2004-9053 G y _
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
j
City o
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
September 14, 2006
Attn: Wells Fargo Bank
5857 Owens Avenue, Suite 104
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Shael and Sherri Wilder
1396 Rubenstein Avenue
APN 260-081-70
Grading Permit 9053-GI
Final release of security
Permit 9053-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the
grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a final release of the security deposit is
merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account# 5967495150 in the amount of$15,745.00.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
Department.
Sinc ly,
zh�a
Debra Geishart y L bach
Engineering Technician finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Sherri and Shael Wilder
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
AICL
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper
W-. E Sampo Engineering, Inc.
Land Planning,Civil Engineering, Surveying,Mapping
1
S
September 7,2006
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas,CA 92024
RE: Pad Verification for Grading Permit No.9053-G
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code,this letter is hereby submitted as
a Pad Verification Letter for the above referenced property. I herby state that the rough grading
for the pads is in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of
Encinitas Codes and Standards.
23.24.3 10(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the
approved grading plan:
Pad Elevation Pad Elevation
Per Plan Per Field Measurement
Westerly Pad 154.3' 154.3'
Southerly Pad 155.3' 155.3'
23.24.3 10(B)1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and/or
retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject
grading plan.
23.24.310.(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field
verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have
been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above,please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
ti3O E,AND SCi
Sincerely,
No.7655
Exp.12/31/06
Vince Sampo, PE,PLS s�
President 9�F OP C
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659
info@sampoengineering.com
CZ ty O ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
November 14, 2005
Attn: Wells Fargo Bank
5857 Owens Avenue, Suite 104
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Shael and Sherri Wilder
1396 Rubenstein Avenue
APN 260-081-70
Grading Permit 9053-GI
Partial release of security
Permit 9053-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved
rough grade. Therefore, partial release of the security deposit is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account# 5967495143 in the amount of$47,235.00.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
Department.
Si rely,
Debra Geishart y Lembach
Engineering Technician inane Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Sherri and Shael Wilder
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper
Drainage Study
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
._.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Leonard Residence
1396 Rubenstein Avenue
Cardiff, CA
APN: 260-081-70
Parcel 1, PM 19304
Prepared by:
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
658 S San Marcos Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93111
Penfield and Smith Engineers
P.O. Box 98
101 E Victoria Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Wayne F. Fitch
R.C.E.60864
� a
1 . .
1 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence Drainage Study
DECLARATION.OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
I hereby declare that I am the engineer of work for this project. That I have excercised
responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of he
business and professions code,and that the design is consistent with current standards.
I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the city of Encinitas
is confined to a review only and does not relieve me,as engineer of work,of my
responsibilities for project design
ENGINEER OF WORK
Penfield and Smith Engineers
P.O. Box 98
101 E Victoria Street
Santa Barbara,CA 93102
NO ON"
Wayne F.Fitch
R.C.E.60864
2 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this hydrology study was to evaluate the existing hydrologic conditions at
the subject site and propose a method to detain runoff from the proposed single family
dwelling in order to meet the site's pre-development hydrologic conditions. The scope of
this study includes the following:
A. Evaluation of existing hydrologic conditions including:
• Vegetation characteristics
• Soil type
• Slope
• Off-site areas contributing to on-site flows
• Peak rates of runoff for the 100 year storm event
B. Calculation of peak rates of runoff from proposed impervious surfaces to determine
required detention volume to meet or exceed pre-development levels.
C. Design and documentation of proposed drainage plan including:
• Discussion of mitigation measures and proposed facilities to detain the
mitigation volume.
• Peak rates of runoff from proposed detention facilities for 100-year storm event
• Routing of existing off site flows which enter property around proposed
development
• Calculations for proposed facilities and typical sections for stormwater
conveyance, if applicable.
• Discussion of effect of proposed development on adjacent properties including;
flow rates, discharge location, method and type of discharge.
Existing Hydrology
The project parcel consists of.35 acres in Cardiff by the Sea, California(see Figure 1).
The site slopes at a relatively constant grade of 8-10 percent toward the west. Surface
soils consist of Marina Coarse Sandy Loam,hydrologic group A (US Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Escondido, CA). Approximately 12 inches below the topsoil
layer is found the Bay Point formation consisting of dense, fine to medium sandstone
(Landtech Geotechnical report, January 5, 2004). The vegetation at the time of this study
was ruderal and in poor condition with approximately 30% coverage. The elevation of the
site is from 149 to 165 feet above sea level. Runoff exits the project site via sheet flow
and shallow concentrated flow to the west where it enters a shallow, natural earthen
3 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
swale that slopes down to the north at approximately 1.8%. No erosion or channelization
of the existing Swale along the western property boundary was observed.
There are two adjacent parcels to the east that drain into the project site (See Figure 2).
Both parcels consist of approximately .63 acres in total including the concrete driveway.
These lots contain two-story single-family residences with side and rear yards. At least
75%of the runoff from impervious surfaces from the two lots discharges onto the
existing driveway and enters the project site, where it has caused an incised channel to
erode along the southern property line at the driveway terminus.
fills f it4Hl5t �! IId;-O
_ ` :°•
IIN IItA v w
I �a n L ardena ft o o
it ! l! ba �— spital I m m m
V 1 1.._x,-S21 -
-7-M r I I
411
��
v I �.
Ii �
r
I I� i Scripps {I
k 1 p I F
L ` Enc`1 kas emorial I c I
r ; + ( Hospital
`x Tiff f —�SAa Fe Dr _1L�
mil Pt
j—Cath Ln --
kv`;';; Onoan'C test Rd F1
n s xfkr m, r -; �4,�'� 9ClP - .r-1''•v L� I p O 1�
� � •+ 1.a � aph = m � n
nv '9 G
k i n
•tom t , f;aretta4V��D
"^� �Yr.;``� ����r��rJ '74,�tir�li €*• �'���; 5 \ � I� tiAJd IWICII E
p1 N FP
_Nolbey St
A�� a`• '7 lIn
� ��� q ' �I I � ��� i`0; �*.= •'.�.+u,, ar,� I�!_�a --��. lgonlidl Ct—_
g h f_
_.J 1_`1
II �,
�.
ti \�
�`—
m 7
•o
'r
if
ilk
7
Figure 1: Location Map
4 of 21
0
N ....
to j
1 ! �
f
LLI `! ,
oS
a)o
C
ci
Q v7
En
m M � X •r.q
QO O `'` � �� • N
En
C A CCS
UroOD •� <
4-.
O WI
_ '�� •iii
oit
Uof rc ' W
ob
m-
cn
Cd
O —
C7
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
Existing Hydrology Calculations
The 100-year, 24-hour and 6-hour rainfall amounts were determined form the Isopluvial
maps provided in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual Appendix B. The 100-year,
6-hour rainfall is 2.5 inches and the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall is 4 inches.
Drainage Basin #1
Considering the density of the adjacent parcels and the expanse of concrete for the access
drive a runoff coefficient of.60 (medium-density residential, type A soil)was used(San
Diego County Hydrology Manual Table 3-1). Maximum travel distance for runoff in
this basin is approximately 60 feet over primarily impervious surfaces with an average
slope of 1.1%. The basin slopes from north to south and all the runoff from these lots
drain to the existing driveway. The concrete driveway has an average slope of 10%.
Thus time of concentration was determined from Figure 3-3 of the Hydrology Manual to
be 8 minutes. Rainfall intensity(I)was then determined as follows:
I =7.44 P6 D.°. 5 = (7.44)(2.5)(8) o.�s=4.86 in/hr
Therefore:
A= .61Ac
C = .60
T= 8min
P6=2.5 in
I,00=4.86 in/hr
Q = CIA=(.60)(4.86)(.61)= 1.78cfs
Vol = T*Q*2.7= (8min)(1.78cfs)(2.7)(60min) = 2307cf
This runoff from off-site areas will be directed around the proposed development by the
methods discussed below.
Drainage Basin#2
Considering the existing soil and vegetation characteristics of the project site the total
runoff volume and peak rate of discharge were calculated using an area weighted rational
method runoff coefficient of.46. The area weighted runoff coefficient was calculated as
follows;
C weighted= (A1*C1)+(A2*C2) thus C= (.34*.45)+(.01*.95) = .46
A total .35
A time of concentration of 8 minutes was assumed given the site's short maximum flow
path of 170 feet and average slope of 10%. A rainfall intensity value was determined as
follows
I =7.44 P6 D" = (7.44)(2.5)(8) 4.86 in/hr
6of21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
Therefore:
A= .35ac
C = .46
T= 8min
P6=2.5 in
1100=4.86 in/hr
Q = CIA= (.46)(4.86)(.35)= .78cfs
Vol =T*Q*2.7=(8min)(0.78cfs)(2.7)(60sec)= 1010cf
Proposed Development Hydrology Calculations
The total impervious surface area of the proposed single-family residence, including the
roof, addition to the existing driveway, and outdoor patios is 5,215sf. The remaining
pervious area of the site is to be densely landscaped with ornamental trees, shrubs, and
groundcover, with a 3-inch layer of wood bark mulch. Therefore a weighted coefficient
of runoff of.61 was calculated as follows:
Description of Area Area (sf) Area (Ac) C
roofs 2110 0.05 0.95
concrete patios 730 0.02 0.95
existing driveway to remain 475 0.01 0.95
proposed driveway 1900 0.04 0.95
landscape, dense planting with 3" mulch cover, sand loam topsoil 9960 0.22 0.45
C= (.05*.95)+(.02*.95)+(.0l*.95)+(.04*.95)+(.22*.45) = .61
.35
The time of concentration of 8 minutes was assumed for the proposed development. A
rainfall intensity value was determined as follows:
I = 7.44 P6 D'-" = (7.44)(2.5)(8)-°.�5=4.86 in/hr
Therefore:
C = .61
T= 8min
P6=2.5 in
1100=4.86 in/hr
Q=CIA= (.61)(4.86)(.35) = 1.04cfs
Vol =T*Q*2.7 =(8min)(1.04cfs)(2.7)(60sec) = 1348cf
7of21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
Proposed Drainage Facilities
The increase in runoff volume from the pre-development condition was calculated as
follows:
Qpostdcv 1348cf
-Qpredev 1010cf
338cf
A rainwater detention garden/pond is proposed along the western edge of the proposed
residence(See Figures 3-5). The total surface area of this detention facility is 360sf and
will fill to a depth of 18 inches with vertical sides constructed of concrete and stacked
boulders(See Figures 3-4)thus providing a total detention volume of 540cf.
The detention facility will capture runoff from all the proposed impervious surface areas
including roofs, patios, and driveways. The total peak rate of inflow from these areas
was calculated as follows:
A= .12ac
C= .95
T= 8min
P6=2.5 in
I I oo =4.86 in/hr
Q= CIA= (.95)(4.84)(.12)= .55cfs
Hydrograph Analysis
This site was also analyzed by using the Santa Barbara County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District Urban Hydrograph computer program. This computer program
models the hydrograph runoff for the proposed site based on a 100-year, 24-hour storm
event. The intensity was converted using The County of San Diego Hydrology Manual
base conversion formula:
I = 7.44 Pea D'-" = (7.44)(4)(8)"= 7.78 in/hr
The pre-development peak flow runoff was calculated to be 0.68 cfs, and the post-
development peak flow runoff was calculated to be 0.70 cfs. The computer program
develops a hydrograph based on the inflow, basin volume,and the outflow capacity. The
basin was designed to detain the required peak flow for this site to maintain the pre-
development runoff condition.
The hydrograph analysis (see Appendix A) shows the required detention flow of 0.02 cfs
for the pre- to post-development condition. The hydrograph also shows the post-
8 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
development runoff to be 0.62 cfs, which shows that the basin detains 0.08 cfs of the
peak flow for a 100-year storm event. The depth of the basin gets to 1.03', which leaves
approximately 5"of freeboard at the basin. The basin is also provided with a weir along
the west face to provide an overland escape for the basin if the outlet pipes plug.
Therefore, the peak runoff for the post-development condition will be less than the pre-
development condition.
Discharge from Detention Facility
Runoff will discharge from this facility via two (2)-4"diameter standpipes. These pipes
will have an inlet elevation of 152.0 feet and an invert elevation of 150.25 feet. The outlet
will be 150.0 feet(See Figures 3-4). The pipes will be approximately 25' in length. The
total peak rate of flow from these pipes combined will be 0.62cfs(see Appendix A).
Flows from the adjacent parcels, which currently enter the site at the end of the existing
driveway, will be captured via a channel drain at the end of the driveway, and diverted to
a discharge location at the western boundary of the site. The 6"dia. pipe will daylight
above a rock rip-rap energy dissipater(See Drainage Plan).
9 of 21
!
E\
2 !E� !|! (a 2 7 7 7 7
IE
9.2
bo ■
cc
� � ■ &_ � � , � � , � /
� � \ §/ � .} 2 �
Cd
0 -tz$
lo
0 ` � � \ � { §
DO -6 a)
L)
r c
rC E -a c
:3
0 it
,,t o
C
rL D
m-V L, , a z ?- clj
_c
to
E N Zo a' 0 cx.
c, 0 W, C
0
-0 -10 Z,
v m G CL to
0
C
; 4)
C)
0 C
E Or IL C)—C 0
C C >1
x ao, t .2? Q a i -0 c
OD co C: CD C
0 -Ln'
u cr to 6
0 G N N,W) CL n
CL 2, Z 2: c 0 >
C
c W C-, Zi (A Ca
2 E E , fill I, E �j
0 0 -6 co :3 $1 1-- u ::t
-6 -�, 11 .!2
C) -rw,. CL (At CL < — Cd
z
6-Hour Precipitation(inches)
OF
0(
LC)
z 30
c?,
C
0
Lu cc 0
60 as
0
C,
0,f1 q:
C7
WW71t10`--
Cd
Q 0L-
00-
00, ........
O
C,
03
49
cd
a rw
Ot
lin
tjnCxvseLj3,j:),klIsualul V
O
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect 6/9/2004
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study
APPENDIX A
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FC&WCD URBAN HYDROGRAPH, Version 1.2.1
06-08-2004
Licensed to Penfield & Smith Engineers, Inc.
COMPUTATION of a Runoff Hydrograph
W-pMWMwr
Hyd Return Drainage --24 hr Rain-- Imper- Loss T(c) Runoff Vol Peak Unit
Num Period Area 100yr Used vious in/hr min Depth ac-ft Flow q
0 100yrs 0.3ac 7.78in 7.78in 0.12 0.28 10.0 3.64in 0.1 0.7cfs 1.94
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FC&WCD URBAN HYDROGRAPH, Version 1.2.1 AA-d 00-A
06-08-2004
Licensed to Penfield & Smith Engineers, Inc.
A P0sT-Dl`Vf-L0#*Mjw7-
COMPUTATION of a Runoff Hydrograph
Hyd Return Drainage--24 hr Rain-- Imper- Loss T(c) Runoff Vol Peak Unit
Num Period Area 100yr Used vious in/hr min Depth ac-ft Flow q
I
1 100yrs 0.3ac 7.78in 7.78in 0.28 0.28 10.0 4.39in 0.1 0.7cfs 1.99
I
rfwero t)nv%mW pdt sm
D7o _ 0.6$ = D.o2 CA
i
i
i
s
i
I
1
14 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
W-Dr*4A&4&jr
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FC&WCD URBAN HYDROGRAPH, Version 1.2.1 R44.J&Fr-
Licensed to Penfield & Smith Engineers, Inc.
ROUTING Hydrograph 0 [ Hydgphl thru a Basin, Outflow H dr
y ograph is 7
Outlet Pipe(s) : Diameter = 4 in
Btm Slope = .01 Length = 25 ft
Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 3 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Depth Storage Volume
(ft) (cu ft) (ac-ft)
1 360 0.01
2 720 0.02
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
0,25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
2.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
2.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
3.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
3.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
3.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
3.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
4.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
4.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
4.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
4.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
5.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
5.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
5.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
5.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
6.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
6.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
6.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
6.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
7.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
7.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
7.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
7.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
8.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
8.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02
8.50 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.03
8.75 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03
F 9.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03
9.25 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.05
9.50 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.07
9.75 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08
10.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08
2
15 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
10.25 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.10
10.50 0.13 0.12 0.00 0.13
10.75 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.14
11.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.14
11.25 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.14
11.50 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.14
11.75 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.14
12.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.14
12.25 0.18 0.16 0.00 0.17
12.50 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.23
12.75 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.26
13.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.26
13.25 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.26
13.50 0.34 0.29 0.00 0.32
13.75 0.68 0.52 0.00 0.57
14.00 0.59 0.64 0.01 0.69 PFAIc PLW,J F/hv-
14.25 0.17 0.36 0.00 0.39
14.50 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.13 -DEVI'tcA &Yr S)T9
14.75 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.68c Q X3.75/aws
15.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.09
15.25 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.07
15.50 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.04
15.75 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
16.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
16.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02
16.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
16.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
17:00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
17.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
17.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
17.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
18.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
18.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
18.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
18.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
19.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
19.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
19.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
19.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
20.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
20.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
20.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
20.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
21.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
21.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
21.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
21.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
22.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
22.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
22.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.75 0.00 01.00 0.00 0.00
24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
<<< Summary of Results >>>
Max INFLOW = 1 cfs at 13.75 hrs
3
16 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
Max OUTFLOW = 1 cfs at 14.00 hrs
Max STORAGE = 0.01 ac-ft at 14.00 hrs
Max DEPTH = 0.69 ft at 14.00 hrs
Total INFLOW Volume = 0.11 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW Volume = 0.11 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0.00 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
q
17 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
POST_0rVetoPMWT
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FC&WCD URBAN HYDROGRAPH, Version 1.2.1 r24*3crF
Licensed to Penfield & Smith Engineers, Inc.
ROUTING Hydrograph 1 [ Hydgph] thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is to
Outlet Pipe(s) • Diameter = 4 in
Btm Slope = .O1 Length = 25 ft
Manning's n = .013 Entrance Loss Re = .5
No. of Pipes 2 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = o
Storage data entered from keyboard
Depth Storage Volume
(f t) (cu ft) (ac-ft)
1 360 0.01
2 720 0.02
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water
� Flow Over(cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft)
Weir (cfs)
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
1.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
1.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
2.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
2.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
2.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
2.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
3.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
3.25 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02
3.50 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
3.75 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
j 4.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
4.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
4.50 0.02 0.02 0.00
4.75 p,02 0.03
0.02 0.00 0.03
5.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
5.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
5.50 0.02 0.02 0.00
5.75 0.03
0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
6.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
6.25 0.02 0.02
6.50
0.02 0'00 0.03
6.75 0.02 0.00 0.03
o.0z 0.00
7.00 0.02 0.03
0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
7.25 0.02 0.02 0.00
7.50 0.02 0.03
0.02 0.00 0.04
7.75 0.02 0.02 0.00
8.00 0.02 0.04
0.02 0.00 0.04
8.25 0.03 0.03 0.00
8.50 0.05 0.05
0.04 0.00 0.06
8.75 0.05 0.04 0.00
9.00 0.05 0.05 0.07
0.00 0.08
9.25 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.09
9.50
0.09 0.08 0.00 0.12
i 9.75 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.15
i 10.00 0.09 0.09 0.00
0.15
18 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
10.25 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.17
10.50 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.21
10.75 0.15 0.14 0.00 0.23
11.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.24
11.25 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.24
11.50 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.24
11.75 0. 15 0.15 0.00 0.24
12.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.24
12.25 0.20 0.17 0.00 0.27
12.50 0.25 0.22 0.00 0.35
12.75 0.26 0.25 0.00 0.40
13.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.42
13.25 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.42
13.50 0.35 0.30 0.00 0.49
13.75 0.70 0.49 0.01 0.80 PF*Y- RON PP-K qtr
14-00 0.60 0.62
14.25 0.19 0.43 0.01 1 03 b f1,A"v4 y- s ITF IS
14.50 0.11 0.19 0.00 0.30
7G c�T 7 0.68e�s
14.75 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.18 0
15.00 0. 09 0.10 0.00 0.16 f
15.25 0.07 0.08 0.00 N"D I- Di *IJ O.02af5
15.50 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.14
15.75 0.04 0.09 0.10 OH7P FJte�.77NSSV�
16.00 p 04 0.00 0.07
0.04 0.00 0.06 15 o,(.ZA
16.25 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.06
16.50 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.05
16.7S 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 BCD 0170 O,t2
17.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04
17.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04
17.75 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 D.og�{, 70.o2�s (Rwb)
18.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
18.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
18.50 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
18.75 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
19.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
19.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
19.50 0.02 0.02 0.00
i 19.75 0.02 0.03
0.02 0.00 0.03
20.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
j 20.25 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
20.50 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
20.75 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03
21.00 0.02 0.02 0.00
21.25 0.01 0.03
0.02 0.00 0.02
i 21.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
21.75 0.01 0.01
22.00 0.01 0.00 0.02
0.01 0.00 0.02
22.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
22.50 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
22.75 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02
23.00 0.01 0.01 0.00
0.02
23.25
j 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
23.50 0.00 0.00 0.00
23.75 0.00 0.01
0.00 0.00 0.00
24.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
< Summary of Results >>>
Max INFLOW = 1 cfs at 13.75 hrs
19 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
Max OUTFLOW = 1 cfs at 14.00 hrs
Max STORAGE = 0.01 ac-ft at 14.00 hrs
Max DEPTH 1.03 ft at 14.00 hrs
Total INFLOW Volume = 0.13 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW Volume = 0.13 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0.00 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 10 Calced
7
20 of 21
Lane Goodkind Landscape Architect
Leonard Residence, Drainage Study 6/9/2004
BIBLIOGRAPHY
County of San Diego Department of Public Works,San Diego County Hydrology
Manual, San Diego, California, June 2003.
Ferguson, Bruce K.,Introduction to Stormwater, Concept, Purpose, Design, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, 1998
Harris, Charles W. and Nicholas T. Dines, Time Saver Standards for Landscape
Architecture, Second Edition, New York, McGraw Hill, 1998
Prince George County Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources, Low Impact
Development Design Strategies, an Integrated Design Approach, Prince George County
Maryland. 1999.
Strom, Steven and Kurt Nathan,Site Engineering for Landscape Architects, Third
edition, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1998.
Unterman, Richard K.Principles and practices of Grading, Drainage and Road
Alignment:An Ecological Appraoch, Reston Virginia, Reston Publishing, 1978
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,Low Impact
Development, October 2000.
21 of 21
O F E N C I N 1 T '
SERVICES DEPARTME,
S, VULCAN AVE ,
--JCINITAS , CA 921024
T
GRAD TNG PERMIT zERMIT
-PARCEL NO. 260-081-7000 PLAN NO , : 9053-G
J,a rry SASE NO. : 0-4257
0 $ 1TEL-A 13916 RUBENSTEIN AVENUE
1
44115E Ll AN n- $KERRI
13 B �PHONE NO. : 858'-7175-769G
9:�l ',,,f10VLYrTELD CT5
ta. 0 -TAT A
ZIP': -41 �3
c
X
6
q3l RIM
TMY
-.il Ull",
A-4
-41
RER,
FIVE,
41
u,
:2
- 9-
"Wo
-R
1-2
. 60 s . +r
fttC*I PT I ON OF WORX
p NQE OF, EARTANA"'g ,,IN
-
--AND k2RO s I OX`-(VNTRO L CON, MUST MAIN %IN TRA V VS 0,tf T. wm L P I
ED -TRAFFt&�
I �2
A,;
Af
'14
1" 54
'g Tin
DATE R
5
IQ
3,
Eq
U�o
-e Jk GENT 3
w E Sampo Engineering, Inc.
1 Land Planning,Civil Engineering, Surveying,Mapping
s
September 7,2006
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas,CA 92024
RE: Pad Verification for Grading Permit No.9053-G
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code,this letter is hereby submitted as
a Pad Verification Letter for the above referenced property. I herby state that the rough grading
for the pads is in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of
Encinitas Codes and Standards.
23.24.3 10(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the
approved grading plan:
Pad Elevation Pad Elevation
Per Plan Per Field Measurement
Westerly Pad 154.3' 154.3'
Southerly Pad 155.3' 155.3'
23.24.3 10(B)1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and/or
retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject
grading Plan.
23.24.310.(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field
verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have
been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above,please do not
hesitate to contact this office.
,0 LAND St,
Sincerely,
No.7655 O
Exp.12131/06 yt
Vince Sampo, PE,PLS
President ofi C
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760 436-0660 ♦ fax:760436-0659
info@sampoenginecring.com
< LANOTECH
TESTING & INSPECTION
7598 EADS AVENUE, LA JOLLA,CA 92037/ PHONE 1-858-336-7044,a it gavit6l/g an.0 com
November 7, 2005
Gebco Construction Project No. 05-034
1395 Sunset Grove Road Report No. 1
Fallbrook, California 92028
Attention: Mr. David Gebel
�39�
Reference: 1392 Rubenstein
Subject: Grading Observation and Relative Compaction Testing
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, Landtech Testing & Inspection has conducted professional
services for the grading of the subject lot. It is our understanding the lot is to be developed for a
single family two story residential structure.
SUMMARY
Based upon our observation and testing the subject building pad is suitable for construction. It
can be noted that the pad has been constructed of in-situ engineered fill materials and
approximately 190 yards of imported select fill material.
OBSERVATION
Initially the lot was grubbed and cleared of vegetation and debris. An approximate 15 foot wide
key was constructed at the western down-slope end of the lot, at the further most boundary of
the engineered fill pad. The key was cut, sub-grade soils scared and moisture conditioned
prior to then re-compaction by rolling.
The building pad has been over-excavated three feet deep within a five foot perimeter of the
building footprint. The depth of the cut was observed by our representative and approved to
�LANOTECN�
LTI Project No. 05-034 November 7, 2005 Page 2 of 4
receive fill soils. Engineered fill was then moisture conditioned and placed in 6 inch or less
compacted lifts and track rolled with a D6 bull dozer.
Throughout the grading observation of critical stages and verification of standard grading and
compaction procedures were verified. The in-situ engineered fill soil was tested for relative
compaction, using both Nuclear Gage Test ASTM D 1557 and the Sandcone Method ASTM
D1556. The location of the relative compaction test(s) and results are presented in Table A.
Based upon our testing and observation it is our opinion that the structural backfill has been
done in accordance with standard requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our Engineering Testing and Inspection services.
Respectfully submitted,
L.ANDTECH TESTING AND INSPECTION
OQFLpFESSlpvq
AGE A.G �Fti
q%+i
Ui C 564 M
* 30/07
0-
CAL*
George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564
�LANOTECH�
LTI Project No. 05-034 November 7, 2005 Page 3 of 4
TABLE A: METHOD ASTM D1556 and D1657 IN-PLACE DENSITY SUMMARY
Maximum Dry In-Place Dry Relative
Test Unit Weight, Unit Weight, Compaction,
# Description Date pcf pcf Moisture %
1 1 st Lift of Key 10/26/05 134.0 125.9 9.7% 94.0
2 1 st Lift of Key 10/28/05 134.0 126.9 6.7% 94.7
3 2nd Lift of Key 10/29/05 134.0 121.3 8.7% 90.5
4 2nd Lift of Key 10/30/05 134.0 121.5 8.7% 90.7
5 1st Lift of Building Pad 10131/05 134.0 124.8 8.7% 93.1
6 1st Lift of Building Pad 11/1/05 134.0 122.4 8.7% 91.3
7 1st Lift of Building Pad 1112/05 134.0 127.3 8.7% 95.0
8 1st Lift of Building Pad 11/3105 134.0 123.5 8.7% 92.2
Finish Grade Building
9 Pad 11/4105 132.3 130.3 7.6% 98.5
Finish Grade Building
10 Pad 1114/05 132.3 122.4 8.7% 92.5
Finish Grade Building
11 Pad 11/4/05 132.3 127.8 11.1% 96.6
Finish Grade Building
12 Pad 1114/05 132.3 121.1 9.2% 91.5
�LANOTECN�
LTI Project No. 05-034 November 7, 2005 Page 4 of 4
Diaoram 1392 Rutx nstein
r-------------------------------------------------------
i
F21
❑ a ❑
. s ,
❑ '
6
' 9
8 ,
12
' I1
10
-----------------------------------------------------
Legend
Limits of grading ---------
Test Location ❑
Property limits
►�� `+ ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
�f
City
Encinitas Sutxiivtston" Crgineering
Traffic Engineering
k'ield Clearance to Allow Occupancy_.
T0: Subdivision Engineering
Public Service Counter ,
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection
RE: Building.Permit No.. —
Name of Project n f
Name of Developer
have inspected t he site.at
(address...number ...street name
_L , and have determined that finish,(precise) grading.and
(lot noJ t (bldg.noJ
any other related site improvements are substantially complete and•
that occupancy is merited.
(signature of Engineering Inspector)
(Date)
(signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiatel
(Date) -
Reference: Engineering Permit No.
Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given-to the
ty developer.You.are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office call staff went has
of lire act feesuor texecution of
_compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, Zyp y payment
it'n-the slot labelled "final
documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff merely—by-- the g
inspection" that is located between the desks of the engineering technicians. Also, please remember to do final
inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork,if completed.Thank you.
LANOTECH
TING a INSPECTI`S
7598 EADS AVENUE,LA JOLLA,CA 92037/ PHONE 1-858-336-7044,email ggavitl @san.rr.com
January 5, 2004
Duke Johnson 'Project No. 040104.1
1715 Ruthlor
Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007
Subject: Preliminary Soils Report
Reference: 1396 Rubenstein
Cardiff by the Sea, CA
Dear Ms. Johnson:
In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject
property. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory
tests, and engineering analysis. The soil, foundation, and geologic conditions are discussed and
information regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of the future development is
presented.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
LANDTECH TESTING AND INSPECTION
PROFE �iV
E
C
+L m
/05
C 1
FCF CAt1 0�
George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564
r,y'
+ i
r
r �1v
1
i
�ANDTECHb
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 2 of 1
i
Figure 1
Endn"ttaJ.tt, .t;; a w �5'tj ^'Y t +� �...1 ..>i #. t in D i,
s
a '.[ �• ^(��' j it Y'S
op-
i r tt c 1y I �T; Al,
fg
Ar
1 'its 1
rq 1 t�
Yea il ♦{s f ; ` i ._ V
Ol
,y
a "
.�• .` `,, "�•,/ fit, lit..\t � e� 1 �:Y Y.
Printed from TOPO! @1997 Wildflower Productions(i*ww.topo.com)
4(LANOTECNlb
i
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 3 of 1
e
Purpose and Scope
p
The purpose of our geotechnical investigation was to evaluatelthe geotechnical conditions at th
subject site and provide conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint,
regarding the design and construction of the proposed development. The scope of our studies
included the following:
Discussion of preliminary project plans and review of geotechnical maps and literature
pertaining to the general site vicinity.
• Excavation, logging and sampling 3 test pits.
• Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory test pits.
• Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
This report includes, foundation design parameters, soil beari g values, and other geotechnical
related design /construction considerations.
Project Description
The project site consists approximately .75 acres in Cardiff by the Sea, California (See Figure
1). It is located in the west side of Rubenstein Avenue. Topographically, the site is relatively
flat. There is a minor descending gradient towards the west. The front of the pad is
approximately 6 feet higher than the back of the lot over a hori�ontal distance of 300 feet. The
elevation at the site range is approximately 175 mean sea leve!I.
Currently, there is a single-family residence situated on the ad'acent lot. The house is a single-
family structure built in the 1990. It is our understanding that tie proposed development is to
consist of a new structure located west of the existing structure. The new development will be
two-story single family home. The square footage will be approximately 2,800 square feet. At
this point, plans have not been developed, however, we understand that the structure will utilize
convention residential building materials (such as wood and/or steel framing with continuous
footings. Structural loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction.
Subsurface Investigation
On December 16, 2003, three exploratory test pits were advanced at the site. The exploratory
test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 4.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Th
test pits were logged and soil samples were retrieved from the test pits for laboratory testing.
The approximate locations of the exploratory test pits are indicated on Figure 2. Logs of the
exploratory test pits are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite soils to evaluate their
pertinent engineering properties. The tests included expansion index, maximum density and a
classification test.
<ANUTECHIb
I
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 4 of 1
Figure 2
I
T-3
Proposed
■ T-2 Structure
I
T1
I
i
Existing structures'
i
1392 Rubenstein Avenue
All test pits excavated on December 15, 2003
Approximate Scale 1 inch = 25 feet
IT-#' denotes the approximate location of the test pits
i
<LANDTECH`b
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 ! Page 5 of 1
i
Laboratory and Tests Results
An expansion index tests was conducted on the
on the fill mat nal to determine it's expansive
potential. The tests were conducted in accordance with UBC (18-2. The results of the test
yielded a numerical value of 23. This value is considered low'and it's potential for the soil to
expand need not be considered. A soil classification was conducted and the soil type at the
subject site is fine to medium grained silty sands.
Soil and Geological Units
I
The Bay Point Formation is overlying the Del Mar Formation. The Bay Point Formation consist
of terrace deposits from the Quaternary age. At this site, thes' materials are characterized by
red-brown to orange-brown, fine to medium sandstone. This rmation consists of a sandstone
and is very dense and provides a good support for buildings i its existing condition.
Faulting and Seismicity
Our review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the g�neral site indicate that there are
no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity!of the site. Evidence for active
faulting on the site was not observed during our investigation. I There are also a number of fault
in the Southern California area, which are active and would halve an effect on the site in the
form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are
limited to: the San Andreas Fault, the San Jacinto Fault, the Osinore Fault, the Coronado Fault
Bank Zone, Florida Canyon Fault, Old Town Fault and the Rose Canyon fault.
The nearest known fault is the Rose Canyon fault, which is 3.1 miles from the subject site. Othe
larger faults in the San Diego vicinity are the Elsinore fault 29 mile away and the Coronado
Bank fault located approximately 17 miles of the site.
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
i
I
The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods for active Quaternary
faults within the regional vicinity. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act, Quatema
faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the
last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time).
Deterministic Analysis — Deterministic seismicity was evaluated with the Eqfault computer
program (Blake), which utilizes a digitized map of known active earthquake faults and a catalog
of the Maximum Probable and Credible
Earthquakes for each fault. The deterministic analysis was performed for all active faults within
a specified radius of 50 miles from the site. The data generated is included in Appendix B.
Based on the deterministic analysis described, 8 faults were located. The site is subject to a
Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon Fault (approximately
3.1 mile from the site), with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.46g's. The
Maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely
to occur during a 100-year time interval. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is commonly
adopted as the design earthquake for residential construction.
<LANOTECNlb
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 6 of 1
i
I
Effective Ground Acceleration - The effective ground acceleration is associated with that part o
significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may
produce structural deformation. The effective ground acceler?tion is referred to as the
Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA), and is approximately equal to 65 percent of the
Peak Ground Acceleration for earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the
analysis, the site is subject to a Probable RHGA of about 0.3g�
Liquefaction - Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of she r strength in saturated soil,
usually taking place within a saturated soil medium exhibiting 6 uniform fine-grained
characteristic, loose consistency, and low confining pressure when subjected to impact by
seismic or dynamic loading. Based on the shallow depth to for�mmation and absence of
groundwater, the site is considered to have a very low risk of soil liquefaction.
Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture - Breaking of the grou d is not likely due to the absence
of known fault traces within the project limits. Due to the generally active seismicity of southern
California, however, the possibility of ground lurching cannot be completely ruled out. In this
light, "flexible" design for on-site utility lines and connections should be considered.
Landslides -At the time of our investigation, there was no evidence that landslides or unstable
slope conditions exist that would result in a geologic hazard. It should be noted that landslides
are low risk within the soil characteristics of this formation exposed at the site.
Seiches and Flooding -At the time of our investigation, there�ere no nearby-contained bodies
of water that could produce seiches ("tidal"waves in confined bodies of water), which may affe
the site. No seiche or flooding potential was identified.
Ground Water and Surface Water
Evidence of near-surface groundwater or seepage was not encountered during our
investigation. Water seepage was not observed in the exploratory test pits and therefore,
groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to building design of construction. It is
anticipated that site development plans will include appropriate drainage provisions for control
and discharge of surface run-off. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of
ground water may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface
stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors, which may not have been evident at the time o
our field investigation.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed
development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The shallow topsoil must be
removed and disposed off-site. Minor grading will be required:to level the lot. During the
grading operations, it is important that a cut/fill transition does not exist within the building pad.
If grading operations consist of creating a fill pad, then a representative of this office must be
present to verify compaction of the fill soils.
<LANOTEQCH'b
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 2004
ry � � Page 7 of 1
Soil Design Criteria
Conventional Foundations:
Allowable Bearing Capacity For Continuous Footings
FoundedIn Formation..................................................�.....................................1,500 ps
..........
Minimum foundation embedment...................... 24 inche
f....................................
Minimum width for continuous footings ........................i....................................18 inche
Coefficient of friction against sliding .............
Passive earth resistance on the side of footing............. 350 sf/
1.................................... p
Retaining Walls
For retaining walls, the bearing capacity and foundation di ensions provided for the abov
foundations may be followed. Additional design parameters for lateral loading and resistanc
are provided below:
Active Earth Pressure for level backfill (non restrained Walls)..............................40 psf/
At Rest Earth Pressure for level backfill (restrained walls)................................... 60 psf/
Passive Resistance in compacted fill or formation........ ...................................250' psf/
Earthquake Design Parameters
Earthquake resistant design parameters may be determined from the Uniform Building Code
(1997 edition), Chapter 16. Based on the proceeding analysis and our characterization of the
site, the following design parameters may be adopted: j
SeismicZone...................................................................
....... ................................................4
Soil Types.........................
..................................... Sd
Seismic Source Type...............................................................:................
SeismicCoefficient, Ca ............................................................ ..................................... .0.44Na
SeismicCoefficient, C.......................................... ............................................ 0.64Nv
...............
Near Source Factor, Na........................................... ............................................1.0
...................
Near Source Factor, N................... 1 2
.................................................................
Concrete
As a minimum, the concrete used for foundation construction should have a 28-day
compressive strength of 2,500 psi. The concrete should be mixed and placed in accordance
with ACI specifications. Adding water to the concrete at the site should be avoided.
CANOTECNl
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 8 of 1
Proper curing techniques and a reduction in mixing water will elp reduce cracking and concret
permeability. In order to further reduce shrinkage cracking and slab permeability, consideratio
should be given to using a concrete mix with a design maximum water cement ratio of 0.50.
Appurtenant Structures
Appurtenant structures such as patio flatwork and site walls should be designed and
constructed in consideration of the design parameters and guidelines presented above.
Environmental Issues
Evaluation of potential environmental and/or health issues such as, but not limited to, the
presence or absence of hazardous waste or toxic materials and/or other substances or
conditions which may of may not fall into these categories was not included within the scope of
this investigation. In addition, Landtech Testing and Inspectio 1 does not practice or offer
services relating to hazardous waste or toxic material. Should�you desire an evaluation relating
to these or similar issues, we suggest that you contact appropriately licensed and experienced
professionals for advice and/or recommendations.
Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions Ii
The findings in this report have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice,
and no warranty is expressed or implied.
This report is presented with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or
representative, to insure the recommendations in this report are carried out in the field.
Additionally, it is the responsibility of the aforementioned pers 'n that the information in this
report is brought the attention of the "design team", consisting lof architects, engineers, etc.,
such that all information can be incorporated into the building plans.
The findings in this report are applicable as of the present date. However, changes in the
condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether the changes are due to
natural processes or the works of man on this property.
LABOTECH
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 9 of 1
APPENDIX A
SOIL TYPE SOIL CLASSIFICATION EXPANSION TEST PIT#
INDEX AND DEPTH
1 Fill, clayey sand 23 T-1 e2.5'
2 Bay Point formation
I
i
i
<LANOTECNlb
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 I Page 10 of 1
T-1
- I
Jackhammer Dimension of Pit: 2+3+4 ate Logged December 15,
003
Surface Elevation: 175 Ground water depth: n/a ogged B : LANDTECH
i
DEPTH SYMBOL FIELD DESCRIPTION and
(FT) CLASSIFICATION
1 Surface Conditions: soil
I
2 .0' - .5'Topsoil
Silty sand, orange brown, moist loose
6"-18" Formation
3 Silty Sand, orange brown, dry, dense.
18"-48" Formation
4 Silty Sand, orange brown, dry to moist, den e.
5
I
�LAUTECN'b
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 I Page 11 of 1
T-2
Jackhammer Dimension of Pit: 2+3+4 Date Logged December 15,
003
Surface Elevation: 175 Ground water de the n/a o ed Pir IANDTECH
DEPTH SYMBOL FIELD DESCRIPTION and
(FT) CLASSIFICATION
1
Surface Conditions: soil
6"-18" Formation
2
Silty Sand, orange brown, dry, dense.
18"-48" Formation
3
Silty Sand, orange brown, dry to moist, den e.
4
5
i
:
ANDTEQ.
"'.,•I•=„`I"i LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 12 of 1
T-3
Jackhammer Dimension of Pit: 2+3+4 ate Logged December 15,
2003
Surface Elevation: 175 Ground water de the n/a o9ged By: LANDTECH
DEPTH SYMBOL FIELD DESCRIPTION and
(FT) CLASSIFICATION
Surface Conditions: soil
2 .0'-.5'Topsoil
Silty sand, orange brown, dry, loose
6"-18" Formation
3 Silty Sand, orange brown, dry, dense.
18"-48" Formation
I
4 Silty Sand, orange brown, dry to moist, dense.
5
I
i
I
i
i
CANOTECB)o
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5 2004 Page 13 of 1
APPENDIX B
EQFAULT
Version 3.00
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 2360
JOB NAME: DATE: 12-17-2003
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.0324
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2857
SEARCH RADIUS: 50 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 6) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Ho .-Holocene Soil-Uncor
UNCERTAINTY(M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE(km): 3.0
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE I- ----- ----�-
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK BEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTE SITY
MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC.
ROSE CANYON 1 3.1( 5.0)1 6.9 1 0.461 X
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 12.1( 19.4)1 6.9 0.235 1 IX
CORONADO BANK 17.4( 28.0)1 7.4 1 0.222 1 IX
ELSINORE-JULIAN 28.6( 46.0)1 7.1 1 0.106 1 VII
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 28.6( 46.1)1 6.8 1 0.085 1 VII
PALOS VERDES 1 41.6( 67.0)1 7.1 1 0.067 1 VI
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.1( 67.8)1 6.5 1 0.041 1 V
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1�42.4( 68.2)1 6.8 1 0.052 1 VI
-END OF SEARCH- 8 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.1 MILES (5.0 km)AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4608 g
i
4(L Ali DTECN-b
LTI Project No. 040104.1 January 5, 2004 Page 14 of 1
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Leonard
1100
1000
900
800
I
700
600 i
500
400
300
200
100
p
• SI
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600