheds 3'
HazMaUCounty Hydrogeology ManualMatural watersheds Slope.FH8
-
�
�
'
-
_
_
�
- |
qj
CL
(hZ
co
tj
Of
oc
tj
04 s
N
W yZQp o
U G7 p i�
°o ago o
U Z
mparia I C o u n t y
-__ 1p
,
,
------------------ - _ _- -
---- -- J
I: __• •__- X41'.'`,,,`� �� �,, ' ` `, � �`. �`. .�
,
,
Iz
1�/I
APPENDIX 175
CHART
ISO 10,000
168 8,000 EXAMPLE (2� (3�
6.
15fi 6,000 0.42 inches (3.5 feet) 6.
0.120 cf a S.
l44 5,000
6. 5.
4,000 1 KW
132 0 feet 4.
7- 3,000 5' 4.
(I) 2.s awe
120 (2) 2.1 7.4
2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4
3.
108 - 3.
e0 in feet
– 96 1.000
800 ---� —
2. 2:-
84 600
500 p 2.
T2 400
E
W 300 )j/ 1.5 1.5
V to
? 60 v 200 / F 1.5
Z - �1
0 54 0 / ao TT VJ/D' - r
/W-- 100
W 48 0
> 60
/
/ = 60 d - 1.0
L0
W
50 c -
0 o ENTRANCE
SCALE �. 10
p TYPE uj .9 .9
1 F 36 30 (1) Square edge with 3 .9
W headwall
Q3-3 20 (Y) Groove !nd w-th W .B '8
G headwall =
30 .8
13) Groove and
Projecting
2T 10 T ,
.T
24 8 T
6 To use scale (2) or(3) Project
5 horizontally to scale (I),then
21 use straight inclined tine through
4 0#nd O scales,or reverse as .6 '6
3 illustrated. 6
IB
2 '
IS .5 L .5
.5
11.0
12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
CONCRETE - PIPE CULVERTS-
WITH INLET CONTROL
SuREAU Of VUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963
I son Hy roloic croups
l
ueqerw
Oceanside Vista SI'- _ GroupA
__-- Group 8
R' Group C
Group D
F_ Undetem)ined
(Made or Urban or Gullied
o i i Co S or Escarpments)
I Data Unavailable
Escondido
78
Carlsbad
'Sa 77 :1
LCUCa�Ii�? r J Lake -
.. 116cfr,,es r
, )
Encinitas
- n SSr� a F Rancho
1
Bernardo
Ardiff by the Sea _ ; La c
Solana Beach
Powa
y
t 't
Del Mar t
;.,:''��,,P•,;�°-3, �,. t � ,,,,,;. �d73' l�cc1)Inc+.
y^:� jy�{'(JI'(My{��.{�.Sf\
..e. \ - ) r��'! 'IR,'1✓M
f � Jos b
La Jolla y}/���)}�ry]U
�� ' • Il* tr �.? tl +k Ji ltj� S �5? ,�. )rl f t..
.fr � A.f Ij 1. � •l1
.�.
Pacific Beach l
Mission Beach F,! t to
61,_
iA _tit'., ri f '
J � 4 L S k tL� � I i � a'�JII.yJ��tJA h !.i ` f•F
-- C � i ,} J i i }efE:Vi +J'rYi ri i��l4
Ocean teach i i � l �! �f ! l i i timi�J i i J f ��t1�1 yit�nf /
k t i u7L✓3r
' b { riYntJ Jams
44 h yre
;Q� Y
..r l
Point Loma Coronado
February 29, 2004
Appendix C
Calculations and Results (specific to each cross section)
10
PROJECT: 20' DRIVEWAY AREA X
DATE:
TRIANGULAR CHANNEL TIME:
INVERT WIDTH (feet) . . . 0 . 00 ' MANNINGS n . . . . . . . . . . 013
SLOPE (feet/foot) . . . . . . 0900 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .37
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE
SLOPE (X to 1) 50 . 00 : SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . 50 . 00
DEPTH (feet) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 12 TOP WIDTH (feet) . . . 11.50
VELOCITY (fps) . . . . . . . . 5 . 10 VEL. HEAD (feet) . . . 0 .40
AREA (square feet) . . . . 0 .66 P + M (pounds) . . . . . 35
CRITICAL DEPTH . . . . . . . . 0 .20 CRITICAL SLOPE . . . . . 0 . 0052
CRITICAL VELOCITY . . . . . 1. 76. FROUDE NUMBER . . . . . . 3 . 75
PROJECT: 24" BROW DITCH - AREA A
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 24 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 06
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .34 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 17
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 5 . 71 Velocity head . . . . 0 .51
Area (Sq. Ft. ) 0 .36
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .50 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0045
Critical Velocity . . . 3 . 37 Froude Number . . . . 2 . 06
PROJECT: 8" PVC @So - AREA A
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 8 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0800 Q (cfs) . . . 2_. 06
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .37. depth/diameter . . . 0 .56
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 10 .24 Velocity head . . . . 1. 63
Area (Sq. Ft. ) . . . . . . 0 .20
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 63 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0250
Critical Velocity . . . 6 . 02 Froude Number . . . . 3 .28
PROJECT: 12 " PVC @ 9 . 3o - AREA AX
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 12 Mannings n 013
Slope (ft/ft) 0 . 0930 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .43
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .50 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 50
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 13 . 82 Velocity head . . . . 2 . 97
Area (Sq. Ft . ) 0 . 39
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .94 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0201
Critical Velocity . . . 7. 10 Froude Number . . . . 3 . 89
PROJECT: 12 " PVC @4 . 90 - AREA AX
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 12 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0490 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .43
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 61 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 61
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 10 . 82 Velocity head . . . . 1 . 82
Area (Sq. Ft. ) . . . . 0 . 50
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 94 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0201
Critical Velocity . . . 7. 10 Froude Number . . . . 2 . 66
PROJECT: 24" BROW DITCH @ 20 - AREA Y
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 24 Mannings n 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 31
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 14 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 07
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 3 .23 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 16
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 10
. Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 19 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0053
Critical Velocity . . . 2 . 04 Froude Number . . . . 1 . 86
PROJECT: 4" PVC @ 8 .52/ AREA B
DATE:
PIPE ;FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) 4 Mannings n . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0852 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .28
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 17 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 50
Velocity (fps) 6 . 37 Velocity head 0 . 63
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 .04
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .29 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0196
Critical Velocity 3 .45 Froude Number . . . . 3 . 09
PROJECT: 6" PVC @ 2a - AREA C
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) , . 6 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .36
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .24 depth/diameter . . . 0 .47
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 3 .94 Velocity head . . . . 0 .24
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 09
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 30 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0087
Critical Velocity . . . 2 . 88 Froude Number . . . . 1 . 62.
PROJECT: 6" PVC @ 16.3% - AREA CD
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 6 Mannings n 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 1630 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 67
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .19 depth/diameter . . . 0 .37
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 10 . 04 Velocity head . . . . 1.57
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 07
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .41 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0140
Critical Velocity . . . 3 .85 Froude Number . . . . 4 . 76
PROJECT: SECTION 1 - AREAS YZBCD
DATE:
TRIANGULAR CHANNEL TIME:
INVERT WIDTH (feet) . . . 0 . 00 MANNINGS n . 045
SLOPE (feet/foot) . . . . . . 1053 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .23
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE
SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . . . . 4 .26 SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . 4 .42
DEPTH (feet) . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 01 TOP WIDTH (feet) . . . 8 . 73
VELOCITY (fps) . . . . . . . . 6 . 65 VEL. HEAD (feet) . . . 0 . 69
AREA (square feet) . . . . 4 . 39 P + M (pounds) . . . . . 469
CRITICAL DEPTH . . . . . . . . 1 .23 CRITICAL SLOPE 0 . 0358
CRITICAL VELOCITY . . . . . 4 .44 FROUDE NUMBER 1 . 65
PROJECT: SECTION 2 - AREAS YZBCDAX
DATE:
TRIANGULAR CHANNEL TIME:
INVERT WIDTH (feet) . . . 0 . 00 MANNINGS n . . . . . . . . . . 045
SLOPE (feet/foot) . . . . . . 0654 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 . 66
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE
SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . . . . 4 .29 SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . 5 .52
DEPTH (feet) . . . . . . . . . . 1. 12 TOP WIDTH (feet) . . . 10 .98
VELOCITY (fps) . . . . . . . . 5 . 64 VEL. HEAD (feet) . . . 0 .49
AREA (square feet) . . . . 6 . 14 P + M (pounds) . . . . . 522
CRITICAL DEPTH . . . . . . . . 1 .26 CRITICAL SLOPE . . . . . 0 . 0353
CRITICAL VELOCITY . . . . . 4 .49 FROUDE NUMBER . . . . . . 1.33
PROJECT: 30" CMP @5 .930 - AREA YZBCDAX
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 30 Mannings n 024
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0593 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 34 . 66
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 58
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 11. 69 Velocity head . . . . 2 . 12
Area (Sq. Ft. ) 2 .96
Critical Depth . . . . . . 21. 00 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0255
Critical Velocity . . . 8 .23 Froude Number . . . . 1 . 88
February 29, 2004
Appendix D
Detention System Design
-- 11
Storm Discharge Volume 100-year-storm
Duration C A (0.57 cfs) I Inflow Total Water In Basin
(min cu ft)) cu ft)
1 0.59 0.190 34 23.81 160 126
2 0.59 0.190 68 15.23 205 136
3 0.59 0.190 103 11.72 237 134
4 0.59 0.190 137 9.74 262 125
5 0.59 0.190 171 8.43 284 113
6 0.59 0.190 205 7.50 302 97
7 0.59 0.190 239 6.79 320 80
8 0.59 0.190 274 6.23 335 61
9 0.59 0.190 308 5.77 349 42
10 0.59 0.190 342 5.39 363 21
11 0.59 0.190 376 5.07 375 -1
12 0.59 0.190 410 4.79 387 -24
13 0.59 0.190 445 4.55 398 -47
14 0.59 0.190 479 4.34 409 -70
15 0.59 0.190 513 4.15 419 -94
16 0.59 0.190 547 3.98 428 -119
17 0.59 0.190 581 3.83 438 -144
18 0.59 0.190 616 3.69 447 -169
19 0.59 0.190 650 3.56 455 -194
20 0.59 0.190 684 3.45 464 -220
25 0.59 0.190 855 2.99 502 -353
30 0.59 0.190 1026 2.65 536 -490
35 0.59 0.190 1197 2.40 566 -631
40 0.59 0.190 1368 2.20 593 -775
45 0.59 0.190 1539 2.04 619 -920
50 0.59 0.190 1710 1.91 642 -1068
55 0.59 0.190 1881 1.80 664 -1217
60 0.59 0.190 2052 1.70 685 -1367
Detention System
The detention system is required in lieu of an exhaustive downstream
analysis or upgrade to limit the 100-year maximum discharge to pre-
construction rates. From the hydrology study,we get:
Pre-Construction: Qloo(X)=0.58 cfs
Post-Construction: Qioo(AB)=0.96 cfs
(the following design process was iterative,the results of the iterations
are shown below):
Propose one discharge pipe of 3.5"inside diameter. Because distance
to exit is so short, orifice capacity equation should govern over all
else:
a=0.067ft2
h=432.29 —429.29=3.0' ft elevation head
c=0.62 (coefficient for square-off/standard cut pipe)
Q =(0.62)(0.067)*SQRT[(2)(32.2)(3.0)]
Q=0.577cfs—0.58 cfs allowed
Determine maximum storage capacity required for a 100-year-storm of
any duration(see attached spreadsheet):
Since the maximum demand occurs at less than a five-minute storm,
and a five-minute-storm is the shortest-duration storm recognized by
the County hydrology manual, the basin requires 136 ft3 of storage.
Propose using a 24"diameter ADS pipe for storage
136 ft3/3.14 ft2 =43.3 feet of pipe required.
Emergency overflow is provided at each detention discharge basin in
the event of unforeseen clog or greater than 100-year intensity storm.
See plans for final design of system.
Please also consider that some re-infiltration will occur for low flows
(though not considered for detention design purposes for safety
reasons),that will enable these low flows to never enter the City's
storm drain system and have the benefit of potential filtration
(important if any bacteria-laden flows make it to this point in the
system).
February 29,2004
Appendix E
Inlet Capacity Analysis
12
Inlet Capacity Analysis—X
36"x21" Square Inlet(D-8 CB Type G-1)—Open Space Inlet Area=378.00 in2
Inlet runoff collection
Q=3.37.cfs (Refer to flow charts appendix A)
Assume inlet is 1/2 clogged: Area= 189.0 in2= 1.31 ft 2
V2/2g=Z(headwater depth)
V=Q/A=3.37 ft3/sec/ 1.31 =2.57 ft/sec
Z= 0.1' <6"(actual headwater available)
OK, Inlet is capable of handling flow
P. O. Box 791 Poway, CA 92074 (858) 748-8333 Fax(858) 748-8412
m
O
Z
� OW
Z�
Oa �
Oz u
M O_
W N �aQ
J � X cn
J — WQ
ZU
O
ZN
U
I
W
I
a
�h
h
00
h
�—
cod
/ I
N I
wd
` - ,- V
too
cs do
69 Go
V
�d a
OU LL
\ C)
\l I 03
r�r CO
C
IN
�--Sabo
=IL
�i ;,1
(3 J\lC) 00 ,O
/ c) z C�
A
/ � m
Tri-Dimensional Engineering, Inc.
E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G S U R P E Y I N G
t�
HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUD JAM 23 XW
Darst Residen ENGINEERING SERVICES
CITY OF ENCINITAg
123 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Prepared for:
Mr. Gary Darst
and
The City of Encintas
Prepared by:
Tri-Dimensional Engineering, Inc.
January 22, 2004
P. O. Box 791 Poway, CA 92074 •(858) 748-8333 •Fax (858) 748-8412
January 21, 2004
Table of Contents
Cover Sheet
1
Table of Contents
2
Summary and Findings
3-6
Summary and Current Conditions 3
Scope and Purpose 3
Calculation Methods
4
Existing Watershed Contribution 5
Flow Areas and Critical Sections - Discussion 5
Conclusions
6
Declaration of Responsible Charge 6
Appendices
A-D
Drainage Map `A' - Existing site conditions DM-A
Drainage Map `B' - Proposed site Conditions DM-B
Drainage Map `C' - Surrounding area map DM-C
Flow Characteristics Charts (Complete Results) A
Charts, Graphs, Formulas, Tables used in design B
Calculations and Results (Specific to each flow cross-section) C
Pump Design D
2
January 21, 2004
SUMMARY AND CURRENT CONDITIONS: The subject site is a 0.1148-acre site,
located easterly of 3rd Street in the City of Encinitas. The site has retaining walls at north, east and
west.Due to these walls there is no run-off from outside the property entering the site. Vehicular
access is in the back of the property through an Alley located at east. The site drains from east to
west to Third Street. (See Map `B').
Proposed is the construction of a condominium duplex with a subterranean garage/basement. A
drainage system and sump pump to discharge in Third Street will be constructed as well as full-
width alley improvement. Flow patterns will be maintained.
Please refer to the permitted grading plan for this project for detailed drainage information.
SCOPE AND PURPOSE: This is a hydrology/hydraulic study to determine the adequacy
of the proposed drainage pipes and sump pump to serve the property in the event of a time-of-
concentration 100-year-storm. Runoff originating from offsite was analyzed to verify the runoff
will not exceed the Alley capacity (See Drainage Map `B' and `C').
3
January 21, 2004
CALCULATION METHODS: The Rational Method was used to determine total flow
quantity at time of concentration for a 100-year-storm for each critical area. Where noted, the
following equation was used to calculate time of concentration:
(11.9)(L)3 0.385
7'c = H (plus 10 min for natural channels)
Where noted, the following equation was used to calculate rainfall intensity:
i= 7.44(P6)(D)-0.645
Where noted, the manning equation, as follows, was used to determine flow quantities and
sections of flow:
Qcap =A * V, where
V= (1.49/n) * r" * s1i2
Where noted, the following equation was used to approximate coefficient of runoff, C, for
drainage areas with multiple coefficients:
C = I(CArea 1)(AArea 1)+(CArea2)(AArea2)+...� /[AAreal+AArea2+...]
Where needed, the Bernoulli equation (along with Q=AV above) was used to determine
flow characteristics:
P1/7+Z1 +V2/2g=p2/7+Z2 +V2/2g+hi
4
January 21, 2004
EXISTING WATERSHED CONTRIBUTION:
See Map `C' for Alley watershed contribution.
FLOW AREAS AND CRITICAL SECTIONS:
Conditions were analyzed at flow cross sections. Please refer to Drainage Map `B' for
hydrology drainage areas and flow cross section locations. The attached data sheet (Excel) is a
summary of the flow cross-sections and all pertinent hydraulic data thereto. Conditions were
analyzed for (1) Pipe adequacy, (2) channel adequacy, and (3) Pump Design. The design of the
storm drain system occurred concurrently with the preparation of this study. Therefore, all pipes
analyzed meet 100-year-flow criteria and hydraulic grade line efficiency at the time of the final
draft of this report.
(1) Pipe capacity and adequacy were analyzed and appear in the attached `Flow
Characteristics' chart (Flow sections A.1, A, B.1, B, C and ABC for pipe capacity) (See
Appendix C for detailed results for each flow section). Refer to Drainage Map `B' for
flow cross-section locations.
(2) The proposed channel shaped alley was analyzed for adequacy and a ppears in the
attached `Flow Characteristics' chart (Flow section A). Also see DM `C.
(3) A duplex pump system was designed based on flow quantities from ABC, Calculations
are shown in appendix D
_.. 5
January 21, 2004
CONCLUSIONS:
This study indicates that, if the project is constructed per plan, the storm drain system at the
subject site will be adequate to handle 100-year-storm conditions. As for all underground
drainage facilities,regular maintenance will prolong the life and function of the system.
In addition, we propose the installation (retrofit) of a fossil filter insert in the proposed
trench drain at the bottom of the proposed driveway. This will ensure that low-volume,
high-contaminant runoff wil be cleansed before discharging into Third Street
Modifications to the proposed system would warrant a re-evaluation of the hydraulics by
this office.
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE:
I hereby declare that I am the Civil Engineer of work for this project, that I have exercised
responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of the Business
and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards.
I understand that the check of the project drawings and specifications by the County of San
Diego is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as engineer of work, of my
responsibilities for project design.
�ESSt4yq�
q
John . Co ey CE 062716 Date No. C062716
Exp. 06-30-06 •
*P:A C/V 1 L
O OCAS 1Fv�
6
------------------------------------
--—-----—---- -----------
(..,t av_mv.
0
010 .00 S
7
oo'n -olo s,
1-77 Lp,
J�l i0l II
zl
'I to j...
\Nl_lN\
NN,
----------
IN,
Lo
rz,
ca h ,y � I
W 121
LLJ
AN.
Lo
ri Q
"IN Ltj
N Z
111-D
--—----------
70
co
t------ 0: OD
—---------
77_
_66
CO
SIG
t Go
-------------------- ------
co
–-—-------–-- It
Z
Go
as CO
Z
--–----------––- -–----
I -
low" 04
' 1 VIM
---------------- ----------------------- - —-------- ---------—------------
----- _j 'lag
c
r 1
1:31 cz
4
—-----—--- ---- ---------—-------
PIZ)
X-- ----------———-
----------------------
—2,
O zn-vwaf
Z'>LQ Lm
Z Q�
La
41c'\ 0,0
X U-)
xell
(1-ZK2 Je
c .1 cic� es,
f 4u
?
C)
-K (i
V 0
wq V— I C)
ZZ
N
41 ct or-
uj
Tf
L 7
--—-------—----
(2)
'41
U)
Q1
V)
Q)
k
7
w rte LL
-u Z�
C14 (0
tn
N -6 6 L
CL
-Q§
P i::) jj_C(
NNI
62% j ra
Q-
(5
'Z" Q
C1,4 Li, Lai
tj
141
Q)
--—-------- N
Z
k 63- co
ILLT
V, 1..,.,__..__,.,__-„,,,,,,,,,,,,_. --------- c6
V
SP OD
OD
'644'
7
}J'
LL
RDY QT
Oz. 0
-------------
OD
C%4
2 7-1 ry 14—3”' ;44.31; V
Z
--——------ M
z 00
4. CAXM Ij
X01
AL
04
d
z
AAN
Z
Oc
z
s
00 v
Affvn iuzu ym
----—------ Shk
RAI)
a:
LAJ
3 ni Lri
4 M1 LLJ
to 10 71T 1
to LL.
A 0
January 21, 2004
Appendix A
Flow Characteristics Charts
M t!�1 CO f- I- O N 0 0 0 N
�( U, r�� O N V" M O
Cp O N 1.9 N r In r 0 0 0 f-
E 0 0 iO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d �
(0 CO V OOONN — IT
V- �t r- It N �- C 0 0 0
O O O O O r- C C 0 r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q
N 0)CN 0 I,Im O O lo ILO Ico
.1
00 O:O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
N M M M M M M M M M CM M
a CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
O O'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O OIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E O Lo 6:ui L6 Lo to l0 l0 Lo U.) A
C
1
E
v V i
1
C 1
m
H 3 N i
O I-
C C C i C C C C C C C C C
O O i3O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CCU N N NifU N N m m N N N N
d ` 1 CC:i C C C C C C C C C
p D O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U U�U U U U U U U U U
CL
1 _
C C I C C C C C C C C C
fA \0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C� D. / U U I U U U U U U U U U
r
ate+ 1
1
{LE E E i E E E E E E E E E
cn
1
O LL J E E i E E E E E E E E E
N N U) N N N N 0 N y W
Z 2 7 7 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
i
1 �
1
i _d
Q i 0 d
1 �
1
1
O r I �- N
LL :-7 m m Q -,mcoC) Q0 0 W X
0000000 0
w
o ti
Ni� � M CR � N � O
T MST M N M M N
N �
N � �
W p_ - Cl 1,7 N N O
N O 00:00000 O
D
CO Cn i CC) Il_ r- m f-- 0 0 0 N
C to T i� O N q• CM T T CO T
m O N:O N TU? T O O Or,�
N co CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD
� d '
M
' T
i O
N O
� C �
O+7+ N
V O
CL
' O
r
65
u N
� M
d •y � T
N '
CL
d 'D i Ln
i
T
O '
N J i
C) O
C '
E
'd U m
Tom' M CM cM co co co co
T T T T T
' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V [ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 01 O O JCD co
N OT NAT NTT N
O O:O O O O O
O Oi0 0 0 0 0
M O N �7 CO co
t0 .n•11 i
0
U. Q - 9 0 0 0 0 co
•` T N T CV T T CV
to V V V V V V
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
oaaaa>. aa0-
vvv vv CD co
i d
Q
0 '
daiodm0aaoow >C
January 21, 2004
Appendix B
Charts, Graphs, Equations, Tables used in Design
8
• a
FA
Nip ������ ����a;��: .:c -
�
• 111 11 ��n ■
BE mommillm
MEN
0 FPA
ME ®csaci■:zas:�a=�---�--Zr.mm=zz=
C.,
VIC
WA
mommommoo
�CCC= ========OTC
M.N. IMMOMME
SMA
'111 NEW VAV.W__AMM-_ -AMM u INNER
m■■u■■■�s
OMWAWARAWArAWASSFAMOVANNIVANNE Ar on No
111111rl.I l►!.M ==MmM=5.1l.....■.........m
�oiAriMFArAW�ANWA��W�MMM����.u111111■■■■■■■■■■�......■..■.■.■..M
WA FAWAWA�A=��A��OOMMM��illll
�►I r%/II%�//�I��I
SiI/i/i//I i��i■fir-��W����111111 W■���1■■■■.�
/IIl r.�I■ll��/�■!����W����IIIIIIIII■■■�■■■■■■�
�■//r//■/fir■/" ■■■ ■■ IIII111111nm m .
i■i�■���■,■1� Mm■Tii■■■■unlllll��mmn■
/rI/III/I SI�I■�/��■■�■■■�IIIIII ill�n■�■■■■■■
i/.If�r/f�I/i/■�����■■■�■�Illlllill�u��■■■■■�
�i i�r ������iiii�■�wm°iwl■n�i■°�■m°■iu
Q-1 vl
00 '
C O C C O O O O O C O O O O C
C-0 U
3
O �-O N V'1 00 V r— O C\ 00 00
U Ln l- r- 00 00 00 C, = ti
U O O O O O O O O C O O O C O C V
c
U - �
V) N GO -- 00 r- � C- O d' v1 U >
dJ (� N M M d" d' N v'1 N 00 00 Ca C\ C-0
O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O
N
0 O —
U ,-
d
V C r- 3- 00 00 N V) "O "D �O O M M L y
Q' N N M M d' 11' Vl V� �D I- Cl 00 00 00 G1 t.
d O C O O O C C O O O O O O O O
d
O O Vi C O V1 O V-) O (D Ln O O V) O
G O N N M -T V \,O 00 00 00 G1 G'\ O- �
z
f�
Ey
W � �
`~
cz c
W a a Q Q Q Q L c ° 3
G, � C o
N V O rn
O 0 O EO ti G o L
ai }a c3 cG
_. cn cn (n Ln ( .N cn .V) V)
(7 C) o
cc c ? U
r4 —
�
o U
C C� CS M
co
O
al
cn
(1) 00 °J
EQUATION
0 E _ 11.90 0.385
Feet Tc
DE
5000 Tc = Time of concentration(hours) ,
L = Watercourse Distance(miles)
4000 LE = Change in elevation along
effective slope line(See Figure 3-4)(feet)
3000 Tc
Hours Minutes
2000 4 240
3 180
1000
400
800 2 120
ADO 100
600\ 90
500\ 80
d00 \ 70
\pfd
300 \ore
\ 50
200 \\ 40
\ L
\ Miles Feet
_. 30
\ 1
100 \
4000 20
\ 18
3000 16
50 0.5 \
\ 14
40 2000 \\ 12
1800 \
1600 \ 10
30 1400 \ 9
1200 8
20 1000 7
900
800 6
700
5
600
10 500 4
400
3
[200 00 5
A E L Tc
SOURCE: California Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940)
F I G U R E
Nomograph for Determination of
Time of Concentration (Tc)for Natural Watersheds m
I �
HazMat/County Hydrogeology ManuaMatershed Nomograph.FH8
Watershed Divide\
` \ Design
Point
L
Watershed
- Divide
Area "A"
Area "B"
AE Design Point
Effective Slope Line (Watershed Outlet)
Stream Profile
L
Area "A"=Area "B°
SOURCE:Califomia Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940)
1 F I G U R E
Computation of Effective Slope for Natural Watersheds 3—
HazMat/County Hydrogeology Manual/Natural Watersheds Slope.FH8
500 70
o
a o �
o N' �o
to
400 60
H-
w
w
LL
z_
w 300 50
U p
z
i
~n G ^p
LU
w
200 50 40 z
L11 GP w
OU H
1 Gam' o
�O LL
0
100 G�O 30 z J
1 G'o60 >
O
1 ,o�o
0 G 20
1
C_090
10
EXAMPLE:
Given: Watercourse Distance(D)=250 Feet
Slope(s)=0.5% _ 1.8(1.1-C)
Runoff Coefficient(C)=0.70 T 31(—
Overland Flow Time(T)= 14.3 Minutes V S
SOURCE:Airport Drainage, Federal Aviation Administration,1965
F I G U R E
Rational Formula - Overland Time of Flow Nomograph
I_ I
HazMadCounty Hydrogeology ManuaUCverland FIow.FH8
-1.5' �I
—n= 015—�
2% n= .0175 \
2
Concrete 0.13 paved
Gutter Depth �16
ESIDENTIAL STREET
NE SIDE ONLY
20
V
18 V\_ 7
16 10
As 2fps
14
t2
10
9
8 ¢`7
7 4,�
O B
6
Q
5 Oqj
o V;S
f
4 O�Q U s.
CL o'
0
3
q) _
� a
`o o a
0 2
1.8
1.6
1.4 3fp.s. O�Q
1.2
1.0 111 ?S f O o
0.9 ¢iQ
O
0.8
0.7
0.6 2fDS
0.5 V`
sfp.s
0.4
1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 10 20 30 40 50
Discharge(C.F.S.)
EXAMPLE:
Given:Q=10 5=2.5%
Chart gives:Depth=0.4,Velocity=4.4 f.p.s.
SOURCE:San Diego County Department of Special District Services Design Manual
F I G U R E
Gutter and Roadway Discharge- Velocity Chart -
HazMat/County Hydrogeology Manuai/Gutter Disc harge_Velo city.FH3
-
-
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
iu
CU z
cc
rL
un
oc
| �
aul
'D 7 z
> 79 0 1
LU
= >
� :3
0
v)
Ic
CD lo-
g.
F,_ m p e r I a I County
fII --- ---------
---------
0
�2
L)
L)
'A
'5J--
jk
A,------------
------I ----
c
"I ip
Oc
Soil Hydrologic Groups
Q V
O ans' i*. Vista a Group
t- Group B
s' Group C
Group D
Undetermined
F+ ;� (Made or Urban or Gullied
t j or Escarpments)
,J / 0 Data Unavailable
Esow 1
Carlsbad,t _'
1 t
Y' r
y
Lake�°
n
t
Leu�cadia
HO s I
_
.r
Encinitas
Rancho
,,Bernardo
�� g' Lake
�ard,if b the Sea ,
+ lid HRr'.ii i.{ P 7
Solana Beach r 4 t � fj ,, ,,` 1
� PovuaY
qj-
,Del Mar '1 �t`4t+st
•%'Y's < > a- 1 1 4 Y't; s. "3.4 r f _'�� J#•I t
t.•.�� � i n.t4C���rF�w�h"8''� �. • -� r rf r t ''ur }r {;'
ttpJ
Y2:C L.. _
f� �t�}.4 �` �7r - (.-{� r r: ef1 it iy.��
Ti ...c t"t` .u.,.A v j1;' �kw It I 7 r r Vii
C� ] �'� rY�•'�r *�1`'V�5 ac♦ 5 1 ,i y'
..� , e.r �1 )a. `V�q�. .'1•t.r ✓ 15,r!• ^A , Jti f,st 1° ) _
A y
v.... '� S� rr 1. (r�`7` ,r 't,• » A.17 ���•wJ�'+ � t i{ 9•N Gt t�uS.. J�L1v l�,��`t
\ � �""��'i,ti i,`��'it t$t d r.�c,,' t,���� c�s ak .1v 4��^ ��� ,f' { w r:�,.� .•'c�,�
4j 41.'' ;,�ql
( L J�tjY>:/Yt�?1`{�1 „{s£t '> 4 c1't�t(t r r•` :+rt`{-,3 4i �r.5,.�,�) 1 j•14 1 !3��., «^, 67
rho'+3{ vlrj , r >fTY V1 jJ , fit rb.0 �' wra� ", 4�
^^��'��,.°
°_ t f4,3•SN7 �yt ,Yj'hy
, k>t ✓ y
F 1
��•61-�i'{��13 v�i�; i�r Jay£ j's" t j N,\l �t r,* 1�1�. 'Y ` •'-'l.C1LS
• t t t fi+ cj�rfI
t rrfi y(.r Cr l� i fJ1 1'Si �i tl S 1 -�'I.
• �,.. �.. (Y�w{� /.FG.< t 1 i}k It f.j 1 7 3 i �'7
J�7 ; ��r�r{� f h S Y ��° �.Y't✓+jr� r s�'r .t{
'rl it t (7V S t^Y
La Jolla ! f<t `' y`� t ,t-l,a���f xi { � }ri�� .r~{ j7 Yq(�,FS � ��'z{ �?� '} ��y��. t •, �`,"•
!�E r {. Rr � c-r'r,-�r�s i�4!t r C 1 •��Y r}'i• � y'J.'�.!-.:,[�•��/t�,u,3 �- -
t
�trX���
pa
�tT ��`^�r.r�n�f"�� ��
av
e sf 1, y fti,i r fat ry nY
Pacific Beach _ >
� �rl ff r,���,� {� rf' ,eA>. ` 1's � .e_ ;�T. 1t`;-.e���� p� it5 �`jti��tL �' [�,• _
1N,
Mission Beach
jr R' }.l'`erg+ ! SL {�iy`j�•i.( {� a 1i�'
cean Beach rF: �V�a��I
$ FtCVti
a it, Fitt
Co7vl1(aIJV� ��C4F r 1hF��SrurY k jr v�^ta11+ii, �tJ:'tt
Point Loma
January 21, 2004
Appendix C
Calculations and Results (specific to each cross section)
9
PROJECT: 4" PVC PIPE @ to ( AREA A. 1 )
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 4 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0100 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 05
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 12 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 35
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 1. 84 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 05
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 03
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 12 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0082
Critical Velocity . . . 1. 71 Froude Number . . . . 1 . 11
PROJECT: 4 11PVC PIPE @ 20 (AREA A )
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 4 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .22
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .23 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 68
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 3 .42 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 18
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 06
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .26 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0140
Critical Velocity . . . 2 . 93 Froude Number . . . . 1.35
PROJECT: 4" PVC PIPE @ 1% (AREA B. 1)
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 4 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0100 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 05
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 11 depth/diameter . . . 0 .34
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 1 . 79 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 05
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 03
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 12 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0082
Critical Velocity . . . 1. 67 Froude Number . . . . 1. 11
PROJECT: 4" PVC @ 20 ( AREA B )
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 4 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .21
- depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .22 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 66
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 3 .40 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 18
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 06
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .26 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0134
Critical Velocity . . . 2 . 87 Froude Number . . . . 1 . 37
PROJECT: 4" PVC @lo ( AREA C)
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 4 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0100 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 13
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .20 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 60
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 2 . 33 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 08
Area (Sq. Ft. ) . . . . . . 0 . 05
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .20 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0099
Critical Velocity . . . 2 .32 Froude Number . . . . 1. 01
PROJECT: 6" PVC @ to (AREA ABC)
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 6 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0100 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .55
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .40 depth/diameter 0 . 80
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 3 .26 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 16
Area (Sq. Ft. ) . . . . . . 0 . 17
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 . 38 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0113
Critical Velocity . . . 3 .45 Froude Number . . . . 0 . 88
PROJECT: 3 " PVC @2 . 80 (AREA ABC (4 PIPES) )
DATE:
PIPE FLOW TIME:
Diameter (inches) . . . 3 Mannings n . . . . . . . . 013
Slope (ft/ft) . . . . . . . 0 . 0280 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 14
depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 19 depth/diameter . . . 0 . 76
Velocity (fps) . . . . . . 3 .42 Velocity head . . . . 0 . 18
Area (Sq. Ft . ) . . . . . . 0 . 04
Critical Depth . . . . . . 0 .22 Critical Slope . . . 0 . 0217
Critical Velocity . . . 3 . 00 Froude Number . . . . 1 .39
PROJECT: ALLEY @ 20 (AREA X)
DATE:
TRIANGULAR CHANNEL TIME:
INVERT WIDTH (feet) . . . 0 . 00 MANNINGS n . . . . . . . . . . 013
SLOPE (feet/foot) . . . . . . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 71
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE
SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . . . . 32 . 00 SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . 50 . 00
DEPTH (feet) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 09 TOP WIDTH (feet) . . . 7. 54
VELOCITY (fps) . . . . . . . . 2 . 05 VEL. HEAD (feet) . . . 0 . 07
AREA (square feet) . . . . 0 .35 P + M (pounds) . . . . . 3
CRITICAL DEPTH . . . . . . . . 0 . 11 CRITICAL SLOPE . . . . . 0 . 0062
CRITICAL VELOCITY . . . . . 1 . 34 FROUDE NUMBER . . . . . . 1 . 69
January 21, 2004
Appendix D
Pump Design
10
i
f I
e
�'UrnP 7C.SlGnl PUPLf—}C (2) S7`S1`�. i
I
2 = I i P yrn Pffi
F7 SmavTK /
0, o it
A., x ��' ° �t.... Yj Qvtvt'+ i
f,r
( 7n
_.
C Y � tT-cxtia 4 tt t 4 S C u. G l� La 5
o. s �
USA
1
� 7L4(z--re06 IA _ C( ►C, � c3 f.�'cR-L-.-,-i-'
V57 F
i
I
z
t
' w
CHRISTIAN WHEELER-
EN G IN EE R- ING
-3
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM
123 NORTH THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA
SUBMITTED TO:
GARY DARST
i 927 MADEURA DRIVE
} PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94566
V PREPARED BY:
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
4925 MERCURY STREET
J; SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
... I
i
1
_S
_1
4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 921 11 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER-
EN G IN EER- ING
r December 3,2003
Mr. Gary Darst CWE 203.842.1
j927 Madeura Drive
Pleasanton,California 94566
SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX, 123 NORTH THIRD STREET,
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA.
Dear Mr.Darst:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated October 24,2003,we have completed a geotechnical
investigation for the subject property. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations.
In general,we found that the site is suitable for the proposed residence,provided the recommendations
provided in our report are followed. The most adverse geotechnical condition to affect the proposed
construction is the presence of loose surficial soils that will need to be removed and replaced as properly
compacted fill in areas to receive improvements that will be outside the proposed basement.
Recommendations regarding this condition are provided in the body of the attached report.
If you have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our office. This
opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
ED GFO<
.`�� o�
Respectfully submitted, 4i a• �� N
No.1 t 0
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING CERTIFIED
�k ENGiNEB:UNG
GEOLOGIST
j �la-pFESS/pN� Exp. 1ao4 '
Charles H. Christian,RGE# 0021 o re 2 Curtts R.Burdett,CEG# 1090
W U No.GE215 z m
CHC:CRB:ms CC Exp.9 30 05 Z
cc: (3)Submitted * G
(1)Tri-Dimensional Engineers cr.
j (2) Christine Brenswick,Architect q -OF Cp�1FOQ`�/'
4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 4 FAX 858-496-9758
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction and Project Description...............................................................................................................1
ProjectScope.........................................................................................................................................................2
Findings..................................................................................................................................................................3
SiteDescription................................................................................................................................................3
General Geology and Subsurface Conditions.............................................................................................3
Geologic Setting and Soil Description......................................................................................................3
ArtificialFill..............................................................................................................................................3
ResidualSoil...............................................................................................................................................4
TerraceDeposits......................................................................................................................................
Groundwater.................................................................................................................................................4
TectonicSetting............................................................................................................................................4
GeologicHazards.............................................................................................................................................5
Groundshaking.............................................................................................................................................5
Landslide Potential and Slope Stability.....................................................................................................6
ExpansiveSoils.............................................................................................................................................6
SurfaceRupture and Soil Cracking............................................................................................................6
Liquefaction..................................................................................................................................................6
Flooding.........................................................................................................................................................6
Tsunamis.......................................................................................................................................................7
Seiches............................................................................................................................................................7
Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................7
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................8
Gradingand Earthwork..................................................................................................................................8
General...........................................................................................................................................................8
Observation of Grading.......................................................................... .....8
................................................
Clearingand Grubbing.................................................................................................................................8
Site Preparation ................................................8
............................................................................................
TemporaryCut Slopes.................................................................................................................................8
fProcessing of Fill Areas...............................................................................................................................9
3j Compaction and Method of Filling...........................................................................................................9
SurfaceDrainage.........................................................................................................................................10
Foundations......................................................................................................................... .....10
General.........................................................................................................................................................10
BearingCapacity.........................................................................................................................................10
jFooting Reinforcement..............................................................................................................................10
J Lateral Load Resistance.......................................................................................................
.......................10
SettlementCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................11
ExpansiveCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................11
FoundationPlan Review...........................................................................................................................11
Foundation Excavation Observation.......................................................................................................11
SeismicDesign Parameters.......................................................................................................................11
On-Grade Slabs...............................................................................................................................................12
InteriorFloor Slab......................................................................................................................................12
Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs...................................................................................................12
Exterior Concrete Flatwork.......................................................................................................................12
CWE 203.842.1
Proposed Condominium Duplex
123 North Third Street,Encinitas,California
'
'
<
\ Earth Retaining Walls.....................................................................................................................................13
'
PassivePressure..........................................................................................................................................13
ActivePressure...........................................................................................................................................l3
iBuckfill..........................................................................................................................................................Y3
/
Limitations-------------------------------------------------_-13
I�cvie� {�bocom600uodI� i ------------------------------------.13
Unifortnityof Conditions.............................................................................................................................l4
) Change iu Scope.............................................................................................................................................14
TimeLimitations............................................................................................................................................14
- PzofesoionuStuo6uz6------------------------------------------_.15
\ C�cot� '''----_----_----.-----_------__—'-'-_'1S
/ Responsibility
Field Explorations----------------'_--------_-------'-_------1S
Testing Laboratory ----------_---'---_----_----_-'__--'__'16
ATTACHMENTS
-
' TABLES
(
Table I Maximum Ground Accelerations,Page 5
]
Table II Seismic Design Parameters,Page 12
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map,Follows Page 1
\
PLATES
/
_
Plate 1 Site Plan
/
Plates 2'4 Boring Logn
'
Plate S Retaining Wall So6druinDetail
-
APPENDICES
Appendix A References
- 2\oocu6ix B Recommended Grading Specifications
�
,
_
CWE2Ol8421
]
Proposed Cou600ziniomDuplex
223 North Third Street,Encinitas,California
�
CHRISTIAN WHEELER-
EN G IN EE P, ING
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
123 NORTH THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA
- INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the
proposed condominium duplex to be constructed at 123 North Third Street in the City of Encinitas,
California. The following Figure Number 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the
property. In general,the purpose of our investigation was to provide the necessary recommendations
i regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction.
The subject site is a rectangular parcel of land identified as Assessors Parcel Number 258-031-03.We
understand that the existing structure and improvements will be demolished and replaced with a
duplex condominium structure. The structure will be three stories,with one of the stories consisting
of a subterranean garage/basement. The below-grade portion of the structure is expected to be
masonry and the above-grade portion is expected to be wood-frame. The structure will be supported
jby conventional shallow foundations and will have an on-grade concrete floor slab. Grading is
expected to be limited to making the approximately 10-foot-deep excavations for the subterranean
garage/basement.
To aid in the preparation of this report,a preliminary grading plan prepared by Tri-Dimensional
Engineering,Inc was provided to us. This preliminary grading plan was used as the base map for our
geotechnical map and is included herewith as Plate Number 1.
( This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Gary Darst and his consultants for
specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified,the conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering
for conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface
investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services
i
4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758
i
j SITE VICINITY MAP
[ PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
123 NORTH THIRD STREET
ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA
117.31667-W 117.30000-W WGS84 117.2B333-W
��r x��� r� �`� � 1 •:•8 T `t � ••,e,' zr'3 ,`�n .>'re�L���ry'� t.. tti
,�ytte• � z t i -s S.Ps �'`. �� \Vdafar `�,t �, i \�`f s�� !r— i
��"";r€"*,� .� •r� is � r � � �� �%Yd ����r ' �
x g y
z F� �x €fse�r,�',C'1 s``��x ra .� s s• r � g,�•r,,�',� �� a �.
m # ..+ q S. 5}fnr�'" 3r �' 1 •• S• SAD •°} •'' r z 'D_ 1�; m
F€ ``F e;a j 91a a qls<x •i s� ir( } '
k ,
'�sdb�� �j x�"� �#air aS�,,j��� � �� •� 1 ltl;s,�,,l` it`.1c�7 0 k,
Ilk
Yk
# ( 4 �� r e� E! 7cz�� rsl S,y�3�,..;. s\ �..� ��i Jrti�•b ,� � � L_.
..
�.rr f,
' 1
.SITS
•
m ; 1 1 �+'
m i,4N_ e••nz p, � M
41
Ik
i ro '�21.`Y 4`. •
♦ Q .i
k 7
N a
117.31667°W 117.30000°W WGS84 117.28333°W
TN�/MN a to +nom
VlT .m".
Pdpi d ho,TOPOI 02IXp NSW dG,,/pbwH kbp(waw.mpompa
CWE 203.842.1 December 2003 Figure 1
..... ... .. .............._..... .
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 2
have been performed,our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with
generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other
warranties, expressed or implied.
PROJECT SCOPE
Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface
exploration, obtaining representative soil samples,laboratory testing, analysis of the field and
laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include
assessment of hazardous substance contamination,recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture
intrusion or the formation of mold within the structure,or any other services not specifically
described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically,the intent of this investigation
was to:
a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the
proposed construction;
b) Evaluate,by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata that
may influence the proposed development,including bearing capacities,expansive
characteristics and settlement potential;
c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that
could have an effect on the site development,and provide the seismic design
Parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code;
d) Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil
conditions,groundwater or geologic hazards,and provide recommendations
concerning these problems;
e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading,and provided
recommendations for temporary construction slopes;
f) Provide design parameters for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls;
i
t
CWT 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 3
' g) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated
and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation
j design;
h) Present our professional opinions in this report,which includes in addition to our
conclusions and recommendations,a plot plan,exploration logs and a summary of
the laboratory test results.
1 It is not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical
Jt characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete
and below grade improvements. If desired,we can submit samples of the prevailing soils to a
chemical laboratory for analysis. Further,it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering
does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary,we recommend that the
owner retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter.
FINDINGS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a rectangular parcel of land located on the east side of North Third Street,between
A Street and Sylvia Street,in Encinitas,California. The lot is about 100 feet in length and has about
50 feet of frontage on Third Street and is 50 feet wide at the rear. The property presently supports
an existing single-story,single-family home and associated improvements.The elevation of the lot is
about four feet above Third Street,with a slope at the front yard area and a level pad from the top of
this slope to the rear of the lot. The vegetation consists of typical residential landscaping.
}
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION:The project site is located in the Coastal
`s
Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace
deposits, overlain with surficial soils consisting of artificial fill and residual soil These materials are
described individually below:
a
ARTIFICIAL FILL(Qaf):Man-placed fill material was encountered in one of our three
exploratory borings.The fill was approximately 1 foot in thickness within Boring B-1,which
i
I
CWE 203.824.1 December 3, 2003 Page No.4
i
was drilled on the western portion of the site. In general,the fill material consisted of
medium to dark brown, fine- to medium-grained,silty sand(SM).The fill material was
typically moist and loose in consistency. The fill material is expected to possess a"low'
Expansion Index and poor strength propertics.The fill is considered unsuitable in its present
condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements.
RESIDUAL SOIL:A layer of residual soil was encountered above the terrace deposits in each
of our three exploratory borings.The residual soil layer had a thickness of approximately 2 to 3
feet. The residual soil consisted of medium to dark brown,fine-to medium-grained,silty sand
(SNV .The residual soil was generally damp and medium dense in consistency. Based on our
experience with similar soil types,the existing residual soil is expected to have a"low"
Expansion Index.The residual soil has moderate strength properties,but is considered
unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements due to its
heterogeneous nature.
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Quaternary-age terrace deposits were found to underlie the
surficial soils in each of our exploratory borings. The terrace deposits consist of light to
medium orangish-brown to medium reddish-brown, silty sand(SNv ,which were damp and
ranged from medium dense to very dense in consistency.Based on our experience with
similar soil types,the existing terrace deposits are expected to have a"low"Expansion Index
and have relatively high strength properties with low settlement potential.The terrace deposits
are considered suitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements.
i
v
1
GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered in our exploratory excavations and no
t
groundwater is expected to be encountered in any of the areas to be graded.It should be recognized that
minor groundwater seepage conditions may occur after development of a site even where none were
present before development.These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an
1
alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water.Based on the permeability
characteristics of the soil and the anticipated usage and development,it is our opinion that any seepage
I
conditions which may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these conditions can
be most effectively corrected on an individual basis should they occur.
a
TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted
that much of Southern California,including the San Diego County area,is characterized by a series of
f
i
1
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 5
{
Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in
a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the
zone) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active according to the
criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have
shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years)
while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch
(11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present)but no movement during Holocene time.
The nearest active fault zone is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone,located approximately 4.2 kilometers to
the west. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone to the northwest;the Coronado Bank and Palos Verdes Fault Zones
to the southwest; the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast;and the Earthquake
Valley Fault Zone to the southeast.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
- a
GROUNDSHAKING: One of the more likely geologic hazards to affect the site is groundshaking
as a result of movement along one of the major,active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum
ground accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along
the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following
table.
TABLE I
MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS
Fault Zone Distance Max.Magnitude Maximum Ground
Earthquake Acceleration
Rose Canyon 4.2 km 6.9 magnitude 0.37 g
Newport-Inglewood 17 km 6.9 magnitude 0.18 g
_ a
Coronado Bank 28 km 7.4 magnitude 0.16 g
Elsinore(Temecula) 45 km 6.8 magnitude 0.08 g
Palos Verdes 65 km 7.1 magnitude 0.07 g
Earthquake Valley 68 km 6.5 magnitude 0.05 g
San Jacinto(Anza) 82 km 7.2 magnitude 0.07 g
Whittier 95 km 6.8 magnitude 0.05 g
i
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 6
It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during
the life of the proposed improvements. It should be recognized that Southern California is an area
i
that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considered economically
feasible nor technologically practical to build structures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related
hazards. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code
should minimize damage due to seismic events.
3 LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: As part of this investigation we reviewed
the publication,"Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan,
1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative
J landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 2 and 3-1.
Area 2 is considered to be"marginally susceptible"to slope failures;Area 2 includes gentle to moderately
sloping terrain,where slope failure and landsliding occurrences are rare. Area 3 is considered to be
"generally susceptible"to slope movement;Subarea 3-1 classifications are considered at or near their
stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites
within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain
observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure.
Due to the competent nature of the Quaternary-age deposits forming the relatively level to gently sloping
site,the potential for deep-seated landsliding is considered to be negligible.
t
EXPANSIVE SOILS: The surficial soils at the site appear to have a"low"expansive index.
3
Therefore,no special consideration or design will be necessary to mitigate for expansive or heaving
i
soil conditions.
SURFACE RUPTURE AND SOIL CRACKING: Based on the information available to us,it is
our professional opinion that no active or potentially active faults are present at the subject site
proper so the site is not considered susceptible to surface rupture. The likelihood of soil cracking
caused by shaking from nearby or distant sources should be considered to be low.
LIQUEFACTION: The materials at the site are not anticipated to be subject to liquefaction due
to such factors as soil density,grain-size distribution,and depth to ground water.
1
FLOODING:The site is not located within either a 100-year or a 500-year flood zone according to
the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
i
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 7
TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Based upon the location of the site it will not be affected by tsunamis.
3
SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,harbors,bays or
reservoirs. Due to the site's location,it is considered to have a negligible risk potential for Seiches.
t� CONCLUSIONS
In general,our findings indicate that,from a geotechnical and geologic prospective,the subject property
is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented herein are
implemented. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have
significant affect on the proposed development. The most significant geologic hazard that could affect
the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However,
construction in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and other
governmental regulations should provide a level of life safety suitable for the type of development
proposed.
t From a geotechnical perspective,no conditions were found that would preclude the construction of
the proposed condominium duplex provided the recommendations presented in this report are
followed. The site is underlain by medium dense to very dense Quaternary-age terrace deposits.
Based on the anticipated elevation of the subterranean garage,it appears that the proposed structure
will be supported by dense to very dense formational deposits.
The most significant geotechnical conditions to affect the proposed construction are the presence of
surficial soils (fill and residual soils) that are unsuitable to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive
t
improvements. Where improvements will be supported outside the proposed basement/
subterranean garage, the surficial will need to be removed replaced as properly compacted fill.
i
Further,we anticipate that the excavation for the proposed basement can be made without
temporary shoring;however,if shoring is found to be necessary,it will need to be designed and
constructed by an engineer/contractor experienced in this area. Specific design parameters and
i
considerations are presented herein.
i
i
I
CWE 203.824.1 December 3, 2003 Page No. 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
i
GENERAL:All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of
l the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas,and the
Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where
specifically superseded in the text of this report.Prior to grading,a representative of Christian
Wheeler Engineering should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading
guidelines,if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule.
OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is
essential during any grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation,to allow
adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed,and to determine that the
grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING:Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing
improvements that are designated for removal. This removal should include all existing foundations,
{ slabs,pavements,and above grade and underground utilities as well as any vegetation,trees,and other
deleterious materials including all root balls from trees and all significant root material. The resulting
organic materials and construction debris should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility.
SITE PREPARATION:As previously stated, the excavation for the subterranean garage is
expected to extend into competent formational soils. Therefore,no special site preparation will be
necessary for the portions of the structure supported by the garage footings. For any improvements
outside the basement area, the site preparation should consist of the removal of the surficial soils (fill
a and residual soil)and replacing the surficial soil as properly compacted fill material in the area to
l
support the improvements. The bottom of the excavations should be processed to receive fill as
recommended hereinafter and be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fills or
constructing improvements.
TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES:Temporary cut slopes of up to 10 feet in height are anticipated to be
required during the proposed construction of the basement level. Temporary cut slopes of up to 10 feet
i
in height for retaining walls can be excavated vertical for the bottom 4 feet and at an inclination of 0.75
to 1.0(horizontal to vertical) or flatter above. All temporary cut slopes should be observed by the
I
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 9
engineering geologist during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No
surcharge loads such as soil,equipment stockpiles,vehicles,etc. should be allowed within a distance
jfrom the top of temporary slopes equal to three-quarters of the slope height. If there is not room to
1 construct temporary slopes,temporary shoring of the excavation sides may be necessary.
The design of shoring will need to consider the foundation loads of the adjacent structures. Temporary
shoring may be designed using the following soil parameters:
Angle of internal friction: 32 degrees
Apparent cohesion: 150 psf
Total Unit weight: 120 pcf
The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable,temporary excavations and
may need to shore,slope,or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of
the excavation sides. The contractor's"responsible person",as defined in the OSHA Construction
Standards for Excavations,29 CFR,Part 1926,should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as
part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance with
the recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height,slope inclination,
or excavation depth,including utility trench excavation depth,exceed those specified in local,state,and
federal safety regulations.
PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS:Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new
improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and approved by the geotechnical
consultant or his representative,the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture
conditioned,and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING:All structural fill placed at the site should be
compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by
ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content,in
lifts six to eight inches thick,with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of
approved earth material,free of trash or debris,roots,vegetation,or other materials determined to be
unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of
soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. Based on our subsurface observations and
i
t
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 10
laboratory testing,we anticipate the removed topsoil will be suitable for use as structural fill. All utility
trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density.
1
SURFACE DRAINAGE:Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away
from the proposed structure and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas,a minimum gradient
of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed building should be graded so
that surface water flows rapidly away from the building without ponding. In general,we recommend
that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely
vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of five percent within
the first five feet from the structure.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL:Based on our investigation,it is our opinion that the proposed condominium duplex may
be supported by conventional foundations.The footings for the garage/basement should be embedded
at least 24 inches below the pad grade and have a minimum width of 18 inches for the three-story
structure. The covered patio footings should be embedded at least 12 inches below the finished pad
grade.Isolated spread footings and retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches.
BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional foundations at the garage/basement level,that have the
above minimum dimensions,may be assumed to have an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000
pounds per square foot.This pressure may be increased by 350 psf and 800 psf for each additional foot
of width and depth,respectively,up to a maximum of 5000 psf.This value may also be increased by
one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads.
1
I
FOOTING REINFORCEMENT:The project structural engineer should provide reinforcement
requirements for foundations. However,based on soil conditions,we recommend that the minimum
reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the
i
bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned two inches below the top of the footing.
LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE:Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction
i
between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil,and by the passive pressure against the
footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.35. The
r
j passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic
i
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 11
}
foot.This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the
passive pressure and friction is used,the friction value should be reduced by one-third.
SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS:The anticipated total and differential settlement is
1 expected to be less than about 1 inch and'/z inch,respectively for new foundations,provided the
4 recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks
} normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of
jf stresses,therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication
of excessive vertical movements.
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS:The foundation soils were found to have a low expansive
potential.The surficial soils at the site appear to have a"low"expansive index. Therefore,no special
consideration or design will be necessary to mitigate for expansive or heaving soil conditions.
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW:The foundation plans should be submitted to this office for
review in order to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented,and that
i,
no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated construction.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION:All footing excavations should be observed
by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation
recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the
preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level,and square. All
loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
i
Based on a maximum magnitude(Mmax) earthquake of 6.9 along the nearest portion of the Rose
Canyon Fault Zone,the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site would be approximately 0.37 g. For
structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening,and Soil
f
Profile Type Sc are recommended(UBC Table 16-J). Based on the site's location at approximately 4.2
kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault Zone(Type B Fault),Near Source Factors Na equal to 1.08 and
N„equal to 1.31 are also applicable. These values,along with other seismically related design parameters
from the Uniform Building Code(LTBC) 1997 edition,Volume II,Chapter 16,utilizing a Seismic Zone 4
rare presented in tabular form below.
I
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 12
TABLE II
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
UBC—Chapter 16 Seismic Design Recommended
Table Number Parameter Value
16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40
r,
16-J Soil Profile Type Sc
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 N,
16-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56 N,,
16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.08
16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1.31
16-U Seismic Source Type B
ON-GRADE SLABS
INTERIOR FLOOR SLAB: It is our understanding that the floors stem of the proposed
subterranean garage level will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade. On-grade concrete floor slabs
should be designed by the project structural engineer.However,based on the anticipated soil
conditions,we recommend that the minimum slab thickness be at least four inches (actual). Interior
s
slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab
reinforcing should be positioned on chairs at mid-height in the floor slab. If the garage slab is
constructed monolithically,the reinforcing should extend at least 6 inches into the perimeter footings.
MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the
industry standard that interior on-grade concrete slabs be underlain by a moisture retarder. We
suggest that the subslab moisture retarder consist of at least a two-inch-thick blanket of one-quarter-
inch pea gravel or coarse, clean sand overlain by a layer of 10-mil visqueen. The visqueen should be
overlain by a two-inch-thick layer of coarse,clean sand. The clean sand should have less than ten
1 percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No.200 sieves. Our experience indicates that this
} moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per
i
1000 square feet per day through the on-grade slab. This may be an excess amount of moisture for
— some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary, the concrete mix can
be designed to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards
through the floor slab.
f
EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four
1 inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce
1
the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 13
control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute specifications. When patio,sidewalk and porch slabs abut perimeter
foundations,they should be doweled into the footings.
J
EARTH RETAINING WALLS
j
PASSIVE PRESSURE:The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to
be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be
assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive
resistance,the friction should be reduced by one-third.
ACTIVE PRESSURE:The active soil pressure for the design of"unrestrained" and"restrained"
earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a
fluid weighing 35 and 55 pounds per cubic foot,respectively. These values assume a drained backfill
condition and do not consider any surcharge pressures. If any are anticipated,this office should be
contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. Waterproofing details should be provided by
the project architect. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 5.
We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant be requested to observe all retaining wall subdrains
to verify proper construction.
BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled
l
until the masonry has reached an adequate strength.
1, LIMITATIONS
i
1
REVIEW,OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and
specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and
} engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the
Uniform Building Code.
_ 1
1
i
t
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 14
It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil
engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design
concepts,specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction.
UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project
requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface
exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from
those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill
slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in
the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be
encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so
that he may make modifications if necessary.
CHANGE IN SCOPE
i
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we
may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in
writing or modified by a written addendum.
TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can,however,
a
occur with the passage of time,whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or
adjacent properties. In addition,changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may
occur. Due to such changes,the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes
beyond our control. Therefore,this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without
a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
I
1
CWE 203.824.1 December 3, 2003 Page No. 15
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services,we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same
locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the
locations where our test pits,surveys,and explorations are made,and that our data,interpretations,and
recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those
data,interpretations,and recommendations,but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others
of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only,
and no warranty of any kind whatsoever,express or implied,is made or intended in connection with the
work performed or to be performed by us,or by our proposal for consulting or other services,or by our
furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
1 CLIEN'T'S RESPONSIBILITY
i
1 It is the responsibility of the client,or their representatives,to ensure that the information and
{
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect
for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their
responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry
out such recommendations during construction.
3
j FIELD EXPLORATIONS
4
Three exploratory test borings were made on November 13,2003 at the approximate locations
indicated on the Site Plan and Geologic Map included herewith as Plate No. 1.These borings were
drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig advancing 8-inch diameter continuous flight augers.The fieldwork
3 was conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel.
The explorations were carefully logged when made.The boring logs are presented on Plates 2 through
4.The soils are described in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System.In
addition,a verbal textural description,the wet color,the apparent moisture and the density or
I
consistency are provided.The density of granular materials is given as very loose,loose,medium dense,
dense or very dense.The consistency of silts or clays is given as very soft,soft,medium stiff,stiff,very
stiff,or hard.
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 16
_ 1
t
Relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and transported to our
laboratory for testing.The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2-3/8-inch inside
diameter split-tube sampler ahead of the auger using a 140-pound hammer free-falling approximately 30
inches.The number of blows required to drive the sampler each foot was recorded and this value is
l presented on the attached boring logs as "Penetration." Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also
collected in bags from the auger cuttings and transported to our laboratory for testing.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests
performed is presented below.
a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual
J
examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were deternuned
for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted
- recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is
i
—� determined in pounds per cubic foot,and the in-place moisture content is determined as a
percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results of these tests are presented on the attached
J boring logs,Plates 2 and 4.
c)' DIRECT SHEAR TEST:Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure
envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a
sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. The
samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear
stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The
results of these tests are presented below.
Sample Number: Boring B1@ 6' feet Boring B1@ 15'/2' feet
Description: Relatively Undisturbed Relatively Undisturbed
' Angle of Friction: 35 degrees 37 degrees
Apparent Cohesion: 100 psf 50 psf
i
CWE 203.824.1 December 3,2003 Page No. 17
Sample Number: Boring B3@ 6'feet Boring B3@ 11' feet
Description: Relatively Undisturbed Relatively Undisturbed
Angle of Friction: 33 degrees 34 degrees
Apparent Cohesion: 100 psf 125 psf
! d) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION:The grain size distribution was determined from
J representative samples of the topsoil in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of this
test are presented below.
j Sample Number Boring B-1 @ 1'-6'
Sieve Size Percent Passing
#4 100
#8 100
#16 99
#30 90
#50 43
#100 23
#200 17
Classification SM
i
9
1
1
l
I
1
J
i
u) ro/ro/turnl;ilr;; a�,,,�,� EIhB 8hL�858) 1'cl titf8I8 L(858)-JNnlid
I) 1 `9NRI:I:JNIJNJf_1VNOISN;IIVICI 121.E
I I ' I ,•.
nI
IK
I I f r
I I �
Q1°
5 COAS7 MWY 101
�•
W
Z x
2N0 ST ft,z 7
o O o
3RD St u°' '_ r
IA
F JJ GZ .,N sT
d " ` •`W i
i o u 7 a o o n = rr7 �a+ uRR i i _d LLJ
o o u ,°, �^ H nri 8 F u nS o °z 44 = a o
h G z o a z z : N €" vY X ° oW �W r
i u u a k T IWiI ^ 9 N Qo +n $ QQ o u �qo w °
" W C W W m V 6 W F G p d W O F N
C7 LL O
Z J Z c
CO
(L
O `0 °
"
CO 0 L
W a.
Sono°,nn°So°g '� LL) c/)Z•
O O O O O n 0.• Q
h 1,n n bbI. Z JO
W � 'O
X
3 n9i�$nir$$,9'onl°vn 9i� t� �n
OU w _,w
QJ P C0 -J, °
Lij
O
Z
N
W �
n
RD\
1'VC SEWER "
: _III=1 I I rW 1=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 o
.•,C WATER ° '
I -I 1=1 1=1 11=1 11=1 11= =1 1=1 11=1
°W
vi r
W
z Jo
Lw
LL
1
4
;:0 u � , \`` ` \ \ \ `\ W J<Z <
< F� \ r \ \\ \ \` o' r < Q
CY . g�y -o O Q U CV
<zt �W u TT Ct
co
yC, WC
N�•t M `.. " C/) Vo Vo
N
z U.
g
o CV N U Zp•
{{ O
° W O
00 ti0• w�p5� � m
`=o m m b
�s 3 `W'" �• o i �
m W W
O m
n /i���/ W O
n [ 7
�/ CY
z
\ \ T.,ir
:•... .•��`•,�` • \ � � i = SOU a w
<z mfffS�uY
z ma o as
Z3AY b(3" •=
nva/iWam a+9RWno(1) ••'.;!,T - -
O � z03 n1
rTy < a <i m JF
f� - ~¢ a
"
. _-- O Oz_>W7 W W
04 3 , 'ei o zoo<i =a
W RT1 IInrM T'.il '^o�'' .° u ^_' //��,, o: u W ti
t JJYY
2
°O y,= Za
n�
da
c n z� 3"0
<z
45 Jmo
° Z nl d W WjJ0�-1=- <20
4 L O°G"W> n
d pa aO s W
O aO 7a
W d < m
V d ZO
\ aCI
p" Ol ri=LAC) ~O
p36. W'a O O l V
v+ f�0<=O zW
au LL� Va
U LL
O 7 z o�Wi •j w
O <OZ zvl
LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1
Date Excavated: 11/13/2003 Logged by: STH
Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC
Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A
- l Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30"
Finish Elevation: N/A
SAMPLES
_ O W z O
� u:
j SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W o O
1 a >� � �
1 Q
o x �
l c� V) Q
Artificial Fill(Oafl:Medium to dark brown,moist,loose,SILTY
SA
2 SANDS fine to medium- ained.
Residual Soil:Medium brown,damp,medium dense,SILTY
Cal 20 3.5 100.1
-- 4 SANDS , fine to medium- wined.
Terrace Deposits (Qtl:Light to medium orangish-brown,damp,dense,
SILTY SAND (SM),fine to medium-grained. Cal 48 4.5 111.5 DS
_ l 8 At 7 feet becomes medium to dark reddish-brown,dense to very dense,
medium to coarse-grained.
Cal 75 4.8 104.7
I1 10
12 At 11 feet becomes light to medium yellowish-brown.
1
i 14
1
Cal 80 3.0 97.3 DS
16
18
Cal 78 3.4 100.7
20 >:
s
Boring terminated at 20 feet.
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
WE 123 North Third Street,Encinitas,California
t
CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: December 2003
E N G I N E E R I N G JOB NO. : 203.842 PLATE NO.: 2
i
LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-2
Date Excavated: 11/13/2003 Logged by: STH
Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC
Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Elevation: N/A
Drive Weight: 1401bs./30"
SAMPLES
O W ZO
° 0
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS N " "'
Z WW
W w W 0 � _1:
F
-
Residual Soil:Medium to dark brown,damp,medium dense,SILTY
1 2 SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained.
4
Terrace Deposits(Ot)(Ot):Light to medium orangish-brown,damp,
dense to very dense,SILTY SAND (SM),medium-grained. Cal 85 5.3 106.4
6
At 5'/2 feet becomes medium reddish-brown,medium to coarse-grained.
8
Cal 50/5" 4.8 94.4
10
12 < At 11 feet becomes light to medium orangish-brown.
j 14
Cal 50 4.9 96.9
I
16 Boring terminated at 15 feet.
18
20
j�
} PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
123 North Third Street,Encinitas, California
CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: December 2003
E N c I N E E R I N G JOB NO.: 203.842 PLATE NO.: 3
7
. t
I
I LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-3
Date Excavated: 11/13/2003
Logged by: STH
Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC
_ Existing Elevation: N/A
Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Elevation: N/A
Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30"
SAMPLES
x
0 0
o
U
~ H x SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a 3 z `W"
W P P-, Fq W o cn Oca E-i
Q c� CIO Q
1
Residual Soil:Medium to dark brown,damp,medium dense,SILTY
2 SAND (SM),fine to medium-grained.
Cal 13
l 4 Terrace Deposits (Qtl:Light to medium orangish-brown,damp,
l medium dense to dense,SILTY SAND (SM),fine to medium-grained.
Cal 31 6.7 106.9 DS
6
8
10
At 10 feet becomes light to medium brown,dense,medium to Cal 39 5.5 102.7 DS
- j -grained.
12 coarse
1
14
Cal 53 5.0 97.9
16
1
18
-f
Cal 61 1 4.7 1 99.3
20 '< < >
!
Boriniz terminated at 20 feet.
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
123 North Third Street,Encinitas, California
BY: HF DATE: December 2003
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G JJOB NO.: 203.842 PLATE NO.: 4
i
}
_ 1
1
1%Slope Minimum ——
l 6-inch Y 6-inch Minunum
jl Max.
J o
3/4 inch Crushed Rock or � Waterproof Back of Wall
Miradrain 6000 or Equivalent o Per Architect's Specifications
°
.s
0 °
t 12'!'
° Top of Ground
or Concrete Slab
. •o
°
Geofabric Between a o
Rock and Soil
/ 6-inch
Minunum
Minimum
1 4-inch Diameter
Perforated Pipe
PVC Schedule 40
YX1'�C;
i
i
s
RETAINING WALL
SUBDRA.IN DETAIL
No Scale
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
I�
123 North Third Street,Encinitas,California
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E E R I N G BY: MS DATE: December 2003
4925 MERCURY STREET TEL.(858)496-9760
SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 FAS.(858)469-9758 F OB NO.: 203.790 PLATE NO.: 5
I
CWE 203.842.1 December 3, 2003 Appendix A,Page A-1
REFERENCES
Anderson,J.G.;Rockwell,R.K.and Agnew,D.C., 1989,Past and Possible Future Earthquakes
of Significance to the San Diego Region,Earthquake Spectra,Volume 5,No. 2,1989.
Blake,T.F.,2000,EQFAULT,A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from
3-D Fault Sources,Version 3.0,Thomas F.Blake Computer Services and Software,Thousand Oaks,California.
Boore,David M.,Joyner,William B.,and Fumal,Thomas E.,1997,"Empirical Near-Source Attenuation
- Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration,Peak Ground Velocity,
and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra",in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68,Number
J 1,January/February 1997.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998,Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source-Zones in California
and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
California Division of Mines and Geology,1996,Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe,7.5'
Quadrangles;DMG Open-File Report 96-02.
Jennings,C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California,California Division of Mines and Geology,Map
No. 1,Scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, Michael P., Tan, Sean Siang, Chapman, Rodger H., and Chase, Gordon W., 1975, Character And
Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology
Special Report 123.
j Kern,P., 1989,Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County,Pickle Press,73 pp.
�( Tan,S.S., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area,San
Diego County,California,California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04.
Wesnousky,S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes,Quaternary Faults,and Seismic Hazards in California",in
Journal of Geophysical Research,Volume 91,No.B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986.
i
CWE 203.842.1 December 3,2003 Appendix B,Page B-1
µ RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- GENERAL PROVISIONS
PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DUPLEX
123 NORTH THIRD STREET
ll ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA
l
ll GENERAL INTENT
The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground,
preparing areas to be filled,and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the
S accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or
the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede
the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in
conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed,except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed
}! by the Geotechnical Engineer.
1
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the
d
earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the
{ work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical
Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he
} may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions
or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations,the Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted for further recommendations.
If,in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer,substandard conditions are encountered,such as
questionable or unsuitable soil,unacceptable moisture content,inadequate compaction,adverse weather,etc.,
_ construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend
jrejection of this work.
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following
American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:
CWE 203.842.1
December 3, 2003 Appendix B,Page B-2
Maximum Density& Optimum Moisture Content-ASTM D-1557-91
Density of Soil In-Place-ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM
testing procedures.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation,brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed,and legally disposed of.
All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris.
After clearing or benching the natural ground,the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches,
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
l compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is
j defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density.
- When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent(5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit),
the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.
The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width,whichever is greater,and
shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2)percent. All other benches should
be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as
specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when
considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All
1
underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10
feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure
should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.
_.� This includes,but is not limited to,septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water
lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the
Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.
l
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements
set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3
CWE 203.842.1 December 3,2003 Appendix B,Page B-3
' feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the
well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of
vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill
jthe voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered
in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils,soils of poor gradation,or soils with low
strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material,but only
with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site.
1 PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in
compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the
compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be
uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to
economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil
compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either
the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report.
When the structural fill material includes rocks,no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be
carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special
Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-
structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report,when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Engineers discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical
Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained.
}
CWE 203.842.1 December 3,2003 Appendix B,Page B-4
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by
sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of
two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-
back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all
fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions
section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the
Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable.
Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems
arise,the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the
necessary results,the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction
is obtained,at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer.
CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during
the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage,lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse
nature,unfavorably inclined bedding,joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions
shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating
i
1
measures are necessary.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
— that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency.
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
1
I
Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and
!
compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with
acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or
. I
{
i
CWE 203.842.1 December 3, 2003 Appendix B,Page B-5
the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to
the specified degree of compaction.
SEASON LIMITS
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain,
filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can
be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before
11 acceptance of work.
..1
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RELATIVE COMPACTION:The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural
ground,compacted fill,and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot
subgrade,the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of
!� 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2.
t
" 3
OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil
over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of
placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils
shall pass through a No.4 U.S.Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION LOTS:Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad,the
cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and
i fill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report,
recompacted as structural back
special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be
required.
- 1
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION: (Z 3 TIA�r el st ° PERMIT NUMBER: f y gE3 G 1
CONTRACTOR: LC D�G ALA TELEPHONE:
-s--7-1.,-ot{ p 3U}�„- f e-C� . Ste S, 36us s e/ns C� v44
.�
let c oreiitl Undl ro h 9 �/IC rt CCU T �Jra'
Lv W Eli Lcue 1- eyo llJ�a i
-Tb 5m m- 7VA"Itzo"'.
5_Za-_off � �� Btr-A•�J �tt� � iJ�wt ..r=o,c.- i""`1C.� �cl
08 �X a►2 j T>�zy45dJ e t- 'hy'! al�l�d _F' -fa
(,L Ot /h Ep- NOT?,--o
owed'.
G-7_CLi nc.j be�n� �n5tc?tlCti f';IP � sklor
(�-�� 'C+� S �i� �,-rtC. �jraPS ; `(�('► S(sn�� la n K S el t' C«etec
(c'
10- C:( K �� (✓��t W Shcv s n
- 1 oy �CCEivew PRop&A d ocumEvrK-770A/ ; CcAf 91nCN1fC.
,Qbuv c�,�-�oi•�1c, � �����L �AIrib .
r -i , ray W<i C(S bt%,-�, b�:ckr;'(lam<� v .�(✓i
, ,'curt -s-Ir h,z cr.
!Ice e(e
-
/9 -el
/tl�-) ®eC
Oil,
m14429
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE:
3- 7-05 1AJs19ECZF0 FrnoTlN& ra 2eTr��ti/N� w.4c .mot�o,�� �z rtrQ2.J
��d dim Q// Sr(,6,a>Q 0/7 --sr�u c'in /� /ltQ,� �Sfa,� we((,
a-Cf Specs, a(( -A tlow e-d. Ga-ve ,Y-4a o,t- fa
419o, l /C/e ylpYl� /'efltrn//�(J L�Jc s
19~O5 C2 SeL,-,e,. afP✓�ls irr� ( Pc/ �zrw� P/�� �i�j
L.4 rg-M( 02LaQ C // /lh�pr/ clr✓ate �f'✓l!i r J_
yest� y eW/ -fva` �'r .S andz��� S t'CS• i2�-
5.2 -d5 ow � �! u � cs �✓� ih, c�►st` �� J�
G�/J95 Q�(e buf— h 1p/ alt / X4 e7
R/orr,C �l.G1e y ca,-, 700 be 4r,( .
l0-27-os i?�aoue� S �ht Eas rn /Yk�Sf" /� �.� vva�S
Al -to fit alb �t�5. d 5 cS. rr�e�'•
morf
$Z2 oS a< � /1't,Y�• �u� / rcw e , a� �oiPr
m exr°� ,C a( e t�� ,h rs. hoc 1.5 rv� QdrGlHyf.
T�IiS w�+S trvr77 ( �D✓an1 � ,!s, p trcQ���o o��
com�I la4 h
�j-•2S`�S v/ Cl_G7j/1$�
/n 5p�_� Curb u �� e� d-� - toys �v O. {dam TU
if O ` ` cot
m"F 7a E5t/sn7lG CL1466 d burrs
/G
--31 .
« e�vcxlo
de' 1. re e( �e
fr G , •�/J
c:I(
,C r'C2�vi I s. e t--k �L hPttU 1 E�� 74"
i t J
s,dewzlt N/S
.ses. hbrvs•mle es
ro c( Lx swe i .
12-8-051- .7oES Pr4v/i�/v cni 5'7u P,9v�.vv S/J6C l0lW E- /ti► 14"Ey.
C-7a.vP ,Ohont nuM r cot! a•he,l -5&bca/ar.P f-3
c6N rxocmt c ok t,elo� �%vd 3,*co 5vd6XAz7C /n,ouC..tl ^vbT-BE R�a-J
UN'n L 7D#VlotA*t► 1R amt A/G
m14429
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR: `� `S r�4 /'�V• TELEPHONE:
12-9-45- A16 7bD ey -/he ! ow.avG S T ;
ca s% . D ue laCt Wow
shay ,G✓�iY y,, 9/'/0. 2 oaO&E- ca doi � leave LC n
t7i�7' STac � Naa7�1 uG RzG� �► . �at�- /argarf+�
cz-. 17 Ewe-
Q^c t
%/3S7�Ci�PV�• q,$� o CO✓1^�pG Y+ Gt ��°G�,
' and
6y
c �, /•roses �F"�
A�
p/aced( ec lVeelle 4S-tree Ce -17E-
a
/y►fNo,C C'CE�N (s !S DoT EaCrn iT C.rhv AW
4s-Ex,• ff rocevs cp_ le fe
o NA-L
m14429
Tri-Dim_ ensional Engineering, lnc.
E N G I N E E R I N G • P L A N N 11T G S U R E Y I N G
June 24, 2004
City of Encintas
505 S. Vulcan Ave.
Encintas, CA 92024
Re: Darst Residence
123 Third Avenue
Dear Madam/Sir:
This is to certify that on June 23, 2004, the pad elevation for the above-referenced lot was
surveyed by, or under the direction of, the undersigned. The elevation of the pad was found to be
62.26' (per plan 62.25').
If we can be of further service,please contact us. Thank You.
�ESS/p�,�_
John 4SoffevyNo. C062716 5d R E 062716
*
Exp. 06-"1 License expires 6-30-06
Cl V 1%► �r
P. O. Box 791 •Poway, CA 92074 •(858) 748-8333 •Fax(858) 748-8412
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
E N G I N E L R I N G
June 17,2004
Mr. Gary Darst C\X'E 203.842.3
927 hladeura Drive Plan Check No. 03-2016,04-60
Pleasanton,California 94566
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS,PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM
DUPLEX,123 NORTH THIRD STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA
Reference: Report of Prelin.inary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Condominium
Duplex, 123 North Third Street,Encinitas,California,by Christian Wheeler
Engineering, Report No. 203.842.1,dated December 3,2003.
Dear Mr. Darst,
In accordance with your request,we have prepared this report to summarize our observations of the
preparations that have been performed to-date on the subject site.
Excavations have been made for the basement of the proposed condominium structure. Shoring has
been installed against the vertical cuts along the north and south property lines,and a temporary cut slope
exists at the east side of the basement. The soils exposed at the floor of the basement excavation consist
of medium dense sandy terrace deposits which are consistent with the soil conditions anticipated in the
referenced report. The soils exposed in the basement excavation are,in our opinion, suitable to receive
foundations. Removal of potentially compressible slopewash remains to be done in the upper pad
elevation,east of the basement area.
If yOi.I iia "e aily gUcs-601ii after rcvleWilIg t11IS tepori,please du not ilesltiiie to conLacL out U,flc.. Tills
opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted, �; ROFESS/pN'
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING FS H.
` /T s;
Z� W 10 No.GE215 Z m
r"cc , Exp 9-30-05 /
Charles H.Christian,R.G.E. #00215
CHC:dI, CPI cFOrEW4\cP� \Q,
cc: (2) Submitted OFCpUFll��
(2) Kristin Von Zwick,Architect
(4) O'Gara Construction
4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 f FAX 858-496-9758
LLTri-Dimensional Engineering►, Inc.
E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G S U R E Y I N G
December 15, 2005
bevelopment Services Department
City of Encinitas
505 S.Vulcan Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: 1488-GR, Grading Permit
Darst Residence, 123 Third Avenue, Encinitas, CA
Dear Sir or Madam:
The grading under permit no. 1488-GR has been performed in substantial conformance with the
approved grading plan.
Sincerely,
T4Cofevy. l Engineering, Inc.
No. 0062716
JoCE * EV._06-30-06
ClV%V
Rof
P. O. Box 791 .Poway, CA 92074 •(858) 748-8333 Fax(858) 748-8412
W-
km
ft
"'Uk'
M"
RMW
NO,
VT
A
...........
WN
E
W�
A
�41
MTV
N1
101 EaS
I W111 I
1F
11F
wr
M,
I ME
0_%"S
P
1��jxl�Zl'
'541"If'-
7�777'A
944"
Index Contours NOTES: DISCLAIMER:
Index Depressions Orthophoto and Topo positional accuracy meet the precision adequate to support the accuracy of the data provided; nevertheless,
some information
Encinitas — intermediate Contours - Parcel lines are not survey accurate.
i i 2 i a - Photo flight date: July 2001. 1/2 ft pixel resolution. Every reasonable effort has been made to assure
Ortho and Topo Map i 6 i j i i Intermediate Depressions national Map Accuracy Standards for 1" = IOU mapping. may not be accurate. The City
of Encinitas assumes no NORTH
- Map Coordinates: Stateplane NAD83 Feet, CA Zone 6 responsibility arising from the use of this information. 1 inch
equals 40 feet