The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-9005 GBARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023 -0348 (760) 753 -9940 January 2, 2002 101 Investors, LLC 1796 Laurel Road Oceanside, California 92054 Att: Mr. Lance Campbell Subject: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 3- single family residences 175 La Costa Avenue Leucadia, California 92024 A.P.N. 216 - 052 -03 Dear Mr. Campbell, In response to your request, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the subject property for the proposed 3- single family residences. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. From a geotechnical point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed project, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phase. If you have any questions, please contact us at (760) 753 -9940. Respectfully submitted, A.R. BARRY AND ASSO oQa° �rO _0�R3 R. g��F / � e' A.R. Barry, P.E G00119 w m Principal Engi a ExD• 3131102 0TECHN\r1 9�OFCAL\F PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 3- Single Family Residences 175 La Costa Avenue Leucadia, California 92024 A.P.N. 216 - 052 -03 Prepared For 101 Investors, LLC 1796 Laurel Road Oceanside, California 92054 January 2, 2002 W.O. P -1695 Prepared By: A.R. BARRY AND ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023 -0348 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................. ..............................2 SITE CONDITIONS ............... ..............................2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......... ..............................2 SITE INVESTIGATION ............ ..............................3 LABORATORY TESTING ............ ..............................3 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ....... ..............................3 A. SOIL CLASSIFICATION . ..............................3 B. EXPANSIVE SOILS ..... ..............................4 C. SEISMIC ............. ..............................4 D. LIQUEFACTION ........ ..............................5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................5 A. GENERAL ............. ..............................5 B. GRADING ............. ..............................5 C. FOUNDATION .......... ..............................6 D. SLABS ON GRADE ...... ..............................7 E. RETAINING WALLS ..... ..............................7 F. DRAINAGE ............ ..............................8 G. FOOTING INSPECTIONS . ..............................8 H. PLAN REVIEW ......... ..............................8 LIMITATIONS ................... ..............................8 APPENDIX A ....................REFERENCES .................... LOG OF TEST TRENCH .................... LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .................... VICINITY MAP .................... TEST TRENCH LOCATION PLAN .................... FIGURE 1 .................... FIGURE 2 APPENDIX B ....................GRADING SPECIFICATIONS January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 2 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property and their influence on the proposed 3 single family residences. SITE CONDITIONS The trapezoid shaped lot is located on the south side of La Costa Avenue, the third lot east of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Vulcan Avenue, in Leucadia, California. (See Vicinity Map, Appendix A.) The approximate 1.4 acre lot has an average depth of 348.5' and a width of 1291. The northerly 30% of the property slope gently downward to the north west at an average rate of approximately 5% with and the remainder less than 5 %. One existing single family residence is located on the east side of the property 60'from the northerly property line. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The property is in the process of a 3 lot minor subdivision. Plans for the proposed residences have not yet been developed. It is our understanding that the existing residence may be demolished and replaced with a new residence. January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 3 SITE INVESTIGATION Three backhoe excavated exploratory trench were advanced to a maximum depth of 7 feet on December 7, 2001. See test trench location plan, Appendix A. Earth materials in the excavations were visually classified and logged by our field engineer. Bulk soil samples were obtained and transported to the laboratory for testing. Exploratory trenches were confined to the northerly portions of the lot due to the inaccessibility of the backhoe in the existing greenhouse covering the southerly portion of the lot. LABORATORY TESTING Testing included verification of soil type, maximum dry density, and optimum moisture content. See Soil Classification and laboratory test results, Appendix A. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Soil As shown on our test pit logs TT -1 thru TT -3 contains brown to tan fine to medium grained silty sand, dry to damp, loose, moderately dense, and dense at the bottom of the excavations. Soil Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The classification is SM (silty sand). January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 4 Expansive Soils Detrimentally expansive soils were not encountered in our exploratory trenches, and are not expected to be encountered during excavation and construction. The potential for expansion is in the very low range. Seismic The review of available geologic maps including Maps of Known Active Faults Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada published by ICBO (1998) indicate that the nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5.5 kilometers south west of the subject site. The Rose Canyon Fault is a class B fault capable of generating a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. The following seismic factors are in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Parameter Table S of b Factor Seismic Zone Factor 16 -I Z 0.4 Soil Profile Type 16 -J - SD Seismic Coefficient 16 -Q Ca 0.44Na Seismic Coefficient 16 -R Cv 0.64Nv Near Source Factor 16 -S Na 1.0 Near Source Factor 16 -T Nv 1.18 Seismic Source Type _ B Maximum Moment Magnitude .......... 6.9 January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 5 Slip Rate, SR .....................1.5 mm /yr. Liquefaction In accordance with reference #4 (Planning Scenario For A Major Earthquake, San Diego- Tijuana Metropolitan Area, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology) the site is not located in an area of seismically induced liquefaction. The soils on the site are not considered subject to seismically induced liquefaction based on such factors as soil density, soil type, and lack of groundwater. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The on site soils are suitable for the proposed project and for the support of the proposed residences, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction. Grading General Grading will consist of the removal and recompaction of approximately 2' to 3' of loose soil. Roots will have to be removed during excavation. The final depth of the excavation will be determined during grading phase of the project by a member of this firm. Soil will have to be removed, watered, and re- compacted to 90% of the maximum density. See Grading Specifications, Appendix B January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 6 Foundation Continuous footings should be a minimum of 12" and 15" wide and a minimum of 12" and 18" below finish grade for one and two story structures respectively. Footings founded a minimum of 12" and 18" below grade may be designed for a bearing value of 1000 psf and 1500 psf for one and two story structures respectively. The bearing value indicated above is for the total of dead and applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 should be used with dead -load forces. A passive earth pressure of 350 pounds per square foot, per foot. of depth of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds should be used in the design. Minimum steel reinforcement should consist of 4 - #4 bars, 2 placed 3" from the bottom of the footing and 2 placed 2" below the top of the footings, or as required by the structural engineer. Slabs on grade Slab on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars, placed 18 inches on January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 7 center. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 4 -inch sand blanket which incorporates a minimum 6.0 -mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier in its center, for moisture sensitive floors. Utility trenches underlying the slab should be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit, then backfilled with the on -site granular materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However, sufficiently compacting the backfill deposits may damage or break shallow utility lines. Therefore, minor settlement of the backf ill in the trenches is anticipated in these shallow areas. To reduce the possibility of cracks occurring, the slab should be provided with additional reinforcement to bridge the trenches. Retaining Walls If retaining walls are planned they should be designed in accordance with the following soil perimeters: Equivalent Fluid Pressure (p.c.f.) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 45 At -Rest 45 90 Passive 350 -- If restrained basement walls are anticipated the an additional lateral force of 6H should be added to the active pressure. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system. January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 8 Drainage All roof water should be collected and conducted to a proper location via non - erodible devices. Roof gutters are recommended. Pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the residence to a suitable location. Pad water should not pond. Footing Inspections Structural footing excavations should be inspected by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. Plan Review A copy of the final building plans should be submitted to this office for review, prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and /or engineers so that they may be incorporated into the plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether or not modifications are needed. No January 2, 2002 W.O. #P -1695 Page 9 responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on -site review is performed during the course of construction. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of three years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 753 -9940. This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submit A.R. BARRY AS ��T �s�o A. . Barry, , E coons -c z Principal Engin FxP.3131102 G) N�9��OFCAL FOP�\P* APPEN [)IX A 0 M • n 4� I 91 'P4 Lj Af- Ar, rN �F7 ___4r -L4 .04 13 44. 1-11, 4- Y1, ooH00G..wM.9zMs LLJ acc Qj to U_ '00 rr January 2, 2002 W.O.# P -1695 REFERENCES 1. Uniform Building Code, 1997 Addition. 2. Maps Of Known Active Fault Near Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions Of Nevada, Published by (I.C.B.O.) 1998 California Division And Mines And Geology. 3. Planning Scenario For A Major Earthquake San Diego Tijuana Metropolitan Area, Published By I.C.B.O. 1990. W.O. P -1695 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES TRENCH —# DEPTH CLASSIFICATION TT -1 0 - 1 ' SM 1.0'- 4.0 SM 4.0'- 5.0' SM TT -2 0 - 1 ' 1.0'- 4.0 SM SM 4.01- 7.0' SM TT -3 0 - 1 ' 1.0'- 3.0 DESCRIPTION FILL: Wood, roots Brown fine to medium grained silty sand, moist, loose. Tan fine to medium grained silty sand, dry, loose to moderately dense. Tan fine to medium grained silty sand, moderately dense to dense. Tan fine to sand, damp, Tan fine to sand, damp, dense. Tan fine to sand, damp i dense. medium grained silty loose. medium grained silty loose to moderately medium grained silty noderately dense to SM Brown fine to medium grained silty sand, moist, loose. SM Tan fine to medium grained silty sand, moist, moderately dense to dense. APPENDIX "A" LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -78) Sample Location TT -1 @ 3' Sample Location TT -1 @ 3.0' Max. Dry Density (pcf) 128.0 TABLE II In Place Density Max.Dry Density (pcf) 128.0 W.O. #P -1695 Optimum Moisture Content (�) 10.0 In Place Density (pcf) 117.0 Per Cent Of Max. Den. OHM 1147 � 1 N I 1127 "t' e u 1. _ U v L Irr.0 • h� I &� � S7Ue1 M `�� o, - COSS A - - - � 34 3 33 I \ BFI cA 4 q` Pam U o C 50 LOO n r y ��EVI S c om \ DR �(�p100R Ca C y R 1 ZS 'S.• � -G _ r -� _ _ �_�� e1i1,,o c - — - - � - - - BLUE HEWN AV p- 35 9� Elo cut +.(•f 4 Ism - - ,� � e p 1 P�� $ �I As g 1�. m a I IL � St rn �' 600 RICH gi $ E G US ST sue'• °o `� LN DR ENCINITAS ; SS Ep f$ N SS c RAACH _ E S Dn t00 200 r H$ Sp IRS ° A GOLF 1 COURSE 1 8> \ NOWANDY y5� E LEUCADIA cSZS bw BRITTANY RD % W11D 700 �2 51 a s CI STATE of � �+ � - c i tig 4 BEACH R llf�� uol'io, �� i v 6 9 8 �"� cl LEUCADIA BLVD Lf"M 4.X1�,0[ MAI K AS ` :s ,� 16 O FS W f MW t " ST 5011 1 ST tRSET •� ENCINITAS % c� �i 9t cosr� c bfR7✓T R Ts ao S[TTIA a PK uw g 1 ll1r� i BEACH +< 9 y au ST g �I COUNTY PARK UMIDN LIQAW i ; ST . PAW la UNION ST --- SI If11ST a ST r id FENC I I �` ` sm STEPS , L O 2 yY G�� ° R SILVER VIA �toi SEASIDE GIMENS S w +� � s eaoEE�E � - -= ^-- -- +�� PAUL ELF � aWL g� FOXGLOVE ST �' t; $ - - - r VIEW CT $�I)S 1- PAIK BOIANILAL 3 u QWiI ~ 1- °c` 1 3 W A s PARK � ►toR s t r 1 O p i SURRO1ER ST 'a Ie14L JL` S d' S g ENCINI a D0. e ;V I &10 ST TAS Alf 1I raoNLrr�lr I sr R 16 STATE w -w- BlV D 5T +eel o 'o0 WY 2 2 ,°„ 8 ST BEACH ^f W D Ica R■ r p m r M =� E • � tlo�t �� i •-+ �� e i N e � A IS ST L�iC o 1••� REOUC\�� ST 1 > 8 saFr wl E E t]W F >8 In o �" A ^-{a p &lam Aa 15 £ H SWET W G ST E G SY °a A I r > ' VIEXPOINT vl PARK Y o E ST wacwc, , HEROERIa p J rnw e c LA COSTA AVENUE TEST TRENCH LOCATION PLAN � � �. i, .. APPENDIX B RECOMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GRADING 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 soil to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report are a part of the recommended grading specifications and would supersede the provisions contained herein in case of conflict. INSPECTION AND TESTING A geotechnical engineer should be employed to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the geotechnical engineer or his representative make adequate observations so that he may provide a memorandum that the work was or was not accomplished as specified. Deviations from these specifications will be permitted only upon written authorization from the geotechnical engineer. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the geotechnical engineer and to keep him apprised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide the memorandum to the owner and governmental agency as required. If in the opinion of the geotechnical engineer, substandard conditions such as questionable soil, poor moisture control, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc, are encountered, the contractor should stop construction until the conditions are remedied. Unless otherwise specified, fill material should be compacted by the contractor while near the optimum moisture content to a density that is no less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test No. D1557 -78 or other density test methods that will yield equivalent results. CLEARING AND PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All trees, brush, grass and other objectionable material should be collected, piled and burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. APPENDIX B Page 2 All vegetable matter and objectionable material should be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the fill is to be placed, and any loose or porous soils should be removed or compacted to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer. The surface should then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal to 1 vertical) , the original ground should be stepped or benched as shown on the attached plate. Benches should be cut to a firm, competent soil condition. The lower bench should be at least 10 feet wide and all other benches at least 6 feet wide, ground slopes flatter than 20 percent should be benched when considered necessary by the geotechnical engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials for compacted soil should consist of any material imported or excavated from the cut areas that in the opinion of the geotechnical engineer is suitable for use in construction fills. The material should contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in size and should contain at least 40 percent of material smaller than 1/4 inch in size. (Materials greater than 6 inches in size should be placed by the contractor so that they are surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks will be permitted.) No material of a perishable, spongy or otherwise improper nature should be used in filling. Material placed within 36 inches of rough grade should be select material that contains no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size and that swells less than 3 percent when compacted (as specified later herein for compacted fill) and soaked under an axial pressure of 150 psf. Potentially expansive soils may be used in fills below a depth of 36 inches and should be compacted at a moisture greater than the Optimum moisture content for the material. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING OF FILL Approved material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should 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 to a minimum specified density with adequately sized equipment, either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. Compaction should be continuous over the entire area and the equipment should make APPENDIX B Page 3 sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the fill. When moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the geotechnical engineer, water should be added by the contractor until the moisture content is as specified. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill material should be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. The surface of fill slopes should be compacted and there should be no excess loose soil on the slopes. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION Identifying Criteria Group Symbol Soil Description COARSE - GRAINED (more than 50 percent larger than #200 sieve) Gravel (more than 50 percent larger than #4 sieve but smaller than three inches) Non - plastic Sands (more than 50 percent smaller than #4 sieve) Gw Gravel, well - graded gravel -sand mixture, little or no fines GP Gravel, poorly grad- ed gravel -sand mix- ture, little or no fines GM Gravel, silty, poor- ly graded, gravel - sand -silt mixtures GC Gravel, clayey, poorly graded, grav- el- sand -clay mixture SW Sand, well - graded, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Sand, poorly graded, gravelly sands, little or no fines APPENDIX B Page 4 FINE - GRAINED (more than 50 percent but smaller than #200 sieve) Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SM Sand, silty, poorly graded, sand -clay mixtures ML Silt, inorganic silt and fine sand, sandy silt or clayey -silt- sand mixtures with slight plasticity CL Clay, inorganic clay Of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Silt, inorganic, silts and organic silt -clays of low plasticity MH Silt, inorganic, silts micaceous or diatomaceous fine, sandy or silty soils elastic silts CH Clay, inorganic, clays of medium to high plasticity, fat clays OH Clay, organic, clays of medium to high plasticity PT Peat, other highly organic swamp soils APPENDIX B Page 5 INSPECTION Observation and compaction tests will be made by the geotechnical engineer during the filling and compacting operations so that he can state whether the fill was constructed in accordance with the specifications. The geotechnical engineer will make field density tests in accordance with ASTM Test No. D1557 -78. Density tests will be made in the compacted materials below the surface where the surface is disturbed. When these tests indicated that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the specified density, that particular layer or portion should be reworked until the specified density has been obtained. The location and frequency of the tests well be at the soil engineer's discretion. In general, the density tests will be made at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and /or 500 cubic yards of embankment. PROTECTION OF WORK During construction, the contractor should properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. He should control surface water to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The contractor should take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas and until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. 9 I r s` 1 3 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 175 LA COSTA AVE. ENCINITAS, CA PREPARED FOR: VANCE CAMPBELL DATE: 4/21/04 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HWY. 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 A. U 7 7 clvk 0� WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................... ............................... A DISCUSSION...................................................................... ............................... B CONCLUSION.................................................................... ............................... C 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .................... ............................... D ADDITION OF RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING DETENTION BASIN .............. E APPENDIX.................................................... ............................... F A. INTRODUCTION The subject property is physically located near the intersection of La Costa Avenue and Highway 101 in Leucadia, California. The purpose of this report is to analyze the impacts of 100 year storm flows. Specifically this report is intended to calculate the difference between pre and post development hydrology (Delta Q). The site is approximately 0.38 acres and the project consists of grading required to construct a pad for future single family residences. Based on data, calculations and recommendations contained within this report, a system can be constructed to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qloo to the appropriate discharge points. B. DISCUSSION All of the existing runoff from the parcel 1 drains onto Old La Costa Avenue. Part of the existing runoff drains into an existing on -site detention basin. An existing private road, at the west side of the property, conveys existing runoff onto Old La Costa Avenue. An existing brow ditch at the east side of the parcel also conveys drainage onto Old La Avenue. Pre - development runoff from the existing site is 0.64cfs. Post - development runoff is 0.53cfs. There is a decrease in runoff because the proposed time of concentration, Tc, is increased. The proposed graded parcel will create a longer travel path for runoff, thus decreasing flow. All pad runoff will be conveyed into the existing on- site detention basin, where it will be treated and detained before escaping off -site. The existing on -site detention basin is sized to handle an additional 15.95 c.y. (See Section E Existing runoff from the private street will remain in its existing condition. Existing runoff from the brow ditch will remain in its existing condition. The proposed developed site will decrease existing runoff onto Old La Costa Avenue and will improve off -site storm drain systems. The hydraulic soil group classification for the site is "A ". For a conservative analysis, however, we used soil classification "D ". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is modified rational. The program utilized is by Advanced Engineering Software (AES). Hydrology Calculations can be found in Section D. Please refer to Appendix A for the detention basin map.. C. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q. to the appropriate points of discharge. D. 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * Pre Development Runoff * 100 year storm * Parcel 1 * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 967EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:25 04/20/2004 --------------------------- --------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: -------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 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 - - - -- -6_00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 21 -------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) 73 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 70.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 59.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 55.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.897 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 51 »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 50.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 75.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0667 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.246 USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 73 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.31 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.12 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.12 Tc(MIN.) = 7.12 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.25 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.44 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 145.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TC(MIN.) = 7.12 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.44 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * Pre Development Runoff * 100 year storm * Parcel 1 (Includes Detention Basin) ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 967EX.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:53 04/20/2004 --------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------- ------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 73 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 130.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 59.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 50.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 9.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.538 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.054 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TC(MIN.) = 7.54 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.20 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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 Runoff * 100 year storm * Parcel 1 * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 967EX.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:34 04/20/2004 ---------------------------- --------------------------- - -USER- SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 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 6.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 73 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 55.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 56.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 50.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 6.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.214 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 -------------------- _______________________________________ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.12 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 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 Runoff * 100 year storm * * Parcel 1 (Includes Detention Basin) * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 967EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:37 04/20/2004 -------------------------------- ------------------------- -- USER - SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 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: I. 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 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------------------- ------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< --------------- USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 73 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 70.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 56.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 55.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.360 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.396 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0:21 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 51 -------------------- --------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« < »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 55.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 50.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 130.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0385 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.052 USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 73 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.32 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.72 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.26 Tc(MIN.) = 10.62 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.44 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.95 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 1.00 = 200.00 FEET. ----------- --------- -- ____ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TC(MIN.) = 10.62 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.44 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS E. ADDITION OF RUNOFF TO THE EXISTING DETENTION BASIN The following hydrology calculations are from Grading Plan 7732 -G (see following pages) and show the existing detention basin size calculation. Based on these calculations the existing basin can allow an additional 112 Ft3 detention. The existing runoff from parcel 1 going to the detention basin will increase due to the new graded pad area. The additional storage volume from the runoff is 4.25 Ft3 and can be accommodated by the existing detention basin. STORAGE VOLUME OF ADDITIONAL RUNOFF FROM PARCEL 1 Storage Volume Ft3 = (Qpost)(2.67 )(Tc) - (Qpre)(2.67) Tc) 2 2 Storage Volume Ft3 = (.44) (2.67)(10 67) - (0.20)(2.67)(7.54) 2 2 Storage Volume Ft3 = 4.24 Ft3 (Checks Good < 112 Ft3 ) RATIONA -1 METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101 Suite F. Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858)259 -8212 # # + + + + + + + + + # # + + + + + * + + } + *+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY + + + * + + + + + + * + + + + * + + + # + + * * ** Pre - Development hydrology } FILE NAME: 967F.DAT TIME /.DATE OF STUDY: 14: 5 8/27/2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA U' °-7 SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 iUR DUR.ZITION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.400_ SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL !!C"- VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CODiSIDERED FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 'IS CODE = 22 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< ----------- *USER SPECIFIED (SUBAREA) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = _.2700 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 18.090 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.759 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .89 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ '.89, END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .89 Tc(MIN.) = 18.09 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.19 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF . RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyrig1.t 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858)259 -8212 + + + * + + + + + + * + + + + + + + + + ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY + * + + + * + + + + + + + + + * } * * + # * + + +* + st- Develops.ent Hydrology + -LE NAME: 967POST.DAT LME /DATE OF STUDY: 10: 9 9/ 3/2002 ---- ----------------- ------------------------------------ SER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND F.YDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION-------- ---- - -- - -- 985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA SE>PECIFIED STOR1-1 EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 2.400 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) _ PECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 ;PECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 sAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED IOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED =LOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE ---- 4_00 -IS- CODE 21 - ------ - - - - -- ---------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ------- ------ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3700 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH 61.60 130.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 60.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE _ URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 14.982 100 YEAF, RAINFALL INTENSITY(12CH /HOUR) = 3.116 SUBAREA RUNOFF (C FS ) _ _ .1 2 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS ) _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO DIODE ----3.00 - - -3 00-IS- CODE- =---------- - - - - -- -------------------------- ----- > >COP PUTS STREETFLO I TR.AVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< --------------- -_____ UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 60.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 49.00 STREET LENGTH (FEET) = 250.00 CURB HEIGHT (INCHES) = 6 STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 8.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBRO O = 6.99 INTERIOR STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) = 020 .�. crnF _TREET CROSSFALL(DECZMaL) _ STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = ..20 - HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 3.53 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (FEET /SEC.) = 2.90 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = .57 REETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.67 TC(MIN) = 16.65 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.911 *USER SPECIFIED (SUBAREA): SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3700 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 SUMNED AREA(ACRES) = 1.19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLO;, HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .23 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.16 FLOW VELOCITY (FEET /SEC.) = 3.366 DEPTH*VELOCITY = .77 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW P- m=(CFS) = 1.29 Tc(MIN.) = 16.65 TOTAL, AREA(ACRES) = 1.19 END OF RATIONAL METHOD A:�J.ALYS_IS oq AQ= 1•24'c�S � Q�o.Uvc�s QL,�OLATPOI)—< Vol fAsw 2- �k��c��`= yZ-Ff3 FASw -3 F4 5 4 Sq REF FEfZ TO &F F. APPENDIX Q 04- i C.~. C • p C v1 0 +► 4.. O CJ aA H i i C) S •C7 ni ko V O C V1 0 X s•• .f C r to 4j r J4 r U .••_ 0-4 V r;• ILO 41 4) U CJ L C% r C IM ❑ -4 CJ 4- O •r Cl Ln) _ i i •r C c:.v C ` v V to 41 � c aJ to 4 a� 4-) Q H E CJ G 4-4- o i. O CJ Ut C i N :-1 CJ i-1 r- CJ C •r 1 -0 � Cu CJ .-- b C C: Q tz O CJ ' C i O O C O C1 4-) N to - c r- to c c >, 0 0 !� s o 4-) S- •0 o c 4 a p O R a-- O O 4-1 CJ +.1 4..1 4J CJ C QJ C i CL 4-j 41 b i✓ i •r 'a O •.- •r •r Z7 V C t1 C C U U O O S- C O CL Cli E C U •''• .r. 4- • G t- O CJ -•- 't •• - O CJ •r C r r CL ro N CJ C` O G +1 CJ CJ t " +j - � fl. M 4.1 .►.t f- Ln i •.- i i 4PJ N Cr Q .d O L. s C1 G i CJ to C E r IILO M. CJ C r _O s- O 6/f O -0 .t. N O U IE d r-- C •r- s. +1 i L r r W 4J ti �- 4- C) to R t0 .0 i t U t-- C to a •p Z N CL .- C 4.1 •r Q' CA tO O to CJ r- O O +1 41 C -S- 4) to C n N N CJ .c 4.1 r r V N O E t rn O •.•- O 41 4-)4.4 3 4.1 H 4.1 CJ It O 11 -•- O W C In -r-� to CJ n b O •r- CJ ro .- •t 7 II e!• -.>r eo CJ -0 .c .c O r^ 4- i .- .0 .0 U O t0 O U dLL- N 1-- Ca Q 4.1 4i 4.1 11. O O CL }-- 44 •.- N d Q � H C1. CL: C:f n n a CJ� - - 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) O to O Ln CD to O . LO C:k . N - _ f, li II 1 H r Z i�1 —T r ►-+ 0. N 0. O st 0 F+ c�3 ;i !• t -- -- — i /-�- I I tii Ilt, II I C14 s i . I. I I I I _--�L-4 LC) O r F_ _ _ = 'T_ _ _ — p: LF -- 1 O Cj L _ t - - -- - - - _ T- _ - N '�- t- r -,I , - -' I r t I -•' t �. I �' i I t :r,. ; � �� I � t i l l a .a .r I I I CD APPF,MTX XT TV -A_14 7 �s M z is O L- E- z r _V O sue. n �J V U � •O v v; U � O U 0 C J U N r w 0 G CJ N C U I _U W U z * O o vi o 0 Vn o to O o to O o v-, O - N N rJ 'V• ' fit to V 00 00 00 •O\ O1 C� Cn N H N Q en N N N N w V CJ Q •L 7) U U N C s. �. O O O O 'cj E U A A A A A Q Q o o V o r O O N N � Ct C O � ,:r en O y .v N 'oT H C is r c� r O E r c3 4" U OL C C C G C C C • r E C C C O C. .. 'C3 'L7 :9 U a> V U U C.� .0 U U •U •En En to •U U tom_. v i � • •� to L `• r V r� CG CC U r •C C O O O O O O O O C O O O O v U '�_ v A - A C O C N t- O r - C r U 3 n 3 ._°a 3 a C- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r cl� o CIO 0 o a x co ct N 'n W) 11-1 J •� t� O Co M Oo M OA o;J000000000000 C N v-, 00 00 OC o Cl- L .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 0 0 0 0 C) * O o vi o 0 Vn o to O o to O o v-, O - N N rJ 'V• ' fit to V 00 00 00 •O\ O1 C� Cn N H N Q en N N N N w V CJ Q •L 7) U U N C s. �. O O O O 'cj E U A A A A A Q Q o o V o r O O N N � Ct C O � ,:r en O y .v N 'oT H C is r c� r O E r c3 4" U OL C C C G C C C • r E C C C O C. .. 'C3 'L7 :9 U a> V U U C.� .0 U U •U •En En to •U U tom_. v i � • •� to L `• r V r� CG CC U r •C C O O O O O O O O C O O O O v U '�_ v A - A C A D N C in C cs •U r •U _c •U r U r U 3 n 3 ._°a 3 a C- � � 4� U v uo u uo r i _ x co ct N 'n W) 11-1 n t� O Co M Oo M OA o;J000000000000 * O o vi o 0 Vn o to O o to O o v-, O - N N rJ 'V• ' fit to V 00 00 00 •O\ O1 C� Cn N H N Q en N N N N w V CJ Q •L 7) U U N C s. �. O O O O 'cj E U A A A A A Q Q o o V o r O O N N � Ct C O � ,:r en O y .v N 'oT H C is r c� r O E r c3 4" U OL C C C G C C C • r E C C C O C. .. 'C3 'L7 :9 U a> V U U C.� .0 U U •U •En En to •U U tom_. v N Cam; — C 1. C4 _ i . :J •� C _ j C •es V N a E 0.0 •C Z C c c v •� V E o •3 " o H L 7 y u v •G v r 6 C u u O L L+ > c u •� (� v J L C-• G Q C; z �- u cn o J • •� L `• r C ci ..o Cn C c� .D N a� "o H .�•.• CJ .O y r •C _r C cS C: C: C; r v U '�_ v A - A C A D N C in C cs •U r •U _c •U r U r U 3 n 3 ._°a 3 a � � 4� U v uo u uo i N Cam; — C 1. C4 _ i . :J •� C _ j C •es V N a E 0.0 •C Z C c c v •� V E o •3 " o H L 7 y u v •G v r 6 C u u O L L+ > c u •� (� v J L C-• G Q C; z �- u cn o J San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Section: 3 Page: 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land -use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3 -2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (LM)) of sheet now to be used in hydrology studies. Initial T; values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a. . detailed study. Table 3 -2 3 -12 MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (LM) & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION T, EIement* DU/ .5% 1 % 2% 3% 5% 10% Acre LM T; LM Ti LM T; LM T; LM T; LM T; Natural 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9 LDR 1 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4 LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 100 5.8 LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 70 65 65 10.0 9.6 8.4 7.9 85 80 80 80 8.8 8.1 7.4 6.9 95 95 95 90 8.1 7.8 7.0 6.4 100 100 100 100 7.0 6.7 6.0 5.7 100 100 100 100 5.6 5.3 4.8 4.5 MDR 4.3 50 10.2 MDR 7.3 50 9.2 MDR 10.9 50 8.7 MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6.5 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4.3 HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5 HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 1001 2.7 N. Corn 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 G. Com 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 100 2.4 O.P. /Com 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 Limited I. 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.7 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 General I. 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 1.9 *See Table 3 -1 for more detailed description 3 -12 � - R s� i�..... �� I 111_1 /�� -iV' • J �D CD o \ M Nr CD CD Ef alcum Ln- cn LA- Li� rte- 44 C'4 LM C,4 C14 W, ClJ Fr - z N N CZ w O Q H M L; z F O O < • W q Z O U z o O N M Lll C O O O Z LL. J e 1 CG < V M Q O O M ( V Lt Lzi < k Q O O V1 O U uj O u L O 7 O W J O vnLL- Fw F N . � J u w a �.. CN Lw o LIJ Y .. d LLJ CM � o F`- 1,,,r,.S �. 46 z 0 F- cs LLIz r-* Q G N Q O O LL- z z O La O cc } � v Z Q O a O O W J C)cllL 0 r'1 Ln 1 M, i C O u Qu A < O M u U Z O f' W < o z � t• N 3 u W d N TI -I _ � V J U H U e -d C% p N lam. O J r '? t r sJ � N -;G x (r 1 1 z 1A1 .. ... _ FE n � C 1 F j C A p April 4, 2003 BARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023 -0348 (760) 753 -9940 101 Investors, LLC 1796 Laurel Road Oceanside, California 92054 Att: Inspector, City Of Encinitas Subject: UPDATE LETTER OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 3- single family residences 175 La Costa Avenue Leucadi.a, California 42024 A.P.N- 215- 052 -03 Dear Sir, In response to Your recruest, we have reviewed the preliminary geotechnical investigation dated January 2, 2002 for the proposed 3- single family residences. We have re- inspected the site and determined that nothing has changed on the site or adjacent properties that would impact the proposed grading and construction of the subject site. From a geotechnical point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed project, provided the recommendations presented in the report dated January 2, 2002, W.O. P- 1695.are implemented during the design and construction phase. If you have any questions, please contact us at (760) 753 -9940. Respectfully submitted, A.R. BARRY Nb ASSOCIA /nN Q.apFESS `z c G 0 0119 A.R. Barry, P.E. Principal Engineer:- w M Exp.3 /31/06 * c F GP TLC CAF �wsor- cAU�o¢ PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 FAX (858) 259 -4812 June 24, 2004 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION FOR (9005 -G) To Whom It May Concern: PE 907 Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced site As the Surveyor for the subject project, I hereby state the rough grading for this lot has been completed in conformance with the approved plan, and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. Certification was preformed on April 8,2004. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Location. Per plan per field measurement Upper 56.0 56.0 Lower 53.0 53.0 If you have any questions in regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. oe ha 5211 Director of Land Surveying March 30, 2004 Project No. 147A23 To: 101 Investors, LLC 171 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Vance Campbell Subject: Report of Field Density Tests, Proposed Single - Family Residential Development, 175 La Costa Avenue, Leucadia Area of Encinitas, California Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Three Single - Family Residences, 175 La Costa Avenue, Leucadia, California, dated January 2, 20021 by A.R. Barry and Associates Introduction Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed geotechnical observation and testing services during grading activities for the proposed single - family residential development to be constructed at 175 La Costa Avenue in the Leucadia area of Encinitas. This report presents a summary of our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results. Summary of Grading Operations This report addresses site grading that was accomplished during the period of February 24 through March 18, 2004. Geotechnical observation and testing of compacted fill were performed by representatives from our firm on an as- needed basis during grading. Grading of the site generally consisted of the removal and recompaction of potentially compressible soils, undercutting of cut portions of transition (cut -fill) lots and placement of compacted fill soils to construct relatively level building pads for the proposed construction of three single - family residences. Prior to grading, the existing residence and sheds were razed and the site was generally stripped of surface vegetation and debris. Prior to placement of fill, the natural ground was scarified, brought to near - optimum moisture conditions, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill soils were placed in lifts, brought to near - optimum • 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 . (619)442 -8022 . FAX (619)442 -7859 Project No. 147A23 moisture conditions, and compacted by mechanical means to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Field and Laboratory Tests Field density tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1556 (Sand - Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in Table 1 (Summary of Field Density Tests). The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on Figure 1 (Field Density Test Location Map). The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a representative sample of the onsite fill soils placed at the site were determined in general accordance with ASTM test designation D1 557. The results of the laboratory test are summarized in Table 2 (Laboratory Test Results). Conclusions Our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results indicate that the fill soils placed to date at the site have been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, as evaluated using test methods ASTM D1556 and ASTM D1557. The onsite fill soils generally consist of brown, silty fine to medium sand. The fill soils were visually and texturally evaluated to be generally similar to soils in the general site vicinity found to have a very low expansion potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18 -2. Field density testing of any additional compacted fill at the site should be performed by the geotechnical consultant. 2 SGC Project No. 147A23 If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Susan E. Tanges, CEG 1386 Managing Principal /Engineering Geologist NO. 1386 CERTIFIED ENGWEERING ., GEOLOGMT, hart . Corbin, RCE 36302 Project Engineer /O QROI ASS /(' , LLJ 0. 3vJ ^? Attachments: Table 1 - Summary of Field Density Tests Table 2 - Laboratory Test Results Figure 1 - Field Density Test Location Map Distribution: (3) Addressee 3 CAO SGC Project No. 147A23 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS TEST DATE NO. APPROX ELEVATION (feet) SOIL TYPE FIELD DRY DENSITY (Pcf) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (Pcf) FIELD MOISTURE ( %) OPTIMUM MOISTURE 1 %) RELATIVE COMPACTION NOTES 1 3/4/04 2 3/4/04 3 3/5/04 4 3/8/04 5 3/8/04 6 3/9/04 7 3/13/04 8 3/13/04 9 3/13/04 10 3/15/04 11 3/15/04 12 3/15/04 13 3/17/04 14 3/17/04 15 3/17/04 16 3/17/04 56 59 59 59 59 62 61 62 60 51 52 54 55 56 54 49 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 119.2 125.3 126.7 126.9 120.1 121.2 121.6 118.5 120.6 117.7 121.7 121.4 122.7 119.7 122.6 121.4 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 128.3 7.1 7.2 8.7 8•8 8.6 7.9 8.4 8.5 8.3 10.0 12.5 9.9 7.3 8.4 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 93 98 99 99 94 94 95 92 94 92 95 95 96 93 96 95 CF CF CF CF CF FG CF FG FG CF CF CF CF FG SG SG NOTES: CF - Compacted Fill FG - Finished Grade SG - Subgrade TABLE 2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sample Sample Number Description A Brown silty fine to medium sand (SM) Maximum Optimum Dry Density Moisture Content 128.3 pcf 8.6% SGC I e®® �I r ^ Z O y i E U a i O C Cl) W F- m U Ql a) i Z _W o 0 0 C 0 0 'a C 0 «- 0 f6 � O C L O O N � O) C c C N E 7 C C O C U E O X O O O x 'a m X N O CL -0 QCL CL°U'rn m ,� a° 0 o o M C C Q a o Q axi Q y Z co E C V .- M m w w o Pol 0 Q -0 o -i a m .E (_ co o a «- 0 CD m `r m rn U II c C U L E U @ U Q N C C N C aO M C C � U W NO N y W y Q > y- Q 0 co E C V .- M m d m m o 0 - `- 0 0 Q -0 o o ZU a _m a -0 0 00 U N .O LO O O Z N Q U U �+ a. m � aO w CC 0 S2 LL V yl PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 FAX (858) 259 -4812 June 24, 2004 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION FOR (9005 -G) To Whom It May Concern: PE 967 Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced site As the Surveyor for the subject project, I hereby state the rough grading for this lot has been completed in conformance with the approved plan, and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. Certification was preformed on April 8,2004. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Location. Per plan per field measurement Upper 56.0 56.0 Lower 53.0 53.0 If you have any questions in regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. Yoe V as, L.S. 5211 Director of Land Surveying �I w April 4, 2003 BARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING P.O. Box 230348 Encinitas, CA 92023 -0348 (760) 753 -9940 101 Investors, LLC 1796 Laurel Road Oceanside, California 92054 Att: Inspector, City Of Encinitas Subject: UPDATE LETTER OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed 3- single family residences 175 La Costa Avenue Leucadia, California 42024 A.P.N. 216 - 052 -03 Dear Sir, in .response to your request, we have reviewed the preliminary geotectinical investigation dated January 2, 2002 for the proposed 3- single family residences. We have re- inspected the site and determined that nothing has changed on the site or adjacent properties that would impact the proposed grading and construction of the subject site. From a geotechnical point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed project, provided the recommendations presented in the report dated January 2, 2002, W.O. P- 1695.are implemented curing the design and construction phase. If you have any questions, please contact us at (760) 753 -9940. Respectfully submitted, A.R. BARRY ASSOCIA 4 OFESS /() G00119 P� Z A.R. Barry, P.E. w M tiT, _ Aa K Exp. 3131106 Principal �_.�in..,._:• OTEL'HN�G �Q �-s�QrcA��to�` CITE' OF ENCINITAS E Depositor Name: Address: DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: v I. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER 9 �l 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ 'jff No. Phone No� /�/ Zip AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordinat Supervisor Department Head DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept bate — Date 7 Date Date GENERAL LEDGER # PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION (25 Characters limit) AMOUNT 101- 0000 - 218.00 -00 - - - - - - Security Deposit ------ 1 HEKEBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL DATE OF REQUEST DATE CFIECK REQUIRED Next Warrant TOTALS FINANCE DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Deposito Address: CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Vendor No. Phone No. S� DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: / 6�1�17 I 2 3 Notes: MEMO PROTECT NUMBER RELEASED AMOUNT: $ �' DEPOSIT BALANCE: T Zip r AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Supervisor Department Head DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept. Date Date 0 Date Date GENERAL LEDGER # PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION (25 Characters limit) AMOUNT 101- 0000 - 218.00 -00 ------ Security Deposit ....... I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL DATE OF REQUEST DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant TOTALS FINANCE DATE AFMUVED l-UK PAYMENT CITY OF ENCINITAS State Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER GAS- �r C I RELEASED AMOUNT: $��OD • Da 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE:.$_ DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Project Coordinat Date�,� Supervisor 441 Date d v v ki/ v Department Head Date Finance Dept. Date GENERAL LEDGER.# PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION (25 Characters limit) AMOUNT I D I- 0000 - 218.00 -00 - - - - - - Security Deposit - I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL DATEOF REQUEST DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant W TOTALS FINANCE DATE FOR PAYMENT