The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-405 G HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For f JONES RESIDENCE r APN:261-071-12 C DP-06-148 r CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA T Prepared For *� Chris & Leigh Jones 2297 Newcastle Ave. Cardiff, CA 92007 PE 1533 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 �pFESSIp DATE: 11-16-06 �� JUSTz REVISED: ,. 3 C 68964 * EXP sr CIVIV �P OF CAL W. JUSTIO SUITER, RCE 68964 DATE NAHydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.4900 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC 11)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 116.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 76.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 64.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 12.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 5.428 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.53 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TC(MIN.)= 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.52 NAHydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 221 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference:SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c)Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software(aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering,Inc. 535 N.HWY 101,Suite A Solana Beach.CA 92075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1533POST.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:49 11/16/2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR)= 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION(INCHES)= 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH)= 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE=0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1.Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as(Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)-(Top-of-Curb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint= 6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.6500 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 116.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 74.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 67.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 7.70 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 4.642 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.70 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.70 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: � TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TC(MIN.)= 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.68 N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 F. APPENDIX N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Jones Residence, Cardiff, CA Qioo= 0.52 c* Tc= 10 min C= 0.49 #= 36 P100,6= 2.5 in A= 0.183 acres (7.44*P6*D^-.645) (I'D 160) (VI-VO) (d V/d 7) (Q=ciA) (Re-ordered) D I VOL AVOL I (INCR) Q VOL ORDINATE # (MIN) (IN/HR) (IN) (IN) (IN/HR) (CFS) (CF) (CFS) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.70 4.21 0.52 312 1 10 4.21 0.70 0.20 1.18 0.11 63 0.01 2 20 2.69 0.90 0.14 0.83 0.07 45 0.01 3 30 2.07 1.04 0.11 0.67 0.06 36 0.01 4 40 1.72 1.15 0.09 0.57 0.05 31 0.01 5 50 1.49 1.24 0.08 0.50 0.04 27 0.02 6 60 1.33 1.33 0.07 0.45 0.04 24 0.02 7 70 1.20 1.40 0.07 0.41 0.04 22 0.02 8 80 1.10 1.47 0.06 0.38 0.03 20 0.02 9 90 1.02 1.53 0.06 0.35 0.03 19 0.02 10 100 0.95 1.59 0.05 0.33 0.03 18 0.02 11 110 0.90 1.64 0.05 0.31 0.03 17 0.02 12 120 0.85 1.70 0.05 0.29 0.03 16 0.02 13 130 0.81 1.75 0.05 0.28 0.03 15 0.02 14 140 0.77 1.79 0.04 0.27 0.02 14 0.02 15 150 0.73 1.84 0.04 0.26 0.02 14 0.02 16 160 0.70 1.88 0.04 0.25 0.02 13 0.03 17 170 0.68 1.92 0.04 0.24 0.02 13 0.03 18 180 0.65 1.96 0.04 0.23 0.02 12 0.03 19 190 0.63 2.00 0.04 0.22 0.02 12 0.03 20 200 0.61 2.03 0.04 0.21 0.02 11 0.04 21 210 0.59 2.07 0.03 0.21 0.02 11 0.04 22 220 0.57 2.10 0.03 0.20 0.02 11 0.05 23 230 0.56 2.14 0.03 0.20 0.02 11 0.07 24 240 0.54 2.17 0.03 0.19 0.02 10 0.11 25 250 0.53 2.20 0.03 0.19 0.02 10 0.52 26 260 0.52 2.23 0.03 0.18 0.02 10 0.06 27 270 0.50 2.26 0.03 0.18 0.02 9 0.04 28 280 0.49 2.29 0.03 0.17 0.02 9 0.03 29 290 0.48 2.32 0.03 0.17 0.02 9 0.03 30 300 0.47 2.35 0.03 0.16 0.01 9 0.02 31 310 0.46 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.01 9 0.02 32 320 0.45 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.01 9 0.02 33 330 0.44 2.43 0.03 0.16 0.01 8 0.02 34 340 0.43 2.45 0.03 0.15 0.01 8 0.02 35 350 0.43 2.48 0.02 0.15 0.01 8 0.01 36 360 0.42 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 SUM= 796 cubic feet 0.02 acre-feet Check: V= C*A*P6 V= 0.02 acre-feet 1533 Jones Pre-Development Hydrograph 11/16/2006 Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Jones Residence, Cardiff, CA Q100= 0.68 cfs Tc= 10 min C= 0.65 #= 36 P100,6= 2.5 in A= 0.183 acres (7.44-P6`D^-.645) (I'D/60) (VI-VO) (d VIA 7) (Q=ciA) (Re-ordered) D I VOL AVOL I (INCR) Q VOL ORDINATE # (MIN) (IN/HR) (IN) (IN) (IN/HR) (CFS) (CF) (CFS) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.70 4.21 0.68 408 1 10 4.21 0.70 0.20 1.18 0.14 84 0.02 2 20 2.69 0.90 0.14 0.83 0.10 60 0.02 3 30 2.07 1.04 0.11 0.67 0.08 48 0.02 4 40 1.72 1.15 0.09 0.57 0.07 41 0.02 5 50 1.49 1.24 0.08 0.50 0.06 36 0.02 6 60 1.33 1.33 0.07 0.45 0.05 32 0.02 7 70 1.20 1.40 0.07 0.41 0.05 29 0.02 8 80 1.10 1.47 0.06 0.38 0.04 27 0.02 9 90 1.02 1.53 0.06 0.35 0.04 25 0.02 10 100 0.95 1.59 0.05 0.33 0.04 23 0.02 11 110 0.90 1.64 0.05 0.31 0.04 22 0.03 12 120 0.85 1.70 0.05 0.29 0.03 21 0.03 13 130 0.81 1.75 0.05 0.28 0.03 20 0.03 14 140 0.77 1.79 0.04 0.27 0.03 19 0.03 15 150 0.73 1.84 0.04 0.26 0.03 18 0.03 16 160 0.70 1.88 0.04 0.25 0.03 18 0.03 17 170 0.68 1.92 0.04 0.24 0.03 17 0.04 18 180 0.65 1.96 0.04 0.23 0.03 16 0.04 19 190 0.63 2.00 0.04 0.22 0.03 16 0.04 20 200 0.61 2.03 0.04 0.21 0.03 15 0.05 21 210 0.59 2.07 0.03 0.21 0.02 15 0.06 22 220 0.57 2.10 0.03 0.20 0.02 14 0.07 23 230 0.56 2.14 0.03 0.20 0.02 14 0.10 24 240 0.54 2.17 0.03 0.19 0.02 14 0.14 25 250 0.53 2.20 0.03 0.19 0.02 13 0.68 26 260 0.52 2.23 0.03 0.18 0.02 13 0.08 27 270 0.50 2.26 0.03 0.18 0.02 13 0.05 28 280 0.49 2.29 0.03 0.17 0.02 12 0.04 29 290 0.48 2.32 0.03 0.17 0.02 12 0.03 30 300 0.47 2.35 0.03 0.16 0.02 12 0.03 31 310 0.46 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.02 12 0.03 32 320 0.45 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.02 11 0.02 33 330 0.44 2.43 0.03 0.16 0.02 11 0.02 34 340 0.43 2.45 0.03 0.15 0.02 11 0.02 35 350 0.43 2.48 0.02 0.15 0.02 11 0.02 36 360 0.42 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 SUM= 1050 cubic feet 0.02 acre-feet Check: V= C"A`P6 V= 0.02 acre-feet 1533 Jones Post-Development Hydrograph 11/16/2006 Ct J. �47 V3 jR 1, C) a a o II bil ii, j r- Ii C) I Al C) >i b Imperial County O . .......... 0� . ... ...... . .............. .OE.9 L L X ......... ... c . . ........... -E5 0 C) 05. > ...... .. ...... cr ...... 4L7. .3-0...... 71 .12. 0 C, Or bD aj cd 0 0 till t=fi It lip 1j. 45 0 > cn rn Imperial County . .......... . . ........ .......... b',,'" .... ........ . . . ....... .......... .......... ........... PL: . . ................. ........... Z Z3 ."a-s .CC.L L L 3 A, ZO.L L t ....... ......... SL.LLL 0 C. 4S.L L L �=�==cam=� r--.�_'��•_.e�-� � ��=.r=, I NMI Mae ��WWWWAVP. �Rnerotunn..sa�= ZZMMSMWAir/tArA/=/MF ■DA ...Hip mm� �► ii "iii.► m°IR4uM=MEww MEN MWWARKw��r�w_�r��!i�■r�n_n_��au_�u_ - _== ice//AZAwAwmrsi�Al OWA==�nnmxumu. mww� vim C�m��llTi�A�C�•iiurTi�•l�.��7i��C�.sou.ai...smu s�_m_ _►u��ji'�r�r�►�rC.s_�r, �.r��mC.m.�L—i�m..m...�a __ CMmnrA ff isFWAMAJ �ir�iii�� unum°�uiia�� CCT ••• �C��CG��CCCIDC,'�CC' ••_ rte► Wi am MEMMI a� w' "CDC.' � i�iir. �.�riMIrA�ri��MMIr��■�� ASAWRE m«� �� an® ■ iii'i i, Mw, iiiCii � m°� i .. Firs e 0 �W III lion RA O � C r. V1 L: Cl N r- O M C, Cl N h vl h U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U � C• U U > cD�•- O 1�0 N N 00 I- O C1 GD OC 'V' 7 r U M M � � C � H V 'V R [' GC OG CC OC tC•. O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O C p C U C . O G c aU a r4 u U � _ V1 N 00 v'1 C 00 f-- C- T- O 4 U p N Y7 M 'cf `7 V1 V'1 hV. I- [- 00 OC 00 OC r • O O O O O O O b O O O O O O O O - u O C/7 U C = C � N O U U . N M M t- `S n V1 %' (� I- 00 00 00 00 .� C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O •;� U U C L'' O r �/ G •w O O v1 O O h O %n O O N O O v1 U U N M tt er in : 00 00 oc C, O, O, c.. .O O O _ 1� H y y f!i •` U U O U r v/ O O O F. O u 3u O a� ... U =v C c:. U a a a a Q Q Q Q E Q e c Q Q Q Q Q c\ Ln CD o �°� .C; �° •r z ..., O 0 ^ N N et t- Yti O O t•.., 'C b c c c c c c ❑ c c e a c o n -.. y nJ U U U U U U U U U U U �•.-. U � '--' •� C O C.- O U r ct a Q Q Q Q E R c N o a Q o O .rT. E--' C C C 'D -u •in r~Ci r r r r r `� •y V a:/> �v r-4 c� ✓e� a �. = r y v tr a J a O O 'o Q"- 7 p ,C4 r U U V �' ' �' >' t~ c c c c CC, O c c U CN z -,K 3 E E E c' :r II II Q Q Q E E F E Q Q E c E E C c o 0 0 u °' °D •�° 0 0 0 0 o F'c o ° r4 U U U U U 0 .wQz M L 8$ a t J q v N 1 N N N �- C a—� O � .N N • N C2 co Ot O� •- M la. ^ • O O O c—O] t•�_C th-t: n-L r r p o + N _ E-' O- 5!.21—D L o O y- co U I = I Is o �r0co Cia•- O `S— O L L L N O�• c 7 L O O g C a L U h N N >~1 < IC1 L t_ L L a O ^ o-f f P _a \ O N a� 1. 0 1 U aN O P N t=� t N �• O °�- T C •I1 f � • Uo to _ P'1 ICl n O r ca c E 1 - n 0 o d g I + In+- o o- „ � qu Nprn op� E L • ro p ^ © ri O E G osa ma a 0 I I I oo q Oo• U O to O L C O C o= Wi=n nT • OU n V O O a U 0 �c� a LO ro 7 z 1-- a et L O N N C �^ \ O bb 11 rl p U in O� CC 0poQ p _ r- q- oa ° .,_ C O+ P 11 �+ S ° SON O ••- Z O r O L} O ° C LLl f" O O G y_ O U g ro�-c to N bp�b 0 1 d 0.0 a LN Csn 8 e Cam' . 0 G O L t •n 0 0 0 0 O1!�DLdL m L. Va �Ofl N L !• N ..} O— <N..-\\OIL N 4_ L h U < d HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For JONES RESIDENCE APN:261-071-12 CDP-06-148 CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Chris & Leigh Jones 2297 Newcastle Ave. Cardiff, CA 92007 PE 1533 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 ssro DATE: 11-16-06 �� sUSTiN Fy REVISED: y cy 3 C684��° * EXP 4T��CAl►�� W. JUST SUITER. RCE 68964 DATE NAHydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION..............................................................................A CONCLUSION.............................................................................B 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.........C 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .......D APPENDIX.................................................................................F Detention Volume Calculations Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve SCS Soil Classification Node Maps N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post-developed condition of the Newcastle Ave.. proposed project site. The subject property is physically located at 2297 Newcastle Ave., Cardiff, California. The property is geographically located at N 33°10'00" W 117 016'00". Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of a single family residence and detached garage located at 2297 Newcastle Ave. The site is surrounded by Newcastle Ave. to the west and north, a single family residence to the east and Norfolk Drive to the south. Norfolk Drive along the site frontage is a gravel road. Current drainage patterns on the site are generally sheet flow in an east to west direction. Runoff leaving the site is picked up by Newcastle Ave. The runoff is then conveyed in a north to south general direction where it is taken to an existing storm drain off site. The existing terrain is landscaped vegetation with areas of hardscape walkways. The highpoint of the site is located in the north east portion of the property with an elevation of 76.0'. The lowest point on the site occurs along the frontage to Newcastle Ave. along the western boundary of the property with an elevation of 64.0'. For the existing 100 year flows the site was not divided into any sub areas. The small size of the site warrants no subdivision. The site produced a peak flow of 0.52 cfs. Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the construction of a single family home. All runoff from roofs and decks will be directed to flow over BMP area before leaving the site. Runoff collected in the northern portion of the property will flow north over BMP area and ultimately be conveyed in the proposed curb and gutter running along Newcastle Ave. Runoff collected in the southern portion of the property will be collected through a series of area drains placed throughout the hardscape area. Once in the - drainage system runoff will be directed to flow into a detention basin located just west of the proposed residence. Runoff out letting from the detention structure will be directed over BMP are before leaving the site. All runoff generated from the site in the post- development will ultimately be collected in an existing storm drain located offsite as in the pre-development condition. The total post-development flow generated from the site was calculated to be 0.68 cfs. From analysis of pre-development and post-development unit hydrographs it was determined that a volume of 250 cubic feet of water needs to be detained. The volume N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:30 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 calculations from the unit hydrographs can be seen in the appendix. A detail and specifications of the detention basin is included on the project grading plan. Methodology and Results Introduction 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 (I) is equal to: I = 7.44 x P6 x D"o.bas 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. The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Q100 is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post-development runoff coefficients, used to analyze the both conditions, - were determined by using weighted "C" average. N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:30 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 C=0.90 x (% impervious) + Cp x (1-%impervious) Where: Cp = pervious surface runoff coefficient (varies depending on soil type from 0.2 to 0.35—since analysis assumes type d soils Cp =0.35) For the proposed development the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic analysis q project site was calculated to be 0.65, based on an impervious percentage of o. For the pre-developed condition the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic analysis of the project site was calculated to be 0.49, based on an impervious percentage of 26.2%. B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qloo to the appropriate points of discharge. N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/1612006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference:SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c)Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software(aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering,Inc. 535 N.HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach,CA 92075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1533PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:42 11/16/2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR)= 100.00 - 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION(INCHES)= 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH)= 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE=0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE:ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as(Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)-(Top-of-Curb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint= 6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.4900 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 116.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 76.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 64.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 12.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 5.428 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.53 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TC(MIN.)= 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.52 N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c)Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software(aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date:0 1/0 1/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering,Inc. 535 N. HWY 101,Suite A Solana Beach,CA 92075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 1533POST.DAT - TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:49 11/16/2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR)= 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION(INCHES)= 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH)= 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL)TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE=0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL"C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE:ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- /OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE/SIDE/WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1.Relative Flow-Depth= 0.00 FEET as(Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)-(Top-of-Curb) 2.(Depth)*(Velocity)Constraint= 6.0(FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE= 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT=.6500 S.C.S.CURVE NUMBER(AMC II)= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH= 116.00 -. UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 74.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 67.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 7.70 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES)= 4.642 - *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION.EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR)= 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.70 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)= 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)= 0.70 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 TC(MIN.)= 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.68 N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 HYDROLOGY STUDY for JONES RESIDENCE PE 1533 F. APPENDIX N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1533 Jones\1533 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1533 2:21 PM 11/16/2006 Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Jones Residence, Cardiff, CA Q1OO= 0.52 c* Tc= 10 min C= 0.49 #= 36 P100,6= 2.5 in A= 0.183 acres (7.44-P6-D"-.645) (I'D/60) (VI-VO) (4 VIA 7) (Q=ciA) (Re-ordered) D I VOL AVOL I (INCR) Q VOL ORDINATE # (MIN) (IN/HR) (IN) (IN) (IN/HR) (CFS) (CF) (CFS) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.70 4.21 0.52 312 1 10 4.21 0.70 0.20 1.18 0.11 63 0.01 2 20 2.69 0.90 0.14 0.83 0.07 45 0.01 3 30 2.07 1.04 0.11 0.67 0.06 36 0.01 4 40 1.72 1.15 0.09 0.57 0.05 31 0.01 5 50 1.49 1.24 0.08 0.50 0.04 27 0.02 6 60 1.33 1.33 0.07 0.45 0.04 24 0.02 7 70 1.20 1.40 0.07 0.41 0.04 22 0.02 8 80 1.10 1.47 0.06 0.38 0.03 20 0.02 9 90 1.02 1.53 0.06 0.35 0.03 19 0.02 10 100 0.95 1.59 0.05 0.33 0.03 18 0.02 11 110 0.90 1.64 0.05 0.31 0.03 17 0.02 12 120 0.85 1.70 0.05 0.29 0.03 16 0.02 13 130 0.81 1.75 0.05 0.28 0.03 15 0.02 14 140 0.77 1.79 0.04 0.27 0.02 14 0.02 15 150 0.73 1.84 0.04 0.26 0.02 14 0.02 16 160 0.70 1.88 0.04 0.25 0.02 13 0.03 17 170 0.68 1.92 0.04 0.24 0.02 13 0.03 18 180 0.65 1.96 0.04 0.23 0.02 12 0.03 19 190 0.63 2.00 0.04 0.22 0.02 12 0.03 20 200 0.61 2.03 0.04 0.21 0.02 11 0.04 21 210 0.59 2.07 0.03 0.21 0.02 11 0.04 22 220 0.57 2.10 0.03 0.20 0.02 11 0.05 23 230 0.56 2.14 0.03 0.20 0.02 11 0.07 24 240 0.54 2.17 0.03 0.19 0.02 10 0.11 25 250 0.53 2.20 0.03 0.19 0.02 10 0.52 26 260 0.52 2.23 0.03 0.18 0.02 10 0.06 27 270 0.50 2.26 0.03 0.18 0.02 9 0.04 28 280 0.49 2.29 0.03 0.17 0.02 9 0.03 29 290 0.48 2.32 0.03 0.17 0.02 9 0.03 30 300 0.47 2.35 0.03 0.16 0.01 9 0.02 - 31 310 0.46 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.01 9 0.02 32 320 0.45 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.01 9 0.02 33 330 0.44 2.43 0.03 0.16 0.01 8 0.02 34 340 0.43 2.45 0.03 0.15 0.01 8 0.02 35 350 0.43 2.48 0.02 0.15 0.01 8 0.01 36 360 0.42 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.01 SUM= 796 cubic feet 0.02 acre-feet Check: V= C*A*P6 V= 0.02 acre-feet 1533 Jones Pre-Development Hydrograph 11/16/2006 Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Jones Residence, Cardiff, CA Q1oo= 0.68 cfs Tc= 10 min C= 0.65 #= 36 P100.6= 2.5 in A= 0.183 acres (7.44-P6"D^-.645) (I'D/60) (VI-VO) (d VIA T) (Q=ciA) (Re-ordered) D I VOL AVOL I (INCR) Q VOL ORDINATE # (MIN) (IN/HR) (IN) (IN) (IN/HR) (CFS) (CF) (CFS) 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.70 4.21 0.68 408 1 10 4.21 0.70 0.20 1.18 0.14 84 0.02 2 20 2.69 0.90 0.14 0.83 0.10 60 0.02 3 30 2.07 1.04 0.11 0.67 0.08 48 0.02 4 40 1.72 1.15 0.09 0.57 0.07 41 0.02 5 50 1.49 1.24 0.08 0.50 0.06 36 0.02 6 60 1.33 1.33 0.07 0.45 0.05 32 0.02 7 70 1.20 1.40 0.07 0.41 0.05 29 0.02 8 80 1.10 1.47 0.06 0.38 0.04 27 0.02 9 90 1.02 1.53 0.06 0.35 0.04 25 0.02 10 100 0.95 1.59 0.05 0.33 0.04 23 0.02 11 110 0.90 1.64 0.05 0.31 0.04 22 0.03 12 120 0.85 1.70 0.05 0.29 0.03 21 0.03 13 130 0.81 1.75 0.05 0.28 0.03 20 0.03 14 140 0.77 1.79 0.04 0.27 0.03 19 0.03 15 150 0.73 1.84 0.04 0.26 0.03 18 0.03 16 160 0.70 1.88 0.04 0.25 0.03 18 0.03 17 170 0.68 1.92 0.04 0.24 0.03 17 0.04 18 180 0.65 1.96 0.04 0.23 0.03 16 0.04 19 190 0.63 2.00 0.04 0.22 0.03 16 0.04 20 200 0.61 2.03 0.04 0.21 0.03 15 0.05 21 210 0.59 2.07 0.03 0.21 0.02 15 0.06 22 220 0.57 2.10 0.03 0.20 0.02 14 0.07 23 230 0.56 2.14 0.03 0.20 0.02 14 0.10 24 240 0.54 2.17 0.03 0.19 0.02 14 0.14 25 250 0.53 2.20 0.03 0.19 0.02 13 0.68 26 260 0.52 2.23 0.03 0.18 0.02 13 0.08 27 270 0.50 2.26 0.03 0.18 0.02 13 0.05 28 280 0.49 2.29 0.03 0.17 0.02 12 0.04 29 290 0.48 2.32 0.03 0.17 0.02 12 0.03 30 300 0.47 2.35 0.03 0.16 0.02 12 0.03 31 310 0.46 2.38 0.03 0.16 0.02 12 0.03 32 320 0.45 2.40 0.03 0.16 0.02 11 0.02 33 330 0.44 2.43 0.03 0.16 0.02 11 0.02 34 340 0.43 2.45 0.03 0.15 0.02 11 0.02 35 350 0.43 2.48 0.02 0.15 0.02 11 0.02 36 360 0.42 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 SUM= 1050 cubic feet 0.02 acre-feet Check: V= C"A'P6 V= 0.02 acre-feet 1533 Jones Post-Development Hydrograph 11/16/2006 ct • P, C3 0:3 cn jig! 41 b Imperial County SL.9LL o............ ......... 11 ...--C .......... ........... . ................ ......... . .OE.9 L L CE.9LL CID ......... ...... ......... .SV.9LL 2� . ...... C�i 0 3b . .......... SL.LLL Ic _ _ - _ _ _ _ � vs � T�w Mm=F.—I'mm'FAMEM RE 'Exam xmm��== F Am mmr.m� M =�AFAWASWAMrdg.MYMWAN�A�l�MWMM22 �AVAIKMUWAMW ��AWATALAIFAWAIMFARM �FANEUU �Mmw W AMUM M� on 11 nammomm mm�. A, r PAP FA m mwm K,WE F-AwA LEE MN IM lr�mill"ll lllmm-m� awl �W=Kxw wwm� ArAWMIAWIWAM ===�Ccuwmx M= =��AWAMAW rAWAWAW wAnow A FA MWAM PAD WA MMNM�Mmmmlmm VAMFA V� MFAM=Ml win w .ANYA' M a M MjWA �M EM 0 (` C. O C G r C\ N r O M C\ C\ N v'l v1 h U M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ^ L.. O G� O i> U ` O U U > tU.. O C` Go oC — 7 t� C+• !" CC CG CC OC ��•. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C vii r U C G O G C U U a' to a a� n Cn C. = cn — ' U vl N CC — .n — C 00 n f- r Cl v M .3 G1 N r1 cr et 'n kn vn 1.0 C— r 00 x OG OC G p O O O O O O C> O O O O O O O O O C • O r- V W — W N h %D O M M I, N • U `ct V 1 to V' I� t, CO 00 00 CO U > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -U s to V c c U � _ U ° U U cz CD o 'n o o v, o tin o o �n o o Cn O — N N M �t '7 v-� `. DD 00 OG Cl Cl Cl � ... o C - r'1 a z 4, M p U Ga G E j ° c. h _ - h y h y H h N h C, EJ U R U O Q`C� , - - n 0 e C Q Q Q Q Q � Q Ao C! U Cc; o a �o •c O ON rh M O "IT �t M 't7 •v: •h a 'D 1�, U N N v r- N 'cT p vi U v YY-rr cc r, e: cs ct a ? F. U 0 C G G •C •C •C •C C •C •C a �. 'D c• -D > U •Vl 'V V V 'V :2 V 72 V 'V 'V G t,•.� •F G •>> U U U U U V U U U U U - U F O L rz G C,. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .. .� L° O C a r r r r U U O r v, o k c c c r z C7 O " C7 3 o z 'O O a0 N Z z T •C c C G C S C " U U 6 U U (U U r n a r C2 ° U U Q ❑ Q y ti ? C -j Z y,? 7 aGi aGi aGi � F E � aGi v a0`� c`� a~i v v r_ •� �' II II Q ❑ ❑ r ° ❑ ❑ c E c c > v a C/) Q b > b a Ts E E E E c c o ¢ U Cl. r G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F. °o — � C4 cry ca .a -1 -1 x .. U U U U U U z FIN r- x�v o e o ^ I•t O V N 1. a E C v 0 C O i m` ,� ti7 m r C G II C J O 0 CD C ia- O � L • �' •C C N t N c + C O r O U O^ \ L Pi �' o•- � c — G Nr-4" o g � s�:- •n u 0. O00Lv c t O 0 a =f L c V N L o C -- N s in } a)-- a s u a \ O O- - G { r S ' It C U Olt L p in c N �- o 1n n O Ca—E 00-1 N • � i T C� M e� n O L j�\..... V n O C CA In p 0 b W" oG- O p a O N L on h C/ p U O N Q� h C 00 • O- z o 4' 0. 00 ,on a st L c 'n id sZ C O O L U a i L L 4D N 'CO.o v^ C �O O ! c 4-a4-L r�0. L� O 1 p1 L L L 0t C9 N O O L. i •f = N S V eBn. _a O} y h40- �F bO �n h 00 X C a 00 4- < 1 +- o L o 4f J K1 O� o Q 00 o c o o + r ►- o o H G O ` a2 N o bb I N CE.}. 9 � LE IC1 G1 4- G CL 0 a p0 In t0 o O v wec c O^} O QLF o+ c �� i O 0 0 0 0 0a��a Q_ o p S G n ;: s O F--►-,Il- - .�� C 4- 1 O C N O O U N "�OIf�1C1 Y1�- ~ L M < n u < a MC%= ri r ti I. 1 Y;. ... � i '-'-•_-�....""mot. , � •tic w A , S '•w,� r,rte., .� ` 4 �p t /..yw.+e.....ee..»�...L..�+.R.„yrr..•+r...+ �..1rFt--` t 7 F $ a es 1 jo O A A t { y r � f i rf a a Now jig € ti 'r r 4 t: _w f C w lye IA LLJ � a ��,�°=• '��Qt�+�5�1 Y�f,Sir`'{r�5��'��` ' :.Qom` a , "yl .{,m...�,.= A..!-,�+r"` , � -"':.l(}� \�"�C;'.•t��$n�h,'A'°�• 1 ! j' � it I } � y j•! i !¢ O at I l.Vil .`r a a Recording Requested By: City of Encinitas (4�1 ;1-! ,�r'q 1V When Recorded Mail to: City Clerk City of Encinitas )HH(A 505 South Vulcan Avenue AME 3')6 F-M Encinitas, CA 92024 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT FOR CITY HIGHWAY Assessor's Parcel No. 261-071-12 Case No.: 06-148 CDP Christopher Jones and Leigh Jones, Husband and Wife as Community Property hereinafter called GRANTOR(S), for valuable consideration, do(es) hereby grant, convey and dedicate to the City of Encinitas, State of California, hereinafter called GRANTEE, the right of way and incidents thereto for a public highway upon, over and across that certain real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" AND "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE, The Grantor hereby further grants to the Grantee all trees, growths, (growing or that may hereafter grow), and road building materials within said right-of-way, including the right to take water, together with the right to use the same in such a manner and at such locations as said Grantee may deem proper, needful, or necessary, in the construction, reconstruction, improvement, use, or maintenance of said highway. The Grantor, for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's dedicated property conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said highway. Dated this day of A Y i , 2007 1 ner's S' a e: Owner's Si natur, f E, ` I Signature of Owners to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgments. A—m7zil 17 This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant to the City of Encinitas, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned agent on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas adopted on July 21, 2004 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: `�/ `¢/e7 By: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas f,',4 NU. 1482968 k ILGO COUNTY APRIL is.2008 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of On A-) �3��! 7 before me, L IM /l t 'r 1V 11f1 Da A Name and T of (e.g.:'Jane Doe, Prfilicl personally appeared 1 one Narne(s)of Signer(s) ❑personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose nameLs) 'fslare SEAL subscribed to the within instrument and OF'FICIAL L. -10NTES acknowledged to me that heA~hey executed IAoTARY PuBUC CALIFORNIA the same in tei~heir authorized C'O vl^.1 r10. 1482968 tyS )+ J SAI1 DIEGO COUNTY capaci 1 s and that by t+isHierftheir 2008 signatureja on the instrument the persorlUs , or . � the entity upon behalf of which the person(sl acted, executed the instrument. WITNE S my hand and official seal. QP*_1.Wh1_11_ 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: /A- Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑Limited ❑Gene ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian onservator El Ot� _ Signer Is Representing: O 1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.roborokotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Cell Toll-Free 1-800-875-5827 � 071CIIAAL SEAL " ' ;l L. MONTES EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ROADWAY PURPOSES OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 30 AND 30A IN BLOCK 21 OF CARDIFF, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO 1298 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOVEMBER 14, 1910, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE IN THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT -3 0 A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE BEARS S45 044'00"W, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE BEGINNING OF A 60.52 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS S54 048'37"W; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 67.46 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63 052'24" TO THE ''OINT OF TERMINUS IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30A. p LAND SU ti`s�QNA LS 5211 Exp. 06/30/0 P OF ALIF a-; m LO ,�ypP t�0 x70A(OA/ Q�J o p CV lf S 4 w Q V 7� U I I� I I ° m � m W cn I CL o CS q � � w �2 \ I� -,N45'A4,00 Ell \ �� -- \ C, �- ) a r- 1 p 1 Z \ `" N FW-CD ay U Q cu°z (m=m NE��AJ Q-�Q CO Lo J aaagn° Lim F•.s.'3]¢'Ai:C.3®!i'CI S°�fSi.^ II'..z.' .y.. ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL E STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESMENTIk d COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • E-mail: ENGDGQaol.com iF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 'I 2297 MANCHESTER AVENUE, COMMUNITY OF CARDIFF BY THE SEA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EDG Project No. 064021-1 November 10, 2006 PREPARED FOR: CHRIS AND LEIGH JONES 2297 Newcastle Avenue Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECRNICAL.CIVIL&STRUCTURAL CCNS'JLTANTS FOR RESIDENTIA,&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760) 480-7477 • E-mail: ENGDG @aol.com Date: November 10, 2006 To: Chris and Leigh Jones 2297 Newcastle Avenue Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 Re: Proposed New Development to be Located at 2297 Newcastle Avenue in the Community of Cardiff By The Sea, California Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report In accordance with your request and our Work Authorization and Agreement dated September 14, 2006, we have prepared this getotechnical report for the proposed residential development. The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in this report. In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely,,,", ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Steven Norris Erin E. R �'GEQ50� CEG#2263 RCE#65122 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 LIQUEFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 1 Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 2 Test Pit Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 3 Test Pit Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Test Pit Log No. 1-3 APPENDICES References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A General Earthwork and Grading Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C Retaining Wall Drainage Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D SCOPE This report gives our recommendations for the proposed development to be located at 2297 Newcastle Avenue in the Cardiff by the Sea community of the City of Encinitas, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map"). The scope of our work, conducted on-site to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the properties and surrounding areas, laboratory testing and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the front of the property is assumed to face west. The subject property appears to be a rectangular shaped lot located at 2297 Newcastle Avenue in the Cardiff by the Sea community of the City of Encinitas,California. The property is bordered to the north and east by single family residential homes, to the south by a relatively shallow natural drainage and an alley, and to the west by Newcastle Avenue. The general topography of the site area consists of coastal hillside terrain. The site generally slopes gently descending from east to west, and north to south. At the time of this report the lot is improved with an existing single story single family residence and detached garage. Based upon our conversations with the project architect and review of the project site plan we understand that development will consist of the following: • Design and construction of a single family residence. • Demolition of the existing residential structure. FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of three shallow test pits in the area just outside of proposed structures, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of the test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Site Plan, Approximate Location of Test Pits". Logs of the exploratory test pits are presented in Test Pit Nos. 1-3. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Based upon our subsurface investigation of the property the site soil profiles and soil types are described as follows: Fill: Topsoil and weathered fill consisting of silty to slightly silty sands with small roots Jones Development Page No. 1 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS were encountered at the subject site. These material profiles extend to depths of approximately 3 to 3.5 feet below adjacent grade. Fill and weathered materials consist of dark to light brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense, silty sands. Fill materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present state. Slightly silty sands classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System,and based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the low range. Sandstone Sandstone materials underlie the fill and weathered fill profiles at the subject site. Sandstone materials consisted of rust brown, moist to very moist, dense, slightly silty sandstone. Sandstone materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience possess potentials for expansion in the low range. GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered as part of our subsurface investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed. However, in our experience groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously existed. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a significant role in the future performance of the project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on Grade" section of this report specific recommendations regarding water to cement ratio for moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or waterproofing consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details. LIQUEFACTION It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials Jones Development Page No.2 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No.064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Jones Development Page No.3 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No.064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that the proposed construction,as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. Based upon our understanding of the proposed improvements we anticipate a removal and recompaction beneath the entire footprint of the proposed new residence and garage. Removals should be extended a minimum of 5 feet outside the proposed building foundations and will extend to depths of approximately 3 to 4 feet below adjacent grade. Along the eastern property line removals may extend approximately to the property line. Shoring and or letters of permission to grade across the property line should be considered in these areas where excavations for removals and retaining wall foundations may undermine adjacent structures. - The following recommendations should be considered as minimum design parameters, and shall be incorporated within the project plans and utilized during construction, as applicable. EARTHWORK Site grading shall be conducted per the recommendations of this section. We anticipate grading will consist of a removal and recompaction of fill soils to depths between 3 to 4 feet. 1. Site Preparation Prior to any preparation of subgrade soils, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of large rocks (> 12 inches) and surface/subsurface organic debris (including topsoil). Removed debris should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the rippable depth noted above, should be filled and compacted using on-site material. 2. Removals Fill and weathered profiles found to mantle the site in our test pit excavations, upper approximately 3 to 4 feet, are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or improvements in their present state and will require removal and recompaction. In general grading should consist of the removal of unsuitable soil to competent subgrade materials, scarification of subgrade to a depth of 12 inches, and the re- compaction of fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Excavated Jones Development Page No.4 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No.064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS r fill materials are suitable for re-use as fill material during grading, provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter(oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and are free of contamination. 3. Transitions Any structural sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform building pad. The entire building pad should be undercut a minimum depth below adjacent grade of 3 feet. Based upon our test pit excavations we anticipate minium removals of 3 to 4 feet. We anticipate the new structures will be founded on footings bearing on recompacted fill material. Removals and undercuts should extend a minimum of 5 feet (or to a distance at least equal to depth of fill removals, whichever is greater) beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. A subgrade drain shall be installed in grading undercuts. Undercut subgrade should be sloped at a minimum of 1% to the new drain, and the drain should be sloped at a minimum 1% to an acceptable daylight outlet. Refer to Canyon Subdrain Details in Appendix B of this report. 4. Fills Keyways should be excavated at the base of any new fill slopes, cambered into the slope, and benched a minimum of 18 inches into competent formational material. All fill soils should be brought to +2% of optimum moisture content, and re- compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content,and re-compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Surficial, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered during grading (such as any undocumented or loose fill materials) should be removed to competent formational material and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, soils should be non-expansive (EI<30)and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. 5. Slopes Permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Permanent Jones Development Page No. 5 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS fill slopes may be placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary cut slopes shall be excavated at a maximum 1:1 slope face ratio and meet all OSHA requirements. Subsequent to grading, planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the stability of slopes, especially during the rainy season (October thru April). FOUNDATIONS The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations extended to formational sandstone. 1. Footings bearing in competent formational or compacted fill material may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Seismic Design Parameters: Seismic Zone Factor 4 Soil Profile Type Sd (Table 16-J) Near Source Distance 4.8 km (Distance to Closest Active Rose Canyon Fault Seismic Source Type B Table 16-U • Bearing values may be increased by 33%when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 3. The following parameters should be used as a minimum for designing new footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: No. of Floors Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Supported Below Lowest Adjacent Grade 1 15 inches 18 inches 2 15 inches 18 inches 3 24 inches 24 inches * Footing depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the placement of steel. 4. All footings founded into competent formational sandstone should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction. Jones Development Page No.6 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No.064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 5. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width and depth of 24 inches. 6. For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum of 12 feet horizontal setback in formational material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 7. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 8. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE Concrete slabs on grade should use the following as the minimum design parameters. 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations, not anticipated)and should be reinforced with#4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. • Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2500 psi minimum. • Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio - 0.45 maximum resulting in compressive strength=4,000 psi minimum(No special inspection required forwater to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) • Moisture retarding additive in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors and moisture sensitive areas. 2. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where slab vapor emission is a concern), the slab concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi (non-special inspected) and a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.45. This recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete. 3. The project architect and/or waterproofing consultant should provide all slab underdrain, Jones Development Page No. 7 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS flooring sealers and various other details, specifications and recommendations (i.e Moiststop and Linkseal) at areas of potential moisture intrusion (i.e. basement slabs and slab penetrations). Engineering Design Group accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of the building. 4. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557, as described in the Earthwork section of this report. 5. A uniform layer of 4 inches of coarse sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. Coarse sand material should have a Sand Equivalent(S.E.)greater than 50, and be washed clean of fine materials. In moisture sensitive areas, a visqueen layer (20 mil) should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. Sand should be rounded to avoid puncture of visqueen vapor retarder. The visqueen layer should lap a minimum of 6 inches, sealed along all laps, and extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a minimum of 12 inches. 6. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 7. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 8. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques(linoleum type)which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 9. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. • Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees)weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. • Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent to top of a slope should be constructed with a outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight. • Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts(1 inch deep)creating Jones Development Page No.8 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks,the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6(i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners),with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. • Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork. • The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls up to 10 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in"Foundations"section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall footings will be placed on competent formational sandstone or recompacted fill. In consideration of the proximity of the proposed new retaining wall to the property line and adjacent structures, the project contractor shall determine, prior to the start of grading, the most efficacious method of grading for the retaining wall foundations. Retaining wall foundations shall be deepened to competent sandstone or alternatively removal and recompaction performed beneath the retaining wall foundation(may be difficult due to the proximity to the property line). Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings may be deepened to formational material or alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular,free draining material with low potential for expansion (E.I. <50)will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is not very low(E.I. >50)a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Backfill Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active Fluid Pressure 50 pcf 65 pcf Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. Jones Development Page No. 9 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an additional uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure,and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the "Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix D. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are minimums, and are intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or architect. The recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of proposed finishes and usage, especially in areas of subsurface living areas, performance expectations and budget. If deemed necessary by the project owner, based on the above analysis, and waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under drains and enhanced waterproofing elements. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the"Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material. SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to foundation walls, or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2%for a horizontal distance of 7 feet(where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. Jones Development Page No. 10 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Irrigation should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow irrigation devices as well as automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over watering. Irrigation practices and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an important component to the performance of onsite improvements. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). 1. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work, for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 2. Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any"field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. Jones Development Page No. 11 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No.064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed,the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. Jones Development Page No. 12 2297 Newcastle Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No. 064021-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS SITE VICINITY LOCATION MAP (Not to Scale) MAip2 zoom, oE�sooft SheffIF-Jd Ave Edvrtna Way b �4 pitmtin9.. Yid Powey PI Stafford Ave 'r Cam, 'rt o p , . oy 00 OCardiff-By-The-Sea >4, ASS k Oman lot f c �a � 3 WE Park c RX- "h } S-0 a 44 Pq g A F , < F' ;v San E1io� Ave 6>ZOD£t�apQuest,h�cx a+ N f SITE LOCATION PROJECT NAME JONES RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 2297 NEWCASTLE AVE.CARDIFF BY THE SEA,CALIFORNIA EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 064021 2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477 SITE LOCATION MAP (Not to Scale) OED60m i Solt O� Onnda Dr vti'�OS le 0001 Park a. w� t S n 0 2005 h1*PQt".Woc,, �, � °�. W006 N AVTEQ SITE LOCATION PROJECT NAME JONES REDIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 2297 NEWCASTLE AVE. CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 064021 2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 2 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477 TEST PIT LOCATION MAP (Not to Scale) D3 JJ i I C%141i N( bIUUS° r t r I 1 I PROJECT NAME JONES RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 2297 NEWCASTLE AVE. CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA EDG PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 064021 2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 3 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477 LOGGED BY: PR TEST PIT LOG N0. 1 SAMPLED BY: PR GEOLOGIC SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES No. O TOPSOIL/WEATHERED ® 0 TO 3.5' Dark to light brown, moist to very moist, medium dense silty sands with small roots. (SW—SM) © SANDSTONE ® 3.5' — 5' Rust brown, very moist, dense, slightly silty to silty sandstone. (SW—SM) GRAPHIC APROXIMATE SCALE: SURFACE SLOPE: t 0' TREND: LOG (V) 1" = 0.5' (H) NTS -- 0' 2.0' 3.0' 4.0' 5.0' TOTAL DEPTH = 5'-0" 6.0' 7.0' 8.0' ENGMERING EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG DESIGN GROUP JONES RESIDENCE 2121 MONT= ROAD 2297 NEWCASTLE AVE. CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA SAN MARCOS, CA 92089 (780) 839-7302 JOB No. DATE FAX (780) 480-7477 TEST PIT No. 1 064021 10-18-06 LOGGED BY: PR TEST PIT LOG N 0.2 SAMPLED BY: PR GEOLOGIC SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES No. O TO 0 0 TO 2.5' Dark to light brown, slightly moist to dry, medium dense slightly silty sands with small roots and calcium deposits at 2-2.5'. (SW—SM) © SANDSTON 02.5'-4.0' Rust brown, slightly moist, dense, slightly silty to silty sandstone. (SW—SM) GRAPHIC APROXIMATE SCALE: SURFACE SLOPE: f 0' TREND: LOG (V) 1" = 0.5' (H) NTS -- — 0' 1' 0 2.0' 3.0' 4.0' 5.0' TOTAL DEPTH = 4'-0" 6.0' 7.0' 8.0' ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG DESIGN GROUP JONES RESIDENCE 2121 HONML ROAD 2297 NEWCASTLE AVE. CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA SAN MARCOS, CA 92089 (780) 839-7302 JOB No. DATE FAX (780) 480-7477 TEST PIT No. 2 064021 10-18-06 LOGGED BY: PR TEST PIT LOG N 0.3 SAMPLED BY: PR GEOLOGIC SAMPLE GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ATTITUDES No. O TOPSOIL/WEATHERED ® 0 TO 2.5' Dark to light brown, moist to very moist, medium dense silty sands with small roots. (SW—SM) SANDSTONE ® 2.5' — 3' Rust brown, reddish gray mix, very moist, dense, slightly silty to silty sandstone. (SW—SM) GRAPHIC APROXIMATE SCALE: SURFACE SLOPE: t 0' TREND: LOG (V) 1" = 0.5' (H) NTS 0' 1' 0 2.0' .. ..1 3.0' B `� 4.0' 5.0' TOTAL DEPTH = 3'-0" 6.0' 7.0' 8.0' ENGMEERMG EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG DESIGN GROUP JONES RESIDENCE 2121 MONnM ROAD - 2297 NEWCASTLE AVE. CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA SAN MARCOS. CA 92089 (780) 839-7302 JOB No. DATE FAX (780) 480-7477 TEST PIT No. 3 064021 10-18-06 APPENDIX -A- APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault- Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. 2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data. 4. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geololgy, Vol. 27, No. 9, P.195-199. 5. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No:1, Dated 1975. 6. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No:2, Dated 1977. APPENDIX -B- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing Priorto the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. -1- 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -2- 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. -3- 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe(and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -4- 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. -5- MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EOUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH TOP OF RETAINING WALL BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION 27. PER REFERENCE 01 PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT ER OSHA STANDARDS NO MIRADRAIN (top) ;6' LAP: ;—I OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING AREA DRAIN PLAN, OR PER APPROVED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHORING PLAN MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE c, I I FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES _ (MIRAFl 140N OR SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC APPROVED EOUIVALENT) WATERPROOFING – HLM 5000 12* MIN. LAP OR EQUIVALENT d III- IF _ 3/4" 1 1/2- CLEAN n t �- GRAVEL =III=I I I=I I I=I I I=I I I a 0X4' ING/ CONCRETE CANT _ �.•�r' I O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION I I=I I I-I i I=) I I=I i I=III (UNDER WATER PROOFING) =III=I I i=IIII i III—III — 4- (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE I— (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.) =III I II I I I I I I WITH PERFORATIONS ` ORIENTED GOWN As � DEPICTED MIN. 2% ��^•;!r<,� GRADIENT TO SUITABLE :OMPACTED FILL .(,. (,:<;<, x .< • < < OUTLET. DR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING END MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SCALE: 1" = 1' -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 7121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477 \\Main\file on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FINISHED SLOPE FACE / I FINISHED CUT PAD PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY r====r=====___-_ r;i� ✓,��i= �r i =r -:C0MPACTE OVERBURDEN OR __ _'T_-- UNSUITABLE -- = STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES - 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, ____________ 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY =_____=__ CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE c _ _ _=___a_----____ _==C_OM_PACTEO FILL= _???_?= _----- -- --_ BENCHING ` _ _- == -=--=____.._---------- KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE __= - -_-'-- =i FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL - ---------- - EXISTING GROUND SURFACE z1 --=--- -== �Y=='- -- REMOVE = __= UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH --=2% MIN.= — — - Ia 2' MIN 15' MIN--�{` KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) OMPACTE0.=rs__ FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE _____--�_F-IL EXISTING -- GROUND SURFACE =----- BENCH _- ---- 15-MIN. REMOVE !.. �_ --� UNMTARLE 2 LOWEST MATERIAL MIN. BENCH KEY r pi: DEPTH (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) EXISTING GROUND / rr Z. SURFACE------'y � / CUT SLOP CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / `` (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) REMOVE _- = UNSUITABLE PROJECT 1 TO 1 =_�' MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO - COMPETENT OMPACT MATERIAL Ft -- BENCH I S' MIN T � 2' MINI LOWEST KEY. DEPTH BENCH (KEY) NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH G4RADE SLOPE FACE _COMPACTED FILL-, ------ _ ------- 7:: '15,_ __ _ _ _- -_==== APPENDIX -C- LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a motor- driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. Where applicable,the"relaxed"and "peak" shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM D422-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring logs. APPENDIX -D- MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL • FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS Qe PROTECTED WITH TOP OF RETAINING WALL BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRAORAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 909. ■ RELATIVE COMPACTION `O 27. PER REFERENCE 11 H ;_; ' -1 !=I / PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT -i `_PER OSHA STANDARDS NO MIRADRAIN (top) OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING AREA DRAIN PLAN, OR PER APPROVED RETAINING WALL a °' :. ' SYSTEM SHORING PLAN MIRADRAIN Wti&ANE �. ' FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES (MIRAFI 14CN OR SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC j' '.1111 I APPROVED EQUIVALENT) WATERPROOFING - MLM 3000 - III- '1 12" MIN. LAP 3/4 OR EQUIVALENT `. - 1/2- CLEAN c , �: I I—I GRAVEL II=II I=I i I=I I I ; .' 0X4' TING/ CONCRETE CANT t •.•<<• I O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION I�III=I I I=I I I=II I (UNDER WATER PROOFING) :4 II-1�1-ICI;ICI-I =I I—III _I I 4' (MIN DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC. PIPE a I (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.) ' I I--i J I WITH PERFORATIONS =I i I— << •C ORIENTED DOWN AS •— — DEPICTED MIN. 2% <e. �/�x''�!` �!• GRADIENT TO SUITABLE Y <�c '!�. l� .� :OMPACTED FILL OUTLET. DR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING END MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SCALE: I" = 1' -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS EE JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Monde[Road.San Marcos.CA 92069 Phone.(760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477 11MainVile on main\FORMSN FRM12000VAASTER-FIG.wpc