1995-4382 G Street Address
Category Serial #
Name Description
Plan ck. # Year
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
December 6, 1995
Project No. CE -5081
Rick & Stephanie Johnson
209 North El Camino Real, #E -705
Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground
Proposed Johnson Residence
Lot #27, Wildflower Estates
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Johnson:
In response to your request, the following report has been prepared
to indicate results of soil testing, observations and inspection of
earthwork construction at the subject site.
Testing and inspection services were performed from October 24,
1995 through November 29, 1995.
Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a
minimum of ninety percent (90 %). Therefore, we recommend
construction continue as scheduled.
SCOPE
Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to
current standard practices and to determine the degree of
compaction of placed fill.
Grading plans were prepared by K & S Engineering, dated October 25,
1995.
Grading operations were performed by Greg Whilock of Vista,
California.
Reference is made to our previously submitted report entitled,
"Preliminary Soils Investigation ", dated September 21, 1994.
Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of
earthwork construction covered in this report are indicated on the
attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch ".
Grading operations were performed in order to create a split level
building pad to accommodate the proposed dwelling. Should the
finished pad be altered in any way, we should be contacted to
Provide additional recommendations.
P.O. BOX 302002 • ESCONDIDO, CA 92030
(619) 480 -1116
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
December 6, 1995
Project No. CE -5081
Page 2
The site was graded in accordance with recommendations set forth in
our previously submitted report.
The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans.
Actual pad size and elevation may differ. Finish grade operations
are to be completed at a later date.
LABORATORY TESTING
Representative soil samples were collected and returned to the
laboratory for testing. The following tests were performed and are
tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three.
1. Optimum Moisture /Maximum Density (ASTM D -1557)
2. Expansion Potential
3. Direct Shear
SOIL CONDITIONS
Native soils encountered were clayey- sands, gravelly- clays, and
clays. Fill soils were imported and generated from the on -site
excavation.
Expansive soils were observed during grading. However, the
building pad was capped with a minimum of 48 inches of non -
expansive imported soils. Therefore, foundation recommendation 6B
of our preliminary soils report dated September 21, 1994 may be
utilized.
During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were
scarafied, watered and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90 %) of maximum density. The key was approximately 15 feet wide,
a minimum of 5 feet in depth and inclined into the slope.
Subsequent fill soils were placed, watered and compacted in 6 inch
lifts. Benches were constructed in natural ground at intermediate
levels to properly support the fill. To determine the degree of
compaction, field density tests were performed in accordance with
ASTM D -1556 or D -2922 at the approximate horizontal locations
designated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location
Sketch ". A tabulation of test results and their vertical locations
are presented on the attached Plate No. Two entitled, "Tabulation
of Test Results ". Fill soils found to have a relative compaction of
less than ninety percent (90 %) were reworked until proper
compaction was achieved.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
December 6, 1995
Project No. CE -5081
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils were
placed in accordance with current standard practices regarding
grading operations and earthwork construction. Therefore, as eco-
nomically feasible as possible, part -time inspection was provided.
Hence, the following recommendations are based on the assumption
that all areas tested are representative of the entire project.
1) Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined
building areas have adequate strength to safely support
the proposed loads.
2) Slopes may be considered stable with relation to deep
seated failure, provided they are properly maintained.
Slopes should be planted with light groundcover (no
gorilla iceplant) indigenous to the area. Drainage should
be diverted away from the slopes to prevent water flowing
on the face of slope. This will reduce the probability of
failure as a result of erosion.
3) Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12
inches and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches
below lowest adjacent grade for one and two story,
respectively, will have an estimated allowable bearing
value of 2000 lbs. per square foot.
4) Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be
founded at a depth such that the horizontal distance from
the bottom outside face of footing to the face of the
slope is a minimum of 8 feet.
5) All foundations should be constructed in accordance
with Recommendation 6B of our preliminary soils report
dated September 21, 1994.
6) Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non -
expansive soil having a swell of less than 2% and a
minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be
inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90 %) .
7) Completion of grading operations were left at rough
grade. Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be
contacted to provide finish grade and drainage recommen-
dations. Drainage recommendations should include concrete
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
December 6, 1995
Project No. CE -5081
Page 4
sidewalks placed on all sides of structure a minimum of
4 feet in width and have a minimum fall of 2% away from
foundation zone. To further protect water penetration of
the zone, rain gutters should be installed to divert run-
off. Landscape planter areas within 4 feet of the
foundation should be avoided.
8) Unless requested, recommendations for future
improvements (additions, pools, recreational slabs,
additional grading, etc.) were not included in this
report. Prior to construction, we should be contacted to
update condition and provide additional recommendations.
Prior to pouring of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,
INC. should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for
compliance to those set forth.
During placement of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,
INC. and /or a qualified concrete inspector should be present to
document construction of foundations.
UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS
In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection
is required and /or requested, an additional cost of $160.00 will be
invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a Final
Conformance Letter. If foundations are constructed in more than one
phase, $110.00 for each additional inspection will be invoiced.
It is the responsibility of the owner and /or his representative to
carry out recommendations set forth in this report.
San Diego County is located in a high -risk area with regard to
earthquake. Earthquake resistant projects are economically un-
feasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable
and we assume no liability.
We assume the on -site safety of our personnel only. We cannot
assume liability of personnel other than our own. It is the re-
sponsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction
operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with
regulations governed by CAL -OSHA and /or local agencies.
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
December 6, 1995
Project No. CE -5081
Page 5
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely
appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
North County
COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
QG ER
° 0 GEr13
v
Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Re F0
President Registered 9393
Geotechnical 00713
RKA: kla
cc: (3) submitted
(2) filed
NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL TESTING & INSPECTION SERVICES
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
PROPOSED JOHNSON RESIDENCE
Lot #27 of Wildflower Estates
Encinitas, California
® 1" = 40'
15` Cut Slope
@ 2 :1
5 Driveway
44.
40•
56.
41 "Pad Elevation =222.0 5
34.35, 61. 4.
39• 2. 43. 55.
38. 47,
20.\ 36. 37,
21 . 51, 70 .60 26» Pad Elevation = 221.0 I
48.16.17• 25, i.
22-29. 28. 62.'
II. 10. 49. 50. 15. 27,
18- 9" 19. I
iz ' /3� 4.
1, 6. 24.
2 • 8.
20' Fill 3 LrI 7, �(•
Slope @ 2:1 77 234
ROJECT NO. CE-5081 PLATE NO ONE
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS
TEST# DATE HORZ VER_T, FIELD DRY DENSITY SOIL PERCENT
LOC. LOC, MOIST LB. /CU. FT. TYPE COMPACTION
1 10/25/95 See 202. 0 17.4 106.6 11 95.0
2 Plate 203.0 19.3 104.4 II 93.2
3 One 203.0 17.1 103.8 II 92.5
4 205.0 17.5 104.9 II 93.5
5 206.5 18.6 105.6 II 94.2
6 207.5 19.6 103.8 II 92.6
7 10/26/95 208.5 21.6 103.3 II 92.2
8 209.5 16.9 110.0 I 92.4
9 204.0 14.7 109.3 I 91.9
10 206.0 20.3 102.6 II 91.5
11 207.0 17.1 110.6 I 92.9
12 209.0 18.7 112.4 I 94.5
13 210.0 18.0 113.4 I 95.3
14 10/27/95 209.0 17.2 110.0 I 92.4
15 211.0 16.4 110.2 I 92.6
16 208.0 19.6 108.4 I 91.1
17 209.0 17.3 110.6 I 92.9
18 212.0 21.9 107.1 I 90.0
19 213.5 19. 1 111.7 I 93.8
20 214.5 18.5 109.5 III 91.5
21 211.5 19.5 108.0 III 90.3
22 210.5 19.8 110.0 III 91.9
23 10/30/95 214.0 18.2 108.5 I 91.2
24 215.5 14.7 113.7 I 95.6
25 212.0 17.6 109.6 I 92.1
26 213.0 15.2 112.5 I 94.6
27 215.0 15.1 108.1 III 90.3
28 216.0 16.3 107.8 III 90.1
29 212.0 18.1 107.8 III 90.1
30 213.0 16.8 109.0 III 91. 1
31 10/31/95 215.0 18.1 110.4 I 92.7
32 214.0 15.6 109.2 I 91.8
33 216.0 17. 1 112.6 I 94.6
34 11/01/95 211.0 15.3 113.3 I 95.2
35 212.0 19.2 112.6 I 94.6
36 213.0 16.9 117.2 I 98.5
37 214.0 13.6 115.9 I 97.4
38 11/02/95 213.0 15.8 112.2 I 94.2
39 214.0 15.0 113.4 I 95.3
40 212.0 14.9 114.2 I 96.0
PROJECT NO. CE -5081
PLATE NO. TWO (page 1)
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS
TEST# DATE HORZ, VERT, FIELD DRY DENSITY SOIL PERCENT
LOC. L9C, MOIST LB. /CU. FT. TYPE COMPACTION
41 11/02/95 See 214.0 14.2 113.0 I 95.0
42 11/17/95 Plate 216.0 17.5 107.9 III 90.2
43 One 216.0 16.1 109.3 III 91.3
44 216.0 17.2 110.3 III 92.2
45 217.0 15.6 109.7 III 91.7
46 216.0 14.7 111.3 III 93.0
47 11/20/95 217.5 09.4 104.5 IV 93.9
48 " " 217.5 09.7 105.7 IV 95.0
49 11/21/95 219.0 09.4 105.2 IV 94.6
50 219.0 12.3 103.4 IV 92.9
51 219.5 10.6 104.3 IV 93.7
52 220.0 09.7 101.9 IV 91.6
53 217.0 10.0 102.0 IV 91.7
54 11/22/95 221.0 09.9 103.5 IV 93.0
55 220.0 08.0 104.7 IV 94.1
56 221.0 08.1 101.7 IV 91.4
57 218.0 09.7 103.0 IV 92.6
58 220.0 10.2 102.3 IV 91.9
59 11/29/95 221. OFG 09.7 105.3 IV 94.6
60 221.OFG 06.5 103.1 IV 92.7
61 222.OFG 06.9 105.1 IV 94.5
62 223.OFG 06.0 119.8 V 90.7
REMARKS:
FG = Finish Grade
PROJECT N0. CE -5081
PLATE N0. TWO (page 2)
NORTH COUNTY
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS
OPTIMUM MOISTURE /MAXIMUM DENSITY
SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
(lb /cu. ft. ) (% dry wt)
Yellow Brown
Gravelly -Clay I 119.0 16.0
Red Brown Clay II 112.1 16.9
Brown Gravelly Clay III 119.6 14.0
Tan Silty -Sand
(Import) IV 111.2 11.5
Brown Sandy D.G.
(Import) V 132.0 08.0
EXPANSION POTENTIAL
SAMPLE NO. IV
CONDITION Remold 90%
INITIAL MOISTURE (%) 11.4
AIR DRY MOISTURE ( %) 5.9
FINAL MOISTURE M 19.5
FINAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) 100.0
LOAD (psf ) 150
SWELL (%) .000
EXPANSION INDEX Less Than 5
DIRECT SHEAR
SAMPLE NO, IV
CONDITION Remold 90%
ANGLE INTERNAL FRICTION 30
COHESION INTERCEPT (PCF) 100
PROJECT NO. CE -5081
PLATE NO. THREE
K&S ENGINEERING
• Planning Engineering Surveying
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
FOR
JOHNSONS RESIDENCE
IN
CITY OF ENCINITAS
JN 9444 JUL 16 1995
July 17, 1995 'ITY OF
A. 71
%Clf ESS10
S. S � y �
N
/ ,, 1 114AL S 7.S 1 91* - E. 48592 Exp. _ 9.7,
Civil-
OF CA S "`
7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 200 Son Diego, California 92108 (619) 296-5565 Fax (619) 296-5564
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SITE DESCRIPTION
2. HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
3. HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS .......................... APPENDIX A
4. HYDROLOGY MAPS .... ............................... APPENDIX B
5. TABLES AND CHARTS . ............................... APPENDIX C
1. SITE DESCRIPTION
THE OFF SITE DRAINAGE AREA CONSISTS OF GENTLEY ROLLING TERRAIN.
WATER SHEET FLOWS WESTERLY TOWARD THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE, WHERE
A 24" BROW DITCH, ALONG SIDE THE TOP OF SLOPE, INTERCEPTS THE WATER
RUNOFF.
THE OFF SITE DRAINAGE INTERCEPTED BY THE BROW DITCH WILL THEN BE
DISSAPATED WITH RIP RAP.
2. HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS
A. DESIGN METHODS
THE RATIONAL METHOD IS USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY; THE RATIONAL
FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS:
Q = CIA, WHERE : Q= PEAK DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET /SECOND
C = RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (DIMENSIONLESS)
I = RAINFALL INTENSITY IN INCHES /HOUR
A = TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA IN ACRES
*1 ACRE INCHES HOUR = 1.008 CUBIC FEET SEC
THE OVERLAND FLOW METHOD IS ALSO USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDY; THE
OVERLAND FLOW FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS:
T [1.8(1.1 —C) (L)• /(
C = RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
L = OVERLAND TRAVEL DISTANCE IN FEET
S = SLOPE IN PERCENT
T TIME IN MINUTES
B. DESIGN CRITERIA
— FREQUENCY, 100 YEAR STORM.
— LAND USE PER SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP.
— RAIN FALL INTENSITY PER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1993 HYDROLOGY
DESIGN MANUAL.
C. REFERENCES
— COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1993, HYDROLOGY MANUAL.
— COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1992 REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING.
— HAND BOOK OF HYDRAULICS BY BRATER & KING, SIXTH EDITION.
APPENDIX A
(3. HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS)
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
RATIONAL - HYDROLOGY
LOT 27 WILDFLOWER ESTATES
PROGRAM PACKAGE
Rational Hydrology Study Date: 7 -17 -1995
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION*
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rational method hydrology program based on
San Diego County Flood Control Division
1985 Hydrology Manual
torm Event(Year) = 100.00
ap data precipitation entered:
HOUR, Precipitation(Inches) = 2.700
4 Hour Precipitation(Inches) = 4.500
djusted 6 Hour Precipitation (Inches) = 2.700
6/P24 = 60.0 %
an Diego Hydrology Manual "C" Values Used
unoff Coefficients by RATIONAL METHOD
+++++++++++ +++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++ + ++
Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point /Station 2.000
* * * INITIAL AREA EVALUATION
ecimal Fraction Soil Group A = .000
ecimal Fraction Soil Group B = .000
ecimal Fraction Soil Group C = .000
ecimal Fraction Soil Group D = 1.000
INGLE FAMILY runoff coefficient = .5500
ea Type is: SINGLE FAMILY
ime of concentration computed by the Natural
'Watersheds nomograph, (App. X -A)
C = [11.9 *Length(Mi) ^3) /(Elevation Change)] ^.385 *60(MIN/HR)
+ 10 min.
nitial Subarea Flow Dist. = 240.00
ighest Elevation = 250.00
owest Elevation = 218.00
levation Difference = 32.00
C = [(11.9* .0455 * *3) /( 32.00)]* *..385 = 1.154
+ 10 Min. = 11.154 Min.
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 4.240
Subarea(Acres) _ .29 Subarea Runoff(CFS) _ .68
otal Area(Acres) _ .29 Total Runoff(CFS) _ .68
C(MIN) = 11.15
+ + +++++ 1 1 1 1 1 + ++++++++ ++++++
rocess from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000
* * * CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLLOWING DATA INSIDE MAIN STREAM ARE CALCULATED
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 4.240
he flow values used for the stream: I are:
ime of concentration(min.) = 11.15
ainfall intensity (in./hr/) = 4.24
otal flow area (Acres) _ .29
Total runoff (CFS) at confluence point = .68
Program is now starting with MAIN STREAM NO. 2
Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 2.000
* * * INITIAL AREA EVALUATION
ecimal Fraction Soil Group A = .000
ecimal Fraction Soil Group B = .000
ecimal Fraction Soil Group C = .000
ecimal Fraction Soil Group D = 1.000
INGLE FAMILY runoff coefficient =.5500
ea Type is: SINGLE FAMILY
ime of concentration computed by the Natural
Watersheds nomograph, (App. X -A)
C = [11.9 *Length(Mi) ^3) /(Elevation Change)J ^.385 *60(MIN /HR)
+ 10 min.
nitial Subarea Flow Dist. = 270.00
ighest Elevation = 223.00
owest Elevation = 218.00
levation Difference = 5.00
C = [(11.9* .0511 * *3) /( 5.00)1* *..385 = 2.702
+10 Min.= 12.702 Min.
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 3.899
Subarea(Acres) _ .50 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.07
otal Area(Acres) _ .50 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.07
"C(MIN) = 12.70
Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 2.000
* * * CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS
* * Compute Various Confluenced Flow Values
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLLOWING DATA INSIDE MAIN STREAM ARE CALCULATED
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 3.899
he flow values used for the stream: 2 are:
ime of concentration(min.) = 12.70
Rainfall intensity (in./hr/) = 3.90
otal flow area (Acres) _ .50
otal runoff (CFS) at confluence point = 1.07
Confluence information:
Stream runoff Time Intensity
Number (CFS) (min.) (inch/hour)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 .68 11.15 4.240
2 1.07 12.70 3.899
SMX(1) _
1.000* 1.000* .7)
1.000* .878* 1.1)
= 1.618
SMX(2) _
920* 1.000* .7)
1.000 *1.000* 1.1)
1.694
ainfall intensity and time of concentration
sed for 2 MAIN streams.
ndividual stream flow values are:
.68 1.07
ossible confluenced flow values are:
1.62 1.69
ndividual Stream Area values are:
.29 .50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computed confluence estimates are:
Runoff(CFS) = 1.69 Time(min.) = 12.702
Total main stream study area (Acres) _ .79
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + +++ + + + + + + + + + + + + +++ + + + ++
Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000
* * * INITIAL AREA EVALUATION
Decimal Fraction Soil Group A = .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group B = .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group C = .000
Decimal Fraction Soil Group D = 1.000
SINGLE FAMILY runoff coefficient = .5500
Area Type is: SINGLE FAMILY
ime of concentration computed by the Natural
'Watersheds nomograph, (App. X -A)
C = [11.9 *Length(Mi) ^3) /(Elevation Change)] ^.385 *60(MIN/HR)
+ 10 min.
nitial Subarea Flow Dist. = 130.00
ighest Elevation = 222.00
owest Elevation = 221.00
levation Difference = 1.00
C = [(11.9* .0246 * *3) /( 1.00)1* *..385 = 2.159
+ 10 Min. = 12.159 Min.
100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 4.010
Subarea(Acres) _ .50 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.10
otal Area(Acres) _ .50 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.10
C(MIN) = 12.16
End of computations.. ,
TOTAL STUDY AREA(ACRES) = 1.29
APPENDIX B
(4. HYDROLOGY MAP)
'IN
V -1
lix.1 N ......... .
lk 55 ' t.� ,,, fj_t ' ` , 5 .r'1 � y �\ � \` � ��h•''"''� ./ 55.. `. +,• %',� ....1 �. ..: ..
j$sZ
I s s . ....... .
IN
41"
28
............. ....... ..........
e ll
f ,d,4�� 51 ��w 7 4 `,r` ti ���� ah\��' �R `Z ^''1, V t
I s
oo
%ss IN
4 l } � F p�`�t 1 O N ^ `ti p' �� y �
5 1� 3 � 5 ., r � � � � y � � � ry �W
( ti
I
LL-
glo� 12
PIZ
alt
5 � may/^ y ` �\ 0 � �� � �` 4 1�
po
C4
oc N
f db � � 14 �
to
f � � � 2' �� x° 5 55 � � � � � � ''^
I N,
I N,
,1 ��I IIyy kI f l� ��'y y '1 '� ", `1 % �L.,� 1 I %,; � ,� il '
I N,
410
APPENDIX C
(5. TABLES AND CHARTS)
c Z d s.
C f p
4- #
10 Ln .0 _ O > K M
C CI 1- to .o s K
L 7 H O •r �J r 7 C
C a N +J .- d: r r ► + t7
tD aJ � u (v L a w
L. r C t71 la r+
aJ Z �1
Qr 4- � C v
•.- ai 1s � L f�. r M 'Cr G CIC R� 1
r 't7 V f11 C � - d . 0 b �• Id r L ��'�
O C. 4:- V- O L
W U C ,p . i • f11
-W as •- a/ C
O r aJ
a7 r fo C tZ CL a) p
V a7 C i 3 O C •
IA C r>� O
N fa 4J L. O O al N r- ++
C CL w - 0 O to r r -C C ie
o fo L Cu O 4- w 4j 4J
r 1V 4 r- d r L
to fa 4J fo
4j C i C1 4J iJ 4J t C C L L
tj O O L C "0 u C O. C 7 r C u CL. E C U
• f - • f - 4-- - C- r W C7 r r r 4) r C r r
f�
CL fo N CJ C.` O C 4J CJ Ca t 4-J .0 O • C1
C1 4J 4-b S - Ln i r i i 4J W o C M CL
G a a CS. CL c. L a C •;n 0 E $- r d <
i •r O $A O"o to C r r O LL. # 4+
O V E Mr- C r L 4>t S- = •f - r- Ca 4J LL O
4- al
to f0 fa tD L i L U r C fo "0 •C7 z
H CX E .— c 4+ -r- -W ul to as a d .-- o 0 O
4a 4 #
C i C/ to Cm N N as L 4J r- r 0 N
O E= fn = -, = 4+ O 4-S 4+
0
''- O as C N • r) to G n fd O r Cu do r-
41 iqCrL fa W 1 0 t-C O r4- !_r L C V d to 1 0 u
V LL N 1- Z: M C 4+ 4J 4J CL O M CL F - 4J r N CL Q 4J f-r
W r-
L. Ci
� - r i - ► n 0--% 0 CL n n n n
C O r N m Leh et= O r- N Cn
V
6 -Hour Precipitation (inches)
•-. o fn o %n o %n o an C> IL1 c
C4
.. L O ti ,", ►-
7. 7 '7 � .' -. _ _ -1, -��y.. . -• -.may r
o v —_t __t .1_ 1 1 1 t
H CL 0 y am= �J / -- -1� ' t
Q h 44 �;• :Sty �/ .� t 0
eT C if �' _ - — •f ,_ �� i f' IS:11 t ii C ' S N
I V 4J
Ila
CD
- !d �- �• - _ T� - =mot —_ C-
'� Lai
CNA
,� - 1 t • "M
' OF
XI
APP�NDIC IV-i
•
jr
C3
CVI)
•mow — �.. �'� ( '� ' . `L C�x CL
CD
L&I
Ln • Ln
CL
L
cm U.1
----------
L . a
cn
u
C9 cm
CLO
cm z cm
j U., clq
ffe to
U'3 cr
CN w
W ci
C=
� CV7
z
-C
C=
C3
-91 j z -C
L.j
U -C
Z
CV7 w
p is
u
0
A 0 w o
'A
0 = I CO
w <
2 00
x of r0%
Z L16 -J
CL
90% W C 0
U .
C, bi C',
F— .3 z
CC
O
4 c
TTA-7
1 `� ,. � 1 � � 1 1 nit - � 1 � �� +a•w �' '
CD
tr
CO
0 7
cm
cm
N
cm
W e
co
Eaton
• �, ,.o H
^ -- Lt7
ve
cm
o - W
P
p r !
V L9
W C z_
b ' < C
F us
z o
v
►�i U m=
F- EL - u
- o
e ,
.
t Z 1 z -
G VN i 00
~ z
aoc
C C '� 1r 1 ' s + �''►
7
�dO o a
VOLL. <=
s �
M
M
K
M II-A-13
• • • mono ■■.■■.■ ■■■ 1 o
mom ■E■■■■oo.■■■ ■ No IIE ■n ■I,■ ■M
OMEN ■■■■■■. ■ ■ ■ ■s ■1/ ■ ►•M/EI�MI ■■ %■■.■►/■■■
Ross / ■Nt■
N■ ■■■ ■■ �M.1■■.' r/OI/M.11■■ ■N■■O.E■E
■■■■■■ ■o ■■O■ rl■RME ■ ■W■'IMII■o'I ■■M.11 ■N ■■
SEEN ■■ ■ ■s ■■ ' 012E 0 /1 ■ ■11■I,EI,SEVI ■0 NM■ ■ /m■■ ■M
• ■■■■EEEE■EE■ -mom 0 FMFAM II ■ ►I ■ENO / / ■ ■o ■N
■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■E NONE ■ ►. /ioz /1s %MRS wMMMEI ■zooms
■■ ■MME ■E ■E■.. ■I,E =im O �EMriM■rA =Mr mom M/A.zooms
■ ■ ■■ ENE oo■■ ■ //■ /s / ►I ■II mom II ■■ ■N■■
■■■ ■N� ■ ■N■ of /��.M�IISI, . 1/ M■ ■II■■ ■IM■■
■■■■■■■Ems FMMWIMII , IMS I / ■M■ ■ ■ ■ON
NEON M ■■ ■M■ MrIMN ■EI/NIA■MA ■ ►/ • %■ • mOMO ■.NEE
■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ NI/ ■I, ■ M■ ■M■
■■oE■ ■ ■ ■ ■E ■ ■M ■./ SEWN ■I ■I /I,.■ ►WHEW■■ io ■000 ■M ■M■
■■■■■E■■ ■N ■S■ /,MIIM■p■n AllI ■I..Enomm ■E■■■ ■EE
MEMO soon ■ t■% VIINFAMNA ■EE■■■■■ : •
M■ MMEOMMEM11 orl1,11SEIN ■�Ai�i No No Emmons
M■N ■M■■■E■ ■ ■ /.r/EOAn 0 o MOM ■MEW■
■11 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�l ■��l�I,MI�EI, ■ % ■II ■I, ■ ■ ■■ AE ■ ■■o ■ ■I,il ■m
moos ■NEE■■ ■ ■I /..Mil IMI /■ / /ISM /,M ■FIM ■N I / ■ENE■NM■ MEMEW
■MEN ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■E'.I /Eoi III 'I ■II EIS ■ ■ ■I. E ■Eno ■NMi ■E■ /,4
■■■■■■■ m ■ ■ ■I, ■►I■IAIU/N/II.M ■ ■ III % ■MM% ■M
MEMOS SSM ■ ■ ■r1 /ME►II AMI/N/I■■N NEWS ■I2■■■
■■■■ M■■■ ■■ ■FIr1M/mrlE/1IA■Iiol .mom /.� ■ ■ ■/
■ N■ N ■■EMo■ I/Mil /%IN % MM6dMM■Gd
NONE OSEEM ■r1I, ■ ■%rir qI/►I ■I/MIi ■EI %■■. I2M ■ ■E2I■■
NONE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■IIII■I/N'/IFI I. ■ ■■ I • I■■■ ►.m ■ms •
■ ■MM ■ ■ 0 ■M■ /W■F.KE!1FAMUM %■EI ■ ■o I Eim■m►a
■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■CImI,MPII/!.nonu ■I. /mom �■ i • .AN■ /ISM
MEMO EM ■E ■ /1rIE► /I %!IIII.�O� %oo ■O .� ■E% • r ■� d
I, oom
■E■■ ■■ EMS /..►I►Irdl� /I % ■II ■MMMG /MI,�S • �I NONE
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 / ►II.m�I� %III.III'A NUNNMI % ■IL ■ ■I. %E■ m /21mm
MEMO ■■ OI/ ■F/IiIJj / %I:mII ■O ■E %OI, %MIiMOPig 21MMMM a
• ■ ■ ■ ■mI' / /. / %�i %RW ►WILES ■/im�� ■.m ■mE�m ■o % .N
■ ■. ■ ■1 / % %� /,/ I�/�� ■III %.im / % ■ ►. % ■M /.iMMI�" �■ • RN •
■■■■ I.%%.% . /.% ■ ■ ■1!WI %M��E% ■M/i / ■S��mM��M • Odom
■mC
■ ■o/ /% iii/, , %.IO ■ ■I.il� / /Ilim ■Ii ■im■ ■mm i /� ■■ ■
• � '�i.E ■ ■ ■■ ICI,% � /./���M�!i / ■MI!imSS ■ ■SIV_�i ■ ■MY
■■ t■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� %S /i�WI��I�i ■NOW-N EE ■ ■M ■mom■■
■E ■ ■. ■ ■ ►i / / %► %��m��isM.! =i■ ■soon ■MEOW =am
om
on now
■ ■ ■■I' /, %i / % / ;i m /Min ■ ■M ■ ■!M5i ■MM ■RT�Ma m■W___s
or ■■o ■ mom oNEON M NONE ■ ■SE ■ ■N
i
TABLE 2
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD)
DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN)
Coeffi C
Land Use Soil Group (1)
' A
Residential: B C D
Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55
Multi -Units .45 .50 .60 .70
Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65
Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45
Commercial (2) .70 .75 .80 .85
80% Impervious
I ndust r i a 1 (2) .80 .85 .90 .95
90% Impervious
}
NOTES:
( ' ) Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. j
i
( actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious-
ness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised
by multiplying 80'/ or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the
tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient
be less than'0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil.group.
Actual imperviousness = 50%
I
Tabulated imperviousness = 80%
Revised C 80 x 0.85 0.53
IV -A -9
' APPERNeDIX 8X81 I
<:.;
i
Average Values of Roughness Coefficient (Manning's n)
,
Roughness
Type of Waterway Coefficient (n)
I. Closed Conduits (1)
Steel (not lined) 0.015
Cast Iron 0.015
Aluminum .021
Corrugated Metal (not lined) 0.024
Corrugated Metal (2) (smooth asphalt quarterlining) 0.021
Corrugated Metal (2) (smooth asphalt half lining) 0.018
Corrugated Metal (smooth asphalt full lining) 0.012
Concrete RCP 0.012
Clay (sewer) 0.013
Asbestos Cement4 Pve__ 0.011
Drain Tile (terra cotta) 0.015
Cast -in -place Pipe 0.015
Reinforced Concrete Box 0.014
2. Open Channels (1)
a. Unlined
Clay Loam 0.023
Sand 0.020
b. Revetted
Gravel 0.030
Rock 0.040
Pipe and Wire 0.025
Sacked Concrete 0.025
c. Lined
Colcrete (poured) 0.014
Air,Blown Mortar (3) 0.016
Asphaltic Concrete or Bituminous Plant Mix 0.018
d. Vegptated (5)
Grass lined, maintained - .035
Grass and Weeds .045
Grass lined with concrete low flow channel .032
S. Pavement and Gutters (1)
Concrete 0.015
Bituminous (plant- mixed) 0.016
.I
` APPENDIX XV: ,4
�_
y EQLIAT /ON
//. 9L 1 •3BS
Feef Tc - A/
r S000 Tc = Tune of concenfrnhion
l TODD Z - Lenglh of wale�nrhod
W • D /fie "wee in elevation alav
3000 c &ecf /ve shoo /we (See 4rcndiX X X �-
L c
tili /es Feel //Dins Minafes
100D 4 240
3 /BD
/O
/DOD
\ 900
800 2 /20
700
Sao
\ S 90
SDO \
4 ZO
\ SO
200 \ \ Z
40
� 30
i
�4QD0 20
S0
2000 \ /2 j
.�O NOTE /600 /O
/a00 9
FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS /2 B
ZD M ADD TEN MINUTES TO /000 7
r MPUTED TIME OF CON NTRATION_ 800 SZ
— Selo S
400
3D1� 3
5
zab
H T
SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION
-- DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF: TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
T
FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS
DESIGN MANUAL
APPROVED �� . /� lf eC ! �� DAVE /� / APPENDIX X -D
v_n_in ao,► c
i
Wafershe d Di'v� do �
�__ \ •. _ Des.
L
11/a�t�sfied
Divide
i
i
AtGQ :9"
Aroma B"
y Design foinf
ecfive Slope Line DvIlel)
Sfreorn
I
Area i9" AreQ 'B"
SAN DIEGO COUNTY COMPUTATION OF EFFECTIVE SLOPE
-DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS
T P > DESIGN . MANUAt
AP�ROVEO ? -/Y �. % �,; ! �-•< <.� y .
DATE r APPENDIX X- F
IV -A