Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006-183 G
ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects cityO f District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering May 7, 2008 Attn: Suretec Insurance Caompany 3033 Fifth Avenue San Diego, California 92103 RE: Kevin and Lisa Helmbacher 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road APN 264-091-20 Grading Plan 183-G Final release of security Permit 183-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a release of the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 4356101, (in the amount of$96,080.00), reduced by 75% to $24,020.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, / Debra Geisha J Le ac Engineering Technician nance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,FinanceManager Helmbacher,Kevin and Lisa Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 ! FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 4� recycled paper ■®_ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FA 5 60-0 380 Lisa Helmbacher --` 232 Pacific View Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 E' :;.5 April 21, 2006 -- Work Order 400361D Attention: Ms. Lisa Helmbacher Subject: Geotechnical Update Letter and Preliminary Foundation Recommen- dations, Helmbacher Residence, Parcel 1 of TPM-90-053, Olivenhain Farms, City of Encinitas, CA References: See Appendix Dear Ms. Helmbacher: Presented herein are Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) grading and preliminary foundation recommendations for the proposed Helmbacher residence, Parcel 1 of TPM 90-053, Olivenhain Farms, City of Encinitas, California. Prior to the roposed structure foundation construction PSE should review preliminary foundation plans for conformance to foundation recommenda- tions as presented, herein. 1.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The subject lot was originally graded in 1991 and is underlain by Quaternary Terrace De- posits (PSE, 1991). The grading created a cut/fill transition lot, whereby the entire cut portion of the lot was overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet and replaced as compacted fill. The distribution of the current as-graded geologic mapping units are shown on Plate 1 (attached) and are described in the referenced reports. A one- to two-story, single-family residential structure is proposed, along with other ap- purtenances that include an arena, barn and equestrian shelter. Additional site grading is required to support these improvements and is reflected on the accompanying site grading plan (Plate 1). It is PSE's understanding that a raised floor foundation system is pro- posed; however, slab-on-grade post-tensioned or conventional foundations may also be considered. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL:(714)220-0770 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 TEL:(909)676-8195 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(909)676-1879 FAX:(714)730-5191 Work Order 400361D Page 2 April 21, 2006 On April 18, 2006, PSE conducted a site visit. At the time of our visit, various amounts of wood debris, mulch, stockpiled soils and vegetation were present over the previously graded pad. The previously placed compacted artificial fill soils consisted of reddish brown to tan gravelly silts and clays in a moist, medium dense to dense state. An erosion rill exists on the northeasterly end of the previously graded pad and is approximately two (2) to three (3) feet deep. The lower ungraded portion of the site is covered with a mod- erate amount of annual grasses. Locally derived alluvial and terrace deposits consisting of gravelly silts and clays blanket the lower area. A southwest-flowing tributary drainage essentially bisects the site. 2.0 GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS All grading should conform to the grading ordinance of the City of Encinitas and PSE's "Earthwork Specifications" (attached). Prior to foundation construction, all undocu- mented fills, alluvial and colluvial soils should be completely removed and recompacted. Removals should extend to relatively unweathered terrace deposits and all fill keys should be constructed as per Detail G—5 of the attached "Earthwork Specifications". The exposed removal surface, prior to filling, should be scarified, watered to optimum mois- ture or slightly above and compacted. All fills should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum dry density(per ASTM D: 1557). 3.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Based on PSE's previous testing and observations, the materials observed on the subject site consist of"very low" to "high" expansion potential. The near-surface soils on the building pad were tested at the time the pad was finish graded (PSE, 1991). That testing indicated that these soils exhibited "medium" expansion potential. Accordingly, based upon our observations and previous recommendation for Olivenhain Farms, PSE recom- mends that foundations should be preliminarily designed for a "medium" expansion po- tential soil. It is suggested that a post-tensioned foundation system be used for the resi- dential structure. In lieu of a post-tensioned foundation, a properly designed conven- tional raised floor and/or slab-on-grade foundation system can be used, provided it is de- signed in accordance with the following recommendations. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 3 April 21, 2006 3.1 Foundations Foundations for structures may be designed based on the following values: Allowable Bearing: 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Lateral Bearing: 250 lbs./sq.ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 100 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs./sq.ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.35 Settlement: Total= 3/4-inch Differential= 1/2-inch in 20 feet. The above values may be increased as allowed by code to resist transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic. 3.2 Conventional Slab-on-Grade Foundation Systems Conventional foundation systems should be designed in accordance with Table 3.1. 3.3 Post-Tensioned Slab-on-Grade Foundation Systems Based upon the onsite soil conditions and information supplied by the UBC-97, post-tensioned foundation systems should be designed in accordance with Table 3.2. 3.4 Raised Wood Floor Foundation Systems Raised wood floor foundation systems should be designed in accordance with Ta- ble 3.3. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 4 April 21, 2006 TABLE 3.1 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Category II Parcel Number 1 Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Finish Grade One-Story Interior 18 inches One-Story Exterior 18 inches Two-Story Interior 18 inches Two-Story Exterior 18 inches Footing Width One-Story 12 inches Two-Stor 15 inches No. 5 rebar; Footing Reinforcement one(1) on top, one 1 on bottom. Slab Thickness 5 inches(actual) Slab Reinforcement No. 3 rebar spaced 15 inches on center, each way. Under-Slab 2 inches clean sand Requirement over 10-mil Visqueen, (Living and Garage Areas underlain with 2 inches of clean sand. Slab Sub2rade Moisture Medium Expansion Potential Minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete to a depth of 18 inches. Garages A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance,tying together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six(6)inches deep. Footing depth,width and rein- forcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness,reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 5 April 21, 2006 TABLE 3.2 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA CENTER LIFT EDGE LIFT All Perimeter 18 Inch 24 Inch 30 Inch SOIL Beam Embedment Embedment Embedment CATEGORY PARCEL NO. Conditions Em Ym Em Ym Em Ym Em Ym ft. in. ft. in. ft. in. ft. in. II 1 5.5 2.75 3.50 0.58 3.50 0.51 3.50 0.44 Footing/Slab Dimensions The footing width, depth and the structural slab-on-grade thickness shall be as specified by the structural engineer based upon the soil parameters provided by PSE and the requirements of the most current UBC. Under-Slab Requirements (Living and Garage Areas) A 10-mil(minimum)polyvinyl membrane should be placed below all slabs-on-grade within living and moisture sensitive areas. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of two(2) inches of clean sand. This membrane should also be underlain with two 2 inches of clean sand. Slab Sub rade Moisture Requirements Medium Expansion Potential Minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture at least 24 hours prior to placing con- crete to a depth of 18 inches. Footing Embedment If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five(5) feet horizontally of the swale,the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that at least seven(7)feet are provided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slo e. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 6 April 21, 2006 TABLE 3.3 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Category II Parcel Number 1 Continuous Footings Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Finish Grade One-Story Interior 18 inches One-Story Exterior 18 inches Two-Story Interior 18 inches Two-Story Exterior 18 inches Tooting Width One-Story 12 inches Two-Story 15 inches No. 5 rebar; one(1)on top, one(1)on bottom. Footing Reinforcement OR No. 4 rebar, two(2)on top, two(2 on bottom Spread Footings =Footing Depth 24 inches -Footing Width 24 inches Reinforcement Per structural Grade Beam A grade beam constructed the same as the continuous footings shall tie all isolated spread footings to other foundation elements. Slab Subgrade Moisture Medium Expansion Potential Minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete to a depth of 18 inches. Garages A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam,should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six(6)inches deep. Footing depth,width and rein- forcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness,reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 7 April 21, 2006 3.5 Seismic Design Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code require- ments and the parameters presented below in Table 3.4. TABLE 3.4 Seismic Design Parameters Recommended Values Seismic Parameter (1997 UBC) SD Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.4 Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.44 Na Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.64 Nv Near Source Factor Na 1.0 Near Source Factor Nv 1.0 Seismic Source Type B 3.6 Under-Slab Recommendations 3.6.1 Subuade Moisture Minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture to a depth of eighteen (18) inches, a minimum of 24 hours prior to placing concrete. 3.6.2 Under-Slab Requirements (Slab-on-Grade Foundations) A ten (10)-mil polyvinyl membrane (minimum) should be placed below slabs-on-grade within living and garage areas. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of two (2) inches of clean sand and underlain with a minimum of two (2) inches of sand. Care should be taken during construction so that the 10-mil polyvinyl membrane is not punctured or violated. Further, it is recommended that the polyvinyl membrane be overlapped or glued at the joints to further reduce the potential for vapor migration. 3.7 Footing Embedment If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five (5) feet horizontally of the swale, the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure that the minimum footing embedment below swale bottom is maintained. Foot- ings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that at least seven (T) feet are PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 8 April 21, 2006 provided horizontally from the edge of footing to face of slope. 3.8 Drainage- Roof, pad and slope drainage should be collected and directed away from the pro- posed structures to approved disposal areas. It is important that drainage be di- rected away from foundations. This is especially true in patio areas and greenbelt areas. The recommended drainage patterns should be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure. 3.9 Sulfate Testing Specific chemical testing of onsite soils encountered during the grading and after grading completion of this project should be conducted. Based on these results and Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, sulfate exposure of con- crete in contact with onsite soils will be determined. However, it is PSE's opinion that post-construction soil amendments or the impor- tation of soils could introduce potentially detrimental sulfates into the near surface materials. Accordingly, PSE recommends, minimally, that sulfate resistant con- crete, designed in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC for a "moder- ate" sulfate exposure (4,000 psi at a water/cement ratio of 0.5), should be utilized in all portions of the structure in contact with soil. 3.10 Exterior Slabs and Walkways 3.10.1 Design Considerations Since expansive soils could be present onsite, the designer of the hard- scape/flatwork should take into consideration the expansive soil subgrade characteristics with respect to the proposed designs. 3.10.2 Sub2rade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways,patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to a minimum 130 percent of optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 9 April 21, 2006 3.10.3 Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at approximately six- (6) to eight- (8) foot intervals. Other exterior slabs should be de- signed to minimize cracking from concrete shrinkage. 3.10.4 Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing a four- (4) inch minimum thickness. 3.10.5 Flatwork Reinforcement Consideration should be given to reinforcing exterior flatwork, minimally, with No. 3 reinforcing bar fifteen (15) inches on center; each way. 4.0 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL Utility trench backfill minimally should be accomplished in accordance with the prevail- ing criteria of the City of Encinitas. This firm recommends that utility trench backfill be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM:D 1557-91. However, if local codes allow less stringent criteria and are to be utilized on the project, the following minimum requirements should be implemented. Wherever utility trenches are excavated parallel or adjacent to footings and located within a distance subtended by a 45 degree angle (1 : 1 ratio) taken from ground surface at the footings, utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Compaction should be accomplished with a mechanical compaction device. If the backfill soils have dried out, they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned to opti- mum moisture content or above, prior to placement in trenches. 5.0 SWIMMING POOL AND SPAS In-ground pools and spas for the recreational center should be designed for medium expansive soil conditions. Where pools are to be constructed in proximity to other structures or subjected to tran- sient loads, the effects of those stresses should be considered in the pool and/or spa de- sign. Pools and spas should be provided with a pressure release valve system below the bottom. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 10 April 21, 2006 Pool/spa decking shall have a minimum thickness of four(4) inches (actual) and shall be underlain with at least six (6) inches of three-quarter- (3/4) inch crushed rock. Backfill for all conduits and any retaining walls shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM: D 1557. Subgrade soils below the concrete decking shall be pre-saturated to a minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture to a depth of twelve (12) inches at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils should be shaped to provide a minimum gradient of one (1)percent away from the pool shell and toward a subsurface drainage system. The subsurface drainage system should be designed to collect subsurface water and discharge it into the area drain system (See Figure 1). The outside edges of the decking should be thickened to provide a perimeter beam that is eight- (8) inches wide and twelve- (12) inches deep. Slabs should be reinforced with No. 3 bars at twelve (12) inches on center, each way. The decking should be separated from the pool/spa coping. Expansion joints should be periodically maintained. Deep tool joints, extending at least one-third (1/3) of the thickness of the slab into the slab, should be provided at a maximum spacing of six (6) feet. Figure 1 provides a cross-section view of these general recommendations. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 11 April 21, 2006 If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted —`— PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Reviewed y: �� v A. C�✓� �� �F cy � CO No. 2,314 m * 0107 By: � CALIF RICHARD A. TIPTON, U F Y C NEY Civil Engineering Associate anager of Geotechnical Services Reviewed by: JOLT . HANSON, CEG 990 Vic& esident Dist: (4) Addressee RAT/JAC/JAH:bm:400361D,April 21,2006 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D APPENDIX April 21, 2006 REFERENCES Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 1991, Project Grading Report for Olivenhain Farms Project, Parcels I through 4, in the City of Encinitas, California, dated October 18, 1991 (Work Order 400361) Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., 1990, Geotechnical Investigation, Oliven- hain Farms, Brookside Lane, City of Encinitas, CA, dated February 28, 1990(Job No. 90-16) PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present generally accepted standards and minimum earthwork requirements for the development of the project. These specifications shall be the project guidelines for earthwork except where specifically superceded in preliminary geology and soils reports, grading plan review reports or by prevailing grading codes or ordinances of the controlling agency. I. GENERAL A. The contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. B. The project Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist or their representatives shall provide testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. C. All clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project shall be accomplished by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer. D. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Sol] Engineer and to place, spread, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the job specifications and as required by the Soil Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered by the Soil Engineer to be unsuitable for use in the construction of compacted fill. E. The Contractor shall have suitable and sufficient equipment in operation to handle the amount of fill being placed. When necessary, equipment will be shut down temporarily in order to permit proper compaction of fills. H. SITE PREPARATION A. Excessive vegetation and all deleterious material shall be disposed of offsite as required by the Soil Engineer. Existing fill, soil, alluvium or rock materials determined by the Soil Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site. Where applicable, the Contractor may obtain the approval of the Soil Engineer and the controlling authorities for the project to dispose of the above described materials, or a portion thereof, in designated areas onsite. A-fier removals as described above have been accomplished, earth materials deemed unsuitable in their natural, in-place condition, shall be removed as recommended by the Soil Engineer/Engineering Geologist. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Earthwork Specifications Page 2 B. After the removals as delineated in Item II, A above, the exposed surfaces shall be disced or bladed by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer. The prepared ground surfaces shall then be brought to the specified moisture condition, mixed as required, and compacted and tested as specified. In areas where it is necessary to obtain the approval of the controlling agency, prior to placing fill, it will be the contractor's responsibility to notify the proper authorities. C. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soil Engineer and/or the controlling agency for the project. III. COMPACTED FILLS A. Any materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soil Engineer. Deleterious material not disposed of during clearing or demolition shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soil Engineer. B. Rock or rock fragments less than eight inches in the largest dimension may be utilized in the fill, provided they are not placed in concentrated pockets and the distribution of the rocks is approved by the Soil Engineer. C. Rocks greater than eight inches in the largest dimension shall be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soil Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. D. All fills, including onsite and import materials to be used for fill, shall be tested in the laboratory by the Soil Engineer. Proposed import materials shall be approved prior to importation. E. The fill materials shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that when compacted shall not exceed six inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to obtain a near uniform moisture condition and a uniform blend of materials. All compaction shall be achieved at optimum moisture content, or above, as determined by the applicable laboratory standard. No upper limit on the moisture content is necessary; however, the Contractor must achieve the necessary compaction and will be alerted when the material is too wet and compaction cannot be attained. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Earthwork Specifications Page 3 F. Where the moisture content of the fill material is below the limit specified by the Soil Engineer, water shall be added and the materials shall be blended until a uniform moisture content, within specified limits, is achieved. Where the moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soil Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by discing, blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the limits specified. G. Each fill layer shall be compacted to minimum project standards, in compliance with the testing methods specified by the controlling governmental agency and in accordance with recommendations of the Soil Engineer. In the absence of specific recommendations by the Soil Engineer to the contrary, the compaction standard shall be ASTM:D 1557-91. H. Where a slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five-horizontal to one-vertical, the fill shall be keyed and benched through all unsuitable topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material, in accordance with the recommendations and approval of the Soil Engineer. I. Side hill fills shall have a minimum key width of 15 feet into bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soil report and approved by the Soil Engineer in the field. J. Drainage terraces and subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency and/or with the recommendations of the Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist. K. The contractor shall be required to maintain the specified minimum relative compaction out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills as directed by the Soil Engineer and/or the governing agency for the project. 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, or by any other procedure which produces the designated result. L. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm material; and the transition shall be stripped of all soil or unsuitable materials prior to placing fill. The cut portion should be made and evaluated by the Engineering Geologist prior to placement of fill above. M. Pad areas in natural ground and cut shall be approved by the Soil Engineer. Finished surfaces of these pads may require scarification and recompaction. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Earthwork Specifications Page 4 IV. CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes and shall be notified by the Contractor when cut slopes are started. B. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer shall investigate, analyze and make recommendations to treat these problems. C. Non-erodible interceptor swales shall be placed at the top of cut slopes that face the same direction as the prevailing drainage. D. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the Soil Engineer or Engineering Geologist. V. GRADING CONTROL A. Fill placement shall be observed by the Soil Engineer and/or his representative during the progress of grading. Field density tests shall be made by the Soil Engineer or his representative to evaluate the compaction and moisture compliance of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be performed at intervals not to exceed two feet of fill height. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density determinations shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface at a depth determined by the Soil Engineer or his representative. B. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed over an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements and that lift approved by the Soil Engineer. C. Where the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until field observations and tests by the Soil Engineer indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are within the limits previously specified. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Earthwork Specifications Page 5 D. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded area until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. E. Observation and testing by the Soil Engineer shall be conducted during the filling and compacting operations in order that he will be able to state in his opinion all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved specifications. F. After completion of grading and after the Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports shall be submitted. No further excavation or filling shall be undertaken without prior notification of the Soil Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist. IV. SLOPE PROTECTION All finished cut and fill slopes shall be planted and/or protected from erosion in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL i �\ NATURAL GROUND .0 COLLUVIUM AND .ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) / //' �—BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE "A"(PLATE G-2) NOTE=FINAL 20' OF PIPE AT OUTLET SH4LL BE NON-PERFORATED T YPE B - --- - -- ---- - ---- -- --- --- PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NATURAL GROUND j Jol COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) /// "BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE "B"(PLATE G-2) NOTE:FINAL 20'OFP/PE AT OUTLET SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED PLATE G-1 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. W.0. DATE CANYON SUBDRA/N ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE I PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 6 IN MIN. FILTER MATER/AL M/N.'VOL.OF 9FT IL IN.FT. \ 6/N.O ABS OR PVC PIPEOR APPROVED 12 IN.M/N. . G SUBSTITUTE WITH MIN. 8 PERF.,I14 /N.0 6 /N. MIN. 6 IN.M/N 6 IN. PER LINEAL FOOT IN BOT TOM HALF Of MIN. PIPE. A -1 AS TM D2751,SOP 33 OR ASTM D3034, SDR 35 OR B - ASTM D1527, SCHD.40 ASTM 01785, SCHD.40 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF500 FEET USE 8IN.0 PIPE ALTERNATE 2 FILTER MATERIAL WRAPPED IN FABRIC 6 /N.MIN. 6 /N.MIN. OVERLAP\ I IN. MAX. GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC /OVERLAP •••• 11K MAX.GRAVEL OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 9 FT.3/FT •'•• \ AI/RAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EOU/VAL ENT A-2 (TYPICAL) B -2 PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE NATIVE BACKFILL /OFT.± M/RAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR DETAIL OF CANYON CA . APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBDRA/N TERMINAL I /N.MAX.OPEN GRADED FOR ALTERNATES 15 FT.MIN. 20 FT.MIN. GRAVEL OR APPROVED A2 AND 82' 5 FT MIN. EQUIVALENT NON-PERF PERF 6IN. 6/N.AM/N QM/N.P/PE ALTERNATE 3 PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED 6 IN.MAN. 6 /N.MIN. WITH FILTER MATERIAL OVERLAP OVERLAP 6/N.M1N.COVER FILTER MATERIAL 9 FT.3/FT 4!N.M/N.BEDDIIVG 4 !N.MIN. BEDDING A-3 PERFORATED PIPE 6/N. 0 MIN. B-3 FILTER MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 11N. loo 314 IN. lO-100 318 IN. 40-100 PLATE G -2 NO.4 25-40 NO.a 18-33 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERI NG INC. No so o W.O. DATE NO. 200 0-3 'o � V _ E E IIA ta S ' o CL O E EtMa a �c � h o �► o � �ft. I o o • O a p � ` o op f 40 �ao J Q C p O h C .iC C O p > � a=+ c ro ba • � W ao » o 4 A 11 I E 1b o Amp a •a I CY ca ca 4�0 O4 4 p.O !V II V V C _ MuO f' E N co GC wad ht, o,b j � C3 �%. a x;04 ft Iq o 1 O � OG 4 w NE AA All Ow ow -0 bJ la. ILIA Ib O � O I' O , �O r� Q Q b b 3. QQao 3. c v iN AV _v ° 4 z az° Cut Lot pr�ino� Topsoil wwvium. .— edro � 5' min. NJ eathere g d d 5 min. 3' min' Overexcovate and i Recompact Unweathered Bedrock Cut-Fill Lot (Transition) 5 min. Compacted Fill // I 3'min. i /. /"�/ v�um+ � Overexcavate and C'0 I / A+,.�/ Recompact Vie(So\\,\ Unweathered Bedrock deeper overexcavotion may be required by the soils engineer in steep cut-fill transition areas PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. W.0. DATE PLATE G-4 U-) V & Z c� 1 4� .� _ — E c :� Lli _ Q a = u J cr j x w CL I u W in go �- M O uj to C c Ld N G u 7 . p l� O O o° E 4 Cn Q cu c � pU \� J CA U 0 0 a E a� L,L u U$ n LL xx v v b a' J 2 V O _j V) Q 0OC y _ O d u fL ui n + u u O I 1 O W a' 0 CL Z O d O V I O W, o c c o ro c) c t x o a t L a � a+ c' E D E°-2 \ ` > t LO a� `L l E � Y17 Ec C U o C71 E�o Z Epp c' in �t�ZNJ .cow a co �o E EEo o _ o - c -- 0 O 0 �_i►= > - O O C O 3 -0 U , IOU ow � O O CL m 00 Y � N E � QO0 Z 0 z c� I s iSIA) w W a� v LL 0 c _ _ V Oc Q I o•o o n � • O •a. t�Y U- c c �o°Y _o _ n Q� ua Q c a CL O v = \ o o c!b \ Ei� \ C)C � o \ we 'O a� L �\ � d n"li o �, ♦ ti 0 o - V f, O Lz M � b 0 d 4 ? c Q 0 75 -fit l ll� LL £ w V ow p C Jf E h Selective Groding Detoil for Stobilizotion Fill Unstoble Moteriol Exposed in Portion of Cut Slope � 55 Gt°�i/�// U�Stobie 15 i� i min. i Finished Ground / nntnitn+r,n„n,,l i � Ill lllnitlry 111''1 lu, �\\ // 11111Illlflllfll li r,r Ill'/h �rlttlrnlnlll \\ / mrltttn hl1111ryR7/11 \ III 111�\1111 Iillrr rll \ 1'Irl X1111 1 k \ Unweathered Bedrock H e f�„`;, ;7;I or approved material °pl '1111' ,r rlrl .tom It �TI,111,IrIl \l�� Hl `rll 1`11// 11 tr 11111,11„„ Compacted Fill krN,f n H run/rr/ll� urr n,rrn,/Il 11,11 1111, „�,�rrt+w+rf M+rrr 11 _ r anal !'tilted bock (min.) If recommended by the soils engineer./ eologr'st, theremoin;ng W cut portion of the slope may require r�moval and replacement -� with compacted fill (See Plate G-3) NOTE !. Subdrains are not required unless specified. 2. "W” shall be equipment wrath(15r) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25feet "W"shall be determined by the project sails engineer/geologist. At no time shall "W"be less than H 12. PLATE G-7 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. W.O. DATE t� LLJ V CL d � � •gib o \ b V O 2 W � o J W ct Q v C W 4 o ? c � �o W C ., j _1 u \, J Q � � I 1 i\1 U- U o V O IO O Q _ I i� Q. Q �\ Lu co O IO c i 1Gtt` � o O / \t=ttl ` LQ j c:x O Ic O c I I \ o 4 �+ v � p �u 4 ° E n 8 � 0 a, ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE CLEAR AREA FOR FOUNDATIONS, UTILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLS. 10' Or as described by report Ca ct5 m\ C�R- C \ FINISH SLOPE FACE ®� WINDROW !S (TYPICAL) \ NOTE: IF NECESSARY, OVERSIZED MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED \ FROM THE 15 FOOT ZONE WITH SPECIAL EOUIPMENT�SUCH AS A ROCK RAKE 2PRIOR TO PLACING THE NEXT FILL LIFT. TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW) HORIZONTALLY PLACED GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED COMPACTED FILL TO FILL VOIDS ►JJ=111= L-1!I—Ill 111=1J—W W.=LI, ID= t"►t►=to=►��= ►ilk►sl=lit Li J L lU III tJ 111—rn —► x� u►clu—nt i!_1�t=::_• ::•111 —tii ii!_lit.lit_ITi_I�I_iit-tll_iTr=, :In_)tt=t��° ►,—i=►u_►tl_ti�ti�it _ui=►��-nl-ut`lu=ll►=111.=111ct1f=111 =j,j_ili—!1►_ttl-n► 15 (MIN.) NOTE:COMPACTED FILL SHALL BE BROUGHT LIP AT A HIGHER ELEVATION ALONG WINDROW SOGRANULAR SOIL CAN BEFLOODED INA "TRENCH CONDITION PROFILE VIEW »>=Ott=h1=1�1=t�tJti_ t(� !I= tit=1lt=ltt=-111 1l= LI ILL m1�1 =Ill U]=UL 1it_i,t_,i,_tit_!n_1_►��_►i►_1�t_►�t_►��=�r�rn — — —rn= = — T-. tit=Iii=►itcli1=111=tit-ill=I11mitt_tti=iit_tIt_til_lll_)ti^U1=fil_llLlll=111 PLATE G-10 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. W.O. DA TE Z 4 - ~ E g � t lz Q Zti J — o �h 4 W4 W tAJ C - � _ c W o �U _c 0 J Ac o�� � _ Q o v � of �L a c m o � � h O v ' z DOC, # �I IIEllillillilf i(111((ff(Iffff((IIII((I((IIII(IIIIIII(IIIIIIIIII IN Recording Requested By: ) OCT 27, 2006 12:01 PM City Engineer ) OFFICIAL RECORDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE GREGORY J.SMITH,COUNTY RECORDER When Recorded Mail to: ) FEES: 14.00 City Clerk ) { PAGES: 7 City of 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) 11111111II IIN IN IS 11111111111111111111 IN IN IN 1111111111 Encinitas,CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVI PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT 1C MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 264-091-20 PojectNo.: N/A W.O.No.: 0183-G THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain private storm water treatment facilities, the legal description and/or plat of which is set forth in Exhibit°B"attached hereto and made a part hereof, is entered into by Kevin S. Helmbacher and Lisa A Helmbacher, husband and wife as joint tenants, and (hereinafter referred to as "Developer")for the benefit of future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities(hereinafter referred to as"owners"), which shall include the Developer to the extent the Developer retains any ownership interest in any land covered by this agreement. WHEREAS, this Agreement is required as a condition of approval by the City of Encinitas of Grading Permit 0183-G; and WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit"A"that will use and enjoy the benefit of said storm water treatment facilities(s) (Said real property is hereinafter referred to as the"property"); and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm water treatment system be maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer to establish a method for the periodic maintenance and repair of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and WHEREAS, there exists a benefit to the public the private storm water facilities be adequately maintained on a regular and periodic basis; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the land, binding upon each successive owner of all or any portion of the property. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive owners of all or any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private storm water treatment facilities shall be paid by the owner of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such owner. 3. In the event any of the herein described parcels of land are subdivided further, the owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created parcel shall be liable under this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of expenses shall be computed to reflect such newly created parcels. 4. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following: reasonable and improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private storm water treatment facilities to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and maintaining drainage structures, removing debris, if any, and other work reasonably necessary and proper to repair and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes. 5. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation imposed as a condition of the development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities as herein set forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 6. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water treatment facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment facilities to the condition existing prior to said damage. 7. Any liability of the owners for personal injury to an agent hereunder, or to any worker employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the owners for damage to the property of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne, by the owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance. Owners shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. By this Agreement, the Developer does not intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury or property damage other than that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement. 8. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless City, City's engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs, including costs of defense and attorney's fees, to the agent.hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor, any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising out of or in any way related to the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the private storm water treatment facilities. Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's approval of the plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a review, inspection acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, City's engineer and its consultants, and each,of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility or liability therefore. 11. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all or any portion of the property referred to herein. 12. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners. 13. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to the end and intent that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequent purchaser of all or any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 8 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. 14. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners and consent of the City. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 16. If the Property constitutes a"Common Interest Development"as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an "Association" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(a), anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the following provisions shall apply at and during such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a "Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), and (ii) the Common Area of the property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and controlled by an Association: (a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the"agent"as referred to in Paragraph 7 above. The Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, shall receive no compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair shall be assessed against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property pursuant to the Declaration. The assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. (b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in favor of the Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the Agreement in its entirety. No individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common Area (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Property except as may be allowed by the Declaration. (c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which reduces or limits the Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement This { day of ©Gfvba- ,2006. Developer: s by ��— - and Kevin SI Helmbacher Lis A. Helmbacher Signature of DEVELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California {� County of Q_/t'�r/'� On 10 -17--06 before me, Date e and T� r( .g.,"Jane Doe,Notary P�u j personally appeared Name(s)of Signer(s) ❑personally known to me Co� MIMI MR X(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) C,,.d Mon 0 1690601 Nokyy Mft-caabn�io to be the person1,a'S whose name A is/yt subscribed to the Un D0°Courav within instrument and acknowledged to me that "^on Ae/s he&Wexecuted the same inuNs/her/tJaeir authorized capacity090, and that byXs/her/40rsignatureA on the instrument the perso%A, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above 42 Signature of Notfiry Public 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: gy 1 L,2 a�� Document Date: f&) /7-0 Number of Pages: 9 Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Cpimed by $ygnQr(s) Signer's Name: Z_ 1 -a-t` Signer's Name: X Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑Corporate Officer —Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General ❑Partner — ❑ Limited ❑General M. ❑ Attorney in Fact ' El Attorney in Fact • •Attorney ❑ Trustee Top of thumb here Top of thumb here ❑Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ❑Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ©2006 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402 Item No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1.800-876-6827 Exhibit A: Legal Description of Property APN 264-091-20 PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16593 IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO, AUGUST 22, 1991. 7 Exhibit B: Legal Description or Plat Private Storm Water Treatment Facilities APN 264-091-20 CIO �d 6 ..! V Ai� fATz-M5 VZOA-P u AUG 4 2006 Eta_ >, s'R CEs C' - �F EtuCi .iA;S HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 OLIVEHAIN FARMS ROAD City of Encinitas, California PREPARED FOR: Kevin & Lisa Helmbacher 232 PACIFIC VIEW LANE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PREPARED BY: Logan Engineering 132 N El Camino Real, Suite N Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: (760) 510-3152 QAOFESS/aN DL#2006-52 " Z DATE: � E August 4, 2006 s�qr� elm P�\Q Op CAUF� i i i Douglas E. Logan, RCE 39726 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Existing Conditions 1.2 Proposed Project 1.3 Summary of Results and Conditions 1.4 Conclusions 1.5 References 1.6 Methodology 2.0 Introduction 2.1 County of San Diego Criteria 2.2 Runoff coefficient determination 2.3 Hydrology Model Output 3.0 Pre-Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.1 Post-Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.2 Hydraulic Model 4.0 Pre-Developed Hydraulic Model Output 4.1 Post-Developed Hydraulic Model Output 4.2 Hydrology Map (pocket) D:\.JOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52_Ho-im+ar hod'), 59 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8!4/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction This Hydrology Study for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road 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 produced by the 100 year 6 hour storm. 1.2 Existing Conditions The proposed project property is located along Olivenhain Farms Road, as shown on the vicinity map below. The site is surrounded by both existing and recent residential development. 0 U SITE ROAD � w � o a LONE OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD BRppKS1D f Z Q 0 Z v 2 Q ENCINITgS BL VD /�qV QSANTA FE w z > VICINITY MAP 7.8. PG. 1148—05 NO SCALE The existing site consists of an undeveloped parcel. The existing project site currently consists of an unimproved access road, and area consisting of open D:\JOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Helmbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 I HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 space that supports brush and trees. The project site also contains a stream channel of significant nature. The channel was evaluated by Dr. Howard Chang, in a report entitled "Hydraulic Study for Stream Channel at Olivenhain Farms'; dated January 1991. In this study Dr. Chang prepared a HEC-2 study to analyze the stream. Through the sections that are associated with the project site, a flow of 1700 cfs was used. 1.3 Proposed Project The intent of proposed projects is to develop the proposed project site into three rough graded pads, one of which will function as an equestrian arena. The proposed development consists of the construction improvements to Olivenhain Farms Road, the construction of a driveway to access the proposed residential structure, the construction of a proposed gravel driveway to access the equestrian area, the construction of a proposed residential structure and a proposed barn. The project will include grading to create pads suitable for the construction of residential structures, 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 grass lined drainage swales, which will also serve as the means to treat the storm water from the proposed project site, and rip rap energy dissipaters. The intent of storm drain system design was to maintain the existing conditions as much as possible. However, the construction of the proposed grass lined swale will alter the drainage path slightly, by conveying storm water to around the residential structure. 1.4 Summary of Results Hydrologic analysis of the pre-developed and post-developed conditions of the proposed project site is included in this report as section 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. The following summarizes the peak discharges at the ultimate point of discharge that resulted from performing hydrologic analysis of the project site in both the proposed developed and existing condition: Existing Condition — Q100 = 5.57 cfs; Tc = 9.18 minutes; Area = 2.98 acres Developed Condition - Q100 = 5.92 cfs; Tc= 9.18 minutes; Area = 2.98 acres From the above summary it is evident that an increase of 0.35 cfs will result from the proposed project. In addition to the hydrologic analysis of the project site, hydraulic analysis of the stream channel bifurcating the site was prepared for this report. Five (5) cross D:UOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Heimbacher12006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 814/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 sections of the channel were developed for both the existing and developed condition. With these cross sections, hydraulic analysis of the channel was modeled at various locations as irregular open channels. With the flows that Dr. Chang established for the stream in his report, water surface elevations at each section along the stream were generated. With this data the limits of inundation of the stream were established. 1.5 Conclusions The project site hydrologic models for both the pre- and post-developed conditions encompass a total area of 2.98 acres. As illustrated in the table above, the existing condition and developed condition watershed do not vary in area. Evaluating the two models on a sub-basin to sub-basin scenario, the proposed development will slightly increase the amount of runoff from the project site as compared to the runoff from the site in the existing conditions, and will maintain the same drainage patterns. The hydraulic analysis of the stream illustrates that the stream has the capacity to convey the peak flows in both the developed and existing condition. The proposed storm drain system incorporates the three grass lined swales, and a D-75 brow ditch. The proposed storm drain system will safely convey the entire 100-year peak flow generated by offsite and onsite runoff. D:UOBS1Logan Engineering\2006-52 Heimbacher12006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 1.6 References "San Diego County Hydrology Manual", revised June 2003, County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section. "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for 3234 O/ivenhain Farms Road," dated August 4, 2006, prepared by Logan Engineering D:UOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Helmbacher12006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 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 (1) is equal to: = 7.44 x P6 x D-0.645 Where: = 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:\.lOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Heimbacher12006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 814/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 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 RM 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 pre-developed condition the runoff coefficient of 0.35 was utilized. The developed portions of the watershed associated with the project site were analyzed to determine the area associated with the development; 1.11 acres of residential development is proposed. For this area a runoff coefficient of 0.41 was selected, and a compound coefficient was calculated. The resultant coefficient was calculated to be 0.37. Therefore the runoff coefficients of 0.35 and 0.37 were chosen for the models included in this report. D:UOBS\Logan Engineering12006-52 Heimbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#200&52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 3.0 Hydrology Model Output 3.1 Pre-Developed Hydrologic Model Output **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1574 Analysis prepared by: Logan Engineering 1635 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road, Suite 204 San Marcos, Ca 92069 760-510-3152 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** • HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100-YEAR 6- HOUR STORM EVENT FOR: • EXISTING CONDITION - HELMBACHER RESIDENCE FILE NAME: C:\AES\2006-52\100-EX.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:13 08/04/2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.000 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 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.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : NATURAL DESERT LANDSCAPING RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 130.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 119.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 11.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 6.267 WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.x, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.833 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74 D:UOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Helmbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.74 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<< <<< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 119.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 88.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 593.60 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0512 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.74 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.39 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.91 Tc(MIN. ) = 9.18 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 693.60 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.341 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): NATURAL DESERT LANDSCAPING RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.57 TC(MIN.) = 9.18 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TC(MIN.) = 9.18 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.57 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS D:UOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Helmbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 814/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 3.2 Developed Condition Hydrologic Model Output **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1574 Analysis prepared by: Logan Engineering 1635 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road, Suite 204 San Marcos, Ca 92069 760-510-3152 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** • HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF THE 100-YEAR 6- HOUR STORM EVENT FOR: • DEVELOPED CONDITION - HELMBACHER RESIDENCE FILE NAME: C:\AES\2006-52\100-PR.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:16 08/04/2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.000 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 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.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : NATURAL DESERT LANDSCAPING RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 130.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 117.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 13.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 6.100 WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.953 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.80 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.31 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ 0.80 WJOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 He1mbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 814/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 OHvenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 117.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 88.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 593.60 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0978 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.80 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.28 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.02 Tc(MIN.) = 9.11 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 12.00 = 693.60 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.366 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : NATURAL DESERT LANDSCAPING RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.3700 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.92 TC(MIN.) = 9.11 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.98 TC(MIN.) = 9.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.92 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS D:UOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Heimbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 4.0 Hydraulic Model 4.1 Pre-Developed Hydraulic Model Output D:\JOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Heimbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 Worksheet for Irregular Section - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01045 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft3/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Metha ImprovedLofters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Water Surface Elevation: 93.98 It Elevation Range: 87.40 to 99.00 ft Flow Area: 161.78 ftZ Wetted Perimeter: 42.94 ft Top Width: 40.30 It Normal Depth: 6.58 It Critical Depth: 6.33 It Critical Slope: 0.01234 ft/ft Velocity: 10.51 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.72 It Specific Energy: 8.29 It Froude Number: 0.92 Flow Type: Subcritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefficient (0+00,96.40) (0+59,99.00) 0.035 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 96.40 0+04 96.00 SECTION 1 Cross Section for Irregular Section - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Channel Slope: 0.01045 ft/ft Normal Depth: 6.58 ft Elevation Range: 87.40 to 99.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 fN/S T 6. 140.30 ft V 1 H:1 Worksheet for Irregular Section - 1 Station Elevation 0+07 95.00 0+11 94.00 0+14 93.00 0+17 92.00 0+19 91.00 0+22 90.00 0+25 89.00 0+28 88.00 0+33 87.40 0+37 88.00 0+43 89.00 0+45 90.00 0+46 91.00 0+48 92.00 0+49 93.00 0+51 94.00 0+53 95.00 0+54 96.00 0+56 97.00 0+57 98.00 0+59 99.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section- 2 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.04595 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Metho( ImprovedLotters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Water Surface Elevation: 92.90 ft Elevation Range: 88.80 to 98.00 ft Flow Area: 113.30 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 53.51 ft Top Width: 52.81 ft Normal Depth: 4.10 ft Critical Depth: 5.49 ft Critical Slope: 0.01408 ft/ft Velocity: 15.00 ft/s Velocity Head: 3.50 ft Specific Energy: 7.60 ft Froude Number: 1.81 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefcient (0+00,94.60) (1+39,98.00) 0.035 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 94.60 0+46 94.00 SECTION 2 Cross Section for Irregular Section - 2 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Channel Slope: 0.04595 ft/ft Normal Depth: 4.10 ft Elevation Range: 88.80 to 98.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 fr/s 4,10 ft -----52 81 1t -----� H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section -2 Station Elevation 0+54 93.00 0+61 92.00 0+69 91.00 0+77 90.00 0+84 89.00 0+87 88.80 0+90 89.00 0+94 90.00 0+99 91.00 1+03 92.00 1+08 93.00 1+19 94.00 1+30 95.00 1+35 96.00 1+37 97.00 1+39 98.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section- 3 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01500 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft3/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc ImprovedLotters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Water Surface Elevation: 95.07 ft Elevation Range: 90.70 to 97.00 ft Flow Area: 177.05 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 88.91 ft Top Width: 88.16 ft Normal Depth: 4.37 ft Critical Depth: 4.68 ft Critical Slope: 0.01031 ft/ft Velocity: 9.60 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.43 ft Specific Energy: 5.81 ft Froude Number: 1.19 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefficient (0+00,96.30) (1+29,97.00) 0.030 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 96.30 0+10 96.00 SECTION 3 - EXISTING CONDITION Cross Section for Irregular Section - 3 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01500 ft/ft Normal Depth: 4.37 ft Elevation Range: 90.70 to 97.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 fN/s T 4. :! 4 , H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section - 3 Station Elevation 0+32 95.00 0+59 94.00 0+68 93.00 0+80 92.00 0+93 91.00 0+98 90.70 1+03 91.00 1+06 92.00 1+09 93.00 1+13 94.00 1+18 95.00 1+24 96.00 1+29 97.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section-4 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01857 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft'/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Metho( ImprovedLotters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Hortons Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Water Surface Elevation: 96.03 ft Elevation Range: 89.80 to 102.00 ft Flow Area: 155.78 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 75.78 ft Top Width: 73.13 ft Normal Depth: 6.23 ft Critical Depth: 6.84 ft Critical Slope: 0.01071 ft/ft Velocity: 10.91 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.85 ft Specific Energy: 8.08 ft Froude Number: 1.32 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefficient (0+00,97.20) (11+34,1102.00) 0.030 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 97.20 0+05 97.00 SECTION 4- EXISTING CONDITION Cross Section for Irregular Section-4 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01857 ft/ft Normal Depth: 6.23 ft Elevation Range: 89.80 to 102.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 fPis T 6.23 it T ---73,13 ft -- ----� V.4 H:1 Worksheet for Irregular Section-4 Station Elevation 0+52 96.00 0+74 95.00 0+97 94.00 1+00 93.00 1+01 92.00 1+02 91.00 1+04 90.00 1+07 89.80 1+11 90.00 1+12 91.00 1+15 92.00 1+18 93.00 1+20 94.00 1+22 95.00 1+23 96.00 1+25 97.00 1+26 98.00 1+28 99.00 1+29 100.00 1+31 101.00 1+34 102.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section -5 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01746 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 fN/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc Improvedl_otters Open Channel Weighted Roughness Improvedl_otters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Hortons Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Water Surface Elevation: 97.12 It Elevation Range: 93.80 to 100.00 It Flow Area: 160.65 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 78.14 ft Top Width: 77.17 It Normal Depth: 3.32 ft Critical Depth: 3.78 ft Critical Slope: 0.01020 ft/ft Velocity: 10.58 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.74 ft Specific Energy: 5.06 It Froude Number: 1.29 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefficient (0+00,97.40) (0+95,100.00) 0.030 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 97.40 0+15 97.00 SECTION 5 Cross Section for Irregular Section- 5 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01746 ft/ft Normal Depth: 3.32 ft Elevation Range: 93.80 to 100.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft'!S T 3.32 ft ----,- 7717 ft --� v 4 H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section -5 Station Elevation 0+33 96.00 0+42 95.00 0+44 94.00 0+60 93.80 0+80 94.00 0+83 95.00 0+86 96.00 0+87 97.00 0+90 98.00 0+93 99.00 0+95 100.00 HYDROLOGY REPORT for 3234 Olivenhain Farms Road DL#2006-52 4.2 Post-Developed Hydraulic Model Output D:\JOBS\Logan Engineering\2006-52 Helmbacher\2006-52 HYD-01.doc DL#2006-52 2:27 PM 8/4/2006 Worksheet for Irregular Section - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01045 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc Improvedl-otters Open Channel Weighted Roughness Improvedl-otters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Water Surface Elevation: 93.98 ft Elevation Range: 87.40 to 99.00 ft Flow Area: 161.78 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 42.94 ft Top Width: 40.30 ft Normal Depth: 6.58 ft Critical Depth: 6.33 ft Critical Slope: 0.01234 ft/ft Velocity: 10.51 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.72 ft Specific Energy: 8.29 ft Froude Number: 0.92 Flow Type: Subcritical Segment Roughness Start Station End,Station i2octg�rness oetficlent (0+00.96.40) (0+59,99.00) 0.035 Section Goo triefry Station` Ee�cation -�" 0+00 96.40 0+04 96.00 SECTION 1 Cross Section for Irregular Section - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Channel Slope: 0.01045 ft/ft Normal Depth: 6.58 ft Elevation Range: 87.40 to 99.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft/s T 6. �-- 40.30 ft j V: 1 H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Sectlon - 1 Station Elevation 0+07 95.00 0+11 94.00 0+14 93.00 0+17 92.00 0+19 91.00 0+22 90.00 0+25 89.00 0+28 88.00 0+33 87.40 0+37 88.00 0+43 89.00 0+45 90.00 0+46 91.00 0+48 92.00 0+49 93.00 0+51 94.00 0+53 95.00 0+54 96.00 0+56 97.00 0+57 98.00 0+59 99.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section-2 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.04595 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc ImprovedLotters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results; Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Water Surface Elevation: 92.90 ft Elevation Range: 88.80 to 98.00 ft Flow Area: 113.30 ft2 Wetted perimeter: 53.51 ft Top Width: 52.81 ft Normal Depth: 4.10 ft Critical Depth: 5.49 ft Critical Slope: 0.01408 ft/ft Velocity: 15.00 ft/s Velocity Head: 3.50 ft Specific Energy: 7.60 ft Froude Number: 1.81 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station R0u9hnesr, Coeifjciggt (0+00,94.60) (1+39,98.00) 0.035 Section Geometry. Station -Ela� 0+00 94.60 0+46 94.00 SECTION 2 Cross Section for Irregular Section - 2 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.035 Channel Slope: 0.04595 ft/ft Normal Depth: 4.10 It Elevation Range: 88.80 to 98.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft'Js 4.10 ft V:1 H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section - 2 Station Elevation 0+54 93.00 0+61 92.00 0+69 91.00 0+77 90.00 0+84 89.00 0+87 88.80 0+90 89.00 0+94 90.00 0+99 91.00 1+03 92.00 1+08 93.00 1+y9 94.00 1+30 95.00 1+35 96.00 1+37 97.00 1+39 98.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section-3 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01500 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc Improvedl-otters Open Channel Weighted Roughness Improvedl-otters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Water Surface Elevation: 95.75 ft Elevation Range: 90.70 to 97.00 ft Flow Area: 200.27 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 120.99 ft Top Width: 120.00 ft Normal Depth: 5.05 ft Critical Depth: 5.23 ft Critical Slope: 0.01090 ft/ft Velocity: 8.49 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.12 ft Specific Energy: 6.17 ft Froude Number: 1.16 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefficient (0+00,95.80) (1+29,97.00) 0.030 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 95.80 0+35 95.00 SECTION 3 - DEV. CONDITION Cross Section for Irregular Section- 3 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01500 ft/ft Normal Depth: 5.05 ft Elevation Range: 90.70 to 97.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft%S T 5.05 ft 120.00 ft V 4 H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section-3 Station Elevation 0+74 94.20 0+79 94.00 0+84 93.00 0+88 92.00 0+93 91.00 0+98 90.70 1+03 91.00 1+06 92.00 1+09 93.00 1+13 94.00 1+18 95.00 1+24 96.00 1+29 97.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section-4 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01857 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft3/s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc Improvedlotters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Water Surface Elevation: 95.98 ft Elevation Range: 89.80 to 102.00 ft Flow Area: 149.87 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 68.79 ft Top Width: 66.15 ft Normal Depth: 6.18 ft Critical Depth: 7.05 ft Critical Slope: 0.01114 ft/ft Velocity: 11.34 ft/s Velocity Head: 2.00 ft Specific Energy: 8.18 ft Froude Number: 1.33 Flow Type: Supercrttical Segment Roughness Start Station End Station Roughness Coefficient (0+00,96.80) (1+34,102.00) 0.030 Section Geometry Station Elevation 0+00 96.80 0+53 96.40 SECTION 4- DEV. CONDITION Cross Section for Irregular Section-4 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01857 ft/ft Normal Depth: 6.18 ft Elevation Range: 89.80 to 102.00 ft Discharge: 1700.00 T 6.18 ft 1 -------66.15 V:4 H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section-4 Station Elevation 0+57 96.00 0+74 95.00 0+97 94.00 1+00 93.00 1+01 92.00 1+02 91.00 1+04 90.00 1+07 89.80 1+11 90.00 1+12 91.00 1+15 92.00 1+18 93.00 1+20 94.00 1+22 95.00 1+23 96.00 1+25 97.00 1+26 98.00 1+28 99.00 1+29 100.00 1+31 101.00 1+34 102.00 Worksheet for Irregular Section -5 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Channel Slope: 0.01746 ft/ft Discharge: 1700.00 ft'!s Options Current Roughness Weighted Methoc ImprovedLotters Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Hortons Results Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Water Surface Elevation: 97.12 ft Elevation Range: 93.80 to 100.00 ft Flow Area: 160.65 ft Wetted Perimeter: 78.14 ft Top Width: 77.17 ft Normal Depth: 3.32 It Critical Depth: 3.78 ft Critical Slope: 0.01020 fttft Velocity: 10.58 ft/s Velocity Head: 1.74 ft Specific Energy: 5.06 ft Froude Number: 1.29 Flow Type: Supercritical Segment.Roughness Roughens $tart5t84on -Enti�tation �> Go��jcidrit= (0+00.97.40) (0+95,100.00) 0.030 Section Geometry Station Elevation: 0+00 97.40 0+15 97.00 SECTION 5 Cross Section for Irregular Section-5 Project Description Flow Element: Irregular Section Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01746 ft/ft Normal Depth: 3.32 ft Elevation Range: 93.80 to 100.00 It Discharge: 1700.00 fP/s T 3.32 ft 1 77,17 ft 1/:4 L H: 1 Worksheet for Irregular Section - 5 Station Elevation. 0+33 96.00 0+42 95.00 0+44 94.00 0+60 93.80 0+80 94.00 0+83 95.00 0+86 96.00 0+87 97.00 0+90 98.00 0+93 99.00 0+95 100.00 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC 0 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 TELEPHONE: (858) 560.1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 I ' Kevin and Lisa Helmbacher s 232 Pacific View Lane Encinitas, CA 92024 July 27, 2006 Work Order 400361D Attention: Kevin and Lisa Helmbacher Subject: Response to City of Encinitas Review Comments, Drawing # 183-GR, APN 264-091-20, City of Encinitas, California References: See Appendix A Gentlepersons: Presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) response to City of Encinitas Third-Party review comments for the Helmbacher residence, 3234 Olivenhain Farms, located in the City of Encinitas, California. The review comments were presented in a letter dated June 14, 2006,prepared by Geopacifica, Inc. (Reference). The review comments relate to a "Geotechnical Update Letter and Preliminary Foundation Recommendations", dated April 21, 2006, prepared by PSE. Each review comment is reiterated and is followed by PSE's response. Review Comment No. I The consultant (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. —documents 2 and 3) appears to have utilized the data and findings of the original geotechnical report for the properties (document 4). Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. should provide a standard assumption of geotechnical responsibility for use of that data. PSE's Response to Comment No. 1 PSE has reviewed the Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. data(1990) and incorporated it into the project grading that was conducted in 1991 (PSE, 1991). Based upon our review of that data, PSE's observations during grading and final reporting for Parcels 1 through 4, those findings and data are consistent with those observed and reported by PSE. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL:(714)220-0770 TEL:(310)325-7272 or(323)775-6771 TEL:(951)582-0170 TEL:(714)730-2122 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(714)220-9589 FAX:(951)582-0176 FAX:(714)730-5191 Work Order 400361D Page 2 July 27, 2006 Review Comment No. 2 The plans (document 1) appear to provide the location for what appears to be a septic system and/or other type disposal field on the west side of the proposed garage. The structure is not labeled or otherwise identified. That location is within an area underlain by about 8 to 10 +feet of compacted fill soils (see document 3 —which provides that up to 18 feet of fill underlie Pad 1) and also appears to be very close to the structure foundation. The geotechnical consultant needs to provide an assessment of the structure (the structure is not shown on the plans reviewed by Pacific Soils (see document 2—plans appear were prepared by Pasco Engineering), as well as soil/geologic criteria for use in identifying the layout of a septic system disposal site (as and if required) that will not impact the proposed development. PSE's Response to Comment No. 2 The plans reflect a patio cover and the parallel lines are not a disposal field. PSE recommends that the design civil engineer label the feature as a patio cover to avoid any future confusion. Review Comment No. 3 The base of the proposed arena fill slope (see document 1) appears to be within the 100 year flood plane (see the figure in document 3). The geotechnical consultant needs to assess the potential impact to the flood plane as well as assess the impact of erosion of the base of the fill slope. PSE's Response to Comment No. 3 The drainage is a local tributary to the San Dieguito River and consequently, has only limited watershed. Accordingly, the opportunity for erosion from peak discharge is not likely significant. It is PSE's understanding that the Civil Engineer is evaluating the need for any embankment protection if required. Review Comment No. 4 Based on review, document 2 does not provide reference to the actual plans reviewed/proposed for the project. The geotechnical consultant is required to address the proposed project development relative to the most current plans for the project (document I prepared by Logan Engineering) and report those observations and recommendations as a geotechnical grading plan review report. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 3 July 27, 2006 PSE's Response to Comment No. 4 PSE has reviewed a plan provided by Logan Engineering (Plot date May 22, 2006) and the design is the same as the one reviewed in our update latter of April 21, 2006. All grading should be conducted in accordance with the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance and PSE's Earthwork Specifications (PSE, 2006). Review Comment No. S Based on review and the potential presence of highly expansive clay soils, the geotechnical consultant needs to provide general planning criteria and recommendations for driveway pavement sections and treatment of sub grade soils. PSE's Response to Comment No. 5 The following are general criteria for flatwork and driveway sections. These may be modified based upon as-graded soil conditions: Exterior Slabs and Walkways Subuade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 130 percent and 140 percent of optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement for "medium" and "high" expansive potential lots, respectively. Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four- (4) inch minimum thickness. Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately ten (10) feet. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of the concrete. Flatwork Reinforcement Consideration should be given to reinforcing exterior flatwork as follows: PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 4 July 27, 2006 Expansion Potential . : Suggested Reinarcement( . a�bm a Medium and High 6 inches by 6 inches, No. 6 by No. 6 Welded Wire Mesh Review Comment No. 6 Document 2 provides that near surface soils tested in 1991 (document 3) exhibited "medium" expansion potential and provides recommendations for foundations based on medium expansive soils. However, the pad as reported in document 3 was at an elevation of 122 feet. The proposed new grade shown on document 1 is 117.0 feet. Because highly expansive clay soils were reported in document 4, the geotechnical consultant should base the foundation assessment on building pad soils between elevations of 113.0 and 117.0 feet. PSE's Response to Comment No. 6 Expansion potential testing from 1992 does indicate a "medium" expansion potential for Parcel 1. Depending on the redistribution of soils on a finished grade configuration, additional expansion testing will be performed and appropriate design recommendations will be provided. PSE anticipates that given the distribution of onsite earth materials, soils will likely exhibit a "medium" expansion potential upon completion of grading. Final as-graded soil conditions and foundation design recommendations will be reported upon the completion of grading. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D Page 5 July 27, 2006 The opportunity to be of service is appreciated and if you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Q�OF E SS/ON PES BF '4! ��lo. 2715 m By. �'��^ ^^_ cs B ANDRES BERNA * HN A. HANSON, CEG 990 Project Engineer a�.�OTECHN�f'P�p Vice President OF CALIF t Dist: (6) =ssee 2) City o AB/JAH:bm:400361D, yy , PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361D July 27, 2006 REFERENCES Geopacifica, 2006, Third Party Review, Drawing# 183-GR, 3234 Olivenhain Farms, APN 264-091-20, Encinitas, CA, dated June 14, 2006. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2006, Geotechnical Update Letter and Preliminary Foundation Recommendations, Helmbacher Residence, Parcel 1 of TPM-90-053, Olivenhain Farms, City of Encinitas, CA, dated April 21, 2006 (Work Order 400361D). Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 1991, Project Grading Report for Olivenhain Farms Project, Parcels 1 through 4, in the City of Encinitas, California, dated October 18, 1991 (Work Order 400361). Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc., 1990, Geotechnical Investigation, Olivenhain Farms, Brookside Lane, City of Encinitas, CA, dated February 28, 1990 (Job No. 90-16). PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. • • Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Structural • Surveying May 22 , 2006 1 OF HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR THE HELMBACHER RESIDENCE - f DESCRIPTION: CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3234 OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD COLONY OLIVENHAIN A. P.N. 264-091-20 PERMITTEE: QROFESS/O� 40 R�c�` KEVIN & LISA HELMBACHER tiyZ� 232 PACIFIC VIEW LANE w C9972Q m ENCINITAS, CA 92024 �`12-31'W M 760-822-090 k OF CAl.1F'j Do_ S E. L AN D TE R. .E. 39726 EXPIRES 12-31-07 Office: 1635 S, Rancho Santa Fe Road, #204 • San Marcos, CA 92078 Mailing: 132 N. El Camino Real, PMB-N • Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone 760-510-3152 • Fax 760-510-3153 Email: dlogangdlogan.connectnet,com CIZ-1 TOZA �t DoT w M 0'5T Z40 �3 . '') C-= '�(• `� /C,E. 1 L= f0<� nn t N1, .�.�- _ `�'� Mil I� , • �z= 6, 45"�c , C � C too s I(J 2 i o c�- C�u T 1�E l 5 M 0 IZE /D goo Tzi?, T A-? OuT L-,(5T— oo A-,4 U ti AMP -1P,-00,9 vj/ 4 Z, 13AP,,tt IJ Z, INVERT WIDTH (feet) . . . 1 . 00 MANNINGS n . . . . . . . . . . 035 SLOPE (feet/foot) . . . . . . 0550 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 80 LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . . . . 1 . 00 SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . 1 . 00 DEPTH (feet) . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 53 TOP WIDTH (feet) . . . 2 . 06 VELOCITY (fps) . . . . . . . . 4 . 69 VEL. HEAD (feet) . . . 0 . 34 AREA (square feet) . . . . 0 . 81 P + M (pounds) . . . . . 46 CRITICAL DEPTH 0 . 62 CRITICAL SLOPE . . . . . 0 . 0307 CRITICAL VELOCITY 3 . 79 FROUDE NUMBER . . . . . . 1 . 32 INVERT WIDTH (feet) . . . 1 . 00 MANNINGS n . . . . . . . . . . 035 SLOPE (feet/foot) . 0200 Q (cfs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .40 LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE SLOPE (X to 1) . . . . . . . . 1 . 00 SLOPE (X to 1) 1 . 00 DEPTH (feet) . . . . . . . . . . 0 .40 TOP WIDTH (feet) . . . 1 . 81 VELOCITY (fps) . . . . . . . . 2 .47 VEL. HEAD (feet) . . . 0 . 09 AREA (square feet) . . . . 0 . 57 P + M (pounds) . . . . . 13 CRITICAL DEPTH . . . . . . . . 0 . 35 CRITICAL SLOPE . . . . . 0 . 0335 CRITICAL VELOCITY . . . . . 2 . 97 FROUDE NUMBER . . . . . . 0 . 78 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � 011 P, y N N ti. 04 w° o0 00 It t� id Oo Oo 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o Cl Cl 0 0 aq Cn a a 'o ry C N M M V1 V�j• V7 l° l� t-: 000 OHO 000 OHO O cd 0 O O C C O O O C O O O C C O O •U O07 _ N U] Q o r- 00 w N to �O "0 �O U F^��Tyl N N M m *: W1 to "° -� t--: 00 OR 00 00 U) . C O O O O o O C C O O O O C O b � N to O N U W � O ,�/ �• O O V7 O O V1 O V1 c) O to c) O to OU V pry O V1 � 00 00 00 all O, ON i O o o � C/1 z M4. w -8 14 .9 W ti fn w 0 W y y vNi vi U U 'b fn 14 w V1 .-dr .� .Qi r'•� 0 0 w 0 H w 0 O 0 0 (, 0 0 o Q Q Q Q i 0 W W Q Q Q Q Q � a A 0 w q 0 U N .0 A u O N N 4 r-: N O 4" b id c� id N 'O iC id id .b u R 'd n b q b q q q P, C7 cc66 d d b d O b b C b ee a� a) L. U F CO v� v, v� fn in rn m •,: b U � ❑ U 0 CO) � o �a a Vow Cd L4 6Tn A A A w w o o U S o cd °= U O w t4 U y iv iv aqi a�i aoi i� z. C7 O_ O F C a vO�i ti ti b b �•! iO i�s•! c� iV S A d x rW cd b b R d FO J A b FJ b F td `"� ^y� p b .d LE 19 ' ' 'o b MU 0 > 0 0 0 a�i a�i °oo 0 0 0 0 °' o U U � V San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3 Date: June 2003 Page: 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land-use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3-2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (LM)) of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial Ti values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a detailed study. Table 3-2 MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (LM) & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Ti) Element* DU/ .5% 1% 2% 3% 5% 10% Acre LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM T; Natural 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.71 100 6.9 LDR 1 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4 LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 100 5.8 LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6 MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 1 100 5.3 MDR 7.3 50 9.2 65 8.4 80 1 7.4 95 1 7.0 100 6.0 100 4.8 MDR 10.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4.5 MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6.5 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4.3 HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 1 90 4.9 95 4.3 1 100 3.5 HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 N. Com 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 G. Com 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 100 2.4 O.P./Com 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 Limited I. 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 1 80 2.9 90 1 2.6 100 n19 General I. 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 *See Table 3-1 for more detailed description 3-12 EQUATtO N A E (1t.gla� .385 Feet _ 6000 Tc = Time of concentration(hours) L = Watercourse Distance(miles) 4400 Ar: = Change in eievation atong effective slope line(See Figure 3-5)(teet) 3000 Tc Hours.Minutes 2000 4 240 3 180 1000 800 2 120 Too 100 60�♦ So —400'�fl0♦♦ 80 ♦ 7© 300 ♦fie ♦ 50 200 `♦ 40 ♦ t. *`♦ Miles Feet � 30 100 4000 20 ♦ 48 A-1 o.s —16 ♦ 14 —40 2000 ♦♦ 12 1000 1600 ♦ 10 34) 1400 i# 1200 8 2#1 -1000 7 ® 600 8 700 600 10 540 4 400 3 V1 200 AE L Ic SOURCE:Califomia Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940) F I G U R E Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (Tc)or Travel Time(Tt)for Natural Watersheds 3-4 W a sanNIW NI WWI MOIA ONVlb3AO M N p LIO Q {{ U U � � m O {{ t- G � � - O O Z O LL E � R o u)cs °r In to 4ON °^ o u W c P C4 cn(' 6 °a o 1333 M 3ONb1SIO 3Sbf1OO831VM cr- ui u D 0 al i + fa ,a � s 7 tr A 7+ � ................. .......... ...................................... ............................ ............. MA WAW ...... ZZ wftWWWWMIWAWoWAAIAWkYJWWMWW A,WWAINMWW AN IMIMMOMMOMMISM =001 Iwo *00 Musa" momanamamso ow WIN CoIMM ilki � WMMWWMMOWArAWAW.IIW.ANW 0101010= C AMMINIM MAN lidMINWMW MIAWAMW AM M VA Now N W 1 of IWANNOM MINNOMMIMMM MMM MM M���AviWAFWAWM WJ M AM VAN MWA�PAIIIIIII 89880SUMMM In ilia I Ma now M ON�jFWWA rMAWAN IPA W M WA M rAW�A 1 11 112NNINEGO Now so= MAWMI nowMINOWA Orr NwwW ANN WON OWN NOWN momw INNOWN NNOW uw.� •Ava mftw�Am-owwo-W mot-01 Im0-owma rrW NwY low MMANO MM NOWN AMM ANEW ANINWAIMMAWA MINOW MINIONOWN 010,011MOM AWWWWAIN MINAMMAIMMINWAU'AM40FAMMANWA AWWAMMoW�oMW�XM�AW MINIMUM o"w"w" No am ,am oWMM$.MW~W~MWAMWAWM wW'o mwmm wmmwow ftmosM.-mow ,wIIwMwMMMw amf111 IMMIUMMOMM w—,Aw ISwkr 1O'f 11111111iW.MMWWINiOWJMWWWWWN111 M1 WA mWI WON mow NOMA VOMMIM ANUMPOW ft*.wwlt A.N m"mmm—no WOMM, MWIA MWA NEW.OWGMWA mown MOW.AXOMMOMMINNIONWWW. M no�a UNUMMOOMMM WWftMAWM AWIM YANVAN#IAWWJMMW�W MOMMANINOW.4 IWIWMWWWA WMANO mom" MMi�NIIANARNMAN uA*AWMMAWMMW MMrArWAPAWAJW�rAAWM ��MWA�MMM� IN Zvi R WA v =swim W A M 110 WAS ��amm m fill "loll I 11111111 Hills ll Ua M . i : ,9&49 V4 —Alp I 1 ••r f � � „t r •+ � i t .• r I ,06.91�L I 7._.•t , J . d • t f t I ell iI } k ttF i . ..1t� } .• r i a 1-4 - - - ^ I . .w. k.r. 4:sc� . I t I , .0 „k 1C$j s 1 . I h 96b; gn U z 0 .. ........ ......,. . _I. _. .. ................ .. ...._- ...... b f ICtEpen r • w • 1 nw.. f ! • { t I r' •:.... e.. . .. , • i : —0.1 � v ._ ...„ Y .�. �Ziz, io ti • � , , .. r :v ;��' ;�� by 'R swst �ti'i t . ' dF , }s r F , • I lE f I , , 4 L d , I o \ 0 s G� /o I X O � 0 O cri I+ D \\ � N o m -^ Z 3 \ o o (D n v j U) C14 ° O Q ° O \ ; Q ° ( c Q m - -° a- 13 (D Q_ (D 1 o c _ cD (D v, :3 m a x — � N S• �(Q �� �, cD _. (D O o -I �_ o c° cn co cm N ° O ° I (D y o 77 o A Q - z ° N' 0 Q ° ° Q ` Q —� (D :3 (D 0 � m = cT New ? ° o O' O , (D Q I? 1 CD (D \ O x N Q 3 (n Q (D 7 =� Q N Q (D Q_ O O. x (D Q Q O Q_ 3 S (A Q Q / (D 3 `G (D O O O \ N _ 33 QQ CD _ Q — Q �� (D 3-S O _. Q cQ (D (D O = \ Q CL Q Qi :3 (• Q Q O � CD (n Q 07 :T CD p Q_ � Q � Q Q D. f m v 00 N O r N D ( O _ \o 0 n n Q o p z I _m m o 0 c° CD Q —� o O y O (D Q N c _0 ° -� o Q_ � 1 o O ° n N Q O (D m —4 D N Q Q Q - z O Wv ^^m � � c�D � � X ') VI O � (D (D (D D M O ° NN m o 3 o ° o 3 c,w � C m G //Z CD O o VI CDC N � Z cn O /� CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS _ PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. (714) 220-0770 7370 OPPORTUNITY ROAD,SUITE"N",SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92111 FAX: (714) 220-9589 TELEPHONE: (619) 560-1713, FAX: (619) 560-0380 LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE (213) 325-7272 or 775-6771 FAX: (213) 325-8854 SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE (714) 730-2122 FAX:(714) 730-5191 Olivenhain Farms 2407 E1 Bosque Avenue Carlsbad, CA. 92009 October 18, 1991 Work Order 400361 Attention: Mr. Rick Day, Project Superintendent Subject: Project Grading Report for Oliven- hain Farms Project, Parcels 1 thru 4 , in the City of Encinitas, California Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Olivenhain Farms, Brookside Lane, City of Encinitas, CA. , dated February 28, 1990 by Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. (Job No. 90-16) Gentlemen: This project grading report presents geotechnical data and test- ing results pertaining to the completion of earthwork for parcels 1 through 4 of the Olivenhain Farms project, located in the City of Encinitas, California. Project grading operations were conducted during August, 1991 through October, 1991. Data developed during project grading is summarized in the text of this report, on the enclosed 40-scale grading plans prepared by Logan Engineering (sheet 2 of 3) , Table I and Table II. Work Order 400361 Page 2 October 18 , 1991 Also presented herein are the foundation and slab recommenda- tions based upon field and laboratory testing of as-graded conditions. All cuts, fills and processing of original ground covered by this report have been completed under our observation and/or accepted by this firm and are in compliance with the City of Encinitas grading code criteria. Completed work has been reviewed and is considered suitable for the construction now planned. All slopes are considered surfi- cially and grossly stable and should remain so under normal conditions. To reduce exposure to erosion, landscaping of all graded slopes should be accomplished as soon as possible as well as establishing and maintaining drainage berms and swales for long term slope protection. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 3 October 18, 1991 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic units encountered during the grading of the Olivenhain Farms project include artificial fill, Recent alluvium and colluvium, Pleistocene (?) terrace deposits and Jurassic metavolcanic bedrock. The as-built distribution of these units is shown on sheet 2 of 3 . The following is a brief description of the site geology. Artificial fill was encountered in numerous locations over the site, most notably as a backfill for the trunk sewer which is shown on sheet 2 of 3 . The fill materials were completely removed except for the trunk sewer backfill, prior to the placement of compacted fill . Locally derived alluvial and colluvial gravelly silts and sands blanketed the site. These materials were completely removed prior to the placement of compacted fill . Isolated, remnant terrace deposits were encountered on-site. These soils consisted of gravelly, clayey sands which were dense, moist and mottled reddish-orange, yellow, gray and brown. The weathered upper one and one-half to two and one-half feet were removed prior to the placement of artificial fill. Gray-green, hard, fractured metavolcanic rock assigned to the Santiago Peak Volcanics ultimately underlies the entire pro- ject. It directly underlies the fill areas as shown on sheet 2 of 3 . The upper two to three feet of weathered bedrock was removed prior to the placement of artificial fill. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 4 October 18 , 1991 Structure The terrace deposits were observed to be flat lying and unfaulted. The bedrock was observed to be highly fractured but otherwise massive. Subdrains Subdrains were not required during project grading due to the lack of canyons and deep canyon fills. Corrective Grading Corrective grading in the form of buttresses or stabilization fills were not necessary during project grading. Conclusions From an engineering geologic viewpoint, Parcels 1 through 4 of the Olivenhain Farms project are suitable for their intended use. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 5 October 18, 1991 SOIL ENGINEERING A. PROJECT GRADING 1. Compaction test results are presented in Table I and approxi- mate locations of tests are shown on the accompanying 40- scale grading plan by Logan Engineering (sheet 2 of 3) . 2 . Cleanouts to in-place bedrock, terrace deposit or previously placed trunk sewer backfill material was accomplished in all fill areas within the subject tract. Prior to the placement of compacted fill, the exposed natural surface was scarified, watered as necessary and compacted in-place so that it was suitable to receive fill. 3 . Fill consisting of the soil types indicated in Table I was then placed in thin lifts, watered as necessary and compact- ed in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM:D 1557) utilizing self-propelled, rubber- tired compactors and heavy earth moving equipment. Each fill lift was treated in a like manner. 4 . Fill placed on slope gradients steeper than 5-horizontal to 1-vertical was keyed and benched into bedrock, terrace deposit or previously placed backfill material . The upper soils were stripped and benched out on the shallower slopes in such a manner that all compacted fill is in contact with intact bedrock, terrace deposit or previously placed trunk sewer backfill material. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 6 October 18 , 1991 5. All removals, excavations, canyon cleanouts and processing in preparing fill areas were observed by this firm's representative prior to placement of any fill. Based on those observations, all fills are deemed to be supported by bedrock, terrace deposit and previously placed trunk sewer backfill material. 6. Compaction tests were taken for each one to two feet of fill placed. This maximum vertical depth of fill placed during project grading is on the order of 18 feet on building pad 1. The approximate maximum depth on each lot is summarized in Table II. 7 . The cut portion of transitional lots was overexcavated to a minimum depth of 36 inches and replaced as compacted fill as shown by the limits depicted on the grading plans. This occurred on building pads 1 through 4 . 8 . The fill slopes were built approximately on-grade during rough grading operations. Upon grading completion, the slopes were trimmed back to grade and compacted by track walking. Finish slope surfaces have been probed and/or tested and the slopes are considered to satisfy the project requirements and grading codes of the City of Encinitas. All slopes should be planted as soon as practical and maintained for proper growth. Landscaping and irrigation management are important elements in the long term performance of slopes. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 7 October 18, 1991 Cut slopes were examined by an engineering geologist and are considered grossly and surficially stable. B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the subject lots are scheduled for construction of single family dwelling units which will be constructed utilizing wood frame and slab-on-grade con- struction techniques. Conventional spread and continuous footings are to be utilized. C. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Material encountered in cut and utilized in compacted fill ranged from low to high in expansion potential. An evalua- tion of post-grading soil was conducted to classify material per ASTM:D 422 and to determine the expansion index per UBC Standard No. 29-2 . Results of that evaluation and the laboratory test data are presented in Table A. TABLE A Hydrometer Analysis Expansion Expansion Pad No. (%Sand, %Silt, %Clay) Index Potential 1 49 28 23 78 Medium 2 38 23 39 85 Medium 3 38 25 37 76 Medium 4 51 22 27 75 Medium PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 8 October 18 , 1991 1. Foundations may be designed based upon the following values: Allowable Bearing: 2000 lbs./sq. ft. Lateral Bearing: 250 lbs./sq. ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 100 lbs./sq. ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 2000 lbs./sq. ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0. 35 The above values may be increased as allowed by code to re- sist transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic. 2 . Footing and Slab-On-Grade Design MEDIUM EXPANSION POTENTIAL - BUILDING PADS 1 THRU 4 Footing Depth (Minimum) Exterior and Interior One Story - 12 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Two Story - 18 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade. Footing Reinforcement: All continuous; four No. 4 rebars, two on top and two on bottom OR two No.5 rebars, one on top, one on bottom. Slab Reinforcement: Living Areas 611 x 611 , No. 6 by No. 6 welded wire mesh OR equivalent. Subgrade Moisture: Minimum of optimum plus 5 percent by dry weight at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete. Continuous footing shall have a minimum width of 12 inches. All slabs shall have a thickness of four inches. If ex- terior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within three feet horizontally of the Swale, the footing PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 9 October 18, 1991 should be embedded sufficiently to assure minimum embedment below swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slope should be embedded sufficiently that at least five feet is provided horizontally from the bottom edge of footing to the face of slope. 3 . Under-Slab Requirements A 10-mil polyvinyl membrane (minimum) should be placed below all slabs-on-grade within living areas. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of two inches of clean sand to protect it and to aid in curing of the concrete. It should also be underlain with four inches of clean sand or crushed rock for a capillary rise break. 4 . Garages/Carports a) All garage slabs shall have a minimum thickness of four inches. These slabs should contain control joints at approximate 10 foot spacing. b) Footing embedment and reinforcement shall be as recommended for the structure in paragraph C-2. 5. Retaining Wall Design Retaining walls or other structural walls should be designed with the following: a) Cantilevered retaining walls with a level backfill should be designed with an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 lbs./cu. ft. Retaining walls with 2-horizontal to 1-vertical slope superjacent to them should utilize an equivalent fluid pressure of 43 lbs./cu. ft. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 10 October 18, 1991 b) Restrained walls with at rest pressure should utilize 50 lbs./cu. ft. in design. C) Foundations for retaining walls may be designed in accordance with recommendations of paragraph C-1. d) Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining materials (S E > 30) to within 18 inches of grade and compacted to project specifications. Native soils shall be utilized in the upper 18 inches. Drainage systems should be provided to all walls for relieving hydrostatic pressure. e) All footing excavations for retaining walls should be inspected by the project soil engineer or his repre- sentative. 6. Exterior Slabs and Walkways a) It is suggested that the subgrade below sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture prior to concrete placement. b) Weakened plane joints should be provided for walkways at approximately eight to ten foot intervals. Other exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrink- age of the concrete. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 11 October 18, 1991 D. OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 1. Positive drainage away from structures shall be provided and maintained. 2 . Utility trench backfill shall be accomplished in accordance with the prevailing criteria of the City of Encinitas. 3 . Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code requirements. 4 . Chemical analysis testing has been conducted on selected samples of on-site soils. Laboratory tests indicate the on-site soils show no appreciable amounts of soluble sulfates and the use of sulfate resistant concrete is not required. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 Page 12 October 18 , 1991 This report presents information and data relative to the mass grading and placement of compacted fill at the subject site. A representative of this firm conducted periodic tests and ob- served during the progress of the construction in an effort to determine whether compliance with the project drawings, speci- fications and Building Code were being obtained. The presence of our personnel during the work process did not involve any direct supervision and technical advice and suggestions were pro- vided to the owner and/or his designated representative based upon the results of the tests and observations. Completed work under the purview of this report is considered suitable for the intended use. Conditions of the reference report remain applicable unless specifically superceded herein. Respectfully submitted, PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. By: SOO,7 By DOUGT4CS DUNHAM, R.C.E. REX P.KETTER,R.C.E. 15251/G.E.461 47238, Civil Engineer Chief Executive Officer �ypfESS�O Registration Exp: 12-31-91 KErr �,�� Reviewed by; p No.461 I Exp.3-31-93 DAVID A. MURPH , JOH HANSON, C.E.G.990 Staff Geologist Vice President Dist: (6) Addressee <</ �C�� J'p "J► (2) Logan Engineering, Attn: Mr. Doug Logan `Z No 990 y CERTED ©Rem RSSIOA ; DD/RPK/DAM/JAH:kr/0 0 01 `cap` ,S PLAN,'G F'L�, 'AqJ QZ` , �s T, FOF C L�J A`��O °c� 47238 E Exp.ig31/g1 s� CNIL ��Q 9TFOF Cp1�F0� PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERIAIG, INC. Work Order 400361 October 18 , 1991 TABLE I SOIL TYPE Laboratory Maximum Density per ASTM:D 1557 (All Soil Types) . Opt. Maximum Moist. Dry Density Soil Type and Classification % (lbs./cu. ft. ) A - Red/Brown Clayey Silt 10. 8 126. 8 B - Red/Brown Clay 13 . 1 119. 0 C - Brown Sandy Clay 15. 0 116. 5 D - Tan/Red Clay 14 . 1 118 . 0 E - Red/Tan Silty Sand 11. 7 124 . 7 LEGEND Non-Designated Test - Test in compacted fill. Test Location - See enclosed grading plan (sheet 2 of 3) . Elevation - Approximate field elevation (feet) . R1,R2 , etc. - Indicates retest (s) of previously failing compaction test(s) . * - Indicates laboratory maximum density adjusted upwards for plus No. 4 rock content of compaction test. TEST TYPE All tests by Campbell Pacific Nuclear Test Gauge (per ASTM: D 2922) ; unless otherwise noted by: SC - Indicates test by Sand Cone Method (per ASTM:D 1556. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 October 18, 1991 TABLE I Date Test Test Elev. Moist.Cont. Dry Density Relative Soil Test of Test No Location (Ft. ) % (Field) (lbs /cu ft. ) % Comp. Type Type 9-3-91 101 See Plan 104 . 0 21. 6 106.9 91 D 9-4-91 102 See Plan 106. 0 15. 9 107. 4 91 D 103 " 108 . 5 16. 0 112 . 6 95 B 104 if 110. 5 17 .7 106.8 92 C Sc 105 If 112 . 5 18 .9 105.7 90 D 9-6-91 106 See Plan 114 . 0 20. 8 106. 6 90 D 107 " 116. 0 19 .7 107 . 1 91 D Sc 9-10-91 108 See Plan 174 . 0 15. 2 108. 6 91 B 109 " 117 . 0 17 . 4 112 .9 93 B* 110 " 117 . 0 16. 3 115. 1 91 A 111 " 117 . 5 17 . 1 111. 0 91 B* 112 " 176 . 0 14 . 6 107 . 5 91 D 113 " 178 . 0 18 . 7 104 . 6 90 C 9-11-91 114 See Plan 180 . 5 20. 3 106. 8 91 D 115 " 182 . 5 17 . 6 107. 5 90 B SC 116 of 184 . 5 16. 5 108. 3 91 B 9-12-91 117 See Plan 152 . 0 16. 1 118. 3 90 A* 118 It 155. 0 14 .9 112 . 8 92 B* 119 " 187 . 0 12 . 5 126.8 91 E* 120 " 189 . 0 18. 8 105. 1 90 C SC 121 " 194 . 0 15.9 108. 1 91 B 9-13-91 122 See Plan 196. 0 15. 3 110. 91 B* 123 " 155. 5 14 . 8 107.4 4 90 B 124 It 15. 9 111.7 90 E Sc 125 " 193 . 0 18. 6 110. 0 92 B PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 October 18, 1991 TABLE I cont. Date Test Test Elev. Moist.Cont. Dry Density Relative Soil Test of Test No Location (Ft. ) % (Field) (lbs /cu ft. ) Comp. Type Type 9-16-91 126 See Plan 157 . 0 15.0 116. 0 90 127 " 187 . 0 16.9 109 . 1 92 B B Sc 128 " 160. 0 16.8 106. 8 90 B 9-17-91 129 See Plan 160. 0 18 .4 105. 3 90 C Sc 130 " 161. 0 15. 3 109. 9 91 C* 131 " 164 . 0 18.3 109 . 0 90 C* 9-18-91 132 See Plan 118 . 0 17 .8 111. 6 90 C* 133 " 115. 0 14 . 5 112 . 3 91 C* 9-19-91 134 See Plan 87 . 0 18 . 0 116. 6 90 A* 135 if 13 .9 116 . 0 91 E* 136 " 90. 5 12 .7 115.7 90 A* 137 it 118 . 0 17 .9 109 . 6 92 B Sc 9-20-91 138 See Plan 93 . 0 14 . 5 110. 2 93 B Sc 139 to 15 . 2 110.9 93 B 140 11 200 . 0 17 . 3 113 . 4 91 B* 141 it 97 . 0 14 .2 108 . 2 91 B 142 " 96. 0 15.2 108 . 4 90 C* 9-23-91 143 See Plan 157 . 0 14 . 6 106. 6 90 B Sc 144 " 99 . 0 16. 0 104 .4 90 C 145 " 101. 0 13 .9 100 . 6 85 B 145R1 " 101. 0 14 . 1 105. 1 88 B 9-24-91 145R2 See Plan 101. 0 12 . 3 110. 6 93 B Sc 146 " 115. 5 13 .9 112 . 0 90 E PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 October 18, 1991 TABLE I cont. Date Test Test Elev. Moist.Cont. Dry Density Relative Soil Test of Test No Location -(Ft. ) % (Field) (lbs./cu. ft. ) % Comp. Type Type 9-25-91 147 See Plan 165. 5 19 . 3 111.2 90 C* 148 if 169 . 0 20. 0 101.7 86 D SC 9-26-91 148R1 See Plan 169 . 0 16.2 111. 9 90 E 149 if 118 .5 17.9 113 . 4 91 C* 9-27-91 150 See Plan 168 . 0 14 .2 116. 3 90 E* 151 if 189 . 5 12 . 8 110. 0 92 B Sc 152 if 206. 0 13 . 9 111. 9 90 E 153 If 90. 5 11. 0 114 .4 90 A 154 if 92 . 0 10. 6 114 .8 91 A 9-30-91 155 See Plan 144 . 0 12 .7 115. 3 91 A Sc 156 " 205. 0 13 .9 117 .3 91 E* 157 " 93 . 0 10. 3 122 . 1 96 A 158 " 95. 5 14 . 8 114 . 6 90 A Sc 10-2-91 159 See Plan 118 . 5 14 . 0 111.7 94 B PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 400361 October 18 , 1991 TABLE II DEPTH OF FILL Pad No. Approx.Depth of Fill (ft. ) 1 18. 0 - cap 2 12 . 5 - cap 3 16. 0 - cap 4 14 . 0 - cap PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OLIVENHAIN FARMS BROOKSIDE LANE ENCINITAS , CALIFORNIA JOB NO. 90-16 FEBRUARY 28 , 1990 WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 423 HALE AVENUE PHONE 746-3553 ESCONDIDO. CALIFORNIA 92025 AREA CODE 619 February 28 , 1990 Olivenhain Farms 786 Poinsettia Park North Leucadia , California 92024 Attention: Richard Day Project : Job No . 90-16 Olivenhain Farms Brookside Lane Encinitas , California Subject : Report of Geotechnical Investigation Mr. Day : in accordance with your request , we have completed a geotechnicai investigation for the proposed project . We are presenting to you, herewith, our findings and recommendations for the development of this site . The findings of this study indicate that this site is suitable for the proposed development provided that the special preparations and foundation recommendations presented in the attached report are complied with. If you have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report , please do not hesitate to contact this office . This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted , WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC . Vince Gaby , S ff Geologist Dennis E. Timmerman CE 26676 GE 928 VG/DEZ :pl Attachments Distribution: ( 4) Addressee GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OLIVENHAIN FARMS BROOKSIDE LANE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For : OLIVENHAIN FARMS 786 POINSETTIA PARK NORTH LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA 92024 JOB NO. 90-16 FEBRUARY 28 , 1990 WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Project Description 1 Project Scope 2 Findings 3 Site Description 3 Subsurface Conditions 4 Groundwater 6 Geologic Hazards 6 Recommendations and Conclusions 7 Site Preparation 7 Existing Soil 7 Expansive Soil 7 Imported Fill 8 Surface Drainage 8 Earthwork 8 Cut and Fill Slopes 9 Rippability 10 Foundations 10 General 10 Transition Areas 12 Lateral Resistance 12 Retaining Walls 13 Footing Observations 14 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement 14 Field Explorations 14 Laboratory Testing 15 Plan Review 15 Limitations 16 ATTACHMENTS Plate Number 1 Site Plan Plate Number 2 Unified Soil Classification Chart Plate Numbers 3 through 9 Trench Logs Plate Number 10 & 11 Laboratory Test Results Plate Number 12 Table I Plate Number 13 Fill Slope Key APPENDIX I Specifications for Construction of Controlled Fills APPENDIX II References Cited WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OLIVENHAIN FARMS BROOKSIDE LANE ENCINITAS , CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation performed on the above referenced site . The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the existing surface and subsurface conditions from a geotechnical perspective in order to provide recommendations for your proposed development . The proposed project is a 4 lot residential subdivision as submitted by you in preliminary form on the grading/site plan included as part of and shown on Plate 1 of this report . In addition to the 4 house pads , a private road extending off of Brookside Lane will be constructed. The maximum artificial fills will be on the order of 15 feet in depth while the deepest cuts in naturally occurring materials will be approximately 12 feet . Detailed building plans were not available at the time of our investigation. However , it is our understanding that the proposed structures will be wood-framed, one or two story, single family dwellings . Foundations will be slabs-on-grade with continuous footings . Significant portions of Parcels/Lots 1 , 2 , 3 and the majority of Parcel/Lot 4 will remain undeveloped. This report addresses only those areas of the project designated for WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 2 development as we understand it . Should any future development deviate significantly from our understanding of the project as described above , we should be consulted for further recommendations . The site configuration and exploratory trench locations are shown on Plate No . 1 . PROJECT SCOPE This investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance , subsurface exploration, the obtaining of representative surface & subsurface samples , laboratory testing of these samples , an analysis of the field and laboratory data collected and the preparation of this report . Specifically , the intent of this analysis was to : a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths that could be influenced by the proposed construction, b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests , the pertinent engineering properties of the various soil and rock stratigraphic units which could influence the development of this land, including bearing capacities , expansive characteristics and settlement potential , c) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading , WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 3 d) Determine potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems , e) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for foundation design . FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION : The property site is located approximately 150 to 200 feet east and north of the eastern most portion of Brookside Lane in the City of Encinitas , California . It can be found near the center of grid E-4 , page 25 , of the Thomas Brothers Guide for San Diego County . The boundaries of the property are irregular in configuration and encompass 15 . 2 acres . The site is bordered to the west by horse stables and a residential subdivision presently under construction. Older single family dwellings abut the northern boundary . Open undeveloped land occurs to the east and south. The property is situated on a westerly facing hillside . The terrain is steeply to moderately inclined and falls toward a tributary drainage of the Escondido Creek. The northwestern section of the site lies within the narrow alluvial basin of this tributary drainage. Elevations vary from 300+ feet above mean sea level (M. S . L . ) at the highest point along the eastern property line to 86+ feet (M. S. L . ) in the creek bed . At the time of our investigation, the on-site vegetation WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 4 consisted mainly of wild grasses and indigenous scrub brush. Several mature trees were seen to grow along the creek bed. With the exception of the Escondido sewer outfall and overhead utility lines , no improvements were observed on the site . SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS: The project site is underlain by metamorphic rock of the Jurrasic age Santiago Peak Volcanics . This crystalline bedrock material is mantled by residual breccia, clayey to sandy conglomerate and colluvium. Each of these is described below from oldest to youngest . Santiago Peak Volcanics : Locally, the crystalline bedrock occurs as dark green to dark greenish-blue metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rock . These have been named by Larsen ( 1948) as the Santiago Peak Volcanics . They are somewhat weathered and fractured near the surface but become very dense and resistant with depth. The meta-volcanic rocks display small weathered prismatic phenocrysts set in a highly silicified ground mass matrix . Also present are volcanic agglomerates with lithic fragments . The metasedimentary rocks typically consist of fine grained hornfels and very fine grained argillites . Residual Breccia: The highly fractured metamorphic bedrock present near the surface tends to weather to a clayey silty breccia . Within the project area, this breccia forms a WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 5 moderately thick residual soil . It varies from dark brown to reddish-brown gravelly silt to mottled red and gray clayey and sandy siltstone. It generally is stiff to hard and very moist . It grades with depth into the fractured bedrock of the Santiago Peak Volcanics . Conglomerate : Overlying the breccia occurs a matrix supported conglomerate composed of angular to subangular clasts of dark green metamorphic rock . The matrix material consists of clayey medium to coarse sand. it is typically well indurated and very moist . Eisenberg (1983) and Tan ( 1986) each mapped sediments belonging to the Cretaceous age Lusardi Formation as occurring across the tributary creek which bisects the northeastern edge of the property . It is probable that the conglomerate present on site represents remnants of the Lusardi Formation. Present above the conglomerate beds occur yellowish- brown slightly sandy clayey silt . These sediments are highly expansive (Plate Number 11) but moderately to well indurated. These deposits may be associated with the sandstone and siltstone beds which occur in the Lusardi Formation (Kennedy, 1975) . Colluvium: The bedrock and formational units are mantled by colluvial soils which vary from 2 to 5 feet in thickness . On the surface these are composed of dark brown sandy silt WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 6 with sporadically occurring pebble . This sandy silt is underlain by brown sandy clay to very clayey silt . Both are poorly consolidated and high in moisture content . Samples of the clayey colluvium were returned to our laboratory to determine their expansion potential . Test results (Plate Number 11) indicated these samples to have a high expansion potential . GROUNDWATER: Free groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory trenches . However , fluctuations in the level and flow of groundwater will occur in this area (especially in the low lying areas along the creek) depending on annual precipitation . GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: No evidence suggesting the presence of geologic hazards that would preclude the development of this proposed project were observed in our exploratory trenches . There did occur near surface soil and sedimentary layers which possess poor strength characteristics and expansive tendencies . Recommendations concerning these conditions are presented in the following sections of this report . During the grading operation, the Soil Engineer from our firm must inspect the site for adverse geologic conditions . WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS SITE PREPARATION EXISTING SOIL : We recommend that any existing fill , topsoil , colluvium, and low density soil be removed to firm natural ground from beneath any proposed fill pad areas in their entirety (including yard areas ) , asphalt pavements , concrete pavements , slabs , driveways or sidewalks so that structures will be supported on firm material . This soil may be replaced, if desired, as a controlled fill densified to at least 90% relative compaction . All deleterious materials and oversized debris encountered in this fill must be removed and legally disposed of off-site . Based on the findings of this study , the depth of removal will ranae from 2 . 5 to 5 . 5 feet . Table I of this report presents anticipated removal depths in the area of our exploratory trenches . If groundwater is encountered during the removal and recomUaction of the soil or difficulty is encountered in achieving a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, then this office shall be consulted for further recommendations . EXPANSIVE SOIL : Expansive soils (expansion index of 51 or greater) were encountered (Plate Number 11) in our subsurface exploration. These expansive materials included the clay colluvial soil and the yellowish-brown clayey silt observed in WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 8 our exloratory trenches . These and any other expansive material encountered should be kept at least 3 feet below the proposed finish subgrade . In addition, expansive soil occurring on cut portions of building pads within three feet of finish subgrad e should be completely removed and replaced with granular non- expansive soil . A limited amount of granular non-expansive soil material may be available in the weathered and fractured metamorphic bedrock . A mechanical sieve analysis performed on material retrieved from exploratory trench T-1 at a depth of 5 . 0 feet indicates that the weathered bedrock material will remold to a moderately graded gravelly soil . Expansion index tests should be performed during the grading operations to further evaluate the extent of expansive and non-expansive soil . IMPORTED FILL : Imported fill , if required at this site, should be examined by our office to determine their suitability prior to importing these materials . SURFACE DRAINAGE: Surface drainage should be directed away from structures . The ponding of water or saturation of soils can not be allowed adjacent to any of the foundations . EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Specifications for Construction of Controlled Fills . WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 9 All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Specifications for Construction of Controlled Fills . Ali embankments , structural fill , and fill should be compacted to a minimum of 900 . All utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 900 of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with A. S . T .M. Test Method D1557-78 . Prior to commencement of the brushing operation, a pregrading meeting should be held at the site. The Developer , Surveyor , Grading Contractor , and Soil Engineer should attend. Our firm should be given at least 48 hours notice of the meeting time and date . CUT AND FILL SLOPES : We recommend that cut and fill slopes be constructed with a slope ratio of 2 . 0 : 1 . 0 (horizontal : vertical ) or flatter , to a maximum height of 20 feet . Cut slopes shall be constructed in dense natural soil or rock material . They should be inspected for adverse geologic conditions during the grading operation by a representative of our firm. Fill slopes shall be keyed into dense natural ground. The key should be a minimum of 2 feet deep at the toe of slope and fall with 5% grade toward the interior of the proposed fill areas (Plate Number 13) . All keys must be inspected by the Soil Engineer or his WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. L0 representative in the field. Slopes should be planted as soon as feasible after grading . Slope erosion including sloughing, rilling, and slumping of surficial soils may be anticipated if the slopes are left unplanted for a long period of time, especially during rainy seasons . Erosion control and drainage devices should be installed in compliance with the requirements of the controlling agencies . RIPPABILITY: In general , the materials encountered in our exploratory trenches were rippable by conventional means to the depths investigated . These depths ranged from 6 to 12 feet . However , difficulty in excavation was experienced in exploratory trench T-5 (Plate Number 7 ) . This occurred in very dense resistant bedrock . In addition, several outcroppings of metamorphic rock were observed at localized areas of the site . It is recommended that a Seismic Refraction Analysis be performed if a more definitive evaluation of site rippability is desired. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL : Structures should be supported on continuous or spread footings bearing in competent undisturbed or on-site soil material recompacted in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report . Footings should be designed with the WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 11 minimum dimensions and allowable dead plus live load bearing values given in the table below . CONTINUOUS__FOOTING_PARAMETER.S Minimum Minimum Allowable Soil Number of Depth Width Bearing Value Stories - - (inc-hes) _ (inches) - 1 12 12 2000 2 lg 15 2500 The minimum depth given shall be below finish subgrade (bottom of sand cushion) . All continuous footings should contain at least one #4 reinforcing bar top and bottom to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities . The soil load bearing values presented above may be increased by one-third for short term loads , including wind or seismic . Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed structures . Concrete slabs-on-grade may be supported on compacted on-site soil or dense natural ground . Four inches of clean washed concrete sand should be placed beneath the slab for curing . Slab reinforcing should be provided in accordance with the anticipated use of and loadings on the slab. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be utilized and in other areas where floor dampness would be undesirable, we recommend consideration be given to providing an WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. ..- .. .. .... 12 impermeable membrane beneath the slabs . The membrane should be placed mid-height within the sand to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete . Care should be taken not to puncture the visqueen. All joints ( laps ) in the visqueen should be a minimum of 6 inches in width and sealed with an approved sealer. TRANSITION AREAS : Foundations supported partially on cut and partially on fill are not recommended. The tendency of cut and fill soils to compress differently can frequently result in unequal structural support and subsequent cracking to portions of the structure . Therefore , in transition areas , we recommend that the entire cut area be overexcavated and replaced with soils compacted to a minimum of 900 . This overexcavation or undercutting should be carried to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the deepest proposed footing . LATERAL RESISTANCE: Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by friction at the base of the footing and by passive pressure against the adjacent soil . For concrete footings in compacted or dense natural soil , a coefficient of friction of 0 . 35 may be used . An allowable passive uniform pressure of 225 pounds per square foot acting against the foundations may be used in design. If footings are proposed adjacent to slope areas , we recommend that the footings be deepened to provide a minimum horizontal distance from the outer edge of footings to the WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 13 adjacent slope face equal to one-half the height of the slope . This horizontal distance should be no less than 6 feet and no more than 10 feet . RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharge loads . We recommend unrestrained walls be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf ) where backfill is level . We recommend restrained walls be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pcf plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of 6H pounds per square foot where H = the height in feet of backfill above the top of the wall footing . Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads , they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated surcharge pressure in case of unrestrained walls , and one-half the anticipated surcharge in the case of restraining walls . The preceding design pressures assume there is sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of weep holes with permeable material installed behind the walls or by means of a system of subdrains . Expansive soils (greater than 3 . 0 percent swell or an expansive index of 30) shall not be used as retaining wall backfill material . Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 14 minimum degree of compaction of 90% using light compaction equipment . If heavy equipment is used, the wall shall be appropriately temporarily braced during the compaction process . FOOTING OBSERVATIONS : All footing excavations shall be inspected by the Soil Engineer prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete . ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT : The asphaltic concrete pavement section should be designed by our office . During the earthwork operations , we should sample the subgrade soil material. , perform R-Value tests and design the pavement section accordingly . Street and parking areas should be prepared prior to receiving any base material . The subgrade soil shall be ripped a minimum of 6 inches , brought to near optimum moisture , and compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction or to the compaction requirements of the local governing agency , whichever is greater . FIELD EXPLORATIONS Seven subsurface explorations were made on February 7 , 1990 at the locations indicated on Plate Number 1 . These explorations consisted of trenches excavated by a Kubota Kh-191L trackhoe. The trenches were each logged using standard geological techniques when made. The field work was conducted by our WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 15 geology and soil engineering personnel . The logs are presented on Plate Numbers 3 through 9 . The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart (Plate Number 2 ) . In addition, a verbal textural description , the wet color , the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are presented. The density of granular material is given as either very loose , loose, medium dense , dense or very dense . The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft , soft , medium stiff , stiff , very stiff or hard. Samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to our laboratory for testing . LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (A. S .T.M. ) test methods or suggested procedures . Test results are shown on Plate Numbers 10 and 11 . PLAN REVIEW Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc . should review the grading plans prior to the start of grading . WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 16 LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications . The soil engineer should review and verify the compliance of the final plans with this report and with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc . be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations . This is to observe compliance with the design concepts , specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering , Inc . will not be held responsible for earthwork of any kind Performed without our observation, inspection and testing. The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas . Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 17 development should be brought to the attention of the soil engineer so that he may make modifications , if necessary . This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope so that it may be determined if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate . This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date . Changes in the condition of a property can, however , occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties . In addition, changes in the State-of-the-Art and/or Government Codes may occur . Due to such changes , the findings of the report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control . Therefore , this report should not be relied upon after a period of one year without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations . We will be responsible for our data, interpretations , and recommendations , but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed . Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only , and no warranty of any kind whatsoever , expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us , or by our proposal for consulting or other services , or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings . It is the responsibility of the Client or the Client ' s WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. 18 representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project ' s plans and specifications . It is further his responsibility to take the necessary measures to ensure that the contractor and. his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. Respectfully submitted, WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. Of ESS/ Vince Gaby , Staff Geologist \S E- Z''lyJyy��� o Na 928 Dennis E . Zimmerman CE 26676 GE 928 VG/DEZ : pl FOF CAIiFQ� WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. ATTACHMENTS WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. SITE PLAN ( In Back Pocket) WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. IUBSURFACE EXPLORATION IJ== UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION GIST SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES I. COARSE GRAIDTBD, More than half of material is lam rger than No. 200 sieve size. GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded grads: More than half of sand mixtures, little or no coarse fraction is fines. larger than No. 4 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel- sieve size but sand mixtures, little or no smaller than 3" fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded (Appreciable amount gravel-sand-silt mixtures. of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand, clay mixtures. SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly More than half of sands, little or no fines. coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly smaller than No. 4 sands, little or no fines. sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES SN Silty sands, poorly graded (Appreciable amount Rand and silt mixtures. of fines) SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. II. FINE GRAINED, More than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size. SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clayey-silt-sand mixtures with slight plast- icity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to less than 50 medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silty and organic silty clays of low plasticity SILTY AND CLAYS NH Inorganic siltys, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of higb greater than 50 plasticity, fat OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. D7 AIM IVTLMVD n F- W 0 TRENCH NUMBER T-1 W F- U W o-° W o W a ELEVATION 214± W —��' w w w Z - 0 W J U CC F- W U !- W W G �- J N SAMPLING as O a Z ° 0 z W a a 2 N METHOD Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe a Q 0 2 0 W N J U U O G DESCRIPTION Brown Sandy Clay Satu Soft _ grades to ra to _ 1- B - CH ted Medium Gravelly Clay Stiff - (Colluvium) 2 0 ° - Dark Red Very Gravelly Silt Very Stiff ML- -0 Moist 3_ �,_ (Residuum) - �' grades to - 4 ��00° Dark Olive-Green Fractured Meta- Moist Dense �,° morphosed Volcanic Rock, Well Weathered - �p - 5- B � (Excavates into Gravelly Silt) _ GM - (gyp v 6 grades to >11-7' - 7— i„ v 11 J 8 � `� ^ Dark Green Silty Fractured Metamorphosed Moist Hard isp^ Volcanic Rock " n - 9 A ` (Santiago Peak Volcanics) ^ � L 10 Bottom of Trench 11- 12- B = Bulk Sample 13 C = Chunk Sample - 14- 15 1!90-16 NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY OLIVENHAIN FARMS 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 3 F- W O TRENCH NUMBER T-2 H W o w w I} a ELEVATION 165± N � z D z z � -- = - 0 J V W W W Z Z O W W U F- }' z J O �-` SAMPLING . cn a N ° n - H J v f- a (n cn Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe a 0 a. cn O Z W a w Q a METHOD a g a 0 cr 2 0 cr 2 A J DESCRIPTION 0 ° 0 0 _ - Dark Brown Sandy Silt Very Loose 1_ "-_. Moist _ B SM (Colluvium) 100.3 16.7 79.6._ 2 Brown Slightly Sandy Clay with Some S Soft Angular Gravel ra to _ ted Medium 3- B _CH Stiff (Colluvium) 98.8 20.5 84.8 4 Yellowish-Brown Sandy Clayey Silt Sat Stiff - -_= ur 5- -- - grades to at _ 6 C = Brownish-Yellow with Gray Mottling Very Very 116.2 12.9 - Sandy Silt Moist Stiff _ 7- _ - (Lusardi(?) Formation) 8 � Brownish-Yellow Very Cobbly Silt with Very Hard - o Angular Clasts of Pink Meta-Volcanic Moist but _ AGM Rock Fractured 9 (Residual Breccia) 0 10- Bottom of Trench 11- - 12- - 13 - 14- - 15 - JOB NUMBER OLIVENHAIN FARMS DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 90-16 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 4 f- W o TRENCH NUMBER T-3 F W o W W W - � -- > z a ELEVATION 198± N50°W —� z z z z J U c � W z O U = W O " SAMPLING a N a. ( ° °' - s ~ 0- (n ai METHOD Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe a. O n. z } p z w a W a a a 2 ao 2 0 A J DESCRIPTION �' o o a Dark Brown Gravelly Sandy Silt Very Loose -ML - o_ (Colluvium) Moist 1- - Brown Slightly Sandy Clay with Sa Soft - Occasional Angular Pebble bra� to _ 2 Medium - N Stiff CH_ - (Colluvium) _ 4- _ Yellowish-Brown Sandy Clayey Silt Sam Medium - at Stiff 5- grades to ed to - - Stiff MH to - 6 B _- Brownish-Yellow with Gray Mottling Very _ -= Moist Very Sandy Silt (Lusardi(?) Formation) o�o Very Stiff 1 - Dark Brown Gravelly Sandy Silt, Moist - 8 '5 Angular Clasts of Meta-Volcanic Rock Q a- -v - ML- - -no 9 C Q o0 113.2 13.4 D 6,0 _ 10- Ond o mop o (Residual Breccia) 11- D-0 Bottom of Trench 12- 13 14- - 15 JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 90-16 OLIVENHAIN FARMS 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 5 z t- a. o TRENCH NUMBER T-4 W f v W o W w a ELEVATION 177± N25°W z z z W .: = - z o F- — O LL W J V Cr a W U !- W a SAMPLING a - a - n f J Q ~ a. U) � METHOD Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe a. O o. z p z W n. w a a a � ao cc o � 2 p N J U 0 U O DESCRIPTION GM o j�a Existing 1 = rk Br Ground - _ GC- own Cobb Surface _ 2 Dark Oan 1y r Sand - Yell 81 SM y S11 t - 0 o Orange Clayey, r°wn C - 3- GC• Cobbly Medi gun to °b (C Coarse Sand, Angular to bb Q o11v� - Subrounded Clasts of Dark Qy Z'147 Wet - 4 Green Metamorphic Rock (Lusardi(i (Co. 1 v v1 S o f t 5- _= Mottled Red and Pale Gray rated Soft - _ Fractured Siltstone Highly Weathered 6 in Upper 12-18 Inches grades to Very 7- Moist Very - Olive Brown Sandy Gravelly Siltstone Stiff 8_ C -.- to 120.6 14.3 (Residual Breccia) Hard - 9 = - -p Very - _- - Hard 10- Difficult Excavating at 10 to 12 Feet - 12 - Bottom of Trench 13- - 14- 15 - JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 90-16 OLIVENHAIN FARMS 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 6 �- a 0 TRENCH NUMBER T-5 �_ U } oo w W w w W Q ELEVATION 162± N25°W > z a Z z cn ^ a - z U_ w 0 w w Z U_ 1- - O -- w - a Cr N w f- w Q �- aa.. cn u S A M PL I N G Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe n N (L cn o n Z w a cn METHOD a 0 a Z O z a W a a a2 a0 a 0 a � A N J DESCRIPTION U U ov Q. - -M1- Dark Existing - 1 Drown Sand Ground Surface _ Y Silt w1 2 _ - Brown Sandy h S - _CH= Clay PoradZ - Cgrades to cO11uV1aC°bble _ MH= Clayey Silt Wet 4 Bros Loose - _ - n Sandy (Colluvium) �� Sz Sa Medium 5- `7 Dark 1� rae Stiff = �'Jsp Greenish- Bluish- (P < a 6 Blue Gray Sandy eOSO - etamorphic Siltstone 1�') _ — Rock, Weathered very 7 ractured Metamorphic - (Senti Rock Ver soft �a8o y Peak Vol oist Stiff 8 1canlcs Near Refusal at 6 to 9 ) Moist Very Feet Hard 9 10- 11- 12- 13 14- - 15 JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 90-16 OLIVENHAIN FARMS 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 7 i F- a 0 TRENCH NUMBER T-6 ~ W ►- w ; w W - W a ELEVATION 108± N550W —� z cr z z N j - 0 LL U W W W W J — Cr (r 1- W V z C SAMPLING a Ln a W 0 a. W W J v CL CL N METHOp Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe a 0 n, z } 0 z W a W a a a 2 a 0 � 2 0 X 2 A 0 DESCRIPTION o U ov Dark Brown Sandy Silt Wet Soft _ 1- - ML:' (Colluvium) 2 Brown Sandy Clay with Sporadically Sat Soft - e o Occurring Angular Pebble ura to _ ted Medium 3_ CH Stiff - (Colluvium) _ 4 - C - Dark Yellowish-Brown Slightly Sandy Sa Medium 109.3 14.6 - 5_ - -- Clayey Silt tura Stiff to (Lusardi(?) Formation) Stiff - 6 :o-:o 6 ois• Dark Orangish-Red with Gray Mottling Very Dense - ° ° Clayey, Silty, Very Cobbly Medium to Moist 7- >o _ o Coarse Sand Matrix Supported Clasts :GM of Dark Blue Green Metasedimentary to - and Gray Meta-Volcanic Rock Very _ 8 ;;n Dense _ e_3 D - :°o°%; (Lusardi(?) Formation) 9 Bottom of Trench 10- - 11- - 12- - 13 14- - 15 - JOB NUMBER OLIVENHAIN Farms DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 90-16 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 8 �- W 0 TRENCH NUMBER T-7 F Q W o W W a ELEVATION 95± N25°E z z z -- Z U U W J W W Z li F- — O_ ` W J � F- � ~ W U Z G F_ _ -j 0 �-` SAMPLING Q cn a ° a w v ~ cn METHOD Kubota Kh-191L Trackhoe a 0 CL a. Z } 0 z W a W a a aM a0 cr 2 0 A LO J U o DESCRIPTION U ° v ML. Dark Brown Sandy Silt Wet Soft _ grades to 2 - - Dark Yellowish-Brown Clayey Silt Sa Medium CH turated Stiff - 3- - - 4 -- - ��o °a Yellowish-Brown Silty Very Cobbly Wet Medium o Medium to Coarse Sand Dense - o.--• to _ 6 Dense 7- o - p` (Lusardi(?) Formation) 8 �o Bottom of Trench 9 - 10- - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - 14 - - 15 - JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 90-16 OLIVENHAIN FARMS 2-7-90 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 9 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS MAXIMUM-DEN_SI,TY_/OPT IMUM MOISTURE Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Density Moisture CPerce_n_t) T-2 @ 1 . 0 ' Dark Brown Sandy Silt 126 . 0 10 . 9 T-2 @ 3 . 0 ' Brown Sandy Clay 116 . 5 15 . 0 DIRECT SHEAR* Angle of Sample Cohesion Internal Friction 'Location (degrees) -- - -- - - - - (x?sf�— - - - - (degrees)_ T-2 @ 1 . 0 ' 220 26 T-3 @ 6 . 0 ' 575 43 * Sample remolded to 900 of maximum dry density at 3% over optimum moisture content . All samples saturated prior to testing. WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. MECHANICAL__SIEVE ANALYSIS Percent Passing U. S. Standard Sieve Sample Location 1/2_ 30-8 #_4 _ #10 _ #40 #100 _ #200 T-1 @ 5 . 0 ' 95 . 2 87 . 8 57 . 8 38 . 7 16 . 8 9 . 4 7 . 0 T-2 @ 1 . 0 ' -- -- 100 95 . 6 84 . 0 71 . 6 64 . 1 T-3 @ 6 . 0 ' -- -- 100 100 93 . 9 62 . 4 47 . 0 EXPANSION INDEX* Final Sample Expansion Moisture Expansion Location__ ______ __ _ Index _(Percent) Potential T-2 @ 3 . 0 ' 128 32 . 4 High T-3 @ 6 . 0 ' 99 26 . 9 Hiah *Test performed Per U . B . C. Standard No . 29-2 . WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. FOUNDATION ITT♦I.TTTrTTI TABLE_ I DEPTH OF TRENCH SOIL REMOVAL BELOW NUMBER EXISTING_ GRADE_ (FEET) T_1 2 . 5 T-2 5 . 0 T-3 5 . 0 T-4 3 . 0 T-5 4 . 5 T-b 5 . 0 T_7 5 . 5 NOTE : It should be recognized that variations in soil conditions may occur between exploratory trenches that will require additional removal . Exploratory trenches encountered in the removal Drocess should be recompacted an additional 2 feet below the depths shown in the above table . WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. FILL SLOPE KEY PROJECTED PLANE I TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF NATURAL GROUND SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND FILL .. TOE OF SLOPE s 8' MINlIdUM BENCH ' COMPETENT EARTH ' MATERIAL _ Lv TYPICAL BENCH �E--- MINIMUM BASE KEY 1MIOTH -� (I4IGHT VARIES) 15' MMMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH BAOKORALNS MAY BE REQUIRED PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF 901LS EM6RIEER OLIVENHAIN FARMS JOB N0. 90-16 --jDATE February 28, 1990 WESTERN »TE No. 13 BOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING INC. APPENDIX I WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. PHONE 746-3553 423 HALE AVENUE AREA CODE 619 ESCONDIDO. CALIFORNIA 92025 SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONTROLLED FILLS GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The construction of controlled fills shall consist of adequate preliminary soil investigations, and clearing, removal of existing structures and foundations, preparation of land to be filled, excavation of earth and rock from cut area, compaction and control of the fill, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled area to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes as shown on the accepted plans. CLEARING AND PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED: (a) All fill control projects shall have a preliminary soil investigation or a visual examination, depending upon the nature of the job, by a qualified soil engineer prior to grading. (b) All timber, trees, brush, vegetation, and other rubbish shall be removed, piled and burned, or otherwise disposed of to leave the prepared area with a finished appearance free from unsightly debris. (c) Any soft, swampy or otherwise unsuitable areas, shall be corrected by drainage or removal of compressible material, or both, to the depths indicated on the plans or as directed by the soil engineer. (d) The natural ground which is determined to be satisfactory for the support of the filled ground shall then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least six inches (0) or deeper as specified by the soil engineer, and until the sur- face is free from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven features which would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. (e) No fill shall be placed until the prepared native ground has been approved by the soil engineer. (f) Where fills are made on the hillsides with slopes greater than 5 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical), horizontal benches shall be cut into firm undisturbed natural ground to provide lateral and vertical stability. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in width on firm undisturbed natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake. The soil engineer shall determine the width and frequency of all succeeding benches which will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness of slope. (g) After the natural ground has been prepared, it shall be brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to not less than 90% of maximum density, A.S.T.M. D1557-78. (h) Expansive soils may require special compaction specifications as directed in the preliminary soil investigation by the soil engineer. M The cut portions of building pads in which rock-like material exists may require excavation and recompaction for density compatibility with the fill as directed by the soil engineer. MATERIALS: The fill soils shall consist of select materials graded so that at least 40 percent of the material passes the No. 4 sieve. The material may be obtained from the excavation, a borrow pit, or by mixing soils from one or more sources. The material used shall be free from vegetable matter, and other del- eterious substances, and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter. If excessive vegetation, rocks, or soils with unacceptable physical characteristics are encountered, these materials shall be disposed of in waste areas designated on the plans or as directed by the soil engineer. If soils are encountered during the grading operation which were not reported in the preliminary soil investigation, further testing will be required to ascertain their engineering properties. Any special treatment recommended in the prelim- inary or subsequent soil reports not covered herein shall become an addendum to these specifications. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unstable nature shall be used in the fills. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING FILL "MATERIAL: (a) The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which shall not exceed six inches (6") when compacted. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade-mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. (b) When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the soil engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is near optiMIm as determined by the soil engineer to assure thorough bonding during the com- pacting process. (c) When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the soil engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as determined by the soils engineer. (d) After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the specified maximum density in accord- ance with A.S.T.M. D1557-78. Compaction shall be by means of tamping or sheeps- foot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density. The entire area to be filled shall be compacted to the specified density. WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. -2- (e) Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting operations shall be continued until the slopes are stable but not too dense for planting and until there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 3 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by other methods producing satisfactory results. (f) Field density tests shall be made by the soil engineer for approximately each foot in elevation gain after compaction, but not to exceed two feet in vertical height between tests. The location of the tests in plan shall be spaced to give the best possible coverage and shall be taken no farther than 100 feet apart. Tests shall be taken on corner and terrace lots for each two feet in elevation gain. The soil engineer may take additional tests as considered necessary to check on the uniformity of compaction. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the tests shall' be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. No additional layers of fill shall be spread until the field density tests indicate that the specified density has been obtained. (g) The fill operation shall be continued in six inch (6") compacted layers, as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades as shown on the accepted plans. SUPERVISION: Supervision by the soil engineer shall be made during the filling and compacting operations so that he can certify that the fill was made in accord- ance with accepted specifications. The specifications and soil testing of subgrade, subbase, and base materials for roads, or other public property shall be done in accordance with specifications of the governing agency. SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, grading shall not be resumed until field tests by the soil engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. In the event that, in the opinion of the-engineer, soils unsatisfactory as foundation material are encountered, they shall not be incorporated in the grading and disposition will be made at the engineer's discretion. WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. -3- APPENDIX II WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES CITED A. S .K. Company , no date, Preliminary Site Plan, 1" = 40 ' , 2 foot contour interval . Eisenberg , Leonard I . , "Pleistocene And Eocene Geology of The Encinitas And Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle" ; in On The Manner Of Deposition Of The Eocene Strata In Northern San Diego County , S . D.A.G . , April 1985 . Kennedy , Michael P. , "Geology of The San Diego Metropolitan Area , California" , California Division of Mines and Geology , Bulletin 200 , 1975 . Singh, Awtar , "Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes" , Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division , ASCE SM6 , November 1970 , pp . 1879-1892 . Tan Siang S. , "Landslide' Hazards In The Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, San Diego County, California" , California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 86-15 , 1987 . WESTERN SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING, INC. — _ o CO •O M J+ E N i = of ~ - LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC PER MARK OUTS S83'41'48" E 430.26' RIP -RAP PER D -40 No. 2 BACKING INSTALL BIO -SWALE FOR I I F / 1# G°- POST BMP TREATMENT PER .12 + 1 T/ DETAIL, �� % k�`� / o -"_ SHEETS iF1 F LJ N 97 / / (/ / / /�/ r / / / I / �° — 1 i ! / ! ! GARAGE 1 G PAD =118.0 SLAB ,^�� I 96 / D PROPOS R ID NCE 2% ,Q RAISED - S UNDERFLOOR =115. 5 -- -- - I � E 117 •" cw „•l 1;� ! U 9S• / / / / / /! /!/ F / o �OPO�SEbENA/ R // / 11 I l PAD =117.0 P o rn - 3 PROPOSED BARN T I / / / / / lc4 / I '/ ri 3.43, �- / / / "!� j a• / i O. p9 ° -3` el l ��/ ! r'Qy I cb`V/ 1 1 1 1 y A A. / e • � � S8 / A,• s . / / ; / /Q. law I r I i � /' 1 \ V A\I � 7 i 1.5; �/� - / / / � v / -/ / \ / J / / / / / /// Off( _/ 1 / ! i / fJ f, / / •/ j �1 �' I ��t, • . /'� / / / L ,� .lie• /// io p�IN, / / ,•/ / / / ; / / / / 1 O01 r / / / / / / / / I t , / / @Y, TW®FS =121.5 I /l 1 / / ! ! PAFS =11%0 / / / / / / / J - BW®FS =121.0 q� e FP =130.0 b iv2' // F OR/ P/ O S�T / 1/0 B�M/ $P �WtiE W ER ? p p 17 / -5 30- P -R�gPER 6-40 r r CISfN / ° R 0012» , 6156 / / rA'./ = 30. ' / \ i / // / / / / // / / / / P ° / ° °r °° i° ° �s /off / / °, �o W � t � O ° ° � ° / , - � � / / = 32.43 / / I HAY \j rn l ! / i / / PROP OSED % O� �/ / / / / / \�/ °� ° °° %� �°� ° °° tin / O , l l l r/ ! ' '� ° = %i "y'' ° � �✓ ° �" / ° /• ! 1 � \ � TRASH A I 1 7_I 16 Iff Ir 25-44'56- 2 80.00' ` \ l i s. L= 35.95' a s �- ! pT -� R EXIST. P.C.C. ROAD 80.p DRAINAGE SWALE p o o 43.19' W/ i I p,R DOWN MIDDLE L '96 w - G UI ♦ te Rrg � C) I r to 777 OR a • / ^k %L- �� 1 VL Qj / - No 0724 ENSS. qI w / G / i o / =t �� E pWG� 1MP R0� I rla A5 S BU pS-11 0 / L Cp � ✓J - / _ _ _ — _ _ _� � =� 64.00' S8T02T17 -"rW 354.30 REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MARK NORTH RIM OF SEWER M.H. IN BROOKSIDE LANE SOUTHERLY OF LOT 10, MAP No. 12338. ELEV.= 115.61' DATUM: M.S.L. SCALE HORIZONTAL 1 ” =20' VERTICAL N/A PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF DATE- R.C.E. N0. 93 726 ENGINEER' DOUGLAS E. LOGAN EXP. 12 -31 -07 RECOMMENDED BY- DATE: APPROVALS APPROVED BY: DATE: HP =130. ll^_'o A\�'J ,;- I� N FL =1 21.5 TW®FS =119.0 1 O BW®FS =119.0 P.C.C. i PER D -75. =121.5 =118.5 RETAINING WALL PER CITY OF SAN DIEGO INDO. BULLETIN No. 222. eY GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 1 INCH = 20 FEET FILE NAME: GP- SWMP -01 PLOT DATE: 08 -04 -06 Civil Engineering •Land Planning Structural Surveying 132 N. El Camino Real, Suite N - Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone 760 - 510 -3152 Fax 760 -°510 -3153 I TY O E N C I N I TA S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAWING HYDROLOGY NODE MAP FOR: THE HELMBACHER 3234 OUVENHAIN FARMS ROAD RESIDENCE Z' 100 183 -G SHEET 1 OF 1 N 0 N rn U Q H z U Z W z H (n W Of Z Z ZU� C5 J I WwO Lo prN'icpo J r•r` � ~� GRAD ING PLAN EASEMENT NOTES — # A EASEMENT TO SDG &E PER DOC. REC. 10 -26 -48 IN BOOK 2995, PAGE 485 \ B EASEMENT TO SDG &E PER DOC. REC. 12 -19 -52 IN BOOK 4693 PAGE 3 / / I 0 1 9.66' f o _ 98 - # ° S83 41 "E C SEWER EASEMENT PER DOC. REC. 6 -27 -72 AS FILE NO. 164955 / n p D EASEMENT FOR RECREATIONAL TRAIL PURPOSES PER PM NO. 16593 / o � _ \ 48 430: LOCATION OF EXISTING E 26 UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE / / - I \ r� ! N �n"� _ I 4 AND ELECTRIC PER MARK OUTS / / _ = I I E RECREATIONAL TRAIL EASEMENT SHOWN REJECTED PER PM N0. 16593 F PROPOSED OPEN SPACE & DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER PM NO. 16593 G PROPOSED 10' WIDE PRIVATE SEWER EASEMENT PER PM NO. 16593 \ I - _� I o° / F F � \ I I (/ / \� F 40' WIDE PRIVATE ROAD & DRAINAGE ESM'T PER PM NO. 16593 � �' /PROPOSED -- '- f / �- 110 Q/t Il� I�, I I l 1 I I / / I EASEMENT TO OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PER PM NO. 16593 - � / / i , u PROPOSED RIP -RAP ENERGY DISSIPATOR PER SDRSD D -40 cn J� GARAGE FF PAD =118.0 =118.0 FL 121.5 D 96 I// 118 / 2% / /�� % / / // / / / / / , / ! / / I / / / / / / /I \ PROPOSED RESIDENCE RAISED FF 118_5 FS UNDER FLOOR = 115.5 Qat;117 F PROPOSED ARENA ° wl / 1, 7 /1 / //I// ' I v 1 t ( II ♦ I l PAD -- 117.0 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " =20 / /1 /I / / / 1 (IIi �rx� ,��� � 0 20 40 60 � /�/ �/ ✓// / / l( V III A 1 \ iiV / \ NP =117.5 / / PROPOSED D -75 BROW DITCH / PROPOSED ' � I � 1 � a �1 /�11// i� \I I Il A� �:v A �� ' &✓ / A� l /' l , /' /'/ �� I ( I II A V � AAA\ 1�_�- i �'/ �� 140 1 \ /I' / /I //1/J f y ( { I \ \\ \ �' / ✓�/ ! \ ,/ 1' MIN. 2' 2' � /' 29 / 93.43' _ / // � /%I / \ \\ \\ �r=�- /� / / /. I / �J/ FL =130.0 I , / / / boy i' / /' nL / / // I o I I 1 I i / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / L/ / :. ..::,, :: •::. -.. :.: I 09" ..:...:.. / I/ S80° // TW @FS =119.0 /�/ _..°' FILL BERM �� ^ l I BW @FS =119.0 /� / /' ' / / /' /'/ W / 1 / 1. 1 I / 1 \ \ i.\ j i l.% �' / �% / / \� , ,. r / I i 1 � 1 / 4° I TW @FS =121.5 I l / / / AI / / / /1 1 I /ri �' ' P BW@FS =118.5 l 1 I, I' IIIViy j�� !/i / I TYPICAL PAD BERM NOT TO SCALE L DRIVEWAY .0 tiP 930s5 / - i ° @=12PAD I f BW @FS -118/ EARTHWORK QUANTITIES Qt N1 0 , Ql / I.5 AREANA GRADING: CUT= 120C.Y 125 � FILL =120 C.Y. ,PROPOSED 20' 0 C.Y. BALANCE ON SITE PAD GRADING: /� // / / DRIVEWAY / / / / / / / , , , / / / / �I / / / / / O / / / / / _ � / q �G �""' / ti fPENE '// -/ s �/ L�r. // // // // / / / I/ / /// / ENERGY DISSIPATO� CUT = 2,500 C. Y. - / // / / l / / I / / / / // / /Ill Q FILL = 2.500 C.Y. ' l '� 1 / / / / / / / / V / // / /PER SDRSD 0 -40 \ / / / / 1 / I / / l ! l , / / / / / / / /// / ' F — 116.0' 0 C.Y. BALANCE ON SITE l / i / \ i / / / , / , / / / / / / / / / /, / / / �- �/ TOTAL: AREANA &PAD \ / / / / / l / \ / / / i ✓ / / / / / / / !, / / / /// / / r �/ III / #j — / / / i / / / / / / / / / - -130-- /I �.\ / / / /� CUT = 2,620 C. Y. \ \ / FILL = 2,620 C. Y. � / , / / / / / / ,/ / o% / / / /i/ \`L� /// _o!� / F 0 C.Y. BALANCE ON SITE 915 (T 0) LEGEND \ / / / / / /1/ / / / /// // 61 °56'12„ 3 �� ' '�� �' %/ �% / / /��� �'� / / 1 / / R = 30.0 / / �� / / / I / QafC /m / / / / / / `/ // /1 / , COMPACTED FILL PSE, 1991 / �� � ��� �� ��� / / / / / f / �/ / = 32.43' ( ) �-° �� / / HAY TERRACE DEPOSIT TR ASH H D pj ' ALLUVIUM �> Qal Z ` 71 25'X5 " tM aT€ creATrtro s ESC �r CONTACT 3j 35.o / H ,v o 70 90 °� r If q = 3 0 ° 5 6 ' 07 R 80.00, / = \I /' r6 O o / / / J � T ' ,- -'y� / / �S;P '��� PLATE 7 fF I D / _ _ ` = _ _ _ _ _ —�L j _ _ _ / / PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC - ° _ 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 - - - - ® 64.00' _ _ _ _ _-_ 2'17'W 354 S87 °0 .30 _ °- - -� — - TELEPHONE: (858) 560 -1713, FAX: ( 858 ) 560 -0380 / W.O. 400361D DATE: 04/21/06 PATH, 9 \drafting \400361 \400361D \of 4 -06 \Plate l.dw 9 O REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCHMARK SCALE SPECIAL DISTRICT DESiHSBY DRSRsr CHEW) BY APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING N0. PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED GRADING PLAN FOR: BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS NORIZONAL ?" = 20' DATE: BY. BY: XX X x X NORTH RIM OF SEWER MANHOLE ON BROOKSIDE LANE SOUTHERLY OF LOT 10 MAP NO. 12338, I.E. 115.61'. VERTICAL N/A R.C.E. NO. 29577 WAYNE PASCO EXP. 3 -31 -07 DATE: DATE: A.P.N. # WORK PROJECT NO. xxx SHEET 2 OF 3 U LOCATION OF EXISTING e 'o / - = =� JJ __- o UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE - AND ELECTRIC PER MARK OUTS / N o�y"Q' E �.. -- .- i �' r 83'41' o 48 E 430.26. RIP -RAP PER D -40 No. 2 BACKING / `S,gB l l i �f,� / L DETAIL, SHEET #3 / N / �/ I D \� � � ` � � ^aj I ^ J .11 / � a� o N � � o // // / r ,A � ( j I F O F / INSTALL BIO -SWALE FOR A F POST BMP TREATMENT PER jp 4 L`' ff !f Imo` a rn \ / r gff, r fr / / ✓ r ° f (I P I/ GARAGE 0 V / / / I l 1 (;� �I I I I I/ f !i , ' �� / j / f PAD =118.0 FF =118.0 / SLAB •� 7 z Q ✓, r I; 1 / / /�) I l�i I �/l //, 1 %f %! // f I ;� - -/ � „i / / I � i �I - / , i / I f l 1, 1 /f ,: /f/ � � �' / � f•I I / �. � /�' : '•:-'' / / / //. � ( I � 1 I I A //f j I• IIt J /11 /ll f /1; I � — — r � / �q¢r' 118 96-11 I l ; PROPOSE R ID NCE / f� ,'L�s/, f / /��/ / / � �, L� --- -R -AI S- E- ---1- 8 / FS UNDER LOOR `. - 1-1-5 _ .5 I - - - - 11- 7 � f / i � / / / U ✓ q i I 1 1 f / t 'o� � /r' Uzi / �� �OPO>SED �� / / /// I // i, /// / I 1 , R ENA � y /' O a i PAD =117.0 3 ob PROPOSED / s BARN F ( 95 / / // / / l /, 1 // ( i'' / b7 / /�• I /t // �`� f /,f �% f/ ( i � I � � � i ` f \ � i \ \ 1 1 A A �. A� :A �� = 93.43' / 9Sj / y Q / / �/j ! I ! %� \`l \ �� �i° 6kk'I'r r. I S80' '09 if /� /0 A � r a / / f 4% l �6+ ? / / / • / <,,, -- --�/I^ /� � �"/ r / �`�! ? / t . /t fl f / / I/ {•1 L I I ��� _ • � �' �/ �/ Q % f % I I ! /, f /Ji/ tjl % I�i/.� 7c'- • /,� /i / to/ r p� � / 2 Jd' f / t f l / / f / J t / / %%�� /� / f / / / r • 3 i t� / , f f ff / I / // I PAb =11 0 / / i // / / // 0 o / // / 0 TW®FS =121.5 / OQQ \� / j 1 " / l / / / / / ✓ 'C r BWOFS =121.0 FP =130.0 ,I OJ_f � / 1 i / / r �� / / / ,/ ✓rrr / r � 11 f s r`? rQ A o // ro / / /q ✓ If fI c P 9 f / / / I /I STALL Bib S(WALE I / Yi / l f i / / / t ✓ / / / / /FOR PO TAB /70E/► fM AMIER f / AIL SHEF�T #3' / � J / / r / \ r' / / / /� / / /�i / j /// r ✓ r / rrr'yy� /� i -- -130 -- o ¢s /, / / / l 1 // r f / / / / , /\ , / / r // Sri / ✓ / r / /rrr�r / f I,I o �� rr 52A P -R PER 0 40 IV �o� i / / / / / / j r 7 ✓ / / 1 _ / / / -J / /' % 0 -8f/:CiYNG/ O r / / / / l i r 0 / i t / o 0 0 00 0 i0 r / ✓ 1 / / / i° 0�/� / / f / / / // // / i 0 r o 0 0 ✓ 00 0 00 / 00 0 0 / - _ / r (// / I ' / / / � � / f ' ✓ / / � // / / r rte/ r of j/r . �,%' / ^ \ �� o \ / / / / % /� t\ / ! etc%/ o r ro o /r / / o / o r r o o� r / r s r: / L� = 61756 , `V / o r / -i r o / r o o r / / i 0 1 » j/ QQ r / r r r / r °r r 00 00o / %i'� io r jro0i °o i °/ O i / _ _a.' 1,f R ° 30. ' 2 / J? ri °j000 L 00 = 32.43' V/4 s r r rii;..o0 0 0 0 0 or 00 0r o, \ H l� HAY rn \ l ( 1 % > / / / .` / / � �/ ° ° r .� i ° i r o � i .� i i 0 0 0 / I ,I / I I r I / I / r r r r oy r \ 1 PROPOSED / °z CT / // / f / , /f/ / / // // ��/ °° r rrr �r °r�� r Or ✓t, 000 0 \\ \ \ TRASH /H Y 1 N� J / / j / / / f / ' ✓ G � / �"3 SR D l 1, � ) l / �R� // �// /,/ /,�/1 /i�r r ✓ri rir° ,r � �� �. A \ � � � I � ( , I I I I w 2� 5' 4i 4 ' ej 1 ao.00 $ / / L = 35.95' xz / l to g� f / / / f; fff! ' � , / T tea` — / i s �� / / EXIST. P.C.C. ROAD R 30'56 07" X /_ , I 1 1 I ! RMS R© ( I I r�� - / w/ DRAINAGE "SWALE" I o / / / L - 43.19, ♦ / C / T �- - -- - - / vE N A,N A f / \ I / / DOWN MIDDLE W / /- �I14 G / / / sr3 / /�00 � ct G G. ..0 /���' ` SEE Bl11LT IMPR I � / �. ♦ /�'h 2D� / 64.00' 7 rW - / " 354.30 — 1� r ✓ B / / N 48 �co IN �z w 0 21 6ED P.C.C. DITCH PER D -75. 30.0 TWOF•S =119.0 1 O BW@FS =119.0 =121.5 =118.5 RETAINING WALL PER CITY OF SAN DIEGO INDO. BULLETIN No. 222. 4 GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 1 INCH = 20 FEET FILE NAME: GP- SWMP -01 PLOT DATE: 08 -04 -06 �� Civil Engineering • •Land Planning Structural �r Surveying 0132 N. El Camino Real, Suite N • Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone 760- 510 -3152 Fax 760 - 510 -3153 N 0 N 0) U Q F- Z 0 z w z D N W Of z z Of _Z U M Z5 J I w w z�z� JKN'fco REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MARK SCALE By "DI APPROVALS CITY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. R.. 0ZL NORTH RIM OF SEWER M.H. IN BROOKSIDE LANE SOUTHERLY OF LOT 10, MAP No. 12338. ELEV.= 115.61' DATUM: M.S.L. HORIZONTAL 1 " =20' VERT1CAL N/A PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF DATE: ENGINEER R.C.E. NO. 39726 DOUGLAS E. LOGAN EXP. 12 -31 -07 RECOMMENDED APPROVED BY: BY: DATE: DATE: HYDROLOGY NODE MAP FOR: THE H E L M B A C H E R RESIDENCE 3234 OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD 183—G SHEET 1 OF 1 N 0 N 0) U Q F- Z 0 z w z D N W Of z z Of _Z U M Z5 J I w w z�z� JKN'fco