2006-331 CN/G/PECity 0 0NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Eminitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Rep lenishment /Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
April 10, 2008
Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company
c/o G.S. Levine
10505 Sorrento Valley Road
Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121
RE: Jeffrey D. Kayajanian
172 Kilkenny Drive
APN 261 - 102 -17
Grading Permit 331 -G
Final release of security
Permit 331 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion
control, all needed 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 deposit is merited.
Performance Bond 661120208, (in the original amount of $18,909.60), reduced by
75% to $4,727.40, is hereby 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,
Debra Geishart
Engineering Technician
Subdivision Engineering
CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Jeffrey Kayajanian
Debra Geishart
File
Enc,
J y L Bach
inane Manager
Financial Services
TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 -4 recycled paper
?P
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, '1i- ')�Da 1VIA ]
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
JF
1 k/E 3 47 PM
CITY CLERK )
CITY OF ENCINITAS )
505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE )
ENCINITAS, CA 92024 )
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 0331 -PE
A. P. N.261- 102 -17
An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph
one, Attachment "A ", as the owner of the Benefited property described in paragraph two,
Attachment "A," to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A ",
as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B ". Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of
this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City,
as follows:
1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees,
and assigns of the respective parties.
2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose
described in paragraph four, Attachment "A ".
3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be
in the City and waives all right to contest that title.
4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and
abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to
Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which
the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease.
5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee
in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation
to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements.
6. Permittee agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify from and against all claims,
demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related
to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or
Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property.
7. Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, Permittee shall, at no cost
to the city, return City Property to its pre - permit condition within the time specified in the
notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment.
8. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon
the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited Property, and
restore the City Property to its pre - permit condition to include the removal and
destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the
costs incurred. Notice may be given by first class mail sent to the last known address of
the Permittee, which shall be deemed effective three calendar days after mailing, or by
any other reasonable method likely to give actual notice.
9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs including reasonable
attorney's fees. '
10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a
lien upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond,
the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefited Property any past due financial obligation
owing to city by way of this covenant.
11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or
resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any
other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a manner in
accordance with the terms of the permit.
12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest
subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of
property taxes levied on such interest.
13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the
agreement must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and
recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall
be paid by Permittee
14. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this day of , 20—.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED
Dated: 1/ 2. 1 ' UL W A
�v. r�ayata an
Dated: • / • L� �� /Y�2
Kerry L. r� lyajanian
(Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached)
City of E cinitas
Attachment "A To Covenant
Regarding Encroachment Permit No. 0331 -PE
Permittee
Jeffrey D. Kayajanian and Kerry L. Kayajanian, husband and wife as joint
tenants
Benefited Property
The west one -half of lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, block 7, Cardiff, in the county
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 1298, filed
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 14,
1910.
City Property
Portion of northerly right of way of Kilkenny Drive approximately 50 feet
west of Newcastle Avenue.
Purpose
For paved entry access walk to residence.
EXHIBIT B
172 KILKENNY DR
I. = 10' -0" \-"+
CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDOMFNT
State of California
ss.
County of 0
4
On �cc�bv' is DOD , before me,
Date Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, No ary Public ")
personally appeared e. re , l7 jt.a�,cl` dun Hn ot�& ICe trti L kr�uk ian `.^�
Name(s) of Signer(s)
MATT SMITH
Commission # 1558081
Notary Public - California y
San Diego County
emy Comm. Expires Mar 11, 2
❑ personally known to me
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the persor s whose namto &ate
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that heje6_e)5 executed
the same in N+s/t / ei authorized
capacity, fe and that y his�+rer/ he)
signatur on the instrument the perso s , or
the entity upon behalf of which the perso (s
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Place Notary Seal Above =ofNo-, OPTIONA
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name: _
❑ Individual •
El Corporate Officer — Title(s): Top of thumb here
❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General
❑ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
- Y - • Boa, v aoco Ave., KU. t$OX 2402 • Chatsworth; CA 91313 -2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1 -800- 876 -6827
••......•....•.•..•.••••.•..•••••.•..•.•..•••••.•.•••••..•••••.• . ...............................
CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
ss
County of San Diego
. 6
• On � � ,before me, Randa G. Milliour, Notary Public, personally
appeared Peter Cota - Robles, personally known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in
his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. =
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Randa G. Milljo r
0 - -- •- •- •--- - - - - -- :
Z _ ' : RANDA G. MILLJOURl
.. Commission #1389205 <
.. Notary Public - Caufornia�
San Diego county ;
My com ll*sion Exp. Jan., . 200
Place Notary Seal Above
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the docu-
ment and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
o Individual
o Corporate Officer — Title(s)
❑ Partner —❑ Limited o General
o Attorney in Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator
_ oOther:
Signer is Representing:
i.................................................:..................... ...............................
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, WAS RECORDED ON APR 22, 2008
DOCUMENT NUMBER 2008 - 0214303
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ) GREGORY J SMITH COUNTY RECORDER
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
TIME: 3:19 PM
CITY CLERK )
CITY OF ENCINITAS )
505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE )
ENCINITAS, CA 92024 )
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE
ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 0331 - JPE
A.P.N.: 2fol- lot -11
Project No: _ 03.51- PE0 G
An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one,
Exhibit "A ", as the owner of the Benefited property described in paragraph two, Exhibit "A," to
encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Exhibit "A ", as detailed in the diagram,
Exhibit "B ". Exhibit "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set
forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby
covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows:
1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees,
and assigns of the respective parties.
2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose
described in paragraph four, Exhibit "A ".
3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in
the City and waives all right to contest that title.
4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and
abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to
Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which
the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease.
5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in
order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay
for or restore Permittee's improvements.
6. Permittee agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify from and against all claims,
demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to
the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or
Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property.
7. Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, Permittee shall, at no cost to
the city, return City Property to its pre - permit condition within the time specified in the notice
of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment.
8. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the
City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited Property, and restore
the City Property to its pre - permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any
improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the costs incurred. Notice
may be given by first class mail sent to the last known address of the Permittee, which shall
be deemed effective three calendar days after mailing, or by any other reasonable method
likely to give actual notice.
9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees.
10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien
upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City
may add to the tax bill of the Benefited Property any past due financial obligation owing to
city by way of this covenant.
11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or
resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other
action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a manner in accordance with
the terms of the permit.
12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest
subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of
property taxes levied on such interest.
13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement
must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the
County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee.
14. Approved and issued by the City of En�pitas, California, this day of , 20
Dated: , ` f (,t ' 0
Dated: ��f UV
rmittee Signature
Owner /Permittee Print
Owner /Per 'tee Signature
Owner /Per ittee nt
(Notarization of PERMI si t re i t ched)
Dated: _411.2, Q Q�
M -„Peter Cota - Robles
Engineering Service Director, City of Encinitas
State of California CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE
County of,�e" a a� CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
d
before me, '1'9700/; . li'lttUVU , 1 iWV
(here Insert name and title of the officer)
Personally appeared y T) acrid etf-1f/P V L . 1ArA- l.4.TA I
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) i are ubscribe
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she hey executed the same in his /h /their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her their ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
OA G WMltULXO)ptMt
mission 01709"4
► PPM • Ca Nlornia ,f an Oleo Ceunty LW?�nh
Exp. Jan *,jQ11
(Seal)
Although the information in this section is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this
acknowledgment to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document.
Description of Attached Document
The preceding Certificate of Acknowledgment is attached to a document
titled /for the purpose of
containing pages, and dated
The signer(s) capacity or authority is /are as:
❑ Individual(s)
❑ Attorney -in -Fact
❑ Corporate Officer(s)
❑ Guardian /Conservator
❑ Partner - Limited /General
❑ Trustee(s)
❑ Other:
representing:
Tale(s)
Name(s) of Person(s) or Ent"1011) Signer is Representing
D Copyright 2007 Notary Rotary, Inc. 925 29th St., Des Moines, IA 50312 -3612 Form Ar imi rnrn
Ad ditionall Information
Method of Signer Identification
Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence:
Lo form(s) of identification O credible witness(es)
Notarial event is detailed in notaryjournal on:
Page # Entry #
Notary contact:
Other
❑ Additional Signer(s) ❑ Signer(s) Thumbprint(s)
-1 - ,,, -,„oo or wilr us on the Internet at http: / /www.notaryrotary.com
Attachment "A" To Covenant
Regarding Encroachment Permit No. 0331 -PE
Permittee
Jeffrey D. Kayajanian and Kerry L. Kayajanian, husband and wife as joint
tenants
Benefited Propert v
The west one -half of lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, block 7, Cardiff, in the county
of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 1298, filed
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 14,
1910.
City Propertv
Portion of northerly right of way of Kilkenny Drive approximately 50 feet
west of Newcastle Avenue.
Purpose
Paved entry access walk to residence.
W
Z E GE OF
PIAVEMENT
Z PROPOSED —
W E TRY WALK
YII, PROVEMENT
S ATE TILE
O ER CONC.
Y
EXHIBIT B
172 KILKENNY DR
0
O
0
u
w
m1
N
m1Ln
z
I
10.01
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE
WA
State of California
County of
On
Date
personally appeared
Place Notary Seal Above
before me,
ss.
Name and Title N Officer (e. g., `,lane Doe, Notary
Name(s) of Signer(s)
❑ personally known to me
O proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed
the same in his /her /their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Nolary Public
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required bylaw, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
"and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s):
❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General
❑ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
6 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth', orth; CA 913 13
Number of Pages:
RIGHT, THUMBPRINT
OF 'SIGNER
Prod. No. 5907 Reorder. Call Toll -Free 1- 800 - 876 -6827
State of California
County of
CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
O 6 Z' before me,. iLjbq 9. 101cillk j ue
' 44,VW9, loUrQL /C
(here insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared
4s
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(-4�i IRIre s scribed to
the within instrument and acknowl ed to me that (Ohe /they executed the same ' his her /their
authorized capacity(ies), and that b hi er /their signature(s) on the instrument
upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. the person(s), or the entity
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the
oin paragraph RAN
State of California that the foregoing G. MILUO�IR
g g pars ra h is true and correct. CDRWJSsio„ 01709664
uy 1pYbNC . CaWo►nb�
WITNESS my hand and official seal. Not san ohpo Ceuncy
1'h' Exp. Jan. 6, 2011
Signature 4 -'
(Seal)
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
Although the information in this section is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this
acknowledgment to an unauthorized document and may prove useful to persons relying on the attached document.
Description of Attached Document
The preceding Certificate of Acknowledgment is attached to a document
titled /for the purpose of
containing pages, and dated
The signer(s) capacity or authority is /are as:
❑ Individual(s)
❑ Attorney -in -Fact
❑ Corporate Officer(s)
❑ Guardian /Conservator
❑ Partner - Limited /General
❑ Trustee(s)
❑ Other:
representing:
Title(s)
Name(s) of Person(s) or En Lty(,es) Signer is Representing
Method of Signer Identification
Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence:
L0 form(s) of identification 0 credible witness(es)
Notarial event is detailed in notaryjournal on:
Page #
Notary contact:
Other
❑ Additional Signer(s)
Entry #
❑ Signer(s) Thumbprint(s)
® Copyright 2007 Notary Rotary, Inc. 925 29th St., Des Moines, IA 50312 -3612 Form ACK03. 10/07. To re- order, call toll -free 1- 877 - 349 -6588 or visit us on the Internet at http: / /www.notaryrotary.com
(: 1 T Y V I" r 1V l: 1 1V 1 . i . K 5
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.:
331GI
PARCEL NO. : 261- 102 -1700
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 172 KILKENNY DRIVE
APPLICANT NAME KAYAJANIAN, JEFFREY AND KERRY
MAILING ADDRESS: 1604 PACIFIC RANCH DRIVE
CITY: ENCINITAS
STATE: CA ZIP
CONTRACTOR : LIAHONA CONSTRUCTION
L
PLAN NO.: 331 -GI
CASE NO.: 05099 / CDP
PHONE NO.: 760 - 436 -3110
92024-
ICENSE NO.: 884958
ENGINEER : SAMPO ENGINEERING
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 1/30/07
PERMIT EXP. DATE: 9/15/07 PERMIT ISSUED BY:
INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH
PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS
1.
PERMIT FEE
3.
INSPECTION FEE
.00
1,182.00
2.
4.
5•
PLAN CHECK FEE
00
6
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FEE
.00
8.
------- --- - - - --
DESCRIPTION
OF
PHONE NO.: 760 - 802 -2920
LICENSE TYPE: A
PHONE NO. 760, - 436 -0660
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00
-P ��
SECURITY DEPOSIT 142.00
TDT��T� nnn 23,637.00
11,400.00
WORK --------------
PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH THE PERFORMANCE AND THE LABOR /MATERIALS FOR
GRADING,PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PER APPROVED
GRADING PLAN 331 -G. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIME
PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS. LETTER
DATED DEC 5, 2006 APPLIES. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED. PC -SK
- - - - -- DATE -- - - - - --
INIT
COMP �— O 7
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
'ED _ =-O„?
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 2 _07
—
FINAL INSPECTION ZO r
INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - --
--- - - - - --
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE _
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. AND
SIGNATURE
PRINT
r CIRCLE OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER
/-"' 3 / O2
DATE SIGNED
LEP�cii3E ivul�iBER
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION:
PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR:
TELEPHONE:
/ .31111F -o7 i-e- C-' /- ;3v;°�► h�,xiciv7
G / �� � "'�Dr» a t^ /dui • ?- � / �ih S CpV-P! PcP .,
ree- olv)pac, ov7Si ,�Gi�b�/t�G EhIV� .
L - / -D'7 OVA �� C�O.�yof4LT s#-!U ..��C /A/C- /V
Sr�CLL t7idez Txi
S7�CinCV", c
vE �C,fZ t 07S dew
Z-Z -o'7 7a/47s 3' �T • C�v x AlEconl0f/C7-
- 5- �% Cc>7 firac-fbr �QVr ;r7 �� ► Qi� l c. Q-e cz
ltnc/ S / e cc
ow..� a'ocun �►e �proc���
-0-7 OVer
7TJ4 i 7a /irr L►o, �/ .�/ .
7), Ai& / Tjt G C ,q •�- �► 7)177 E-
Fiec Mrt /
CIli L i2Tpw� iLN�y
Zoo 409/0 j c a.v /r-,
C
,� `'lam ✓�'�uc r aS. G 5� n/E70 ,
(•vo2 `i n t I eS .c ir�r.,� .► i.L
,JL,�cacsn.�ly
e C c�c rLAr- 0, �
•bra 6v7- `?s�C_ �-cf C,y
' ,Q -36.-36.,J , L�..r
/bra 1
�UCiI
/& SC ham- Lam,/
key
t is i t ,Wl� cQv IVU /1Zc- C;�.
M14429
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION•
PERMIT NUMBER;
CONTRACTOR:
TELEPHONE:
I- — I -v --
Z -Z5.. -rte
-4 12
4(11'4/06
M14429
-,-'A rc�s_tST.
A
q spEZS .
rwo
Tr -7b
�°����►l r'k� —emu ic.T� �.l�i`
67 c. k
tk- 1jee
N
A
W_ _E Sampo Engineering, Inc
Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping
S
Date: February 15, 2007
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Engineer's Pad Verification for Grading Permit No. 0331 -G, 172
Kilkenny Drive, Cardiff
Pursuant to section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this
letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Verification Letter for the
subject grading plan. As the Engineer of Record for the subject
project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been
completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements
of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards.
The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified
and shown on the approved grading plan:
Main Residence 69.3'
69.3'
The location and inclination of manufactured slopes have been field
verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject
grading plan.
The construction of earthen berms and
Positive
drainage has been field verified and are insubstanttiall ccondformance
With the subject grading plan.
Sincerely,
Vincent Sampo,PE,PLS
President
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone: 760 -436 -0660 ♦ fax: 760 -436 -0659
info@safnpoengineering.com
DAILY REPORT
DATE /DAY
WEATHER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NO.
FIELD TECHNICIAN
PAGE OF
EQUIPMENT ON SITE NAME /COMPANY - ONSITE CONTACTS
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS
FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN
A- ARRIVE A I-
D-DEPART D I-
L-LUNCH
#NOT PASSING - #RETESTS
A A HOURS ON SITE
D D APPRX TRAVEL
TOTAL HOURS
Southland otechnical Consultants
01238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SU /TEA EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92o21*
(619)442 -8022 • FAX (619)442 -7859
I
I
2J S GC.
2-z F,/o- I
i
1
I
DAILY REPORT
DATE /DAY
WEATHER
PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO.
FIELD TECHNICIAN PAGE OF
EQUIPMENT ON SITE NAME /COMPANY - ONSITE CONTACTS
J sc
1 2/? 1 /O 7
FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN_ #NOT PASSING - #RETESTS -
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN
A- ARRIVE A L A A HOURS ON SITE
D- DEPART D L D D APPRX TRAVEL
L -LUNCH TOTAL HOURS
Southland Geotechnical Consultants
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021,o
(619)442 -8022 • FAX (619)442 -7859
ENGINEERflVG.SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Capital Improvement Projects
City Of District Support Services
Feld Operations
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL
TO: Subdivision, Engineering
Public service counter
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection
RE: orading Permit No. 67
Name of Project "YATA&060
-
Name of Developer F en=p-eFy AA[,o ko_qQN,-'
Site Location
16ddreis.;�:� ..number —street-name, ...suffix) Aot J .(bldg)
J haveAnspected the gradingmt:thesubjecVsIte and:have.v-ersifiecl!cert.tfi*cattoT.lMf the- pad: bV'.:,
07,--an(J.certification of soil
the.1rigineer of W0rk,V ed:,.Z
dat
compaction by- the -Soil EnglneerS d :.Tafed-- L4--.0. 211711
1. hereby
Sat! sfied--.-.that - th e.,. ro u gh � .grnad in g - has: been -c o m Oletext. i1T:acC6 rd an ce -., -W W. the approved,
-
civ speciflimtiorts-' -Chapter .2324-of°rthe -;Municipal �- code and,;any -6ther--aplAicabld-
-pIans,.,.;an
a;&.specific project requirements.,.'.'
V observation: and the, certifications, A..Jtake no.,exception to the issuance
Based.--on. _m
building permit for the lot(s) as noted or -Phase _hj!L� if any, but only in so far as grading Is
concerned. However, this release is not Intended to certify the project with respect to
other.engineering concerns, including public road, drainage; water, sewer, park, and trail
improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred
monumentation; or final grading.'
Prior to final Inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further
advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and
Irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
a�—
(Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate)
Reference: Building Permit No.
1 7— _zo
Date).
(5 -a t _eJ
Special Note- Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering
technicians' in-boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork,
when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with
Building Inspection. Thank you.
ISGIfield1docl
Yrn_4:t:L_,)rnn / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, E ndims, California Califonia 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 t '5 rLwyde d paper
N
W_ ►E
1
S
Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping
February 25, 2008
Page 1 of 1
Engineering Inspector
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: Grading Plan No. 331 -G, CDP 05 -099 Grading Plan, 172 Kilkenny Drive,
Encinitas, CA
Dear Engineering Inspector,
The grading under permit no. 0331 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the
approved grading plan, or as shown on the attached as- graded plan.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or comments.
/Sincerely,
Vince Sampo, PE, PLS
President
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ hone: 760 -436 -0660 ♦ fax: 760 -436 -0659
info @sampoengineering.com
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024 -3633
Tel 760 -633 -2600 • Fax 760- 943 -2226
TDD 760 -633- 2700.1vtiAtiv.ci.encinitas.ca.us
TO:
FROM:
Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy.
Subdivision Engineering
Public Service Counter
Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection
Fire
Building
Planning
Engineering
RE: Building Permit No. 6 (2, -- I q 39
Name of Project IAA YA Zq / // 4A/ KES,/1 r-� CJ
Name of Developer .T /`q Lox4 Fvq _T 1
4:�.fj YJ
i have inspected the site at 72, klL44NN 2>2 1 lJ15
address... number street name suffix
and have determined that finish (precise) grading
(lot no.) (bldg. no.)
and. any other.related site improvements are substantially complete
and that occupancy is merited
Signature of Engineering Inspector Date Z
Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only rfappropriate. Date
Reference: Engineering Permit No. ]U f C T
Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to
the developer. You are only being.asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to
verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or
execution of documents. Return -this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled
'Final Inspection". Also, .please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and
return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you.
City OfNGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
January 15, 2008
Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company
c/o G.S. Levine
10505 Sorrento Valley Road
Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121
RE: Jeffrey D. Kayajanian
172 Kilkenny Drive
APN 261 - 102 -17
Grading Permit 331 -G
Partial release of security
Permit 331 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion
control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has
approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited.
Performance Bond 661120208, in the amount of $18,909.60, may be reduced by 75%
to $4,727.40. 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,
Z"
Debra Geishart '
Lembach
Engineering Technician finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Jeffrey Kayajanian
Debra Geishart
File
TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 ��
� recycled paper
�lU,i;
JAN 30 2001
SOILS INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE
172 KILKENNY COURT
CARDIFF -BY- THE -SEA AREA OF
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 167D41
April 13, 2005
Prepared for:
MR. AND MRS. KAYAJANIAN
c/o Mr. Joe Walsh
P.O. Box 192
Cardiff, California 92007
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 •
(619)442 -8022 . FAX (619)442 -7859
SGC South /and Geotechnical Consultants
April 13, 2005
To: Mr. and Mrs. Kayajanian
c/o Mr. Joe Walsh
P.O. Box 192
Cardiff, California 92007
Project No. 167D41
Subject: Soils Investigation, Proposed Single- Family Residence, 172 Kilkenny
Court, Cardiff -by- the -Sea Area of Encinitas, California
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a soils investigation for the
proposed single - family residence to be constructed at 172 Kilkenny Court in the
Cardiff -by- the -Sea area of Encinitas. This report presents the results of our soils
investigation and provides our conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical
standpoint, relative to the proposed project.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our soils investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the
property and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the
design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of our soils investigation
included the following:
Review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the site and general
vicinity. A list of the documents reviewed is included in Appendix A.
- Review of preliminary project plans.
- Field reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial soil conditions at the
subject property and nearby vicinity.
- Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling three exploratory borings at the site.
- Laboratory expansion index, sulfate and chloride content testing of soil samples
obtained from the exploratory borings.
Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 •
(619)442 -8022 . FAX (619)442 -7859
Project No. 167D41
Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our soils investigation and
presenting conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint,
regarding design and construction of the proposed project.
Proiect Description
The subject property is located on the north side of Kilkenny Drive, west of Newcastle
Avenue in the Cardiff -by- the -Sea area of Encinitas (see Figure 1). The rectangular site
is bounded to the east and north by developed residential properties and to the west
by an alley. The site is currently developed with a single - family residence, detached
garage and associated improvements.
We understand the existing residence and detached garage will be razed. A two - story,
single - family residence, detached garage and associated improvements are proposed
to be constructed at the site. Some site grading is anticipated to prepare the site and
attain design finished grades for the proposed construction. Building loads are
assumed to be typical of residential construction.
Subsurface Investigation
On March 29, 2005, three exploratory borings were manually excavated at the site to
a maximum depth of approximately 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm and samples of the soils encountered
during the subsurface investigation were obtained for visual soils classification and
laboratory testing. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings were backfilled.
The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Exploratory Boring
Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the exploratory borings are presented in Appendix B.
Soil /Geologic Units
Based on our review of geologic maps and as encountered in our soils investigation,
the subject property appears to be underlain by fill soils and the geologic unit known
as terrace deposits. Brief descriptions of these units follow:
Fill Soils - Fill soils, apparently associated with the existing site improvements,
were encountered in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered, the fill soils
generally consisted of dark brown, silty fine to medium sand. In our exploratory
borings, the fill soils were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately
3 feet below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of fill
soils may exist at the site. The fill soils are considered potentially compressible
and, in their present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill
2
SGC
Project No. 167D41
and /or structural loads. A sample of the fill soils was tested in general
accordance with UBC test standard 18 -2 and was found to have a very low
expansion potential (expansion index = 1).
Terrace Deposits - The Quaternary -aged terrace deposits .were encountered
underlying the fill soils in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered in our
exploratory borings, the terrace deposits generally consisted of orange- brown,
slightly clayey, silty fine to medium sand. The dense terrace deposits typically
exhibit favorable bearing characteristics. The terrace deposits are similar to
soils in the general site vicinity found to have a very low to low expansion
potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18 -2.
Groundwater and Surface Water
Indications of a static, near - surface groundwater table were not observed during our
soils investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to the proposed
development. However, our experience indicates that near - surface groundwater
conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions previously
existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration
results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It is anticipated that
site development will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and discharge
of surface water runoff.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of our soils investigation, it is our opinion that development of the
site for construction of the proposed single - family residence is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. The following sections discuss the geotechnical factors
affecting the site and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, which
should be considered for design and construction of the proposed residential
development.
Earthwork
From our understanding of the project, some site grading will be performed to prepare
the site and attain finished design grades. Site earthwork should be performed in
accordance with the following recommendations and the Recommended Earthwork
Specifications included in Appendix C. In the event of conflict, the recommendations
presented herein supersede those of Appendix C.
Site Preparation - Prior to grading and construction activities, the site should be
cleared of vegetation, debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be
3
SGC
Project No. 167D41
properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with
properly compacted fill soils.
Removal /Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils - The existing fill soils
are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of fill
and /or structural loads. in their present condition. We recommend that these
soils be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill
placement. As encountered in our exploratory borings, these soils appear to
mantle the majority of the site. The fill soils were encountered to a maximum
depth of approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Localized
deeper accumulations of these soils may exist on the site. The thickness and
extent of these soils may vary and should be evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant during removal of these unsuitable soils. In general, the limits of
removal /recompaction should extend a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade
and a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure.
These soils are considered suitable for re -use as compacted, structural fill
provided they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized
materials (rocks with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches).
Excavations - It is anticipated that excavation of the onsite soils can be
accomplished by conventional grading equipment in good operating condition.
Structural Fill Placement - Areas to receive fill and /or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to
near - optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D1557. Fill soils
should be brought to near - optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The
Optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed
in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction
of fill should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant. In general,
placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local
grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the Recommended
Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C.
Transition (Cut /Fill) Condition) - The potential for a transition (cut /fill) condition
underlying the area of the proposed structure should be checked when project
plans are finalized and in the field during grading so that appropriate
recommendations can be provided to reduce the potential damage due to
differential settlement across the transition. Typically, we recommend that the
cut (or natural) portion of the building area be overexcavated to a minimum
depth of 3 feet and replaced with moisture - conditioned fill soils compacted to
4
SGC
Project No. 167D41
at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation
and recompaction typically extends for a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the
perimeter of the proposed building.
Trench Backfill - The onsite soils are generally suitable as trench backfill
provided they are screened of organic matter and clasts over 6 inches in
diameter. Trench backf ill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least
90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
Foundations
Project plans are not finalized, however, we understand that the proposed development
will include construction of a two - story, single - family residence and associated
improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be supported by
continuous perimeter and /or isolated footings with slab -on -grade floors. Foundations
should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following
recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during
foundation excavation will have a very low expansion potential. The potentially
compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for support of fill and /or structural
loads.
The proposed two -story structure may be supported by continuous and /or isolated
footings bearing entirely in properly compacted fill soils or entirely in dense,
formational soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade.
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches (12 inches for one -
story) and be reinforced, at a minimum, with two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and
one near the bottom). Spread footings should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations and have a minimum width of 24 inches.
For footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable
soil- bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
may be increased by one -third for loads of short duration such as wind and seismic
loads.
Slabs on Grade
Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. Concrete slabs on grade underlain
entirely by properly compacted fill soils or entirely by dense, formational soils with a
very low to low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and
be reinforced at midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or
5
SGC
Project No. 167D41
No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Care should be taken by the
contractor to insure that the reinforcement is placed at slab midheight.
Slabs should be designed with crack control joints at appropriate spacings for the
anticipated loading. Slabs should be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand (sand
equivalent greater than 30) which is underlain by a 10 -mil moisture barrier which is
underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand. The potential for slab cracking may be
lessened by careful control of water /cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is
recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement of
concrete during hot weather. We recommend that the upper approximately one foot
of soil beneath concrete slabs -on -grade be moistened prior to placing the sand blanket,
moisture barrier and concrete. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack - sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs.
Please note that our recommendations for slabs are minimum design parameters. The
project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the concrete slabs on
grade. In addition, our recommendations are not intended to eliminate the possibility
of cracks due to concrete shrinkage. Shrinkage cracks develop in nearly all slabs
which are not specifically designed to prevent them. We recommend that a structural
consultant or qualified concrete contractor be consulted to provide appropriate design
and workmanship requirements for mitigation of shrinkage cracks.
Lateral Resistance
Footings and slabs founded in firm, natural soils or properly compacted soils may be
designed for a passive lateral pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of
depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.3 may
be assumed. These values may be increased by one -third when considering loads of
short duration, such as wind or seismic forces.
Seismic Considerations
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are
damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking, seismically -
induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The seismic hazard most likely to impact
the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active
regional faults. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal
since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or
seismically- induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered low because
of the dense nature of the underlying terrace deposits and anticipated lack of a near -
surface groundwater table.
0
SGC
Project No. 167D41
The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code,
Section 1636, Tables 16 -J, 16 -S, 16 -T and 16 -U are provided below.
UBC Table 16 -J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and our review of UBC Table 16 -J, the soil profile type for the
subject property is So ( "Stiff Soil Profile ").
UBC Table 16 -U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near - Source Zones
maps (0 -36) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located
easterly and within approximately 3.7 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault. The
fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 16 -U.
UBC Table 16 -S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near - Source Factor (Na) is 1.2.
UBC Table 16 -T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near - Source Factor (NJ is 1.46.
Sulfate /Chloride Content
A sample of the onsite soils was tested to evaluate the degree of sulfate attack on
ordinary (Type II) concrete. The test was performed in general accordance with
California Test Method No. 417 and yielded a soluble sulfate content of 0.001 percent.
The test result indicates a "negligible" degree of sulfate attack based on UBC Table
19 -A -4 criteria. The type of concrete specified and used should be determined by the
project structural engineer.
A sample of the onsite soils was tested to assist in an evaluation of the degree of
chloride attack on ordinary (Type II) concrete. The test was performed in general
accordance with California test method No. 422 and yielded a soluble chloride content
of 0.003 percent. The type of concrete specified and used should be determined by
the structural engineer.
7
SGC
Project No. 167D41
Site Drainage
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tightlined
to appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage
by eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non - erosive devices.
Water, either natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the
surface soils or flow over the tops of slopes. Landscape requiring a heavy irrigation
schedule should not be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas.
Plan Review /Construction Observation and Testin
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
project and interpolated subsurface conditions disclosed in our widely- spaced
exploratory borings. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface
condition at a project site. Final project drawings for the proposed residential
development should be reviewed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants prior to
construction to check that the recommendations contained in this report are
incorporated into the project plans. Subsurface conditions should be checked in the
field during construction. Geotechnical observation during any site grading and field
density testing of compacted fill should be performed by Southland Geotechnical
Consultants. Geotechnical observation of footing excavations should also be
performed by the geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance
with the recommendations of this report.
V
sic
Project No. 167D41
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact our office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
S
Susan E. Tanges, CEG 118
Managing Principal /Eng'
1
C arle . Corbin, PE 36302
ist Proj t Engineer
..
f l� Or G�-��
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Exploratory Boring Location Map
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix C - Recommended Earthwork Specifications
Distribution: (3) Addressee
E
SGC
^^ T EP
V.
If
Ln 141
LXIV
30 1 71A
�
� SITE LOCATION —��
� �� — -—~
Project No. 167D41
172 Kilkenny Court
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Area of
Encinitas, California
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Base Map: Landslide hazards inthe Encinitas quadrong|e
Gan Diego County' California, CDK8�� C)FR 86'8' by Tan, . '98G
FIGURE 1
SGC
w
J
J
Q
KILKENNY COURT
EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION MAP
r
N LEGEND
Project No. 167D41 • Approximate location of
172 Kilkenny Court B -3 exploratory boring
Cardiff -by- the -Sea Area of Encinitas, California
NOT TO SCALE
Base Map: THIS IS NOT A SURVEYED MAP
This site sketch was made by an SGC representative
FIGURE 2
SGC
Project No. 167D41
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California
and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6.
2. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault- rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
3. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego
metropolitan area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin 200.
4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 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.
5. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in -house geologic /geotechnical
information.
SGC
Project No. 167D41
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
BORING NO. DEPTH DESCRIPTION
B -1 0 -3' Fill - Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand
(SM); with small roots
3 -5' Terrace Deposits - Orange- brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey,
silty fine to medium sand (SC -SM)
Total depth = 5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Bulk samples at 1 -2 and 3 -4 feet
Excavated and backfilled 3 -29 -05
B -2 0 -2.75' Fill - Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand
(SM); with small roots
2.75 -4.5' Terrace Deposits - Orange- brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey,
silty fine to medium sand (SC -SM)
Total depth = 4.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Bulk samples at 1 -2 and 3 -4 feet
Excavated and backfilled 3 -29 -05
B -3 0 -0.75' Gravel Driveway
0.75 -2' Fill - Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium
sand (SM)
2 -3.5' Terrace Deposits - Orange- brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey,
silty fine to medium sand (SC -SM)
Total depth = 3.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Excavated and backfilled 3 -29 -05
SGC
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations
for grading and earthwork to be used in conjunction with the approved grading
plans. These general earthwork specifications are considered a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and are superseded by
recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the
geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fill placement for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the
geotechnical consultant apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24
hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No
grading operations shall be performed without the knowledge of the
geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical
consultant is aware of all site grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations of the geotechnical
report, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture
condition,. inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,..are resulting in a
quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the
specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and
recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
3.0 Preoaration of Areas to be Filled
3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other
deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies
and the geotechnical consultant.
SGC
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than one
percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials.
In addition, nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not
satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following
..section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods. and until the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of features which would inhibit uniform
compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic -rich, spongy, highly fractured, or
otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be
overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining pay quantities of
materials overexcavated, the services of a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer should be used.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be
watered, dried, or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near -
optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been
properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture -
conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are placed on ground sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The
lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, excavated at least
2..feet into. competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or
otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed
areas, areas of removal, and fill benches should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement.
SGC
4.0 Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation,
expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended
by the geotechnical consultant.
4.2 Oversize Material: Oversize fill material, defined as material with a
maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed
in fills unless the location, materials, and methods are specifically
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
4.3 Import: If grading operations include importing of fill material, the import
material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time
should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to test and evaluate
proposed import as necessary, prior to importing to the site.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas properly prepared and
evaluated as acceptable to receive fill. Fill should be placed in near -
horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity
of material and moisture content throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried or blended as
necessary to attain a uniform near - optimum moisture content as
determined by test method ASTM D1557.
5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less
than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method
ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and
..be either.specifically.designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability
to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compaction of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to
normal compaction procedures, by backrolling slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other
methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading,
the relative compaction of the fill, including the embankment face should
be at least 90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D 1557.
SGC
5.5 Compaction Testino: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of
compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical
consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the
consultant's discretion based on observations of the field conditions. In
general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
elevation gain and /or each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition,
on slope faces, as a guideline, one test should be taken for each 5,000
square feet of slope face and /or each 10 -foot interval of vertical slope
height.
6.0 Subdrain Construction
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be constructed in areas evaluated
for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain system should be
constructed to the approximate alignment in accordance with the details shown
on the approved plans or provided herein. The subdrain location or materials
should not be modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The consultant may recommend modifications to the subdrain system depending
on conditions encountered. Completed subdrains should be surveyed for line
and grade by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
7.0 Excavations
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation, and /or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope
buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
The services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be retained to
determine quantities of materials excavated during grading and /or the limits of
overexcavation.
SGC
�OMPACTE
OMPA
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT —FILL LOT
l
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
MlN. I
11 --:821-2- `OVEREXCAVATE
��'4ANfl RECOMPACT
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
�UNSUTA ABLE
MATERIAL,
•OVEREXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
36- MIN.*
T
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
T'L __� I
5'
MIN.
*NOTE:
Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcavation and
recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical
consultant based on actual field conditions encountered
and locations of proposed improvements
88" MIN *
SGC
KEY AND BENCHING DE'T'AILS
FILL SLOPE
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
�ir2% MIN.?__?
I
'2' MIN 1 S' MIN."
KEY I LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
(XEY)
FILL -OVER -CUT- SLOPE
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
_ -2 1,
BENCH
NP
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
PA
BENCH
i I �--15' MIN. _—_`z:—REMOVE
2' LOWEST UNSUITABLE
MIN. BENCH MATERIAL
KEY
DEPTH. (KEY)
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
/ ��
CUT - OVER -FILL SLOPE CUT SLOPE
/ / (TO BE EXCAVATED
/ PRIOR TO FILL
/ PLACEMENT)
PROJECT 1 TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
ENCH
-REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
'MATERIAL
2' U.N. I �
KEY DEPTH BENCHT
(KEY)
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on field conditions encountered.
SG
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
SLOPE FACE
5'
FINISH GRADE
MAX
OVERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR SOIL (S.F -? 30) TO HE _-
DENSIFIED IN PLACE SY FLOODING
DETAIL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility- whichever is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal.
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
SGC
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS—
FINISH GRADE
COMPACTED
WALL FOOTING
NOT TO SCALE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2.PERMEASLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
X Passing
1$
100
314"
90 -100
318"
40 -100
No. 4
25 -40
No. 8
18 -33
No. 30
5 -15
No. 50
0 -7
No. 200
0 -3
Sand Equivalent > 75
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
I 3' MIN.
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
*BASED ON ASTM D1557
# *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'- 1 -1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
NOTE;COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
!OR J —DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 21NSTALLA71ON SHOULD BE PERFORMO IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
SGC
0 MI
OVERLAP ____
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
�_?_=
EQUIVALENT) **
1' MIN. _ __
3/4'- 1.112' CLEAN GRAVEL"
4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
I 3' MIN.
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
*BASED ON ASTM D1557
# *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'- 1 -1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
NOTE;COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
!OR J —DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 21NSTALLA71ON SHOULD BE PERFORMO IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
SGC
r
SOILS INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE
172 KILKENNY COURT
CARDIFF -BY- THE -SEA AREA OF
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 167D41
April 13, 2005
Prepared for:
MR. AND MRS. KAYAJANIAN
c/o Mr. Joe Walsh
P.O. Box 192
Cardiff, California 92007
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CA✓ON, CALIFORNIA 92021 •
(619)442 -8022 • FAX (619)442 -7859
April 13, 2005 Project No. 167D41
To: Mr. and Mrs. Kayajanian
c/o Mr. Joe Walsh
P.O. Box 192
Cardiff, California 92007
Subject: Soils Investigation, Proposed Single - Family Residence, 172 Kilkenny
Court, Cardiff -by- the -Sea Area of Encinitas, California
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a soils investigation for the
proposed single - family residence to be constructed at 172 Kilkenny Court in the
Cardiff -by- the -Sea area of Encinitas. This report presents the results of our soils
investigation and provides our conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical
standpoint, relative to the proposed project.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our soils investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the
property and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the
design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of our soils investigation
included the following:
- Review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the site and general
vicinity. A list of the documents reviewed is included in Appendix A.
- Review of preliminary project plans.
- Field reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial soil conditions at the
subject property and nearby vicinity.
- Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling three exploratory borings at the site.
Laboratory expansion index, sulfate and chloride content testing of soil samples
obtained from the exploratory borings.
Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
. 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CA✓ON, CALIFORNIA 92021 .
(619)442 -8022 . FAX (619)442 -7859
Project No. 167D41
Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our soils investigation and
presenting conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint,
regarding design and construction of the proposed project.
Proiect Description
The subject property is located on the north side of Kilkenny Drive, west of Newcastle
Avenue in the Cardiff -by- the -Sea area of Encinitas (see Figure 1). The rectangular site
is bounded to the east and north by developed residential properties and to the west
by an alley. The site is currently developed with a single - family residence, detached
garage and associated improvements.
We understand the existing residence and detached garage will be razed. A two - story,
single - family residence, detached garage and associated improvements are proposed
to be constructed at the site. Some site grading is anticipated to prepare the site and
attain design finished grades for the proposed construction. Building loads are
assumed to be typical of residential construction.
Subsurface Investigation
On March 29, 2005, three exploratory borings were manually excavated at the site to
a maximum depth of approximately 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm and samples of the soils encountered
during the subsurface investigation were obtained for visual soils classification and
laboratory testing. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings were backfilled.
The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Exploratory Boring
Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the exploratory borings are presented in Appendix B.
Soil /Geologic Units
Based on our review of geologic maps and as encountered in our soils investigation,
the subject property appears to be underlain by fill soils and the geologic unit known
as terrace deposits. Brief descriptions of these units follow:
Fill Soils - Fill soils, apparently associated with the existing site improvements,
were encountered in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered, the fill soils
generally consisted of dark brown, silty fine to medium sand. In our exploratory
borings, the fill soils were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately
3 feet below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of fill
soils may exist at the site. The fill soils are considered potentially compressible
and, in their present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill
2
SGC
Project No. 167D41
and /or structural loads. A sample of the fill soils was tested in general
accordance with UBC test standard 18 -2 and was found to have a very low
expansion potential (expansion index = 1).
Terrace Deposits - The Quaternary -aged terrace deposits .were encountered
underlying the fill soils in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered in our
exploratory borings, the terrace deposits generally consisted of orange- brown,
slightly clayey, silty fine to medium sand. The dense terrace deposits typically
exhibit favorable bearing characteristics. The terrace deposits are similar to
soils in the general site vicinity found to have a very low to low expansion
potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18 -2.
Groundwater and Surface Water
Indications of a static, near - surface groundwater table were not observed during our
soils investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to the proposed
development. However, our experience indicates that near - surface groundwater
conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions previously
existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration
results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It is anticipated that
site development will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and discharge
of surface water runoff.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of our soils investigation, it is our opinion that development of the
site for construction of the proposed single - family residence is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. The following sections discuss the geotechnical factors
affecting the site and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, which
should be considered for design and construction of the proposed residential
development.
Earthwork
From our understanding of the project, some site grading will be performed to prepare
the site and attain finished design grades. Site earthwork should be performed in
accordance with the following recommendations and the Recommended Earthwork
Specifications included in Appendix C. In the event of conflict, the recommendations
presented herein supersede those of Appendix C.
- Site Preparation - Prior to grading and construction activities, the site should be
cleared of vegetation, debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be
3
SGC
Project No. 167D41
properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with
properly compacted fill soils.
Removal / Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils - The existing fill soils
are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of fill
and /or structural loads, in their present condition. We recommend that these
soils be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill
placement. As encountered in our exploratory borings, these soils appear to
mantle the majority of the site. The fill soils were encountered to a maximum
depth of approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Localized
deeper accumulations of these soils may exist on the site. The thickness and
extent of these soils may vary and should be evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant during removal of these unsuitable soils. In general, the limits of
removal /recompaction should extend a minimum of 3 feet below finished grade
and a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure.
These soils are considered suitable for re -use as compacted, structural fill
provided they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized
materials (rocks with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches).
Excavations - It is anticipated that excavation of the onsite soils can be
accomplished by conventional grading equipment in good operating condition.
Structural Fill Placement - Areas to receive fill and /or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to
near - optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D1557. Fill soils
should be brought to near - optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The
optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed
in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction
of fill should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant. In general,
placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local
grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the Recommended
Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C.
Transition (Cut /Fill) Condition) - The potential for a transition (cut /fill) condition
underlying the area of the proposed structure should be checked when project
plans are finalized and in the field during grading so that appropriate
recommendations can be provided to reduce the potential damage due to
differential settlement across the transition. Typically, we recommend that the
cut (or natural) portion of the building area be overexcavated to a minimum
depth of 3 feet and replaced with moisture - conditioned fill soils compacted to
4
SGC
Project No. 167D41
at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation
and recompaction typically extends for a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the
perimeter of the proposed building.
- Trench Backfill - The onsite soils are generally suitable as trench backfill
provided they are screened of organic matter and clasts over 6 inches in
diameter. Trench backf ill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least
90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
Foundations
Project plans are not finalized, however, we understand that the proposed development
will include construction of a two - story, single - family residence and associated
improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be supported by
continuous perimeter and /or isolated footings with slab -on -grade floors. Foundations
should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following
recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during
foundation excavation will have a very low expansion potential. The potentially
compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for support of fill and /or structural
loads.
The proposed two -story structure may be supported by continuous and /or isolated
footings bearing entirely in properly compacted fill soils or entirely in dense,,
formational soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade.
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches (12 inches for one -
story) and be reinforced, at a minimum, with two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and
one near the bottom). Spread footings should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations and have a minimum width of 24 inches.
For footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable
soil- bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
may be increased by one -third for loads of short duration such as wind and seismic
loads.
Slabs on Grade
Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. Concrete slabs on grade underlain
entirely by properly compacted fill soils or entirely by dense, formational soils with a
very low to low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and
be reinforced at midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or
5
SGC
Project No. 167D41
No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Care should be taken by the
contractor to insure that the reinforcement is placed at slab midheight.
Slabs should be designed with crack control joints at appropriate spacings for the
anticipated loading. Slabs should be underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand (sand
equivalent greater than 30) which is underlain by a 10 -mil moisture barrier which is
underlain by a 2 -inch layer of clean sand. The potential for slab cracking may be
lessened by careful control of water /cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is
recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement of
concrete during hot weather. We recommend that the upper approximately one foot
of soil beneath concrete slabs -on -grade be moistened prior to placing the sand blanket,
moisture barrier and concrete. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack - sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs.
Please note that our recommendations for slabs are minimum design parameters. The
project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the concrete slabs on
grade. In addition, our recommendations are not intended to eliminate the possibility
of cracks due to concrete shrinkage. Shrinkage cracks develop in nearly all slabs
which are not specifically designed to prevent them. We.recommend that a structural
consultant or qualified concrete contractor be consulted to provide appropriate design
and workmanship requirements for mitigation of shrinkage cracks.
Lateral Resistance
Footings and slabs founded in firm, natural soils or properly compacted soils may be
designed for a passive lateral pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of
depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.3 may
be assumed. These values may be increased by one -third when considering loads of
short duration, such as wind or seismic forces.
Seismic Considerations
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are
damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking, seismically -
induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The seismic hazard most likely to impact
the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active
regional faults. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal
since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or
seismically- induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered low because
of the dense nature of the underlying terrace deposits and anticipated lack of a near -
surface groundwater table.
0
SGC
Project No. 167D41
The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code,
Section 1636, Tables 16 -J, 16 -S, 16 -T and 16 -U are provided below.
UBC Table 16 -J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and our review of UBC Table 16 -J, the soil profile type for the
subject property is So ( "Stiff Soil Profile ").
UBC Table 16 -U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near - Source Zones
maps (0 -36) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located
easterly and within approximately 3.7 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault. The
fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 16 -U.
UBC Table 16 -S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near - Source Factor (N.) is 1.2. � , (-3
UBC Table 16 -T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near - Source Factor (N„) is 1.46.
Sulfate /Chloride Content
A sample of the onsite soils was tested to evaluate the degree of sulfate attack on
ordinary (Type II) concrete. The test was performed in general accordance with
California Test Method No. 417 and yielded a soluble sulfate content of 0.001 percent.
The test result indicates a "negligible" degree of sulfate attack based on UBC Table
19 -A -4 criteria. The type of concrete specified and used should be determined by the
project structural engineer.
A sample of the onsite soils was tested to assist in an evaluation of the degree of
chloride attack on ordinary (Type II) concrete. The test was performed in general
accordance with California test method No. 422 and yielded a soluble chloride content
of 0.003 percent. The type of concrete specified and used should be determined by
the structural engineer.
7
SGC
Project No. 167D41
Site Drainage
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tightlined
to appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage
by eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non - erosive devices.
Water, either natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the
surface soils or flow over the tops of slopes. Landscape requiring a heavy irrigation
schedule should not be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas.
Plan Review /Construction Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
project and interpolated subsurface conditions disclosed in our widely- spaced
exploratory borings. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface
condition at a project site. Final project drawings for the proposed residential
development should be reviewed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants prior to
construction to check that the recommendations contained in this report are
incorporated into the project plans. Subsurface conditions should be checked in the
field during construction. Geotechnical observation during any site grading and field
density testing of compacted fill should be performed by Southland Geotechnical
Consultants. Geotechnical observation of footing excavations should also be
performed by the geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance
with the recommendations of this report.
0
SGC
Project No. 167D41
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact our office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Susan E. Tanges, CEG Vi86 C arle . Corbin PE
36302
Managing Principal /En " "' logist Qroj t Engineer
U �
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Exploratory Boring Location Map
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix C - Recommended Earthwork Specifications
Distribution:
(3) Addressee
0
SGC
~ A 7f 41
ILA
0.
�
0 S�ELOCATION ��P NW ��—
Project No. 1G7D41
172 Kilkenny Court
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Area of
Encinitas, California
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Base Map: Landslide hazards in the Encinitas quadrangle,
San Diego County, California, CDK4G OPR 86'8' by Tan, 1986 FIGURE 1
SGC
}
w
J
J
KILKENNY COURT
r EXPLORATORY BORING LOCATION MAP
N LEGEND
Project No. 167D41 • Approximate location of
172 Kilkenny Court B -3 exploratory boring
Cardiff -by- the -Sea Area of Encinitas, California
NOT TO SCALE
Base Map: THIS IS NOT A SURVEYED MAP
This site sketch was made by an SGC representative FIGURE 2
SGC
Project No. 167D41
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California
and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6.
2. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault- rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
3. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego
metropolitan area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin 200.
4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 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.
5. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in -house geologic /geotechnical
information.
SGC
Project No. 167D41
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
BORING NO. DEPTH DESCRIPTION
B-1 0 -3' Fill - Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand
(SM); with small roots
3 -5' Terrace Deposits - Orange- brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey,
silty fine to medium sand (SC -SM)
Total depth = 5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Bulk samples at 1 -2 and 3 -4 feet
Excavated and backfilled 3 -29 -05
B-2 0 -2.75' Fill - Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand
(SM); with small roots
2.75 -4.5' Terrace Deposits - Orange- brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey,
silty fine to medium sand (SC -SM)
Total depth = 4.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Bulk samples at 1 -2 and 3 -4 feet
Excavated and backfilled 3 -29 -05
B-3 0 -0.75' Gravel Driveway
0.75 -2' Fill - Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium
sand (SM)
2 -3.5' Terrace Deposits - Orange- brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey,
silty fine to medium sand (SC -SM)
Total depth = 3.5 feet
No groundwater encountered
Excavated and backfilled 3 -29 -05
SGC
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations
for grading and earthwork to be used in conjunction with the approved grading
plans. These general earthwork specifications are considered a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and are superseded by
recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the
geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fill placement for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the
geotechnical consultant apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24
hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No
grading operations shall be performed without the knowledge of the
geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical
consultant is aware of all site grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations of the geotechnical
report, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture
condition,. inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., ..are resulting in a
quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the
specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and
recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other
deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies
and the geotechnical consultant.
GC
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than one
percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials.
In addition, nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not
satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following
section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods, and until the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of features which would inhibit uniform
compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic -rich, spongy, highly fractured, or
otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be
overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining pay quantities of
materials overexcavated, the services of a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer should be used.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be
watered, dried, or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near -
optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.5 Recomoaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been
properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture -
conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are placed on ground sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The
lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, excavated at least
2 .feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
corsultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or
otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed
areas, areas of removal, and fill benches should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement.
SGC
4.0 Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation,
expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended
by the geotechnical consultant.
4.2 Oversize Material: Oversize fill material, defined as material with a
maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed
in fills unless the location, materials, and methods are specifically
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
4.3 Import: If grading operations include importing of fill material, the import
material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time
should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to test and evaluate
proposed import as necessary, prior to importing to the site.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas properly prepared and
evaluated as acceptable to receive fill. Fill should be placed in near -
horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity
of material and moisture content throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried or blended as
necessary to attain a uniform near - optimum moisture content as
determined by test method ASTM D1557.
5.3 Com action of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less
than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method
ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and
be either specifically.designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability
to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compaction of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to
normal compaction procedures, by backrolling slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other
methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading,
the relative compaction of the fill, including the embankment face should
be at least 90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D 1557.
SG-E
5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of
compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical
consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the
consultant's discretion based on observations of the field conditions. In
general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
elevation gain and /or each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition,
on slope faces, as a guideline, one test should be taken for each 5,000
square feet of slope face and /or each 10 -foot interval of vertical slope
height.
6.0 Subdrain Construction
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be constructed in areas evaluated
for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain system should be
constructed to the approximate alignment in accordance with the details shown
on the approved plans or provided herein. The subdrain location or materials
should not be modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The consultant may recommend modifications to the subdrain system depending
on conditions encountered. Completed subdrains should be surveyed for line
and grade by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
7.0 Excavations
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation, and /or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope
buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
The services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be retained to
determine quantities of materials excavated during grading and /or the limits of
overexcavation.
SGC
U
M PA C
F1LL�
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT -FILL LOT
i
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
MIN.
36" MIN.*
F
`-OVEREXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT
COMPETENT BEDROCK
�— OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
�–%�AEM0VE
UN3UITA8LE
MATERIAL
OVEREXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT
COMPETENT BEDROCK
X--'81R MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
MIN.
*NOTE:
Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcavation and
recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical
consultant based on actual field conditions encountered
and locations of proposed improvements
36' MINI '
F
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXI3TING
GROUND SURFACE
2' Mih
KEY
DEPTH
FILL-OVER-CUT. SLOPE
-13' MiN
LO WEST
BENCH
(KEY)
BENCH
� REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
A
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE'Y = =_ —_-
BENCH
' � --15' MIN. —+� REMOVE 2 LOWEST UNSUITABLE
i� MIN. BENCH MATERIAL
v DEPTH. (KEY) .
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
EXISTING
GROUND
CUT SLOPE
SURFACE��,
CUT- OVER -FILL SLOPE /J� ��' (TO BE EXCAVATED
E
/ PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
•
= �{_-�� REMOVE
PROJECT I TO 1
_ UNSUITABLE
'MATERIAL
LINE FROM TOE
__
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
=_- --
OMPACT.L�i
MATERIAL
3' MIN.
2' MIN. LOWEST
KEY DEPTH SENC.4
(KEY)
NOTE: Sack drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on field conditions encountered.
SGC
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISH eRADE
SLOPE FACE
MAX.
VERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR SOIL ME,2: SO) TO 8E
DENSIFIED IN PLACE By FLOODING
DETAIL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches should not be used within 1
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is 0 feet
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
greater),
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized i
3) Rock placement, flcodin of n tells.
geotechnical consultantg granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be sta details
vertically (as depicted). ggered
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely
rocks. fill voids around greater
SGC
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
00 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
RETAINING WALL
WALL OVV ERLAP WATERPROOFING o MIN. FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
PER ARCHITECT-3
SPECIFICATIONS (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
c EQUIVALENT) *'*
1 MIN. ? = =— 3146- 1.112' C "
LEAN GRAVEL
FINISH GRADE o o
1 O
= 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
• _ __ PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
= =� == e e o = �?= EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
e O
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING f
lL31 L— =ti = tI 3' MIN.
NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CONSULTANT
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size z P =fig *BASED ON ASTM 01557
1" 100 * * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
3141 90 -100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
40 -100 3/4'- 1.1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
No. 4
No. $ 25 -40 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
I8 -33 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
No. 30 5 -15 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
No. 50 0_7
No. 200 0 -3
Sand Equiva7ent >75 NOTE.COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS Mi
'OR J —DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL
CLASS Z INSTALLA71ON SHOULD BE pEAFOR"M OR
WITH IN ACCORDANCE
TH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION$
September 12, 2005
Project No. 167D41
To: Crest Engineering
332 South Juniper, Suite 203A
Escondido, California 92025
Attention: Mr. Chuck lacuaniello
Subject: Revised Seismic Design Paramaters, Proposed Single - Family Residence,
172 Kilkenny Court, Cardiff-by-the-Sea Area of Encinitas, California
Reference: Soils Investigation, Proposed Single - Family Residence, 172 Kilkenn
Court, Cardiff -by- the -Sea Area of Encinitas, y
alifornia
2005, by Southland Geotechnical Consultants , dated April 13,
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has prepared this letter to provide revised seismic
design parameters for the residential development to be constructed at 172 Kilkenn
Court the Cardiff -by- the -Sea area of Encinitas. The parameters reviousl y
page 7 of our referenced report were incorrect. Following is the correct infor a i nn
The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural En ineers
Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite g
conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Bugd ngcCodel
Section 1636, Tables 16 -J, 16 -S, 16 -T and 16 -U are provided below.
UBC Table 16 -J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and our review of UBC Table 16 -J, the soil profile type for the
subject property is Sp ( "Stiff Soil Profile ").
UBC Table 16 -U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near - Source Zones
maps (0 -36) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located
easterly and within approximately 3.7 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault. The
fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 16 -U.
UBC Table 16 -S - Based on our understanding of the onsite
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault c (Rose l
Canyon fault zone), the Near - Source Factor (N.) is 1. 13 (corrected value).
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 .
(619)442 -8022 • FAX (619)442 -7859
Project No. 167D41
UBC Table 16 -T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near - Source Factor (N„) is 1.37 (corrected value).
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call. We appreciate
Opportunity to be of service. the
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAI
Susan E. Tanges, CEG 1386
Engineering Geologist
- CONSULTANTS
�5gONAL OF
Q�OyJ�PN E.
No, 7398 �N v
CERTIFIED
EERI
t fn E YOGI rG yF
CALI
Distribution: (2) Addressee, (1) via fax, 760 - 746 -1461
(1) Mr. and Mrs. Kayajanian
K
sac
B�
N
I
Sampo Engineering, Inc.
Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping
S
DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
CDP 05 -099
172 KILKENNY DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
APN: 261- 102 -17
September 11, 2006
j.n. 06 -115
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone: 760 -436 -0660 ♦ fax: 760436 -0659
info @sampoengineering.com
N
I
W. E Sampo Engineering, Inc.
® ►--
Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping
S J
n 06 -115
September 11, 2006
DRAINAGE STUDY FOR: CDP 05-099,172 Kilkenny Drive, Encinitas, CA
92024, APN: 261 - 102 -17
Criteria:
1. Use the current County of San Diego Hydrology Manual "Rational Method ".
2. Design for a 100 -year frequency storm using the County of San Diego 6 hour and
24 hour precipitation isopluvials.
3. Runoff coefficients are based on soil type "D ". "C" factors have been weighted
based on the individual "C" factors for different surfaces (i.e. concrete= 0.95), and
the areas of the individual surfaces.
4. Times of concentration (Tc) are determined from the urban overland flow
formula.
5. Refer to the attached drainage map for basin areas and locations.
Introduction:
1. The subject property is 0.138 gross acres and is located on the northerly side of
Kilkenny Drive, in the City of Encinitas. The property is currently developed with
one dwelling unit, detached garage, and associated improvements such as
hardscape, landscaping, etc. The property slightly ascends from the alley between
Newport Avenue and Newcastle Avenue at an approximate grade of 3 percent to
the easterly limit of the subject property. A small portion of the neighboring
property directly to the east drains onto the subject property. This project
proposes to maintain the historical drainage patterns.
2. The project proposes to construct a new single - family residence on the subject
property and add to the existing garage. The project will include flatwork and
planter areas. Grass -lined swales are to be constructed on the easterly and
northerly side of the subject property for post- construction BMP purposes. In
addition, a 4' wide strip of GrassPave is to be constructed on the westerly side of
the driveway for BMP's. The post - developed runoff from the property is
approximately 0.65 cfs. The pre - developed runoff is approximately 0.49 cfs, an
increase in 0.16 cfs.
1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone: 760436 -0660 ♦ fax: 760436 -0659
info @sampoengineering.com
DRAINAGE STUDY CALCULATOR
DESCRIPTION: Subject property tributary to Kilkenny Drive
AREA = 6,000.00 SF = 0.138 AC.
C = 0.35(3,190 SF) + 0.95(2 810 SF)
6,000 SF
TO = 1.8(1.1- .35)(47) ^(1 /2)
(3.0) ^(1/3)
1100 = 7.44(2.5)(6.42) "( -.645) -
JN: 06 -115
KAYAJANIAN
DATE: September 11, 2006
INITIALS: JO
��W
9.26
1.44 6.4
5.61 IN /HR
too = (0.63)(5.61 IN/HR)(0.138 AC) = 0.49 CFS
MINUTES
DESCRIPTION: Subject property tributary to Kilkenny Drive
AREA = 6,000.00 SF = 0.138 AC.
C = 0.35(2,323 SF) + 0.95(3 677 SF)
6,000 SF
TO = 1.8(1.1- .35)(35) ^(1 /2)
(4.0) ^(1/3)
1100 = 7.44(2.5)(5.0)^( -.645) _
JN: 06 -115
KAYAJANIAN
DATE: September 11, 2006
INITIALS: JO
0.72
7.99
1.59
5.0
6.59 IN /HR
100 = (0.72)(6.59 IN/HR)(0.138 AC) = 0.65 CFS
MINUTES
500
Q
O �
70
h
N COQ
off°
h
cc
h a � h°
400
60
I—
w
w
LL
Z_
w 300
U
Q
I—
O
O'
50
_N
- -- - -- -- —
w
G p�0
p
1 C, p
w
0 200
1 'pti
z
LU
F-
O
�O
40 Z
<
GAO
�
0
100
py0
0
G
30 Z
G.,
0
0
20
,Oao
1
C
C = 0.95
10
EXAMPLE:
0
Given: Watercourse Distance (D) = 250 Feet
Slope (s) = 0.5%
Runoff Coefficient (C) = 0.70
T = 1.8 (1.1 -C) D
Overland Flow Time (T) = 14.3 Minutes
3VS
SOURCE: Airport Drainage, Federal Aviation Administration, 1965
F I G U R E
Rational Formula - Overland Time of Flow Nomograph
3 -5
HazMaUCounty Hydrogeology ManuaUOverland FIow.FHB
TVAq
A�
0
Q
Ux
1
.a
0
ti
ti
ri
1 1 I
1 1
/
Vil
10 \ I / 1 I / 1 1 1 � �� ♦ fX1
I in
0
Imperial County
z
0
U
9 U
4� Z
' �` to
� w
IQ N p
c N O
O y LL
C p
o mom
o. a r-
C
G in U Z
a
E `111 `1 i �r .a9i- d1 I r _spa r
� / ' - _ - - -`J \ / it 1 ♦1 ♦ 1 1 r ._ o Ui_ ^.. -' i J`kl i ```♦
JJ p•.._�J � i �` `I 1 / `+��'0 `.O � �S2 � � JJ /r 8i I `��o'�\ ; �11 1 11 `
i. 1 1 O^
```♦
0
, ; T � ♦ .N ♦ J J �1
J JJJ 1
� -6
/ 1
•`f _iii ^' �.% J 'n1 �I \_;�___� \;`
N 1 ,
33 \ 1 1
I
Aft IJ
1 , 1
P,
�
/ r
/ 1
r
0 ca ... %
/ 1 00 1 �O., 7 J -`^ d 1
I CD
i
'12
iL
Lq
1 _ 1
` I %
` I 1
f
I /
f�c
pa
c'
ar
Oc e
/ p0
1 1
1
' � 1
1 \
1 \
to
W
Z �
0
�o
M
A
W
U1
l C
A
1
I'
e
WRAFS;
TRIP
H.
q
r
�,•.
506
..�,
,�
:r,
tom.
\ice
ar
Oc e
/ p0
1 1
1
' � 1
1 \
1 \
to
W
Z �
0
�o
M
A
W
U1
l C
A
1
I'
e
C7 �
CU
Q
►►►M''''me' Q
u
�a
O
ti
ti
D
N
1
o �
1
' M
/ / 1
♦
,' / ♦// N
i
/ N
I '
I ♦
1'- 1
ut
cli
% " 7
1
' I 1!1
y rlY ♦♦
iCa gyp'. i n'O i ii
Ii /
' 7�I
C7
G1 /'
\ .o
N
,N
M \
It)
M
I
1 ,
, t:l
1
1
1
L '
N
3
♦
r ;
1
1 1
r 1
Imperial County
r,
N C
``. a1
/ l T
/ 1
1
1
r /
' 1
`\ 1
\ 1
\ I
1 1
I /
1 1
I I
Y 1
/ 1
1 `1
1
I I
I
I I
1
Ln
n
N
"•M
- - -----------------
ILO
U
Ln
1 m
�\ ,\ /1 --
t \ s \ �
g -r -r=•
1%
ro,
z
J
_V O
l0 C
O
o
m v
"C
♦
O a
0
� Z
C7 u?
c� p L r�
w
CV G
rpO
-T) O
w �
(Zh
b
-
r
a..1
O
w
f � c
G�
h
c�M
p �
171
1%
ro,
i ♦
O
M
1 ,
/
, 1
1 1
';A4 ` 1
/ f'I1
I ,
I
\
�r
ails �
1 E
'Ei
z
J
_V O
l0 C
O
� Z
C7 u?
c� p L r�
w
CV G
rpO
-T) O
w �
(Zh
b
-
r
a..1
O
w
a m
h
c�M
60
171
i ♦
O
M
1 ,
/
, 1
1 1
';A4 ` 1
/ f'I1
I ,
I
\
�r
ails �
1 E
'Ei
ttpC 1 .1,
E
a yc
1
11
1%
O `
i I CV
I 1 \
1 \ ,
I
1
r
5
.y
i
la
1
.°b
A
E
J
_V O
l0 C
O
ttpC 1 .1,
E
a yc
1
11
1%
O `
i I CV
I 1 \
1 \ ,
I
1
r
5
.y
i
la
1
.°b