1999-5869 G Street Address
Category Serial #
Description
Name
Plan ck. # Year
58e09 —GQ
' L No �
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
' CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
' March 22 1999
' Tom Martin
1207 Village View
' Encinitas, CA 92024
Subject: GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Proposed Single- Family Residence
' Parcel 3, Double L Ranch Estates
Olivenhain, California �� S
' Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single- Family Residence
Parcel 3, Double L Ranch Estates
t Olivenhain, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated November 2, 1998
' Dear Mr. Martin:
Geotechnical conditions and recommendations were reviewed and clarified through
' telephone discussions and meetings with Michael K. Pasko, P.E., Conway and Associates,
' during the course of the design phase of this project.
' Our review of the proposed grading plans prepared by Conway and Associates, dated
' March 8, 1999, indicates that they have, in general, included the applicable
recommendations presented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
1
t
' 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92075
(619) 755 -8622 • FAX (619) 755 -9126
' March 22, 1999
W.O. P- 283098
' Page 2
' COMMENTS
' 1) In view of the proposed development, the entire building d should be undercut
gP
' and replaced as properly compacted fill. Additional recommendations during the
' grading phase may be necessary.
' 2) Additional subdrains maybe necessary depending upon conditions revealed during
' the grading phase.
' 3) As with any grading project, the geotechnical parameters used for foundation and
' slab design should be based on the characteristics of the actual soils used as
compacted fill during grading. Revision of geotechnical design parameters may be
' necessary at the completion of grading and will be addressed in our Rough
' Grading Report.
' LIMITATIONS
The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally
' accepted professional principals in the fields of eotechnical engineering. No warran
g t3'
' is provided.
March 22, 1999
W.O. P- 283098
Page 3
1 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to
our Job No. P- 283098 will help expedite a response to your inquiry.
1 Qpi )FESSk'
1 Respectfully submitted
COAST GEOTECHNI u 2 109 782
r Ir Exp. 12 -31 -U 9
rvi I
1 C " Expe 5 - 31 - 00 �' 4
CH
Mark Burwell, C.E.G. `9 INC -, . Vithaya Singhanet _
1
Engineering Geol � n r`"
g g g �,,. t, �, -, , Geotechnical Engineer
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
' CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
October 1, 1999
' Tom Martin
1207 Village View { R
Encinitas, CA 92024 , t5
6
V u
' Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT T '
CIY J
Proposed Single- Family Residence
' Lot 3, Map 13320
Double L Ranch Estates
Olivenhain, California
' Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single- Family Residence
' Parcel 3, Double L Ranch Estates
Olivenhain, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
' Dated November 2, 1998
' Dear Mr. Martin:
In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the
' rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests
and laboratory testing are presented in this report.
' Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an
adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density. However, the clayey fill deposits exhibit a potential expansion in
' the very high range.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. is
' opportunity to be of servi appreciated.
�(` e r „ � y
Respectfully submitte �q% ' L
t COAST GEOTECHN ' �' ' CIO
lY' 4:. 782
2 09 ti
Exp. 12 -3 ' ' '
Mark Burwell, C.E.G. °� � , " ' Vitha a a
� Sin hnet
Y g , .,
Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer
' 779 ACADEMY DRIVE . SOLANA BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755 -9126
' ROUGH GRADING REPORT
' Proposed Single - Family Residences
Lot 3, Map 13320
' Double L Ranch Estates
Olivenhain, California
Prepared for:
Tom Martin
1207 Village View
' Encinitas, CA 92024
October 1, 1999
' W.O. G- 283098
' Prepared by:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
t Solana Beach, California 92075
' Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 3
' INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the
' subject property. The roject included the cutting and filling of an easterly P 1 g g e y sloping lot,
' in order to develop a level building pad. The results of our density tests are presented
' on Table I. The approximate locations of these tests are shown on the enclosed Grading
Plan.
1
' LABORATORY TEST DATA
The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in
' accordance with ASTM D 1557 -91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with
' ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil types used
as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below:
' Maximum
Dry Density Optimum
' Soil Type Description (V.c.f-) Moisture (%)
A Mixture of on -site 117.0 15.2
' soils, tan to brown
silty, slightly sandy
clay
' B Mixture of on -site soils, 119.0 12.5
reddish grey clayey
' sand
' C Imported soils, tan to 122.0 10.0
light brown fine and medium -
grained sand, slightly silty
Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 4
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
The subject property is underlain along the eastern extent by metavolcanic bedrock units
' commonly designated as the Santiago Peak Volcanics. However, the area g g e of grading is
1 underlain by greenish brown sandy claystone which appears lithologically equivalent to
the clayey rock units of the Del Mar Formation. The clayey sedimentary rock units are
subject to downslope creep along highly fractured and weathered zones. The
sedimentary rock units are overlain by clayey colluvial deposits. The soil deposits grade
' into alluvial deposits along the eastern extent of the property adjacent to the stream.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
The residential pad area, in part, was capped by approximately 1.5 to 2.0 feet of
imported, non expansive granular deposits. However, the clayey fill deposits below the
' cap and elsewhere along the building pad exhibit a potential expansion in the very high
' range.
' DISCUSSION
' The grading contractor on this project was Pacific Coast Grading. The following is a
discussion of the general grading operations, as they were performed on the site.
i
' 1) All surface deleterious material was removed from the area of the proposed
' grading.
1
' Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 5
' 2) A minimum 15 foot wide key was excavated along the base of the proposed fill
slope. The key extended through fractured and sheared claystone of the Del Mar
' Formation encountered in the southern onion of the key and into dense sand
P Y Y
' claystone. The depth of the key ranged from 6.0 to 1.3.0 feet below existing grade.
' A subdrain consisting of a 4.0 inch diameter pipe, embedded in gravel and
wrapped in filter fabric was installed along the back of the key.
' 3) Prior to placement of fill, the base of the key excavation was scarified, moistened
and compacted.
' 4) Fill consisting of a mixture of on -site excavated materials was placed in loose lifts
of about 8.0 inches thick. The fill was moistened as required to optimum moisture
' content or above and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling
' with heavy earth moving equipment and by a motorized vibratory sheepsfoot. Fill
was benched into the underlying clayey rock units.
' 5) As recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the rear cut
slope was constructed as a stabilization fill. A minimum 20 foot wide key was
' excavated along he base of the slope extending a minimum of 2.0
g p g feet into
' sedimentary rock. A 4.0 inch diameter subdrain was constructed along the back
' of the key. Fill was placed as previously indicated and benched into the
1
' Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 6
' sedimentary rock units. The stabilization fill is composed of on -site materials,
mixed and placed as compacted fill.
6) Fill slopes were overbuilt and trimmed back to a maximum gradient of 2:1
t (horizontal to vertical).
' 7) The cut /fill transition along the building pad was undercut approximately 4.0 feet
' and replaced with compacted fill as recommended in the referenced report. The
undercut, in general, extends a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint.
' 8) The depth of fill ranges from 4.0 feet in the rear of the building pad to
approximately 12 feet in the lower keyway.
' 9) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density, as suggested by our test results.
' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
' Although some degree of variation occurs the clayey fill deposits in
g y y p the building pad
' generally exhibit a potential expansion in the very high range. All footing and slab areas
should be pre- moistened three to five days prior to pouring concrete. Additional
' Coast Geotechnical October 1 1999
W.O. G- 283098
Page 7
' recommendations for pre - saturation will be provided at the time of foundation
excavation.
1
' Fill Slopes
Locally derived clayey soils used as compacted fill are highly expansive. Our experience
suggests that compacted fill slopes may experience varying degrees of slope yielding due
' to moisture fluctuations and related expansion /contraction of the clayey deposits. The
slow lateral downslope movement can adversely affect footings, concrete flatwork and
pavement sections adjacent to the fill slopes. Additional recommendations are presented
' in this report to reduce potential adverse affects associated with slope yielding.
i
Foundations
As previously recommended and designed, the residence and garage will utilize a post-
' tensioned slab system. As per our letter of clarification dated March 23, 1999, minimum
footing embedment should be 24 inches below the lowermost adjacent grade. However,
in areas where footings are near slopes, the base of footings should be maintained a
minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet from the face of the slope.
'
Proposed Drivewa
i Previous testing suggests that on -site clayey deposits have an approximate R -value of 5.
' These materials generally perform poorly as subgrade deposits even with time treatment
' Coast Geotechnical October 1 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 8
' or thickened base sections. Satisfactory results have been achieved along Double L Ranch
Road and Calle Margarita by the placement of a 2.0 foot section of predominantly
granular materials as subgrade deposits. g p Such an approach reduces the
' expansion /contraction characteristics due to moisture fluctuation of the clayey soils.
' However, it is our understanding that importing additional granular deposits is not an
option. In order to reduce potential distress of the pavement section, a layer of woven
geotextile (Mirafi HP 370 or equivalent) should be placed on the prepared subgrade
' deposits prior to placement of the base materials. The intent is to maintain the structural
integrity of the pavement section by reducing the loss of base materials into clayey
' subgrade soils.
Driveway Section
3 inches of asphaltic paving on
8 inches of select base (Class 2) on
1 layer woven geotextile (Mirafi HP 370 or equivalent) on
' 12 inches minimum of recompacted clayey soils
' Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated i
P n the structural section
' and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base material should have a
minimum R -value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Woven geotextile should
be placed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. Subgrade soils and
' Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 9
' base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent, or as near to 95
percent for clayey soils as feasible, of their laboratory maximum dry density.
' Drainage
' Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project civil engineer. However, in
general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure
' to a suitable discharge location selected by the engineer or architect. Roof water should
' be collected and conducted to area drains, via non - erodible devices. Pad water should
not be allowed to pond or flow onto slopes in an uncontrolled manner. Vegetation
' adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed
' planter boxes should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the
intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils and under concrete
' flatwork. Slopes should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Irrigation should
' be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. The interceptor drain along the
top of the stabilization fill should be maintained and cleaned on a periodic basis. Slope
' drainage should not be allowed to infiltrate into the contact along he to of the
g P
' stabilization fill where the fill ties into the natural slope. Infiltration of water could result
in slope failure.
' Proposed Swimming Pool
' The cutoff drain along the rear of the pad was constructed as shown on the enclosed
' Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 10
' grading plan. However, it is our understanding that the proposed pool will not be
constructed. Supplemental analysis and recommendations will be necessary for pool
' construction.
' Observations and Density Testing
Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior
' to the placement of steel. Additional fill should be placed while a representative of this
' firm is present to observe and test.
' Plan Review
' This report should be reviewed by the project architect and engineer in order to
incorporate revised foundation and slab parameters into the design plans if desired.
' Recommendations provided in the referenced report which are not superseded by this
' report remain applicable and should be implemented in the design and construction
phases.
' LIMITATIONS
This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and
' written approval to the slope or ad grade on the subject lot subsequent to t
P P g ) he issuance
' of this report. All ramps made though slopes and pads, and other areas of disturbance
' which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition,
' Coast Geotechnical October 1, 1999
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 11
' will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our
observation and tested for required compaction. Observations and density testing were
' performed on a minimal eriodic basis only. Complete observation P y p on and testing during
the grading phase was not desired by the owner. Further, the site is underlain by highly
t expansive soils. Some degree of cracking and movement of structures constructed on
these soils should be anticipated.
' Enclosures: Field and Laboratory Test Results
Grading Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
� ENCLOSURES
i
i
i
i
i
i
' FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
' TABLE I
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
' Moisture Dry Relative
Test Test Approx. Content Density o Soil
Date No. Location Elev. o cf Compaction Type
7/07/99 1 See Map 181.0' 15.0 118.1 Sedimentary Rock
7/13/99 2 See Map 183.0' 15.2 106.4 91 A
' 7/14/99 3 See Map 184.0' 18.5 107.6 92 A
7/14/99 4 See Map 185.0' 19.1 105.6 90 A
' 7/14/99 5 See Map 187.0' 17.7 106.0 91 A
7/15/99 6 See Map 189.0' 18.3 106.4 91 A
' 7/15/99 7 See Map 190.0' 16.3 106.4 91 A
7/16/99 8 See Map 192.0' 15.6 105.6 90 A
7/19/99 9 See Map 192.0' 15.9 107.5 92 A
' 7/20/99 10 See Map 193.0' 19.9 105.8 90 A
7/21/99 11 See Map 194.0' 18.3 107.8 92 A
' 7/29/99 12 See Map 195.0' 15.6 107.4 92 A
7/29/99 13 See Map 194.0' 16.7 106.0 91 A
' 8/02/99 14 See Map 197.0' 19.1 106.4 91 A
' 8/03/99 15 See Map 192.0' 17.5 108.5 93 A
8/10/99 16 See Map 199.0' 12.4 111.9 Sedimentary Rock
t 8/10/99 17 See Map 200.0' 13.9 110.9 Sedimentary Rock
8/11/99 18 See Map 201.0' 12.6 110.0 92 B
' 8/12/99 19 See Map 204.0' 18.2 108.0 92 A
' 8/12/99 20 See Map 206.0' 14.0 108.5 91 B
8/13/99 21 See Map 208.0' 13.9 109.4 92 B
' ( Page 1 of 4 )
t
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (Continued)
' TABLE I (Continued)
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
' Moisture Dry Relative
Test Test Approx. Content Density o Soil
' Date No. Location Elev. % cf Compaction Type
9/03/99 22 See Map 199.0' 10.5 111.5 91 C
' 9/03/99 23 See Map 199.0' 10.1 112.3 92 C
' 9/08/99 24 See Map 199.0' 8.6 110.7 91 C
9/08/99 25 See Map 199.0' 9.1 110.5 91 C
' 9/08/99 26 See Map 199.0' 9.9 112.3 92 C
9/08/99 27 See Map 199.0' 10.4 111.3 91 C
' 9/08/99 28 See Map 200.0' 10.3 112.9 93 C
' TABLE II
' Expansion Index
' Sample Location Dry Initial Final Expansion
Density Moisture Moisture Index
cf 0 0 6
' Pad @ -1.5' 98.6 13.4 27.3 133
' CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
' Expansion Index Potential Expansion
1 -20 very low
' 21 -50 low
51 -90 medium
91 -130 high
' Above 130 very high
' (Page 2 of 4)
1
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (Continued)
TABLE III
Direct Shear Test Results
' Soil Type Angle of Apparent Cohesion
Internal Friction 0 sf
' Soil Type A 25 Degrees 171
' Soil Type C 35 Degrees 55
t
t
' G- 283098
( Page 3 of 4 )
1
LABORATORY TESTING
Maximum Dry Density /Optimum Moisture Content
The maximum d density and optimum moisture content were determined for soil
dry ty P types
used as compacted fill. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D-
' 1557 -91.
' Expansion Index Tests
' Expansion Tests were performed on selected samples. Test procedures were conducted
in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, Standard No. 29 -2. The classification of
' expansive soil, based on the expansion index, are as indicated in Table 29 -C of the
' Uniform Building Code.
Shear Tests
Shear tests were performed in a strain - control type direct shear machine. The rate of
deformation was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared
' under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength
parameters, cohesion and angle of internal friction. Samples were tested in a saturated
' condition.
' ( Page 4 of 4 )
COAST GEOTECHNICAL 41F,7 (
' CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
September 18, 2000
' Tom Martin
1061 Double LL Ranch Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
' Subject: UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
Proposed Single- Family Residence
' Lot 3, Map 1.3320
Double LL Ranch Estates
Olivenhain, California
' References: 1) ROUGH GRADING REPORT
Proposed Single- Family Residence
Lot 3, Map 13320
' Double LL Ranch Estates, Olivenhain, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical, Dated October 1, 1999
' 2) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single- Family Residence
Parcel 3, Double LL Ranch Estates, Olivenhain, California
' Prepared by Coast Geotechnical, Dated November 2, 1998
' Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter /report presents the results of our observation and density testing for utility
' trench backfill across the rivate road. Due to the e depth of the subdrain in the
t development of the lot, a trench was excavated across the existing private road in order
' to provide gravity flow along the subdrain outlet pipe. The city of Encinitas also
requested that a density test of the Class 2 base material along the apron approach for
' the barn access road be conducted.
779 ACADEMY DRIVE - SOLANA BEACH - CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755 -8622 - FAX (858) 755 -9126
Coast Geotechnical September 18 2
p 000
W.O. G- 283098
' Page 2
' Utility trench backfill is composed of previously imported granular deposits. The back
was placed in 8.0 inch lifts, moistened as required, and compacted with hand operated
' compaction equipment.
' The results of our selective density t esting esting suggests that the trench backfill was compacted
' to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Selective testing
' of Class 2 base suggests that the materials were compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density.
1
' If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This
opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated.
�FE,���y
Respectfully submitt
' COAST GEOTECH:° U�
21 o r' ij j 782A 7`I
E x. 5 - i -U ?_ I ac Exp. 12 -3 S
�� ?Tull r
\ F r'� ' INFERINC
Mark :E DI. -OGIST /`
Burwell, C.E.G. vv ng
Vithay Sihanet P. i • ,;�
Engineering Geologis <` ���_ �F0 0 Geotechnical Engineer
t
Enclosures: Field and Laboratory Test Results
' Portion of Grading Plan
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
� ENCLOSURES
i
i
i
' FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1
' TABLE I
' Maximum
Dry Density Optimum
Soil Type Description (p . c . f . ) Moisture ( %)
A Imported soils, tan to 122.0 10.0
' light brown fine and medium -
grained sand, slightly silty
B Class 2 base 135.0 8.5
' TABLE II
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
Moisture Dry Relative
' Test Test Height Content Density o Soil
Date No. Location of Fill % cf Compaction Ty-e
' 8/09/00 1 U. Trench 2.0' 9.8 109.2 90 A
8/09/00 2 U. Trench 4.0' 10.1 109.3 90 A
' 8/10/00 3 U. Trench 6.0' 11.1 112.4 92 A
8/10/00 4 U. Trench S.G. 7.6 129.2 96 B
' 8/16/00 5 Apron S.G. 5.3 130.2 96 B
' G- 283098
II W
D
20 11 I XISTING WATER
I W AC f V14 P£RVICE 20� /
5; 1 N671'44'04 "E - 661.14
1
S
ICU
BUINC PERMI
{ /
No. 99 -547
N
BARN PAD: SLOPE AWAY I
I:Lj 172.9 1 BARN VA PIES 2X TO 10%
q Z ilk• "-
`.
N �Lf; 4i TOE \
1 1 A l( ~ SANDBAGS • -
D O 1 ROW HIGH v
o� 1 A
i ►� \L� / :/ I HYDR SEED 1 c
SLOP
1 , ry 1
ST cb�
Qw 00
— I Vi WT)
_ I j el-w4 �5 e \ r , SEE NOTE 1
SANDRA
1 ROW HI
W
V I F S I
i EXIST 6"
O Q + ` DI *5,
' I�yJ Q AC ACCESS APRON
B
PER DET 1/4 1 \\
(o 116 a r x 1\ fi* DL "" 1
.� W' / = /77..92
-
' N57144'04 "E I
C EXIST AC OVERSIDE DRAIN W/
1 t RIP•+RAP O.E.D. PER G -4402 1
Z 179.34 1
GRADING PLAN
Z-1: _ LEGEND I =
°� • 1 DENSITY TEST LOCATION
h
U COAS'F GEOTECHNICAL
G- 283098
� ¢ "ACA /N E XTENS /OA/ P EX 6� PVG SS U.VE �
• Awrro/H OG EX d"PVG - /7746
' - 70P Di /vf t✓
20' 10' 5' 0 20' 40' % Ex.B 55 - ,Bi S6GfJREGY D eA[ED 777 PiPEI/EA1T \
/`io ✓EME�t/T OE L /AiE 1
• ca1/T.CACTO�' O BA«FitL /HE SPACE BEY't.�6En/ J
- NF A' A 4 ' o f AiA' ! /n/F AA/n rH6 FX
Zn�D ✓
Conway & Associates, Inc.
Civil
133 Liverpool Drive • Suite D •Cardiff -by- theses, CA 92007 •Telephone (760) 753 -1 a53 •Fax (760) 633 -0839
90 wit 'R�Std►tS
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
and
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
for
MARTIN RESIDENCE
LOT 3, MAP 13320 (TM 93 -029)
GRADING PLAN 5869 -G
DOUBLE LL FARMS
Q � if f SStp,�
L K. A �F
O
oc No. 41022
* Exp. 3 31 - 2 co 3.
CIVIL
Prepared:
January 21, 1999
Revised:
March 16, 1999 ~'
a'
� a i � dip y���'��.+y�y • _
.. -°'y �4n .s• ' w..:e � i.. r *,.. 1+,t .ai". e. "T ,N. �i:
s 3� �' f k b �� µ ,# ,�,E,. , f.���• �.
a ... _ �� .... fr 3 - ,,� i.«`�+�s`�'e' ..r.��'� ��?v;o. q•.•r �° " � � a -t" t - .
`'!f i g l � i , '.` `� -ri -'"-- •�.,�s'�r� ,�i -. � — `•4 ' 1 e �+ � 4�" ti 3 N ,t� 'S�
� Etlb9 L'ttis 'c ���� � �+„ - t V a � ���d^d " s "'i�?� l .��.ma � }�•�'+� Y�t�i, ,,,
*4lOa�a�>►e+p q „N , t« - � �` aka ��r,�,' � - +�S�s= s,RRu�'�`,.,�� .�i�'� � � � '��*_ � '`�"�., ' "
� 3 � S 4 4 �S $ 6 a -'' � � 3x � y� r .\, • K% „ - ' .X z .a• t
s ?, "�. • . l . _ � .�' - :"��'��a,�; �` '`' fix., � •� � � , �z � �- �s a �. �-,,,,� � �.°�t
:a4lO ♦� Oro + a ir+ k 3 S. " I '
URI
AF
�Gta4a0a4 `-�"., s. ^�'�. -•": z }'' �'a•. \ �, "�`- r°rK
— V A R ' !
,, .��� a-p "�'`ma'� ic• ,� X �. iF.1`.'^S°' s '_ ' ^4"' k.T�t't s �'+`'i \ Y_ \ ��'. ,.FS°' ' f 1 t `.
^+ � � � 'k���. }'"..+F .:., � 2" �'�•� ��� - „�� - tr r'\'\t�r 7� i ii t r =j:�.:
` >_ -�` � a :, ���;. �•�'` '� �' ar s �� "�,�. ;s �.#�"� "i i� 1 ° � 3� �y g ` - r " �� # �' fi, � t a.
y�T. -
t a a '.� .� `�'� i"'rt- . ;s +�`"�r .� !' 1 < �ti \` _ �,Y z - .i° �°•`� r r7�r ti:; ,h.
� '� •. �': - +�:3'P "�. *�,. �Y- Y ,, � uv 4 r cg,1r:, ^ l•1` "�( t 'rt s \ � \ \ �5.. k ,�.ar�;.
....k"'X..,r - r'. ` 2 i - � ,'•�F _ b � i 1, i � -: ; Y r , -` l ' f �'' ! Y :�
�,.
# x r a
'6etes"�:,�7� z. '^.. A �� ♦ y Y- � � s I � ti � } � a� tk. M � t � a. � � � � �..,,, ' y s � g,..,
" 4 Jt�L `� r
c
A V
�
t
VA
t
i C Cc
FA�LL:?OOh� 5K '
5K\
1 -5 ,
l
6L 6M 6N
Y-
6K
c�
i
,• 7 8 8K 8L 8M
12 P
0 11 y V LLEY
10 - 12 12L 12M 12N
OCEANS DE 1 VISTA C
f �
u
13 X 14 16 Q
I ARLSBAD `"s 17 18
a
CA �� "�o /may
RD 3 MA COS
61
� ,! n
19 2D 21 22 ESC ONDI O ` 04
JQ �
•� �� � � �q� ( SAS oP�QUA�
N
24 0 26 '° 27 28N
28
EN
GRANA IRANCHO
33 I
. 29 31 31 B 1 u
SO NA SANTA P,0 y 33N
B CD
O j
' DEL MAR POWAY
3 RD 37N 4
ll POWAY 37
38
°F 39 41 42
�A
5 10 40
44 MIL SO`E Pp 45 4$ 47 48
SANTEE
,.
e tso
43A 52 55 56
.L 54 I
EL
FRW CAJON
MISSION a
LA
59 MESA
�5 � o 62
- -�o� `r- �y 6 niFrNn LEMON 63
LU
r z VIA !
L
G a � 7 c ,OHJN�✓'d I �
• �"�_ � • ? '�"� c G tcv ""fi � �,
c
_
iy
VIA I)i
O
L3'
,
• i '> djs., ��
� �• v v ti � 2 -,M � �Trrp? ° �� I
1
try
' iv `y h I zNr� v�� .�3� d��a`''�•T' )� r /Q �c 1 �
fir,.
';'
P �-•• • � Np w ,� � W� i w e � / b, j�, �, 2 T r
0►N ��'� V •sb'/�. v,1 OG �, h 1 2 b
.,•r. � � c c � 2 2) rut
p ; ' i'.w0u 1 u : I ral >IC S,e+ia•
-NJ j � S id idE SONG -..� - w 1i t�s C y ' �a A 30ti ` Lr t\ 1
H} a' : ZINC 1 ld j�YO o �? bb y�, . c c' C° ;;y-
C. el� a' �r $ S '+ay dij O )� = °
V� �; ? `` A PP L' r � Q w ► e t C � C �t' Of
Q� H
� tl2'11�'� O� r - ."1 `!_`�..+ ` p• Q `� b 'S' S�
i ` Q e' , \wi QGPO� zs M
�q S 0/11 a 1 0 c r� 2 .. -c any
b 1 M) �� '� �w� `- ��_ 4� cc
a _
110 V�
_ : ��'� � c s �'y� 'fit _ �L '�•� •,_ . r'O''
a rl w
e l l " y �G 3 • y i, L �l
f C. �/w J` uG
e � v ���l1�C 1 O E` �.•. � >. /� 1 = r �. = w '
S '? L_`'�� / V�L� �piE p•�� i\ '/ ��p 1-- `io "•''p ¢ z C� .., a =
\ �C> \ SKADOW
SuR) 6, - V"
�i' 3 ^' z c
o
ti " O � �L AALM ..
Dom.
,3: a►5 5� r � t z) z a as ao 30c
SO,
S
) � Jy
<
_ O • - V V i � t -
�
U O C —
o VI Ci u
V -
C U •r r O 11 V
o C C r 1� �^I N •r .� ( C
r C-) V C1 r G I G
V C- L- - p s yc S
► V 4 O V -
C1 U -_ �� `� �. �� C -7. N
V r - rC C C• O O
V C
N •r >> C •r r C C •*•• •?1 Q i•j
Cm a CD V p r^ = V O .6••+ V 4 - 6j V C
�'3 C S_ •r v O •r r ••-• Ci1 •r C1 ?f N r \ � —
C v
U
•r •r ti G r CJ V • r O V •r C r .
1 U S. =• U U S.. V V r
C. r N V O O G :-+ V V r_ 4
L7 r S. � H • • c C it
C r C r G G C:- : C) of c c V *�
V C - o S. S. G
o
O U J LL Q O
4- V rJ �� rJ V' — U r - C r _\ Z
S. c 4-J V '7. r U V V ,t
N C- r-- C +-j • r N V m V r- O O i.J v
C S- V (; Cl N N V 4-j r r U N
O E t!) O •,. O +-- C] 4 i•j y 4-j N +•> V 11 O Il
.- O V C to — r V n r0 O ►' C.1 r r *7 11
+-) S. = ry V 'O O r L4.- S. r - U V %. - U n r
U L N G O
V r-
� C
C
z E -Four Precipitation (inches)
�-' O In O L^ O Ln O L7 O L7 O
Ln
LLJ
r-•-
_
Z U v i I I //-� -- I I .I , I I{' ( I I I l i I 1 I a•.
Z - � � G G i:' I .I;•Il / '� I III .Ilillll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t i C
0. � •,i I II i ' I I 1 �!i!;!III'! III ! i 1 i I! N—
I` V �+ G7' . I I I �.. .! I' I°
E < C -- F — _ — _ _— _ - -
€ u 11 n n - — - — —
_— — O
Ln
Cz
N (.,r.CLI /say :ui) )C ;isua ;ul
C=D
n'
• J ��
o�
�� n � � . !z,'I � - "�. f. S ri c 1 _
cn I
61.
C=)
Lai
5.
CM -t FV*1
� C4
Qo � ' � ` / L7 C 1 � �`� C ��^
......... .... . l f /"'M _� ` 1 � � ev _
1 �J
N,
C
C
1163
I
C-4 0
64:
cc:=
/fir Z <
J
z L
Q
LIS
C)
co
Y
ui
<
tn
U -
CD
<o
tj
Lz cl
:5 a
C U
II-A-7
.�, X11( t � � l I / /^ r � • 1 \r - .
Io
cm
`:'``
LW
LU
/"� �` � �� � �< � c�:i }`� 1 • `� ( .�\. \ J•� 1 \ �/ -\? .
acs. L1 V N — / / ` i G /� '1 \ •,} 1� ° -:� o
r v
'L
Z i �
-
_
—
y.
c^
C O
O W J r'1 O n
V C LL
.s
v
' d
Ii -I?
h
000
—� - - -- - -- - 006
Z ` - - _ _ T - _ 008
_ _ -
--
_ _
OOL
W
_
009
w
Lli
LiJ
0
--
_
= -
LL
ui
-. �--_ -
U
- - - -- - - - - _ 00C
Q _ ------- - -
-
".�
_
ON
- - /
_ - -;- --------- - --- _ _ 00 l
`°n M O °° LO ° o
n N
NOUVA313
Al
I/ IZC
D. .-0- C- NIwMuM)
Lie o a Kft—
so-r) / 4
A L
dpoo
PN
ICJ /rCC7 GYi //'1 P i i lJ7'�7 / /E//t/ Olrl ✓esi✓Gll� GL /7 L / 1'A�l�l �✓l� / s
Low /f7 e l !v �C� �/ i ✓e // ✓GI I� L (/ � Q ' c SC7C Q /C��t �!//Jcf
7
S � f r� e ,� �.-, 7 2Q J ��- � / � � ✓n v ,�
�c d, � • 14 17e--1 G -5 77 /If 4c d z-e A re� ors F
G�/Gr 7` Gr �✓��iil� 7G6 i y / -C
99101 (Martin) -Basin A D -75 Ditch
Worksheet for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project File c.\haestadlfmw199101.fm2
Worksheet 98101 (Martin) - D -75 Ditch
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Slope
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Depth 12.0 in
Diameter 24.00 in
Discharge 1.90 cfs
Results
Channel Slope 0.000282 ft/ft
Flow Area 1.57 ft2 !
Wetted Perimeter 3.14 ft
Top Width 2.00 ft
Critical Depth 0.48 ft
Percent Full 50.00
Critical Slope 0.004498 ft/ft
Velocity 1.21 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.02 ft
Specific Energy 1.02 ft
Froude Number 0.24
Maximum Discharge 4.09 cfs
Full Flow Capacity 3.80 cfs
Full Flow Slope 0.000071 ft/ft
Flow is subcritical.
01/21/99 Conway & Assoc. Inc. FlowMaster v5.07
03:02:50 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1
Earthen Swale - South Side Lot 3
Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel
Project Description
Project File e: 1projects\ll4ot3lhydro199101.fm2
Worksheet 99101 (Martin) - South Earthen Swale
Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.022
Channel Slope 0.083300 ft/ft
Left Side Slope 2.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope 2.000000 H : V
Bottom Width 1.00 ft
Discharge 1.90 cfs '
Results
Depth 0.23 ft
Flow Area 0.33 ft
Wetted Perimeter 2.01 ft
Top Width 1.90 ft
Critical Depth 0.37 ft
Critical Slope 0.012073 ft/ft L
Velocity 5.81 ft/s — �° �PS hOY` -
roS t ilt
Velocity Head 0.53 ft
Specific Energy 0.75 ft
Froude Number 2.47
Flow is supercritical.
NOTE
The storm drain system analysis presented herein is based on a 100 -year return
design storm event in accordance with the County of San Diego Design &
Procedure Manual. The storm drain design provided for Grading Plan 5869 -G
can adequately convey the flows from said 100 -year return design storm event.
03/17/99 Conway & Assoc. Inc. FlowMaster v5.07
11:51:41 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1
o
w
CD
cn - --• - -- °
166A 110
VA
to 1003
N /
4" BED � � o � • ' �, / � / � , •.. .
C k
ro
_ ....
O► Z / D N � } �'*i t D.• D (fit f�*1 0 ---" ' "'rte r^' .4
x lo I-A it
rn
�
r. ,;�
Qj 230'
rn
ot
y M i
N O O y • � O r ,,, � �- y 4 � ` ° vf�••- - •' /IL ... .,-- .--•„" � N W � t om•„ � �, �
I
N
n --•' r
h�j y cy- pti I
1 - , tj - °
` " a 1 ✓' cn _ _ -- -rn •- of N - '"�35.76 14'
O f t _,,_- _-T CA I f y
rn
to
i• 1
O
Q
D z W z -•1 O t� ao I cn 3
r 19 - a o �''' c3 a y ° a o co j I .�; h O•
0 IS-1
op
1 � •
1,
A
th 1 j : X6+9 '" h' X p.
(A CID
• m .
? S w t 'O �O to "t
die F O
MX3 ° N .� �' v, of } �� _ r o o' Jtw
c t
'o
b -� Y ( �.
CA %v h1 �.� / q fir. vn >'+''1
as \
rm
g. C3
r- D
.. ;0 w s
(PRf VA Tr
rri
!•• rj, 1�'•�
M 3 2 •# o a �.N �- z �` t '� il� �► /
o D a m zn
t °
z w z oo z o z c� to t N� cn w D 'b r+t of
z d c__
��
+► D >. tr x j 't >y a► ? x w r, z nt t� o m
co M A � ��l t�il . z yam, . + / � \ C� `'{ n "`� � ?'' � • �'
to .. - � ..�. �. � • 04, � Vi z• r r .� 1 � 0 � �, ` j n,.°; Oo • "�`�
fii °; • • �
0 0
N NZ,
NN
r
1 y tD •••1 n
r
o i I
D
.. 1
.
Z 4
'F1
rn
r:
frn
U,: N Z ,•0 o z z z Z n c r o
w rn r r MO o
i ::E n o M M M °
Q D -
N A M oy N
� C C7 � ' ,� o
Fn
0
tq
SA
rn w
cc
2 M .
U
00000000000
..pp C -�
Z �i1 V1 V V 4 w N U 'o w CN C A Q I Z
A is 'a •A •3 u4 t+g .4 -3 n
•la A O! 00 V Cat OD C71 V! 3 0 O D •- -�
G I S o 0 4i w c.i N -C r' n H D At n
w
n n n w c c �
(.n .X' n 9� '^ Q O O O �' N N Z C : O p
a) I r 4 (A
N � 2 � r„ �� � y o 0 0 0 ��
0 � G2 0� � rya a� � � � -• w y w � o, w c„ D �
p p V w N Q
3N15 0 !
N
Conway &.Associates, Inc Civil Engineers/SurveyorWrieneral Engineering Contractors AIM 12412 P RELIMINARY -- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
1 Drive • Suite D • Cardiff -b -tho-S CA 92007 Te! hone 760 753 -1453 • FAX DESIG
13 5 Liverpool y � Tel ephone � ) 760 635 -0839 �