The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-7717 G K'•-S: � ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION NO. ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IQB SITE ADDRESS ASSESSOR PARCEL I 1 �c S I D �•./ t 6 l7 1a i-Ce fI t� tau N,Ins 2 0 --4 to STREET ADDRESS oc-n" 2-c,o °/t 4 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION M /i 3-x- O M-v NAME NAME MAILING ADDRESS 3 3 15 5 e.y ADDRESS � �3 i 5 w i�S It STATE,,ZIP CODE CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO. CITy,TELEPHONE N STKt E LICENSE NO. &TYPE (s'S�) "1�3 - 35 .3 62'-Lz 32 !� CIVIL ENGINEER INFORMATION SOILS ENGINEER INFORMATION t< j S q- '"oKoQT- NAME T NAME 4� ic�d S©i�S i=.��•�Pe'?�1�t�} ADDRESS "Z f-6o ( M iSS rove Ce^-22 cctu ADDRESS 4 ck 7_)L t 00 CITY, STATE,ZIP TELEPHONE NO. CITY, STATE, ZIP TELEPHONE NO. 5 17 c A x210 ci (�)q) 7q b -5-545 (afek) 44-1 - 4-7 /1 REGISTRATION NO. 3 Z 3 X Q r3(31t®4 REGISTRATION NO. DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE CASE NO_: SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NO. (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) TYPE OF APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED DEPOSITS AND FEES PAIL ( ] AGREEMENT, COV., DOC. _/__/_ PERMIT/APPLICATION FEE: _ [ ] BEACH ENCROACHMENT PLAN CHECK FEE/DEPOSIT: _ ( J CONSTRUCTION _J_/_ ADDITIONAL PLAN CHECK _ [ ] FINAL MAP __/^/_ FLOOD CONTROL FEE: — [ ] FINAL PARCEL MAP INSPECTION FEE/DEPOSIT: _ [ ] GRADING _/_/_ SECURITY DEPOSIT: [ J IMPROVEMENT _J_/_ (CIRCLE ONE OF EACH) ( ] OPERATIONS PERMIT: NEWSRACK _/ J_ ASSIGN/BOND ASSIGN/BOND [ ] PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT � /_ CASH/CD/LOC CASH/C[3/tOC [ ] SEWER CONSTRUCTION MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT: ( ] STREET NAME CHANGE _/_/_ RETURN EXCESS DEPOSITS TO: [ ]-STREET VACATION-- � I Qw- NE.A __ RATE; [ ) TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT /_/_ [ ] CONTRACTOR AMOUNT: $ [ J UTILITY CONSTRUCTION __f_J_ [ J ENGINEER COMMENTS: [ ] OTHER ALLIED EARTH TECHNUL O GY P.0.13OX 1932•EL CA-ION, CALIFORNIA 9202.2-1932 ROBERT CHAN, PE. TI-A-E Pt ION E(619)447-4747 May 12, 2003 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 13315 Winstansley Way San Diego, CA. 92130 Subject : Project No. 02-1167F2 Three Proposed Residential Building Sites 1608, 1610 and 1612 Lake Drive Encinitas, California Gentlemen : Reference is made to the meeting held at the City of Encinitas with the engineering staff relative to the grading issues at subject property, more specifically referred to as being Parcel Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of Parcel Map No. 18579, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The following is in response to the action points discussed at the meeting and to the items listed in the letter from Stephanie Till of the City of Encinitas, dated May 1, 2003. 1• A copy of the "Report of Compacted Filled Ground, Three Proposed Residential Building Sites, 1608, 1610 and 1612 Lake Drive, Encinitas, California" prepared by our firm, dated January 6, 2003, is attached hereto. 2. Undocumented fill soils within a minimum of 5 feet outside the foundation line of the proposed residence on Parcel 2 were removed and recompacted. 3. On Parcel 2, approximately the northerly half of the existing retaining wall encroaches into the Open Space Easement granted to the City of Encinitas per Parcel Map No. 18579. This section of the retaining wall is to be removed, and a new retaining wall constructed, outside the open space easement. All retaining walls should be constructed to City of Encinitas requirements, and under 3 feet in maximum height. The location of the new retaining wall is shown on the revised grading plan. - ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P-0-BOX 1932•EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. TELEPHONE(619)447-4747 January 6, 2003 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 13315 Winstanslev Way San Diego, C'A, 92130 Subject : Project No. 02-1167F2 Report of Compacted Filled Ground Three Proposed Residential Building Sites 1608, 1610, and 1612 Lake Drive Encinitas, California Gentlemen : This report records our observations of the grading and the results of tests performed in connection with the placement of fill soils on certain areas of the three proposed i residential building sites on subject property, more specifically referred to as being arcel Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of Parcel Map No. 18579, in the City of Encinitas, State of California.P The grading reported herein was accomplished during the period from December 5 to 23, 2002, inclusive. Prior to grading, the site was cleared and grubbed. Existing loose topsoil/fill soils to a maximum depth of 3 feet, extending at least 5 feet outside the foundation line of the Proposed structures were removed. The bottom of the excavation was then inspected and approved by our firm. Fill soils generated on site were properly moistened, and uniformly compacted in lifts on the order of 6 to 8 inches until finished grade is achieved. The depths of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results are presented on pages T-1 and T-2, under "Table of Test Results". The laboratory determinations of the maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils are set forth on page L-1 under "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate location of the compacted filled ground and field density tests are presented on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground". Project no. 02-1167F2 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 1608-1612 Lake Drive 01/06/03 Page 2 The results of the tests and observations indicate that the fill soils placed and tested have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Test results indicate that the building pads are adequate for their intended use as support to the proposed residential structures. The proposed residential structures will be founded entirely on compacted fill soils. It is recommended that the foundation Ior the proposed structure be setback at least 7 leet from the top of slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. The soils encountered on the site possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 28). It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot be used for the design of continuous or spread footings that are a minimum of 12 and 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respectively, and are embedded at least 18 inches (for single and two stories) into the competent natural or compacted fill soils. It is further recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with four #4 rebars, two rebars located near the top, and the other two rebars near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade, and. should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 rebars in both directions, located near the bottom of the footings. The concrete slab for the proposed residence should be 4 inches net in thickness, and be reinforced with #3 rebars @ 18 inches on center, placed at mid-height of the concrete slab. The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand and a moisture barrier in moisture sensitive areas. Please note that the above foundation and slab requirements are minimum requirements based on soil characteristics, and should be superceded by any requirements of the project architect/structural engineer. Proper control of the site drainage and regular maintenance of all drainage facilities are important factors related to the overall stability of the soil mass. Surface water should drain into the street or into on-site drainage structures without intermediate ponding. This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified. It is recommended that any additional grading and/or fill soils placed, like backfill soils behind retaining walls, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted Project No. 02-1167F2 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 01/06/03 1608-1612 Lake Drive Page 3 under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Pages L-1, T-1, T-2 and Figure No. l are parts of this report. Respectfully sub itt ALLIED EA H CHNOL Y Robert C,U4 P.E. �� ;:r C �F D�:aOFESS/ � y 0 BERT C �q! No.C-24613 ti F �+ Exp. 12131105 No.G_ 98 2z 00 gg 1m ciy+i �Q EYA. 12131105 COF CAS � �J �F OF CALI}0� Project No. 02-1167172 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 01/06/03 Page L-1 1608-1612 Lake Drive LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1 The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils, as determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557-91, Method A, are presented as follows : Soil Maximum Optimum Soil Type Dry Density Moisture Content Description (lbs./cu.ft.) /o Dry Wt. 1 Light brown silty fine to 126.0 medium sand (SM) 9.5 2 Tan silty fine to medium sand (SM) 124.0 10.0 2• The Expansion Index of the most clayey soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 18-2. The results of the test are presented as follows Soil Soil Type Description Expansion Index 1 Light brown silty fine to * medium sand (SM) 28 * Considered to possess LOW expansion potential Project No. 02-1167F2 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 01/06/03 Page T-1 1608-1612 Lake Drive TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent Date No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs./cu.ft.)(lbs./cu.ft.) Compaction Test 1 1 95.95 12.3 115.6 126.0 91.7 12/06/02 2 1 95.95 11.8 115.8 126.0 91.9 12/06/02 3 1 97.95 12.7 116.9 126.0 92.8 12/06/02 4 1 97.95 12.1 116.6 126.0 92.6 12/06/02 5 1 97.95 11.9 117.0 126.0 92.9 12/06/02 6 1 99.95 11.6 116.7 126.0 92.6 12/08/02 7 1 99.95 11.3 117.0 126.0 92.8 12/08/02 8 1 99.95 11.7 115.2 126.0 91.4 12/08/02 9 1 101.95 11.9 117.0 126.0 92.9 12/10/02 10 1 101.95 11.2 117.0 126.0 92.8 12/10/02 11 1 101.95 11.3 115.9 126.0 92.0 12/10/02 12 1 101.15 9.5 118.0 126.0 93.7 12/12/02 13 1 101.15 10.3 114.3 126.0 90.7 12/12/02 14 1 101.15 9.8 114.3 126.0 90.7 12/12/02 15 2 103.95* 12.5 111.8 124.0 90.2 12/12/02 * Finished grade Project No. 02-1167F2 Rancho Farm Construction Co. 01/06/03 Page T-2 1608-1612 Lake Drive TABLE OF TEST RESULTS (Cont'nd) Elevation of Fill Field Dry Maximum Pest Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent ofte No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs./cu.ft.) (lbs./cu.ft.) Compaction Test 16 2 103.95* 12.4 118.7 124.0 95.7 12/12/02 17 l 103.95* 10.9 120.5 126.0 95.6 12/12/02 18 1 103.95* 10.1 117.3 126.0 93.1 12/12/02 19 1 103-95* 10.3 114.9 126.0 91.2 12/12/02 20 1 103.15* 13.1 115.5 126.0 91.7 12/17/02 21 1 103.15* 12.5 114.8 126.0 91.1 12/17/02 22 1 103.15* 12.9 116.0 126.0 92.0 12/17/02 23 1 100.75* 13.1 115.8 126.0 91.9 12/19/02 24 1 100.75* 12.5 114.7 126.0 91.1 12/19/02 25 1 100.75* 12.2 115.7 126.0 91.8 12/19/02 26 1 100.75* 12.4 115.9 126.0 92.0 12/19/02 27 1 102.75* 12.9 117.1 126.0 93.0 12/23/02 28 1 102.75* 12.3 117.4 126.0 93.2 12/23/02 29 1 102.75* 12.5 116.8 126.0 92.7 12/23/02 * Finished grade * Finished grade 0 Ja zo 0 tt F <<� k, 4 V V � I OO Recording requested by: ) City of Encinitas ) When recorded mail to: ) City Engineer ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY Maintenance Agreement Uncontrolled Embankment Site Address: 1610 Lake Drive Application Number 01-284, 7809-G The undersigned, Majid Mortazavi [OWNER hereinafter], the owner of real property which is commonly known as 1610 Lake Drive and is legally described in Attachment"A"which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, in the consideration of the grant of permission by the City of Encinitas to install and maintain an Uncontrolled Embankment for the use and benefit of owner's property, agrees with the City of Encinitas, as follows: 1. The Owner acknowledges that as an Uncontrolled Embankment, the site is not eligible for a building permit unless special soils analysis and foundation design are approved. 2. The Uncontrolled Embankment will be maintained in a safe and sanitary manner at the sole cost, risk and responsibility of the property owner and his successors in interest, who shall hold the City of Encinitas harmless with respect thereto. In accordance with section 23.24.040of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code the City Engineer will instruct removal of the Uncontrolled Embankment if it is not maintain a safe and sanitary manner. Owner's Signature AA j]j—a--o /4vF-7-/92� Majid Mortazavi Dated this 2 day of , 2003. [Signature of OWNER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgment.] Date: By: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services \\KRUSTY\VOL1\SHARED\ENG\Tamara\Word\Covenants\city uncontroll embankmt maint agt, Mortazavi, 7809 G, 01-284, 1610 Lake Drive.doc Attachment A Legal Description APN 264-430-72 Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 18579, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, state of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County Novermber 6, 2000. \\KRUSTYWVOL1\SHARED\ENG\Tamara\Word\Covenants\city uncontroll embankmt maint agt, Mortazavi, 7809 G, 01-284, 1610 Lake Drive.doc Attachment B Plat Map PERPETUAL OPEN SPACE EASEMENT / GRANTED TO THE CITY OF ENCINITAS / PER PARCEL MAP NO. 18579 NO GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION IN THE AppROXIMATE AREA OF PROBABLE NON-STRUCTURAL, LOOSE OPEN SPACE EASEMENT fMl MATERIAL PARED PRELIMINARY GE0TECHNICALDATED 02/17/2000 TF 314.4 TF 315.1 �� E)GST POO 16.7 ^4'PVC 02% 16.3 309. ' G 316.50 �fG 316. IE 315.50 EXIST 25 4, / IE 314. 1 I SETBACK ICHM 1W 31$.8 1 �' irk 31 :r; TF 315.8 1 8 6 1 GRASSED FILTER EX BUILDING STRIP- SEE DETAIL 31766 f LOWER RIGHT (TYP) G 317.36 3 a l � -kPPROXI � a 316 NOT UNCONTROLLED PAR 05I I REMOVAL & RECOMPACTION THIS AREA WILL BE n EXIST RE SIDEINICE T ') REMIDIATED 1761 r 2 FL - 317.56 FE 319.71 n' m � PARCEL 3 PAD 318.96 1 1 Co FFE 319.51 � I \ 317.91 PAD 318.76 FS I X. BUILt?IN J t FL PM 18679 I �-� ' t J1-1�� — FS uj La t `ti_ 1. GARAGE ,1E$4: 8.26� 3 8:5�'°'%-- ';��-• ''=�_- �_ .,::. Fy. � �� \\ 15 �:i�=4: - _ •_a y._ 31 B 21.31' :.. ..s: SDGdcE 1 E SIDEWALK PED _�' LT \\KRUSTYWOL1\SHARED\ENG\Tamara\Word\Covenants\city uncontroll embankmt maint agt, Mortazavi, 7809 G, 01-284, 1610 Lake Drive.doc CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California �A-�, ss. County of ems! v� �M� /C.670 vl2 �(.YTI�Ie� p[J d3 LCC � On /� �`�`�-', before me, b C Date Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe.Notary Public") personally appeared M6)k RZ&V 1 Namets)of Signer(s) ❑personally known to me PIDroved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)4�ore ~RANDA G.MILUOUR subscribed to the within instrument and Coawnbf m#11 389205 Notary PubNo•California acknowledged to met he/they executed San Dipo County the same in hi er/their orized Mff !W-2407 capacity(ies), and that by er/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above sphature of Notary P V11 OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer i WIN ON 0 Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: ©1997 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402 Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 E.. .GINEERING - - ' �" DESIGN GROUP I or[c.acu.cm.STFWLnu d Ar6mrECTIl4H coy x7 errs roa ��:��mk�o��,�r ,� 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760)480-7477• E-mail:ENGDG @aol.com GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSED FOUR NEW RESIDENCES TO BE LOCATED AT 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA it E W E Project No. 002445-1 EdGI"JFERiNG SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS November 22, 2000 PREPARED FOR: BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC. Attn. Curtis Farber 140 Marine View Avenue #220 Solana Beach, CA 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . GROUND WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . LIQUEFACTION . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . - - - MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 11 . 12 ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . , Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 1 Location of Exploratory " " " Figure No. 2 p oratory Test Pits . . . . . . . . Logs of Exploratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 3 ry Test Pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . • „ • . • • ' • . • • • • " " " " " • • • • • • • Figures No. 4-7 General Earthwork and Grading • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • Appendix A g pecifications Appendix B Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . � • • • • • • • ' ' _- • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C ] T Y SCOPE This report gives the results of our geotechnical investigation for the Proposed I family residence located at 1608-1612 Lake Drive, in the C' P Posed new single Figure No. 1, "Site Vicini Ma City of Encinitas, California. (See i tY Map", and Figure No. 2, Site Location Map"). work, conducted on-site to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the property our neighboring properties, a limited subsurface investigation of the property, field analysis preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. and SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing four parcels are developed with 3 existing one story structures. For of this report, the front (street frontage side) of the lots is assumed to face east. The site is bordered to the west by a bluff, to the north by developed residences t Is by a nursery, and to the east by Lake Drive. The overall topography of the site ar a consists west f of gently rolling hillside and small canyon terrain. The subject site consists of a relative) flat ' building pad. Based upon our review of the preliminary limited fills along the rear yard of Parcel 2. These fills a ry geologic reconnaissance there are building lines of the new structures. appear to be outside the proposed new Based on our conversations with the project contractor and our review of the preliminary project site plan, it is anticipated that the proposed site improvement will consist of the following. D Demolition of portions of the three existing structures. D Design and construction of four new two story single family residences. FIELD INVESTIGATION -- -_ - Our field investigation of the property, conducted November 14, 2000, consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of four exploratory test pits, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of the test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Location of Exploratory Test Pits". Logs of the explorato test excavations are presented in Figures No. 4-7, 'Test Pit Excavations". ry pit BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE,CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Page No. 1 Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTAMS SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Materials consisting of topsoil and isolated small fill materials under) ' formational sandstone were encountered during our subsurface inve • am by competent types within our test pit excavations are described as follows: stlgatlon of the site. Soil 1 Topsoil/Fill• Topsoil/fill materials extended to depths ranging between 12-20 inches adjacent grade within the area of structural improvement. Topsoil/fill materials consist of brown to light brown, moist, medium dense, slightly silty sand, with limited areas of roots and building material debris. To p i soil/f sandstone materials are not considered suitable for the sull structures in their present state. These materials are co seder d suitable materials for use as compacted fill during grading, and should be confirmed during grading. Silty sand materials classify as SW a according to the Unified Classification System, and based on vi observation and our experience, possess expansion potentials in the loaf range. w Along the rear portion of Parcel 2,there is an old undocumented fill of unknown The old fill is outside the limits of proposed structural improvement and was ntot specifically investigated. Prior to any development in this area, the fill sh investigated ould be Sandstone Sandstone material was found to underlie the topsoil/fill material within the test pit excavations. Sandstone materials consisted of white, tan - ink moist,dense to very dense/cemented,sandstone. Sandstone materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.- Sandstone materials classify as SW according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, Possess expansion potentials in the low range. For detailed logs Of soil types encountered in our test pits excavations, as well as a depiction of our test pit locations, please see Figure No. 3, "Site Plan/Location of Explorato Test Pit'n and Figures No. 4-7, "Test Pit Excavations". ry BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE,CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Page No.2 Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS - r � f r s GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation of th water is not anticipated to be a significant concern to the project a site. Ground recommendations of this report are followed. p 1 t provided the LIQUEFACTION It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California gregion.in the However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly region. developed area. g Y greater than that of the surrounding Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strop earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, g granular soils a vibratory motion due to near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction,while the underlain by t silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because stability of most nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface waters dense potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settle the considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced b adhering t at the site is recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of heoSt � Engineers Association of California. ructual BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Page No.3 Job No. 0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL.STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 7 l ' r CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i 1 GENERAL In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. The following recommendations should be considered as minimum design parameters, and shall be incorporated within the project plans and utilized during construction, as applicable. I EARTHWORK Where structural and cosmetically sensitive improvement are proposed onsite, topsoil/fill material found to mantle the site will require removal and re-compaction during o -�-� �You„�. p 9 grading Based on our investigation, removals should)p* ###f Ufa# fiIts, #Iof the proposed structures (where possible), and, �I ;,_: • • ,r �� i e ). Where removals can not be made as describe ab ve, non- conforming condition shou d be brought to ea en on of the Engineering Design Group in writing so modified recommendations may be provided. I. Site Preparation Prior to any grading, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and subsurface organic debris (including topsoil). Removed debris- should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths noted,should be filled-and compacted using on-site material or a non-expansive import material. Onsite sandstone materials are suitable for use as compacted fill. - 2. Removals Topsoil/fill found to mantle the site in our exploratory test pits are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or improvements in their present state. BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Page No.4 __- Job No. 0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS t � , , s Grading should consist of the removal of these profiles scarification of excavation bottom, and re-compaction of soil materials to 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM 1557-91 (See Appendix B for grading detailing). Removals shall be made to a minimum of print-of.prl,wsed-structures,,o o a 1:1 projection angle J from bottom of footing, is greater. The building g� 9 g pad shall be undercut to provide a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill soil beneath all proposed footings or all footings shall be deepened into formational soil 3. Fills Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Surficial, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered during grading (such as any undocumented or loose fill materials) should be removed to competent formational material and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement. J Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, soils should be non-expansive and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill FOUNDATIONS As an alternative to removal and re-compaction of weathered sandstonelfill, footings may be deepened through fill profiles to competent formational material. Based upon our investigation and observation of the site conditions,we anticipate footing depth, under this option,will range from 20 to 30 inches deep across the site. If this option is chosen, a structural wood or structural concrete floor system wood be required. Under this option, the below noted foundation design parameters may be utilized with deepened footings (2-3 feet deep). BRENDAN BUILDERS,INC Page No.5 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHMCAL,CML.STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS T � If removal and re-compaction is performed, as described above, the following foundation parameters may be utilized with footing depths as specified. In deriving foundation i recommendations for this site the subsoil conditions were evaluated. 1. Footings bearing in competent fill or formational materials may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Seismic Design Parameters: _ �`y .Seisml!cZone�actorf� ; , s €s Soil ro Type. ..t 3 t::�/Jam, �y+'S��fy�.r7i'• Y. r ed. .s.Mr�i,L••Wtc _ ,il.. 3 6 4 Y YI � YCi j Se 831 SL`+5+ r � w w i AR- a I1 e Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. _ . 3. The following parameters should be used as a minimum,fordesigning footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: 1wNo 0- .oors »Minlmm�m Foot�ngWlda Mir'nmurriooting:De ° SaP _ es lace • .rade ,.; 2 inches" ` M ;, _' me 24.Inches.: 4. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary. This detail should be reviewed on a case by case basis by our office prior to construction. BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No.6 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE,CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS I I r , 5.- _ . All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of#4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches: - 6. For footings(including sitelretaining wall footings) and all other cosmetically sensitive improvements adjacent to slopes, a minimum 15 feet horizontal setback in formational material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to' slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 7. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 8. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. 9. Concrete for building foundations should have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi in 28 days. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE Concrete slabs on grade should use the following as the minimum design parameters: 1 Concrete slabs on grade of the garage should-have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations) and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. All concrete shall be poured per the following: • Slump: Between-3 6nd-4 inches maximum- Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive areas. • Water to cement Ratio- 0.5 maximum BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No.7 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHRECTURAL CONSULTANTS _ .t f 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557. 3. A uniform layer of 4 inches of clean sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary. break.' In addition, a visqueen.layer (10 mil) should be placed mid- { height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. 4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 6 Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques(linoleum type)which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 7. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. • Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete.. The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. • Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Page No.8 --- --._ Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,"CIVIL.STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS .. 1 - concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete,the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male comers), with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. • Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork. • The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking but will not prevent concrete cracking. The owner should be aware all concrete, because of it's cementitious nature, will to some degree shrink and crack. The amount, location and impact on the cosmetic finish, of cracking can be reduced by design philosophy and construction. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations with the owner & general contractor, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. Additionally, the project owner should be made fully aware of expected performance of concrete finishes, so as to avoid follow up calls regarding minor concrete cracking. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls are not anticipate for the proposed improvements, but may be designed, constructed, up to 6 feet in height in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in the"Foundations"section of this report,and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in "Foundation" section of this report. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material will be - -- used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active 50 65 Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No. 9 _ 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- - GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL.STRUCTURALA ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS ---- - - - -- - • r 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement,they should be designed for an additional uniform soil pressure of 7XH psf, where H is the height of the wall in feet. 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the 'Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix B. Area drains should not be connected to any Retaining Wall French Drain Systems. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork"section of this report. Backfill shall consist of a non-expansive granular,free draining material SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to-pond against or adjacent to foundation walls, or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No. 10 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE,CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP - _ -- GEOTECNMCAL.CML.STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage, and remain separate from any wall back drain systems. During periods of heavy rain,the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, i irrigation of planter,areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements,should be strictly controlled or avoided. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING NO The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed RR_ by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in orderto verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). eating pope to the start of work pw p€or to.the start of work, for compliance with g 3.0bservat�ols ocar## at rnois#ure conditioning. 4TesFino are i to retainm wall backfill and utili ty test I p'ts. b. �Sn� =exca�ratrons prior to steel placement. x � V*WW Change",condition involving soils. 7.Walk through-of drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations.- -- - - - - - Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No. 11 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No. 0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -- - - GEOTECHMCAL.CML.STRUCTURAL&ARCHRECTURAL CONSULTANTS t L Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. :1 Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a :1 minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood°and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the.soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behaviorof the proposed structure;however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature,nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed,the results would-also most likely change. . Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is-subject to_review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No. 12 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP _.. GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS i subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. Sincerely, RpFESS/ ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP pQ OA;q� NOg9i Fy _ h Ste `_ c No.47672 m Exp.12-03 California RCE #47672 �sl CIV11. C,OF CA1.�E��' j i 1 r BRENDAN BUILDERS, INC Page No. 13 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE,CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Job No.0024451 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP -_- - - -- -- -. GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL.STRUCTURAL d ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS ' 1 i i i � �. rtirt[iaw Wr 1050 P�05 :;..: SAMN LURIS 1066 2067 • 1068 1069 1070 14 1 YALM CENT R 1Q8 F 1088 0 9 1 0 1091 +�IISTA 9wura 110 9 lI 0 llll Y Ulm" 112 7 1 l0 3 113 SITE 119 lf '�° 1 1148 1 0 1151 ENCINI awo TNE POWAY �oac iwal 11 �1 88 F Mar= 1 -DEL EL v �pm wft �t ICU 1201 :HILLS x�2 9, 110. 21 sm •BRi�L7'►116 en NN- 1227 0 �. LA LLA; IT w SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME FARBER/LAKE PROPERTY PROJECT ADDRESS 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, ENCINITAS,CA - JOB-NUMBER --- = ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP- - FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL.STRUCTURAL a ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 002445-1 2121 Monbel Road,San Mania.CA 92089 Phone:(760)539-7302 Fax:(780)480.7477 lUAainvae�F0rms11 FRMWASTER-SITE VICINITY.FIG T;4 e i I 1 i RO 1200 ►� r�r ~ NILLI �' DR Iif TER .�( s , i► � 0 Q 1 900 i t m Pl +� I� I N 0 OR �C WD OE FE -.C.r TDR Q oR`O1E� LR rcuawl 'a.•a a ; WDR $ $ Q um CT 1100 IPERN 'DR Sy Id pq DR aS OR I I1CATCr SITE RE�p000ApHE IG i2 �N I 1500 900 CARDIFF TENNIS Clt� + l y Y DR DR K , cyNye* 11 Jwy i i N[LL mI1M LORI Q 23 LN IS' 1000 20o DR SNIT ' E N C N I T I- J s LAS aLF AV (3 m dl VISAS R y1 3600 ESTE VISTA c ��►J « r OQ GATF Mr QiSTA am r rcco DR Q SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME FARBERILAKE PROPERTY PROJECT ADDRESS 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, ENCINITAS, CA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CML.STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 002445-1 2121 Mon081 Road.San Marcos.CA 02080 2 Phone:(78039.7302 Fax:(780)480.7177 \1Main\file7Onns\7 FR"ASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd . /�DEflIGAT10N OF, PARUI I T - _ \ OPFf1 SPI�LE EA�HBTf ?SQ Ev5 BI61C1F#TO RLHAN i I ! '� �3. -�•. \ to -r WES IWO t: 11,408 SQ FT PAD 3115 45TIN6) i 1 r I f j( ♦' J — I f _ •, , � \ ��_- PARCA 3 , I j . >r. • ` 9)q6 50 FT I i \ PAD 7 0! TRCCS — — � O - {i ri i \ •_ f/ ' \'I DIRT ' TRCCS.: om- PAPZf 4 [Plc m K` fl ♦'';�) PAD317D- 5TIN5); :_ n IR[ i I DENSE TRCCS\ -I'--- -. - DIRT ILI #1 -APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PITS 11 40 70 w PROJECT NAME BRENDAN BUILDERS INC. PROJECT ADDRESS 1608-1612 LAKE DRIVE, ENCINITAS, CA JOB NUMBER - ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHMCAL.CML.STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 002446-1 _ 610 W.Loa V260CWS BW--SL"A•Sole Marcos.CA 92069 phone:(760)752-7010 pax:(760)752.7092 3 `LWamWile\Fcrms,l FRM1002"6 FARBER RESIDENCE-LOCA OF PITS.wpd c . W o W F i F= O W a O CL I V` W Z -i EE CL 2 I z CO I � Z W U) U U y D Cl) _N m m — a r 0 0 0 J O � F gg W�HaW ZF jT q N , N L O N m p y C cr II O j�W w Ey NQ a° s H p a °' �' a w Z C7 �o� E Z 00 W?w ? �' 0 QC�9 y co W n s Z f' m x Z y� ii LU OZ LU W 0 C F a m C9F=-w ? E c c Opw m �o E:v .3 a a 3 M m O W— J w 6 m O� U �O w - co N zN w p �-o ccnN U) I - _ Z CL , � a N F- w W a 0 0 o J W D f9 [0 Z a Cl 0 Z N a W v� _� Z W M N Z r y °o= p nW w w a Z Z Z ,J N m -- --Ul o UUM W W -1 y = 01)-,A LU a 005 a IL IL Lij cl C,4 w w O w CL O a 0 w z a w z 0 z w ccnn Cl? U 3: C/) D U 91 E O a X cm W O m 7.• W O V - < _ O gWm1 uf1 8 U<> Z a � L SS��Vn �YWr r- LL 3 c m H H 1 m L C O O y U) C n m ti w a y u Q w E _� 21 0 ft a m >, Q W j O p� c _rn Z J� wZw m O �0 i Wyk co w - OZ mWZ ai m F- O ° H C , w�a m c9 �w v E 0 o , Opw E a 3 6i , o a IL -1 3L° w y O ,mac ; z � n ]m C Oa w - w O �_ Q C Cl) C Oti ._... W - z N a' 0 F-O CON cn ` Z a 1 Ir Y co Of C CO ~ w a o ° o _J w D M Z O Q o ° P Z U N H m'O y p Z W - W � .:i w � _ � � O w a i0 EL U) z J 2 a w U) z 0 z w U � U) co U CO D CO << WXWQ O W Z ¢ g a w LL > tQtQ4y� QQx1�1yyoQ�QQ muo�gq6 °� • W C7 ��1�0�¢�UC mU��U �W C O of 'D C m U) O @ O c W c >, E ? If — >. 111 Q LU i �a cm W= Q W w Z 00 m02 ) m QCD 2 w wyN E w OZ m W Z N C _ O C LU 3 C7>j E o e - OQ c JOW E E a c 0 a 3 w >► Q O m w jm` z 00 U w 0 m- Q U) C/) aU*� zN - z 00 . �� O z a � N Q O J_ W C) m Z z 0 O Q C) h- Q O N W ca= Z r : moo N o Z W W W O Q_ 0 d m CL QO w N W Z Z Z J LU U U M O y J = 005 1' m m CY Q r� w F= O w a O CL m C) w _Z J CL LLJ W Q Z co Z w I C-) � Cl) D m Iro v a � BW _ c N m - >. c 0 N C L m p� N N � _m pj C O O m = cr E w c E m uQ W N d N Q W j O Q m 00 Z —�M C ; WF-w � - Z ~O CD CO E _2 w F-Z >-X Z o o mW0 '0 E w�~ E r OQW o c o w N C d :. a —' wY Q LLoo Zc ]m E Oa to w w O c i Q co aN - Lo w L IL Q O CV U F- Z a m � Cd w w Q o p O _J W m z z 0 Q O � D 0 N Q w to=p Z .min vi CV w _ w Q O W — N W CL .ZZZ O _J 0: F- F-w O O U OUM J h = �Ix O ~ a Q IL c.w p C7 i i i f _ 1 APPENDIX -A- i J REFERENCES 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault- Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. 2. Green sfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern San Diego Metropolitan j Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. 4. Engineering Design Group, Unpublished In-House Data. i 5. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199. 6. State of California, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California: California Division Mines and Geology, Geologic Data, Map No. 6. 7. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 2, Dated 1977. 8. - Kennedy, Michael P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: CDMG Bulletin 200, 56 p. i - APPENDIX -B- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONc 1.0 Generallntent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work-in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,- are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. c } - 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled - 3.1 CICaring and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant,should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. i 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to._a minimum depth of-6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory i - - should be'overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated_ by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a` licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. try t' s 3.6-- Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be'a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent r material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent* material as, evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 1 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, + removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior too placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills- unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be-such that nesting,of oversize.material does not-occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. -3- 1 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements.of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specked degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of-grading,-the-relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken - _ at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each i 10 feet of vertical height of slope. - 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, ._may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains_should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time- shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated_ by a representative of the geotechnical consultant(as necessary)during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of. cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be �_--- commended_ _ 8.0 QuantiV Determination - For purposes_ of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed--land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. - -5- .! , , MfN1MUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING ` & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT i I h MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER !i INSTALLED ER MANUFACONRES (HLM 5000 OR EOUIV) x TOP OF RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATIONS dc PROTECTED WITH BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90% �o RELATIVE COMPACTION • 2% PER REFERENCE /1 z I —• —� i — PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT END MIRADRAIN (top) 67-1 — / -PER OSHA STANDARDS OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPI AREA DRAIN PLAN, OR PER APPROVED RETAINING WALL ;. SYSTEM SHORING PLAN MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE G i FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES + ' SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC I (MIRAFI 140N OR °`i '�iJlnc:• WATERPROOFING HLM 5000 I APPROVED EQUIVALENT) '± — , I OR EQUIVALENT - 11_ 12' MIN. LAP d +II ' 3/4" 1 1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL I—Ii=i 1 I I-111-111=1 I I 4X4" (45d) CONCRETE CANT O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION I l I-1 — 11—I I I-1 I I-1 ! I _ I— c _ UNDER WATER PROOFING) 4- (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EO.) ' WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MIN. 2% " ` �.<% ! GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OR BEDROCK COMPACTED FILL WALL FOOTING < < % % OUTLET. END MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL I' CONSULTANT 1 PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DETAIL/FIGUI PROJECT NAME DESIGN GROUP NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS 810 WEST LOS VALLECITOS BLVD. DRAWN BY: SUITE "A" SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 SCALE: (760) 752-7010 FAX (760) 752-7092 DATE H No surcharge loads within ;his area for level backfill design. c Filter Material, 1" nux. crushed a9gregate, 4 cu. ft. per 4" dia. x � +1 drain or 1 cu. ft. per ft. of open E head joints. 4" dia. drain with 1/4" galy. wire mesh screen 8'- 0" on canters, or one row T horizontally of open head joints. i Line of undisturbed natural soil—. - - TYPICAL SECTION Mortar or cast-in-play concrete 9" 12" block wall Finished ground line 5 1/4-1 r block wall I•ar s x Vertical reinf. Vertical reinf. Grout filled block cells Top of footing x , .Horizontal reinf. thru "� •' bond beam block - 2" x 4" (nominal) key CAP DETAIL KEY DETAIL NOTES: 1. All masonry retaining walls shall be constructed with cap, key and drainage details as shown hereon. 1 4" diameter drain may be formed-by placing a block on it's side. THE ENGINEERING DEEM QF=P RETAINING WALL DETAIL NQ err fN NGU U Not r ; � I DESIGN CONDITIONS: INSPECTIONS: Walls are to be used for the lading conditions shown for Call for inspections as follows: each type wall. Deign H shall not be exceeded. Footing key is required except as shown otherwise or when A. When the footing has been formed, with the steel tied found unnecessary by the Engineer. securely in final position, and is ready for the concrete Special footing design is required where foundation material to be placed. is uncapable of,supporting toe pressure listed in table. DESIGN DATA: B. Where cleanout hole are not provided: (1) After the blocks have been laid up to a height of Reinforced Concrete: 4', or full height for walls up to 5', with steel in place but before the grout is poured, and . . . . . Fc = 1200 psi F'c = 3000 psi Fs 20,000 psi n a 10 (2) After the first lift is properly grouted, the blocks Reinforced Masonry teel ti upper securely in place but before the u he pp F'm = 600 psi Fm = 200 psi lift is grouted. Fs = 20,000 psi n = 50 Where cleanout hole are provided: Earth = 120 pcf and Equivalent Fluid Pressure 36 psf per foot of height Walls shown for 1%:1 unlimited After the blocks have been laid up to the top of sloping surcharge are designed in accordance with the wall, with the iteel tied securely in place, but Rankline's formula for unlimited sloping surcharge with before grouting. a 33 42: C. After grouting is complete and after rock or rubble wall REINFORCEMENT: drains are in place but before earth backfill is placed. Intermediate grade, hard grade, or rail steel deformation shall D. Final inspection when all work has been completed. conform to ASTM A615, A616, A617. Bars shall lap 40 diameters, where spliced, unless otherwise shown on the plans. CONCRETE GROUT AND MORTAR MIXES: Bends shall conform to the Manual.of Standard Practice, A.C.I. Backing for hooks is four diameters. All bar embedments are Concrete grout shall attain a minimum compressive strength of clear distances to outside of bar. Spacing for parallel bars is 2,000 psi in 28 days and mortar shall attain 1,800 psi in 28 days, center to center of bars. All cells shall be filled with grout Rod or vibrate grout within 10 minutes of pouring to insure consolidation. Bring MASONRY: grout to a point 2" from the top of masonry units when I All reinforced masonry retaining wells shall be constructed of grouting of second lift is to be continued at another time. { regular or light weight standard units conforming to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction." MORTAR KEY: JOINTS: To insure proper bonding between the footing and the first course of block, a mortar key shall be formed by embedding Vertical control joints shall be placed at 32 foot intervals a flat 2 X 4 flush with and at the top of the freshly poured memmam:—Joints shall be designed to resist shear and footing The 2 X 4 should be removed after the concrete has other lateral forces while permitting longiwdol movement started to harden (approximately 1 hour). 1 Vertical expansion joints :hall be placed at 96 foot inter- A mortar key may be omitted if the first course of block is vale maximurrL set into the fresh concrete when the footing is poured,-and a CONCRETE: good bond is obtained_ Footing concrete shall be 560—C-3250, using B aggregate WALL DRAINS: when placing conditions.permit _ _ Wall drains shall be provided in accordance with Standard BACKFILL: Drawing C-8. No backfill material shall be placed against masonry retaining walls until grout has reached design strength or until grout has cured for a minimum of 28 days. Compaction of backfill material by jetting or ponding with water will not be permitted. SOIL: Each layer of backfill shall be moistened as directed by the Engineer and thoroughly tamped, rolled or otherwise compacted All footings shall extend at least 12 inches into undisturbed until the relative compaction is not less than 9096, natural soil or approved compacted fill. Soil should be dampened ] FENCING: prior to placing concrete in footings Safety fencing shall be installed at the top of the wall as required by the agency. THE OMMMING DMW GROW ' RETAINING WALL DETAIL "o sr s++ rrouer No: Edge of Footing _ I N N .. layout line i i PLAN j 1 1/2 : 1 sloping backfill or 1 112 : 1 sloping backfill or 250 psf. live load surcharge 250 psf. live load surcharge mortar cap mortar 5'-4" H= 3'-8" mortar ap 2"- y 1 4 total 2 14 total 2 x x I I EY fir' x A bars °o o0 • . e>o I I m O8 bars ' 1 4 total 2 = 2- 14 total s E o t�6 bars �— Key Z 14 total 5 1 ' � 12"x 12" key I 14 @ 12" Key/ °° W12 1,- Q.. C,-.-. Horizontal reinf. not shown _ _ TYPICAL SECTION W T - 8" max. . TYPICAL SECTION ELEVATION- - -- �- over 3' - 8" DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCING STEEL H (max) 5'-4" 3'-B" - -- T (min) 0'- 10" NOTES W(min) 5'.Cr' 3'.9" 1. See Standard Drawings C•7 and C-8 for A bars 14 @ 16" additional notes and details. B bars 1 6 @ 16" I 14 @ 16" 2. Fill all block cells with grout. max. toe pr"L (pd) 700 550 THE ENGINEERMlG DESIGN GROUP RETAINING WALL DETAIL ,�, BY:W HGLME W02 SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FINISHED SLOPE FACE / / � FINISHED CUT PAD PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY _-_____=______ �� ✓iai�- ��= �� i OVERBURDEN OR _ - -Fad ► iA►- !/ UNSUITABLE PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH =, = AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE MATERIAL -___??-' F =-_ __- RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT ---- - ?_= BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. .2$ MIN.- 2* Is MIN. OMPETENT BEDROCK OR MIN. LOWEST MATERIAL AS EVALUATED DEPTH BENCH BY THE GEOTECHNICAL (KEY) CONSULTANT NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based on exposed subsurface conditions 1 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS ` EXISTING - GROUND SURFACE =C _-=-------------- STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL i 1 1 ------------ ---- -- I- OUTLET PIPES = I►I_ 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY. ___ KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS ' FILL SLOPE --- -==i PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE _ --- -FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING ____ ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE _=- _- ' -_-_ K&S ENGINEERING f Planning Engineering Surveying �l i EI�CITY Of nENC RZ ASKS HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS FOR PARCELS 2, 3 & 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 18579 LAKE DRIVE IN CITY OF ENCINUAS PROF JN 02-094 J:tv 0 October 23, 2002. 101.3 i a 2- HOSSEIN ZOMORRODI R.C.E. 43235 DATE 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 • San Diego,California 92108 (619)296-5565 Fax(619)296-5564 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS 3. HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS .......................... APPENDIX A 4. TABLES AND CHARTS ....................................... APPENDIX B 5. HYDROLOGY MAPS ............................................ APPENDIX C 1. INTRODUCTION A.THE EXISTING CONDITION THE EXISTING SITE CONSISTS OF 3 VACANT LOTS. CURRENTLY THE SITE DRAINS TO THE WEST TOWARDS AN EXISTING BLUFF. B.PROPOSED CONDITION THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE SINGLE- RESIDENCES. STORM RUNOFF WILL BE COLLECTED USING PRIVATE INLETS AND CONVEYED TO LAKE DRIVE USING PRIVATE STORM DRAIN PIPES AND SUMP PUMPS. 2. HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS A. DFSIGNMF.TNC)D.S THE RATIONAL METHOD IS USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY; THE RATIONAL FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS: Q=CIA,WHERE : Q=PEAK DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET/SECOND C=RUNOFF COEFFICIENT(DIMENSIONLESS) I=RAINFALL INTENSITY IN INCHES/HOUR A=TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA IN ACRES *1 ACRE INCHES/HOUR= 1.008 CUBIC FEET/SEC THE OVERLAND FLOW FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS: Tc=1.8(1.1-C)*(L).5/(S*100).333 L=OVERLAND TRAVEL DISTANCE IN FEET S=SLOPE IN FT/FT Tc=TIME OF CONCENTRATION IN MINUTES B. DESIGN CRITERIA -FREQUENCY, 100 YEAR STORM. -LAND USE PER SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP. - RAIN FALL INTENSITY PER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1993 HYDROLOGY DESIGN MANUAL. C. RRFFRRNC'F,.S -COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1993,HYDROLOGY MANUAL. -COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1992 REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING. -HAND BOOK OF HYDRAULICS BY BRATER&KING,SIXTH EDITION. 3. HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX A PROPOSED CONDITION J.N.02-094 San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 10/23/02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ K&S Engineering,San Diego,California-S/N 868 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 English(in-lb)input data Units used English(in)rainfall data used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches)= 2.500 24 hour precipitation(inches)= 4.000 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation(inches)= 2.500 P6/P24= 62.5% San Diego hydrology manual'C'values used Runoff coefficients by rational method Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 ****INITIAL AREA EVALUATION**** Decimal fraction soil group A=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D= 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type ] Initial subarea flow distance = 140.000(Ft.) Highest elevation= 105.200(Ft.) Lowest elevation= 99.300(Ft.) Elevation difference= 5.900(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method(Fig.3-5)= 7.25 min. TC=[1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)^.5)/(%slope^(1/3)] TC=[1.8*(1.1-0.5500)*( 140.000^.5)/(4.214^(1/3)]= 7.25 Rainfall intensity(I)= 5.182(In/Hr)fora 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area(Q=KCIA)is C=0.550 Subarea runoff= 0.627(CFS) Total initial stream area= 0.220(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 ****INITIAL AREA EVALUATION**** Decimal fraction soil group A=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D= 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type ] Initial subarea flow distance = 123.000(Ft.) Highest elevation= 104.700(Ft.) Lowest elevation= 100.400(Ft.) Elevation difference= 4.300(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method(Fig.3-5)= 7.23 min. TC=[1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)^.5)/(%slope^(1/3)] 7 23 TC=[1.8*(1.1-0.5500)*(123.000^.5)/(3.496^(1/3)]= Rainfall intensity(I)= 5.190(In/Hr)for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff'coefficient used for area(Q=KCIA)is C=0.550 Subarea runoff= 0.514(CFS) Total initial stream area= 0.180(Ac.) +++++++++++ +++++.+++++++++++++ +++{ Process from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 6.000 ****INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil group A=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C=0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D= 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type ] Initial subarea flow distance = I00.000(Ft.) Highest elevation= 104.260(Ft.) Lowest elevation= 100.100(Ft.) Elevation difference= 4.160(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method(Fig.3-5)= 6.16 min. TC=[1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)^.5)/(%slope^(1/3)] TC=[1.8*(1.1-0.5500)*(100.000^.5)/(4.160^(1/3)]= 6.16 Rainfall intensity(I)= 5.760(In/Hr)fora 100.0 year storm Effective runoff'coefficient used for area(Q=KCIA)is C=0.550 Subarea runoff= 0.665(CFS) Total initial stream area= 0.210(Ac.) End of computations,total study area= 0.610(Ac.) 4. TABLES AND CHARTS APPENDIX B J -CD til- If-: CDCW% L&A La C6 CZ Lev cn ACV*., Lr3lp r ` sue' Q �l —4 OU 0 0 oo." cz o" cm Lj C-4 z CN Ce C14 U-A C) C114 m CD cm C%I) -6 z 04 yi CD C3 a U M Z od Z2 cz A 0 W 34 C> 0 0 L. o V 0 N - LLA LA L 00 Z C^ LL. J cl► 0 Cl M w Cj U3< 0 - U0 6 C> kii Q z z 0 C� I cl. Q d W 6 rte. I r i. e7 O q loseem LAj below US. .rcq 1 G -o FA U-i C2 O J o o< C / w ,^ , 0 0 < U it, (�, » i i w I t7 'i W < z � z 0 zu u C o So ' O ►-. d R < u NOS p .3 GV0 M F.. M H ou r. O W O < .,<� U M z Ol C) W -J V G U. N `u w N Average Values of Roughness Coefficient (Manning's n) Roughness Type of Waterway Coefficient (n) 1. Closed Conduits (1) Steel (not lined) 0.015 0.015 Cast Iron .021 Aluminum 0.024 Corrugated Metal (not lined) 0.021 Corrugated Metal (2) (smooth asphalt quarterlining) 0.018 Corrugated Metal (2) (smooth asphalt half lining) 0.012 Corrugated Metal (smooth asphalt full lining) 0.012 Concrete RCP 0.013 Clay (sewer) 0.011 Asbestos Cement 0.015 Drain Tile (terra cotta) 0.015 Cast-in-place Pipe 0.014 Reinforced Concrete Box 2. Open Channels (1) a. Unlined 0.023 Clay Loam u 0.020 Sand b. Revetted 0.030 Gravel 0.040 Rock 0.025 Pipe and Wire 0.025 Sacked Concrete c. Lined 0.014 Concrete (poured) 0.016 Air Blown Mortar (3) 0.018 Asphaltic Concrete or Bituminous Plant Mix d. Vegetated (5) .035 Grass lined, maintained .045 Grass and Weeds .032 Grass lined with concrete low flow channel 3. Pavement and Gutters (1) 0.015 Concrete 0.016 Bituminous (plant-mixed) APPENDIX XV? RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) A ' AR �n�fficiln Soil Group p Residential: Single Family .40 .45 .50. .55 Multi-Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile Homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Commercial '' 80% Impervious .70 .75 .80 .85 Industrial I') .80 .85 .90 .95 90% Impervious NOTES: Soil Group maps are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. (2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 8096 or 90°k by the no case shall they final coefficient be lessathan 0 50. imperviousness. However, in For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C x6.85 = 0.53 80 IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX — Y • . . • �av��®acs®s�m�I�ri.■�i�6'��v�s� F Mellon ACES use ®® Am� AMEN �iile�lE:a==►.Emas: ��a .._.6. . .... CCU . r, 'AEON EAd ffil No Ono Lo Us llllllP�JPpffFffAFAjFA Y�MrA Nor IS rA FA 0211111111 1 11 01111 ■■■ ■■mr.%tlt/.■--fit/■ X1111111111.111.■■■■■ or ra rra�rrr�rr>a-wr._�_��r_��_r•�ra��w r•.�...............ir.��r.r. rar•rar_r�-�w._.r.w��w��rawr_r_.ter_-..............r.r.ra�r.r. wr.r_r_��r_r.��,��•��r.��r.r.r_rr.ra--..■...........r.r.r.��r• AO! AMMMM wMOMEMr ar ar arw��..........w...�r.�rarar• MOM MOM NOWN NOUN NOW A F AN AW WOOF A WOMM'AN SNOW AMEN MMOMF AMONOWN r An "m*s;"U;;"mono=; rararar_r.M • rara.�--.■■■■■■■■.....�rarara�� ===raMFA....AW.WAMMFAM r,�r.��,r.rarar_.�■r r,■.■■.■■■■.....�r.�rarara rar•�� . . rar a�r_ra�-■■...■■.■.....ra��r.r. rara�ra A.o"_AM ANWAMra .r�•_�r�r�r.ra. .ra��.■■■.■■.■.....r.rar.ra�ra M%IIIIIII-.�ASWI MM1111a,11111on..■■■■■■■..� ■/I/I/I/I/I WAN MEWI /�■■■■■■ 11111111/1■��■■■■■■ WALFA MWAA ""'i■�/�■■■■■■ 11111111111111■■■■■■ FAWAAFIII■I_/UFI■■■_�i�_■■■■■_■ 1111111111■111■■■■■■ I/%%%II//�I/Wi■%��■■■■�11111111111111��■■■ //%%�%��■■■■■■�11111111111111��■■■ M AFAW AWA WA/�I■NWi��■■■■■■�11111111111111��■■■ RAWrAWWA■ M WA��■■■■MM�11111111111111gll■■■ rAFAW.MMFAE/ ■►��■■■■■■�11111111111111��■■■ /Ar//I—■r.■W' ��■■■■■■�11111111111111��■■■ 500 70 " 0 o a h O ^y N 400 60 W LL z w 300 50 U O w W 1 ,o z v 200 40 Z W 4� W a G � � G� o LL 100 4�. 30 g Gy06� O 1 Gyp1� 0 20 y Sq C=og 10 0 EXAMPLE: Given: Watercourse Distance(D)=250 Feet Slope(a)=0.5% 1.8(1.1-C)VD Runoff Coefficient(C)=0.70 T r 3VS— Overland Flow Time(T)=14.3 Minutes SOURCE:Airport Drainage,Federal Aviation Administration,1965 F I G U R E � Rational Formula-Overland Time of Flow Nomograph 3-5 HaZMWCOWIty Hydmgefty MenusVoverrand Flow.FHe Ernst F. Brater and Horace Williams King HANDBOOK OF a e MMM I 0 0 MM -ZEE Table 7-14. Values of ls' for Circular Channels in the Formula Q = - dKis' { D - depth of water d diaaurter of channel D .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 d -- ,0 .00007!.00031 .00074;.00138,.00222. .00328 .00455 .00604'.0077' .1 .009f►7 .0118 .0142 .0167 .01515 .0225 0257 .02401 .0327 .0366 . .2 .04(06 .0448 :044 2 .0537 .0585 .0634 .0686 .0738 .0793 .0849 .3 :0907 .09f►6 .1027 .1089 .1153 .1218 .1284 .1352 .1420 .1490 .4 .1561 .1633 .1705 .1779 .185.1 .1929 .2005 .2082 ,2160 .2238 .5 .232 .239 .247 .255 .263 .271 .279 .287 .295 .303 .6 .311 .319 .327 .335 .343 .350 .358 .366 .373 .380 .? .388 :395 .40'l .40'.1 .416 .422 .429 .435 .441 .447 .8 :45 .458 .463 1.468 .473 .477 .481 .485 .488 .491 .9 .494 .496 .497 .498 .498 .498 .496-- .494 .489 .483 1.0 .463 5. HYDROLOGY MAP APPENDIX C � o Nraou�ow,, �i s V 0'zo1 IS ov N aj :a► aoaa ro O sel � n ♦ \ g 1GS'i � 1 o w i ` ❑ � R � wa xWA3os-i /sk — si v g� g -,—k----° ♦ � ye ns3ai�vaauan -i ••somal"` - war i I � o a o • ;z Lij CIC Y lowo o Q• 11-2 ON vw 14 swim Matt Imo n N P (] s o 8 r � o o .� w 3eie 3 m 3re. xIM30 19 mom_ ` I .�•rc Cpl COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS February 17, 2000 Dave Hodges Belly Up Tavern 14.3 South Cedros Solana Beach, CA 92075 Subject: GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Tentative Parcel Map, 5 Proposed Lots 1608-1612 Lake Drive Cardiff, California Dear Mr. Hodges: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated October 6, 1999, we have performed a geologic reconnaissance study along the inland bluffs on or adjacent to the subject property. The results of our study, as weil as our conclusions and recommendations regarding bluff stability is enclosed. From an engineering geologic viewpoint, the proposed land division is feasible provided the recommendations in this report are implemented. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622. This opportunity- o be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTECHNI LU a' M Mark Buwell, C.E.r Engineering Geologiyy 779 ACADEMY DRIVE. SOLANA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 r Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geologic reconnaissance on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the geologic conditions along the rear inland bluff and their influence on the proposed land division. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located north of Birmingham Drive, along the west side of Lake Drive, in the Cardiff district, city of Encinitas. The property includes three (3) residential structures situated on approximately 1.03 acres of relatively level terrain fronting on Lake Drive. The western portion of the property is bounded by a slope which descends at a gradient varying from 1 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) to near vertical. Vertical height along the rear slope ranges from 16 feet to 31 feet. An off-site driveway runs along the base of the slope for the length of the property. The rear slope is partially located on the subject property and partially on the adjacent property to the east. Rock outcroppings are present along the most northern extent and southern portion of the slope. Most of the central portion of the slope is covered by dense brush. It is our understanding that the rear slope has been classified by the city of Encinitas as an inland bluff. Therefore, the term bluff as used in this report refers to the rear _. slope as described above. Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Plans for the proposed development were prepared by Resource Development, Corporation. The project includes dividing the property into four (4) separate residential lots. The existing homes on proposed Parcels 1 and 4 will remain. The residence that spans proposed Parcels 2 and 3 will be demolished. No grading is proposed. BLUFF GEOMETRY The west-facing bluff extends approximately 346 lateral feet along the rear of the subject property. The top of the bluff reflects gentle undulations up to 30 feet but is generally oriented north to northwest. Near vertical cuts were made to the slope adjacent to the southern portion of the property for the off-site driveway construction. A review of topographic data from 1960 suggests that the rear slope is part of the eastern flank of a northwest-trending canyon. Topographic data also suggests that a - west-trending ravine is located in the western portion of proposed Parcel 2 which has subsequently been filled. The approximate limits of the west-trending ravine is shown on the enclosed Tentative Parcel/Geologic Map. Geometric configuration and general y subsurface condition of the bluff are depicted on the enclosed Cross Sections. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 5 Diego county. As exposed along portions of the rear bluff, the site is underlain at shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. At depth, the Pleistocene sands are underlain by Eocene-age Torrey sandstone. A brief description of the earth materials observed or inferred on the site is discussed below. Artificial Fill Based on a review of various topographic data, the west-trending ravine on the - property was filled sometime between 1960 and 1976. The approximate limits of the fill is shown on the enclosed Tentative Parcel Map and Cross Section AW. Based on topographic data, the wedge-shaped fill mass extends to a maximum depth of about 17 feet. The fill is covered by dense brush along the slope face, however, based on limited exposures suggests the fill is composed of silty and fine-grained sand. No evidence of grading plans or geotechnical reports associated with fill placement were available. It is suspected that the ravine was filled without city permits or civil/geotechnical services. Terrace Deposits The reddish brown to grey fine and medium-grained sandstone with occasional cobble beds exposed along portions of the bluff correlates with the Pleistocene-age Linda Vista Formation. The terrace deposits are moderately-well cemented and resistant to erosion. However, the sedimentary unit displays some prominent fractures (joints) Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 6 which in one case will lead to rock fall along a small portion of the bluff. Prominent joint system orientations are plotted on the enclosed Geologic Map and depicted on the enclosed Cross Sections, where applicable. Bedding within the sedimentary unit - is indistinct and the terrace deposits are generally considered flat-lying. Torrey Sandstone Underlying the cap of Pleistocene terrace deposits, well-indurated arkosic sandstone of the Eocene-age Torrey sandstone is present. The contact between the two formations is generally along the 295 to 300 foot elevation. However, a distinct contact is not recognizable along limited outcrops on the bluff. The hematite iron staining of the Linda Vista "red" may extend downward into the Torrey Sandstone masking the contact. Regionally, the Torrey Sandstone strikes northeastward and dips gently to the northwest at four (4) to five (5) degrees. Expansive Soils The sedimentary rocks and residual soil exposed on the site reflect a potential expansion in the very low range. Ground Water No evidence of seeps or perched water conditions were observed along the bluff face. However, it should be noted that seepage or perched water conditions can develop. Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 7 These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. TM Slope Stability _ The geologic orientation of terrace deposits and underlying Torrey sandstone is favorable in regards to deep-seated stability. The terrace deposits are well-cemented and generally resistant to erosion allowing stable near vertical bluff conditions. However, fractures that parallel the bluff face eventually widen and result in rock fall (episodic bluff retreat). The rock fall type of failure is a naturally occurring feature of inland bluffs where steep terrain and fracturing occurs (see enclosed Cross Section B-B'). - As previously indicated, no civil or geotechnical documentation associated with the fill deposits placed on the west-trending ravine were provided. However, no evidence of significant lateral movement or fill consolidation was observed in the area of fill deposits. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 8 Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. Several steeply dipping short fault segment have been mapped in the regional area of the site. These northeast trending faults are exposed in the Eocene-age rocks of the Santiago Formation but not in the overlying Pleistocene terrace deposits and are presumably inactive. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.3 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward-Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Earthquake Fault Analysis. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 9 Owing to the moderately dense nature of the terrace deposits and Torrey sandstone, _ and the anticipated depth to ground water, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Slope Stability The inland bluff is stable in regards to deep-seated stability and has performed well even with evidence of foot traffic and drainage, to some degree, flowing over the slope face. The only area of eminent failure is along the outcropping located in the northern portion of the bluff. The overhanging rock segment from the open joint system depicted in Cross Section B-B' is subject to rock fall. However, the amount of bluff retreat illustrated is limited and does not endanger any residential structure. Of course, any person sitting under this portion of the bluff when failure occurs would be subject to injury or death. As previously indicated, no evidence of significant instability was observed in the area of the apparent "undocumented" fill. However, the fill area should be classified as a non-structural area. Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 10 exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy, should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.43g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.28g. - Drainage Bluff stability can be adversely affected by drainage flowing over the face of the slope, over irrigation along the top of the bluff and by foot traffic on or near the bluff face. Drainage as much as possible should not be allowed to flow over the bluff face. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. Residential Construction A geotechnical investigation for individual lot development should be conducted. The study should be based on individual plans. However, the rear foundations along any residence planned on Parcel 2 should consider the proximity of the undocumented filled ravine. Deepened footings or revised foundation design may be necessary, in this regard. Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 11 LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. _ The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. Enclosures: Cross Section A-A'-A" Cross Section B-B' and C-C' Topographic Map Earthquake Fault Analysis Regional Fault Map Tentative Parcel Map/Geologic Map (Rear Pocket) Coast Geotechnical February 17, 2000 W.O. R-308109 Page 12 REFERENCES 1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, _ Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. _ 2. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 3. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1"=750,000'. 2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5'Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02. 3. Resource Development Corporation, Tentative Parcel Map - 1608-1612 Lake Drive, Cardiff, Scale 1"=20'. 4. San Diego County Topographic/Orthophoto Survey, 1960, 1976, Map No. 314- _ 1683, Scale 1"=200'. _ 5. Siang S. Tan and Desmond G. Giffen, 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, DMG Open File Report 95-04, 8 Plates, Map Scale 1:24,000. ENCLOSURES i a z x U F o O d wa a ► U i i .. I F iNoujas m aN3g H I Z Q maig 30 dOI H 1 ol � 11 � � O 1 a J 00 J � a C � U � N CROSS SECTION B-B' N.T.S. FRACTURE 2" WIDE / � (EMINENT FAILURE) TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) 9' �l i _ CROSS SECTION C-C' N.T.S. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) 12' i CONC. DRIVEWAY COAST GEOTECHNICAL P-308109 NS -CkRDIFF DR SITE 76 Rl DATE: Monday, February 21, 2000 ************************************* * E Q F A U L T * * * Ver. 2.20 - * * ************************************* (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: HODGES JOB NUMBER: P-308109 JOB NAME: P-308109 SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.0287 N LONGITUDE: 117.2672 W SEARCH RADIUS: 60 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell & Bozorgnia ( 1994) Horiz. - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+1-Sigma) : S SCOND: 0 - COMPUTE PEAR HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGSCE.DAT SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File) : A ----------------------------- - DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT MAX. PROBABLE EVEN'' APPROX. ------------------- ------------------- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAX. PEAK SITE MAX. PEAK SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) CRED. SITE INTENS PROB. SITE INTEN; MAG. ACC. g MM MAG. ACC. g MM _ ---------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 53 ( 85) 6.80 0.047 VI 6.20 0.028 V -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ SAN JACINTO-ANZA 51 ( 82) 7.20 0.072 VI 6.90 0.055 VI -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VA 53 ( 85) 6.90 0.052 VI 6.80 0.047 VI -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 53 ( 85) 6.80 0.048 VI 6.20 0.028 V -------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ELSINORE-JULIAN 28 ( 45) 7. 10 0. 147 VIII 6.40 0.084 VII ------------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ELSINORE-TEMECULA 28 ( 45) 6.80 0. 118 VII 6.30 0.076 VII ---------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 43 ( 69) 6.80 0.065 VI 6.30 0.042 VI ---------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsino 58 ( 93) 6.70 0.037 V 5.50 0.014 IV ---------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 41 ( 66) 6.50 0.052 VI 5.70 0.026 V ----------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ CORONADO BANK 18 ( 29) 7 .40 0.288 IX 6.30 0. 140 VIII ------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshor 13 ( 21) 6.90 0.299 IX 5.80 0. 143 VIII -------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ ROSE CANYON 3 ( 5) 6.90 0.753 XI 5.70 0.432 X _ ---------------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Bas 55 ( 89) 6.90 0.049 VI 5. 60 0.015 IV --_--- ------ ----- --_--- ------ PALOS VERDES 43 ( 69) 7. 10 0.084 VII 6.20 0.038 V ***************************************************************************** -END OF SEARCH- 14 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 3.3 MILES AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.753 g LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.432 g ry" LU u s' fit IM 4 o 19 Iry fly Ivs EL N Ile,4 Y j.• i-��- � i Li F �•JJ �- .i ' e d r �+ `,�.�•. ��,ate � �� / � .•��,_ �,-