Loading...
2004-9067 G/CN NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT <° City o� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering September 19, 2006 Attn: Merrill Lynch 701 B Street Suite 2400 San Diego, California 92101 RE: Russell Geyser 1271 Lake Drive APN 260-213-08 Grading Permit 9067-G Final release of security Permit 9067-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposited is merited. Assignment of Account 291-11089, in the original amount of$107,267.00, (reduced by 75% to $26,816.75),can hereby be released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Q Debra Geisha, ay L mbach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Russell Geyser Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper '= ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT C1tvor YICZYIZtI�S Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stonnwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 14, 2005 Attn: Merrill Lynch 701 B Street Suite 2400 San Diego, California 92101 RE: Russell Geyser 1271 Lake Drive APN 260-213-08 Grading Permit 9067-G Partial release of security Permit 9067-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposited is merited. Assignment of Account 291-11089, in the amount of$107,267.00, may be reduced by 75% to $26,816.75. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishart Ja}'/mba h Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Russell Geyser Debra Geishart File 1. _ ecycfea paper vv CHRISTIAN �VHEELEIZ E N G I N E L R I N G REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE 1271 LAKE DRIVE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: RUSSELL GEYSER POST OFFICE BOX 235169 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92023 PREPARED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9?60 * FAX 8`8-496-9758 r_ w CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E l k I N C Februan• 17,2004 i\fr. Russell Get•ser C\\E 2040058.01 Post Office Box 235169 Encinitas,California 92023 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE, 1271 LAKE DRIVE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Dear Mr. Geyser: In accordance with tour request and our proposal dated January 6,2004,u-e have completed a geotechnical investigation for the subject property. We are presenting heretritli our findings and recommendations. In general,.re found that the site is suitable for the proposed residence,provided the recommendations provided in the attached report are followed. The most adverse geotechnical condition to affect the proposed construction is the presence of loose surficial veils consisting of artificial fill and topsoil that"tzll need to be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Recommendations regarding this condition are provided in the body of the attached report. I f you have any questions after revic-,ving this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectful]\ submitted, 5� ChIRISTIAN \HELLER ENGINEERING Utio.1CY'-• � CE-r 1 iF1iD ace.- -- �,OFE4Sj� GEOLOrMST ++ ���4 H c/y N'9! Curtis R. Burdc t,CEG # 1(1 0 E>tP �o-oa Charles 11. Christian, RGE n 00_15;/Q ,��_ Ri Fy �q Q C1-IC:CRB:scc:t.m tz 2 Z cc: (6) Submitted c '.xp.a-30-05 =0 ,r ``-o"TcnZ �P CALIFOP� 4925 Mercury Street f San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description...............................................................................................................2 ProjectScope.........................................................................................................................................................3 Findings..................................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription................................................................................................................................................ General Geology and Subsurface Conditions.............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description......................................................................................................3 ArtificialFill..............................................................................................................................................3 Topsoil.......................................................................................................................................................3 TerraceDeposits......................................................................................................................................4 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................................4 TectonicSetting ............................................4 GeologicHazards.............................................................................................................................................5 Groundshaking.............................................................................................................................................5 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability 6 Liquefaction..................................................................................................................................................6 Flooding.........................................................................................................................................................6 Tsunamis.......................................................................................................................................................6 Seiches............................................................................................................................................................6 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................6 Recommendations................................................................................................................................................7 Gradingand Earthwork..................................................................................................................................7 General...........................................................................................................................................................7 Observation of Grading ..........................................7 Clearing nd Grubb' ......••••............................ 7 g g......................................................................................... SitePreparation............................................................................................................................................7 Processingof Fill Areas...............................................................................................................................8 Compaction and Method of Filling ................................................••••••8 SurfaceDrainage...........................................................................................................................................8 Foundations......................................................................................................................................................8 General...........................................................................................................................................................8 ConventionalFoundations..........................................................................................................................9 Bearin g Capacity ........................................9 Footing Reinforcing ................................9 LateralLoad Resistance................................................................................................................................9 SettlementCharacteristics...........................................................................................................................9 ExpansiveCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................10 FoundationPlan Review...........................................................................................................................10 Foundation Excavation Observation.......................................................................................................10 SeismicDesign Parameters.......................................................................................................................10 On-Grade Slabs...............................................................................................................................................11 General.........................................................................................................................................................1 l InteriorFloor Slab......................................................................................................................................11 InteriorFloor Slabs....................................................................................................................................11 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs...................................................................................................11 ExteriorConcrete Flatwork.......................................................................................................................11 Limitations...........................................................................................................................................................12 Review, Observation and Testing................................................................................................................12 CNVE 2040058.01 Proposed Geyser Residence 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas, California Uniformity of Conditions............... ......."'12 ........................................................................................... Changein Scope.............................................................................................................................................12 TimeLimitations............................................................................................................................................13 Professional Standard.................. ...................................................13 ............................................................... Client's Responsibility .......................................................................13 Field Explorations.......................... .....14 ................................................................................................... LaboratoryTesting.............................................................................................................................................14 ATTACHMENTS TABLES Table I Maximum Ground Accelerations,Page 5 Table II Seismic Design Parameters,Page 10 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan Plates 2-6 Trench Logs APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications CWE 2040058.01 Proposed Geyser Residence 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER L N G IN L L K I N G PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE 1271 LAKE DRIVE ENCINITAS.CALIFORNIA -- INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION -- This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for a proposed residence to be constructed at 1271 Lake Drive in the City of Encinitas,California. The following Figure Number 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the property. In general, the purpose of our investigation was to provide the necessary recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. The subject site is a rectangular parcel of land identified as Assessors Parcel Number 260-213-08.We understand that it is proposed to construct a new,relatively large, one- and two-story, single-family residence with an attached garage and other associated improvements at the rear(eastern portion) of the lot and a small one-story guardhouse at the front of the lot. The residential structures will be of wood-frame construction with on-grade concrete floor slabs and conventional shallow footings. Grading to accommodate the proposed improvements is expected to be limited to cuts and fills of only a few feet. To aid in the preparation of this report,we were provided with a ground floor layout for the proposed residence prepared by Kenneth Paul Backes,AIA.Architect. This site plan was used as the base map for our geotechnical map and is included herewith as Plate Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Russell Geyser and his design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified,the _. conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 SITE VICINITY MAP (Adapted from Thomas Brothers Maps) PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 1271 LAKE DRIVE ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA North EPD �1 167 P L] Ce J LU SI rn cy- LU w GRANGE Cr' im ,, p CD HALL RD TORREY . � DR DR l WINDSOR I CT `� � ©2004 Thomas Bros.Maps i CWE 2040058.01 February 2004 Figure 1 CYVE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 2 prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties,expressed or implied. PROJECT SCOPE Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance,subsurface exploration,obtaining representative soil samples,laboratory testing,analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination,recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structure,or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction; b) Evaluate,by laboratory tests,the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed development,including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential; c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the site development, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code; d) Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading; e) Provide recommendations for foundations and present design criteria for the foundations; f) Present our professional opinions in this report,which includes in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summary of the laboratory test results. It is not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired,we can submit samples of the prevailing soils to a chemical laboratory for analysis. Further,it should be understood Christian\'heeler Engineering CAT 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 3 does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary,we recommend that the owner retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is an undeveloped residential property located east of Lake Drive in the city of Encinitas,California. The lot has approximately 165 feet of frontage along Lake Drive and is approximately 660 feet deep, and covers an area of approximately 2.4 acres.The property is bordered by Lake Drive to the west, an agricultural parcel of land to the east and residential properties to the north and south.The site is currently vacant but once supported three large greenhouses and smaller associated buildings.The property is fenced with a chain-link fence.The lot slopes gently to the west with elevation differences from the front to back amounting to approximately 15 to 20 feet. Vegetation on-site consists of trees and light brush.According to our conversations with the owner of the adjacent property,we understand that a 24-inch water line runs west to east across the site. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION:The project site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits,overlain by natural topsoil and artificial fill.These materials are described individually below: ARTIFICIAL FILL(Qaf): Man-placed fill material was encountered in four of our five exploratory trenches.The fill had a thickness of approximately 1 foot to P/z feet. In general, the fill material consisted of light to medium reddish-brown, fine to medium-grained, silty sand and poorly graded sand (SM/SP),which was typically moist and very loose to loose in consistency.The fill material is expected to possess a"very low" Expansion Index and poor strength properties in its present state. The fill is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements,but may be used as structural fill. TOPSOIL:A layer of topsoil was encountered in one of our five exploratory trenches,T-2. The topsoil had a thickness of approximately 1 foot. This material consisted of medium brown, fine-to medium-grained,silty sand and poorly graded sand(SM/SP) that was generally moist CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 4 and loose to medium dense in consistency. Based on our experience With similar soil types,the existing topsoil is expected to have a"very low"Expansion Index and low strength parameters in its present condition.The topsoil is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements,but may be used as structural fill. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Quaternary-age terrace deposits were found to underlie the surficial soils in each of our exploratory trenches. The terrace deposits consisted of light to dark reddish-brown,silty sand (SNI) and clayey sand(SC),which were damp to moist and ranged from medium dense to very dense in consistency.Based on our experience with similar soil types,the existing terrace deposits are expected to have a"low"Expansion Index and relatively high strength properties with low settlement potential.The terrace deposits are considered suitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered in our subsurface explorations and we do not expect any groundwater related conditions during or after the proposed construction provided that proper drainage is maintained at the site. However,it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after construction and landscaping at a site even where none were present before construction.These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the anticipated construction and landscaping,it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. TECTONIC SETTING:It should be noted that much of Southern California,including the San Diego County area,is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual,en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as"active"according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch(the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term"potentially active"on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age(last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-age faults as "potentially active"except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be CDG E 2040058.01 February 17, 2004 Page No. 5 "potentially active"would be considered to be"active"but lack specific criteria used by die State Geologist,such as sufficiently active and well-defined. Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42,Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However,it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be"inactive". The nearest active fault zone is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone,located approximately 5.6 kilometers to the west. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone to the northwest;the Coronado Bank and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the southwest; the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast;and the Earthquake - Valley Fault Zone to the southeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GROUNDSHAKING: One of the more likely geologic hazards to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum ground accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following table. TABLE I MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS Fault Zone Distance Max.Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 5.6 km 6.9 magnitude 0.34 g Newport-Inglewood 20 km 6.9 magnitude 0.16 g Coronado Bank 29 km 7.4 magnitude 0.16 g Elsinore Qulian) 45 km 6.8 magnitude 0.10 g Earthquake Valley 68 km 6.5 magnitude 0.05 g San Jacinto (Anza) 81 km 7.2 magnitude 0.07 g It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements. It should be recognized that Southern California is an area that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considered economically feasible nor technologically practical to build structures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related CWE 2040058.01 February 17, 2004 Page No. 6 hazards. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code should minimize damage due to seismic events. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication,"Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area"by Tan, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 3-1. Area 3 is considered to be "generally susceptible"to slope movement;Subarea 3-1 classifications are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. Due to the competent nature of the underlaying Quaternary-age terrace deposits and the lack of any significant slopes, the potential for deep-seated landsliding is considered to be very low. LIQUEFACTION: The materials at the site are not anticipated to be subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density,grain-size distribution, and depth to ground water. FLOODING:The site is not located within either a 100-year or a 500-year flood zone according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Based upon the location of the site it xvill not be affected by tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,harbors,bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location,it is considered to have a negligible risk potential for seiches. CONCLUSIONS In general,our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the construction of the proposed single-family residence,provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. The existing fill and topsoil are considered unsuitable to support the proposed residence and associated improvements, and will need to be removed and replaced as structural fill. Based on the"low"expansive potential of the materials within the foundation zone,special consideration due to heaving soils will not be necessary. CWT 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 7 No geologic hazards,such as landsliding,faulting or liquefiable soils,of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge,the site is suitable from a geologic perspective for the proposed construction,provided the structure is designed in accordance with the requirements of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and the local governmental agencies. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GENERAL:All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code,the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas,and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading,a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines,if necessary,and to review the earthwork schedule. OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during any grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation,to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed,and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the removal of all construction debris and above grade and underground utilities from areas to receive settlement-sensitive improvements as well as any vegetation, trees,and other deleterious materials including all root balls from trees and all significant root material. The resulting organic materials and construction debris should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility. SITE PREPARATION:After clearing and grubbing,site preparation should consist of removing the existing surficial soils (fill and topsoil) and replacing them as structural fill.These materials should be removed to the contact with the underlaying competent terrace deposits.Based on our investigation, these materials have a thickness of approximately 1 foot to 11/2 feet,but may be thicker in localized areas.The removals should be extended horizontally at least 5 feet outside the perimeter of the proposed structures and 2 feet outside light exterior improvements such as slabs.T1-ie bottom of the excavations Ck E 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 8 should be approved by our project geologist,engineer or technician supervisor prior to placing fills or constructing improvements.The surficial soils are considered suitable for use as structural fill provided that they are properly blended and moisture conditioned. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out and approved to receive fill,the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture conditioned,and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. No other special ground preparation is anticipated at this time. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING:All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick,with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material,free of trash or debris,roots,vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum dimension. However,in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed. Utility trench backfill within five feet of proposed structures and beneath concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SURFACE DRAINAGE: Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the proposed structures and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas,a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed buildings should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the buildings without ponding. In general,we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of five percent within the first five feet from the structure. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgment, the proposed residence and guardhouse may be supported by conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. The following CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 9 recommendations are considered the minimum based on soil conditions and are not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: Spread footings for the proposed structures should have a minimum embedment depth of 12 and 18 inches below the finish pad grade for one and two story- portions,respectively. Continuous and isolated footings should have minimum widths of 15 and 24 inches,respectively. BEARING CAPACITY: Spread footings with the above minimum dimensions,may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural engineer. However,based on the expected soil conditions,use recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned approximately two inches below the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE:Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil,and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The --- passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used,the friction value should be reduced by one-third. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS:The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be less than about one inch and one-half inch,respectively, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 10 EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: Due to the generally"love'expansive potential of the existing on-site materials,special foundation design for heaving soils are not considered necessary. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW:The foundation plans should be submitted to tivs office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented,and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated construction. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION:All footing excavations should be observed by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level,and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on a maximum magnitude(Mmax) earthquake of 6.9 along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone,the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site would be approximately 0.34 g. For structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening,and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended(UBC Table 16-J). Based on the site's location at approximately 5.6 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault Zone(Type B Fault),Near Source Factors Na equal to 1.00 and N,.equal to 1.18 are also applicable. These values,along with other seismically related design parameters from the Uniform Building Code(UBC) 1997 edition,Volume II,Chapter 16,utilizing a Seismic Zone 4 are presented in tabular form below. TABLE II SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Design Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-j Soil Profile Type Sc 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56 N, 16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor N, 1.18 16-U Seismic Source Type B C\NTE 2040058.01 February 17, 2004 Page No. 11 ON-GRADE SLABS GENERAL:It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed residence and guardhouse will consist of concrete slabs-on-grade. We anticipate that the concrete slabs-on-grade will be supported by low expansive,properly compacted fill. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. All slabs should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS:The minimum slab thickness should be four inches(actual) and the slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. The slab reinforcement should extend into the perimeter footings at least six inches. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the industry standard that interior on-grade concrete slabs be underlain by a moisture retarder. We suggest that the subslab moisture retarder consist of at least a two-inch-thick blanket of one-quarter- inch pea gravel or coarse,clean sand overlain by a layer of 10-mil visqueen. The visqueen should be overlain by a two-inch-thick layer of coarse,clean sand. The clean sand should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieves. Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on-grade slab. This may be an excess amount of moisture for some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary,the concrete mix can be designed to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards through the floor slab. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. When patio,sidewalk and porch slabs abut perimeter foundations,they should be doweled into the footings. CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 12 LIMITATIONS REVIEW,OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify,compliance with the design concepts,specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 13 TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can,however, occur with the passage of time,whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes,the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore,this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services,we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our test pits,surveys,and explorations are made,and that our data,interpretations,and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,interpretations,and recommendations,but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever,express or implied,is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us,or by our proposal for consulting or other services,or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of the client,or their representatives,to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 14 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Five subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on January 22,2004.This exploration consisted trenches excavated using a Case 580L backhoe.The fieldwork was conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made.The trench logs are presented on the following Plate Numbers 2 through 6.The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition,a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose,medium dense,dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff,stiff,very stiff, or hard.Disturbed and"relatively undisturbed" samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and transported to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTMi) test methods or suggested procedures.A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the trench logs. c) COMPACTION TEST:The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557,Method A. The result of this test is presented on the following page below. CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 15 Sample Number: Trench T-4 @ 2.5'-5' Sample Description: Reddish-brown,clayey sand(SC) Maximum Density: 126.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 9.6 d) DIRECT SHEAR TEST:A direct shear test was performed on a representative sample of the fill to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. The samples were saturated and tested at different vertical loads. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The result of this test is presented below. Sample Number: Trench T-4 @ 2.5'-5' Sample Type: Remold to 90% Angle of Internal Friction: 32° Cohesion: 250 psf e) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION:The grain size distributions were determined from representative soil samples in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of this test is presented below. Sample Number: Trench T-2 @ 2.5'-5' Sieve Size Percent Passing ,/2» 100 3/8» 100 #4 100 #8 98 #16 96 #30 88 #50 51 #100 29 #200 21 CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Page No. 16 f) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: An Expansion Index test on a remolded sample was performed on a representative sample of the soil present at finish grade. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the#4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 + 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimen was then compacted in a 4- inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch,and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom,a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 pso,and the samples were allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The sample was saturated,and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported below as the total vertical displacement times 1000. Sample Number: Trench T-4 @ 2.5'-5' Initial Moisture: 7.5 Initial Dry Density: 121.7 pcf Final Moisture Content: 14.1 Expansion Index: 10(Very Low) LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-1 Date Excavated: 1/22/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: Case 580 L Backhoe Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES C7 W Z `. O a '2 H SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W N z w � Artificial Fill(Qaf):Reddish-brown,moist,very loose to loose, 1 SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP),fine to medium- rained. 2 Terrace Deposits (Qt l:Reddish-brown,moist,medium dense to dense, CK 5.5 110 SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP),fine to CK 3 medium-grained. At 2 feet becomes very dense and very well cemented. 4 Practical refusal at 2'/2 feet. 5 G 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE S 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: February 2004 1_ N c i N E t_ ii i N G SOB NO. : 2040058 PLATE NO.: 2 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-2 Date Excavated: 1/22/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: Case 580 L Backhoe Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: Drive Weight: N/A SAIM PLES a o U 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Z Q aa, Z O ' g H r,. Topsoil:Medium brown,moist,loose to medium dense,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND SM-SP . Terrace Deposits (Qt):Light reddish-brown,moist,medium dense, CK 5.3 106.6 2 SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP). Moderately weathered from 1-2 feet.At 2 feet becomes dense. CK 3 - - - - ------------------------------------------------ -- - -- - Medium reddish-brown and gray,moist,medium dense to dense, �f 20.6 104.5 CK 4 = = ----CLAYEY SAND (SC)•----------------------•--------------------------------- ----- ------ ------ -•----- ------ Medium to dark reddish-brown,moist,dense,SILTY SAND-POORLY 5 GRADED SAND (SM-SP). Moderatelv cemented from 4 to 5'/z feet. 6 Test trench terminated at 5'/2 feet. 7 _.. 8 9 10 PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE - ' 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: February 2004 E N c. i N E E 1k i N c JOB NO. : 2040058 PLATE NO.: 3 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-3 Date Excavated: 1/22/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: Case 580 L Backhoe Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: Drive Weight: N/A SAI`1PLES c) O O w SUbIMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W h H z " � C W o ] SO EW- Q W O Artificial Fill(oaf): Light reddish-brown,damp to moist,very loose to 1 loose,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP), fine to medium- rained. CK 3.9 102.7 .... Terrace Deposits (Qtl: Light reddish-brown,moist,medium 2 - ------ ......:::. dense,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP), fine to 4 83 121 - ',medium-grained,slightly weathered. 3 -•--- - -- -- - - - - cx Medium to dark reddish-brown,moist,dense to very dense,CLAYEY SAND (SC).Moderately to well cemented at 3'/2 feet. 4 Practical refusal at 4 feet. 6 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas, California CHRISIIAN WI-IEELER BY: HF DATE: February 2004 F N G i N V F iz i N G JOB NO.: 2040058 PLATE NO.: 4 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-4 Date Excavated: 1/22/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: Case 580 L Backhoe Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES w Ln O v � � W a: _4 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W z Artificial Fill(Qafl:Light reddish-brown,damp to moist,very loose to 1 loose,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP),fine to medium- rained. CK 1.8 120.1 2 Terrace Deposits (Qt):Light reddish brown,damp to moist,medium dense,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP), fine to C.K. ------ ------ ------- ------ 3 medium-grained.Slightly to moderately weathered from 1-2 feet. At 2 feet becomes medium dense to dense. MD -------------------------- ----------------------- •----- 4 Medium to dark reddish-brown,damp to moist,dense,CLAYEY CK G.G 123.5 SA SAND (SC),fine to medium-grained. DS El 5 Ex p ansion Index= 10 'e Low -•--------------- ------------------------------------------ Medium to dark reddish-brown,damp to moist,dense to very dense, SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP),slightly cemented. G Test trench terminated at G feet. 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE 'i 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: February 2004 N c I N e e K i N c JOB NO.: 2040058 IPLATE NO.: 5 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-5 Date Excavated: 1/22/2004 Logged by: TSW Equipment: Case 580 L Backhoe Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: Drive Weight: N/A SAMPLES O w O U SUMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W z M W c � O H Z >1 Q CIO Q Artificial Fill(Oaf):Light reddish-brown,damp to moist,very loose to 1 loose,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SM-SP). Terrace Deposits (Qt):Light to medium reddish-brown,damp to CK 2.8 114.7 2 moist,medium dense,SILTY SAND-POORLY GRADED SAND (SNI-SP), fine to medium-grained,slightly to moderately weathered. -------------- At 2 feet becomes medium dense to dense. ` 3 •----------------------------------------- - .' Dark reddish-brown and gray,moist,dense,CLAYEY SAND (SC). CK 4 From 4 to 5 feet becomes dense to very dense,moderately to well cemented. - 5 Practical refusal at 4'/z feet. 7 8 9 10 PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE ,, , 1271 Lake Drive,Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: February 2004 E. N G I N e L ii i N c JOB NO. : 2040058 PLATE NO.: 6 CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Appendix A,Page A-1 REFERENCES Anderson,J.G.;Rockwell,R.K. and Agnew,D.C., 1989,Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region,Earthquake pectra,Volume 5,No. 2, 1989. Blake,T.F.,2000,EQFAULT,A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from3-D Fault Sources,Version 3.0,Thomas F.Blake Computer Services and Software, Thousand Oaks,California. Boore,David M,Joyner,William B.,and Fumal,Thomas E., 1997,"Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration,Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra",in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68,Number 1,J anuary/February 1997. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998,Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source-Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996,Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe, 7.5'Quadrangles;DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Jennings,CW., 1975, Fault Map of California,California Division of Mines and Geology,Map No. 1,Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, Michael P., Tan, Sean Siang, Chapman, Rodger H., and Chase, Gordon W., 1975, Character And Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 123. Kern,P., 1989,Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County,Pickle Press,73 pp. Tan,S.S., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area,San Diego County,California,California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04. Wesnousky,S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes,Quaternary Faults,and Seismic Hazards in California",in Journal of Geophysical Research,Volume 91,No. B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986. CWE 2040058.01 February 17, 2004 Appendix B- 1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED GEYSER RESIDENCE 1271 LAKE DRIVE ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing,compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled,and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules,changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If,in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil,unacceptable moisture content,inadequate compaction, adverse weather,etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: CWE 2040058.01 February 17, 2004 Appendix B- 2 Maximum Density&Optimum Moisture Content-ASTM D-1557-91 Density of Soil In-Place-ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed,and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content,compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width,whichever is greater,and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Anv abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes,but is not limited to,septic tanks, fuel tanks,sewer lines or leach lines,storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 CNVE 2040058.01 February 17, 2004 Appendix B- 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils,soils of poor gradation,or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material,but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks,no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report,when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the w• Geotechnical Engineers discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. CWE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Appendix B-4 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained,at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage,lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding,joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or C%VE 2040058.01 February 17,2004 Appendix B- 5 the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, -- filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION:The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground,compacted fill,and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot j subgrade, the upper twelve inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM)Laboratory Test D4829-95. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over six inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS:\"ere transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report,special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. r DIE CE E JUL 2 I L ! + HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS For GEYSER RESIDENCE APN: CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Mr. Russell Geyser 1271 Lake Drive Encinitas, CA 92024 PE 1229 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 QRpFESS, 9 (858)259-8212 h�4�c�PyNE A. pgs��Ey� DATE: 6/22/04 W No. 29577 T REVISED: 7/13/04 cc EV.3/31107 a CNII. Q, OF CALK' ,w AA--q 2- WAYNE A. P SCO, RCE 29577 DATE \\Server\job files\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 10:45 AM 7/13/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION...............................................................................A CONCLUSION..............................................................................B PRE-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.......................0 POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .....................D POST-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAY RUNOFF CALCULTIONS........................................................ .....................E GRASS LINED TREATMENT SWALE BMP SIZE CALCULATION...........F APPENDIX.................................................................................G Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve Runoff Coefficients Hydrology Map \\ServerWOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post-developed condition of the Lake Drive development site. The subject property is physically located at 1271 Lake Drive, Encinitas California. The property is geographically located at N 33°2'20" W 117 015'15". Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists mostly of agriculture use. There are existing greenhouses that cover most of the property which are used for growing flowers. The existing site gradually slopes from the easterly property line to the westerly property line. The average slope is 5.5%. All existing drainage from the site is conveyed to Lake Drive. Each greenhouse catchs most of the precipitation on-site and conveys it via open channels to the existing curb and gutter in Lake Drive. Some off-site runoff from the westerly neighbors backyard comes on site and is conveyed to Lake Drive. The existing runoff to Lake Drive is 8.87 cfs. Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the construction of a single family residence. The residence will be served by a 16 foot wide asphalt paved driveway. The access to the residence, via the driveway, is from Lake Drive. All proposed runoff from the development will outlet into the existing curb and gutter on Lake Drive as it does today. The proposed runoff is 5.40 cfs. The decrease in runoff is a result of removing the existing greenhouses. The developed area will allow for more impervious areas for runoff to infiltrate into the ground. The proposed impervious asphalt paved driveway will create 1.84 cfs of runoff. This runoff will be treated before it is released off-site. A proposed grass lined treatment Swale bmp along the edge of the driveway will catch and treat driveway runoff. The ditch can handle up to 10.8 cfs before it overflows. Any overflow from the treatment Swale will continue sheet flow conditions on-site then enter the curb and gutter in Lake Drive. \\ServerWOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 Methodology and Results The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Qloo is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post-development runoff coefficients, used to analyze the both conditions, were obtained from Table 3-1 of the June 2003 revision of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qioo to the appropriate points of discharge. \\Server\JOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 C. PRE-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS \\ServerWOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 s►s►ssssssss»►»s►►»sss»ssss:::sssss:»ss►s*:::::►sssss►s»►s»sssss»s►»sss►sss» RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference:SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c)Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software(aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering Inc. 535 N.Hwy 101,Suite A Solana Beach,Ca 92075 858-259-8212 sssss»►»ss»s*ss»»s:»»s»»ss DESCRIPTION OF STUDY►s»s*s*»»»sss►sss»ssss►»»» •PRE-DEVELOPMENT • 100 YEAR STORM RUNOFF CALCULATIONS s sss»s►ss*sssss**ss»sss»ss*ss*s»*»*ss»»»*»»s*»»»»»»*ss►»*s►s»s»:sssss»ssss► FILE NAME: 1229.13AT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:26 06/22/2004 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR)=100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION(INCHES)= 2.750 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH)= 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE=0.85 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE:ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1.Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as(Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)-(Top-of-Curb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint= 6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* ss»ss»sss»»»s*s»s»ssssss»»»s»»ss»s»s►s»»»s»»►»»*s»*►»»sss»►s»»»»»►»»»sss»*»s FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE= 21 \\ServerWOB FILESWydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 --------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.4600 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 180.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 386.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 382.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 4.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 11.388 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSTTY(INCH/HOUR)= 4.261 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.98 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.98 s*sss*ss**sssss**ssssss*ssssssssssssssassssssssssss*ssssssssssss*ssssss*ssss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE= 51 »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIIvIE THRU SUBAREA(EXISTING ELEMENT)<«« -- ELEVATION DATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)= 382.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 344.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET)= 640.00 CHANNEL SLOPE= 0.0594 CHANNEL BASE(FEET)= 0.00 "Z"FACTOR= 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR=0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)= 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL M TENSTTY(INCH/HOUR)= 3.993 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.7900 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 4.91 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCTTY(FEET/SEC.)= 8.86 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET)= 0.53 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 1.20 Tc(MIN.)= 12.59 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 2.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 7.89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 3.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 8.87 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.65 FLOW VELOCTTY(FEET/SEC.)= 10.64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.00= 820.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TC(MIN.)= 12.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.87 - ------------ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS \\ServerWOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 D. POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS \\ServerUOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference:SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c)Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software(aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering Inc. 535 N.Hwy 101,Suite A Solana Beach,Ca 92075 858-259-8212 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY *POST-DEVELOPMENT i * 100 YEAR STORM RUNOFF CALCULATIONS ' # FILE NAME: 1229.DAT TIlvIE/DATE OF STUDY: 14:28 06/2212004 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR)=100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION(INCHES)= 2.750 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH)= 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE=0.85 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE:ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1.Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as(Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)-(Top-of-Curb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint= 6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE= 21 \\Server'JOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 ----------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.4600 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 180.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 386.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 382.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 4.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 11.388 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 4.261 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.98 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.98 sssssssss*ssssssssss*ssssssassssssssssssssssssss*sssassssssssssssss*ssssssss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE= 51 »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA(E)USTING ELEMEN'T)««< ELEVATION DATA:UPSTREAM(FEET)= 382.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 344.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET)= 740.00 CHANNEL SLOPE= 0.0514 CHANNEL BASE(FEET)= 0.00 "Z"FACTOR= 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR=0.020 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)= 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSTTY(INCH/HOUR)= 3.842 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.4600 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 3.19 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 6.22 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET)= 0.51 TRAVEL TlIvIE(MIN.)= 1.98 TgWIN.)= 13.37 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)= 2.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 4.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 3.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)= 5.40 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.62 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 7.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.00= 920.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TC(MIN.)= 13.37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.40 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS \\ServerWOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 E. POST DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAY RUNOFF CALCULATION \\Server\JOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 wsi#ss##*iwsiis*iw»#iss#sswssswss#ssssss#wssis*iiswiwssisssissi#sawssiwsssss RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference:SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c)Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software(aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering Inc. 535 N.Hwy 101,Suite A Solana Beach,Ca 92075 858-259-8212 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY si#s»#i#sis»*##»s»sssiiws* •POST-DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS DRIVEWAY RUNOFF • 100 YEAR RUNOFF CALCULTION ' # * iwii#w*##w*#ww#*iww#iw*iiw#*#i*##wiiiw**www*#iw*s#w*»www**#w*#iw*iiiwi#ww* FILE NAME: 1229DWY.DAT T ME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:40 06/22/2004 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR)=100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION(INCHES)= 2.750 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH)= 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE=0.85 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE:ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1.Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as(Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)-(Top-of-Curb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint= 6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE= 21 \\ServerlJOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 ----------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.9000 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 750.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 374.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 342.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 32.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(NIINUTES)= 6.079 *CAUTION:SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. *CAUTION:SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 6.388 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 1.84 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.32 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 1.84 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.32 TC(MIN.)= 6.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.84 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS \\ServerWOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 F. GRASS LINED TREATMENT SWALE BMP SIZE CALCULATION \\ServeNOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE#1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 GRASS LINED TREATMENT SWALE BMP S=3% Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1229.fm2 Worksheet GRASS LINED TREATMENT BMP SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Salve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 3.0000 % Depth 1.00 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Results Discharge 10.03 cfs Flow Area 2.00 ftz Wetted Perimeter 4.47 ft Top Width 4.00 ft Critical Depth 1.09 ft Critical Slope 0.018610 ft/ft Velocity 5.02 ft/s Velocity Head 0.39 ft Specific Energy 1.39 ft Froude Number 1.25 Flow is supercritical. 06/22/04 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02:48:01 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 GRASS LINED TREATMENT BMP SWALE S=3% Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestadlacademiclfmw11229.fm2 Worksheet GRASS LINED TREATMENT BMP SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 3.0000 % Depth 1.00 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 10.03 cfs 1.00 ft 1 VD H 1 NTS 06/22/04 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02:48:25 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 80TH PERCENTILE DESIGN FLOW CALCULTION Q=CIA Where, Q=Stormwater runoff design flow C=runoff coefficient for DCIA, conservatively assumed as 0.95 I=80 t`percentile storm flow criteria, 0.16 inches per hour for San Diego County A=DCIA(acres) = 0.32ac Q=(0.95)*(0.16 in/hr)*(0.32ac) Q=0.05cfs GRASS CHANNEL SCOUR CALCULATION v=0.32 ft/s (See Next Page) <1.0 ft/s checks okay for scour TREATMENT DESIGN FLOW CALCULATION Q,,,.,,=10.03 cfs (See section F) LENGTH OF TREATMENT SWALE L=vt Where, L=Length of swale v--velocity t--time(9 minute treatment time) L=(0.32ft/s)(9min.)(60s/min.) L=173.0 ft minimum Length of swale shown on plans is approximately 380ft > 173.0 ft (Checks Good) \\ServeNob files\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 10:31 AM 7/13/2004 TREATMENT SWALE- 80TH PERCENTILE FLOW Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1229.fm2 Worksheet TREATMENT SWALE-80TH PERCENTILE FLOW Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.200 Channel Slope 3.0000 % Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 0.05 cfs Results Depth 3.3 in Flow Area 0.16 ftz Wetted Perimeter 1.25 ft Top Width 1.12 ft Critical Depth 0.13 ft Critical Slope 1.676815 ft/ft Velocity 0.32 ft/s Velocity Head 0.16e-2 ft Specific Energy 0.28 ft Froude Number 0.15 Flow is subcritical. 07/13/04 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 10:29:30 AM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 TREATMENT SWALE - 80TH PERCENTILE FLOW Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1229.fm2 Worksheet TREATMENT SWALE-80TH PERCENTILE FLOW Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.200 Channel Slope 3.0000 % Depth 3.3 in Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 0.05 cfs 3.3 in 1 VD H 1 NTS 07/13/04 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 10:29:42 AM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 HYDROLOGY STUDY for GEYSER RESIDENCES PE 1229 G. APPENDIX \\Server\JOB FILES\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1229 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1229 3:52 PM 6/22/2004 co t[� M � 0 o M M � 1334 OGUOIE W I J W r / u i m v tYl _ UJ U. U o� I4 y - // m tr U T �I s.j i C Li m ro U� P � c •- i i a m —_ = ccl tn O\ N t` O en ON ON N In %n r- u en et et r to h �O %0 t- t- n 00 00 00 DD y w•C. en t.N 0 .. O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 00 �p •� emu,, 0. d u � 1040. h U en en et st '4t h +n "O %q tF t- 00 G C C C Co O C C O O C G C O C N V a c CL C u • d m V F ~' to a o cy w to ^ •U %n C4 00 in v oo r •o v �t en 3 • m N M N7 q1t st h V1 V1 %° t" rl� 00 00 o0 00 C .� • U O G C O G C O O O C Cl G e C O C u orn W u w •a C ��]]]' Q o t` m 00 " to %o %o %0 o en en t- 0 07 N N e1 en d• q1t N h %lO t- t- 00 00 00 00 V .� O O O O G O O O C C O O •C O O •b u S1 v � W ° a * o o v, o o v, o kn o o v, o o %A � go �.ry �" O •- N N M � � 'n �D o0 00 _m O� O� o. •�.. 4:. U ° a W Vy N N N +yam+ Vf l •u 0 0 0 0 `° 0 0 0 0 ' U = Q a a a a a a a < _ o s 6�+r.� W � a � a ��. A A A A G � •1O m � a c e°i o o A A o v v M �Vp " �y •'•' a� is is id at �. as at at ,C O O C C � •-• C C G C C C C C C G V a •• r• N 3. 'C b 'C 'O •C •o b •� � 'v ° � .a1 U 43 V ^Y 0 0 a � ; u o �' C go 0 o. ,� _ 0 '° as • pa v U •u m G v v t7 •3 •N 2 u CD w v ayi u ae as at ie is �� b d b 5 5 5 ac �a/i �a/i emu/ �' •tt �'' t�' a C w ° rj �• W W W N w 0 rA s \ � � Gf+ gC� u C ice+' L��' 5 es es � C 3 m R. aO A u u u u u > a p b co ul W a-- N •U rC IOnO � 40- * . C O r �iZ ii H Qt b �I s'• YC t L C)S Z7 Io CJ o7 r O C f. C?fir-- N+>t .- is I--• Os O 160 i C. C V� C. •C C d 43 Z I .c. C)4- C•r CJ to r L •�•• u C G a O�! N Q f>-I �d V N C v 41 a) C. L CJ Ff C) r0^ v 0 -- 4•) C L7 L C7 CD V t E •r 1 C7r4J • rLS C C O O �O Q• }i N 4j L O O C7 •N r O r0= C CD 41 N 4j 4J 4J 4) rC L r: 4J 4-3 r• m •r-= b a to J 1 d C t 4J - C L •r •r C.4-J 4-21 41 C _ • C u C3 N •�• r C r U V O O LCD C CJ r 4- G r C O C .- 41 V L S V u L t CC) C. C;3 N CJ C. O G 4-J CI O It . M 4� Cl N Io" C C1 C aI 4J S- � O N H .. O O fJ E C.r- C •r L� L t r r C7 4.3 Lt. ,O 4- t0. 2 E v O tp .0 L t V �- r V � >< CJ 'O 4.i N C. • .- C 4•r r et N MD C) f0 w r'- O O N C >:. d b C N N C! �C 41 r•- -v- d p 7 It O E t N 3•r 41 G ++ +� 3 4- N .� p C1 0-4- =^O .G 4 Cu J •� to � d 4J �� V ti..N F•- Q C iJ ++ 4••� d O D C t--4� Cu �CL C D r N crf rn Q O .-- N c� S 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) O N O NOI n O •to O LO O N tp Vntn 1w qd•m M 'N N r r Z ��—' �..T C -��-� •`— - •�_ - _� �_+--��_� to >4 •r4 of .LM CO !ill Ii N I C %D •r4 c. O Cd qr 4-b It It a cis en L �• _: :i i i• --tee i T ! I _I t• I I : ' t 1 1 •I 11 I � 1- !I i' tl I i I . � - , — - - I I I f-1 i 11• I I �!II ::I I : I 1 I l � APPE14DIX XI IV-A-14 % .nom.. %1-��v�l�i� ��i!•n�•�i�T 0 cz CD cz co Z5 cn scum Lai Lr% z Cc 4 !an " C-1 's CD CD 61 It CN C,4 r% C-4 z -C o ca ► I- < 19 A Lmi V f1- vii oz Ljr\ ;7- < C=D C11-i 0 C) 0 0 EO uo t CG < Z ca LL- —i O CD M W < 0 LL- CD Lil C) < < z 0 < CD 4n =D CL. C:) C) LLJ —i I z u kl it. — pt Lis Q ` ° /I�� .,•� . \�� W / `� ca cm CN dL- co W oe tf t CD wow.~ Inc L� V•7 L�. 1; ��:• •:J i •p �t C7 = L^ �„ eC•- cm 1 ^ o W. CD b to d V } U a ° o O < ' D N V cn J t11 V '• O W O N O i y U o < < �'- C: .�- M L a Z ¢ O M_ O_ CL t• W O W O-j Z j U Cl U- M V u II-n-13 ?HL ORIGINAL OF THI DOCUMENT Recording Requested By: ) WAS RECORDED ON SEP 07 2004 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2004-0849938 �:-FtEGORY U UMITH COUNTY RECORDER City Engineer SA;V U tl GO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE When Recorded Mail to: ) TIME 401 PM City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas CA 92024 ) SPA PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 260-213-08 ProjectNo.: 04-058 CDP W.O.No.: 9067-G THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain private storm water treatment facilities, the legal description and/or plat of which is set forth in Exhibit"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof, is entered into by Zina Geyser and Russell Geyser (hereinafter referred to as "Developer") for the benefit of future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities (hereinafter referred to as "owners"), which shall include the Developer to the extent the Developer retains any ownership interest in any land covered by this agreement. WHEREAS, this Agreement is required as a condition of approval by the City of Encinitas of Grading Permit 9067-G; and WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit"A"that will use and enjoy the benefit of said storm water treatment facilities(s) (Said real property is hereinafter referred to as the"property"); and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm water treatment system be maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer to establish a method for the periodic maintenance and repair of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and WHEREAS, there exists a benefit to the public the private storm water facilities be adequately maintained on a regular and periodic basis; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the land, binding upon each successive owner of all or any portion of the property. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive owners of all or any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private storm water treatment facilities shall be paid by the owner of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such owner. 3. In the event any of the herein described parcels of land are subdivided further, the owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created parcel shall be liable under this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of expenses shall be computed to reflect such newly created parcels. 4. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following: reasonable and improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private storm water treatment facilities to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and maintaining drainage structures, removing debris, if any, and other work reasonably necessary and proper-to repair and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes. 5. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation imposed as a condition of the development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities as herein set forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 6. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water treatment facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment facilities to the condition existing prior to said damage. 7. Any liability of the owners for personal injury to an agent hereunder, or to any worker employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the owners for damage to the property of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne, by the owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance. Owners shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. By this Agreement, the Developer does not intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury or property damage other than that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement. 8. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless City, City's engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs, including costs of defense and attorney's fees, to the agent hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor, any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising out of or in any way related to the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the private storm water treatment facilities. Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's approval of the plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a review, inspection acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, City's engineer and its consultants, and each of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility or liability therefore. 11. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all or any portion of the property referred to herein. 12. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners. 13. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to the end and intent that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent purchaser of all or any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to 2 institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 8 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. 14. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners and consent of the City. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 16. If the Property constitutes a "Common Interest Development" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an "Association" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(a), anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the following provisions shall apply at and during such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a "Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), and (ii) the Common Area of the property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and controlled by an Association: (a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the"agent" as referred to in Paragraph 7 above. The Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, shall receive no compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair shall be assessed against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property pursuant to the Declaration. The assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. (b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in favor of the Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the Agreement in its entirety. No individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common Area (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Property except as may be allowed by the Declaration. (c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which reduces or limits the Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement This T11. day of I= 2004. Developer: 7 y I Zini Geyser KAREN al s ieCom 13c 5WDWV cow Russell Geyser wcomm. Signature of DEVELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement. 3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT r f r, �? State of California . Ss. County of p Q " T a� cJ Q� 6 ah •On before me, Date Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane D e,Notary Public" z personally appeared Z�na �e�1 AAA! kw- &ej' I Name(s)of Signer(s) ❑personally known to me improved to me on the basis of satisfactory �(? evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and 2I� iU1REN SOARS Commission acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed # 1393064 the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their .,� Notary Pubfic-Cam signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or S Son Diego County the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) Comm. xplies Jan 10,200T my omm. acted, executed the instrument ( , WITNESS my hand and official seal. Si ature of Notary Public 511 OPTIONAL ugh 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. fi Descripti of Attached Document Title or Type of Docum Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: I i Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer 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: ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•—..nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property APN 260-213-08 1271 Lake Drive The South half of the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San Bernadino Meridian, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, Sate of California. 4 Q Ln r- CD .O W CU 59'£91 3„tZ,tZ.00N E �Q1 — — — — El-- a W "4 U LIJ CU Z O_ I zm}a w w0)=m cn u W cn L.Ln-i I c~n-io I 1 AU-¢ (D Q ate¢ a �Qo w U) I cn I '4'� UZI ¢vim QZW Om4ltq w I� �t~OC20 WZLL � Q `O zo zvOiun C) IL W2IL O oW �► O`ngO�o Q►-¢ .c Q � N 1 �Oz c=n3a I I ��W Z—Q w Iz cU 0��2 CC z 3 nzz�- W � zl I cc 0 co W I I I ti cc a I I 1 o ,961'91 3„10,CI.00N ania►a a�d-r Geopacifical Inc. Me -se N law To: Ms. Stephanie Kellar, Engineering Department, City of Encinitas From: Ernie Artim, Geotechnical Consultant Date: August 10,2004 Re: Review of Geyser Residence, 1271 Lake Drive,APN 260-213-08, GP 9067G In response to your request I have reviewed the following documents: 1. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Geyser Residence, 1271 Lake Drive Encinitas, California; by Christian Wheeler Engineering, dated February 17, 2004, CWE 2040058.01. 2. Grading Plan for 1271 Lake Drive, APN 260-213-08; by Pasco Engineering Inc., 3 sheets, undated/unsigned. 3. Hydrology Calculations for Geyser Residence; by Pasco Engineering, dated 6/22/04 revised 7/13/04. The purpose of my review was to determine if the submitted documents provide adequate soil/geologic data/information to meet the current geotechnical standard of practice within, and the requirements of, the City of Encinitas. The comments that follow have been directed by Mr. James Knowlton RCE/CEG. Based on our review, the subject report (document 1) provides data/information to meet the requirements of the City of Encinitas and its approved.quate soil/geologic 1