2008-1001 GLine: 3 `/ lot 0798
Nj Recording requested by:
^'J Leucadia Wastewater District
When recorded mail to:
Leucadia Wastewater District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009 -6810
Assessor's Parcel
Nn. 21 F -091 -1 S
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT
WAS RECORDED ON NOV 06 2008
DOCUMENT NUMBER 2006- 0580164
GREGORY] SMITH. COUNTY RECORDER
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
TIME 1245 PM
NOV 7 2008
Private Pump Station Agreement
LWD Location Code 769
This Agreement is entered into by and between Robert and Peggy Compton ("Owner")
and the Leucadia Wastewater District, a governmental entity ( "LWD ") with reference to the
following facts:
A. Owner has fee title to the real property commonly known as 342 Hillcrest Drive
and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
("Property');
B. Owner desires an exception to the LWD Standard that generally prohibits use of
private sewer pump stations, and LWD is willing to grant the exception, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement,
NOW, THERE; OR E, the parties, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns,
agree that the following covenants and conditions shah apply to the Property, subsequent owners
of the Property and any portion of the Property, regardless of whether it is divided or sold to one
or more owners:
l) Ownership and maintenance obligations of all individual home and private
sewer pump stations, force mains, and gravity laterals that serve, or are within the Property, and
including the physical connection to the public collection sewer (-private sewer facilities "), shall
remain t:•ith Owner.
2) Private sewer facilities shall not be dedicated to LWD, nor shall LWD
accept or be liable for ownership or maintenance of private sewer facilities.
3) Owner is solely liable and responsible for design, construction, operation,
maintenance, repair and replacement of private sewer facilities. Private sewer facilities shall meet
all of the applicable design, construction, maintenance and review requirements of LWD and the
plumbing and building code requirements of the jurisdictional city.
4) Owner acknowledges that a private sewer pump station is typically located
at an elevation lower than the public sewer and thereby allows the possibility of backflow of
sewage from the public sewer through the private lateral, pump discharge piping, and into the
pump station located on private property. Owner hereby assumes the risk of any such sewage
backflow possibility and agrees that LWD is not liable in any such event. To mitigate potential
for public sewage backflow into private property, Owner agrees to install and maintain in
accordance with applicable LWD requirements: 1) the private sewer pump station outside of any
residential structure: 2) a pump discharge check valve for backflow prevention, and 3) an easily
accessible and labeled separate shutoff valve on the pump discharge piping. The discharge
piping, check valve, and isolation valve shall be rated for a minimum internal pressure of 100
psi, or as otherwise approved by the LWD District Engineer. Owner shall be solely responsible
for any and all damage caused by private sewer facility blockage, damage, or failure, regardless
of cause, including failure of multi -unit sewer laterals, individual -home and private sewer pump
stations, force mains, and gravity laterals to, and including, the physical connection to the public
collection sewer.
5) Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify LWD, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and consultants from and against any and all liability, loss,
damage, expense, costs (including with out limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature
arising out of or in connection with the private sewer facilities, except such loss or damage which
was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party.
6) If any legal action or proceeding is brought by either party to enforce or
interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to receive from the other party, in
addition to any other relief granted, the reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred
in the action or proceeding.
7) The covenants in this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding
upon all future owners of the Property in its entirety or any portion thereof.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
By:
Robert CUmpton
Hiller e Dr.
T
Vege C6mpton
342 Hillcrest Dr.
Date
10 az� cr6
Date
OTARIZATION REQUIRED
B - iz ��z L,vr z /6 .� d
LWD ist Manager ate
NOTARIZATION REQUIRED
Appendix S Private Sewer Agreement for Private Pump Stations
October 2, 2006 as to Form Page 1 of 2
3354 Order No. 03- 1386936
EXHIBIT P\
That portion of Lots 28 and 29 in Avocado Acres No. 3, in the County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof No. 2063, in the City of Encinitas, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 3, 1927, described as
follows:
Commencing at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 28 distant thereon South
15046'30" East, 100.00 feet from the Northwest corner thereof, said point being the
Southwest corner of land conveyed to Charles K. Hines, et ux, by deed dated May 25,
1954 and recorded in Book 5305, Page 149, of Official Records; thence North 74013'30"
East along the Southerly line of said land 109.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
thence South 15 046'30" East parallel with the Westerly line of said Lots 28 and 29 a
distance of 92.00 feet; thence North 74013'30" East parallel with the Northerly line of
said Lot 29 a distance of 102.68 feet to the Easterly line of said Lot; thence Northerly
along said Easterly line and along the Easterly line of said Lot 28 a distance of 92.74 feet
to the Southeast corner of the aforementioned land conveyed to Hines; thence South
740 13'30" West along said Southerly line 113.78 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Assessor's Parcel No: 216 - 081 -15
Mt_L ruKIJOSE ACKNOWLEDGE TM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF 5A4
EMr��J
(Insert name
Personally appeared
Z /,C.
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose e ame s /are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that vx/sAthey executed the same in hp/hp their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by 0 /h/r /their signature(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.
comm. s t 529001)
Nctart Public . catitotme
11@* san Olego G2�aq
corn. E: rash .
(This arna lur official notarial seals
Rn Fw Mt 102105/07)
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENY
State of California 1
County of Swx IQC(y 1l
On 10(t t y3t20053 beforeme, raytG l fit,b IC
Data n a Here Insert Name an0 flee of if r
personally appeared
Place Notary Seal Above,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to
be the person$ whose name is/q* subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that
helolle,144 executed the same in hisVrl�V&r authorized
capacity(io's), and that by his*r/tfoir signatureo on the
instrument the personal, or the entity upon behalf of
which the personal 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 h nd and official seal.
Signature 1 �J //�
- Sgnawre of Notary Path,
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment or 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(s)
Signer's Name:
❑ Individual
❑ Corporate Officer —Title(s):
❑ Partner — i, Limited J General
❑ Attorney in Fact
Trustee
.J Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
RIGHT THUMBPRIWT
OF 9QNER
Number of Pages:
Signer's Name:
Individual
Corporate Officer — Title(s):
Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General
Attorney in Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer Is Representing
RIGHT THUr:1BPRINT
OF SIGNER
92007 Natrona) NO Assn .0 -9350 De Som Aye. PO Bor 2402 -C Vt wtb CA 91313- 2602 -m Nalron IN arywy Item r5%7 Reorrlerr Gall Tdl -F¢e tE00-B16.6821
Bond Estimate for
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
Grading Plan -1001 G
PREPARED FOR II I D.
CITY OF ENCINITAS, CA
AND
ROBERT AND PEGGY COMPTON
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PREPARED BY
Coastal Land Solutions
573 Second Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
DATE
March 26, 2007
REVISED
November 3, 2008
/41.,
w!! n f.PPi�iT�
Steven R. Jones, R 5124
C E � q, E
NOV 7 2008
11/312008
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
GRADING
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
(DESCRIPTION) (LS.LF,CY,ETC) (9) IS PER UNIT) ($)
EXCAVATE AND FILL
CY
250
$20.00
S5.00000
DRAINAGE
SUB -TOTAL
$2,317.50
TRENCH DRAIN
LF
18
545.00
$810.00
4 INCH PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE
LF
63
S2000
$1,260.00
IMPROVEMENTS:
PCC DRIVEWAY 6" THICK
SF
735
56.00
$4.410.00
CMU RETAINING WALL
SF
475
$29.65
$14.083.75
TURF BLOCK PERMEABLE PAVER
SF
545
$12.00
56.540.00
6- WIDE 0' HIGH CONCRETE CURB, PER C-6
LF
93
$1500
51.395.00
SUB -TOTAL $33,498.75
EROSION CONTROL
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
(DESCRIPTION) (LS.LF,CY,ETC) (4) IS PER UNIT) ($)
GRAVEL BAGS
SILT FENCE
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
EA 50 $1.10
$55.00
LF 200 51.60
$32000
SF 370 S525
$1.94250
SUB -TOTAL
$2,317.50
TOTAL
$35,816.25
10% CONTINGENCY
$3.58163
TOTAL SUM
39,397.88
GRAND TOTAL
$42,979.50
1 Land erica
Commonwealth
Commonwealth Land Title Company
3131 Camino del Rio N., #1400
San Diego, CA 92108
•:• •111
L Es
��
zo8 D
¢nr.ES
Lill
Commonwealth Land Title Co. Our File No: 03008121 - 499 - 503
5120 Avenida Encinas #110 Title Officer: Candy Church
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (CandyChurch @Landam.com)
Phone: (619) 686 -2153
Fax: (619) 686 -2183
Attn: Suzette Lau
Your Reference No: 3008121 -SL2
Property Address: 342 Hillcrest Drive, Encinitas, California
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Dated as of January 4, 2007 at 7:30 a.m.
In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, Commonwealth Land
Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof,
a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter
set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance
not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed
Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusion from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said
Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit B attached. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the
CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a
Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit B. Copies of the
Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions
set forth in Exhibit 8 of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to
provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title
insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this
preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not
list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of
facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired
that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment
should be requested.
CLTA Preliminary Report (Revised 11- 17 -04)
Page 1
File No: 03008121
SCHEDULE A
The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is:
ALTA Loan 1992
The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:
A FEE
Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
Robert A. Compton and Peggy C. Compton, husband and wife as joint tenants
The land referred to herein is situated in the County of San Diego, State of California, and is described
as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Page 2
File No: 03008121
EXHIBIT "A"
All that certain real property situated in the County of San Diego, State of
California, described as follows:
That portion of Lots 28 and 29 in Avocado Acres No. 3, in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2063, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October East, 1927,
described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 28 distant thereon South
15 046'30" East, 100.00 feet from the Northwest corner thereof, said point being
the Southwest corner of land conveyed to Charles K. Hines, et ux, by deed dated
May 25, 1954 and recorded in Book 5305, Page 149 of Official Records; thence
North 74 013'30" East along the Southerly line of said land 109.00 feet to the
True Point of Beginning; thence South 15 046'30" East parallel with the Westerly
line of said Lots 28 and 29 a distance of 92.00 feet; thence North 74 013'30 "East
parallel with the Northerly line of said Lot 29 a distance of 102.68 feet to the
Easterly line of said Lot; thence Northerly along said Easterly line and along the
Easterly line of said Lot 28 a distance of 92.74 feet to the Southeast corner of
the aforementioned land conveyed to Hines; thence South 74 013'30" West along
said Southerly line 113.78 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Page 3
File No: 03008121
SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof Exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in
said policy form would be as follows:
A. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any
assessments collected with taxes, to be levied for the fiscal year 2007 - 2008 which are a lien
not yet payable.
B. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2006 - 2007.
1st Installment:
$2,604.65 Paid
2nd Installment:
$2,604.65 Open - This amount is valid until April 10, after which
penalties apply
Penalty (including cost):
$270.47 Due with installment amount if paid after April 10
Land Value
$371,147.00
Improvement Value:
$118,091.00
Exemption:
$7,000.00
Code Area:
19084 - City of Encinitas
Assessment No.:
216- 081 -15 -00
C. Supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the
Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
1. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, appearing in the public records.
2. Any easements or servitudes appearing in the public records.
3. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other
obligations secured thereby.
Amount: $81,000.00
Dated: May 14, 2001
Trustor: Robert A. Compton, an unmarried man
Trustee: Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Beneficiary: Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., a California Corporation
Recorded: May 21, 2001 as File No. 2001- 0320613 of Official Records
Said deed of trust recites that it secures a line of credit. If the line of credit is to be paid off in
this transaction, this Company will require that the written demand for payment state that the
line of credit has been frozen and that the demand is not subject to increase for any additional
advances or draws. Accordingly, it is recommended that any request for a payoff demand
statement advise the beneficiary of our requirement, and that the request be accompanied by:
the borrower's written request to freeze the line of credit, the surrender of any unused checks
or drafts, and anything else that may be required by the lender in order to issue an
unconditional demand.
Page 4
File No: 03008121
An agreement which states that this instrument was subordinated
To: A Deed of Trust
Recorded: March 27. 2003 as File No. 2003 - 0342181 of Official Records
By Agreement
Recorded: March 27, 2003 as File No. 2003- 0342179 of Official Records.
4. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other
obligations secured thereby.
Amount:
$444,000.00
Dated:
March 19, 2003
Trustor:
Robert A. Compton and Peggy C. Compton, husband and wife as
joint tenants
Trustee:
Fidelity National Title Company
Beneficiary:
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., ( "MERS "), solely as
nominee for Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., a California Corporation
Recorded:
March 27. 2003 as File No. 2003- 0342181 of Official Records
VDX *IZYy.l X6111441 .1456] 4A i [U21 -1
PLEASE REFER TO THE "NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION" WHICH
FOLLOWS FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION
Page 5
File No: 03008121
REQUIREMENTS SECTION:
REQ NO. 1: The Company will require a statement of information from the parties named below
in order to complete this report, based on the effect of documents, proceedings, liens, decrees, or
other matters which do not specifically describe said land, but which, if any do exist, may affect the
title or impose liens or encumbrances thereon.
Parties Robert A. Compton and Peggy C. Compton
Page 6
IL 'I(
UF II JUL , 42008
I.ES
Construction Bond Estimate for
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
Grading Plan -
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS, CA
AND
ROBERT AND PEGGY COMPTON
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
ENCINITAS. CA 92024
PREPARED BY
Coastal Land Solutions
573 Second Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
DATE
March 26, 2008
REVISED: July 10, 2008
' No. 65124
E.p. 09/30/09
Steven R. Jones, RCE 65124 DATE
3/26/2008
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
GRADING:
ITEM
(DESCRIPTION)
UNIT
(LS.LF.CY,ETC)
QUANTITY
( #)
UNIT COST
($ PER UNIT)
COST
($)
CLEAR AND GRUB
SF
7500
045
$3.375.00
EXCAVATE AND FILL
CY
250
$20.00
$5,000.00
DRAINAGE:
TRENCH DRAIN
LF
18
$45.00
$810.D0
4 INCH PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE
LF
126
$20.00
$2,520.00
INFILTRATION PIT
EA
2
$1,200.00
$2,400.00
IMPROVEMENTS:
PCC DRIVEWAY 6" THICK
SF
735
$6.00
$4.41000
CMU RETAINING WALL
SF
500
$29.65
$14.825.00
SEWER SUMP & PUMP
EA
1
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
2' PRESSURE SEWER LATERAL
LF
50
$55.00
$2,750.00
SEWER MANHOLE. S -17
EA
1
$3,175.00
$3.175.00
TURF BLOCK PERMEABLE PAVER
SF
545
$12.00
$6,540.00
6" WIDE 0" HIGH CONCRETE CURB. G6
LF
93
$15.00
$1,395.00
SUB -TOTAL
$50,700.00
EROSION CONTROL:
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
COST
(DESCRIPTION)
(LS.LF.CY.ETC)
( #)
($ PER UNIT)
($)
GRAVEL BAGS
EA
50
$1.10
$55.00
SILT FENCE
LF
200
$1.60
$32000
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SF
370
$5.25
$1,942.50
SUB -TOTAL
$2.317.50
TOTAL
$53.017.50
10% CONTINGENCY
$5.30175
TOTAL SUM
58,319.25
GRAND TOTAL
$63,621.00
/,,q Recording requested by:
Leucadia Wastewater District
��
` J When recorded mail to:
Leucadia Wastewater District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009 -6810
Assessor's Parcel
1Vn. 1) 1 F- 091 -15
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT
WAS RECORDED ON NOV 06. 2008
DOCUMENT NUMBER 2008- OS80164
GREGORY J. SMITH. COUNTY RECORDER
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
TIME 12.45 PM
Private Pump Station Agreement NOV 7 _
i
LWD Location Code 769
This Agreement is entered into by and between Robert and Peggy Compton ("Owner ")
and the Leucadia Wastewater District, a governmental entity ( "LWD ") with reference to the
following facts:
A. Owner has fee title to the real property commonly known as 342 Hillcrest Drive
and more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
( "Property');
B. Owner desires an exception to the LWD Standard that generally prohibits use of
private sewer pump stations, and LWD is willing to grant the exception, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns,
agree that the following covenants and conditions shaii apply to the Property, subsequent owners
of the Property and any portion of the Property, regardless of whether it is divided or sold to one
or more owners:
1) Ownership and maintenance obligations of all individual home and private
sewer pump stations, force mains, and gravity laterals that serve, or are within the Property, and
including the physical connection to the public collection sewer ("private sewer facilities "), shall
remain. c:ith Owner.
2) Private sewer facilities shall not be dedicated to LWD, nor shall LWD
accept or be liable for ownership or maintenance of private sewer facilities.
3) Owner is solely liable and responsible for design, construction, operation,
maintenance, repair and replacement of private sewer facilities. Private sewer facilities shall meet
all of the applicable design, construction, maintenance and review requirements of LWD and the
plumbing and building code requirements of the jurisdictional city.
4) Owner acknowledges that a private sewer pump station is typically located
at an elevation lower than the public sewer and thereby allows the possibility of backflow of
sewage from the public sewer through the private lateral, pump discharge piping, and into the
pump station located on private property. Owner hereby assumes the risk of any such sewage
backflow possibility and agrees that LWD is not liable in any such event. To mitigate potential
for public sewage backflow into private property, Owner agrees to install and maintain in
accordance with applicable LWD requirements: I) the private sewer pump station outside of any
residential structure: 2) a pump discharge check valve for backflow prevention, and 3) an easily
accessible and labeled separate shutoff valve on the pump discharge piping. The discharge
piping, check valve, and isolation valve shall be rated for a minimum internal pressure of 100
psi, or as otherwise approved by the LWD District Engineer. Owner shall be solely responsible
for any and all damage caused by private sewer facility blockage, damage, or failure, regardless
of cause, including failure of multi -unit sewer laterals, individual -home and private sewer pump
stations, force mains, and gravity laterals to, and including, the physical connection to the public
collection sewer.
5) Owner hereby agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify LWD, its
officers, officials, employees, agents and consultants from and against any and all liability, loss,
damage, expense, costs (including with out limitation costs and fees of litigation) of every nature
arising out of or in connection with the private sewer facilities, except such loss or damage which
was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party.
6) If any legal action or proceeding is brought by either party to enforce or
interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to receive from the other party, in
addition to any other relief granted, the reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred
in the action or proceeding.
7) The covenants in this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding
upon all future owners of the Property in its entirety or any portion thereof.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
By:
Robert CVmpton
Hillcre Dr.
Vege Nmpton
342 Hillcrest Dr.
Date
M av or
Date
OTARIZATION REQUIRED
By // a. �z �� 16/.3,0(}'
LWD P istnct Manager I Date
NOTARIZATION REQUIRED
Appendix S Private Sewer Agreement for Private Pump Stations
October 2, 2006 as to Form Page I of 2
3354 Order No. 03- 1386936
EXHIBIT A
That portion of Lots 28 and 29 in Avocado Acres No. 3, in the County of San Diego, State
of California, according to Map thereof No. 2063, in the City of Encinitas, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 3, 1927, described as
follows:
Commencing at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 28 distant thereon South
15 °46'30" East, 100.00 feet from the Northwest corner thereof, said point being the
Southwest corner of land conveyed to Charles K. Hines, et ux, by deed dated May 25,
1954 and recorded in Book 5305, Page 149, of Official Records; thence North 74013,30"
East along the Southerly line of said land 109.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
thence South 15 046'30" East parallel with the Westerly line of said Lots 28 and 29 a
distance of 92.00 feet; thence North 74013'30" East parallel with the Northerly line of
said Lot 29 a distance of 102.68 feet to the Easterly line of said Lot; thence Northerly
along said Easterly line and along the Easterly line of said Lot 28 a distance of 92.74 feet
to the Southeast corner of the aforementioned land conveyed to Hines; thence South
740 13'30" West along said Southerly line 113.78 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Assessor's Parcel No: 216 - 081 -15
nrK+S A !: UXNOWLEDGM ET
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
}
COUNTYOF SA4
On Q t
before me l )rrrsen name and tdle (thT — personally appeared T
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name s /are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that f /s/e/they executed the same in h��p�/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by 0 /h/r /their signature(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.
:� :-
for' ` it
Mrs area for oTiclat nor.,., sear
Ree FOrm M,, 112(05707)
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California t�
County of 60A
On A0✓E+titW giaOW before me, _TTI CkA k rGiNtp ) O-lI, o �u bLtC
Date Fore Insert Name and Tale Mine r
Personally appeared
Glt�twlY�Y� � 1IIM7tT�
tide torrrwf,
ommet -Il
Place Notary Seal Aa wv
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to
be the perso%4 whose name isl> subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/yl(e/thcey executed the same in hisVr/tpkir authorized
capacity(i0s), and that by hislvr/t�& signature on the
instrument the person(er), or the entity upon behalf of
which the personA 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 myh n d and official seal.
Signature
Sgnat,%of Notary RDlic
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: _ Signer's Nal
❑ Individual Individual
❑ Corporate Officer — Tfle(s).
❑ Partner Limited _ General
❑ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
RIG�i THUI.!BPRRIT
or sIc1ER
Corporate Officer— Title(s): _
Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General
LN
Attorney in Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer Is Representing:
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
pP SIGNER
02002 Nal.1 notary ASSm dnde -9350 Cie Solo Aw PO Bcx 2402•Cnals nih CA 91313- 2402•www. N.I,on.)Nca,oq Ilem.5907 Redejer'. Call TOIL Free 1-8o 76627
I I L i J ._ U
Bona Estimate for NOV 7 �08
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
Grading Plan -1001 G i
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF ENCINITAS, CA
AND
ROBERT AND PEGGY COMPTON
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PREPARED BY
Coastal Land Solutions
573 Second Street
Encinitas. CA 92024
DATE
March 26, 2007
REVISED
November 3, 2006
// -3 -08
Steven R. Jones, RgE/65124 DATE
11/3/2006
342 HILLCREST DRIVE
GRADING
LF
18
$45.00
$810.00
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
COST
(DESCRIPTION)
(LS,LF,CY,ETC)
( #)
($ PER UNIT)
($)
PCC DRIVEWAY 6' THICK
SF
735
$6.00
$4,410.00
EXCAVATE AND FILL
CY
250
$20.00
$5.000.00
DRAINAGE
TRENCH DRAIN
LF
18
$45.00
$810.00
4 INCH PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE
LF
63
$2000
$1260.00
IMPROVEMENTS.
PCC DRIVEWAY 6' THICK
SF
735
$6.00
$4,410.00
CMU RETAINING WALL
SF
475
$29.65
$14,083.75
TURF BLOCK PERMEABLE PAVER
SF
545
$12.00
$6,540.00
6' WIDE 0' HIGH CONCRETE CURB. PER C-6
LF
93
$15.00
$1.395.00
SUB -TOTAL $33,498.75
EROSION CONTROL
ITEM
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT COST
COST
(DESCRIPTION)
(LS,LF,CY,ETC)
( #)
($ PER UNIT)
($)
GRAVEL BAGS
EA
50
$1.10
$55.00
SILT FENCE
LF
200
$1.60
$320.00
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SF
370
$5.25
$1,942.50
SUB -TOTAL $2.317.50
TOTAL $35,816.25
10% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL SUM 39L8@._ _
R7ri�
LandAmeric
Commonwealth
Commonwealth Land Title Co.
5120 Avenida Encinas #110
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Suzette Lau
Your Reference No: 3008121 -SL2
Property Address: 342
'1.55.0%
Commonwealth Land Title Company
3131 Camino del Rio N., #1400
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 686 -6000
- -__
JUL 1 4 2008 L
Our File No: 03008121 - 499 - 503
Title Officer: Candy Church
(CandyChurch @Landam.com)
Phone: (619) 686 -2153
Fax: (619) 686 -2183
Drive, Encinitas, California
// \ PRELIMINARY REPORT
Dated as of January 4, 2007 at
a.m.
In response tot above refe nced application for a polity of title insurance, Commonwealth Land
Title Company h reby reports hat it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof,
a Policy or Polici of Title I94urance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter
set forth, insuring in oss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance
not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed
Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusion from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said
Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit B attached. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the
CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a
Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit B. Copies of the
Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions
set forth in Exhibit 8 of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to
provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title
insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this
preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not
list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of
facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired
that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment
should be requested.
CLTA Preliminary Report (Revised 11- 17 -04)
Page 1
File No: 03008121
SCHEDULE A
The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is:
ALTA Loan 1992
The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:
A FEE
Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
Robert A. Compton and Peggy C. Compton, husband and wife as joint tenants
The land referred to herein is situated in the County of San Diego, State of California, and is described
as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Page 2
File No: 03008121
EXHIBIT "A"
All that certain real property situated in the County of San Diego, State of
California, described as follows:
That portion of Lots 28 and 29 in Avocado Acres No. 3, in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2063, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October East, 1927,
described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 28 distant thereon South
15 046'30" East, 100.00 feet from the Northwest corner thereof, said point being
the Southwest corner of land conveyed to Charles K. Hines, et ux, by deed dated
May 25, 1954 and recorded in Book 5305, Page 149 of Official Records; thence
North 74 013'30" East along the Southerly line of said land 109.00 feet to the
True Point of Beginning; thence South 15 °46'30" East parallel with the Westerly
line of said Lots 28 and 29 a distance of 92.00 feet; thence North 74 013'30 "East
parallel with the Northerly line of said Lot 29 a distance of 102.68 feet to the
Easterly line of said Lot; thence Northerly along said Easterly line and along the
Easterly line of said Lot 28 a distance of 92.74 feet to the Southeast corner of
the aforementioned land conveyed to Hines; thence South 74 013'30" West along
said Southerly line 113.78 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Page 3
File No: 03008121
SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof Exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in
said policy form would be as follows:
Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any
assessments collected with taxes, to be levied for the fiscal year 2007 - 2008 which are a lien
not yet payable.
B. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any
assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year 2006 - 2007.
1st Installment: $2,604.65 Paid
2nd Installment: $2,604.65 Open - This amount is valid until April 10, after which
penalties apply
Penalty (including cost): $270.47 Due with installment amount if paid after April 10
Land Value $371,147.00
Improvement Value: $118,091.00
Exemption: $7,000.00
Code Area: 19084 - City of Encinitas
Assessment No.: 216- 081 -15 -00
C. Supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the
Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
1. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, appearing in the public records.
_,2. Any easements or servitudes appearing in the public records.
- 3. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other
obligations secured thereby.
Amount: $81,000.00
Dated: May 14, 2001
Trustor: Robert A. Compton, an unmarried man
Trustee: Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
Beneficiary: Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., a California Corporation
Recorded: May 21, 2001 as File No. 2001 - 0320613 of Official Records
Said deed of trust recites that it secures a line of credit. If the line of credit is to be paid off in
this transaction, this Company will require that the written demand for payment state that the
line of credit has been frozen and that the demand is not subject to increase for any additional
advances or draws. Accordingly, it is recommended that any request for a payoff demand
statement advise the beneficiary of our requirement, and that the request be accompanied by:
the borrower's written request to freeze the line of credit, the surrender of any unused checks
or drafts, and anything else that may be required by the lender in order to issue an
unconditional demand.
Page 4
File No: 03008121
An agreement which states that this instrument was subordinated
To: A Deed of Trust
Recorded: March 27, 2003 as File No. 2003- 0342181 of Official Records
By Agreement
Recorded: March 27. 2003 as File No. 2003 - 0342179 of Official Records,
4. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other
obligations secured thereby.
Amount:
$444,000.00
Dated:
March 19, 2003
Trustor:
Robert A. Compton and Peggy C. Compton, husband and wife as
joint tenants
Trustee:
Fidelity National Title Company
Beneficiary:
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., ( "MERS "), solely as
nominee for Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., a California Corporation
Recorded:
March 27, 2003 as File No. 2003 - 0342181 of Official Records
END OF SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS
PLEASE REFER TO THE "NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION" WHICH
FOLLOWS FOR INFORMATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THIS TRANSACTION
Page 5
File No: 03008121
REQUIREMENTS SECTION:
REQ NO. 1: The Company will require a statement of information from the parties named below
in order to complete this report, based on the effect of documents, proceedings, liens, decrees, or
other matters which do not specifically describe said land, but which, if any do exist, may affect the
title or impose liens or encumbrances thereon.
Parties Robert A. Compton and Peggy C. Compton
Page 6
HYDROLOGY REPORT
for
342 Hillcrest Drive
08 -034 CDP
City of Encinitas, California
PREPARED FOR:
Robert & Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
PREPARED BY:
Coastal Land Solutions
573 Second Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 230 -6025
DATE:
July 14, 2008
REVISED: 11!3/2008
' No. 65124
Exp. 09!30109
/1 ___ 11-3 -06
es, RCE 65124
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Proposed Project
Summary of Results and Conditions
Conclusions
References
Methodology
Introduction
County of San Diego Criteria
Runoff coefficient determination
Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
SECTION
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
Hydrology Model Output
3.0
Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output — 6 hour storm event
3.1
Post - Developed Hydrologic Model Output — 6 hour storm event
3.2
Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output — 24 hour storm event
3.3
Post - Developed Hydrologic Model Output — 24 hour storm event
3.4
Existing Condition Hydrology Map
Proposed Condition Hydrology Map
(pocket)
(pocket)
D:WOBS \CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTON \CLS 729 HYM2.doc
10:37 AM 111412008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest Case No.. 08 -034 CDP
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Hydrology Study for 342 Hillcrest Drive has been prepared to analyze the
hydrologic characteristics of the existing and proposed project site, and
determine the existing condition offsite hydrologic characteristics that are
conveyed through the proposed project site. This report intends to present the
methodology and the calculations used for determining the runoff from the project
site in both the pre - developed (existing) conditions and the post - developed
(proposed) conditions, as well as the offsite areas, produced by the 100 year 6
hour and 24 hour storm.
1.2 Existing Conditions
The proposed project property is located along the west side of Hillcrest Drive as
shown on the vicinity map below.
VICINITY MAP
T. B. 1148 —E4
D:WOBSICLSICLS #729 - COMPTONICLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 1114/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcresl Case No 08 -034 CDP
The existing site includes a single existing residential structure. In addition to the
existing residential structure, the site currently consists of two other existing
structures (utility shed and a cabana), retaining walls, a stairway, a pool, and
miscellaneous other hardscape. In addition to the above description the project
site also includes a landscaped area within the ROW that includes a stairway ad
a lava rock wall.
Drainage from the existing site is primarily conveyed in westerly direction across
the project site. As this drainage is directed to the east, it makes its way across
the project site to the westerly property line.
1.3 Proposed Project
The intent of proposed projects is to re- develop the proposed project site a new
detached single - family dwelling. The proposed development consists of the
construction of improvements to the ROW on the easterly property frontage,
which includes construction of a turfblock swale and paving (as necessary to
meet a minimum 11 foot halfwidth in Hillcrest Drive) along the property frontage.
The project will also include grading to a create pad suitable for the construction
of a residential structure, the construction of retaining walls, and the construction
of all underground utilities typically associated with residential development.
The drainage of the proposed development will be facilitated by the design and
construction of a trench drain system, including a trench grate, all associated
piping, and an area drain system. The storm drain system also incorporates the
design and use of BMP landscaped areas that will serve to convey runoff from
the site over a pervious surface prior to discharge from the site, as well as three
(3) infiltration pits. The intent of storm drain system design was to maintain the
existing conditions to the maximum extent practicable.
1.4 Summary of Results
Hydrologic analysis of the pre - developed and post - developed conditions of the
proposed project site are included in this report as section 3.1 through section
3.4.
The pre - developed condition hydrologic analysis in section 3.1, the 6 -hour storm
event, illustrates that the watershed area is equal to 0.3 acres, has a time of
concentration (Tc) equal to 2.69 minutes and has a peak discharge in the 100 -
year 6 hour storm event of 1.02 cfs. In the post - developed condition hydrologic
analysis in section 3.2, the 6 -hour storm event, illustrates that the watershed area
is equal to 0.30 acres, has a time of concentration (Tc) equal to 2.71 minutes and
has a peak discharge in the 100 -year 6 hour storm event of 1.02 cfs.
D:WOBS \CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTON \CLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hilluest Case No.'. 08 -034 CDP
The pre - developed condition hydrologic analysis in section 3.3, the 24 -hour
storm event, illustrates that the watershed area is equal to 0.2 acres, has a time
of concentration (Tc) equal to 2.69 minutes and has a peak discharge in the 100 -
year 24 -hour storm event of 1.61 cfs. In the post - developed condition hydrologic
analysis in section 3.4, the 24 -hour storm event, illustrates that the watershed
area is equal to 0.20 acres, has a time of concentration (Tc) equal to 2.71
minutes and has a peak discharge in the 100 -year 24 hour storm event of 1.49
cfs.
1.5 Conclusions
The project site hydrologic models for both the pre- and post - developed
conditions encompass a total area of 0.26 acres, and each condition consists of
a single sub - basin. The reason for the deviation from the output in total
watershed area is due to the modeling program rounding. Evaluating the four
models on a sub -basin to sub -basin scenario, the proposed development will
slightly decrease the amount of runoff discharged from the project site in the 24-
hour storm event by 0.12 cfs, as compared to the runoff from the site in the
existing conditions; in the 6 -hour storm event the proposed development will
maintain the same peak flow as the existing condition with no net increase or
decrease. The slight decrease is a result of the 0.02 minute increase in time of
concentration from the existing condition to the proposed condition.
The proposed storm drain system incorporates the design of one trench grate
inlet, three infiltration pits and an area drain system as well as all associated
storm drain piping associated with these improvements. The proposed storm
drain system will safely convey the entire 100 -year peak flow generated by offsite
and onsite runoff.
D:\JOBS\CLS \CLS 6729 - COMPTOMCLS 729 HYD•02.doc
10:37 AM 11!412008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hilluest Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
1.6 References
"San Diego County Hydrology Manual ", revised June 2003, County of San Diego,
Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section.
D: \JOBS \CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTON \CLS 729 HYD -02.doc
10:37 AM 11 /4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this
report utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, Q =CIA. The RM formula
estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff
coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (1) is equal to:
= 7.44 x P6 x D -0.645
Where:
I = Intensity (in /hr)
P6 = 6 -hour precipitation (inches)
D = duration (minutes — use Tc)
Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given
element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being
analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed.
The RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in
terms of flow (typically in cubic feet per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons
per minute (gpm)). The RM equation is as follows:
Q = CIA
Where:
Q= flow (in cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water
runoff (runoff vs. infiltration /evaporation /absorption /etc)
I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the
area, in inches per hour.
A = drainage area contributing to the basin in acres.
The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers
precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate
will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin
arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall
that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient C is not affected by the storm
intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number.
In addition to the above Ration Method assumptions, the conservative
assumption that all runoff coefficients utilized for this report are based on type "D"
soils.
2.2 County of San Diego Criteria
As defined by the County Hydrology Manual dated June 2003, the rational
method is the preferred equation for determining the hydrologic characteristics of
basins up to approximately one square mile in size. The County of San Diego
D \JOBS \CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTON \CLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/412008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcresl Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
has developed its own tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing
storm water runoff for areas within the county. The County has also developed
precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated
from a given storm event (i.e. 100 -year, 6 -hour storm).
One of the variables of the RIM equation is the runoff coefficient, C. The runoff
coefficient is dependent only upon land use and soil type and the County of San
Diego has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied
to basin located within the County of San Diego. The table categorizes the land
use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the
percentage of impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated
runoff coefficient, C, for each soil type class.
The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time
of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has
adopted the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA) overland time of flow equation.
This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of
concentration to lengths of 100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and
slope.
2.3 Runoff Coefficient Determination
As stated in section 2.2, the runoff coefficient is dependent only upon land use
and soil type and the County of San Diego has developed a table of Runoff
Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied to basin located within the County of
San Diego. The table, included at the end of this section, categorizes the land
use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the
percentage of impervious area.
For the proposed development and existing conditionsthe total number of
dwellings is 1, and the total developed lot area is roughly equal to 0.22 acres.
The developed portions of the project site were modeled with a dwelling unit per
acre (DU /A) ratio of 4.33. Therefore the runoff coefficient of 0.57, which
corresponds to DU /A of 7.3 or less and an impervious ratio of 40 %, was chosen.
D:U08S1CLS%CLS #729 - COMPTONICLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest
Case No.: 08-034 CDP
3.0 Hydrology Model Output
3.1 Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output
a,a,.•f aara,aaaaara,aaaaaaaaaaaaN aaaaaaaaaae...af aaa.a..a aaar,aaaaa ar,.r,.a
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2007 Advanced Engineering Software (sea)
Ver. 3.0 Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1574
Analysis prepared by:
♦rrrrar,•♦.rrrra,r,.aaaaaa DESCRIPTION OF STUDY aaaaaaaaa aaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100 YEAR 6 -HOUR STORM EVENT FOR
• COMPTON RESIDENCE - 342 HILLCREST DRIVE
• EXISTING CONDITIONS
.raaaaaaaaaaaaaa sa aaaaaaaa.aaaaa.aeu,r,a : aaaaaaaaaaaaa sa ua�aaaaaaaaaaaaa
FILE NAME: C: \ASS \CLS- 729 \B1 -6.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:17 11/04/2008
____________________________________________________________________________
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
______ _______________________________
- -2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
'USER-DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL-
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
= 1
1 30 0 20 0 0 018/0 018 /0 020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0 167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maxie Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of- Curb)
2. (Depth)-(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT•PT /S)
•SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.•
.uaaa. a ....... ... aaa ... aaa......aaaaa ................. aaa ...........
,r,,,,,
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE . 21
- -__ ___________________________ ___________________________ _ ___
», > RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<..<.
iRESIDENTAILi(7.3 DU/AC OR= LESS) i RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 5700 a -__ •--iii = ==
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D^
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 24.77
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.41
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION WEET) = 117.81
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.60
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) - 2.204
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.1}, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) . 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc - 5- MINUTE.
D: \JOBS \CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTON \CLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest Case No.: 08-034 CDP
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) . 0.20
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.20
1lfffaf•f aalaffufaf♦wa aff•wf•wflw#faf{a{fflffaaf aaaaf 1rf 11••1 rf 11rurru l{#
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODS 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE - 52
_______________________________ _______________________________
» ».COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW « «<
»» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA.....
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 117.81 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.67
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 137.20 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1031
NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CPS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION
NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CPS) - 0.20
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) - 4.74 (PER LACFCD /RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL)
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 2.69
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 10.00 = 161.97 FEET.
f{{ { {{{tflffffffllf{Ia llfflfflalfaflwalff #1fff111faf of calf aal of lrf a1f 111111•
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE - 81
_____________________________________________ __________________ __ ___________
»».ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW.....
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5- MINUTE.
RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT .5700
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D-
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
AREA- AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 1.02
TC(MIN.) 2.69
------------------
END HND OF STUDY SUMMARY
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 TC(MIN.) = 2.69
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.02
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
D:UOBSICL&CLS #729 - COMPTONICLS 729 HYD -02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest
Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
3.2 Developed Condition Hydrologic Model Output
1fllfflflllfllflwf if 11l ffrff•rffffffff•lflffwfffflff1f 1f1fff 1f 1f 1R1ff11f f1f•
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2007 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.0 Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1574
Analysis prepared by:
ffwf!♦w! :•!elwffff...... ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ... fulwl+fw .........
rf efr
• HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100 YEAR 6 -HOUR STORM EVENT FOR:\
• COMPTON RESIDENCE - 342 HILLCREST DRIVE
• DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
ff wwlwlww lf•lffff••w1••Iff1f • flfff ♦ fwwflwlf if ulf 1rr11rrrrerrr rfrrrr rf rrr•
FILE NAME: C: \AES \CLS- 729 \P1 -6.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:07 11/04/2008
____________________________ _________________ ________ ______ ____
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
___ ______ __ ___ __ ________________ _-_ ___________________- ___________
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) - 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
•USER - DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL-
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER- GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE / WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth . 0.00 FEET
as (Maxis Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)
2. (Depth)-(Velocity) Constraint - 6.0 (FT•FT /S)
•SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.•
•wwweww ww lwu wf�.1f111111f lf1111fwffff111fuww • wffwluww lff ♦!If •f wff if if ff•♦
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE . 21
_____________________________________________ __ ____________________ _________
>> > RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« <
.................. .............:__:____........................ == ...........
RESIDRNTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT . .5100
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 87
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 24.77
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 117.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) - 4.30
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.204
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLAW SLOPE, 10.4, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC = 5- MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20
D:WOBSICL&CLS #729 - COMPTON%CLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcresl
Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
! {lfliff }111 111 111fflffflf if ff lff} 1f }11111{ff!!1!!1!f{1{1!!!11!!1l if affaflf♦
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE 52
__ ______ ____ __ _______ - _- _- ______-- ___________ ____- ______ -__
»» >COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW« «<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREAc, «,
= = =
ELEVATION DATA UPSTREAM(FEET) 117.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) . 103`76
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 139.96 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0946
NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.20
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 4.61 (PER LACPCD /RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL)
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.51 Tc(MIN.) . 2.71
LONGEST FIOWPATH FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 10.00 . 164.73 FEET.
ufalaawawa}! a} aafff••} ff•• f{ faauaffwaw111ffflaffufflff {faaaaaaaaala of aaf•
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE . 81
_________ __ ___ ___ ____ __ _____ ____ ________ --- _____------ _________ -_ - -_
» »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««c
..... ___= = ............ = = = = = ....... = = =_ =° =..... = = = = = = = =......
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 6.850
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc . 5- MINUTE.
RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
AREA - AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT . 0.5700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.82
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.02
TC(MIN.) = 2.71
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.3 TC(MIN.) = 2.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.02
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
D:IJOBSICLSICLS #729 - COMPTONICLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcresl Case No.: 08-034 CDP
3.3 Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output
awaawa•aaaaaaaaa♦aaaaawa: aaa aaa +awaaaaaaaaaaaaa♦aaaaaaaaa afaaaa •a a••w•eaa•aa
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2007 Advanced Engineering Software (sea)
Ver. 3.0 Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1574
Analysis prepared by:
a aaa* aa• aaaaaaaa aaa. .wawa DESCRIPTION OF STUDY aaa•aaaaaaw••ww••••••••a♦
• HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100 YEAR 24 -HOUR STORM EVENT FOR:
• COMPTON RESIDENCE - 342 HILLCREST DRIVE
• DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
a as aw uaau a :aa•u•awaww••a •aaa•aau as a aaawaa•a••••aaauauwa•a•aa aa•aaaa
FILE NAME: C: \AES \CLS- 729 \E1- 24.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:20 11/04/2008
__-- ______ -------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
_____ ____ __________ ______ _ __ _ __ _- _--- __- _______-- __- ___ - -_ -_
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 4.300
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL ^C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
'USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL'
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIRE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
1 =30.0 20.0 0 018/0 D18 /0 020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)
2. (Depth)•(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT•FT /S)
'SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.-
as as as as aaa a a a a a a a a a a a a a awaw♦aaaasa•aaa as aaa♦ a•••w♦ a a a a a a a• a . aaa a•• a s a . a . aaa
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE - 21
____________________________________________________________________________
»»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<«
= =
= RESIDENTAIL (7 3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - 5700
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D'
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 24.77
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.41
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 117.81
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 3.60
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) . 2.204
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.1k, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) . 11.329
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc - 5-MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) . 0.32
D:WOBS\CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTOMCLS 729 HYD -02.doc
10:37 AM 17/4/1008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) . 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.32
.... ♦..•... ... .+............ .... u......... +...........������ :.....��.���_
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE . 52
___ ______ _____ ___ ___ ______________ - ___---- ___- ______---- ._______
,,,,,COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW« «<
,,,,,TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<««
ELEVATION DATA? UPSTREAM(FEET) = 117.81 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) . 103.67
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 137.20 CHANNEL SLOPE . 0.1031
NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION
NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBARKA(CFS) = 0.32
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 4.74 (PER LACFCD /RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL)
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 2.69
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 10.00 161.97 FEET.
................... ............................... u........................
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE . 81
_____________________________________________ ______ ___________________
„ »,ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
= == = = : :.... :..... :__
RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH /HOUR) = 11 329 ___________
100 YEAR
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TO = 5- MINUTE.
RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
AREA- AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.61
TC(MIN.) - 2.69
= =END OF STUDY SUMMARY¢______________________ _________`______.._____________
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 TC(MIN.) = 2.69
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.61
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
DAJOBS\CLSICLS #729 - COMPTOMCLS 729 HYD -02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hillcrest Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
3.4 Developed Condition Hydrologic Model Output
aaaaaau aa••aw•aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ww w +w uwe aaeeaaaaaa aaaaaaa
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
20D3,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -2007 Advanced Engineering Software (sea)
Ver. 3.0 Release Date: 06/01/2007 License ID 1574
Analysis prepared by:
ww «w... w..... w♦ wwa•a... as DESCRIPTION OF STUDY • + + ........... wwu
• HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100 YEAR 24 -HOUR STORM EVENT FOR:
• COMP1'ON RESIDENCE - 342 HILLCREST DRIVE
• DEVELOPED CONDITIONS +
aasa aaaaaw aw • waa•• :a♦sa as as aaaa aww•ww wwww+w♦w♦♦aawu wa•aaa •au aawawwwww aw♦
FILE NAME: C: \AES \CLS- 729 \P1- 24.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:05 11/04/2008
____________________________________________________________________________
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
_____ _____ __ ___ ________ ___________ __ _- _____________________
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) - 4.300
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE . 0.90
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
'USER-DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL-
HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n)
=== . . ... ......... .. ............... ...... `_____ ----- _______
1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb)
2. (Depth)•(Velocity) Constraint . 6.0 (FT•FT /S)
•SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.•
.......•....:.•.... w• www: wwwwwwawwwaaa• a.•.••.•.aw••ww•www•ww•uw+wwuwu www
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE 21
______________________________________________ __ ______ __________ ________ ____
»»,RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «<
' ........
RESIDENTAIL(7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT .5700
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
INITIAL SUBAREA PLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 24.77
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 121.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 117.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.30
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.204
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.i, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION(
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) . 11.329
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON To . 5- MINUTE.
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.32
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) . 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.32
MU08SICLSICLS #729 - COMPTOMCLS 729 HYD -02.doc
10:37 AM 11142008
HYDROLOGY REPORT for 342 Hlllcrest
Case No.: 08 -034 CDP
#Ii1f #1# # ##1 # # #1ii#1!!llf 1f111lfffffff #ffffflff lff1ff11111i11 #1!!1!11 #lf if #♦
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE - 52
--- --------- -- -- -------- -- - --- ------------------------
»»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA« «<
== ....................
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - - - == =117 00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 103 76
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBARKA(FEET) = 139.96 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0946
NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CPS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUSAREA(CFS) = 0.32
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 4.61 (PER LACFCD /RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL)
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 0.51 Tc(MIN.) = 2.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 10.00 = 164.73 FEET.
♦flflfffif{flf f{1 {ff {f1111f11f1f1 {!11{11114{!1! 1f 1{1!1!l1111l111l111l111! {1f
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 81
_____________________________________________ _________ _______ ___ __ ___ ___ ____
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLDK« <<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 11.329
NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC - 5- MINUTE.
RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87
AREA- AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5700
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.16
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.49
TC(MIN.) = 2.71
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 TC(MIN.) = 2.71
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.49
i"!:IrIO � s:V M N)gi,37LhMYA11�7A:T�L��
D:\JOBS \CLS \CLS #729 - COMPTON \CLS 729 HYD- 02.doc
10:37 AM 11/4/2008
HYDROLOGY NODE MAP N DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
seso I I
_��eamo
= P
WALL TO BE REPLACED
^ ffiffi $\ ; WYTH NEw TD ACNCIEW A
TO ranTCFI Ezis °nrrc Ew WALL
%ISTING WALL & FENCE \ \ T
EXISTING PARKING STALL
E
SEWER -SUMP AND PUMP PER -- \ \ iX' 1 i / TO BE REMOVED
B RRETT ENGINEERED PUMPS TS®FS 11520 \
OR EOUAI SEE PROHIE THIS SHEET BSeBfs =11470 x X 1 TW®FG= 118.00
RIM- 110.00
INV IN =10150 119.00
g h;( 1NV our=
"'All
GE NF LiRAnoN PIT INV SUMP - 100..00
SEf DETAIL A 1HIS SHEET ,N I --- _ —E %ISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
TOP BO% tog 50 ' %- / g' O BE REPLACED WITH NEW
EG o6 1SB' -''I 1 -
E o r v 0 "- � v v" aeusrRiE IFNISH vE w/ HEAVY BRODM
IE OUTLET 106.00 �,13 / E% ISTING WATER SERVICE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED _ __ -�- \ \ N % '/ , _ \ o \ , \� 7>< O ) 3O' LOG TION APPROXIMATE
TO DISCHARGE ON TO �"� \ �� 1 a o 80 ` 1 \ TOM PER RECORD DRAWINGS
6 X 6 RAT TURF PAD \ (SEE NOTE 1 fills SHEET)
FA LTATE SHEET
TO ROW _ _ C� -C L- f 6' WIDE TRENCH DRAN- 1�, j - -WATER SERVCE & PROPOSED DUAL METER
2 ,,. \ (3/4 INCH DOMESTIC & f INCH FIRE SERVICE)
DRAINAGE INFlLTRAnON PIT i� Lf
-t-4 ,�.�£ -t� , GARAGE •m ( 1-+ t"f'' 0 BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF DRIVEWAY
SEE DETAIL A THIS SHEET F1��
TOP 80X- 106.00 _�
1f . — \ —o 1 !
✓_" � - EA DRAIN TWOS =11 }$0
T
LL, - LLB LL LL TG 10950 BW®EX =108$0 1 ^
I -L E
=1 108 -1 108 5p
L LL�1L LLLL IE UT 06.]5
HATCH REPRESENTS LANDSCAPE 1( 1 1-r —114,51 G 11fi S p \ 1 1 N
AREA BMP FOR STORM WATER pFF CE \ BWOFO =114 60 1 �f
TREATMENT TO BE PRIVATELY ( L L
MAINTAINED AND SHALL NOT !- FF =10 (I
TO MI MODIFIED E CITY T T 0E% 0410 \ \ - \ l 1 i �tTtl \/a
B6 0600 1 IL �, _ L INTERIOR WALL 1 QI
PERMIT FROM THE Citt T'' -X 10410 .-LL MROP SED FOOTPR Ni N
5 10500 FS 108.50 . 1 4UILDI G PERMIT] I 1 1 - FOR ENCRROACCMENT OFA EXRSTOING'
i \ TW'®FC= 116.50' ) AND
.108 'ti SJ '�� 1 W@FS -11400 ISnNG PA EXISTING IN ROW
FRST FLOOR Q f5 -11400 O REMAIN E G 0 CHMENT PERM pT001 -PE
EX 104.82 1 - / 40 \I Ff- Otu4.6J '+\ - "I ' �L RECUMENI _
PROPOSED NASD 104.80 u ^ ' DOCUMENT:
E-0
D I 1 'yv< 1 1
EXISTING DRAINAGE 64 - ,_ FS =11 1 \ t I LL�ril \ \ \ 1
FRYITE 1 1 1 BW0f5 114.00
RETAINING WALL Z PAVIN 1 AREA GRAIN •QI \\ 1 '�
X 1 1 1 TG 11375 1 O 1 \ 1\ - -ROUND HATCH REPRESENTS IF t
s 1F iYVBFS 101.50 \ 1 1 1 IE 1290 1 N� -1 1 \ S BLOCK SWALE TO BE
4 ' VVV0.0.0.1 Q� 1 \ INST LIED T EDGE OF PAVEMENT
'T S= 17 U' II N Q 1 1 4 SEE DETAIL B THIS SHEET.
L t m X J \ 5 11325 �R V E TWiFS 116.00 I i ��1 ¢QI I \ �ry, _ - -TO REMAIN OK WALL
p \ o G 110.25 'i'r BW�S- 113.70 _APPRO%IMAIEElOCAT10N ONLY
INVE AIN = 104.61 (RECORD)
E%ISTING POOL TO BE REMOVED - - �� \ \ ATG -_tt3 I 1 I �'. (sEE NOTE THIS SHEET)
HOLES TO BE DRILLED IN BOTTOM Z. 1 EXISTNG y 1 I
AND POOL TO BE BACKFILLED 1 I'. CABANA _ EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
tp 1 TO REMAIN \ Y - -T \ �� 1 / ' NV =1041 PER RECORD INFO
_ ✓ N FF =105.00 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY
CURB
\ \`% 6 WEE 0 HEIGHT
ll `' PER SDRSD .-B
W®i5 10 0 ^T \ \ \ �- - { ,X DRAINAGE TO 8E1CTED - EXISTING COBB E \E BMPPO sEWER MANHOLE PER
� W®FS 109 , ,�,0IPPROVED EQUAL IAM
EXISTING ROCK WALL- -- 1 - �- ,yq Y
TiDD RFIAAIN _ �
\ OOt
EXIST y �.- INTO EXISTNG COBBLE SWALE
BUILDING \ / 1
N A TO VERIFY
OUT 1 050
\ X / ORAINAC{ INFIL S SH PIT
i SEE DETAIL A 1HIS SHEET
7 TO SBE REMOVED EO NBM2 X250
TW®EX 10100 E IE OUi 11233 •A/'
BW�Sa10500
f, 4T✓ ?
TW®F8= 109.50 . r
i BW&FG= 105.00
U
vi
z
0
GPAPHEC SCALE 1's 40'
_ a
0 10 20 30
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: t " =10'�
REMGONS AP
PROGED DATE RLTERENOES onto BENCHMARK SCALE' APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO.
F ErvC ITAS sinnory ry - PLANS PREPARED UNDER ME SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPRDVED DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY NODE MAP FOR:
- - -- - - - -- 2.5" GTY OF ENCNITAS BRASS DISC IN
DRAINAGE BOX INLET AT THE NORTHEAST wRAGNA1 F p
CORNER GF THE GY OF ENCINITAS ` ° iU DAM. BY: BY: -___- iaryl
LEUCADIA OAKS PARK GN THE WEST _. .. R.C.E. No. 6St24_ _ 42 HILLCREST DRIVE
SIDE OF RAINTREE DRIVE -OKAL x/A STEVEN R. JONES DATE - - -- DATE: A.P.N. X216- 081 -15 s
"' -- - ELEV= 61.639 EXP.- 09__3P_48 WORK PROJECT NO.: CDP X % - %XX SHEET 1 OF 2 O�6
HYDROLOGY NODE MAP ti EXISTING CONDITIONS
I I
DETAIL - DRAINAGE PIT BMP
NOT TO SCALE
\
1 \
1 \
1
\ \F
I
I
t I
1, X 'T --
vi
z
DPAPHTE sC�LE ,-,9
o IT eo 2o
a
PLAN VIEW ^I
SCALE: 1 "=10 6n (C1
reEWSI APPROVED DATE FERENCES DATE BENCHMARK SCALE i SE, APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT rDWIN G NO
a, FOU o PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERNSION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED EXIBTIrvc CONDITON HYDROLOGY NODE MAP FOR:
1.11- ITAII.N - - 25" CITT OF ENCINITAS BRASS DISC N
.... - DRAINAGE B0% NI.ET AT THE NORTHEAST xae Zda I° - 1 DATE: BY: BY: E" 1
CORNER DF THE NAY 01 ENCNITAS " 342 HILLCREST DRIVE
"- LEUCADIA CANS PARK ON THE WEST _.. R.C.E. NO. bS12 -L DATE: DATE: — A.P.N. 2 6- 081 -15
.. - -- -- - -- SDE OF RAINTREE DRIVE vEnnc 1b STEVEN R. JONES $ i
- -- ELEV- 67.639 DATUM =NAND 88 E %P. QB WORK PROJECT NO.: CDP X -X %% OR
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
for
342 Hillcrest Drive
08 -034 CDP
City of Encinitas, California
PREPARED FOR:
Robert & Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
PREPARED BY:
Coastal Land Solutions
573 Second Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 230 -6025
DATE:
July 14, 2008
Revised November 3, 2008
° No. 65124
Exp. 091301109
Steven RrJ6nes. RCE 65124
NOV 17 2008
i
// -3 -Oa
JC:JC g:lmisdA9 cis #729 compton*om jp 11_t_08lswmp- 01.doc
07/14/08 1:40 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
ExecutiveSummary .................................................... ............................... 1.0
Introduction......................................................... ............................... 1.1
Existing Conditions ............................................. ............................... 1.2
Proposed Project Description .......................... ............................... 1.3
Summaryof Results ........................................... ............................... 1.4
References......................................................... ............................... 1.5
Storm Water Treatment Criteria ................................. ............................... 2.0
Introduction...................... ................................ ............................... 2.1
Regional Water Quality Control Board Criteria ... ............................... 2.2
City of Encinitias Storm Water Requirements ..... ............................... 2.3
Hydrologic Unit Contribution ..................................... ............................... 3.0
HydrologicUnit ................................................... ............................... 3.1
BeneficialUses ................................................... ............................... 3.2
303(d) List Status ............................................... ............................... 3.3
Conditions of Concern ........................................ ............................... 3.4
Pollutants and Conditions of Concern ...................... ............................... 4.0
Conditions of Concern ........................................ ............................... 4.1
Post - Developed Anticipated Pollutants ............... ............................... 4.2
Storm Water Quality Treatment Best Management Practices ................ 5.0
Source Control BMPs ......................................... ............................... 5.1
SiteDesign BMPs ............................................... ............................... 5.2
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
i11111=*74x01111111111W= i a t�]' I AT_l Vil
1.1 Introduction
This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared to present
calculations and methodology used for the sizing of the required post
construction storm water treatment Best Management Practices. All calculations
are consistent with criteria set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board's Order No. 2001 -01, the "Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County ",
and the City of Encinitas Best Management Practices Manual Part I and Part II
1.2 Existing Conditions
The proposed project property is located along the west side of Hillcrest Drive as shown
on the vicinity map below.
T.B. 1146 -E4
JC:JC d:\jobsUs \cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
The existing site includes a single existing residential structure. In addition to the
existing residential structure, the site currently consists of two other existing
structures (utility shed and a cabana), retaining walls, a stairway, a pool, and
miscellaneous other hardscape. In addition to the above description the project
site also includes a landscaped area within the ROW that includes a stairway ad
a lava rock wall.
Drainage from the existing site is primarily conveyed in westerly direction across
the project site. As this drainage is directed to the east, it makes its way across
the project site to the westerly property line.
1.3 Proposed Project Conditions
The intent of proposed projects is to re- develop the proposed project site a new
detached single - family dwelling. The proposed development consists of the
construction of improvements to the ROW on the easterly property frontage,
which includes construction of a turfblock Swale and paving (as necessary to
meet a minimum 11 foot halfwidth in Hillcrest Drive) along the property frontage.
The project will also include grading to a create pad suitable for the construction
of a residential structure, the construction of retaining walls, and the construction
of all underground utilities typically associated with residential development.
The drainage of the proposed development will be facilitated by the design and
construction of a trench drain system, including a trench grate, all associated
piping, and an area drain system. The storm drain system also incorporates the
design and use of BMP landscaped areas that will serve to convey runoff from
the site over a pervious surface prior to discharge from the site, as well as three
(3) infiltration pits. The intent of storm drain system design was to maintain the
existing conditions to the maximum extent practicable.
1.4 Summary of Results
The project site and project design in accordance with the Stormwater
Applicability Checklist, is subject to only standard BMPs. The proposed storm
drain systems incorporate the use of permanent landscaped area to act as a
biofilter prior to being discharged near the northwesterly corner of the property.
Additionally three (3) infiltration pits have also been incorporated into the
proposed project design to further improve water quality being discharged from
the site as well as act to reduce the peak flow discharge during runoff producing
rainfall events.
JC:JC d:\jobs \cls \cls #729 - comptonlswmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
1.5 References
"California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 2001-01", California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (SDRWQCB).
"Introduction to Environmental Engineering ", second edition 1991,
Davis /Cornwell.
"California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management
Practice Handbook New Development and Redevelopment, "January 2003,
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA).
JC:JC d:l obs\cls \cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
2.1 Introduction
The party for whom this report was prepared has done so in effort to meet storm
water quality goals set for the project site. The purpose of this report is to
discuss the pollutants associated with the proposed development, and determine
and recommend methods and techniques to be incorporated into the project
design that will reduce the concentration of pollutants discharge transported by
storm water runoff.
2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board Criteria
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 2001 -01 provides the
framework for waste and pollutant discharge requirements for discharge from
storm drain systems draining the watersheds of San Diego County. Runoff
collected and conveyed in the proposed storm drain systems for this proposed
project will be treated in compliance with the requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and NPDES regulations before any storm water
is discharged into existing natural water bodies or watercourses. As regulated by
the RWQCB, post - developed site runoff shall not contain waste and or pollutant
loads that have the potential to further deteriorate the water quality of the
receiving water beyond the water quality objectives established for a specific
water body or watercourse, or that have not been reduced to the maximum
extent practicable.
As a means to achieve the water quality goals set forth by the RWQCB,
developers, landowners, municipalities and other public agencies must
implement post- construction best management practices (BMPs) with any new
development or redevelopment. In this particular aspect, BMPs are specific
storm water management devices or techniques that are proposed and
implemented to manage both construction and post- construction site runoff. In
particular BMPs are used to reduce erosion and pollutants loadings to the
maximum extent that treatment devices and construction techniques are capable
of by utilizing the best economically feasible technologies available. These
BMPs include not only structural treatment devices, but source control and site
design — controls that help prevent the transport of soil and other pollutants that
have the potential of being suspended in storm water runoff. The objective of
these BMPs is to reduce the volume of sediment and the concentration of other
pollutants in storm runoff from leaving the site from which they originated.
The report is primarily concerned with post- construction pollutants, which are the
direct result of urban development, landscaping operations and the effects of
vehicular activity. With urban development additional impervious areas are
created. These typically paved areas are likely to contain sediment in various
JC:JC d: \jobs \cls \cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
forms and a varied range of pollutants that are transported not only by sediment
but by storm water as well.
As alluded to previously in this section, post- construction BMPs are divided into
three categories: structural treatment devices, which include Volume -Based
BMPs and Flow -Based BMPs; source control BMPs; and site design BMPs. All
three categories are discussed in further detail within this report. Structural
BMPs are devices that are constructed and are located to either infiltrate, filter, or
treat through mechanical, non - mechanical (such as grassy swales, weirs, filters,
trash racks, etc.), or chemical means the required runoff volume or flow.
Presently, these BMPs are required to reduce the sediment and pollutant loading
generated by the 85th percentile runoff flow or volume. The 85th percentile
runoff flow or volume is determined from local historical rainfall records. The
estimated 85th percentile rainfall average for San Diego County is 0.6 inches in
volume or 0.2 inches per hour.
In the case of volume -based BMPs, the requirements indicate that they shall be
designed to treat the volume of runoff produced from a 24 -hour 85th percentile
storm event. Volume -based BMPs are typically basins that are usually designed
to store the 85th percentile rainfall volume for a period of 24 to 48 hours in order
to allow sediment and other pollutants to settle out of the storm water contained
by the basin.
Flow -based BMPs are required to mitigate the maximum flowrate of runoff
produced from the 85th percentile rainfall event. These devices as discussed
above are designed to either facilitate settling and removal of pollutants from the
runoff they are suspended in or by.
2.3 City of Encinitas Storm Water Requirements
The City of Encinitas' Storm Water Standards manual is intended to provide
information on how to comply with all of the City's permanent and construction
storm water BMP requirements. Per the City of Encinitas' SUSMP, the proposed
project is a high priority project and therefore must comply with all storm water
BMPs applicable to this type of development. Included on the following page is a
completed storm water requirements applicability checklist.
JC:JC d:ljobs\cls\cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
City of End nitas
Stone Water Best Management Practices Manual, Part 11
APPENDIX A
STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST
Complete Sections 1 and 2 of the following checklist to determine your project's permanent
and construction storm water best management practices requirements. This form must be
completed and submitted with your permit application.
Sectlon 1. Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements:
If any answers to Part A are answered "Yea," your project is subject to the "Priority Project
Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements," and "Standard Permanent Storm WaterBMP
Requirements" in Section III, "Permanent Storm Water BMP Selection Procedure" in the
Best Management Practice Manual Part 11. If all answers to Part A are 'No," and any
answers to Part B are "Yes," your project a only subject only to the Standard Permanert
Storm Water BMP Requirements. If every question In Part A and B is answered "No," your
project is exempt from permanent storm water requirements.
Part A: Determine Priorliv Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements,
Does the protect most the definition of one or more of the priority project ceisgorles4•
Yes
No
1. Residential development of 10 or more units
2. Heavy Industry
3. Commercial development greater than 1 Acre
4. Automotive repair shop
5. Restaurant
8. Hillside development areater than 5,000 s uare test
✓
7. Industrial development greater than 1 acre
8. Project discharging to receiving waters within Environmentally Sensitive
Areas
9. Project greater than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface that
discharge to receiving waters within or adjacent to Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
10. Parking lots 5,000 If or more of impervious surface or with r15 parking
spaces and potentially exposed to urban runoff
11. Streets, roads, driveways, highways, and freeways which would create a
new paved surface that is 5,000 square feet or greater of impervious
surface
12. Retail Gasoline outlets, 500 square feet or more with a projected
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per der
• Rater to the dafnitons Section II for expanded definitions ol the priority project categories.
Liar Exclusion: TrencNng and resurfacing work associated with ctility projects are riot considered
priority projects. Parking ots, builCinga and other structures associated with utility, projects are priority
projects If one or more of the criteria in Part A is met. If all answers to part Aare 'No ", continue to Part B.
0
JC:JC d:kjobs\cls\cls #729 - comptonlswmp- Ot.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
City of Encinitas
Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual, Part II
Part 8: Determine Standard Permanent Storm Water Requirements.
Does the project propose:
Yes
No
1. New Impervious areas, such as rooftops, roads, parking lots, driveways, paths
andsidewalks.
2. Reconstnrction of the existing Impervous areas. such as rooftops, roads, parking lots,
✓
driveways, paths and sdewaks In excess of I DOG square feet.
✓
3. Pemranent structures within 100 test of any natural water body.)
4. Trash storage areas?
V
5. Liquid or solid material loadin andunloadin arets?
6. Vehicle or eqiLlpment fueling, wastl or maintenance areas?
7. Require a General NPOES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
✓
Activities (Except construction) ?'
S. Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage, excluding typical office or household
Waste?
9. An grqdip or rouriddisturban"dudngoonstruclionIf
10. Any now storm drains, or alteration to GKlating storm drains that reduces natural storm water
treatmen(?
'To find out A your project is required to obtain an Individual General NPOES Permit for Storm Waite
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, visit he State Water Resourcas Control Boad web Site at
swrcD.ca. ov /stormwir /industdai.Mml
Section 2. Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements:
If the answer to question t of Part C is answered "Yes' your project Is subject to Section IV,
"Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards," and must prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the answer to question 1 is "No," but the
answer to any of the remaining questions is "Yes,' your project is subject to Section IV,
"Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards," and must prepare a Local
SWPPP . if every question in Part C Is answered 'N0;' your project is exempt from any
construction storm water 8MP requirements. If any of the answers to the questions in Part
C are 'Yes,' complete the construction site prioritization in Part D, below.
Part C: Determine Construction Phase Storm Water Reaulrements,
Would the protect meet any of these crireris during construcson4
Yes
No
Is the project subject to Callfomia's stalevdde General NPDES Permit for Storm Water
Discbeirges Associated With Construction Activities?
2. Does the project propose gradino or soil disturbance?
3. Would storm water or urban runoff have the potential to contact any portwn of the
oonstructon area includino waihino and slaoina areas?
✓
4. Would the project use any construction materials that could negatively affect water quality
if discharged from he site fsuch as aims solvers concrete and stucco ?
✓
47
iu:iu a: goosl cistcisar,�a- comptonwswmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
3.0 HYDOROLOGIC UNIT CONTRIBUTION
3.1 Hydrologic Unit
As identified by the San Diego Basin Plan, the proposed project site drains to a
San Diego Coastal Waters, Batiquitos Lagoon, specifically Hydrologic Sub Area
(904.51) which is within the San Marcos Creek Hydrologic Unit.
3.2 Beneficial Uses
As identified by the San Diego Basin Plan, the existing beneficial uses of the
waters of Batiquitos Lagoon include agricultural source, contact and non - contact
recreation, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Also identified by the
San Diego Basin Plan, the Coastal waters of Batiquitos Lagoon have been
excepted from use as a municipal source. An excerpt from Table 2.3 Beneficial
Uses of Coastal Waters, showing the beneficial uses of Batiquitos Lagoon, is
included at the end of this section.
3.3 303(d) List Status
According to the California 1998, 2002, and 2006 CWA 303d list published by the
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, there are no impaired water
bodies that are associated with either the tributaries of Batiquitos Lagoon or
Batiquitos Lagoon itself.
The project location and watersheds have been compared to the current
published 303d list of impaired water bodies. Drainage from the site ultimately
discharges to the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of San Elijo Lagoon, after being
conveyed by Escondido Creek. The Pacific Ocean at several points along the
San Diego Region shoreline is identified as being impaired by bacterial stressors;
including a specific listing for the San Elijo Lagoon. The lagoon is listed as being
impaired by bacterial indicators, eutrophic, and sedimentation /siltation.
3.4 Conditions of Concern
The proposed project location and watersheds have been compared to the
current published 303d list of impaired water bodies. As stated in section 3.3,
drainage from the site eventually drains to Escondido Creek, which ultimately
discharges to the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of San Elijo Lagoon.
The proposed project location is located approximately 8 miles upstream from
the assumed nearest 303(d) listed limited water quality segment, the Pacific
Ocean Shoreline at San Elijo Lagoon.
JC:JC d: \jobs \cls \cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
n
n
a
`o
rz
(e
N
N
V
0
A3
o �
m�
0'9
Table 2 -2. BENEFICIAL USES OF INLAND SURFACE WATERS
1,2
Inland Surface Waters
Hydrologic Unit
Basin Number
BENEFICIAL
USE
M
U
N
A
G
R
I
N
D
P
R
O
C
G
W
R
F
R
S
H
P
O
W
R
E
C
1
R
E
C
2
B
I
O
L
W
A
R
M
C
0
L
D
W
1
L
D
R
A
R
E
S
P
W
N
San Diego County Coastal Streams - continued
Buena Viste Lagoon
411
See Coastal Waters - Table 2.3
Buena Vista Creek
4.22
+
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buena Vista Creek
4.21
+
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aqua Hedbrtda
4.31
See Coastal Waters- Table 2 -3
Ague Hediofda Creek
4.32
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buena Creek
4.32
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ague Hedionda Creek
4.31
•
•
•
Rio
•
•
•
Letterbox canyon
4.31
•
•
•
•
•
•
Canyon de las Encinas
4.40
t
•
•
•
San Marcos Creek Watershed
Bafiqudos Lagoon
4.51
See Coastal Waters- Table 2 -3
San Marcos Creek
4,52
+
•
•
•
•
•
unnamed Intermittent streams
4.53
+
•
•
•
•
•
San Marcos Creek Watershed
San Marcos Creek
q 51
+
•
•
•
•
•
Endnitas Creek
4.61
+
•
•
•
•
•
• Existing Beneficial Use 1 Waterbodies are listed multiple times if they crosa hydrologic area or sub area boundaries.
O Potential Baneficlal Use 2 Beneficial use designations apply to all tributaries to the indicated waterbody, If not listed separately.
+ Excepted From MUN (See Text)
00
07L
-0 oa TeMe 2.2 March 12. 1997
3 n BENEFICIAL USES 2-27
U) W
O A
� ht
3 x
CD
T
d <.
7 (➢
m
N
3
m
11.111,
w
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
<on< • •
i a ¢ • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ •
¢ ` ¢ w • • • • • •
W • • • • • • •
W ? — J O • • • • • • • • • • • • •
L 4
Q z
m m — O J • • • • • • •
J u 0 2 1 • • • • • • • • •
Q
Q z<> • • • • •
V —z0 • • • • • • •
p m
v =
V1
con
U.11 0 W ° E
y = z
D
J -
Q
U-
W g
W w $ t
a c
CO aO.
cc
a
8
.a
O a o F
R �
z
tl m K
IYJ rl
JC:JC d:\jobs\cls \cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
Table 4 - Combined 1998° and Draft 2002 Section 303(d) Update
Hydrologic watert»d a Pollutant/ Extent of Year
Descriptor Y Segment Area Stressor Impairment o Listed
24 bacterial
(904.21) Buena Vista Lagoon Indicators" 350 acres 1998
Sedimemation 1 350 acres 1998
(904.31
Aqua Hedionda Lagoon
Indicators"
Saaes
1998
r�a
(905.00)
Sedimentation i
Torrey Pines State Beach at Del
Indicators"
Slnatlon
Mar (Andarson Canyon)
2e Los Mcnos HSA
loviier portion
Diazinon
lower 2 miles
2002
(904.31)
Agua Hedionda Creek
Total Dissolved
Green Valley Creek
Sullate
bwer 8 miles
2002
(905.21 )
Solids
a an Marcos HA
xHI
arterial
Entire Reservok
r
rya ��
Pacific Ocean Shoreline at Moonlight State Beach
,"
0.4 miles
1998
Pacific Oman Shoreline
(904A1) .._.. San Efo Lagoon
Irdx:8lars" 150 acres 1998
Eutrophic 330 acres
Sedimentation/ 150 acres
-- oan uwyunu nu
ar Dian uraguao Lagoon rvroum
Bacterial
v.a miles
r�a
(905.00)
Pacific Ocean Shoreline
Torrey Pines State Beach at Del
Indicators"
Mar (Andarson Canyon)
31 Del Dios HSA
Green Valley Creek
Sullate
1 mile
2002
(905.21 )
xHI
Hodges Reservoir
Entire Reservok
r
Entire
2002
1905.21)
NHmgen
Reservoir
Phosphorus
Total Dissolved
Solids
w Fslicita HSA
Total Dissolved
Felbi[a Creek
bwer 2 miles
2002
(905.23)
Solids
NI Felicita HSA
Total Dissolved
Iona 111
Kit Carson Creek
c ii
1 mile
2002
(905.31) Cloverdale Creek Total Dissolved
Solids
r Knw w�.on.
a>WOB�nl�ae art hPrieaNZ�ba1i ioL4n
trY 36
JC:JC d: yobs \cls \cls #729- compton\swmp- Ot.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
L
n
0
0
a
r
N
n
(R
A
N
r
N
Ay
$s
OD
8
a
�A
PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD
(n W
S %NR(BAPPROVALDATE; O(TOBER:5. ?006 O0 A
N
GILWATER POTTITLAL ESITYATED PROPOSED 1]lOL
REGION n'PE NAVE WATERSHED POLLITANTSTRESSOR SOURCES SIZE Af ECTM CO]QL =
9 ( Pa<ifre fkran Sbnrriinr. Sae lfarTnr AA 901510m
1
3 _S
n
1
9 R Pagi Cwsn¢ Creek
9 R Firm Crwk
Phoxphorvs
T9rbidiry
910:0000
DDT
90150000
Phosphorw
Pnga 14 afS-
Grarieg- ftdw.d S..
Ce¢centrartd . \e®+1 Feeding Oprra HOn
(perv>:1red, poivr savrtr)
Traeairw evump.en
Sovice Cn�onn
Som re L nimovn
Sown (Nmvnn
l'rban Rmro(f.5lonn Sex os
fnknawo \onpoinr 5owee
Cekno�v paiw wwce
!A Nllrl :019
3.9 NRer :019
1.8 ]Din :019
1: Milrr :019
a)
N
Indi<aror bxkda
0.5 Miles :005
(D
Irrgwimrmrlonord ar .11oanOghrSmra Bavrh
^N-r
tievpoierRoinl Source
� Q
9 C r.cifu Ocean Shoreliw. Sapp, BA
90630000
1
<
ledkvror bated.
3.9 NDea :019
03
Zinc bsnng ryr d.W, barren. In nppb. ry rho ChAh. Pval Roach arm of Ihu ocwrn A.B. sgmmt
a
\vepoiut'Poiur So¢rxe
3
ID
9 C Pacific Ooean Shoreliw' Ljmm BC
91111000
7
Indicmor bacon.
3 ]Dln :010
Irr¢wrm�mr lacard five Ara harder, arerW ng north along rho shot..
�oepoin[T'oinl Source
�
9 R Pi¢r 1'eRer Creek (Cpper)
91141000
Enrtswac<m
:.9 Milrr :U70
9 R Pagi Cwsn¢ Creek
9 R Firm Crwk
Phoxphorvs
T9rbidiry
910:0000
DDT
90150000
Phosphorw
Pnga 14 afS-
Grarieg- ftdw.d S..
Ce¢centrartd . \e®+1 Feeding Oprra HOn
(perv>:1red, poivr savrtr)
Traeairw evump.en
Sovice Cn�onn
Som re L nimovn
Sown (Nmvnn
l'rban Rmro(f.5lonn Sex os
fnknawo \onpoinr 5owee
Cekno�v paiw wwce
!A Nllrl :019
3.9 NRer :019
1.8 ]Din :019
1: Milrr :019
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
4.0 POLLUTANTS AND CONDITIONS OF CONCERN
4.1 Conditions of Concern
A variety of pollutants are anticipated to be onsite during construction phases,
and as a result of soil and vegetation disturbance related to construction activities
these pollutants have the highest potential of being discharged during this period
of time. Due to the fact that pollutant loading and waste discharge calculations
are dependent on a wide spectrum of variables, methodologies to approximate
loading values do not produce values that are precise.
In the following tables anticipated pollutants that have the potential of being
suspended in storm water runoff from the proposed project site. Figure 4.1
below lists common pollutants, which are typically onsite during construction, and
may be present in storm water runoff from the site unless appropriate
management practices are implemented.
Table 4.1 — Construction Products and Associated Pollutants
CATAGORY
PRODUCT
POLLUTANTS
Adhesives
Adhesives, Glues
Phenolics, Formaldehydes
Resins, Epoxy Synthetics
Phenolics, Formaidehydes
Calks. Sealers, Putty, Sealing Agents
Asbestos. Phenolics, Formaldehydes
Coal Tars Na tha, Pitch
Benzene, Phenols, Naphthalene
Cleaners
Polishes (Metal, Ceramic, Tile)
Metals
Etching Agents
Metals
Cleaners. Ammonia, Lye, Caustic Sodas
Acidity/Alkalinity
Bleaching Agents
Acidity/Alkalinity
Chromate Salts
Chromium
Plumbing
Solder (Lead, Tin), Flux (Zinc, Chloride)
Lead, Copper, Zinc, Tin
Pipe Fitting (Cut Shavings)
Copper
Galvanized Metals (Nails, Fences)
Zinc
Electric Wiring
Copper, Lead
Painting
Paint Thinner, Acetone, MEK, Stripper
VOC's
Paints, Lacquers, Varnish, Enamels
Metals, Phenolics, Mineral Spirits
Turpentine, Gum Spirit, Solvents
VOC's
Sanding, Stripping
Metals
Paints (Pigments), Dyes
Metals
Woods
Sawdust
BOD
Partide Board Dusts (Formaldehyde)
Formaldehyde
Treated Woods
Copper, Creosote
Masonry & Concrete
Dusts (Brick, Cement)
Addity, Sediments
Colored Chalks (Pigments)
Metals
Concrete Curing Compounds
Glazing Compounds
Asbestos
Cleaning Surfaces
Acidity
Floors & Walls
Flashing
Copper, Aluminum
Drywall
Dusts
Tile Cutting (Ceramic Dusts)
Minerals
Adhesives'
Remodeling & Demolition'
Insulation
Asbestos
Venting Systems
Aluminum, Zinc
Dusts Brick, Cement, Saw, Drywall)
Air Conditioning & Heating
Insulating
Asbestos
Coolant Reservoirs
Freon
Adhesives'
JC:JC d: \jobs \cls \cls #729 - Compton \swmp -01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
Yard O & M
Vehicle and Machinery Maintenance
Oils and Grease, Coolants
Runoff from agriculture, construction, logging and mineral
Gasoline, Oils, Additives
Benzene & Derivatives, Oils
NUTRIENTS
Marking Paints (Sprays)
& Grease
atmospheric deposition, and erosion
Grading, Earth Moving
Vinyl Chloride, Metals
Portable Toilets
Erosion (Sediments)
animal waste, and landfills
Fire Hazard Control (Herbicides)
BOO, Disinfectants (Spills)
SUBSTANCES
Health and Safety
Sodium Arsenite, Dinitro
Vehicle operation and maintenance, industrial processes,
Wash Waters' (Herbicides, Concrete, Oils, Greases)
Compounds
Hydraulic Fluids
waste sites, and leaking underground and above ground
Rodenticides, Insecticides
Landscaping & Earthmoving
Planting, Plant Maintenance
Pesticides, Herbicides. Nutrients
Excavation, Tilling
Erosion (Sediments
wood preservatives, metal corrosion), and pesticides
Masonry & Concrete'
Solid Wastes (Trees, Shrubs)
Boo
Exposing Natural Lime or Other Mineral Deposits
Acidity/Alkalinity, Metals
Soils Additives
Aluminum Sulfate, Sulfur
Reve etation of Graded Areas
Fertilizers
Materials Storage
Waste Storage (Used Oils, Solvents, Etc.)
Spills, Leaks
Hazardous Waste Containment
Spills, Leaks
Raw Material Piles
Dusts, Sediments
aes above categories.
Note- VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds. SOD = &ochemcal Oxygen Demand due to the use of oxygen by decomposing matenais.
References. USEPA, 1973. Processes, Procedures, and McMods to Contrd Pollution Resulting Rom construction Acemty Office of Air and Water Programs.
EPA
The pollutants listed in Table 4.1 are not considered as conditions of concern for
this report, because the scope of this report refines the conditions of concern to
post- construction pollutants only. Figure 4.2 below identifies pollutants and the
primary sources of the pollutant that are related to post- construction type
activities and are the conditions of concern for typical residential developments.
Table 4.2 — Post - Construction Pollutants and Sources
Pollutant
Major Source
SEDIMENTS
Runoff from agriculture, construction, logging and mineral
extraction
NUTRIENTS
Fertilizers, leachate from landfills and septic systems,
atmospheric deposition, and erosion
BACTERIA AND VIRUSES
Sewage spills and overflows, illicit sanitary connections,
septic systems, confined animal facilities, wild and domestic
animal waste, and landfills
OXYGEN DEMANDING
Decaying vegetation (leaves and lawn clippings), animal
SUBSTANCES
excrement, street litter, and other organic matter
OIL AND GREASE
Vehicle operation and maintenance, industrial processes,
Anti - freeze
agriculture, home and garden care, landfills, hazardous
Hydraulic Fluids
waste sites, and leaking underground and above ground
Cleaners and Solvents
fuel storage tanks
HEAVY METALS
Vehicle operation and maintenance, industrial processes,
paved surfaces (asphalt, deicing agents), structures (paint,
wood preservatives, metal corrosion), and pesticides
JC:JC &: Jobs \cis \cls #729 - conrptonlswrnp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
Chromium
Vehicle operation and maintenance
Copper
Vehicle operation and maintenance, paint, and pesticides
Lead
Vehicle operation and maintenance, structures and roads,
and paint
Zinc
Vehicle operation and maintenance, paved surfaces
iron
Vehicular rust, structural rust
Cadmium
Vehicle tire wear (filler material), and pesticides
Nickel
Vehicular fuels, oil and parts wear, paved surfaces
Manganese
Vehicular parts wear
TOXIC MATERIALS
PCBs
Vehicles: catalyst in synthetic tires, Other: electrical,
insulation
Pesticides and Herbicides
General outdoor application, Structures: wood
preservatives, paint
FLOATABLES
Litter: residential, commercial, industrial, recreation, waste
disposal, vegetation
4.2 Post - Developed Anticipated Pollutants
The proposed project will consist of a single two -story office building and
associated parking. Table 4.3 included at the end of this section, illustrates the
pollutant categories typically associated with various categories of development.
In this case the commercial development priority project category has been
highlighted to illustrate the pollutant categories that will be addressed by the
post- construction BMPs proposed for this project.
Pollutants of concern, listed in Table 4.3, are grouped in the following categories:
Sediment— sediment is defined as rock or soil particles that characterized as
materials that are susceptible to erosion and are then transported and or
deposited by wind, water, ice, or gravity. Sediment becomes a condition of
concern when the concentration of sediment in a liquid causes the turbidity
(concentration of suspended solids in a liquid) to increase. The potential results
of high turbidity in our rivers, streams, and other receiving waters include the
reduction of spawning habitat, smothering bottom dwelling organisms, the
suppression of aquatic vegetative growth, and fish kills due to clogging of fish
gills.
Nutrients — nutrients are defined as substances that an organism must obtain
from its surroundings for growth and the sustainment of life. Nutrients are
typically inorganic substances, which are most commonly found as mineral salts
such as nitrogen and phosphorous. The primary sources of nutrients in urban
runoff are eroded soils and fertilizers. High concentrations of nutrients can result
JC:JC d:\jobs\cls\cls #729 - compton \swmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
in loss of dissolved oxygen in water, the release of toxins from sediment, decay
of organic matter at an accelerated rate, all which can be detrimental to aquatic
life. Another result of the discharge of nutrients to receiving water is excessive
aquatic plant and algae growth, which is also defined as eutrophication.
Metals — metals are defined as chemical elements that are various opaque,
fusible, ductile, and typically lustrous substances; which are good conductors of
electricity and heat, form cations by loss of electrons, and yield basic oxides and
hydroxides. Metals of concern are lead, copper, mercury, zinc, chromium and
cadmium. Primary sources of metals of concern are raw materials that are
constituents of non -metal products such as adhesives, paints, other coatings and
fuels. High metal concentrations in storm water can interfere with reproduction
and be toxic to aquatic organisms and other wild life.
Organic Compounds — organic compounds are defined as a carbon -based
substance consisting of two or more chemical elements. The organic
compounds of concern typically originate from pesticides, herbicides,
insecticides, solvents and hydrocarbons. These substances usually adhere to
sediment and grease and at high concentrations result in health hazards to all
forms of life.
Trash and Debris — trash and debris are defined as substances such as paper,
plastics, food and or yard wastes that have been haphazardly discarded. Trash
and debris can be forms of organic matter and the degradation of which can
result in a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Water with a high
concentration of BOD result in low water quality and in worst case scenarios can
result in septic conditions.
Oxygen Demanding Substances — oxygen demanding substances are defined
as anything that can be oxidized in the receiving water with the consumption of
dissolved molecular oxygen. These materials are usually biodegradable organic
matter but also include certain inorganic compounds. The consumption of
dissolved oxygen (DO) poses a threat to higher forms of aquatic life that must
have oxygen to survive. The levels at which the DO concentration becoming
threatening to aquatic life varies drastically between various species.
Oil and Grease — oil and grease are defined as organic compounds with high
molecular weight. Primary sources of oil and grease as pollutants of concern are
motor oils, waxes, and fats and grease from restaurants and food processing
operations. High concentrations of oil and grease result in low water quality as
well as poor water aesthetics.
JC:JC d: \jobs\cls \cls #729 - compton \swmp- Ot.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
Table 4.3 - Anticipated and Potential Pollutants from the Project Area
JC:JC d:ljobslclslcls #729 - comptonlswmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
General Pollutant Cate ories
PrlorJty
Trash
Oxygen
Bacteria
Project
Heavy
Organic
&
Demanding
Oil &
&
ce odes
Sediments
Nutrients
Metals
Corn ounds
Debris
Substances
Grease
Viruses
Pesticides
Attached
Residential
X
X
X
P('1
P( �)
P
X
Development
Commercial
Development
P('1
P('1
p(2)
X
p(5)
X
p(3)
P(s)
>100,000 ftZ
Automotive
Repair
X
X(4x5)
X
X
Shops
Restaurants
X
X
X
X
Hillside
Development
X
X
X
X
X
X
>5,000 n2
Parking Lots
PM
P('1
X
X
P('1
X
P('i
Streets,
Highways &
X
Pt11
X
X(4)
X
P(5)
X
Freeways
Retail Gas
X
X(4)
X
X
Outlets
X = anticipated
P = potential
(1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on -site.
(2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas.
(3) A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products.
(4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons.
(5) Including solvents.
JC:JC d:ljobslclslcls #729 - comptonlswmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
5.0 STORM WATER QUALITY TREATMENT BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
5.1 Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs are techniques utilized to minimize the potential for storm
water to come in contact with pollutants detrimental to storm water quality of the
receiving watercourse or water body. Source control BMPs include techniques
utilized to limit the impact of automobile use, landscaping, and the use other
urban pollutants; the following illustrates the techniques used as source control
BMPs:
Automobile Use — In a residential neighborhood automobiles are
primary utilized as means of transportation for the commuter.
However, residential neighborhoods still see vehicular traffic of larger
vehicles and including heavy duty trucks for the purpose of serving the
residential public. Through continued and infrequent vehicle trips into
the residential neighborhood, automobiles and trucks have the
potential of contributing oil, grease, antifreeze, hydraulic fluids, copper
from brake dust, gasoline, diesel, and various other types of fuels.
The RWOCB Order states that the following activities related to
automobile use are prohibited:
o Wash water from the cleaning or power washing of gas
stations, auto repair garages, or other types of service
related operations can not be directly discharged into an
MS4 storm system or receiving watercourse or water body.
o Cleaning or maintenance of any type of mechanical
equipment, such as vehicles, concrete mixers, temporary
toilets, wood working tools, paint or paint applicators, etc.
that result in the discharge of wash water or pollutants into
urban runoff.
o Wash water from non - permanent cleaning operations such
as mobile auto washing and detailing, steam cleaning, power
washing, and carpet cleaning operations that discharge into
an MS4 storm system or receiving watercourse or water
body.
Urban Pollutants /Urban Housekeeping — In residential
neighborhoods and developments, residents typically have in their
possession several household products that contain a variety of toxins
and pollutants. Through the use of such products there is a potential
for the toxins and pollutants, possible constituents of the household
products, to be discharged into receiving waters. In addition to
contamination of urban runoff from the use of household products,
JC:JC d:\jobs \cls \ds #729 - compton \swmp -01 Am
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
organic matter, such as lawn clippings and leaves, also have the
potential to increase the nutrient loading in urban runoff.
The RWQCB Order states that the following activities related to
urban pollutants as related to the upkeep and maintenance of
residential dwellings are prohibited:
• Discharges of wash water from power washing or cleaning of
sidewalks, parking lots, streets, driveways, patios, outdoor
restaurants, outdoor retail /commercial plazas, etc.
• Discharges of food processing /production wastes, such as
grease, cellulose, trash, animal /fish body parts and fluids,
etc.
• Discharges of spa, pool, or fountain water that contain
chlorine /chloride, biocides, pH enhancers or buffers, or other
chemicals
• Discharges of runoff or wash water from areas that house
chemicals, fuels, grease, oils, hazardous materials /wastes,
biological materials, trash, or yard wastes.
Landscape irrigation, lawn and garden watering, and non - commercial
washing of vehicles in a residential area are exempt from the RWQCB
Order restrictions.
Landscaping — In residential neighborhoods and developments
landscaping provides land cover that can aid in the minimization of
erosion and pollutant discharge. Proper ground cover provides a
barrier for the impact of direct rainfall, thus reducing the capability of
rainfall to disturb bare soil and decreasing the erosion potential.
Manufactured slopes shall be provided with suitable ground cover,
such as hydro -seed, sod, or other forms of landscaping, or be provided
with other means of erosion control. The RWQCB Order states that
the discharge of sediment, pet wastes, lawn, garden and other yard
wastes, landscaping wastes, or construction wastes is prohibited.
Post construction landscaping activities that require the stock piling of
materials for longer than a period of 24- hours, should be covered or
isolated so that runoff or rainfall can not erode and convey sediment
into either a MS4 storm drain or receiving waters. Placement of
stockpiles should be such that the location of stockpiles is situated
outside of drainage paths. When this is not feasible, stockpiling should
be contained within barrier or enclosed by the use of gravel bags,
straw waddles, or other erosion /sedimentation control barriers.
In the event of storm water treatment unit maintenance, sediment
removed during periodic, post -major rainfall event, and annual
maintenance can be placed in a sanitary landfill or used for composting
JC:JC d: \jobs\cls\cls #729 - comptonlswmp- 01.doc
7/14/2008 1:40:00 PM
342 Hillcrest Drive
Storm Water Management Plan
activities. If no basin maintenance takes places for a period of longer
than 1 year, then trapped pollutants may be deemed hazardous and
special requirements may apply to disposal activities. In such a case,
removals would require testing prior to disposal in a sanitary landfill.
Homeowners are to be provided with guidelines and instructions to
educate them on the impacts of poor housekeeping to storm water
quality at the time of move in or prior. This should include the proper
use and application of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other
household products that have the potential of coming in contact with
urban runoff. Source control BMPs are as much the responsibility of
the homeowner as they are the developer, contractor or project owner.
5.2 Site Design BMPs
The proposed project has incorporated site design BMPs into the site design.
The disturbed areas where minimized, open space lots were proposed and will
restrict all future development from occurring with in the bounds of such lots, and
drainage ways will be earthen swales whenever possible and the existing
drainage course is not significantly altered.
JC:JC d:ljobslclslcls #729- comptonlswmp- Ot.doc
7/14/2006 1:40:00 PM
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
February 10, 2009
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: FIELD MEMO
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Compton:
Our site review on February 9, 2009 suggests that the prolonged rains have generated moderate to
high levels of erosion and saturation of recently graded fill soils. Remedial grading will be required
to restore disturbed areas.
It should also be noted that aeration of saturated pad soils will be necessary, as well as in exposed
footing excavations. Sufficient time for these soils should be allowed for vertical infiltration and
aeration of saturated soils.
If you have any questions regarding this field memo, please contact our office. Reference to our Job
No. P- 549048 will help expedite a response to your inquiry.
Respectfully submitted,
COAST GEOTECHNU
779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755.9126
Exp. 5/31/10
Mark Burwell, C.E.G. *
Engineering Geologist
ENG NEIERING
�o GEOLOGIS j
779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755.9126
February 5, 2009
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
COASTAL LAND SOLUTIONS
573 Second Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
Ph (760) 230 -6025
Fax (760) 230 -6026
RE: Pad Certification for Grading Permit No. 1001 -G
342 Hillcrest Drive, Leucadia
To Whom It May Concern:
CLS #729CS
Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby
submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced property. I hereby state
that the rough grading for the following pads are in conformance with the approved plans
and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards.
23.24.3 10 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown
on the approved grading plan. Sheet S.1 of the architectural plans state that there will be
4" of base material and 4" of concrete to the finished floor per the grading plan.
Finished Floor Pad elevation Pad Elevation
Elevation per -8" Concrete/Base Per Field
Grading Plan lan Per Architecture Measurement
First Floor 114.67' 114.00' 113.9'
Garage Pad 115.25' 114.58' 114.5'
Please note that the site retaining walls in the field that have been constructed as of the
date of this letter were based upon the approved grading plan and construction surveying
information provided in the field by this office.
If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
° No. 65124 "
Exp. 09 /30/09
�/a Z•4•o7
Steven R. Jones, Y.E. 65124 Date
COASTAL LAND SOLUTIONS, INC.
January 6, 2009
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Construction Surveying (1001 -G)
342 I illcrest Dri%c
To Whom It MaN Concern:
COASTAL LAND SOLUTIONS
535 N. Hwy 101, Suite D
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Ph (858) 793 -6837 Q,
Fax (858) 793 -6835 �j
O
fI
CLSu7_e('S
Coastal Land Solutions, Inc. has been retained by the owner of the above referenced
project to provide construction surveying layout. To date, we have provided rough grade
and fine grade stakes for the lower retaining walls (westerly portion of subject property).
We have also provided fine grade stakes for the westerly portion of the proposed
residence.
If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely.
Sean C. EngYrt, L.S. 7959
COASTAL LAND SOLUTIONS, INC.
1400
1451
1410
1z
14
0450
N
s 1429
14550 1456
1401
0 1404
57
GRADE NOTES
sm,[r ccscwmc�
ar
AMULTH
low
eL"
os
wwTM
I aS*
[LEV
STATION ROD +/- HUB ELEV PLAN GRADE CUT/FILL OFFSET S DSCRP
��vv
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPAR73IENT
Capital Improvement Projects
City of District Support Services
Encinitas Field Operations
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
TO: Subdivision Engineering
Public Service Counter
FROM: Field operations
Private Contract Inspection
RE:
Name of
Name of
Grading Permit No. Oci b
Site Location f42/�/ fy�s T �!
- (address - ...number ...sVee[ name . suffix) tlot) Ybltlgl
The proposed grading of the subject site will require construction of retaining
walls that are also building wails. The inspection of the site retaining walls is to be
done by the field: operations Division of the Engineering Services Department.
However, the inspection of the building retaining walls is to be done by the
Building Inspection Division of the Community Development Department.
Therefore, issuance of the necessary Building Permit is requested in order to
facilitate the completion of rough grading.
NO INSPECTIONS BEYOND FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION ARE TO BE
PROVIDED BY BUILDING INSPECTION UNTIL A NOTICE OF ROUGH
GRADING APPROVAL, WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND SIGNED BY THE
ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, IS RECEIVED. FRAMING IS PROHBITED.
In - - -r!
(Date/
(Signature of Senior Gvil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date)
Reference: Building Permit No. _ --
Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in bath engineering
technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a full rough grading approval and submit that paperwork, when
completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with building
Inspection. Thank you.
]SG /field2.docl
nFt 760433 -2600 / FAX 760-633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Enciniras, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 recycled paper
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
June 16, 2008
,
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECH ICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Compton
t��1 -ii L
NOV 2 5 2008
In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated March 18,
2008, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the
proposed residence. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations
for foundation design are presented in this report.
From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the
proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the
design and construction phases. However, the control of surface and subsurface water is essential
to the future performance of the proposed structure.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This opportunity
to be of service is appreciated.
Respectfully
COAST GB
2109
Exp. 5/31/10 �U
CERTIFIED
Mark Burwell, C.E. ENGINES , :� a` Vi tha a Sin et,
En
Engineering Geolo i ' °x GEOIO&Z ��4 y 1 t>
g g g 9 /Qt? , Geotechnical Engir
NZ��_
779 ACADEMY DRIVE - SOLANA BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 7558622 • FAX (858) 755.9126
782
Exp. 12-31-09
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared For:
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Prepared By:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
Solana Beach, California 92075
w+.w.womi mm V - 48.7 R Deb Zoom 154
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VICINITY MAP
4
INTRODUCTION
5
- SITE CONDITIONS
5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
6
SITE INVESTIGATION
6
- LABORATORY TESTING
6
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
8
CONCLUSIONS
10
- RECOMMENDATIONS
11
A. BUILIDNG PAD- REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION
11
B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
12
C. FOUNDATIONS
13
D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR)
14
E. RETAINING WALLS
15
F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
15
_ G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
15
H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
16
I. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
16
_ J. UTILITY TRENCH
17
K. DRAINAGE
17
L. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS
18
- M. PLAN REVIEW
18
LIMITATIONS
18
- REFERENCES
20
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS
SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES
Coast Geotechnical
INTRODUCTION
June 16, 2008
W.O. P-549048
Page 5
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying
the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed
single family residence.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located east of Vulcan Avenue, along the west side of Hillcrest Drive, in the
Leucadia district, city of Encinitas.
The subject property includes a single family residence situated approximately 4.0 feet below street
grade. The residence is constructed on gently sloping terrain with a relatively level front yard area.
A 5.0 foot high retaining wall is located along the rear of the residential structure and wood deck.
A relatively level rear yard pad accommodates a swimming pool and concrete deck. Maximum relief
on the site is approximately 16 vertical feet. The property is bounded along the north, south and west
by developed residential lots.
Vegetation includes grass, plants, shrubs and trees. Drainage is generally directed to the west by
sheet flow.
Coast Geotechnical
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 6
Preliminary plans for the development of the site were prepared by Shackelton Design Group. The
project will include the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new two story
residence. Minor rear yard grading is proposed in addition to backfilling the existing swimming
pool. The residential structure will be supported on continuous wall footings and retaining walls.
SITE INVESTIGATION
One (1) exploratory boring was drilled to a depth of 20 feet with a track - mounted hollow -stem drill
rig. Two (2) exploratory borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 14 feet with a portable auger
drill. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering
geologist. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the hollow -stem boring. Undisturbed,
representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained
by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings
of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained
in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis.
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs.
Coast Geotechnical
Moisture/Density
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 7
The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil
samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation
among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The
field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on
the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs.
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of
earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM
D- 1557 -91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results.
Shear Test
Shear tests were performed in a strain - control type direct shear machine. The rate of deformation
was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared under varying confining loads
in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters, cohesion and angle of internal friction.
Samples were tested in a saturated condition. The results are presented in the enclosed Laboratory
Test Results.
Coast Geotechnical
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 8
The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The
property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace
deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been
designated as the Santiago Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered,
in part, by fill and soil deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site
follows.
Artificial Fill /Soil (af /Os)
Approximately 12 inches of silty fine and medium- grained sand was encountered in the exploratory
borings. Additional fill deposits are present behind retaining walls and stem wall footings.
Terrace Deposits
Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The
terrace deposits are composed of tan to reddish brown, fine and medium - grained sand. The terrace
deposits are generally moist, loose and weathered in the upper 4.0 feet but become increasingly
dense with depth. In the vicinity of Boring No. 1, the terrace deposits are in a very moist condition
due to infiltration from drainage and irrigation in the upper 4.0 feet. Regionally, the Pleistocene
sands are considered flat -lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rock units.
Moderately dense to dense terrace deposits are considered suitable for the support of footings or
proposed fills.
Coast Geotechnical
Expansive Soil
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 9
Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the fill, soil
and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the very low range.
Groundwater
No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored.
However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction.
These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over - irrigation.
In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are
most effectively handled on an individual basis.
Tectonic Settine
The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally
characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and
fault segments are classified as active by the Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act).
Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest
active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.4 miles west of the site.
It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well- defined feature but rather a
zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 10
Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward - Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies
suggest that the Newport- Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon
faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate
a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site
include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The
temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion
resulting from an earthquake.
Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth
to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered
low.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards
such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced
subsidence.
2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of
structural footings, concrete flatwork or proposed fills in their present condition.
Coast Geotechnical June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 11
3) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as
properly compacted fill in the building envelope and areas of exterior improvements.
4) The existing pool should be completely removed. The pool should be backfilled with
approved compacted fill.
5) Although no groundwater was encountered during exploration, very moist to wet conditions
may be encountered in the weathered terrace deposits, due to irrigation and site drainage.
6) Our experience with this type of lot development and geotechnical conditions suggest that
varying degrees of seepage can develop after construction. Post construction seepage and/or
saturated ground conditions can adversely affect foundations and concrete flatwork.
Therefore, special consideration should be provided for surface and subsurface drainage
during the design and construction phases.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Buildina Pad- Removals/Recompaction
The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly
compacted fill in the building pad prior to placement of proposed fill. Removal depths are
anticipated to be on the order of 4.0 to 5.0 feet below existing grade. However, deeper removals may
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 12
be necessary based on actual conditions exposed during grading. A minimum of 2.0 feet of fill
should underlie the base of proposed footings. All fill should be keyed and benched into competent
terrace deposits. Removals should include the entire building pad extending a minimum of 5.0 feet
beyond the building footprint. Voids created by the removal of the existing pool and other
structures should be replaced by approved compacted fill. Most of the existing earth deposits are
generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed.
Prior to placement of fill, the base of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm.
Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed
bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to
8.0 inch lifts, moistened or aerated to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum moisture
content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill,
soil and weathered terrace deposits in areas of proposed fills, concrete flatwork, exterior
improvements and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Imported
fill, if necessary, should consist of non - expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical
engineer.
Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics
The fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are typically loose with varying moisture contents.
Temporary excavations greater than 3.5 feet should be trimmed to a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 13
vertical) or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The temporary slope
recommendations assume no surcharges are located or will be placed along the top of the slope
within a horizontal distance equal to one half the height of the slope. Where property lines,
structures or other constraints prevent the temporary slope, shoring may be required. The Pleistocene
terrace deposits may contain hard concretion layers. Based on our experience in the area, the
sandstone is rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good working order.
Foundations
The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non - expansive approved
compacted fill deposits or competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residences and
garages should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches
below the lowermost adjacent subgrade for single -story and two -story structures, respectively. The
base of footings should be founded a minimum of 10 lateral feet to the face of the nearest slope.
Where proposed footings are in close proximity and/or parallel any proposed drainage courses (BMP
areas), footings should be deepened a minimum of 6.0 inches. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam or
footing should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum
of two No. 5 bars, one along the top of the footing and one along the base. Footing
recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended
to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design.
For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1700 pounds per square foot may be used for 12
inch deep footings and 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for 18 inch deep footings.
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 14
The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value
may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and
seismic forces.
Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by
passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead -load forces. A
passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill or terrace deposits
penetrated to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot may be used.
Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior)
Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 5.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No.
3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum
2.0 -inch sand blanket (S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum
6.0 -mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered
by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on-
site materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs
including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw
cuts /expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast
over dense compacted subgrades.
Coast Geotechnical June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 15
Retaining Walls
Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active -
equivalent fluid pressure of 37 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be
designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should
be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should
be provided with an adequate backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The
soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density.
Settlement Characteristics
Estimated total and differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on
the order of inch and % inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary
settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be' /4 inch.
Seismic Considerations
Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to
moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake
occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone
located approximately 3.4 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is
considered the design earthquake for the site.
Coast Geotechnical
Seismic Design Parameters (2005 ASCE 7 Standard)
Site Class D
Ss:1.336
S 1:0.503
Fa: 1.0
Fv: 1.5
Sms: 1.336
SMI: 0.755
SDs: 0.891
SDI: 0.503
Preliminary Pavement Design
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 16
Previous testing suggests that the Pleistocene terrace deposits have an R -value of 43. The following
pavement section is recommended for proposed driveways:
4.0 inches of asphaltic concrete or 5.0 inches of concrete on
6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on
12 inches of compacted subgrade soils
Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in
a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R -value of 78
and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density.
The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade
deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure.
Coast Geotechnical
Utility Trench
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 17
We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand (S.E. greater than 30) to at least one foot
above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the
conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
may be utilized for backfill above the bedding.
The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone
of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45
degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be
accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving
the utility or the footing away from one another.
Drainaee
Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project engineer. However, in general, pad
water should be directed away from foundations. Roof water should be collected or transferred to
hardscape. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should
be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants
should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture
from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to
sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter
rains.
Coast Geotechnical
Geotechnical Observations
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 18
Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the
placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical
engineer is present to observe and test.
Plan Review
A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of
construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time.
LIMITATIONS
This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's
representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the
project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans.
If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report,
our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No
responsibility forconstruction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations
given in this report is assumed unless on -site review is performed during the course of construction.
The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are
based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O.P- 549048
Page 19
conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be
construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations.
Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall,
temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein.
Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however,
changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining
properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or
the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report
may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore
subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years.
The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical
data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general
experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the
project.
This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit
or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or
extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical.
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 20
CalifomiaBuilding Standards Commission, January 1, 2008, 2007 California Building Code,
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.
2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of
Mines and Geology OFR 96 -08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96 -706.
3. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego
Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35A, Open -File Report 95 -04, Map Scale
1:24,000.
4. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California
Division of Mines and Geology.
5. United States Geological Survey, 2007, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard
Response Spectra, Volume 5.0.8.
MAPS /AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale
1 "= 750,000'.
2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open
File Report 96 -02.
Jolly, D., L.S., 2004, Topographic Survey, 342 Hillcrest Drive, Encinitas, California, Scale
1 " =10'.
4. Shackelton Design Group, 2008, Site Plan, 342 Hillcrest Drive, Leucadia, California, Scale
1 " =8'.
APPENDIX A
-
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
-
TABLE I
Maximum Dry
Density and Optimum Moisture
Content
-
(Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -91)
- Sample
Max. Dry
Optimum
Location
Density
Moisture Content
(Acf)
B -3
@
1.0' -3.0'
126.8
10.1
TABLE II
-
Field
Dry Density and Moisture Content
- Sample
Field Dry
Field Moisture
Location
Density
Content
(ocf)
%
B -1
@
4.0'
107.7
10.5
B -1
@
5.0'
SPT
9.8
- B -1
@
8.0'
108.4
10.4
B -1
@
9.0'
SPT
10.2
B -1
@
12.0'
96.4
7.8
B -1
@
13.0'
SPT
7.8
B -1
@
16.0'
103.2
8.3
B -1
@
17.0'
SPT
7.8
B -1
@
18.5'
SPT
7.7
B -2
@
3.0'
92.1
8.1
B -2
@
5.0'
93.6
8.0
B -2
@
8.0'
103.4
10.2
B -3
@
3.0'
94.8
11.6
B -3
@
5.0'
101.8
10.2
B -3
@
8.0'
116.4
9.2
B -3
@
10.5'
Sample Disturbed
8.2
(Page 1 of 2)
TABLE III
Direct Shear Test Results
Sample Location Angle of Apparent Cohesion
Internal Friction 0 (osf)
B -3 @ 1.0' -3.0' 30 Degrees 37
(Remolded)
Nam•1I.
(Page 2 of 2)
jOG OF EX 'LORATORY BOR NG NO.
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE HOLLOW -STEM AUGER
PROJECT NO. P- 549048
BORING DIAMETER: 6.0"
DATE DRILLED: 05 -12 -08
SURFACE ELEV.: 117' (Approximate)
LOGGED BY: KC/MB
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
^•
140 POUND HAMMER 30 INCH DROP
C
10
a
W
W
w
p
U
!N�
FMr+
1
W
F-
o
o
a
U
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
117.
0.00
SM
FH.USOIL (aflQs): Bm. silty, fine and medium - grained sand
SP
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan , fine and med.- grained , sand, weath
115.
2.00
moist, loose, weathered
113.0
107.7
10.5
4.00
SP
s1E�R(FACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and med. -grain
SPT
9.8
16
Medium Dense
1110
6.00
109.
108.4
10.4
a
8.00
O
Medium Dense
SPT
10.2
t
24
3
107.
0
10.00
Ur
c
los.
1200 .
96.4
7.8
z
Medium Dense
SPT
7.8
25
103.
14.00
101.
103.2
8.3
16.00
Medium Dense
SPT
7.8
24
99.00
18.00
Medium Dense
SPT
7.7
21
End of Boring ® 20'
SKEET I of I COAST GEOTECHNICAL
.OG OF EX ' ORATORY BOR NG NO.2
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER
PROJECT NO. P- 549048
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5"
DATE DRILLED: 05 -02 -07
SURFACE ELEV.: 104' (Approximate)
LOGGED BY: MB
a
z
u
3
a
�
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
104.0
0.00
'd'�+ SM
FILL/SOU, (aflQs): Bm. silty, fine and medium - grained send
103.
1.00
SP
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm , fine and med.-grained sand
102.
2.00
101.
92.1
8.1
3.00
100A
Moist to V. moist to 8', loose to moderately dense
4.00
f;
d
a
O
99.00
93.6
8.0
d
5.00
3
v
98.00
0
6.00
O
z
97.00
7.00
96.00
From 8', dense, slightly moist
103.4
10.2
8.00
93.00
9.00
End of Boring ® 10'
No Caving
s1M 1 of 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
1 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.3
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER
PROJECT NO. P- 549048
(
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5"
DATE DRILLED: 05 -02 -07
SURFACE ELEV.: 114' (Approximate)
LOGGED BY: MB
1
e
�
W
a
1
U
U
W
y
I
D
y
a U
�hq
y
O
N
D
d h
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
114.
0.00
SM
FILLISOIL (af/Qs): Tan -Bm. silty, fine and medium - grained sand
roots
113.
1.00
SP
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and med.- grained sand
112.
2.00
11LIX
94.8 11.6
3.00
i
110.
4.00
109.0c
moist, loose litle or no cohesion in upper 8'
101.8 10.2
d
109.
Z
6.00
N
(]
107.
7.00
3
V
106.00
From 8', reddish bm. sand, dense
116.4 9.2
S
8.00
0
5
105.0
0
z
9.00
104.
10.00
Istruheo 8.2
101
11.00
102.
12.00
101.
13.00
End of Boring ® 14'
No Caving
S1lM i or 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
N 218-081 -1
i- 7 HIGH
RETAINING
BTACKED8
COIC. PIEC
Z- 2.5 H+
r BLOCK
RETAINING
MAP 2063
MAP 2063
"m
+ e+
SITE PLAN
SCALE: I " =16' (REDUCED)
LEGEND
�- BORING LOCATION (approx.)
GEOLOGIC UNITS
of ARTIFICIAL FILL
Qs RESIDUAL SOIL
Qt TERRACE DEPOSITS
COAST GEOT -Pr WCAL
P- 549048
APPENDIX B
50
40
30
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
0
0
0
•dOo
O Si 11
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.0783
Longitude = - 117.3025
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Period Sa
(sec) (8)
0.2 1.336 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.503 (Sl, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.0783
Longitude = - 117.3025
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1
SMs = FaSs and SMl = FvSI
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.336 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.755 (SMI, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
_ Latitude = 33.0783
Longitude = - 117.3025
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SDI = 2/3 x SM1
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.891 (SDs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.503 (SDI, Site Class D)
1.4 .
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Sa (g) Vs T (sec)
W,
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1
T (sec)
APPENDIX C
GRADING GUIDELINES
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies,
Appendix J of the California Building Code, 2007, the geotechnical report and the guidelines
presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional
recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase.
Site Clearine
Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non -
organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer.
Subdrainage
During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing
additional drains.
2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during
construction and prior to covering with compacted fill.
3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets
should be located and protected.
Treatment of Existing Ground
1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site.
2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise
indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make
excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be
necessary due to saturation during winter months.
3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches,
moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.
Fill Placement
Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special
processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil
should not be used for compacted fill.
2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a
uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless
otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer.
(1)
3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer,
the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture
should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre- watering of cut or
removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement,
particularly in clay or dry surficial soils.
b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling
governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation
D- 1557 -91.
4. Side -hill fills should have a minimum equipment -width key at their toe excavated through
all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back into the hill. As the
fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock
or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer.
5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine- grained material to surround the rocks;
C) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer.
6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance
with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock
disposal.
In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum
dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable
methods should be used to break the up blocks.
The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the
slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with
suitable equipment.
If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction
should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil
should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain
grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope.
Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.
Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three
to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
(2)
In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is
to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer
six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being
achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is
complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field
Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day.
9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner:
a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut -fill
interface.
b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least I foot into
slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils
Engineer or his representative.
C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate
if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional
earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation.
10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four
foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report).
11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and
replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly
fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of
materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper
overexcavation may be recommended in some cases.
12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated
and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.
Grading Observation and Testing
1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the
progress of grading.
2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or
every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions
and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be
made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being
obtained.
3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils
Engineer.
(3)
Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal
should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's
responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction.
6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards:
Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill.
2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative
compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary,
testing may be required.
Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the
outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory
standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these
trench backfill areas.
Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
(4)
JHy 75 -2009 02:02P FROM:
January 5, 2009
70:17604363688 P.2
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: rNTF,RIM ROUGH GRADING LETTER
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
References: Please refer to page 3
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Compton:
This letter has been prepared in order to advise the city of Encinitas that the rough grading aspects
to date on the above subject property have been observed and tested by this firm. Observation and
testing to date suggests that the fill was placed over dense terrace deposits and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. From a geotechnical viewpoint, the
project may continue with the construction of the proposed retaining walls. A Rough Grading
Report will be prepared at the completion of the retaining wall backfill.
The proposed retaining wall footing excavations should be observed by this firm prior to placement
of forms and reinforcing steel. It is suggested that footings in close proximity to the proposed
infiltration pits be deepened to lessen the impact of potential saturated ground conditions.
779 ACADEMY DRIVE - SOLINA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126
Coast Geotechnical
70:17604363688 P.3
January 5, 2009
W.O. P- 549048
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No.
P- 549048 will help expedite a response to your inquiry.
RespectfullLss�ubrnitt
COAST GEEC
2� {y
LL in:tf�irlRt�
Mark Rurwell C F Al* LNGINELi 141
\GFOLOGIST
dares ��a
V haya- tng
Geotechnical
782
UP. 12 -31 -08
Coast Geotechnical
PRELMNARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated June 16, 2008
2. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated September 12, 2008
GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated September 12, 2008
January 5, 2009
W.O. P- 549048
Page 3
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
February 10, 2009
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
References: Please see page 9
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Compton:
In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the rough
grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory
testing are presented in this report.
Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner
and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However, the
control of surface and subsurface water is essential to the future performance of the proposed
structure.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This opportunity
to be of service is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully submitted, oU�l�,
COAST GEOTEC
�2 2109
! &I w CERTIFIED
�%"� � CERTIFIED ~
Mark Burwell, C.E.G. * ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
Engineering Geologist
Qc�OCyp.SIN(w
ZY `4
�CID S
782
Exp. 12-31-09
Vith_ay'a SS'inghanet, P. CP
Geotechnical Engineer 9TF� CHN��,
779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755 -9126
ROUGH GRADING REPORT
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
Prepared for:
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Prepared by:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
Solana Beach, California 92075
Coast Geotechnical
February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 3
This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property
during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of fill, soil and weathered
terrace deposits along most of the site, the construction of retaining walls and the placement of wall
backfill. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan,
prepared by Coastal Land Solutions.
LABORATORY TEST DATA
The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with
ASTM D 1557 -91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The
results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil types used as compacted fill on the site,
is summarized below:
Maximum
Dry Density Optimum
Description (p c.f.) Moisture (%) Soil T)Te
(Onsite) Tan to brown fine and 126.8 10.1 A
medium- grained sand
(Import) Tan to brown fine and 124.0 11.0 B
medium - grained sand
slightly silty
(Import) Tan to brown silty fine 122.0 10.5 C
and medium - grained
sand
Coast Geotechnical February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 4
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace
deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been
designated as Santiago Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by
residual soil and fill deposits.
DISCUSSION
The grading contractor on this project was Mike Warner Grading. The following is a discussion of
the general grading operations as they were performed on the project.
1) The existing residential structure and swimming pool were demolished. All surface
deleterious material was removed in the building envelope, prior to removals. The existing
cabana in the southwestern portion of the site remained.
2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits were removed to dense terrace deposits
in the building envelope and stockpiled. The swimming pool area was backfilled with onsite
deposits.
3) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 inches,
moistened to near optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished
by track rolling with a Caterpillar 953 track loader.
Coast Geotechnical February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 5
4) The lot was overexcavated to a maximum depth of approximately 3.5 feet to 4.0 feet in the
building envelope. The overexcavation was extended laterally to approximately 5.0 feet
beyond the building envelope. Minor imported fill was necessary to achieve pad grade.
5) The residential retaining walls and the rear yard site wall were subsequently constructed.
Imported fill was necessary to compete the wall backfill. Wall backfill was placed and
compacted with a Bobcat and hand operated compaction equipment.
6) Based on visual classification and previous laboratory testing, the fill deposits have a
potential expansion in the very low range.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density as suggested by our test results.
2) However, recent prolonged rains have saturated the fill deposits and created erosional
channels on the graded lot. Corrective grading will be necessary, in this regard.
3) Additional corrective grading should be observed and tested by a representative of the
geotechnical engineer. Additional recommendations will be necessary.
Coast Geotechnical February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 6
4) The soil parameters recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
for foundations and slab design remain valid.
5) It is suggested that a subdrain be provided in front of the eastern (front yard) site walls to
collect potential subsurface water. Deepened footings for 2.0+ foot high walls should be
considered.
6) The following pavement section is recommended for the proposed driveway/parking areas:
4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or 5.0 inches of concrete on
6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on
12 inches of compacted subgrade soils
Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and
left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum
R -value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials
should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density.
The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into
subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure.
7) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand (S.E. greater than 30) to at least one
foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids
Coast Geotechnical
February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 7
around the conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface
utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these
adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane
projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be
accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or
moving the utility or the footing away from one another.
8) Footings in close proximity to the proposed infiltration pits were not deepened, as suggested
in our Interim Rough Grading Report, dated January 5, 2009. It is now suggested that the
proposed pit along the southern side of the structure be relocated further from the foundation
to reduce potential impact from infiltrated water. The proposed infiltration pits require
continuous maintenance and are the responsibility of the owner. The future performance of
the infiltration pits and their effect on site foundations, improvements, adjacent structures
and properties is impossible to predict with certainty due to unpredictable factors, such as
fluctuations in the level of groundwater, lateral migration of groundwater, rainfall,
infiltration rates, irrigation and maintenance of drainage systems. No evaluation by the
geotechnical consultant has been performed on these infiltration pits. Geotechnical
evaluation is currently not required by city agencies for the infiltration pits. Therefore, the
performance and impact of the newly required private drainage infiltration systems can only
Coast Geotechnical
February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 8
be evaluated through usage and time. However, in no respect do we guarantee or warrant the
performance of the private drainage infiltration system or their impact on foundations,
adjacent properties, concrete flatwork or structures.
9) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation which are
not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the
construction phase.
LIMITATIONS
This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written
approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the
placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless
such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction.
It should be noted that density (compaction) testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill.
The intent is to provide an opinion, based on selective testing and observation during fill placement.
This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit
or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or
extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical.
Enclosures: Table I
Grading Plan
Coast Geotechnical
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated June 16, 2008
2. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated September 12, 2008
3. GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated September 12, 2008
INTERIM ROUGH GRADING LETTER
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated January 5, 2009
5. NOTICE OF FOOTING EXCAVATION OBSERVATION
(Residential Retaining Walls and Rear Yard Site Wall)
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated January 12, 2009
6. FIELD MEMO
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated February 10, 2009
February 10, 2009
W.O. G- 549048
Page 9
ENCLOSURES
FIELD TEST RESULTS
TABLE I
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
G- 549048
Moisture
Dry
Relative
Test
Test
Approx.
Content
Density
%
Soil
Date
No.
Location
Elevation
I
(Dcf)
Compaction
Type
12/09/08
1
See Map
102.0
9.9
115.1
91
A
(Pool)
12/09/08
2
See Map
104.0
10.2
113.7
90
A
(Pool)
12/10/08
3
See Map
106.0
11.1
115.2
91
A
(Pool)
01/05/09
4
See Map
111.5
13.2
113.5
92
B
01/05/09
5
See Map
111.5
13.9
112.9
91
B
01/05/09
6
See Map
113.5
13.1
115.3
93
B
01/05/09
7
See Map
107.5
13.5
117.5
95
B
02/04/09
8
See Map
110.0
9.7
111.2
91
C
02/05/09
9
See Map
114.0
9.3
118.5
97
C
02/05/09
10
See Map
114.0
9.8
116.1
95
C
02/05/09
11
See Map
114.0
9.5
113.1
93
C
02/05/09
12
See Map
114.0
9.3
114.0
93
C
G- 549048
EP ACED
ATE
WALL
TCP OIG
N VXW � O
E mrAY
NTN NEW
ValDRANAOE OLAIMN RT
A 116 9EFT TEA SERWEE
lOP BO% -10A OIaIATE
MATCH REPRESENTS LAMDSCApE —
AREA SUP FW STONY WATER
TNEwT T 10 BE PNIVATELY
YANTANED AND y1µ1 NOT
TO P � ■n
T I TI[G1TM011
ERYI T
TWS S-TE
BWef 1C
TWWES•1c
BWATEx IC
n
a
APN EWT ET NW CH RE ONSEENC
216 - 081 -14 ,�O�TK �T-,m
ASTINC ROCK Wµ1
PNOPO MASONRY REO REIIABI
ETOSTNO POOL TO' NOE 0' HEIGHT CURB
EAmw O -E
EIOSWNc
RSTINO SEWER LATERAL
p OATYATE LOCAIICN C
WE NOTE TNS SHEET)
BRAPMIC SCALE
0 10 20 30
COAST GEOTECHMCAL
G- 549048
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
June 16, 2008
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Compton:
In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated March 18,
2008, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the
proposed residence. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations
for foundation design are presented in this report.
From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the
proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the
design and construction phases. However, the control of surface and subsurface water is essential
to the future performance of the proposed structure.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This opportunity
to be of service is appreciated.
Respectfully
COAST GEI
Mark Burwell,
Engineering G,
2109
Exp. 5/31 /10
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
. GEOLOGIST,
Vithay'd S
Geotechni
779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 7559126
IWiIDINIMI :\. I,Ia [W I l0LVA 11ClUtI CON I
Proposed Single Family Residence
342 Hillcrest Drive
Leucadia, California
Prepared For:
Robert and Peggy Compton
342 Hillcrest Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Prepared By:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
Solana Beach, California 92075
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VICINITY MAP
4
INTRODUCTION
5
SITE CONDITIONS
5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
6
SITE INVESTIGATION
6
LABORATORY TESTING
6
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
8
CONCLUSIONS
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
11
A. BUILIDNG PAD- REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION
11
B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
12
C. FOUNDATIONS
13
D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR)
14
E. RETAINING WALLS
15
F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
15
G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
15
H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
16
I. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
16
J. UTILITY TRENCH
17
K. DRAINAGE
17
L. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS
18
M. PLAN REVIEW
18
LIMITATIONS
18
REFERENCES
20
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS
SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES
Coast Geotechnical
INTRODUCTION
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 5
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying
the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed
single family residence.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located east of Vulcan Avenue, along the west side of Hillcrest Drive, in the
Leucadia district, city of Encinitas.
The subject property includes a single family residence situated approximately 4.0 feet below street
grade. The residence is constructed on gently sloping terrain with a relatively level front yard area.
A 5.0 foot high retaining wall is located along the rear of the residential structure and wood deck.
A relatively level rear yard pad accommodates a swimming pool and concrete deck. Maximum relief
on the site is approximately 16 vertical feet. The property is bounded along the north, south and west
by developed residential lots.
Vegetation includes grass, plants, shrubs and trees. Drainage is generally directed to the west by
sheet flow.
Coast Geotechnical
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 6
Preliminary plans for the development of the site were prepared by Shackelton Design Group. The
project will include the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new two story
residence. Minor rear yard grading is proposed in addition to backfilling the existing swimming
pool. The residential structure will be supported on continuous wall footings and retaining walls.
SITE INVESTIGATION
One (1) exploratory boring was drilled to a depth of 20 feet with a track - mounted hollow -stem drill
rig. Two (2) exploratory borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 14 feet with a portable auger
drill. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering
geologist. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the hollow -stem boring. Undisturbed,
representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained
by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings
of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained
in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis.
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs.
Coast Geotechnical
Moisture /Density
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 7
The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil
samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation
among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The
field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on
the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs.
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of
earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM
D- 1557 -91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results.
Shear Test
Shear tests were performed in a strain - control type direct shear machine. The rate of deformation
was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared under varying confining loads
in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters, cohesion and angle of internal friction.
Samples were tested in a saturated condition. The results are presented in the enclosed Laboratory
Test Results.
Coast Geotechnical June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 8
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The
property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace
deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been
designated as the Santiago Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered,
in part, by fill and soil deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site
follows.
Artificial Fill/Soil (af /Os)
Approximately 12 inches of silty fine and medium- grained sand was encountered in the exploratory
borings. Additional fill deposits are present behind retaining walls and stem wall footings.
Terrace Deposits
Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The
terrace deposits are composed of tan to reddish brown, fine and medium- grained sand. The terrace
deposits are generally moist, loose and weathered in the upper 4.0 feet but become increasingly
dense with depth. In the vicinity of Boring No. 1, the terrace deposits are in a very moist condition
due to infiltration from drainage and irrigation in the upper 4.0 feet. Regionally, the Pleistocene
sands are considered flat -lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rock units.
Moderately dense to dense terrace deposits are considered suitable for the support of footings or
proposed fills.
Coast Geotechnical
Expansive Soil
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 9
Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the fill, soil
and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the very low range.
Groundwater
No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored.
However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction.
These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over - irrigation.
In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are
most effectively handled on an individual basis.
Tectonic Settine
The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally
characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and
fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act).
Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest
active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.4 miles west of the site.
It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well- defined feature but rather a
zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 10
Offshore Zone of Deformation ( Woodward- Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies
suggest that the Newport- Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon
faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate
a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site
include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The
temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion
resulting from an earthquake.
Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth
to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered
low.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards
such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced
subsidence.
2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of
structural footings, concrete flatwork or proposed fills in their present condition.
Coast Geotechnical June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 11
3) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as
properly compacted fill in the building envelope and areas of exterior improvements.
4) The existing pool should be completely removed. The pool should be backfilled with
approved compacted fill.
t
5) Although no groundwater was encountered during exploration, very moist to wet conditions
may be encountered in the weathered terrace deposits, due to irrigation and site drainage.
6) Our experience with this type of lot development and geotechnical conditions suggest that
varying degrees of seepage can develop after construction. Post construction seepage and/or
saturated ground conditions can adversely affect foundations and concrete flatwork.
Therefore, special consideration should be provided for surface and subsurface drainage
during the design and construction phases.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Building Pad- Removals/Recompaction
The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly
compacted fill in the building pad prior to placement of proposed fill. Removal depths are
anticipated to be on the order of 4.0 to 5.0 feet below existing grade. However, deeper removals may
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 12
be necessary based on actual conditions exposed during grading. A minimum of 2.0 feet of fill
should underlie the base of proposed footings. All fill should be keyed and benched into competent
terrace deposits. Removals should include the entire building pad extending a minimum of 5.0 feet
beyond the building footprint. Voids created by the removal of the existing pool and other
structures should be replaced by approved compacted fill. Most of the existing earth deposits are
generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed.
Prior to placement of fill, the base of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm.
Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed
bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to
8.0 inch lifts, moistened or aerated to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum moisture
content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill,
soil and weathered terrace deposits in areas of proposed fills, concrete flatwork, exterior
improvements and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Imported
fill, if necessary, should consist of non - expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical
engineer.
Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics
The fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are typically loose with varying moisture contents.
Temporary excavations greater than 3.5 feet should be trimmed to a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 13
vertical) or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The temporary slope
recommendations assume no surcharges are located or will be placed along the top of the slope
within a horizontal distance equal to one half the height of the slope. Where property lines,
structures or other constraints prevent the temporary slope, shoring maybe required. The Pleistocene
terrace deposits may contain hard concretion layers. Based on our experience in the area, the
sandstone is rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good working order.
Foundations
The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non - expansive approved
compacted fill deposits or competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residences and
garages should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches
below the lowermost adjacent subgrade for single -story and two -story structures, respectively. The
base of footings should be founded a minimum of 10 lateral feet to the face of the nearest slope.
Where proposed footings are inclose proximity and/or parallel any proposed drainage courses (BMP
areas), footings should be deepened a minimum of 6.0 inches. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam or
footing should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum
of two No. 5 bars, one along the top of the footing and one along the base. Footing
recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended
to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design.
For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1700 pounds per square foot may be used for 12
inch deep footings and 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for 18 inch deep footings.
Coast Geotecbnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 14
The hearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value
may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and
seismic forces.
Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by
passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead -load forces. A
passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill or terrace deposits
penetrated to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot may be used.
Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior)
Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 5.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No.
3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum
2.0 -inch sand blanket (S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum
6.0 -mil V isqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered
by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on-
site materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs
including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw
cuts /expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast
over dense compacted subgrades.
Coast Geotechnical
Retaining Walls
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 15
Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active-
equivalent fluid pressure of 37 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be
designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should
be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should
be provided with an adequate backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The
soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density.
Settlement Characteristics
Estimated total and differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on
the order of /, inch and '/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary
settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be' /. inch.
Seismic Considerations
Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to
moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake
occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone
located approximately 3.4 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is
considered the design earthquake for the site.
Coast Geotechnical
Seismic Design Parameters (2005 ASCE 7 Standard)
Site Class D
Ss: 1.336
S 1:0.503
Fa: 1.0
Fv: 1.5
Sms: 1.336
SM1: 0.755
SDs: 0.891
SDI: 0.503
Preliminary Pavement Design
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 16
Previous testing suggests that the Pleistocene terrace deposits have an R -value of 43. The following
pavement section is recommended for proposed driveways:
4.0 inches of asphaltic concrete or 5.0 inches of concrete on
6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on
12 inches of compacted subgrade soils
Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in
a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R -value of 78
and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density.
The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade
deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure.
Coast Geotechnical
Utility Trench
June 16,2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 17
We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand (S.E. greater than 30) to at least one foot
above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the
conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
may be utilized for backfill above the bedding.
The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone
of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45
degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be
accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving
the utility or the footing away from one another.
Drainage
Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project engineer. However, in general, pad
water should be directed away from foundations. Roof water should be collected or transferred to
hardscape. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should
be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants
should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture
from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to
sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter
rains.
Coast Geotechnical
Geotechnical Observations
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 18
Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the
placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical
engineer is present to observe and test.
Plan Review
A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of
construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time.
LIMITATIONS
This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the ownei s
representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the
project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans.
If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report,
our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No
responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations
given in this report is assumed unless on -site review is performed during the course of construction.
The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are
based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface
Coast Geotechnical
June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 19
conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be
construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations.
Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall,
temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein.
Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however,
changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining
properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or
the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report
may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore
subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years.
The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical
data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general
experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the
project.
This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit
or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or
extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical.
Coast Geotechnical June 16, 2008
W.O. P- 549048
Page 20
REFERENCES
1. California Building Standards Commission, January 1, 2008, 2007 Cali fomia Building Code,
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.
2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996,
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of
Mines and Geology OFR 96 -08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96 -706.
3. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego
Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35A, Open -File Report 95 -04, Map Scale
1:24,000.
4. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California
Division of Mines and Geology.
5. United States Geological Survey, 2007, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard
Response Spectra, Volume 5.0.8.
MAPS /AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale
1 "= 750,000'.
2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open
File Report 96 -02.
3. Jolly, D., L.S., 2004, Topographic Survey, 342 Hillcrest Drive, Encinitas, California, Scale
111=10'.
4. Shackelton Design Group, 2008, Site Plan, 342 Hillcrest Drive, Leucadia, California, Scale
1 " =8'.
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE I
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
(Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -91)
Sample Max. Dry Optimum
Location Density Moisture Content
(pcf)
B -3 @ 1.0' -3.0' 126.8 10.1
TABLE II
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
Sample
Field Dry
Field Moisture
Location
Density
Content
(pcf)
%
B -1 @ 4.0'
107.7
10.5
B -1 @ 5.0'
SPT
9.8
B -1 @ 8.0'
108.4
10.4
B -1 @ 9.0'
SPT
10.2
B -1 @ 12.0'
96.4
7.8
B -1 @ 13.0'
SPT
7.8
B -1 @ 16.0'
103.2
8.3
B -1 @ 17.0'
SPT
7.8
13-1 @ 18.5'
SPT
7.7
B -2 @ 3.0'
92.1
8.1
B -2 @ 5.0'
93.6
8.0
B -2 @ 8.0'
103.4
10.2
B -3 @ 3.0'
94.8
11.6
B -3 @ 5.0'
101.8
10.2
B -3 @ 8.0'
116.4
9.2
B -3 @ 10.5'
Sample Disturbed
8.2
(Page 1 of 2)
TABLE III
Direct Shear Test Results
Sample Location Angle of Apparent Cohesion
Internal Friction 0 psf
B -3 @ 1.0' -3.0' 30 Degrees 37
(Remolded)
P- 549048
(Page 2 of 2)
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE HOLLOW -STEM AUGER
PROJECT NO. P- 549048
BORING DIAMETER: 6.0"
DATE DRILLED: 05 -12 -08
SURFACE ELEV.: 117' (Approximate)
LOGGED BY: KC/MB
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
140 POUND HAMMER 30 INCH DROP
L
C
R
F
Q
Yi.
<
a
F
VUi
P_
U
> U
o
z
¢
w a
<
U
x� Q¢
U
pa
in
N
q c�j
2
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
obo SM
FQ.USOIL (af/Qs): Bm. silty, fine and medium - grained sand
SP
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan, fine and mod.-grained, sand, weath
115.
2.00
moist, loose, weathered
113.
107.7
10.5
4 SP
sanpCE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and mod. -grain
SPT
9.8
16
Medium Dense
111.
6.00
y
109.
108.4
10.4
n
800
Medium Dense
SPT
10.2
24
,07
10.00
0
105.
96.4
7.8
z
1200
Medium Dense
SPT
7.8
25
103.
14.00
,ol.
103.2
8.3
16.00
Medium Dense
SPT
7.8
24
99.00
12.00
Medium Dense
SPT
7.7
21
End of Boring Q 20'
sxaer i Or, COAST GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EX -1 .ORA' 'ORY BOR NG NO. 2
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER
PROJECT NO. P- 549048
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5"
DATE DRILLED: 05 -02 -07
SURFACE ELEV.: 104' (Approximate)
LOGGED BY MB
z
C
U
U
0
3
>
2
H
N
U
U
W U
y
Q
tpxaG
�1
.7
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
104..(X
0.00 SM
FILUSOIL (af/Qs): Bm. silty, fine and medium - grained sand
103.
1.00 SP
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and mod.- grained sand
WIN
2.00
tot.
92.1
8.1
7.00
100,
Moist to V. moist to 8', loose to moderately dense
4.00
Z
d
O
99.00
93.6
8.0
5.00
3
7
98.00
2
6.00
O
Z
97.00
7.00
96.00
From 8', dense, slightly moist
103.4
10.2
2•00
95.00
9.00
Endo f Boring @ 10'
No Caving
sHsr I of i COAST GEOTECHNICAL
.jOG OF EX' FORA' 'ORY BOR NG NO.3
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 549048
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 05 -02 -07
SURFACE ELEV.: 114' (Approximate) j LOGGED BY: MB
I
i
94.8 11.6
101.8
116.4
10.2
Z
m
N
L
3
v
9.2
0
(J
0
z
p 8.2 ■ t
SHWT 1 OF 1
roots
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
(Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and mad. - grained sand
moist, loose litle or no cohesion in upper 8'
From 8', reddish bm. sand, dense
End of Boring @ 14'
No Caving
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
ay
z
H
�Waj-
H
3
U
��1
W
p�,
a
W
�
8 P—
vN
U
114.
I
i
94.8 11.6
101.8
116.4
10.2
Z
m
N
L
3
v
9.2
0
(J
0
z
p 8.2 ■ t
SHWT 1 OF 1
roots
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
(Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and mad. - grained sand
moist, loose litle or no cohesion in upper 8'
From 8', reddish bm. sand, dense
End of Boring @ 14'
No Caving
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
N 216 -091 -1
2' THIGH
RETNNING
STACKED
COy-
1 ME,
7 2S HIGI
!' MOCK
RETAININC
MAP 2062
MAP 2062
1VA
,r.,
,ra
13I SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1 " =l6' (REDUCED)
LEGEND
BORING LOCATION (approx.)
GEOLOGIC UNITS
of ARTIFICIAL FILL
Qs RESIDUAL SOEL
Qt TERRACE DEPOSITS
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
P- 549048
APPENDIX B
M
40(
30(
ozoil
100
100
-200
-300
-400
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
0
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
COMPTON
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.0783
Longitude = - 117.3025
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S
Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.336 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.503 (S1, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.0783
Longitude = - 117.3025
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SMI
SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvSI
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.336 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.755 (SM1, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.0783
Longitude = - 117.3025
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SDI = 2/3 x SMl
Site Class D - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.5
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.891 (SDs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.503 (SDI, Site Class D)
APPENDIX C
GRADING GUIDELINES
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies,
Appendix J of the California Building Code, 2007, the geotechnical report and the guidelines
presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional
recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase.
Site Clearing
Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non -
organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer.
Subdrainage
During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing
additional drains.
2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during
construction and prior to covering with compacted fill.
3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets
should be located and protected.
Treatment of Existing Ground
All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site.
2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise
indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make
excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be
necessary due to saturation during winter months.
3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches,
moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.
Fill Placement
1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special
processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil
should not be used for compacted fill.
2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a
uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless
otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer.
(1)
If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer,
the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture
should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre - watering of cut or
removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement,
particularly in clay or dry surficial soils.
b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum
density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling
governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation
D- 1557 -91.
Side -hill fills should have a minimum equipment -width key at their toe excavated through
all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back into the hill. As the
fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock
or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer.
Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine- grained material to surround the rocks;
C) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer.
6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance
with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock
disposal.
In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum
dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable
methods should be used to break the up blocks.
S. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the
slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with
suitable equipment.
If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction
should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil
should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain
grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope.
Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built.
Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three
to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
(2)
In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is
to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer
six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being
achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is
complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field
Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day.
9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner:
a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut -fill
interface.
b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into
slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils
Engineer or his representative.
C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate
if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional
earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation.
10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four
foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report).
11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and
replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly
fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of
materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper
overexcavation may be recommended in some cases.
12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated
and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.
Grading Observation and Testinz
Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the
progress of grading.
2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or
every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions
and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be
made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being
obtained.
3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils
Engineer.
(3)
4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal
should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's
responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction.
6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards:
Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill.
2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative
compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary,
testing may be required.
Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the
outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory
standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these
trench backfill areas.
Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
11