The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-4394 G Street Address Category Serial # y39 � Name Description Plan ck. # Year K&S ENGINEERING Planning Engineering Surveying HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS FOR Wildflower Estates Lots 26, 28 and 29 IN CITY OF Encinitas JN 9526 JUL 2 5 19 5 Jul 23 1995 Y � y.. Na 48592 Exp. 6 -30 -96 * 5. ;W<I RE. 48592 * �� CiVl4. �4 DA P� OF CAti��` 78 Mission Center Court, Suite 200 -San Diegb, Cdifornia 921 - (619)296 -5565 • Fax (619)296 -5564 I 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 I, 1.SITE DESCRIPTION THE OFF SITE DRAINAGE AREA CONSISTS OF GENTLY ROLLING TERRAIN. WATER SHEET FLOWS SOUTHWESTERLY TOWARD THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 27, 28 AND 29 WHERE A 24" BROW DITCH SYSTEM INTERCEPTS THE WATER RUNOFF. THE OFF SITE AND THE ON SITE DRAINAGE OF LOTS 28 AND 29 IS DIRECTED TOWARD VIOLET RIDGE AND THEN ALONG THE STREET GUTTER TOWARD THE EXISTING STREET LOW POINT, THEN INTO A BROW DITCH ALONG LOT 27 SOUTHERLY LOT LINE, THEN DISSIPATES VIA RIPRAP. i 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) -1] / ( S %) 113 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 Rational Hydrology Study Date: 7 -23 -1995 - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION* - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 Hydrology Manual 4torm Event(Year) = 100.00 ap data precipitation entered: HOUR, Precipitation(Inches) = 2.700 4 Hour Precipitation(Inches) = 4.500 Adjusted 6 Hour Precipitation (Inches) = 2.700 1 = 60.0 % San Diego Hydrology Manual "C" Values Used Runoff Coefficients by RATIONAL METHOD Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 * * * 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. = 150.00 ighest Elevation = 277.70 owest Elevation = 260.00 levation Difference = 17.70 C = [(11.9* .0284 * *3) /( 17.70)]* *..385 = .842 + 10 Min. = 10.842 Min. 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 4.318 Subarea(Acres) _ .05 Subarea Runoff(CFS) _ .12 otal Area(Acres) _ .05 Total Runoff(CFS) _ .12 C(MIN) = 10.84 +++++ ++ I I I I I I + + + +++++ +++++++++ + ++++++ I I I I I I I I I I i i i i +++++ + + + + +++ rocess from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 * * * PIPEFLOW TIME (USER SPECIFIED SIZE) pstream point elevation = 260.00 ownstream point elevation = 214.00 low length(Ft.) = 360.00 Mannings N = .015 o. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow (CFS) _ .12 iven pipe size (In.) = 24.00 alculated Individual Pipe flow (CFS) _ .12 ormal flow depth in pipe = .74 (In.) low top width inside pipe = 8.29 (In.) Velocity = 4.170 (Ft/S) ravel time (Min.) = 1.44 TC(min.) = 12.28 + +++++++++++++++++ ++ +++ + + +++ + ++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + +++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 * * * SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION s * s 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 3.984 Decimal Fraction Soil Group A = .000 Decimal Fraction Soil Group B = .000 ecimal Fraction Soil Group C = .000 Decimal Fraction Soil Group D = 1.000 INGLE FAMILY runoff coefficient = .5500 ubarea(Acres) _ .90 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.97 otal Area(Acres) _ .95 Total Runoff(CFS) = 2.09 C(MIN) = 12.28 + + + ++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 * * * CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLLOWING DATA INSIDE MAIN STREAM ARE CALCULATED 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 3.984 he flow values used for the stream: 1 are: ime of concentration(min.) = 12.28 Rainfall intensity (in./hr/) = 3.98 otal flow area (Acres) _ .95 Total runoff (CFS) at confluence point = 2.09 Program is now starting with MAIN STREAM NO. 2 ++++++++++++++++++ +++++ + + + + + + + + + + ++++ + + + +++ + + + + ++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000 * * * 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 rime 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. = 190.00 ighest Elevation = 250.00 owest Elevation = 249.00 Elevation Difference = 1.00 C = [(11.9* .0360 * *3) /( 1.00)J* *..385 = 3.346 + 10 Min. = 13.346 Min. 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 3.776 Subarea(Acres) _ .70 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.45 otal Area(Acres) _ .70 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.45 C(mw) = 13.35 ++++++++++++++ +++ ++++ + + + + ++++++++++ ++++ + +++++ ++ + +++ + + + + + + ++ rocess from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 6.000 * * * TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME pstream point elevation = 249.00 Downstream point elevation = 228.00 Channel length thru subarea(Feet) = 45.00 Channel base(Feet) = 4.00 Slope or "Z" of left channel bank = .000 Slope or "Z" of right channel bank = .000 annings "N" _ .012 Maximum depth of channel (Ft.) _ .50 Flow(Q) thru subarea(CFS) = 1.45 Upstream point elevation = 249.00 Downstream point elevation = 228.00 low length(Ft.) = 45.00 ravel time (Min.) _ .08 TC(min.) = 13.43 Depth of ow = t. Average Velocity = 9.49 (Ft. /Sec.) hannel flow top width = 4.00 (Ft.) Process from Point/Station 5.000 to Point/Station 6.000 * * * CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ** Compute Various Confluenced Flow Values * ** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- OLLOWING DATA INSIDE MAIN STREAM ARE CALCULATED 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 3.762 The flow values used for the stream: 2 are: ime of concentration(min.) = 13.43 Rainfall intensity (in./hr/) = 3.76 otal flow area (Acres) _ .70 otal runoff (CFS) at confluence point = 1.45 onfluence information: Stream runoff Time Intensity Number (CFS) (min.) (inch/hour) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2.09 12.28 3.984 2 1.45 13.43 3.762 SMX(1) _ 1.000* 1.000* 2.1) 1.000* .915' 1.5) 3.421 SMX(2) _ 944* 1.000* 2.1) 1.000* 1.000* 1.5) 3.428 Rainfall intensity and time of concentration sed for 2 MAIN streams. ndividual stream flow values are: 2.09 1.45 ossible confluenced flow values are: 3.42 3.43 ndividual Stream Area values are: .95 .70 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- omputed confluence estimates are: Runoff(CFS) = 3.43 Time(min.) = 13.425 Total main stream study area (Acres) = 1.65 I +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++ + + ++++ + +++++. + + + + + +++ + + ++ rocess from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 15.000 * * * STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME Upstream point elevation = 214.00 Downstream point elevation = 213.00 Street length thru subarea(Feet) = 70.00 annings "N" _ .015 Maximum depth of channel (Ft.) _ .50 Flow(Q) thru subarea(CFS) = 3.43 Flow length(Ft.) = 70.00 Travel time (Min.) _ .43 TC(min.) = 13.85 Depth of flow = .22 (Ft.) Average Velocity = 2.72 (Ft. /Sec.) treetl flow top width = 11.33 (Ft.) +++++ + + + ++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 15.000 * * * SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.) = 3.687 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 Subarea(Acres) = 1.43 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 2.90 otal Area(Acres) = 3.08 Total Runoff(CFS) = 6.33 C(MIN) = 13.85 ++ ++++ + ++ ++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 7.000 * * * PIPEFLOW TIME (USER SPECIFIED SIZE) pstream point elevation = 213.00 ownstream point elevation = 198.00 low length(Ft.) = 180.00 Mannings N = .015 o. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow (CFS) = 6.33 iven pipe size (In.) = 24.00 alculated Individual Pipe flow (CFS) = 6.33 ormal flow depth in pipe = 5.42 (In.) low top width inside pipe = 20.07 (In.) Velocity = 11.903 (Ft/S) ravel time (Min.) _ .25 TC(min.) = 14.11 +++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ ++++++++ +++ + +++ +++ + + + + ++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 7.000 * * * SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 3.644 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 Subarea(Acres) _ .40 Subarea Runoff(CFS) _ .80 otal Area(Acres) = 3.48 Total Runoff(CFS) = 7.13 Cmm = 14.11 I ++++ +++++++++++++++++++ + + +++++++++ +++ ++++++++ + + + + + + +++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 13.000 * ** 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 ea Type is: SINGLE FAMILY ime of concentration computed by the Natural atersheds nomograph, (App. X -A) C = [11.9 *Length(Mi) ^3) /(Elevation Change)] ^.385 *60(MIN /HR) + 10 min. Initial Subarea Flow Dist. = 140.00 Highest Elevation = 201.00 Lowest Elevation = 200.00 Elevation Difference = 1.00 C = [(11.9* .0265 * *3) /( 1.00)]* *..385 = 2.352 + 10 Min. = 12.352 Min. 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 3.970 Subarea(Acres) _ .70 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.53 otal Area(Acres) _ .70 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.53 12.35 Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000 * * * TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME pstream point elevation = 200.00 ownstream point elevation = 173.00 hannel length thru subarea(Feet) = 45.00 hannel base(Feet) = 4.00 lope or "Z" of left channel bank = .000 lope or "Z" of right channel bank = .000 annings "N" _ .012 Maximum depth of channel (Ft.) _ .50 low(t) thru subarea(CFS) = 1.53 pstream point elevation = 200.00 ownstream point elevation = 173.00 low length(Ft.) = 45.00 ravel time (Min.) _ .07 TC(min.) = 12.42 epth of flow = .04 (Ft.) verage Velocity = 10.44 (Ft. /Sec.) hannel flow top width = 4.00 (Ft.) rocess from Point/Station 9.000 to Point/Station 10.000 * ** 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. = 160.00 ighest Elevation = 245.00 owest Elevation = 244.00 Elevation Difference = 1.00 C = [(11.9* .0303 * *3) /( 1.00)]* *..385 = 2.744 + 10 Min. = 12.744 Min. 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 3.891 Subarea(Acres) _ .60 Subarea Runoff(CFS) = 1.28 Total Area(Acres) _ .60 Total Runoff(CFS) = 1.28 TC(MIN) = 12.74 ++ + + + + + + +++ + ++++ + + +++ + + ++ + + + + + + + ++ rocess from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 * * * TRAPEZOIDAL/RECT. CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME pstream point elevation = 244.00 Downstream point elevation = 229.50 Channel length thru subarea(Feet) = 80.00 Channel base(Feet) = 4.00 Slope or "Z" of left channel bank = .000 Slope or "Z" of right channel bank = .000 annings "N" _ .012 Maximum depth of channel (Ft.) _ .50 Flow(Q) thru subarea(CFS) = 1.28 Upstream point elevation = 244.00 Downstream point elevation = 229.50 Flow length(Ft.) = 80.00 ravel time (Min.) _ .20 TC(min.) = 12.94 Depth of flow = .05 (Ft.) Average Velocity = 6.79 (Ft. /Sec.) Channel flow top width = 4.00 (Ft.) End of computations.. , TOTAL STUDY AREA(ACRES) = 4.78 I + + + +++++ +++++ + + ++++ + +++ + + + + + + ++ rocess from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 16.000 * ** 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 INGLE 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. = 320.00 ighest Elevation = 277.70 owest Elevation = 245.00 levation Difference = 32.70 C = [(11.9* .0606 * *3) /( 32.70)]* *..385 = 1.596 + 10 Min. = 11.596 Min. 100.00 Year Rainfall Intensity(In./Hr.) = 4.135 Subarea(Acres) _ .30 Subarea Runoff(CFS) _ .68 Total Area(Acres) _ .30 Total Runoff(CFS) _ .68 C(K41N) = 11.60 End of computations.. , OTAL STUDY AREA(ACRES) = 5.08 BROW DITCH FLOW CALCULATIONS * * * * ** * * * * * NON - PRESSURE, OPEN CHANNEL CALCULATIONS ALCULATE DEPTH OF FLOW GIVEN: row ditch Slope = - .095833 (Ft./Ft.) _ - 9.5833 % ength of brow ditch = 240.000 (Ft.) iven Flow Rate = .68 Cubic Feet/Second ** *BROW DITCH OPEN CHANNEL FLOW * ** annings "n" _ .012 Velocity (Ft. /Sec.) = 7.50 iven brow ditch Diameter(In.) = 24.00 row ditch flow = .6800 (CFS) ormal flow depth in brow ditch = 1.61 (In.) low top width inside brow ditch = 12.00 (In.) ea of flow = 13.0528 (In2) Wetted Perimeter = 12.57 (In.) ritical Depth in brow ditch = 3.39 (In.) Total flow of brow ditch(s) _ .6800 (CFS) APPENDIX B (4. HYDROLOGY MAP) APPENDIX C (5. TABLES AND CHARTS) Z7 �• C I O 4- i C 0"" in ^b-2 O ai 1..1 • C �1 a L 40 A 1 L K L ILI A u r 7 C t 3 7 vi da u C' ?1 r N 4A r is r-• L C C u 1!i L •� b p W v - O r ai In r C cr. a C O C� f- A 4j �O N •r N C V - 4- p .� L 49 � 4-1 < ► 4j a A r Q 4-+ 4.+ 7 • w l i� v v L a .00)C L 3 _ccC O 13 � N • N N r A 4J S. 0 O a In r C a s 'O O 00 r •r t C A O L W O 4•0 a " 4+ 4+ a C a r 4j 4J r a r t A A 4•j A a • L r 4j C i a 4J 41 41 Z C st C t A C i r ce O r r I r O r C► : N r \ A u O O L CIO u C a C C u 06 E C u •r r 4- K a air r r p a r C r r r 41 C 10 CL u L L u u L C a a •• r - a t0. A '4 a C O C 4+ d a t .+ O • d CL 4.+ 4 L 16. i s- r T- L 4j N Cr C N m ••- 2 d 4 a .b ai N C a r ID Q d 7 w i L a/ C r O E L C. L rONOT! t4A ^ A Cr r O La.. O u E Me- C r L 4J L L r r a 41 U- O V - a A /C v r0 so .0 L t o r C A •fl z f. E 4j a - O r u C a a t N Q • r C 4.r r qr a to a l o w r O O 41 + C L d A QI N N a t 4J r r u ar o E s 4n ++ O 4.i .0 r. .0 a r p a C In • - a gO 0 n A O — A r 4� LRL /0 a M== o r- %- S- 0-- tt u a u u LL. N h- .!- G C 4•+ 4J 4J C- O G a i-- 4+ r N d Q 4J a � i CL t2 O r N In A In a O r N en C Z 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) o In o In o In o In o In o %C IR111 Qd• !•'1 N N r r - _�- -- .- CW 0. 14 Q •� •� :SI' / - - -' -r '1' 11 v - - v • i , - _ — _ __- _— - - __ _ _ - .. «, a ca - — — Cr o (.1 •1 7 "_1. — 'fir: _ ":'I� ',1� _ �' APPEEiAI XI IY - CM CD CD CD .d... gym. L IN Ln La CA OU V t / cc • CLO CD ca Cl? - _ ` - z N N = LW u �a1 N P _ noes : "�i�1 i fir' r 4c 0 Z t CD 0 Y k < I L A b • tC= t p < <z C) u> .. V M J n paw - LAJ O f Z L6 Cc m O w O �FE C g '' o r JAM /• j � `; . . `,� � � � _�i � 'V r O LM O V I —� v ;• c ..... Z Lo LO cn Cm co L � cli dOW R Cm -- h /ot;r 1 ry ca co t� J O v t- b s C 2 C i< u a: O U =� m << y r co � � y U J Y O O a cc: u +. tit o 0 Z s r� •- s G 3 �'+ H v 1 9 / d 0 �• o W ..d 1• W D 4. = O M M Y ' r • . • ■E ■M■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ 1 IM 1 I I/ 11. ■.■M........0 == _►.� ►CCC��CC�� ■CSC ►ICI.CCCC =CSC.. ■■■■■■■■■■■.■. rl■ ■ ■.■r . I .,■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ /� ■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■ ■E ■ It ■I■ ■FAI Cl/A ■■ ■ ■ ■�� ■■ ■M■■■ ■■CNO■E V CE ■C. ■II ■M'.M /I ■ ■ ■OMMME ■M■■ ■■MMME■ Et.■■■l ■V■/,■.� ■ENE IA■■ ■U ■AM ■E■■CCMA■■■ =M r. ■ / ► ■. ■'I ■. ■ ■I/A1l ■ ■I / ■. ■. ■■I,M■■■ ■ MEMO■■.■■■ ■ r1Erl■■ ■ ■■ ■■■•■■■■■■■■■ ■IA■ ■II■■IAMIMI,MMII■ /.■ASE.MMM■■ • • ■■ ■E■■ ■EE■ ■. b ■■■r�■ r1■ ■� /I■ ■. ■ ■// ■ ■ ■.■ ■■■■■■■■■■■. ■ u r, ■ =I� ■■M� ■ ■■ ■V■MMM = EMME■■E ■■MME MEAN am I .. /,.. ►I�■.► �AOO /I ■ ■ ■M ■■ ME■MMEEMMM■ Erl■u■ UM.AM ■■I.■ ■M■MM . ■ ■■MSE■ SAME • ■■ ■■■.OIISI� %■■MIME■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■■M■■■ Or.Erl ■ ■r, ■E /SII I a �■■ II■■■■■■AM E■■EO■■■ ■E OII■IIE ■I/ ■I�EE'II� ■ ►� • �■ •,�.■■ ■MM ■■ ■■ ■ EEE ■ ■ ■EMEM ■VAMAMMAMFA ■I,MU ■ /,■ ■■ /.■M■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ E■■ 1. ■ ■I■. .■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■■EO..■rl■■N ■IJMNM" ■I,M ■Ii■ ■■ / ■O■■ ■■■■■■ ... ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■.■■■■rl■rIE■' /■TAMIL/ ■►I ■I /OOA►I ■ ■ ■ ■. ■M■ ■EE :. MMMMM MEMM a��i��C Mumm AmunramCC iMMENUMiiiii ■■■ ■M■■■M ■ ■ ■/MHMMA.. ■F.IA ■I /.U■■MENMM■■■ ■EA ■I %M ■MMM ■ ■MOMMMMI1MWOMMEM WMAMUEI ■E ■I %■■. ■M ■S■ ■Ld■■ ■OMM■■■MM ■ ■MIAWMhf lM'IM►IIjM /,M■U ■M/I ■■■■MOMMVAMMMr► ■M ■M ■M ■ ■ ■ ■ME./I ■■I II /M'AMUMAM ■ ■I■■MMMMBEi ■SS►% ■■ M■ ■ ■MMM■ ■/,MwMMll"M"KMI, ■MMUM■■VAM■ • ME■■ M■ M■ MMMFIEM■FIIr /I.M'IM' / ■ /I ■MMU ■ ■■ ■ /%SM /iA ■■ • • ■OMMM ■MMMMM III /M /Mrl■IIIAMIA ■I.MMM /jM ■M■ I.A ■ ■IAMMMR ■■■EEE■■■■..w■II ■ill. %IEAMWMMIM • .M ■M ►M■■MFA/ ■ O■ M ■ M ■M■MWMMIIirg11I/M1A ■Ii■■EI■■■ Ei ■E■p%■■ MM ■ MMMMMM ■N"MMM' /lf,/A /AI, /MMU ■M■ • /M■■9dM ■■ • ■ ■ES ■ ■MOMEAMIN INUF / ■UE % ■ on / /iA ■ ■I% dmmrnmm ■ ■ ■M ■■MMM"UNIU/, ■ %!1/ /I.MO ■ I %M ■M .I ■/% i ■C / ■ ■■ ■■ M ■■ ■ ■■E/.I,.UnEINI1 ■/%■MMM6M■ /a■ ` lMMMMM ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■mmE►/I, / /iliM' / ■M %MMMM &moo No im ■■E ■,�l E■■■ SA■■ IIU I.�I�/UI.IIIi ■MI ■ ■SE %E��A ■F % ■ ■. ■ % ■ /iA■ .. EMMM■■ E/ EU /iI. /i /A1:M■I■■MP%MI.d ■O m.I_% 2E ■E■ =A■ SSA ■I / /II.E' /' /, /II.�IEI ■MAR % ■AAA► %MITES E/M • ■OEEEEIJIM.I�� / % /I /:1 ■■ ■GAR % ■I. % ■�L ■ ■ ■ /i� • iENE■ • E.■ E■■'/./. / %gilt! %R %11■ ■� ■/MOB /EI ■■ ■ICE ■■ % ■■ ■ ■ ■E ■1 / % %� /. / /I, /�MEII ■% ■TER % ■ / % ■ ■ /�i ■ ■��" ■ • �� • ■ ■ASI. % %�.� %: /.%EA ■1! %R %ECM /i ■ ■ /iM ■ ■RiAM�■ ` .I■■ ■ EMI. U % iii / %: ■ ■ME /.•1 ►.�� /o�■ ■ /� /EEC�E ■ ■M MAEME ■ um ■■ MOO■ ■MM ■ / %nRLn % /zd.ni ■ ■ME:■MMMM ■OM ■ ■M ■M■ ■ M■■ MM■ ■R % %G /.L /i/IM /■ ■ /_i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■!i/ ■ ■■ ■ ■rte•' ■ M■ M■■ Mn i /. /. %n %R %MMii ■M■:z ■ ■ ■AM ■ ■AE/ ■ AAA■ AE%%%%%%/ �� ■ ■!�i /SA. ■_AME•!i� ■ASi■■!��. ■ Nor A/';% i! /• ■■M ■ ■ ■ ■ l mmmmmmm ■■■■■■■ mmmmumm TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (_ U Coeffi C Soil Group (1) Land Use A B C D Residential: Single Family .4o .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 ( . .15 .80 .85 80% Impervious Industrial( . .85 .90 .95 90% Impervious NOTES: (]) Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. ( 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% Tabulated imperviousness - 80% Revised C 80 x 0.85 ' 0.53 IV -A -9 ' APPENDIX IX -8 ,<. : Rev. 5/81 Average Values of Roughness Coefficient (Manning's n) Roughness Type of Waterway Coefficient (n) 1. 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 Cement Pvc-- 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 Collcrote (poured) 0.014 Air,Blown Mortar (3) 0.016 Asphaltic Concrete or Bituminous Plant Mix 0.018 d. Vegetated (5) Grass lined, maintained - .035 Grass and Weeds .045 Grass lined with concrete low flow channel .032 3. Pavement and Gutters (1) Concrete 0.015 Bituminous (plant- mixed) 0.016 APPENDIX XVI A /d EQLIAT /ON Feef Tc 5000 Tc ■ Tune O/ concen11=110n t 0000 Lenglh of wales -shed �H • D /t�enence in e%va lion a/av�g ?000 eliechme S/OOC / /ne (.ee 4WAdiX X T L c �bli /es - e,,4 //ours Mina/es 1000 4 200 3 /BD /O /ODD 900 g0D 1 /20 700 /DO ioo \\ s 90 S00 \ 80 000 \�"►� 0 70 / 60 300 \ SD 200 \ \ 1 00 \ \ 30 /OD / SD OD 4QD0 20 IO 2000 \ \ 12 30 NOTE /a00 9 FOR NATURAL WATERSIC-DS � /200 B 20 M ADD TEN MINUTES TO 9 oO0 7 r MPUTED TIME OF CON NTRATION- 800 6 � : z 100 600 S /40 500 ¢ 000 301 3 5 - 200 C H r SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION _ DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (TC) -y_ DESIGN MANUAL FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS l ir - A _1n pov c i Wa D /•V/do . N L Wa�e�sfied ' Divide ' y f AteQ .9" Arta B" H Desl Pvinf f�'1ccf Slope Line �`Yafersfie0� Duf lG�) .SfIEO/n /�rOl /IC L Arta A" - Area- SAN DIEGO COUNTY COMPUTATION OF EFFECTIVE SLOPE T - DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS __. : DESIGN .MANUAL, >, AP�ROVED , .rt DATE APPENDIX X- F i Id A NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. December 4, 1995 Project No. CE -5086 Mr. & Mrs. Bret Heers 3442 Fortuna Ranch Road Encinitas, CA Subject:. Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground Propo d Heers Residence Lot 28 Wildflower Estates Encin tas, California Dear Mr. & Mrs. Heers: 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 November 1, 1995 through November 27, 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 September 12, 1995. Grading operations were performed by Greg Whilock of Vista, California. Reference is made to our previously submitted report entitled, "Preliminary Soils Investigation ", dated October 23, 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 level building pad to accommodate the proposed single family 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 4, 1995 Project No. CE -5086 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 D6hsity (A.,TM D -1557) 2. Expansion Potential Test 3. Direct Shear SOIL CONDITIONS Native soils encountered were clayey- sands, clayey- gravels, and fat clays. Fill soils were generated from the on -site excavation. The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. However, cut areas located within the building area were over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and brought to grade with compacted soil. Over excavation was carried a minimum of 5 feet beyond exterior building perimeter. Hence, no consideration need be given this characteristic. Oversize material consisting of rock and boulders was left above ground as landscape material. Oversize material. is defined as rock and boulders in excess of 12 inches in size. It should not be placed in structural fills. It may be placed in nonstructural fills designated and supervised by North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Expansive soils were observed during grading and exist at finish grade. These soils were found to have an expansion index of 52 and are classified as being moderate in expansion potential. It is our understanding a post tension foundation system is planned to compensate for this condition. The key was approximately 15'feet wide, a minimum of 2 feet in depth and inclined into the slope. During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were scarafied, watered and compacted NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. December 4, 1995 Project No. CE -5086 Page 3 to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of maximum density. 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,',4nd 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. RECOMME nATIONS AND CONCLUZIUK 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 within 30 days of this report 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 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade for one and two story, respectively, will have an estimated allowable bearing value of 1800 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. NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. December 4, 1995 Project No. CE -5086 Page 4 5) Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with nonexpansive soil having. ,a swell of less the 2% and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) . 6) 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. SST TENSION SLAB AND FOUNDATION In our opinion, a post tension foundation system performs well with regard to the effects of expansive soils. The following recommendations and design criteria should be incorporated into the design and construction of the system. The design should be performed by a licensed engineer enkaged in this type of construction and who has a minimum of 5 years experience. Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded a minimum of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade will have an allowable bearing pressure of 1800 lbs. per square foot. Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. They should be watered to insure they are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of 3 %. 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. UNCER.TAINY 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. N ORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. December 4, 1995 Project No. CE -5036 Page 5 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 responsibility 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. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, pMsl North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. �� Q,OGEk oQ� C <i -, N .GE713 xp. 9.30 -97 Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Re Q' President Registered 0 � `��9393 Geotechnical'rp\\� 00713 RKA: kla cc: (3) Submitted (2 ) Filed NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL TESTING S INSPECTION SERVICES TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN PROPOSED HEERS RESIDENCE Lot #28 of Wildflower Estates Encinitas, California 1" = 40' 18 Cut 37, 42, "� @ 2.1 21- 2 /. �} Driveway Turnaround 20, Z3• 38. wl, Pad Elevation =250 �2r 10. 14 . 45 34• 28. �1• 9• 2H 29. 81 25, 19_ 40- 5. 22' Fill 5. 12 0 2:1 1. \ .(� I / . 26 30• 7. 17. 18. 6. 16. ROJECT NO CE -5086 PLATE NO ONE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TE RES TEST# DATE HORZ. Y RT - FIRU RRY DENSITY S -IL PERCENT LOC. LSD wim LB. /C0. FT . TCYT-F, COMPACT IO 1 11/02/95 See 226.0 14- 1 109.4 II 92.0 2 " Plate 228.0 16.8 102.1 I 91.1 3 11/03/95 One 229.0 12.1 104.8 II 88.1 4 229.0 15.1 109.7 II 92.3 5 231.0 16.4 103.3 I 92.1 6 11/06/95 233.0 19.3 107.5 II 90.4 7 234.5 17.7 113.6 III 93.8 8 233.5 16.6 113.9 III 94.1 9 235.0 17.2 112.4 III 92.8 10 232.0 15.0 114.9 III 94.9 11 234.0 17.2 112.7 III 93.1 12 234.0 16.9 116.0 III 95.8 13 236.0 16.8 111.6 III 92.2 14 11/07/95 236.0 18.2 109.5 III 90.4 15 237.5 17.9 110.0 III 90.9 16 238.0 17.1 -110.9 III 91.6 17 239.0 18.7 , 109.4 III 90.3 18 240.0 17.4 112.6 III 93.0 19 238.0 18.6 109.9 III 90.8 20 239.0 16.7 111.4 III 92.0 21 11/08/95 240.0 17.3 112.2 III 92.7 22 242.0 16.7 111.9 III 92.4 23 240.0 18.6 113.4 III 93.7 24 241.0 15.9 110.7 III 91.4 25 242.0 16.5 114.6 III 94.7 26 244.0 15.4 1.13.9 III 94.1 27 11/09/95 246.0 17.8 109.3 II 91.9 28 248.0 16.7 112.5 II 94.5 29 246.0 19.5 108.9 II 91.6 30 11/10/95 245.0 17.3 111.7 II 93.9 31 " 245.0 16.1 110.9 II 93.3 32 11/13/95 246.0 17.6 113.0 II 95.0 33 248.0 18.2 114.5 II 96.2 34 245.0 16.6 116.1 II 97.7 35 246.5 18.1 115.5 II 97.1 36 11/14/95 245.0 16.0 116.8 II 98.2 37 247.0 17.2 114.7 II 96.4 38 248.0 17.0 112.0 II 94.1 39 11/22/95 248.0 18.2 115.7 IV 93.3 40 248.5 16.0 114.0 IV 91.9 PROJECT NO. CE -5086 PLATE NO. TWO (page 1) NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION-.-DE--TEST RESULTS TEST# DATE HORZ. VERT, FIELD DRY DENSITY S C)IL PERCENT L9C, LOC _ MOIST LB_ /CU T= Q011FAULM 41 11/22/95 See 249.0 15.8 112.2 IV 90.4 42 Plate 248.0 17.0 113.9 IV 91.9 43 One 249.0 18.6 111.9 IV 90.2 44 11/27 /95 250.OFG 12.1 115.0 IV 92.7 45 250.OFG 11.3 113.7 IV 91.6 REMARKS: Test No. 4 is a retest of Test No. 3. FG = Finish Grade PROJECT NO. CE -5086 PLATE NO. TWO (page 2) NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RLUIM- OPTIMUM MOISTURE /MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY, ,DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE (lb /c u.'t.; ) (% dry wt) 11 Red Brown Clay I 112.'1 16.9 Yellow Brown Gravelly Clay II 118.9 15.7 Red Brown Silty Clayey Sand III 121.0 15.5 Orange Silty - Gravelly Clayey Sand IV 124.0 13.5 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE N0, IV CONDITION Remold 90% INITIAL MOISTURE ( %) 13.7 AIR DRY MOISTURE (%) 10.0 FINAL MOISTURE ( %) 21.8 FINAL DRY DENSITY (pcf ) 111.6 LOAD (psf) 150 SWELL ( %) 5.2 EXPANSION INDEX 52 DIRECT SHEAR SAMPLE N0, IV CONDITION Remold 90% ANGLE INTERNAL FRICTION 22 COHESION INTERCEPT (PCF) 300 PROJECT NO_ CE -5086 PLATE NO. THREE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. April 23, 1996 Project No. CE -5143 Todd's Enterprises c/o Al Mayo & Roy Oakley 1772 Kettering Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground Propo d Single Family Dwelling Lot 2 Wildflower Estates Encinitas, California Gentlemen: 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 November 22, 1995 through April 22, 1996. 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 of San Diego, California. Grading operations were performed by Whilock Grading of Vista, California. Reference is made to our previously submitted report entitled, "Preliminary Soils Investigation ", dated May 15, 1995. 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 ". P.O. BOX 302002 • ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 (619) 480 -1116 NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. April 23, 1996 Project No. CE -5143 Page 2 Grading operations were performed in order to create a level building pad. Should the finished pad be altered in any way, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. 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 Test SOIL CONDITION Native soils encountered were silty -clays and gravelly- clays. Fill soils were generated from the on -site excavation and imported. The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. However, cut areas located within the building pad area were over excavated a minimum of 4 feet and brought to grade with compacted soil. Oversize material consisting of rock was hauled off -site and /or used above grade for landscaping. Oversize material is defined as rock and boulders in excess of 12 inches in size. Expansive soils were observed during grading and exist within 24 inches of finish grade. Therefore, special recommendations will be necessary to reduce the probability of structure damage. The key was approximately 25 feet wide, a minimum of 3 feet in depth and inclined into the slope. During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were scarafied, watered and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of maximum density. Subsequent fill soils were placed, watered and compacted in 6 inch lifts. Benches were constructed in natural ground at intermediate levels NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. April 23, 1996 Project No. CE -5143 Page 3 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. 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 ecommendations 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 within 30 days of this report 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 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade for one and two story, respectively, will have an estimated allowable bearing value of 1500 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. NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. April 23, 1996 Project No. CE -5143 Page 4 5) Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with non - expansive soil having a swell of less the 2% and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) . 6) 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. 7) Completion of grading operations were left at rough grade. Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be contacted to provide finish grade and drainage recommendations. Drainage recommendations should include 2% minimum fall away from all foundation zones. 8) Expansive soil conditions observed during grading operations will require special recommendations to reduce structural damage occurring from excessive subgrade and foundation movement. Therefore, we recommend foundations be designed and constructed in accordance with Recommendation 6B2 and /or 6B3 of our "Preliminary Soils Investigation ", dated May 15, 1995. 9) Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. They should be watered to insure they are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of five percent (5%) . 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 NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. April 23, 1996 Project No. CE -5143 Page 5 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 responsibility 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. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. G ER,�� CID oGE713 p. 9 3 Ronald K. Adams Dale R. G� President Register 19393 Geotechni Q 000713 RKA: kla cc: (3) Submitted (2) Filed NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL TESTING & INSPECTION SERVICES TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN Driveway Violet 39 Ridge i 46 40 \ 45 12' Cu 33 @ 2 :1 \ 43 /7 Pad Elevation = 201.0 4 9 33 23 44 2 /9 26 30 43 /2 3 S 4 37 9 LAG Test 28' Fill @ 2:1 3 /� /5 25 47 /3 20 24 29 8 32 27 3/ 28 /0 6 2/ /6 22 4 Approx.-Scale LOT #26 OE WILDFLOWER ESTATES 7 1 = 35' Encinitas, California ROJECT NO CE -5143 PLATE NO ONE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF EST RESULTS TEST# DATE HORZ. VERT. EMU DRY DENSITY SOIL PERCENT LOC. LOC, MOIST LB. /CII . FT . TYPE COMPACT ION 1 11/22/95 See 173.5 17.7 105.6 II 92.9 2 Plate 175.5 16.3 106.2 II 93.4 3 11/27/95 One 177.5 21.7 102.5 II 90.1 4 " " 178.0 20.5 103.8 II 91.2 5 11/28/95 179.0 17.7 111.2 II 97.8 6 176.0 18.1 105.3 II 92.6 7 11/29/95 178.0 16.8 107.2 II 94.2 8 182.0 17.1 103.9 II 91.3 9 183.0 18.3 105.2 II 92.5 10 180. 0 13.5 104.1 II 91.5 11 185.0 16.5 107.3 II 94.3 12 11/30/95 189.0 13.7 115.8 III 97.3 13 187.0 16.4 107.1 II 94.1 14 185.0 15.1 112.5 III 94.5 15 188.0 14.9 111.9 III 94.0 16 12/01/95 189.0 17.9 114.3 III 96.1 17 191.0 17.1 113.7 III 95.5 18 190.0 17.3 108.0 II 94.9 19 192.0 16.6 114.2 III 96.0 20 192.0 17.1 111.7 III 93.9 21 12/04/95 194.0 16.3 112.3 III 94.4 22 194.0 17.4 110.4 III 92.8 23 195.0 16.0 113.9 III 95.7 24 196.0 15.8 114.5 III 96.3 25 197.0 18.3 110.9 III 93.2 26 197.0 17.6 113.2 III 95.1 27 12/18/95 192.0 16.0 116.3 III 97.7 28 194.0 14.3 114.2 III 95.9 29 194.0 16.6 110.8 III 93.1 30 197.0 17.3 112.6 III 94.6 31 12/20/95 195.0 15.9 110.0 IV 93.4 32 196.0 16.3 111.7 IV 94.9 33 197.0 17.1 109.4 IV 92.9 34 12/21/95 195.0 15.8 109.3 IV 92.9 35 197.0 17.2 110.2 IV 93.6 36 198.0 11.2 103.8 IV 88.2 37 12/22/95 198. 0 18.0 108.7 IV 92.4 38 196.0 16.3 112.1 IV 95.2 39 197.0 17.2 109.4 IV 92.9 40 199.0 15.7 111.6 IV 94.8 PROJECT NO. CE -5143 PLATE NO. TWO (page 1) NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS TEST# DATE RORZ. VERT. FIELD DRY DENSITY SOIL PERCENT L9- LOC. MOIST LB. /CU. FT. TYPE COMPACTION 41 01/11/96 See 199.5 16.2 110.7 IV 94.1 42 Plate 200.0 16.5 113.7 IV 96.6 43 One 198.5 16.9 111.5 IV 94.7 44 198.0 17.4 111.0 IV 94.3 45 199.0 16.6 113.2 IV 96.1 46 200.0 18.1 113.4 IV 96.3 47 04/22/96 201.ORFG 09.2 122.2 V 96.6 48 201.ORFG 10.1 123.6 V 97.7 49 201.ORFG 08.4 121.0 V 95.7 REMARKS: Test No. 37 is a retest of Test No. 36. RFG = Rough Finish Grade PROJECT NO. CE -5143 PLATE NO. TWO (page 2 ) e NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION---QE TEST RESULTS OPTIMUM MOISTURE /MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE (% dry wt) Red Brown Clay I 110.4 17.3 Orange Brown Sandy - Gravelly -Clay II 113.7 18.1 Brown Tan Sandy Clay III 119.0 15.5 Orange Brown Silty Sandy Gravelly Clay IV 117.7 17 Light Brown Silty - Sand (Import) V 126.5 10.0 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE N0, I II IV CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% INITIAL MOISTURE ( %) 16.9 18.1 16.9 AIR DRY MOISTURE M 14.4 14.0 .5.6 FINAL MOISTURE M 36.6 27.3 24.0 FINAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) 99.3 102.3 105.9 LOAD (psf ) 150 150 150 SWELL ( %) 16.4 6.8 6.3 EXPANSION INDEX 164 68 63 PROJECT NO_ CE -5143 PLATE NO. THREE l , r 4 DOON - : - \ e _ \ \ II o 0 0 Ix 0 - \ `:. - Slidi x J i R \ \ i Q .r syby od ai r LZZ w y ' 111 l 9 \ \ , K °! HMI Q o ._. _ ) sw nm Nb L , wti ' 0 LSOd Lib t,' Sr�Oa 6 X S332l1 t : , p • Y! \\ rt \ \ �/ � J ,\ 1 ` ( ,Snag ./J A %4 N i od , 4 r 1 3 y , �n J i 4 o } � w. , Q SNOOK Cl) \ \ 1 \ .ft 8'55Z ``r, i I \ C C C mot'• \ ` � s33ai y �r / O l - s'zsz lmdEMIL IF Y 1 � ,•, �'? N Z' LSZ ow O pop y , s \ „ e " �- 1 s3381 ow 0. Isod 2 1 s,. a - �_ \ ZI v ;zel n 'A - 8' i L t ow ®r 2 91-Z Coon Y— SA00N , a 000 s ` 9'L9L X oo'L>:Z + WOOL If 6LZ >� X �' �" t `. L\ ( \ \ /� �t V l� S1SOd 9'08Zr t y �' i - - \ ► tyL T % . \ r - f - ,� �,I C 9 k9 i ' ! _ 1 4 61(1