The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-9267 G C/ y_ Y City Of NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering July 16, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: Bank of America 7680 Girard Avenue La Jolla, California 92037 Attn: Olivia Figuered RE: Eric Murphy 1926 Oxford Avenue APN 260-362-14 CDP 04-139 Grading Permit 9267-GI Final release of security Permit 9267-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 01707-04626 in the amount of$ 16,226 .00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, ebra Geishart ay Lembach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Service CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Eric Murphy Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 741 recycled paper City 0 0NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Ewinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering November 15, 2005 Attn: Bank of America 7680 Girard Avenue La Jolla, California 92037 Attn: Olivia Figuered RE: Eric Murphy 1926 Oxford Avenue APN 260-362-14 CDP 04-139 Grading Permit 9267-GI Partial release of security Permit 9267-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, a release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 01708-04564 in the amount of$48,678.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinpr9ly, QV Debra Geishart J Lembach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Service CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Eric Murphy Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper ,- ST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING,INC. 1 925 HARTLEY ROAD,SUITE "I" ANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 619258-7901 FAX 619 258-7902 Mr Eric Murphy October 13,2004 ` ELM Enterprises Project No. 01-1167D2(A) 396 North Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Limited Site Investigation Update Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California Reference: "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California.", Project No. 01- 1167D2, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 31, 2001. Dear Mr. Murphy: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced soil report and a representative of our firm visited the subject site on October 13, 2004. Site conditions and proposed construction remain as described in the referenced soil report. Therefore, the recommendations presented in the referenced soil report are still valid for the proposed development. If we can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully tted, OQp;0�ES3�p ou CD W No.0054071 M1 us 2 Up_t L 3,L--:C y 9 CN�� JV0 Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E. RCE 54071 MSD/md EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 Fax 258-7902 October 31, 2001 Mr. Eric Murphy C/o ELM Enterprises 396 North Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject : Project No. 01-1167D2 Limited Site Investigation Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California . Dear Mr. Murphy: In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited investigation of the soil conditions at ' the subject site. The investigation was undertaken to provide the soil engineering criteria for site grading and recommend an appropriate foundation system for the proposed development . Our investigation found that the site is underlain by approximately 3 feet of undocumented fill soils over formational soils classified as Terrace Deposits (Qt2) to the maximum explored depth of 5 feet . These fill soils generally consist of tan, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sand with a very low expansion potential . It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented during construction. Respectfully submitted, Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P. E RCE 54071 ELF._ ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-116 ,l INTRODUCTION This is to present the findings and conclusions of a soil investigation for a proposed single family residence to be located on the west side of Oxford Avenue, in Cardiff by the Sea, California. The objectives of the investigation were to determine the existing soils conditions and provide recommendations for site development. In order to accomplish these objectives, two (2) exploratory holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 5. 0 feet; undisturbed and loose bag samples were obtained, and laboratory tests were performed. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is located on the west side of Oxford Avenue, in Cardiff by the Sea, California. The site is presently occupied with a one-story single-family dwelling that will be removed and replaced with the proposed residence. The site is a previously graded cut and fill pad that slopes moderately to the west. A cut slope of approximately 10 feet descends from Oxford Avenue to the existing building pad. Boundaries include Oxford Avenue to the east, an alley to the west and residential parcels to the north and south. Vegetation consists of grass, shrubs and trees . The proposed construction is a 2-story, wood-framed single-family residence to be founded on continuous and spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor system. FIELD INVESTIGATION Two exploratory holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 8 feet by a shovel and a hand auger on September 27, 2001 at the approximate locations shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Holes" . A continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet" . The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set forth on the attached Plate No. 3 entitled "Uniform Soil Classification Chart . 2 EL.- LNTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-11t, —,2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subgrade soils encountered during the course of our investigation were undocumented fill soils to a depth of approximately 3 feet. These soils consist of tan, damp, loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) . The underlying Terrace Deposits (Qt2) were medium dense to dense in consistency. EXPANSIVE SOILS An expansion test was performed on a subgrade soil sample to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content . An expansion index of zero indicates a very low expansion potential . GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during the course of our investigation. Groundwater is anticipated at a depth greater than 100 feet . We do not expect ground water to affect the proposed development . GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A review of the available geological literature pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 4 . 0 Km to the west . Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area. The proposed residential structure should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters : PARAMETER VALUE --U-BC REFERENCE Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type Sp Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.48 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.83 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.1 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.3 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U 3 EL,._ ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-11t, _,l Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the consistency of the subgrade soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECO14MMATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes visual inspection; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. GRADING AND EARTHWORK Site grading should begin with clearing and grubbing, e. g. the removal of debris and vegetation. The subgrade soils should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grade and a minimum of five (5) feet beyond perimeter footings . The bottom of the excavation should be scarified about 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fills soils should be moisture conditioned to near optimum, placed in thin lifts and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The actual depth and extent of removal should be evaluated in the field at the time of excavation by a representative of this firm. Grading should be done in accordance with the attached appendix A. FOUNDATION AND SLAB a . Continuous footings are suitable for use and shall extend a minimum of 18 inches for the two-story structure into the compacted fill soils . These footings should be at least 15 inches in width and reinforced with four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings . b. Concrete floor slabs should be a nominal 4 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed within the middle third of the slab by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies" . The slab should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. 4 ELF ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-11(, -2 The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in virtually all concrete slabs . To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a maximum of 4 inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks . c. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, the 10-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 4 inches thick, consisting of sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve. d. An allowable soil bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings founded a minimum of 12 inches into the compacted fill soils . This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 4500 lb/ft2 as set forth in the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 18-1-A. e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil . An allowable passive pressure of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0 . 25 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. RETAINING WALLS Unrestrained, cantilevered retaining walls with a level backfill may be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot . This pressure is based on the backfill soils being free draining and non-expansive. Backfill materials must be approved by the soils engineer prior to use. Restrained walls, such as basement walls, that are not free to rotate should be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot . SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and thickness of the fill soil and the anticipated building load, the settlement should be within acceptable limits . 5 EL_ _.,NTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-11c l UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS Excavations for on-site utility trenches may be made vertically for shallow depths and must be either shored or sloped at 1H: 1V for depths greater than 4 feet . Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill shall be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill shall be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which shall be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 o relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures shall be undertaken to properly finish grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area . Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structures and other improvements . LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION The recommendations provided in this report pertain only to the site investigated and based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the trenches . If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be provided. 6 ELF._ ,NTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-11(, ..l Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1, References and Appendix A are parts of this report . Respectfully submitted, Mamadou Saliou Diallo RCE 54071 MSD/md 'Dw S. l G; 'LU `k C 054071 m Exp.I�2 -31v� L 7 Abp of sGC� 7v� of s«t 1 � EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10 HARTLEY RD.,SUITE i,SANlFE CA 92071 925 (619)258-7901 Fax(619)258-7902 O/-14,57bz PG,472--� /c% . / ELI._ ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-116. ,L PLATE NO. 2 SUMMARY SHEET NO. 1 HOLE NO. 1 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M Surface TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt2) tan, damp, dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 1.0' 115. 6 3 . 6 2. 5' bottom of hole hole backfilled 9/27/01 ----------------------------------------- HOLE NO. 2 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M Surface UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOILS (Qaf) tan, dry, loose to medium dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 2 . 5' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt2) tan, dry, loose to medium dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 3. 0' tan brown, moist, medium dense, 2 . 8 to dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 5. 0' bottom of hole hole backfilled 9/27/01 ----------------------------------------------- 8 MAJOR DIVISIO' SYMBOL DF` 'UPTION GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS Gp (MORE THAN%: POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND OF COARSE MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES FRACTION GM >NO.4 SIEVE SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES COARSE SIZE) GRAINED SOILS GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES (MORE THAN h OF SOIL> NO.200 SIEVE SIZE) SW WELL GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, SANDS SP LITTLE OR NO FINES (MORE THAN%= POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, OF COARSE LITTLE OR NO FINES FRACTION SM <NO.4 SIEVE SILTY SANDS,SILT-SAND MIXTURES SIZE) SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK SILTS & FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS, FINE GRAINED <50 SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS PN LSOILS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF (MORE THAN%2 OF SOIL< LOW PLASTICITY NO.200 SIEVE SIZE) H INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTS & FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS CLAYS Cg LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT >'50 CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS,ORGANIC SILTS PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGAMC SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM) 70 CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN tO SIEVE SIZE ,MILLIMETERS BOULDERS Above 12 Inches Above 305 COBBLES 12 Inches To 3 Inches 305 To 76.2 .o GRAVEL 3 Inches to No.4 76.2 to 4.76 Coarse 3 Inches to'/.Inch 76.2 to 19.1 So Fine '/.Inch to No.4 19.1 to 4.76 I I a SAND No.4 to No.200 4.76 to 0.074 20 ( I I Coarse No.4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 I Medium No. 10 to No.40 2.00 to 0.420 uic^rr anu" wUat Fine No.40 to No.200 0.420 to 0.074 a SILT AND CLAY Below No.200 Below 0.074 a +a 20 w .° 70 Go 70 a° v° too GRAIN SIZE CHART uouto uwtr (u). s PLASTICITY CHART 7S;ANTEE,OUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT HARTLEY ROAD,SUITE "I" CALIFORNIA 92071 PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 U.S-C.S. SOIL CLASSIFICATION PLATE NO. 3 10/31/01 ELi� cNTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-116. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PAGE L-1 An expansion test in conformance with UBC 18-2 was performed on a representative sample of on- site soils to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. The recorded expansion of the sample is presented as follows: INITIAL SATURATED INITIAL DRY MOISTURE MOISTURE DENSITY EXPANSION CONTENT% CONTENT% LB./CU. FT. INDEX 10.2 21.6 107.8 0 9 EL.- _NTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-116 REFERENCES 1 . "1997 Edition, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering and Design Provisions". 2 . "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada", Page 0-36, used with the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Published by International Conference of Building Officials . 3. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Plate No. 2, Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7 . 5' Quadrangles", by Siang S . Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, 1996. 10 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE I SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1. General Description The intent of these specifications is to obtain uniformity and adequate strength in filled ground so that the proposed structures may be safely supported. The procedures include the clearing and preparation of the land to be filled, processing the fill soils, the spreading, and compaction of the filled areas to conform with the lines and grades as shown on the approved plans. The owner shall retain a Civil Engineer qualified in soil mechanics (herein referred to as engineer) to inspect and test earthwork in accordance with these specifications. The engineer shall advise the owner and grading contractor immediately if any unsatisfactory conditions are observed to exist and shall have the authority to reject the compacted filled ground until such time that corrective measures are taken, necessary to comply with the specifications. It shall be the sole responsibility of the grading contractor to achieve the specified degree of compaction. 2. Preparing Areas to be Filled (a) All brush, vegetation and any biodegradable refuse shall be removed or otherwise disposed of so as to leave the areas to be filled free of vegetation and debris. Any uncompacted filled ground or loose compressible natural ground shall be removed unless the report recommends otherwise. Any buried tanks or other structures shall be removed and the depression backfilled to the satisfaction of the engineer. (b) 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 12 inches (12"). (c) After the natural ground has been prepared, it shall then be brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. (d) Where fills are made on slopes greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into the firm natural ground. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 15 feet in width on firm undisturbed natural ground. The width of all succeeding benches shall be at least 6 feet. ` APPENDIX A 2 3. Fill Materials All material shall be approved by the engineer and shall consist of materials free from vegetable matter, and other lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter. If, during grading operations, soils are found which were not encountered and tested in the preliminary investigation, tests on these soils shall be performed to determine their physical characteristics. Any special treatment recommended in the preliminary or subsequent soils reports not covered herein shall become an addendum to these specifications. 4. Placing and Compacting Fill Materials (a) When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified, water shall be added until the moisture content is near optimum to assure uniform mixing and effective compaction. (b) When the moisture content of the fill materials is above that specified, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. (c) After processing, the suitable fill materials shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches (6"). Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading insure uniformity of materials and moisture in each layer. (d) After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in paragraph 2 (c) above. Compaction shall be accomplished with approval types of compaction equipment. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. In place density tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D1556-90. (e) The surfaces of the fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting operations shall be continued until the slopes are stable and until there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes. 5. Inspection Sufficient inspection by our firm or the Soil's Engineer of record and/or his/her representative shall be maintained during the filling and compacting operations so that he/she can verify that the fill was constructed in accordance with the accepted specifications. 6. Seasonal Limits No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled if weather conditions increase the moisture content above permissible limits. When the work is interrupted by rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until the moisture content and density of fill are as previously specified. All recommendations presented in the attached report are a part of these specifications. 2 EAST CO UNTY SOIL CgrSULTATION (•! AND ENGINEERING, INC 10925 HARTLEY ROAD SUITE "I" SANTEE CALIFORNIA 92071 619 258-7901 Fax 619 258-7902 Mr. Eric Murphy ELM Enterprises October 24, 2005 396 North Coast Highway 101 Project No, 01-1167D2(D) Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Report of Field Density Tests,Retaining Wall Backifill Proposed Single Family.Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue,APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California References: I. "Report of Field Density Tests, Rough Grading, Proposed Single Famil Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-I4, Cardiff by the Sea, California", Project No. 01-1167D2(C), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., bated July 26, 2005. 2. "Addendum to Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California.", Project No. 0 1-1 167D2(B), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated February 25, 2005. 3. "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, Califonlia,", Project No. 01- 1167D2, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 31, 2001. Dear Mr. Murphy: This is to present the results of field density tests performed on the backfill of the10-foot high retaining wall at 1926 Oxford Avenue, in the Cardiff by the Sea area, City of Encinitas, California. In accordance with your request, in-place field density tests were performed in conformance with ASTM D 1556-90 (Sand Cone Method). Backfill was conducted between October 3 and October 21,2005 under the observation and testing of a representative of ECSC&E, Inc. ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO 01-1167D2(D) Back drainage consisted of a 5-foot layer of fabric wrappedCrIlshed rock Pipe- BackfiIl soils consisting of silty sand were moisture conditioned over $Optimum, perforated thin lifts and compacted to a minima of 90 percent relative compaction.. Placed in Faction The results of the field density tests are presented on Page T-i under"Table of T laboratory are of the maximum Test Results". The soils are set forth on Page L-1 under "Laboratory Test Results-,. The a moisture content of the fill are shown on Plate No. 1. approximate test locations If we can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Pages T-1, L-I and plate No. 1 are attached. Respectfully Submitted, Q�`�F SSId you jig,C054011 rn S�,9 C'•'1Il,�„ �t� Mamadou Saliou Diallo,p.E. RCE 54071 MSD/xnd 2 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO 41-1167D2(D) PAGE L-1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill materials as determined by ASTM D1 557-91, Procedures A and B which use 25 blows of a 10 pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder and Procedure C which uses 56 blows of a 10 pound slide hammer falling from a height of 19 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 6 inch diameter 1113.3 cubic foot compaction cylinder are presented as follows: OPTIMUM SOIL TYPE/ MAXIMUM MOISTURE PROCEDURE D);SCRIpTION DRY DENSITY CONTENT L$/CU. FT. %DRY WT. 1/A DARK BROWN SILTY 130.0 8.5 FINE SAND 4 � C David Jolly, Land Surveying 764 Laguna Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone:760-729-7969 Fax:760-729-6351 E-mail: djollyls @adelphia.net PAD CERTIFICATION DATE: October 24, 2005 PROJECT: 04-139 CDP - Murphy Residence ADDRESS: 1926 Oxford Avenue Cardiff, CA 92007 APN: 260-362-14 1 hereby certify that on October 24, 2005 that a survey was made by me to measure the elevation of the existing finished floor pad for the above referenced project and determined that said elevation conforms to the grading plan elevation of 89.08 within +/- 0.11 . UAND Jp��'�L 4NO. S. 4 �� °' EX P. E 12/31/06 XP. NO. 7672 7� t MEMBER: California Land Surveyor's Association ELM ENTERPR'SES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2(D) PAGE T-1 TABLE OF TEST RESULTS ASTM D1556-90 DEPTH MAXIMUM FEILD DRY DRY 'PEST SOIL OF FILL MOISTURE DENSITY DENSI'T'Y PERCENT' I FkET %D ,Y WT. I'.C.F. P.C.F 1 1 2 10.9 `— CQMPACTION UMARKS 2 1 116.8 130.0 4 10.7 90 3 122.0 130.0 94 1 6FG 11.1 119.2 4 1 3 FG 11.9 130.0 92 120.6 130.0 93 FG=FINISH GRADE 3 1 4 EAST COUNTY SOIL,CONSULTA710N 10925 HARi'LEY RD-SIN SA INC . fVTIM GA 92071 (619)Z$8-7901 Fait(619)=.7902 T -17 C, F FNCINT -? :� S ENGINEERIN3 SERVT CES F I 2 0 Z- PARCEL N0 . 6;- -3 JOB SITTE ADDRESS : 7A 01,T, N7 E, T, m ATL,Ifj�', -`TT : F 1117 IT T 7 T-7 R A C T 0 ST' 7 T L I C E N s INSURANCE COMPANY NAME :' NI POLICY TIC, , ENGINEER xF 'A PERMIT ISSUE Dg"T. PH, PERMIT E:K I , 6 6 PERMIT !SSUEr I N IS P E Q'lfb 7 R --------1 E S ID E P 0 S I I 1 . PERMIT FEE 4 2 - INSPECTION DEPOSIT: 3 . -SECURITY DFP;DST-T 001 'D ----------------------------- -0 F WO R K CCINSTRUCTION, PFRM,f -, TS SUED FOR TRENC, F- _L ' STALL 2" ELECTRICA N L L',Tj T V N T T D';7 4`1 FROM POLE lN RLI-11-7-Y 70 METER LOCATION , C CONTROL FEE. q , 3� , -T 7 A. T OF, Ap- NDAP�S WORK T--' BE PERFORMED PER STANDARD T.-RENCH AEI 7 7i ---- INSPECTION ------ SIGNATT-TRE INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ----------------------------------- 1 HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY C'�RTIF-l' PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION lE TRUE , V- 3- 06 T-' ATURE S—k�ou1 PRINT NAME CT-RcLF ONF! ()W"qpp N T EAST COUNTY SOIL,, " ; AND ENGINEERING,IDdC:. » 10925 IHARTLEY ROAD,SUITE I SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619)258-7901 . ..: .;' Fax 258-7902 Mr. Eric Murphy ELM Enterprises March 1, 201 396 North Coast Hi ghway 101 Project No. 01-1167 }.' - p Encinitas, Califomia 92024 ., Subject: Report of Field Density Tests Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue,APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea,City of Encinitas, California References: See Attached Dear Mr. Murphy: This report presents the results of field density tests performed on the base materials for the improvements of the alley at the subject site. _w In accordance with your request, in-place field density tests were performed in conformance with ASTM D1556-90(Sand Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented on Page T-1 under "Table of Test Results". The ,,,,,, laboratory determinations of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the base shown on the attached Plate No. 1. aggregate are set forth on Page L-1 under "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate test locations are If we can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Pages T-1,L-1 and Plate No. 1 are parts of this report. .. Respectfully Submitted, QrX OFESSIA QUO P�pU S,Q�9`�ti C— No.GE 2704 m cr. Exp: 7D �t � OQ' Mamadou Saliou Diallo,P.E. RCE 54071, GE 2704 MSD/md LMF.a61i1jQ FA(a 01�1167D2(G) PAGE T-1 TABLE 0&4EST RESULTS ASTMD1556-90 �...,, MAXIMUM DEPTH FEILD TEST SOIL OF FILL MOISTURE DENSITY DENSY ,r.. .� t,....,.f NO. TYPE IN FEET %DRY WT. -$j u PERCENT 1 1 P.C,F. P C F IMPACTION RAW AB 6.8 137.5 2 1 AB 141.0 98 _ 6.4 138.7 141.0 98 AB =AGGREGATE BASE -�^ ' " "Al ELMENTERPRISES PRa)ECTS0.1 PAGEL-3 .................... ,. EST RESULTS RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOIST The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents offillas d ASTM D1557-91, Procedure A which uses 25 blows of a' pound sj height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic'foort' cylinder and Procedure C which uses 56 blows-of a 10 pound slide hammer failing fr o �. of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 6 inch diameter 1/13.3 cubic foot com acti { are presented as follows: p QA.'.V Jhida SOIL TYPE/ _ �....� PROCEDURE DRY DENSITY DESCRIPTION CONTENT LB/CU. FT. %DRY WT. -- 1/C AGGREGATE BASE (IMPORT) �► 141.0 6.0 . :....ter..+,.., •w 1. 3 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2(G) REFERENeMp- 1. "Retaining Wall Design Update, Proposed Single-Family Resided"1"9265--Oxf6W Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California", ProLeq-No:-It�r-}=1{r7D2(F), - Prepared by East County.Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., L?a�odeber 9;2A " 2. "Final Foundation Excavation Observation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, M- Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California", Project No. 01- 1167D2(E), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated..,� October 26,2005. 3. "Report of Field Density Tests, Retaining Wall Backfill, Proposed Single-F :--, - -" Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, Califon, Project No. 0 1-1 167D2(D), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 24,2005. 4. "Basement Foundation Excavation Observation, Proposed Single-Family Resideme-," 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California", Project 1167D2(D), Prepared--by -East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated August 9,2005. r. 5. "Report of Field Density Tests, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California", Project No. 0 1-1 167D2(C), Prepared, by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated July 26,2005. 6. "Addendum to Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 1.926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14,-Zatdiff-by 1e W tdifornia", Project No. 01- 1167D2(B), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated February 25,2005. x, 7. "Limited Site Investigation Update, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California", Project NQ. 014167D2(A), Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 13, 2004. 8. "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, r APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California", Project No. 0 1 A 167D2, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 31, 2001. 4 �y lie 0 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY RD..SUITE 1.SANTEE,CA 92071 (619)258-7901 Fax(619)2594M. "W EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION' AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 L Lj MAY 2 4 2005 619 258-7901 FAX 619 258-7902 �14 [S Mr. Eric Murphy October 13, 2004 ELM Enterprises Project No. 01-1167D2(A) 396 North Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Limited Site Investigation Update Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California Reference: "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California.", Project No. 01- 1167D2, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 31, 2001. Dear Mr. Murphy: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced soil report and a representative of our firm visited the subject site on October 13, 2004. Site conditions and proposed construction remain as described in the referenced soil report. Therefore, the recommendations presented in the referenced soil report are still valid for the proposed development. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully s tted, -A5F SS%p ou S. UJ w No.CO54071 m, Exp. T; s �9 OCJ IL 0��\ Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E. RCE 54071 MSD/md J-�Gj ' EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619)258-7901 Fax 258-7902 October 31, 2001 Pn L " ; Mr. Eric Murphy ' 4 2 005° C/o ELM Enterprises LJ Li' MAY 396 North Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject : Project No. 01-1167D2 Limited Site Investigation Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California. Dear Mr. Murphy: In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited investigation of the soil conditions at the subject site . The investigation was undertaken to provide the soil engineering criteria for site grading and recommend an appropriate foundation system for the proposed development . Our investigation found that the site is underlain by approximately 3 feet of undocumented fill soils over formational soils classified as Terrace Deposits (Qt2) to the maximum explored depth of 5 feet . These fill soils generally consist of tan, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sand with a very low expansion potential . It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented during construction. Respectfully submitted, 1 Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P. E RCE 54071 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 INTRODUCTION This is to present the findings and conclusions of a soil investigation for a proposed single family residence to be located on the west side - of Oxford Avenue, in Cardiff by the Sea, California . The objectives of the investigation were to determine the existing soils conditions and provide recommendations for site development. In order to accomplish these objectives, two (2) exploratory holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 5 . 0 feet; undisturbed and loose bag samples were obtained, and laboratory , tests were performed. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is located on the west side of Oxford Avenue, in Cardiff by the Sea, California. The site is presently occupied with a one-story single-family dwelling that will be removed and replaced with the proposed residence . The site is a previously graded cut and fill pad that slopes moderately to the west. A cut slope of approximately 10 feet descends from Oxford Avenue to the existing building pad. Boundaries include Oxford Avenue to the east, an alley to the west and residential parcels to the north and south. Vegetation consists of grass, shrubs and trees . The proposed construction is a 2-story, wood-framed single-family residence to be founded on continuous and spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor system. FIELD INVESTIGATION Two exploratory holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 8 feet by a shovel and a hand auger on September 27 , 2001 at the approximate locations shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Holes" . A continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet" . The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set forth on the attached Plate No. 3 entitled "Uniform Soil Classification Chart . 2 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subgrade soils encountered during the course of our investigation were undocumented fill soils to a depth of approximately 3 feet . These soils consist of tan, damp, loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) . The underlying Terrace Deposits (Qt2) were medium dense to dense in consistency. EXPANSIVE SOILS An expansion test was performed on a subgrade soil sample to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content . An expansion index of zero indicates a very low expansion potential . GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during the course of our investigation. Groundwater is anticipated at a depth greater than 100 feet . We do not expect ground water to affect the proposed development . GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A review of the available geological literature pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 4 . 0 Km to the west . Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area . The proposed residential structure should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters : PARAMETER VALUE UBC REFERENCE Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type Sp Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.48 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.83 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor,Na 1.1 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.3 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U 3 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the consistency of the subgrade soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes visual inspection; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the sate. The site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. GRADING AND EARTHWORK Site grading should begin with clearing and grubbing, e.g. the removal of debris and vegetation. The subgrade soils should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grade and a minimum of five (5) feet beyond perimeter footings . The bottom of the excavation should be scarified about 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fills soils should be moisture conditioned to near optimum, placed in thin lifts and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The actual depth and extent of removal should be evaluated in the field at the time of excavation by a representative of this firm. Grading should be done in accordance with the attached appendix A. FOUNDATION AND SLAB a . Continuous footings are suitable for use and shall extend a minimum of 18 inches for the two-story structure into the compacted fill soils . These footings should be at least 15 inches in width and reinforced with four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings . b. Concrete floor slabs should be a nominal 4 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way . Slab reinforcement should be placed within the middle third of the slab by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies" . The slab should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier . 4 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in virtually all concrete slabs . To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a maximum of 4 inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks . c. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, the 10-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 4 inches thick, consisting of sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent .passing the #200 sieve. d. An allowable soil bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings founded a minimum of 12 inches into the compacted fill soils . This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 4500 lb/ft2 as set forth in the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 18-1-A. e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil . An allowable passive pressure of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0 . 25 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. RETAINING WALLS Unrestrained, cantilevered retaining walls with a level backfill may be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot . This pressure is based on the backfill soils being free draining and non-expansive. Backfill materials must be approved by the soils engineer prior to use . Restrained walls, such as basement walls, that are not free to rotate should be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot . SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and thickness of the fill soil and the anticipated building load, the settlement should be within acceptable limits . 5 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS Excavations for on-site utility either trenches shored ore sloped at t1Ha11V ffor shallow depths and must for depths greater than 4 feet . utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe . This backfill shall be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support . The remainder of the backfill shall be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which shall be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 % relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures shall be undertaken to properly finish grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area. Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structures and other improvements . LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION The recommendations provided in this report pertain only to the site investigated and based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the trenches . If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, East County soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be provided. 6 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO- 01-1167D2 Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1, References and Appendix A are parts of this report . Respectfully submitted, Mamadou Saliou Diallo RCE 54071 MSD/md `-� R) S,Q F r No.C 054071 ° * Exp.!z s� cm OF CAL`,` 7 jc4GEX�ojC'�f7Y f/°Z r0� OF .SL� EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. q 10925 HARTLEY RD.,SUITE 1.SAN'TEE,CA 92071 (619)258-7901 Fax(619)258-7902 Da/ O/-//4(,-7dz PG�4� �clo . / ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 PLATE NO. 2 SUMMARY SHEET NO. 1 HOLE NO. 1 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M Surface TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt2) tan, damp, dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 1 .0' `% NX 115. 6 3 . 6 2 . 5' bottom of hole hole backfilled 9/27/01 --------------------------------------------- HOLE NO. 2 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M Surface UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOILS (Qaf) tan, dry, loose to medium dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 2 . 5' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt2) tan, dry, loose to medium dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 3. 0' tan brown, moist, medium dense, 2 .8 to dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 5. 0' bottom of hole hole backfilled 9/27/01 --------------------------------------------- 8 MAJOR DIVISIONS ISYMBOL DESCRIPTION Gw WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND (MORE THAN'/: MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES OF COARSE FRACTION GM SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES >NO.4 SIEVE SIZE) COARSE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES GRAINED SOILS (MORE THAN%a OF SOIL> NO.200 SIEVE SIZE) Sw WELL GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS SP POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, (MORE THAN%' LITTLE OR NO FINES OF COARSE FRACTION Sm SILTY SANDS,SILT-SAND MIXTURES <NO.4 SIEVE SIZE) SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS & SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS, <50 SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS FINE GRAINED OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF SOILS LOW PLASTICITY (MORE THAN V2 OF SOIL< NO.200 SIEVE SIZE) INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATObfACEOUS SILTS & FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS CLAYS - CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS >,50 OH I ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS,ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS I Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGAMC SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM) �o CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN IN SIZES 60 U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN x SIEVE SIZE MILLIMETERS so BOULDERS Above 12 Inches Above 305 x COBBLES 12 Inches To 3 Inches 305 To 76.2 > '° GRAVEL I 3 Inches to No.4 76.2 to 4.76 _ so Coarse 3 Inches to'/.Inch 76.2 to 19.1 _ y Fine '/.Inch to No.-t 19.1 to 4.76 m I SAND No.4 to No.200 4.76 to 0.074 Coarse No.4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 w I Medium No. 10 to No.40 2.00 to 0.420 „UAL uic:=.['ma• i I � Fine No.40 to No.200 0.420 to 0.074 ° ° io zo 10 .° so a° .o ac sc ico SILT AND CLAY Below No.200 Below 0.074 uou o um.r (u). GRAIN SIZE CHART PLASTICITY CHART EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING,INC. ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT 10925 HARTLEY ROAD,SUITE "I" PROJECT N0. 01-1167D2 SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 PLATE NO. 3 10/31/01 U.S.C.S. SOIL CLASSIFICATION ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PAGE L-1 An expansion test in conformance with UBC 18-2 was performed on a representative sample of on- site soils to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. The recorded expansion of the sample is presented as follows: INITIAL SATURATED INITIAL DRY MOISTURE MOISTURE DENSITY - EXPANSION CONTENT% CONTENT% LB./CU. FT. . INDEX 10.2 21.6 107.8 0 9 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 REFERENCES 1 . 111997 Edition, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering and Design Provisions" . 2 . "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada", Page 0-36, used with the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Published by International Conference of Building Officials . 3. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Plate No. 2, Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7 . 5' Quadrangles", by Siang S. Tan and, Michael P. Kennedy, 1996 . 10 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING,INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE I SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1. General Description The intent of these specifications is to obtain uniformity and adequate strength in filled ground so that the proposed structures may be safely supported. The procedures include the clearing and preparation of the land to be filled, processing the fill soils, the spreading, and compaction of the filled areas to conform with the lines and grades as shown on the approved plans. The owner shall retain a Civil Engineer qualified in soil mechanics (herein referred to as engineer) to inspect and test earthwork in accordance with these specifications. The engineer shall advise the owner and grading contractor immediately if any unsatisfactory conditions are observed to exist and shall have the authority to reject the compacted filled ground until such time that corrective measures are taken, necessary to comply with the specifications. It shall be the sole responsibility of the grading contractor to achieve the specified degree of compaction. 2. Preparing Areas to be Filled (a) All brush, vegetation and any biodegradable refuse shall be removed or otherwise disposed of so as to leave the areas to be filled free of vegetation and debris. Any uncompacted filled ground or loose compressible natural ground shall be removed unless the report recommends otherwise. Any buried tanks or other structures shall be removed and the depression backfilled to the satisfaction of the engineer. (b) 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 12 inches (12"). (c) After the natural ground has been prepared, it shall then be brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. (d) Where fills are made on slopes greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into the firm natural ground. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 15 feet in width on firm undisturbed natural ground. The width of all succeeding benches shall be at least 6 feet. APPENDIX A 2 3. Fill Materials All material shall be approved by the engineer and shall consist of materials free from vegetable matter, and other lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter. If, during grading operations, soils are found which were not encountered and tested in the preliminary investigation, tests on these soils shall be performed to determine their physical characteristics. Any special treatment recommended in the preliminary or subsequent soils reports not covered herein shall become an addendum to these specifications. 4. Placing and Compacting Fill Materials (a) When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified, water shall be added until the moisture content is near optimum to assure uniform mixing and effective compaction. (b) When the moisture content of the fill materials is above that specified, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. (c) After processing, the suitable fill materials shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches (6"). Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading insure uniformity of materials and moisture in each layer. (d) After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in paragraph 2 (c) above. Compaction shall be accomplished with approval types of compaction equipment. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. In place density tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D1556-90. (e) The surfaces of the fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting operations shall be continued until the slopes are stable and until there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes. 5. Inspection Sufficient inspection by our firm or the Soil's Engineer of record and/or his/her representative shall be maintained during the filling and compacting operations so that he/she can verify that the fill was constructed in accordance with the accepted specifications. 6. Seasonal Limits No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled if weather conditions increase the moisture content above permissible limits. When the work is interrupted by rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until the moisture content and density of fill are as previously specified. All recommendations presented in the attached report are a part of these specifications. a EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION`!` ` AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" MAY 2 [ 2005 SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 i 619 258-7901 FAX 619 258-7902 ' Mr. Eric Murphy October 13, 2004 ELM Enterprises Project No. 01-1167D2(A) 396 North Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Limited Site Investigation Update Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California Reference: "Limited Site Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14, Cardiff by the Sea, California.", Project No. 01- 1167D2, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated October 31, 2001. Dear Mr. Murphy: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced soil report and a representative of our firm visited the subject site on October 13, 2004. Site conditions and proposed construction remain as described in the referenced soil report. Therefore, the recommendations presented in the referenced soil report are still valid for the proposed development. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully s tted, o9ROFESSip!1� No.C054071 M, w M; M Exp. %z-3-c� $ (P�-9 OCI IL Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E. RCE 54071 MSD/md THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON MAY 19.2005 Recording Requested by: ) DOCUMENT NUMBER 2005-0425466 GREGORY J SM11 H.COUNTY RECORDER City Engineer ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE When Recorded Mail To: ) TIME 3.50 PM City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 south Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPACI COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor' s Parcel Work Or de Number: 260-362-14 Project 04-139 A. Eric Murphy, ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows: See Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof . B. In consideration of 9267-G, OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improvements, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, or any other applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same. C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties . D. OWNER agrees that OWNER' s duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant . E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney' s fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant . G. Upon OWNER' s satisfaction of OWNER' s duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant" . H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. AC PTED AGR D: OWNER Eric Murp y Date (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CITY EN A Dated .�jll? �f;3` by (Notarizati n not required) Peter Cota-Rob es, Director of Engineering Services Attachment `A' Legal Description of Real Property APN 260-362-14 LOT 13 AND 14 IN BLOCK 48 OF CARDIFF "A", IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA , ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1334, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO, MAY 12, 1911. CALIFORNIA ALL•PlJ PGSc ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County of i �J `S On ¢/��/� before me, ' NV2 'z�'v• r.l Date r Name and True of Office:(e.g.,•Jane Doe,Notary Public") 7personally onally appeared L r f C Lfr Name(s)of Sigrwr(s) known to me–OR–❑proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) �•' whose name(s (s/ re subscribed to the within instrument and acknn wiedged to me thatfe/ e/they executed the ;j s ir`hi�s�her/their authorize p city(ies),and that by �'his" er/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), y . OFFICIAL SEAL or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, ARTHUR P AROUILLA 9 executed the instrument. NOTARY pIJBLIC•CALIFORNIA�', COMM.NO.1334 SAN DIEGO COUNTY my COMM.EXP.JAN.7,2006 WITNESS{ny hand and official seal. t - Signature of ota ublic t V OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required bylaw,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: • S }; Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) i i�l V Signer's Name: Signer's Name: 4 4 ❑ Individual D Individual i D Corporate Officer D Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General ❑ Partner—D Limited ❑General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact D Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator - ❑ Other: Top of thumb here ❑ Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: o t• C 199:Nanona'Noray Asso�ahon•82%Remrne;Ave.,P.O.$o.7184•Ceraga Pati..CA 953 718< Prod.No.59J7 Ca!!Tol!-Free 1 E:i.•-E76-f.S27 HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 1926 OXFORD AVE. CARDIFF, CA MURPHY RESIDENCE APN: 260-362-14 GRADING PLAN L-9267G Prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: 760-480-6062 Fax: 760-735-9459 e-mail: maIN shamrock.us.com FESS/p,�,9 c� l 343c� � E p. 30-05 CAL ; • anyon _ to vs J H ' .� 5 •F id• - r ��' , - -ter w z S: • , ..•t.� :y __ tom, - -, _ 'U ! �� it >�. _• tt i!~ � _ _ 1 _ f; Ilk iT \ 11 1� LLI GCS Cal• Cn C O TeL V, 111 S. 1 t� _-: lvF3�. �_ j ` _ i . ` f ( I.vf;' �1 ENCI I•I PI 41. rl ! Cie j !) 1 15 CIC cts CGC ` Cf6 t l MiC \ Son Diaguiio �\ Union School li \l Cbc I CS C =� \� Cfe \, \� Cbo wilc 22 r Y7t v J \1 \,Eki �'-�tt di l t' - CcE \ �Cr V Ca T 1 � C ( n ..... i 1,!f �CfP, f"I iF II Cfi's } TE \+ CfD2 CfC �l �a X 1\ CSC i Cr SAIN st1 r_ I L , (Joins sheet 43,De f Mar quadrangle) ` ' I 1690 00o FEET N Cooperating Agencies i 2 Mites San Diego County Planning Department T San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organizatio 10 000 Feet. U.S.Dept.of Agriculture-Forest Service ttion Service. U.S.Dept.of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs Dept.of the Navy-U.S.Marine Corps TABLE 11.--INi'ERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued Limitations for Soil Hydro- Erodibility conversion 'p logic from brush to mbol group grass CaD2 Fa pine coarse sandy loan, 9 to 1S percent slopes, B Moderate 2--- Slight. 4/ roded. CbB lsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes------ C Severe 2----- Slight. CbC lsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slg p;----- C Severe ?- Slight. _. _ CbD lsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes----- C Severe 2- --- Slight. CbE lsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes---- C Severe 2----- Slight. CCC lsbad-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes------- D ' CcE arlsbad-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes------ D CeC arrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes-------- A Severe Z CfB esterton fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes---- D Severe 9----- Slight. CfC 3testerton fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes-------- D Severe 9----- Slight. CfD2 Chesterton fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, D Severe 9----- Moderate. eroded. CgC esterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: ------------- D Chesterton--------------------------- -------------- D Urban lead-------------- ------------- ChA no fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. C Severe 16---- Slight. ChB 'no fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------------- ev CkA 'no silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- C Moderate 2--- Severe. C1D2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 1S percent slopes, B Severe 16---- S eroded. C1E2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. ClG2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, B Severe 1----- Severe. eroded. CmE2 ieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Severe. slopes, eroded. lnwG ieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1----- Severe. slopes. CnE2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loans, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded: Severe. Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 16---- Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 16---- Severe. CnG2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy looms, 30 to 65 percent slopes, eroded: B Severe 1----- Severe. Cieneba---------------------------------------------- Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe --- Severe. Co layey alluvial land------------------------------------- D Moderate 2 2--- Slight. Cr oastal beaches------------------------------------------ A Severe 2 A Severe 2----- Slight. CSB rralitos loamy sand, 0 to S percent slopes--------- CSC rralitos loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CsD rralitos loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes------------ A Severe 2----- Slight. CtE roach coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes--------- B Severe 16---- Slight. CtF rouch coarse sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-------- B Severe, 1-----' Moderate. WE roach rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Moderate. slopes. Moderate. CuG Touch rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 percent B Severe d----- slopes. CvG roach stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe, Moderate. slopes. ----____-- D Slight Slight. 1/ DaC iablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes------------- 8ht------ DaD iablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes---------------------- D Slight-------- Slight. l/ ____-- D Moderate------ Slight. 1/ DaE iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------- -- D Moderate 1--- Slight. 1/ DaE2 iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded----------- Moderate. 1/ DaF iablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------=- D Severe 1----- See footnotes at end of table. 33 %0 fp • y \ 1- • ^� L= cb e , Q: _ C.3 r. ' ©i t I ara •7 ® L""I a ^tq era / ,�+►�- j� Q .•. N co � a CN ice+ J r CD : • z N N LLI LLJ f 'Rf M ;�h ut gn z IC .- o in N O Z t:t ° C2 66 W Z O {f1 N -0. z O O O C3 N M t cc -C V M 2 Lt. J M Qom, Off^• 06 N O C> `L" M < O i._ z � ° v arm > -3< <a cc in ' Oa < c> htS CL O i < a � `'r 1 ,i• 0 0 7 cx um CN act LAJ CD ca cz tW CD met- 3 3 air _ _ti►w •H ' j � _ \ v L LLJ C=3 C14 cc C.7 ` o VOW* MIC o o t3 '' v (21 7.1- x � o v � o s Ln z� +. e+1 p m eQ+1 O w O O V -C < tom- cc O C., _ < x Z ¢ o a go Co W J c C-2 o LL- 'A t v i - 1 • • ,..,�-�.,-...�.....��A wr ir�ai�/�A/��Ir•�a�./�rrl��I�r+s aFJ.i�lt a i.r.fi..a s.�s7.i ii _ s��"Iral.aka flt'�J[r:i/aV aiif��rl a'.�[..a1i11�rS r+� f�II ar♦..C' A"i't aia►'!'tS a/'1 i l LH n/as/a-t �Y t "lam IV ~ -r?f W'I"-r.-i.r1�-S2. C S M rT-i f t 11 i r f i i is ��y■,r11 Ia-amm 1=E�w A .=,-'- rs- aw.±!S: 1sllr K7 r11r=srK rr.ar ma nr_->•�s irsr ss�Y u tsr�r.r�s b�'. ['1l1 sail Cil i i g7•��raarr I Ir ar,..r+ .1a�I�,�■-v 71117 �l =7 K i"iE `M S Li'f7 I[7[1 L'�'C R M K.11 i<1 i i 7 ii�1=-_� w *7115]fLl[T7tRiY d" �r/I..�6l:idt'1SlRSF�'.�!!f[L1lii�I�-[i-171fS�t*i�i�� i6tS�`.`f LCl t f[3i LSi r i'r ff: T4S1 E/Lf t�T7. fl f i i7S,i[7.i 7 1 11 i 1 H t f=n a S� �.lCil iF?T'3[7T trZfLIVI/I��r?i'_$iZl r,bt� .I'6 :;:'7Si;;--A1li It II l l l s■1■f ut x�;�:�cllsrc�ssi.»rr�►r �tI►eras+�a►.e�I�uu°ntntrt�ia Islstt><itats ?t1A IiflfF;lllt�i[ii�� 1V1tffw rim!:iSi'S7e141,1t41I111112 Ill 2uu If Ar&W �1Hi1i1[1111ittoSusan TTlEIt��lo fftyArAwAV.'r','-AbW7AH11! 7:> s I.I311t311!1!!t111i1� 4"WM111Vi'.VATA lS;ii� . "r1flI�H1 r1 Eiki 1-- --- i[lilt I1111I _ — — v a:. �..,..�� a.rr a.r..a.s.r-..,rvs�cra�.a..r.ia s>•.�>r.n+ arr r~a.w r i-a.r as a..rr�►�.r�r .tea:a a�sz�roar c�r c��.r= A�.�l.�I.rs�1•�.Y�W Wiz:i't�ia�snteun ass�ntrr as A...=trr�d�ff7lf r• r r czr r afar�za r ra-�.war VW�aWa s s cr�c r.r=>s�=ura= is.r+rr W W to L7 tle�rr l AIL.W 11 aa1 W A AL rWQWa�W=tess_t t1LQ i1-rK3 asa�� -- +�.�A.►�a r��t l�r �.r �I��.rraw��v r<w1 R.M a a t Y�a[l.f"�lad fry IT.ar arr a�ar+a�sc�r.aI l+iaf r�aa aaacY)>r�r tata,r a�W rL o vwNjm� Sara titer's 7Z.1s KI iIL.IS_' 7 it L ri1 r�'=L��'L�>i= �«1[1�S.r>•�a.ci.Y'f frLi �TQ■`t1f.7�iYYLJ}4J<'a 1KY7Kti=1t�Ai1R Sa= >�.la,i FT7r n�1'��C'�.. lr anc�•�'`JC=!<Il -__�� iZ�a i]K-.r si11 11i]'�i2T1 i12TJ iilfi R it 1 t 1I7a f r— r6ifs[sly 11-127 1Kta flt LLiI a=1 iM S>•>W � r W.s�.ar lo':scar s'.=:1►-OWU! ►, �taa enn oUFal R�uxst sZSai1 M a i�.DC ae fiLaf�7t W06,w=Zt.w-t'JW R s"A' sal Amin AAW:1W I Ali==ice► sii r�-1cc�Cua-'tcllS7lrii'r:ar17'S ra sia lll�r� .�[.I J[TI rl A is rlel.�:�►�a�qi��+�a r2w"aw"ma 1 mzmm n"t7 z Jf=>tt�t s= Iil�e it rt f+'iA',I z.ALftj Ur 1Q3•t717!!�t/ �NxIBA Cmnw wKv1w frm Qt a f I Y a Y!�um m R� aK jwi:1D cflsr Arlri71�AWAMIXKJ•A�W"MjffWNW Iiiii�14i717�7itit7TQililti [sss iI!! z.m i ur 4 T w w Aw'AA"1w iwrAA6w AWF"V Avim u q n![lies f Liz■Naw==I! i. JAWlY"-fWllJA[rfkfE47 �LTf3I<f[]i � mmmjixnrfmLtmIMIli11I;1t1Q�>! �7.fro//FACWAES1iP�Tllfii7�A7 �� c }g11iCFiTifl[[lllassIn 11th pY w.,i,i.�i• "ii!s3iri' i[l��E� lt> #' tl3i-.tflt5.lrAdVA11M10A! AM 2111 1XI 141I1 i111Q1t' N"Iff �/�T NV, $ Y 1 f 1 _ - Y L ' r��r��fr��r�r�frrl%.Il�ir%Irr�Y�r�1�tf■1f{fff tff/ii�ff� r r_f_��_�r�T"_T� —�. '�'rS�-.�,�..� .ff.T�•s.ttt.�tns�tfss�•.w�_�at� r r tfa ft_w t�f tfts_�tr.��..r�f•-s_.�a.f�-fft+�♦ftao ws.-r-�_ter•r rr.sf fsw r�rrtfr��r�i�r�v�r�r_�{tt.f fa-.a.rfrfl�_s��f rr� �wfi�rtr��.�.r firw�_-fft��{ttotr sfarfnwtlss�fri aimss. ss.sss•ssssrs s•s•�i Jr s/•s�sr i r J!•Js•i�r�•nur.ua��rrasrusrss•s• aim CSC' '�IWMWAM :..::C:� mmm s!•s's•s••rJr///w.wrAw W AR.A��sOr1[�afst�slifsllt,�a Fl on mil■! =�� MAwN rdlflnlllxm� wmm ME iii . 1• =m A Ap AWAOM ME_ . . �i��i ►wr��wME ■ii fir__ts�f w�I•i�if�i aids��i��r�t�.t��w:s:::s_�ro��afa�� r r��rte rfr�t_I�•�rfr a fff�f/�tff ttf__rf fI�fry rtrf■tt{f t{{_-flflrf/fi_f�a� rr�rf�rff/rf/_1/.ff! r•r f_rl rrrr /ttf fyifNfiflfrr�>•�r G'Cd!��19.�' a, w�ss�ssss•�AWAWAW.sr�'AWa►JS.�tJ��ssss tsss��su.suss��s�ssuas•st� s>•wwss•wsss>.s•r�s.�s>.�s•s'�wws•��ss,es��ws•srussnsr�stst�s�sa:•sn� • ww�w.��•�__�_anrfr��s_�_�J��_rww_r��__�si�.uwsrsm��Ewa�� - Xx 2w s _ r lsu�a�r/��.►��r� �.r��a��'i.�.f�ff�l��r�ftrf.f.ffa_a�t�_��f/ riff. � frr.ftf■{� / q ® �� /.w ff/��w•�iNf{RfN�s.s�_ w =f�r��I�JI��I��a/ _r�fr{11rr11f�ffw�r�f�f�f.�lflrtt•.wa�f1.{r{f�f..s�twi_f� siw s•st s•J J/J r—J►tAM sl'A it ��w/�s s•s•ss•Asir Nll7if slstiRr�J�s�i low%�i t%��5��lu�/�!�/f1f s♦ ulss`N W■ENS ME NMI ►/�1%.///////I,■//�ENE �� IN■�� Ir.■r.■r r_■■►mil■■ ■ 1..r■■■�■■ i_■■■1�_■lu■��■■ii■ .EAR r **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1517 Analysis prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 480-6062 F: (760) 735-9459 E-mail: mail @shamrock.us.com ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * HYDROLOGY FOR BASIN A * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1143-DOA.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:28 04/06/2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.550 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 2.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 22 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN. ) = 5.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TC(MIN. ) = 5.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.18 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1517 Analysis prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 480-6062 F: (760) 735-9459 E-mail: mail @shamrock.us.com ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * HYDROLOGY FOR BASIN B * * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1143-DOB.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:52 04/06/2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.550 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 2.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN. ) = 5.000 loo YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: 0.05 TC(MIN. ) 5.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.21 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING,INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTE, j 2 8ORNIA 92071 r Fax 258-7902 D l5 October 31, 2001 MAY 44 2005 Mr. Eric Murphy ENGi°d ER NG SERVICES C/o ELM Enterprises CJA " Eflc; 'SAS 396 North Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject : Project No . 01-1167D2 Limited Site Investigation Proposed Single Family Residence 1926 Oxford Avenue, APN 260-362-14 Cardiff by the Sea, California. Dear Mr. Murphy: In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited investigation of the soil conditions at the subject site. The investigation was undertaken to provide the soil engineering criteria for site grading and recommend an appropriate foundation system for the proposed development . Our investigation found that the site is underlain by approximately 3 feet of undocumented fill soils over formational soils classified as Terrace Deposits (Qt2) to the maximum explored depth of 5 feet . These fill soils generally consist of tan, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sand with a very low expansion potential . It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented during construction. Respectfully submitted, 1� Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P. E RCE 54071 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 INTRODUCTION This is to present the findings and conclusions of a soil investigation for a proposed single family residence to be located on the west side of Oxford Avenue, in Cardiff by the Sea, California. The objectives of the investigation were to determine the existing soils conditions and provide recommendations for site development . In order to accomplish these objectives, two (2) exploratory holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 5 . 0 feet; undisturbed and loose bag samples were obtained, and laboratory tests were performed. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is located on the west side of Oxford Avenue, in Cardiff by the Sea, California. The site is presently occupied with a one-story single-family dwelling that will be removed and replaced with the proposed residence. The site is a previously graded cut and fill pad that slopes moderately to the west . A cut slope of approximately 10 feet descends from Oxford Avenue to the existing building pad. Boundaries include Oxford Avenue to the east, an alley to the west and residential parcels to the north and south. Vegetation consists of grass, shrubs and trees . The proposed construction is a 2-story, wood-framed single-family residence to be founded on continuous and spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor system. FIELD INVESTIGATION Two exploratory holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 8 feet by a shovel and a hand auger on September 27, 2001 at the approximate locations shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Holes" . A continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet" . The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set forth on the attached Plate No. 3 entitled "Uniform Soil Classification Chart . 2 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subgrade soils encountered during the course of our investigation were undocumented fill soils to a depth of approximately 3 feet . These soils consist of tan, damp, loose to medium dense silty sand (SM) . The underlying Terrace Deposits (Qt2) were medium dense to dense in consistency. EXPANSIVE SOILS An expansion test was performed on a subgrade soil sample to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content . An expansion index of zero indicates a very low expansion potential . GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during the course of our investigation. Groundwater is anticipated at a depth greater than 100 feet . We do not expect ground water to affect the proposed development. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A review of the available geological literature pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 4 . 0 Km to the west . Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area . The proposed residential structure should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters : PARAMETER VALUE UBC REFERENCE Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type SD Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.48 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.83 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor,Na 1.1 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor,Nv 1.3 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U 3 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the consistency of the subgrade soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes visual inspection; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. GRADING AND EARTHWORK Site grading should begin with clearing and grubbing, e. g. the removal of debris and vegetation. The subgrade soils should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grade and a minimum of five (5) feet beyond perimeter footings . The bottom of the excavation should be scarified about 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fills soils should be moisture conditioned to near optimum, placed in thin lifts and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The actual depth and extent of removal should be evaluated in the field at the time of excavation by a representative of this firm. Grading should be done in accordance with the attached appendix A. FOUNDATION AND SLAB a. Continuous footings are suitable for use and shall extend a minimum of 18 inches for the two-story structure into the compacted fill soils . These footings should be at least 15 inches in width and reinforced with four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings . b. Concrete floor slabs should be a nominal 4 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed within the middle third of the slab by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies" . The slab should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. 4 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in virtually all concrete slabs . To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a maximum of 4 inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks . c. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, the 10-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 4 inches thick, consisting of sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve. d. An allowable soil bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings founded a minimum of 12 inches into the compacted fill soils . This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 4500 lb/ft2 as set forth in the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 18-1-A. e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil . An allowable passive pressure of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0 . 25 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. RETAINING WALLS Unrestrained, cantilevered retaining walls with a level backfill may be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot . This pressure is based on the backfill soils being free draining and non-expansive . Backfill materials must be approved by the soils engineer prior to use . Restrained walls, such as basement walls, that are not free to rotate should be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot . SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and thickness of the fill soil and the anticipated building load, the settlement should be within acceptable limits . 5 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 j UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS Excavations for on-site utility trenches may be made vertically for shallow depths and must be either shored or sloped at 1H: 1V for depths greater than 4 feet . Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill shall be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support . The remainder of the backfill shall be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which shall be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 % relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures shall be undertaken to properly finish grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area . Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structures and other improvements . LIMITS OF INVESTIGATION The recommendations provided in this report pertain only to the site investigated and based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the trenches . If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be provided. 6 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1, References and Appendix A are parts of this report . Respectfully submitted, Mamadou Saliou Diallo RCE 54071 MSD/md No.C 054071 a Exp.I z -1 `rjgT CML FOF CA V:" 7 .Sc.4LE -�"�} 7251/> EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY RD..SUITE 1,SANTEE,CA 92071 (619)258-7901 Fax(619)258-7902 O/-114;7 bz PG,4 72--: /t-/o . / ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 PLATE NO. 2 SUMMARY SHEET NO. 1 HOLE NO. 1 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M Surface TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt2) tan, damp, dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 1 . 0' `, NN N, NN 115. 6 3. 6 2 . 5' bottom of hole hole backfilled 9/27/01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOLE NO. 2 DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M Surface UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOILS (Qaf) tan, dry, loose to medium dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 2 . 5' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt2) tan, dry, loose to medium dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 3. 0' tan brown, moist, medium dense, 2 . 8 to dense, fine grained silty sand (SM) 5.0' bottom of hole hole backfilled 9/27/01 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS GP (MORE THAN'/: POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND OF COARSE MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO FINES FRACTION GM >NO.4 SIEVE SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES COARSE SIZE) GRAINED SOILS GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SA,`1D-CLAY MIXTURES (MORE THAN%a OF SOIL> Sw NO.200 SIEVE SIZE) WELL GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS SP (MORE THAN Y= POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, OF COARSE LITTLE OR NO FINES FRACTION SM <NO.4 SIEVE SILTY SANDS,SILT-SAND MIXTURES SIZE) SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES NIL INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK SILTS & FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS, FINE GRAINED <50 SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS OL SOILS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF (MORE THAN%z OF SOIL< LOW PLASTICITY NO.200 SIEVE SIZE) MH INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTS & FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS CLAYS CH LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT >,50 CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS,ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGAMC SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM) 70 CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN 60 SIEVE SIZE ,MILLIMETERS � a° BOULDERS Above 12 Inches Above 305 I I -1 f COBBLES 12 Inches To 3 Inches 305 To 76.2 .a GRAVEL 3 Inches to No.4 76.2 to 4°76 ^ Coarse 3 Inches to'/,Inch 76.2 to 19.1 70 ( ( a Fine '/.Inch to No.4 19.1 to 4.76 SAND No.4 to No.200 4.76 to 0.074 z° I f I I wHx6H Coarse No.4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 �o Medium No. 10 to No.40 2.00 to 0.420 LkOL Fine No.40 to No.200 0.420 to 0.074 ° ° is 2° s° .o so so ro as so i°o SILT AND CLAY I Below No.200 Befow 0.074 uouto uwr (u.), GRAIN SIZE CHART PLASTICITY CHART EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT 10925 HARTLEY ROAD,SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 PLATE NO. 3 10/31/01 U.S.C.S. SOIL CLASSIFICATION ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PAGE L-1 An expansion test in conformance with UBC 18-2 was performed on a representative sample of on- site soils to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. The recorded expansion of the sample is presented as follows: INITIAL SATURATED INITIAL DRY MOISTURE MOISTURE DENSITY EXPANSION CONTENT% CONTENT% LB./CU. FT. INDEX 10.2 21.6 107.8 0 9 ELM ENTERPRISES PROJECT NO. 01-1167D2 REFERENCES 1 . "1997 Edition, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering and Design Provisions" . 2 . "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada", Page 0-36, used with the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Published by International Conference of Building Officials . 3. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Plate No. 2, Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7 . 5' Quadrangles", by Siang S . Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, 1996 . 10 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING,INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE I SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1. General Description The intent of these specifications is to obtain uniformity and adequate strength in filled ground so that the proposed structures may be safely supported. The procedures include the clearing and preparation of the land to be filled, processing the fill soils, the spreading, and compaction of the filled areas to conform with the lines and grades as shown on the approved plans. The owner shall retain a Civil Engineer qualified in soil mechanics (herein referred to as engineer) to inspect and test earthwork in accordance with these specifications. The engineer shall advise the owner and grading contractor immediately if any unsatisfactory conditions are observed to exist and shall have the authority to reject the compacted filled ground until such time that corrective measures are taken, necessary to comply with the specifications. It shall be the sole responsibility of the grading contractor to achieve the specified degree of compaction. 2. Preparing Areas to be Filled (a) All brush, vegetation and any biodegradable refuse shall be removed or otherwise disposed of so as to leave the areas to be filled free of vegetation and debris. Any uncompacted filled ground or loose compressible natural ground shall be removed unless the report recommends otherwise. Any buried tanks or other structures shall be removed and the depression backfilled to the satisfaction of the engineer. (b) 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 12 inches (12"). (c) After the natural ground has been prepared, it shall then be brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. (d) Where fills are made on slopes greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into the firm natural ground. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 15 feet in width on firm undisturbed natural ground. The width of all succeeding benches shall be at least 6 feet. APPENDIX A 2 3. Fill Materials All material shall be approved by the engineer and shall consist of materials free from vegetable matter, and other lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter. If, during grading operations, soils are found which were not encountered and tested in the preliminary investigation, tests on these soils shall be performed to determine their physical characteristics. Any special treatment recommended in the preliminary or subsequent soils reports not covered herein shall become an addendum to these specifications. 4. Placing and Compacting Fill Materials (a) When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified, water shall be added until the moisture content is near optimum to assure uniform mixing and effective compaction. (b) When the moisture content of the fill materials is above that specified, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. (c) After processing, the suitable fill materials shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches (6"). Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading insure uniformity of materials and moisture in each layer. (d) After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in paragraph 2 (c) above. Compaction shall be accomplished with approval types of compaction equipment. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. In place density tests shall be performed in accordance with ASTM D1556-90. (e) The surfaces of the fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compacting operations shall be continued until the slopes are stable and until there is no appreciable amount of loose soil on the slopes. 5. Inspection Sufficient inspection by our firm or the Soil's Engineer of record and/or his/her representative shall be maintained during the filling and compacting operations so that he/she can verify that the fill was constructed in accordance with the accepted specifications. 6. Seasonal Limits No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled if weather conditions increase the moisture content above permissible limits. When the work is interrupted by rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until the moisture content and density of fill are as previously specified. All recommendations presented in the attached report are a part of these specifications. 2 HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 1926 OXFORD AVE. CARDIFF, CA MURPHY RESIDENCE APN: 260-362-14 GRADING PLAN L-9267G Prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: 760-480-6062 Fax: 760-735-9459 e-mail: mail(aPshamrock.LIS.corn FESS/pNq � 343 9y z E p. 30-05 .- fir... 1 • ^ar►yan - '• Pr Ij t LWA- IJ • _ „ Aw In MA4 it sue. try • - •+ F �' r.` .. .'` :fir wu apt LU Oman s r _ ;ire_- `�l i•.a, _ ;,�, r Iy � �ICI+ r a �;� r j�1 •�: r.r r�'�r•...___,-.!r • c,�L, -.��-z1 � i ID w IibC�« •r v XV J r-- J. -- ' NONE, l� ) _ A w r• _,4, U RfO CL) 5 - o ANC ?r`��, ` \�, �!fi' '`' V'"�.vha \'i• —�-CfC Lam' Lvr3 \ CbD/ Va t',O1ys d v -_ uF3 CIC 13 UB 1 " 01 CfE Ic CGC !' CfB i mic Lvr3 LvF3 (� ) C: MIC San Cic vifo 9 School Cf9 c»P: CsC r r ras• _ 1 . l AtC CbD MIC CtJC \\\ r ( \ i \\ Y� p2 tAIE Ca4fiff, cc r: Cr ve � `� y � • l� \I .;hc} c C Vtra tun. /7 - SITE Cfo_�2, - 11 LrFs GfC i Cr , ILI I\S\ \j ;_V �•,.a �� e F " '0C (joins sheet 43,Del Mar quadrangle) } 1690000 FEET N Cooperating Agencies 1 2 Mites San Diego County Planning Department T San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organizatio 10000 Feet U.S.Dept.of Agriculture-Forest Service ►tion Service. U.S.Dept.of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs Dept.of the Navy-U.S.Marine Corps TABLE il.--INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued Limitations for ip Soil Hydro- Erodibility conversion mbol logic from brush to group grass CaD2 alpine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, B Moderate 2--- Slight. 4/ eroded. CbB lsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to S percent slopes------ C Severe 2----- Slight. CbC arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, S to 9 percent slopes------ C Severe 2----- Slight. CbD arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes----- C Severe 2----- Slight. CbE arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes---- C Severe 2----- Slight. CCC arlsbad-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes------- D CCE arlsbad-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent sloes------ D CeC arrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes-------- A Severe 2 CfB Chesterton fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes-------- D Severe 9----- Slight. CfC Chesterton fine sandy loan, 5 to 9 percent slopes-------- D Severe 9----- Slight. CfD2 Chesterton fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, D Severe 9----- Moderate. eroded. CgC Chesterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Chesterton------------------------------------------- D Urbanland------------------------------------------- D ChA 2xino fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. ChB ino fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. CkA hino silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- C Moderate 2--- Moderate. C1D2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 1S percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. CIE2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. CIG2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, B Severe 1----- Severe. eroded. CmE2 ieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Severe. slopes, eroded. ' NrG ieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1----- Severe. slopes. CnE2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 16---- Severe. Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 16---- Severe. CnG2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 1----- Severe. Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 1----- Severe: Co layey alluvial land------------------------------------- D Moderate 2--- Slight. Cr astal beaches------------------------------------------ A Severe 2 CsB Dorralitos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CsC rralitos loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent sloes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CsD rralitos loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes------------ A Severe 2----- Slight. CtE roach coarse sandy loan, 5 to 30 percent slopes--------- B Severe 16---- Slight. CtF roach coarse sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-------- B Severe,.I---- Moderate. WE '.rouch rocky coarse sandy loam, S to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Moderate. slopes. CuG roach rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 percent B Severe d----- Moderate. slopes. CvG roach stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 7S percent B Severe, l- -- Moderate. slopes. Dec Pablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------------------- D, Slight-------- Slight. 1/ DaD iablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes---------------------- D Slight-------- Slight. 1/ DaE iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------------- D Moderate------ Slight. 1/ DaE2 iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded------------- D Moderate 1--- Slight. 1/ DaF iablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------=---------- D Severe 1----- Moderate. 1/ See footnotes at end of table. 33 Iko D y ' -� r1 /� •"up O Om� ••gy�p� t.w � • •�• /• �' � M ! � � C6 r fill w �/ / ' 'O• `�.� 1 vw� ~ Y to r-�r- � ® i'• , ©,� ` as `- .U%� Mai , `�, `�•' •� /�� Czl) sw� �r 4 sunv `n C• .�. cc • co -C N CL LLJJ �i civ v CZ '= z< r d -: 211 W H z . O z W 2 '* �i v4i Mc Z ab p v a. 0 H U% '6 z Do O `p M L� t x t/f C W 0 LLZ r A VY O T O 0 tp �- i-- U p <oa cc z � uQC) O W J ' °a r w `- GALL i ya m J { V 1 � It r N C = co r m Cl xZ w Co > z t ca -i 00 ny Q CA rn O 0 . f7 N V i p K2 ;a 1.. .nZ ooh cnv ! 1 e cc 0 -4 o g 1 1 1 1 ! Da a n si °� 0 z° x f3 a � a > z st ca .a z • a? . a+ CJY o v _ e..d uj go cm rn nth ski A, rTM A ED ire CD cm eni l• L o ' V. t„t o ..o f C2 C"3 o: V' p_ V � C? p . oo r � �j• •11`w i�' i a � �i. . IL Ci 01 `-.� �I i i b z - r .i = - 1�+•t<ir+a��rra�+ fir.��-rr.a�i .r.� .iar.s:aa+.r�.y::la-s>t aa.r a.-.+r.i ar.w.��'�ra r .�...�� rsr r.r <.r..,..s i-rcr..•a�<.a,.�.�a.��..a>• _ =�f.aC1?�� '�� + O/��.f�1 1�•/�1.-�1'J mil.[Z V'�.[i��11 L'1!�•'1!t>•>• 1�:�S'1 f.i al=.w 1►i 1 Jf'�S a-t 41■�ra r!l.•/In t f lrt r m t 1 Y/t K>• ilaj WN l]iTii([11!!lI yw L �W��'it<Ix!�.Y�1 '. 2'T:1 i 1.11!t s t!H L IT_=1 1l'ili S.i■i=Ll W7 7'r 1.�'�►=11I ii A■-7!Ll;1!'.-.'tit::i II r L!'1 i'1 lif M!ti f EM L [1aS Tii]iZIY i g1A■f�Vr•�Y 1C�1 ay 11 .i'1'A�-`21?f'.:7 Si"Ltl alil l i.=i l f i][S i f!1 m L •jZ.Stllii.T AMt 6f'i7 AAfy L�7■S'&VVrl7 FV%VT ARIMM 1 t-=3.1=M f f\t l i n I t ri L77 c7F7'�f 1=.�Am tTF1 L� QIZ7'�S'.7!!t i t N.1!{i{i i 3i-u um l Ar;137i �-�rI/.�6Z,Q�F7liTl�ll i!?!I❑l�iTrLZfZt1331i��i1iNO 1iZI1fIZ7[Si'.iR AWAVLNLs'-``ASSE/AIli?1< :f',i^:�.7.S7I1ti1"ISO IN jig AN1•NO 1EDor,I.F?T7 tiTii[LrVl��ir�F��QSl�ft7t�l�d ::7ii;-! f33[)1�!l.Iilwt�fai� i t :1I(I,Rif-1t7 W.VAff WAW- dK7��S1H.!{ `?;i31i',1t71tlili{i{1{Zi!>{f� ift!�7 11t71fI>k!!I /fW~IFCiii �1V�ti�iiFs�fli ::lifl.�' illi,l�]tlittY�l » �ri:(31IflM./leaf=isrAW/lL�lr r1!/��II37il1 Fil'.:?�{�'.3!Uit3iIlI1I#��1I�/» I I Bills no lw . �-,'��ttst�vr.rsa►Mfr►ss�r��r®��;�r��, ►3ti«�iflllllljil ..a lr. S Y�a r Ida. � a Y fa•i�a uR-�ia�a ><>D�a>aa.arm�a�_saa 1i 7-47 L>rI'�►ilR=7!�!■mil■Ii�iLQT■Ll1"■10111■fS�!i�� )•�r DTI W r . r WY.rte►Il.�i►�' r SLV I tz■I Iva.ai T r!I■■�>!�a��>`�q t fffuf a1•c■1� u si iIII 1 Si 111 i11 i■t 111 f!Q ff11f W >1�7 fI-'L't la l�=»[-=JY/Ll1I a!1■f ti■flfls 7 Js LZ7V lCMMK M LEM a S.Ir LI 7 f f YJ s Y l=-llftf>�l� O!/JI ALT Liz�.f AM S'_��'=r Lil�7ta f!!S i3S1I a.i li7 i2ILI li if 1----Too — .�..�.��■�+�►/>_•i<+.�a.�" i.�,.r r-f.<<aa�.��'�o.cz..rr.�s ra as a a raw arr�ar r '��...rr.�r r•w�sar rs rsr +'ter�� s><s�■e.,.....-i�c: „.:s�1 a■a fu m WON no vrr y�. ::a=>t raar�.raa aiory■�■wcss aYr i.■irk cu cr�w-s s 3r JaS1[J■[i►iFt rc�■rls y��S!= IT7Q)=a.IY V*="w ll ZI■=ii mail s■isa i•■.1! alai L'l7r[I 1tT'�v1K't ��2'ls?' Li!<i'�CI•.tf�.�--`Siil:fY—4K ia11 ii'[QtT L2m Hfyi a!r'lm==H>smw Mt Zi::C■. tI.!.Y,O!I,�Ii■'.LCJ 7. .'?'!! .rte» S�I��r�■iifl�"Lrt LJM"WX i-1-■■■t lt.J tY Z[c'�= — �:fG n-W,C<W H!L!'S LZT!dTSF7 AAgxmw L.fLli�3i= 133 �iI R73=rraz rnwwx t i 3 ii=7a� "'-�!:1_7 I 1 LT/1S l'1 Z7!!�_� �vS row Li1=SI't�17 3 i7=wa i�� ■lam Fi L T 11 i��aalEi V 3l/,L't lt�'��alai fi3ii��tlEii-L�i63 i LTigl l l rf t7-U.N. i i ft 7t IR�7^ZtiBSC .�[1!'OldlSi�Qi?/' ifil i _!�57��t39�I MMIU.IISM131!t[_■7ii1l1•l1=1• 1£-MIt!{' !- f'ii�iiLTji:./.iiii' IV�aI<><ir >r llUWtti771{1I1!{11t>tiif�! Ar 1 I/.Iw iSAG[rjl*mw.Anwml Arnim U3 ANNEWANMAN HF-Ea tin I Kilts l MAIN 1='!><Z�l� =&WAS 13 3 3 WaMi UUI Il I II It/) f f"In /�:T�'3!�l7.�fi�i� 3sl9i�'1H®,.t�f!!'�!�! ��❑E��11n1lt#Il�rrllm�lii�i�� .a ■ _ w - dw Awi IMIAMMa wAwmw�01 an"44 ar iRdbiwaftia ta_+t.��T.^T"'■—n "f T��.��.�.,�f�,.�•+�r�fr■r.w:''C�S'�ta� �to f� fffi ffi f_—..r.��..��r._ri J t.►�-��a■u urrr._s■fif—.i�r■r� �f�s ffifi■�f:tit:N f��sa.�.—/—�/ffr�rr��s�rTt■■fff l■.■flttlirOSti fi ffi fi ffi fi ffffi f��I�—JI N a N■/�q�ffi N��•ff■■N�..1�.Mf■iifi f.� fi tfi �f N �� 1fr/-r J//I"—/W J Ur/fi•�!'Y��W��trN�J•rff■..fl 1t■fl.lMl■-ffl�iiifff MM MM, s • pillwf S>;now �A2IIM �171 ■�■ . � ■��/%/1//%I.��II t�IP.IIi1t1i11��1 FAA�� ii iip i A53unniniii �Al MEN . . 1110 ►MAI PF, AiwiWiMM"iuiiniiiii�t - �1�� _� �_� �I��--�.r._rr■��r�..---i��fplfifi�r��—�ff1� li fi f--�� II��.��a iA��—�—I■�•�a■�..■r•�■�f_■q■!■_��t• ffi fffl�fi■1�fit•rf.I�f/JH ffI ai fir N�Ji fi ffi�ffi t/�f�f�.N.=MN.�Otfipiitfi ff-�ffi fffi tiff-fff�ffi—if�.a•lfil.t• affi O�f�f�I fi ■ff■ r■■■.�fi fa�if■fi�Tfi '�®��J��:G•��T�_.LT'�.!ri®!��'•��r��!"it:i=.rL'i��tt.�tiin _ M=ISIN ®MATAM=AM iAriMVi MVJ=1'tO'Jf'�`i� ��i��i��•��im�mr��Jt�i�rs��tnt.su.w.�na�wis�� t•t.■aim.m�,it��Jt�tr��t.Tt.:..�ti�t�.wrtam��siaiati - _�_--_—_ EM i `fitfitfi_ri rlUWA fAR C�f��I/�fi'�il�t�f��ffi■Tf■■f■.�Nplfit�if_iM_t�i f�!fffi r ArA 'M M ME MEM f�.YN�islpf••■g-.■fittl1ittfitiNiits AW ar AV MrAJIMUMM51ME iIMMAWWR t1 / I rAWARWAMUMllMIFl�.1 �� nmf om / /Ai//1•I/r/,•rte/AINIMEMEaEM��11�111<R�l� .. �;/MA **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003, 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1517 Analysis prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 480-6062 F: (760) 735-9459 E-mail: mail @shamrock.us.com ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * HYDROLOGY FOR BASIN A * * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1143-DOA.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:28 04/06/2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.550 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 2.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< --------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN. ) = 5.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.18 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TC(MIN. ) = 5.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.18 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2004 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 01/01/2004 License ID 1517 Analysis prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 T: (760) 480-6062 F: (760) 735-9459 E-mail: mail @shamrock.us.com ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * HYDROLOGY FOR BASIN B * * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1143-DOB.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:52 04/06/2005 ----------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ----------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.550 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 2.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 22 ------------------------------------------------------ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN. ) = 5.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TC(MIN. ) = 5. 00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.21 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 1926 OXFORD AVE. CARDIFF, CA MURPHY RESIDENCE APN: 260-362-14 GRADING PLAN L- Prepared by: SHAMROCK Environmental Design & Development 1811 Rock Springs Rd. San Marcos, CA 92069 Tel: 760480-6062 Fax: 760-735-9459 e-mail: mail ir?shamrock.us.com k' rr , , k Y C ) / 4 • h 1 �1 !!,• , -�i Canyon Fit 9. 1. Y t 4 l z�y,•P � t �� y f j • may_._�r• [—_. Y'T -"'�ii a�..g,.� R ..{ .Y Y— 7. :te cl { � �f.r�•y.�. •� 7Y�/� Rj ;fig;� ti,+„t •`•�-�,�lMl� ..TAY} DKM� KKR U D 5 Y � A L w � Y M y tt _� V AW kMll AM s= ��" ✓ Tc `� �� CfC LvF3 LvF3 �� Cbu PON 11 \ C$Ci LvF31__� i II ENCI IT S MIE Cf8 © 14z r 16 MIE�� / Cfc CgC MIC GfE a i CtC=fie �I MIE lVilc \\ CgC CfB i LvF3 g� tzt o !' MIC AW San Soo Union n School CfBC s� f � Wi Cr i CfB I_vF3 CbC Csc it / ,,ib �•� .. ��.. At CbD MIC eb MIE x I\ f r \ \ \ \\ CgC N" \ \ r Cs6 ,. FeF 7` Cr\ Ca i y-th - a� cCF ,4�} CbC c5c I CfB \ CfB MIE M Ci8 fA w U. -SITE emz � csc C LvF3 sC ( TeF, Cfc \ y GaE'� Tf v \ CfD� 'L \ Cr rep• �` �' -. � �' �, xb Solana each ' MIC MIE CA (Joins sheet 43,Del Mar quadrangle) W TI 6190 000 Feer N Cooperating Agencies 2 Miles San Diego County Planning Department San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organizatio � 10 000 Feet U.S.Dept.of Agriculture-Forest Service ftion service. U.S.Dept.of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs Dept.of the Navy-U.S.Marine Corps TABLE 11.---INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued _p Soil iLimitations for Sabo Hydro- Erodibility conversion logic from brush to group grass CaD2 alpine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, B Moderate 2--- Slight, 4/ eroded. _ CbB arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes------ C Severe 2----- Slight. CbC arlsbad gavel loamy sandy 5 to 9 rcent sl es------ .,,,-„n,,,�,, --- - C Severe 2----- Slight. CbD arlsbad*gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes----- �fC� Severe 2----- Slight. CbE jarlsbad-Urban rlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes---- C Severe 2----- Slight, CcC rlsbad-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes------- D CCE land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes------ D CeC rrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes-------- A Severe 2 CfB esterton fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes-------- D Severe 9----- Slight. CfC esterton fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes-------- D Severe 9----- Slight. CfD2 esterton fine sandy loam, 9 to 1S percent slopes, D Severe 9----- Moderate. eroded. CgC esterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Chesterton------------------------------------------- D Urban land------------------------------------------- D ChA hino fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. ChB ino, fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. CkA ino silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- C Moderate 2--- Moderate. C1D2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. C1E2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. CIG2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, B Severe 1----- Severe, eroded. CmE2 ieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Severe. slopes, eroded. ,wG Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1----_ Severe. slopes. CnE2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 16---- Severe. Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 16---- Severe. CnG2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 1----- Severe. Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 1----- Severe. Co Clayey alluvial land------------------------------------- D Moderate 2--- Slight. Cr oastal beaches------------------------------------------ A Severe 2 CSB orralitos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CSC orralitos loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CsD orralitos loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes------------ A Severe 2----_ Slight. CtE much coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes--------- B Severe 16---- Slight. CtF much coarse sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-------- B Severe 1---- Moderate. WE much rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Moderate. slopes. CuG couch rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 percent B Severe 1----- Moderate. slopes. CvG couch stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe, l- -- Moderate. slopes. DaC iablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------------------- D Slight-------- Slight. 1/ DaD iablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes---------------------- D Slight-------- Slight. 1/ DaE iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------------- D Moderate------ Slight. T/ DaE2 iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded------------- D Moderate 1--- Slight. T/ DaF iablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes--------------------- D Severe 1----- Moderate l/ See footnotes at end of table. 33 �- --�"—N :. .�, Al 1�`� / i ..:'—tV• •_ � ,.C„ZP u Lai C=f LrfA cn Co met r'_ VM C� r1 \• i Co co Ir uj LLJ c C=) s _ ► O-C o < - ` CW.N y w 0 C> b � i OC M � — W �� O Q er1 ` • `� 1 UV O O LL. Z M 1 W Y 66 OUlO i Q z � 46 00 � ccO � J < fQi p z a u O U- , J V 4 M - � •t I � ' r 1 n�--t �1 � \r f aU I Ar ca ^w cz C) f `_ cm CM LA- LIJ C= ^ -•� ice - -��;\ �, ED -co �..`� +. I• ..�,. 1 Co cn VMMQM CNto LLJ Cr) h ~ V Lzi u f N e 1..` Vii_• o L�� cm epo m cm L: JCm 7 C2 S 4 c I U z O 46 H o < a p u � i- o 0 � � I t I I I I I o _ I , _ G V¢3 "s7 c zta ..� a F• co Noo < _ a � b- IN- z .u1* M in 4 OS O M Sao �, x O W J 9 C� Gt.L p, w --- O F • v` m a TT A IA - t _ r .,.::.:..�..-�-- ,rte, --•—--�.�,._.a,:.�s>_;:-�:::�.._��,:�..� .a aaaars f..l2� , �•�' w�i�i��s I,...�S!.>•V..allaaltar..'aa.t.tl.�all.aa s s .aa.�-r♦!��//F,p�T a.i>.I t t lain�aaa�.a lal.>r. S7'!1 rcI a/�_ �!O'��t�/s taa:r s�]rl�t C2tf�f i a►!!r.ll t ri=�� LAIL- y��,� �� < 11l a"f bC 11 i t LBl rrl M A It L a a n M W rr= frxrr> u I'mm KII-a"=1anEi I27! Z7 KityC-Y7 Ci1.ft IT.7!!1 A a a s al �» .. E QT�1 H'i=L)itl ii 4�5�► �7/fa,JEW mn l u i i r AD* t.�a r w ow t7.4 taxi rim 1 i>iia>♦a�-I t .ty�ALW L]!-�I�1-`Ail'S7 sumn t lillf iii>J!if a a!t7,r1 wR:I"m OIr�L"ts.JC�=: ��Q f>E i L7r�7C[�Lsrt r u-ERI'i7 RT i7.t'c!f f II r IL 37�i1 tIf i I Ix WWI wwww.I /_�'-i4yCl7 QT�ILam_ ,L<LL7l YS2i T41 i7 K.T.Eif ti i7�isf=� NAem 7 f f"j i E mm msw Aw 1/ L7.$T1`m L7 HWT j XI'UTi"nIrIMIi7tt7.//',/. KYAO -ISM rAf UVA i:!LtIFl•/rllill;lt.lvfgf0aw �ZWM"IIII#&"R71AVIWIW> �7eyOf !!'�?iII1311(lftilliaxgammsawn mrmpInati »t 1R'Iii�1l3C�If1V1f fii&#�]i=�fiifT�iftlrri#�3IIINV EMiiE (1�(2i11f31�t1'.Ir F~ArAWALr<<RtlAn�EM,.UM!',-t d111fIIi[!1!!ifi■■■//>• 9119a 17MUV/TJ'. FAFAY AWkV,'AWAtiWdH-HIafXr:3ftIiiEIIIE1i1E1I■0N■ '741 ��li�I��t�In�>t■ ._ - -- - =A==__ AV .n iI'�a.a♦ r rt �.w/ J.6,am t .■n i a a as mw wmom" r m a ors as.rs r i rA r war aaaaa..w.a��r.a ar a'�"'arei�,�t sa n u F r:.>rt Ra.s r r r a rrar lOf�tw t.t wsarsA_LAWAWM7Aate WIAnAA=rZ=�'S Z:�i�]IIIrII)fflasYta'Tt==AQ -_i1d7 s,�/s t l�r all J�it�t1 Q'7SF iitSit atn�tcCt tttit L3 LS7 Iil'LR limb,/mm grooms t__��. as /+I tea►.aa.e!��/�i a�.rr��—.��w�-v s4.._:�.-�.�r�s ra_._,.->_r Li.Cv W�ter'./►a..ar tv�s c�.Q�+ai.�� w>.�sad.i ca-� w:r.�aat>,ai.l+af ae�.+.>•-ar l.��t'l�-��. • ../aI n.'.aq S.aa► ...�..V�� .aaa�»♦aa.�aa.�a.a.-t-cf ao.aaa.ca>t+f�.a.t>t a-.a..wl iii M.�q.�.�. �ZII]7(.tii'a.'.It�t1�I�S�'.57.' =1a; �s R= RC'L.lf[Q'S>•FY LJ N!=rl t7�Ii s>t,J♦r�.al Q>♦ lwri scar!-W-1 AW_� W AW W AdWW �X AIML2 Yl liYt iSTl u TEX*W r a l Um r lti s>r Im Laaaa-C Z„a r iI av.ac7 s slit.?!!s Arl.1w� wills•a'Paw ft r SNL v. w,m rsc ui.n s.frt�s cz a as r r is a.a �W LT-W ITZir 2=W iii-iat Li>t�?S!f Q1L7�l1 15�LAZM tlri.!i 1 K a a MS. MLJt -rn�-s�►s �dr>ICinISA=17R>r�� 1i��ior��ni>�SLIIIZI'�l�as�tp=irr� Pr AV �A7A=AX�l4 fQi,t�t�7 atE�ll��ac�ii��LtTllil�li7 rsr�i=��=� _ aaQ_ r'HrWAI t �s�ai�rz��rta��st�sifraoee�t� �®ra�aa��ryrr�ess# 9Ar WA rs'iiiSWjjWr.iiMpAWagv AWN tVAMMMM MMAM iM# i.�Ji11 1ll.�lilT/tfEi7llEl�rLiluSi' arRSKMMK=ZMX=Him u"II3IH!!*7vKo 0=a ■t�-�,rQ.+iri is�r��ar��w�tv.��aa��.��rt�l rl n;rs=r�rs= i�ir�-: ,��LTtfiils�.tii►EtIH�7 !$# i��f��3ii3iiil I"IEMIL3nnl[I Its i�E�iEiE� 13i:m ,'SAS'/T!I A VMUVAM r1>fi Eli 809W m �Mm wtm um tH I f ff f"NlQ lI 4:1�3.lr,!!�#;ilr/'.is,l�Llr1�Eil�..!!f!!��ffi��53 41I111 i111 i!�i i1E1��■ q BASIN DESIGNATION A 2.65. AREA IN ACRES Q -100 IN CFS HYDROLOGY K EY MAP 0 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " =5' REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MAW SCALE SPECIAL DISTRICT Ut APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITA S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAWING N0. J M 1 h'RrL;KtL) DESCRIPTION: MASONRY NAIL LOCATION: SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF SITE RECORD FROM: ASSUMED ELEVATION: 100.0 DATUM:ASSUMED HORIZONTAL 1 " =5' VERTICAL 1 „ =5' PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF DATE R.C.E. NO.: C -35343 BRIAN C. REGAN EXP 9 -30 -05 RECOMMENDED APPROVED BY: BY: DATE: DATE: R.C.E. R.C.E. 1926 OXFORD AVENUE MURPHY RESIDENCE APN 260- 362.14 WORK PROJECT NO. SHEET 1 OF 1 W 04 ®0) ® uj 00 w wz r z° 0 23 w� w FX zy0 w '® I 0 0 O oir I �0 10 �0� BASIN DESIGNATION A 5. AREA IN ACRES Q -100 IN CFS 100.00 FT 5 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " =5' ii 97.00 08.00 09.00' 0 APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH IIAAR K SCALE SPECIAL. DIET icT II CITY OP ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAWING N0. �N 0 0 1 i i i i REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH IIAAR K SCALE SPECIAL. DIET icT APPROVALS CITY OP ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAWING N0. J DESCRIPTION: MASONRY NAIL LOCATION: SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF SITE RECORD FROM: ASSUMED ELEVATION: 100.0 DATUM: ASSUMED HORIZONTAL 1 " -5' VERTICAL 1 " =5' PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF DATE R.C.E. NO.: C -35343 BRIAN C. REGAN EXP g -30 -05 RECOMMENDED APPROVED BY: BY: DATE: — DATE: R.C.E. R.C.E. 1926 OXFORD AVENUE MURPHY 260-362.14 RESIDENCE WORK PROJECT N0. SHEET 1 of 1 REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH IIAAR K SCALE SPECIAL. DIET icT APPROVALS CITY OP ENCINITAS ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT DRAWING N0. J DESCRIPTION: MASONRY NAIL LOCATION: SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF SITE RECORD FROM: ASSUMED ELEVATION: 100.0 DATUM: ASSUMED HORIZONTAL 1 " -5' VERTICAL 1 " =5' PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF DATE R.C.E. NO.: C -35343 BRIAN C. REGAN EXP g -30 -05 RECOMMENDED APPROVED BY: BY: DATE: — DATE: R.C.E. R.C.E. 1926 OXFORD AVENUE MURPHY 260-362.14 RESIDENCE WORK PROJECT N0. SHEET 1 of 1 z co w N O O) -1 W o� "ll U Q: 22 E3 a - wo wm on �E a wcn m m 1 V V 1 o CCI 1 �o 10 rn 00 BASIN DESIGNATION A 5. AREA IN ACRES Q -100 IN CFS HYDROLOGY K EY MAP s REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MARK SCALE DESCRIPTION: MASONRY NAIL LOCATION: SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF SITE HORIZONTAL 1"=5' RECORD FROM: ASSUMED VERTICAL 1 " =5' ELEVATION: 100.0 DATUM: ASSUMED 100.00 FT 0 10 15 20 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " =5' PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED DATE BY.. R.C.E. NO.: C -35343 DATE: _ BRIAN C. REGAN EXP. 9 -30 -05 R.C.E. APPROVALS APPROVED BY: DATE: R.C.E. C 4a=- WORK PROJECT NO. o_ II 0 ,1 1 �I 1 97.00 99.00° :INITAS ENGINEERING 1926 OXFORD AVENUE MURPHY RESIDENCE APN 260 - 362.14 DRAWING N0. SHEET 1 OF 1