Loading...
1999-5876 G/I Street Address —7&6— Category Serial # Name Description Plan ck. # Year 05/24/00 15:28 $619 759 0558 B D WIEGAND INC. tAJou1 • • 1 el _.T April 5, 2000 City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA. 92024 Attention; Blair Knoll Reference: Improvement Application 5876IR property known as APN 264- 172 -32 Wiegand -Neglia Corp. has installed 400 LF of RCP 24" WT, complete with headwalls and riprap dissipaters, at a cost of $40,000.00 + -. As this improvement benefits the community and the City of Encinitas' storm drainage system, the City of Encinitas, has agreed to wave the flood control fees in the amount of $2,271.00 for permit #99 -1699. Please sign the accept block below and return a copy to me so that I may present this letter in -lieu of flood control fees at final. Thank -you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce D. Wiegan We accept the above - described conditions. City of Encinitas, Title, Date Clolle, 45WAe11 WIEGAND NEGLIA CORP. 1060 W iegand Street; Olivenhain, CA­ Tel: (858) 759 -0970 Fax: (858) 759 -0558 y RECEIVED MAY 2 0 1998 Geotechnics ��� Inc Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst May 13, 1998 Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 1500 Adams Avenue, Suite 311 Document No. 8 -0289 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attention: Mr. William Sutro SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residential Lot L FEB - 5 19'ju U Lucile and El Camino del Norte _7J Olivenhain, California * �. ,:; l,' , ClFY OF E � � . ., i> =, 3 Gentlemen: The following report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geotechnical investigation of the subject site. It is our understanding that the development is to consist of the construction of a two -story, wood framed, custom residence with associated improvements. In general, our findings indicate that the subject site is underlain by deep alluvial materials that are considered suitable to support the proposed structure, providing that some settlement is tolerable and that the recommended site preparation is performed. There were no unusual or special conditions apparent in our investigation which would preclude development as planned. 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the proposed improvements, and to make recommendations regarding site preparation and grading, design of the proposed foundations, retaining walls, and slabs, and the construction of pavements. The recommendations contained herein are based on a surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and professional experience in the general site area. Design values may include presumptive parameters based on professional judgement. Our scope of work was limited to: 9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B San Diego California • 92131 Phone (619) 536 -1000 Fax (619) 536 -8311 w Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 May 19, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 2 1.1 Review of available literature related to general geologic conditions. 1.2 A visual reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the site consisting of the drilling of three borings with a truck mounted drill rig, with an eight inch hollow stem flight auger. Bulk, disturbed, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected for laboratory testing. 1.3 Laboratory testing of selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. Testing assisted in characterizing pertinent engineering properties of the site soils. 1.4 Assessment of general seismic conditions and geologic hazards affecting the area, and their likely impact on the project. 1.5 Engineering analysis for the development of recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, foundation design, on -grade slabs, site drainage, earth retaining structures, slope stability, and pavement design. 1.6 Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject consists of an approximately 34,000 ft parcel in the community of Olivenhain, California. The site is located southwest of the intersection of El Camino del Norte and Lucylle Lane, as shown in the Site Location Map, Figure 1. Access is provided by Lucylle Lane, which borders the eastern edge of the site. The southern and western edges of the site are bordered by adjacent residential lots. An approximately 6 foot high variable slope separates the pad area from El Camino Real to the north. Drainage is directed to a lined drainage channel at the southern property line. The approximate layout of the site is shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the development is to consist of the construction of a two -story, wood framed, single family residence, with a driveway and associated exterior flatwork. Only minor grading is anticipated. Details of the proposed construction are not known at this time. Geotechnics Incorporated c 1, C) m 9 W o CO 0 t z 1 Y O Z rw P, Y 1 1> > W � y" F- 'Id1 Q �� 0 0 a. a ^ 1 O MT L O °rr ,9 �C1d 1 V oU- ,733 c' E O uj co �5 A4 O Ij Cu ^L �. ' O - siJ) A N .�w S Eery .x `�4t -L LL P RI t o N C cv Q 167' ---� El Canino del Norte ' B1 ' 94' r n 1< 205' !'�- -- 63' --.� 44' B2 83' DRAWING NOT TO SCALE Adl►- G e o t e c h n i c s Boring Location Map Project No. 0441- 001 -00 I Sutro Property Document No. 8 -0289 n c o r orated p Sutro Family Trust FIGURE 2 Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 3 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal plain is characterized by subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary formations. Our subsurface investigation indicates that the site is underlain at depth by the Delmar Formation, covered with a variable depth of alluvium. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings made for our investigation are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs of the explorations are given in the figures of Appendix B. The specific units encountered in our investigation are discussed below. ' 4.1 Delmar Formation Td The Delmar Formation was encountered in both borings, and is believed to underlie the entire site at depth. As observed in the exploratory boring, the Delmar Formation consists of a massive, light gray, fine grained, silty sandstone (SM). The material is typically nonplastic, moist, and medium dense to dense. However, relatively thin lenses of low ' plasticity sandy siltstone were also observed within the formation. The siltstone was light violet in color, moist, and hard to very hard. ' 4.2 Alluvium (Qal) Our subsurface investigation and literature review indicates that alluvial materials underlie the proposed building area. The maximum depth of alluvium observed was 65 feet. The 1 alluvium appears to be associated with Escondido Creek. Alluvium observed on site ranged from a fine to medium grained nonplastic silty sand (SM) to a gray sandy lean clay (CL). ' The alluvium was moist to saturated, and medium dense in consistency. 4.3 Groundwater Groundwater was observed in our investigation at a depth of approximately 28 feet below the existing pad elevation. This water is believed to be associated with the Escondido Creek, as does not represent a regional groundwater table. Changes in rainfall, site drainage, or irrigation could produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions within the soil or bedrock underlying the site. This typically occurs at underlying contacts with less permeable materials. Since the prediction of the location of such conditions is not possible, they are typically mitigated if and when they occur. Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 4 ' 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ' The subject site is not located within an area previously known for significant geologic hazards. Seismic hazards at the site are anticipated to be caused by ground shaking from distant active faults. The nearest active fault is within the Rose Canyon fault zone, approximately 5'h miles to the west. 5.1 Ground Rupture Evidence of active faulting at the site was not found. Accordingly, ground rupture is not considered to be a significant hazard at the site. ' 5.2 Seismicity Active faults within 100 km of the site are shown in the Fault Location Map, Figure 3. Table ' 1 presents the estimated peak ground accelerations for the site from regionally active faults based on the distance between the site and the active fault, the published maximum credible ' and probable event associated with each fault, and published distance attenuation curves. In our opinion, the most significant credible seismic event with respect to the subject site would be a 7.0 magnitude event on the Rose Canyon fault zone, which would result in an estimatedpeak ground acceleration of 0.36g. For non - critical structures, the most significant probable seismic event would be a magnitude 6.4 event on the Rose Canyon fault zone ' resulting in an estimated peak ground acceleration of 0.30g. Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and standard ' practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. ' 5.3 Liquefaction Liquefiable soil typically consists of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense, and saturated. To liquefy, these soils must be subjected to a ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration. Given the relatively dense and clayey nature of the ' alluvium, and the large depth to the groundwater, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be very low. If liquefaction were to occur within the alluvium, the surface manifestation would likely be broad based settlement. Recommendations are provided in ' this report which will reduce the potential for distress to the proposed improvements in the event of soil liquefaction. Geotechnics Incorporated n � r Ol t? \ � � 0 1 20 30 40 60 KILOMETERS rAORF- CUCAMOHGA FAULT Los A S % ` SCALE 34' � I F �T \ l \ N O a DIO� F SAN JUAN y °q CAPISTRANO F l 0 0 0 °4 F \ ° o �`�° OCEAN 401 �� �`•� ,`�� 0 4. ONDIDO r110 \ F 33• � G oa ♦� \�\ 1110 100 ? ° y \ TRO EL CEN ' `• y O F SAN ' 'y DIEG • i P,9 _ ' _ a USA MEXICALI Olt m ° TIJUANA `�� 0.0 ° G o 1 „ 32 T \� • ENSENADA ti �...� CCU 'ANCA JeAut tOHE eo � ip Modified from Anderson, Rockwell, Agnew, 1989 G e o t e c h n i c s FAULT LOCATION MAP Project No. 0441- 001-00 I n c o r ora ted Sutro Property Document No. 8 -0289 L7 p Sutro Family Trust FIGURE 3 1 O rn e- r C) o J LU 0 00 Co L- a F- N ^ d � F- Z E u O E LU 0.. a`) Z 00 M O O M V d' W = W O c- 0 M 0 0 0 -0 .. ' W Y () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 7 a) m ul rn z E Q a a o m0 o 1 0 cn cn L F-• r M 0 V CO 0 r 0 Z co ti cfl c� co co co r to m 1�1 ti Z A r _ � = J N V- � CM O, O O .� LV Y V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = Q V N LLJ Q C.1 C = t ' m a Q w o �, C V N L E W O O M co U N O LL r 0 0 p Z�=y 0 Z=) O N �� p W F- fl_ 0 00 O M I` 0 r Q U) Q � LU C ACV to CF) CF) CO r U W en 0 Z~ W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a) Q 0 Q fA _ a) r o (� - C U Li ca Cd >' o O s E U v o ul 0) ' c o c c o «. E a� U 0 o c a) c -� p c c O V ca N p ca N o "a Z U 0) ' Q C D o U m c L- +� c W co c c E w o o J p c6 a) N O U C :� a .L co ) (II w .0 T� CU CU � 1 (Sf u- d. �- (V M 1 e Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 5 5.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads Evidence of ancient landslides at the site was not found. Recommendations are provided in the following sections of the report which will help to reduce the potential for future slope instabilities. These recommendations focus on irrigation control, and landscape planting. 5.5 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding The distance between the subject site and the coast, and the sites elevation above sea level, preclude damage due to seismically induced waves (tsunamis). Nearby bodies of water of significant size were not noted during this investigation, and accordingly, earthquake induced flooding is not anticipated to be a potential hazard. i Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 May 19, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS No geotechnical conditions were apparent during the investigation which would preclude the proposed development, although some geotechnical factors exist which require special consideration. • There are no known active faults underlying the project site. The most likely seismic hazards would be associated with significant ground shaking from an event centered within the Rose Canyon fault zone. • Our analysis indicates that there is a very low potential for liquefaction of the saturated alluvium at the site. Due to depth of the liquefiable deposit and the relatively thick compacted fill mat recommended in the following section of this report, the surface manifestation of liquefaction would likely be broad based settlement, with little or no structural damage. • Evidence of existing slope instabilities, or landslides, was not encountered during this investigation. Our analysis indicates that the existing slopes on site are stable with regard to deep seated failure. However, surface water flow and/or seepage will increase the potential for surficial slope failures and erosion. Therefore, measures should be implemented in order to improve and maintain the surficial stability of the site slopes. • The on -site soils include moderately expansive clays. Expansive materials within building and slab subgrade may cause differential movement and cracking if appropriate measures are not employed. Alternative recommendations are provided in this report to mitigate the hazards associated with expansive materials. • The site is underlain by a variable depth of compressible alluvium. In order to reduce the potential for distress to the proposed improvements, we have recommended that a 10 foot deep compacted fill mat be constructed throughout the building and improvement areas. Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441- 001 -00 May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 7 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and foundation design. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern California. If these recommendations appear not to cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additional recommendations. 7.1 Plan Review We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to plan finalization to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. 7.2 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuously during grading. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill during grading to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 7.3 Site Preparation Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the County of San Diego and Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant. Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441- 001 -00 May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 9 7.4 Fill Compaction All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accom- plished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum relative compactionrecommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557 -91, except as modified in subsequent paragraphs. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Imported fill sources, if needed, should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on site soils should be tested by Geotechnics in order to evaluate their appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an expansion index of no more than 20 based on UBC Test Method 18 -2 or ASTM D4829. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. Geotechnics should be notified to evaluate the suit- ability of these soils for use as fill and as finish grade soils. 7.5 Slopes i A variety of slopes exist throughoutthe site, with inclinations no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Our analysis indicates that these slopes are stable with regard to deep seated ' failure with a factor of safety greater than 1.5, which is the generally accepted safety factor. However, the potential for surficial slope failure will be increased by saturation of the slope face and the resulting seepage forces. Surficial slope stability may be enhanced by providing proper site drainage. The site should be graded so that water from the surrounding areas is not able to flow over the top of slopes. Diversion structures should be provided where ' necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite -lined swales or other appropriate devices to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with ' vegetation that will increase their stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. We recommend that vegetation include woody plants, along with ground cover. All plants ' should be adapted for growth in semi -arid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape architect should be consulted in order to develop a specific planting palate suitable for slope stabilization. Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 May 19, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 10 7.6 Surface Drainaee Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from buildings in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded. Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, or discharge at least 10 feet from building lines. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated soil zones may develop. 7.7 Foundation Recommendations These recommendations are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation recommendations herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described below. 7.7.1 Shallow Foundations The following recommendations assume that the building area will be prepared as recommended in Section 7.3.2. Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,000 lbs /ft (one -third increase for wind or seismic) Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches Minimum Footing Depth: 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both top and bottom. Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441- 001 -00 May 19, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 11 7.7.2 Lateral Loads Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and slabs and the supporting soil, as well as passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.3, and a passive pressure of 3001b /ft is recommended. 7.7.3 Settlement Total settlement resulting from fill loads and the bearing loads recommended for the shallow foundations is expected to be less than %2 inch, with differential settlement on the order of /4 inch. However, our analysis indicates that the alluvium may undergo some settlement due to hydrocompression after site development is completed, and irrigation water was has infiltrated into the alluvium. Total hydrocompression settlement of the site is anticipated to be on the order of %2 inch. Differential hydrocompression settlement between the locations of borings 1 and 2 is anticipated to be on the order of /4 inch. Therefore, total settlement of the proposed structure is anticipated to be on the order of 1 inch, with a potential differential settlement of /2 inch. 7.8 On -Grade Slabs Building slabs should be supported by a compacted fill mat prepared as recommended in Section 7.3.2. Slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading, using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kips/ft'. Slabs should be at least 6 inches in thickness, and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 12 -inch centers, each way. 7.8.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tile, or similar problems. The amount of moisture transmitted through the slab can be controlled by the use of various moisture barriers. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings or other factors warrant. The most commonly used moisture protection in Southern California consists of about two inches of clean sand covered by 'visqueen' plastic sheeting. In addition, two inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441- 001 -00 ' May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 12 ' To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings or other ' factors warrant. The most commonly used moisture protection in Southern California consists of about two inches of clean sand covered by 'visqueen' plastic ' sheeting. In addition, two inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems associated with placing concrete directly on an impermeable membrane. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. The proj ect architect should review these estimated transmission rates, since these values may be excessive for some applications. If more protection is needed, Geotechnics should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.8.2 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs should be at least 5%2 inches thick, and should be reinforced with at least #3 rebars on 24 inch centers, each way. Crack control ' joints should be placed on at least 10 foot centers, each way, for slabs, and on 5 foot centers for sidewalks. ' 7.9 Ex ansive Soils The soils observed during our investigation included low plasticity silty sands (SM) and sandy clays (CL). Laboratory testing of a representative sample of the silty sand indicates ' that some of the alluvium on site has a low expansion potential, based on Uniform Building Code criteria. This material should be suitable for use in the nonexpansive cap recommended in Section 7.3.2. However, the clays observed in the boring are anticipated to have a moderate to high expansion potential. These materials should be placed three feet ' or more below finish grade during remedial grading. Figure C -4 in the appendix summarizes the expansion test results. ' 7.10 Reactive Soils Based on our experience with similar soils in the site vicinity, we recommend that Type II cement be used for all concrete which will be in contact with soil, including all foundations ' and slabs. Furthermore, based on the requirements of the 1997 UBC, all concrete in contact with soil should have a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.50, and a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 4,000 psi. ' Geotechnics Incorporated Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441- 001 -00 May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 13 7.11 Earth - Retaining Structures Backfilling retaining walls with highly expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well beyond normal active or at -rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with soil having and expansive index of 20 or less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1:1 sloping plane, back from the base of the wall. Cantilever retaining walls should be designed for an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs /ft The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls restrained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 lbs /ft should be used, based on at -rest soil conditions with level backfill. The above pressures do not consider any surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressures. If these are applicable, they will increase the lateral pressures on the wall and we should be contacted for additional recommendations. Walls should contain an adequate subdrain to eliminate any hydrostatic forces. The recommended wall drain details are presented in Figure 4. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557 -91. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls should not be used. 7.12 Pavements Driveways are anticipated to consist of portland cement concrete pavements. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. Concrete pavement design was conducted in accordance with the simplified design procedure of the Portland Cement Association. This methodology is based on a 20 year design life. The portland cement concrete was assumed to have a minimum 28 day flexural strength of 600 psi. The subgrade materials are anticipated to provide "medium" subgrade support. Based on these assumptions, we recommend that the pavement section consist of 6 inches of portland cement concrete over native subgrade Crack control joints should be placed on at least 10 foot centers, each way. Geotechnics Incorporated r DAMP- PROOFING OR WATER- ' PROOFING AS REQUIRED ROCK AND FABRIC ALTERNATIVE COMPACTED BACKFILL .: . 12 -INCH I.I. • �i o MINIMUM III = u 411= • ,• ,• , ':b ' MINUS 314 -INCH CRUSHED ROCK : ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC v o (MIFAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR U APPROVED SIMILAR) DAMP- PROOFING OR WATER- 40 m 77 77 77 PROOFING AS REQUIRED 4 -INCH DIAM. ADS OR PVC PERFORATED PIPE _ ' GEOCOMPOSITE 12 ": - PANEL DRAIN IIII -• . • • • . IIII - COMPACTED- "' ° 1 ° BACKFILL• 1 CU. FT. PER LINEAL FOOT OF PANEL DRAIN ' MINUS 3 /44NCH CRUSHED ALTERNATIVE ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC. ' 4-INCH DIAM. ADS OR PVC PERFORATED PIPE ' NOTES ' 1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1 %. 2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep holes may be included in the bottom of the wall. Weepholes should be at least 2 inches in diameter, and be spaced no greater than 8 feet. 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. ' Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6- inches. 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J -DRain 400, Supac DS -15, or approved similar product. ' 5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling. ' , dw&-- �G e o t e c h n i c s WALL DRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0441- 001 -00 I n c o r orated Sutro Property Document No. 8 -0289 p Sutro Family Trust FIGURE 4 Sutro Family Trust Project No. 0441- 001 -00 ' May 13, 1998 Document No. 8 -0289 Page 14 ' 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ' This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. 1 No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report. ' The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the project site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. findings. ' If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted. ' This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field. ' The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice ' may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Q PpF ES /O F A- Anthony F. Belfast P.E. C 40333 j5 a C040333 �=' M ' Principal Ui rn Exp. ?. it Sq * �+TqJ CIV 1L ��\P ' F OF C.K Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (1995). Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 981 p. ' Anderson, J. G. , Rockwell, T. K., Agnew, D. C. (1989). Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp 299 -335. ' Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.: New York, McGraw Hill, 1175 p. California Division of Mines and Geology (1975). Recommended Guidelines for Determining the ' Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes, California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43. ' California Division of Mines and Geology (1987). Landslide Hazards in the Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, ' Open File Report 86 -15 LA California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1992). Fault Rupture ' Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 International Conference of Building Officials (1997). Uniform Building Code (with California Amendments) Title 23. ' Geotechnics Incorporated (1998). Proposal For Geotechnical Investigation, Geotechnical Single Family Lot at Lucylle and El Camino Del Norte, Rancho Santa Fe, California, ProposalNo. ' 8 -075, March 26. Jennings, C. W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of California and adjacent areas with Locations and ' Ages of Recent Eruptions, CDMG, California, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. Kennedy, M. P., and Peterson, G. L. (1975). Geology of San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56 p Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L. (1992). Peak Accelerationsfrom Maximum Credible Earthquakes in ' California (Rock and Stiff Soil Sites): CDMG, Open File Report 92 -1 ' Trieman, J. A. (1984). The Rose Canyon Fault Zone -- A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology unpublished report, 106 p. ' Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B12, p. 12587 - 12631. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site, and the drilling ofthree exploratory borings with a truck- mounted, hollow stem, continuous flight drill rig on April 17, 1998. The borings were 8 inches in diameter, and were drilled to a maximum depth of 67 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the following Figures B -1 through B -6. Disturbed samples were collected using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler (2 -inch outside diameter). SPT samples were sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3 -inch outside diameter, ring lined sampler (modified California sampler). Ring samples were sealed in plastic bags, placed in rigid plastic containers, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. The drive weight for both the SPT and the ring samples was a 140 -pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. For each sample, we recorded the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 6, 12, and 18 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the final 12 inches is shown on the attached logs under "blows per ft." Bulk ' samples are indicated on the boring logs with shading, whereas SPT samples are indicated with vertical lines, and ring samples with horizontal lines. ' Boring locations were established in the field by pacing and by estimation using the plans provided. ' The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used. The lines designating the interface between soil units on the test pit logs are determined by interpolation and are therefore approximations. The transition between the materials ' may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions at locations between the borings may be substantially different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be noted that the ' passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs. Geotechnics Incorporated LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 Logged by JCM Date: 4/17/98 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. ' U. J -i U o , W 1X O W Ix y y ca DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS ' W > > W m p m 0 ALLUVIUM Sandy clay (CL), dark brown, fine grained, moist, ' 1 medium plasticity, loose 2 ' 3 Expansion 4 {r 5 lenses of clayey sand, hard 6 24 >? ' 7 8 9 10 71 119 8 11 �'���' Silty sand (SM), reddish brown, coarse grained, slightly moist, nonplastic, dense ' 12 13 14 15 reddish brown and gray with 1" rocks 16 100 17 18 ........... .......... ............................................................................................................................. .......... Sandy clay (CL), grayish brown, fine grained, moist, 19 medium plasticity, hard 20 PROJECT NO. 0441 - 001 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B -1 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. I Logged by JCM Date: 4/17/98 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. F-: L Uj Uj L -j LU 0: 0. a Uj Uj LU 0 . E F 1 2 U. a. < U) U) U) DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS 3 ui Z5 U) Uj 0 z j M Uj O in dpi t ALLUVIUM: Sandy clay (CL), grayish brown, fine grained, Moist, Gradation 21 27 medium plasticity, hard Hydrometer Atterberg ME 22 23 24 25 50 106 21 26 lenses of yellowish brown and gray silty sand 27 28 29 30 'i? lenses of clayey sand, very moist 31 22 32 33 ....................................................................................................................................................... * Silty sand (SM), grayish brown, fine to medium grained, very moist, 34 nonplastic 35 71 105 20 . 36 groundwater measured at 36 feet at time of drilling 37 38 39 augers plugged, water used by driller to unplug PROJECT NO. 0441-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-2 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 Logged by JCIVI Date: 4/17/98 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. Uj Uj U. _j W a. W UJ 2 2 LL a- ( , a , co 0O ? W DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS z 0 _ j Uj 2 0 Co 0 Co C3 ALLUVIUM: Silty sand (SM), grayish brown, fine to medium 41 39 grained, very moist, nonplastic, dense 42 43 44 45 SpI 7M 46 39 47 48 49 bow * - o '- 'c' clayey y ... e" y - sand — ** * - ' .... (' ' (CL-SC), gay * '" * ** grayish i s ... h * brown, ** 'fi n *- - t * o m ... - ... d`i * u - m —*** ' Sandy 50 grained, low plasticity, moist, hard and dense 51 30 fiti 52 53 54 55 s1g. a x : 56 24 57 58 59 ........ ...................................................................................... Sandy clay (CL), - grayish brown, fine grained, medium plasticity, 60 moist, hard 1PROJECT NO. 0441-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-3 ' LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 Logged by JCM Date: 7/15/97 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. ' F U. -i W LL W d a d W W 2 W CL w Y y DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS a 0 > J Z W m o m o 25 ALLUVIUM Sandy clay (CL), grayish brown, fine grained, 61 22 medium plasticity, moist, hard { 62 ' 63 64 65 ' spy DEL MAR FORMATION Claystone interbedded with 66 sandstone, gray and maroon, fine grained, moist, medium plasticity claystone, very hard, no blow counts due to sampler 67 being full of slough ' fi8 TOTAL = L EPTH 67 FEET ' GROUNDWATER @ 36 FEET 69 SOME CAVING BELOW GROUNDWATER BACKFILLED 4/17/98 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ' 77 ' 78 79 ' 80 ' PROJECT NO. 0441- 001 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-4 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO.2 Logged by JCM Date: 4117/98 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Hollow Stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. U. J J V W LU M lu LL a. N y � P DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS a 0 > z y ' Uj O O im m C CO C ALLUVIUM Silty sand (SM), grayish brown, fine to medium 1 grained, moist, nonplastic, loose 2 no recovery, too sandy 3 ; w >: Gradation 102 21 very moist medium dense Direct Shear 14 5 <: ::.: :.:... ....................... ............................... . . ..................................................................... ............................... P Sandy clay to clayey sand (CL -SC), grayish brown, s 12 fine grained, very moist, medium plasticity, medium dense ' 7 8 9 10 ' 33 # 118 13 lenses of sandy clay Consolidation ;sv Sandy clay (CL) with caliche, reddish brown, fine grained, moist, 12 "' ` medium plasticity, hard 13 14 <.. ' 16 31 W# •`•. 17 18 19 20 some gravel t PROJECT NO. 0441 - 001 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-5 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 2 Logged by JCM Date: 7/15/97 Method of Drilling: 8 inch Hollow stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. Uj W U. _j Uj LL W w UJ Ix DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS Uj ca 0 z LU p j 46 121 13 Sandy clay (CL) with caliche, reddish brown, fine grained, moist, 21 . . . . . . . . . . . medium plasticity, hard 22 23 24 25 gray and reddish brown 26 22 27 28 groundwater measured at 28 feet 3 hours after drilling 29 DEL MAR FORMATION: Claystone interbedded with 30 sandstone, olive gray and maroon, fine grained, medium plasticity 94 t# 118 15 claystone, moist, very hard 31 (10')... x 32 TOTAL DEPTH = 31 FEET GROUNDWATER @ 28 FEET 33 NO CAVING OBSERVED 34 BACKFILLED 4/17/98 35 36 37 38 39 40 PROJECT NO. 0441-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-6 K APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING 1 Representative samples of soils were tested using methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted standards. A brief description of the tests performed follows: Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and classification in accordance with ASTM D2487. The classifications are shown on the Boring Logs. Particle Size Analysis Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D422. The grain size distribution was used to determine presumptive strength parameters and foundation design criteria. The results are given in Figures CA through C -3. Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318 -84 was used to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of selected fine- grained samples. The results are given in Figures C -1 and C -3. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of a selected sample was characterized by using the test method ASTM D 4829. Figure C -4 provides the results of the tests. Direct Shear Test The shear strength of the soil was assessed through direct shear tests performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. The results are summarized in Figures C -5. ' Consolidation Test In order to evaluate the compressibility of the site soils, a consolidation test was conducted on a representative sample in accordance with ASTM D2435. The sample was restrained laterally, and subjected to incremental loads. The results are summarizedin Figures C -6. ' Geotechnics Incorporated • I - /I�������� • ...........NOON ■.... - ........,............ mmmmmmm LL uj P! 1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ NOON - mmMMM ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.. ■ ■■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ NONE ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ OMEN ■■■■ - ■ NOON ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ . ..................mm - O__ • _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 ' o co r 0 0 0 0 9 w 0 0o M r 5 ' ❑ Z (7 W ❑ U Z O C LL U a a Q cn a a ' O O d ¢ g ' c U o co > ' Z O F .- ' Q to O U V- C1 >+ w a E N Q O LL. 0 w J LL V U) Ln J_ ' O N } 0 N co N U > = Z N n ° z Q w ' U v tL } 10 c y Z 2�5 cc W g a ❑ J O 0 U) a ao w W 0 LL w ¢O ❑ D �"� O w N O U- LO CN ' 5i w 0 O ui a D < 4) z W z OJ ' o w a ¢ n O a o U) N J a 0 0 w O O O O O O O O O O O `- O C3) co 1- CO to d' Cl) N ;y6iaM Aq aaui Iua:).iad r� O O O 0) N 0 y 0 N co V O 00 W C ; p z w z W p U — 0 0 N LL Q o co m o a a O O p Z } CD g E i U o � v S Z 0 0 0 Q to U � O cnn LL n. >, ar CD d ca W Q o tL E w J : ILL J U) LO C 0 CD N N V) y N z > C p Z a) i (a z a cn t LL W m r p y U) CC p U UJI U r� J 0 O U) a fA O ' C • rl �"1 w U U- m LU z w m ° Q p U Z w Z 0 O V U) O w Q W U Q 0 y J IL ' 0 w O (M 000 O^ to Ln It M N 0 14BIO M All aauld ;ua:)aad .. _ _ ui .. ■■�■■■■■■■■■�■r■■■�■ - . zE mmmmmm mm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm ca LL J NOON■ NOON..■.. / / ■ ■ ■ ■. ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■o N ■ ■ MEN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ • Ell M ■.NOME ■■■■■■■■■■■ . !! o■...■.■.■■■■.■■■ ■E •iammmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0 �r 0 CL ui Am IN I oil I MEN ..■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEN mm 0 MENNEN ■■■....■......■■■■.■ • mm No moll ill mi llmill • - • i M■ENEM■■■OMMMEMEE ■EM ■M■■■O■...� ■�M ■■ ■ ■ ■■ - • mmmmm o< 4 1 ' EXPANSION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 4829) SAMPLE EXPANSION INDEX ' B1 @3' -5' 22 ' UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION ' 0 -20 Very low 21 -50 Low ' 51 -90 Medium 91 -130 High Above 130 Very high ' G e o t e c h n i c s Laboratory Test Results Project No. 0441- 001 -00 Incorporated Sutro Property Document No. 8 -0289 Sutro Family Trust Figure C -4 CO) 4000 r -- — IL 3000 ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ' co ■ 2000 ■ N ■ ® ® ® ®® ■®■■ ■ i 1000 w 0 m oll x 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 STRAIN [ %] 4000 I • ULTIMATE SHEAR: j 3500 ■ PEAK SHEAR: i I 3000 - - - -� LL I i co 2500 -- a co l H 2000 -' 1 CD k Lu ` --} = 1500 - -- N ' 1000 i 500 ' 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B2 @ 3' - 4Y. PEAK ULTIMATE ' FILL: Gray brown silty sand (SM). 42 39 C' 0 PSF 0 PSF IN -SITU AS- TESTED ' STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0250 IN /MIN y 102.4 PCF 102.4 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 16.6% 21.2% ' A e o t e c hn i c s DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 I n c o rp o r at e d Sutro Property Document No. 8 -0289 Sutro Family Trust FIGURE C -5 0.00% 1.00% Q 2.00% a u C L C V L 11 a 3.00% ,1 4.00% fy 5.00% 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 Stress [psf] B2 @ 10' - 11' Water added to sample after consolidation under a load of 1972 [PSF] INITIAL FINAL 1.0000 0.9677 SAMPLE HEIGHT [IN] 118.0 121.9 DRY DENSITY [PCF] 2.70 2.70 SPECIFIC GRAVITY 0.43 0.38 VOID RATIO 13.4 14.0 WATER CONTENT [ %] 84.2 98.6 DEGREE OF SATURATION [ %] Consolidation Test Results Project No. 0441 - 001 -00 G e o t e c h n i c s Sutro Property Document No. 8 -0289 I n c o r p o r a t e d Sutro Family Trust Figure C-6 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT '" . 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL r (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aeo V Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1348 &' Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. (619)259 -8212 Fax. (619)259 -4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * 100 Year Hydrology for Sutro /Weigand Grading Plan * pe 526g * SEE EXHIBITS " A " AND "B" * * Rev. 6 -7 -99 ms ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 526G.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11:17 8/ 3/1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 120.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 317.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 315.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 10.845 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.477 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .34 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- >> >>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 315.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 305.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1000.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 18.00 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 * *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.25 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .31 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 9.30 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.28 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = .71 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 7.30 TC(MIN) = 18.15 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.212 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.82 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.16 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .37 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 12.20 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.59 DEPTH *VELOCITY = .96 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 53 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE NATURAL MOUNTAIN CHANNEL FLOW<< <<< >> >>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 305.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 200.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1000.00 CHANNEL SLOPE _ .1050 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 2.92 (PER PLATE D -6.3) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.71 TC(MIN.) = 23.86 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< ---------------- - - - - -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.692 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) L 8.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 14.58 TC(MIN) = 23.86 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<< <<< >> >>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 200.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 122.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1400.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0557 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 14.58 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 6.50 (PER PLATE D -6.1) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.59 TC(MIN.) = 27.45 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.460 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 19.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 29.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 35.61 TC(MIN) = 27.45 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW <<<<< >> >>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 122.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 84.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 750.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0507 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 35.61 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 7.91 (PER PLATE D -6.1) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.58 TC(MIN.) = 29.03 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< ---------------- - - - - -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.372 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.71 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.61 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 44.91 TC(MIN) = 29.03 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >> >>>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE <<<<< --------- - - - - -- PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 7.1 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 77.69 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 76.85 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 167.00 MANNING'S N = .010 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 2 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 44.91 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .39 TC(MIN.) = 29.42 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 29.42 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.35 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 38.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 44.91 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 110.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 80.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 79.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.10 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 12.271 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.134 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.20 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< --------------- -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.134 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .32 TC(MIN) = 12.27 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<< <<< >> >>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 79.70 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 77.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 120.00 CHANNEL SLOPE _ .0183 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) _ .00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 1.75 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .30 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.14 TC(MIN.) = 13.41 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.10 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< --------------- - 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.904 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .28 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .51 TC(MIN) = 13.41 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >> >>>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<< <<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.5 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.4 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 76.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 76.50 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = .012 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .51 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .15 TC(MIN.) = 13.56 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< -------------------- - - - - -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.877 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .41 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .72 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .69 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22 • TC(MIN) = 13.56 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.20 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< --------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.877 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .76 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.35 TC (MIN) = 13.56 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<< <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.88 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .76 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.35 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 44.91 29.42 2.352 38.61 2 1.35 13.56 3.877 .76 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 28.59 13.56 3.877 2 45.72 29.42 2.352 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 45.72 Tc(MIN.) = 29.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 39.37 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >> >>>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< ------ - - - - -- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.2 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.5 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 75.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 75.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 55.00 MANNING'S N = .013 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 2 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 45.72 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .10 TC(MIN.) = 29.52 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< --------------- - - -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.347 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 39.51 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 45.87 TC(MIN) = 29.52 ------- - - - - -- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 45.87 Tc(MIN.) = 29.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 39.51 --------------- - END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS - Recording requested � ) T 'IGIN OF THIS DOGUMEN1 'ECORDED ON OCT 9 2, 1999 City of Encinitas ) DOCUMENT NUMBER 1' .39y- 070'3214 GREGORY J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER 1 When Recorded, Mail To: ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME: 8:28 AM City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas. CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY DRAINAGE RABRMRNT Assessor's Parcel Project: No . 264- 172 -32 W.O. No . : WIEGAND NEGLIA. a California Corporation hereinafter designated Grantor(s) do(es) hereby grant, bargain, convey and release unto the City of Encinitas herein designated Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement and right -of -way upon, through, under, over and across the hereinafter described real property for the installation, construction, maintenance, repair, replacement, reconstruction and inspection of an enclosed or unenclosed flood DRAINAGE channel and all structures incidental thereto, and for the flowage of any waters in, over, upon or through said channel, together with the perpetual right to remove buildings, structures, trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstruction interfering with the use of said easement and right -of -way by the Grantee, its successors or assigns. To have and to hold said easement and right -of -way unto itself and unto its successors and assigns forever together with the right to convey said easement, or any portion of said easement, to other public agencies. The real property referred to hereinabove and made subject to said easement and right -of -way by this grant is situated in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, and is particularly described as follows: See Exhibit " A " attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. TF /03/MS7- 872wp5 1(01- 03 -95 -7) The Grantee shall Oe the right to fence alar any portion of said easement herein conveyed within which there is installed or constructed an unenclosed flood drainage channel. The Grantee, its • successors and assigns, shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, and keeping in good repair the above described works of improvement. The Grantor, his successors and assigns, reserves the right to enclose in a manner approve by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, any portion of an unenclosed flood drainage channel provided such enclosure is constructed or installed by a licensed contractor in accordance with plans and specifications approved by and to the satisfaction of the Grantee its successors and assigns. In granting its approval the Grantee, its successors and assigns, may impose reasonable conditions including, but not limited to, the filing by the contractor or Grantor of an adequate form of security, as approved by the City Engineer, to guarantee completion of the work. There is reserved to the Grantor, his successors and assigns, the right and privilege to use the above described land of the Grantor at any time, in any manner and for any purpose not inconsistent with the full use and enjoyment by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, of the rights and privileges herein granted. Dated this A -?ieo day bf A uG aSl' , 19F Grantor: r [Signature of GRANTOR must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement.] I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas consents to the making of the foregoing Irrevocable Offer, Deed, Grant, or Subordination Agreement, and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Date: "l - e R q By: '� t Alan D. Archibald Director of Engineering Services TF /63/MS7- 872wp5 2(01- 03 -95 -7) CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSIACKNOWLEDGMENT • No. 5907 State of C _A Li F0 P i4 ;A County of S' n Di On A"64(51 1 1121 before me, Ja nice. k, S ujenLs oA, WrAloy Rc&L c , DATE I NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER . E.G., 'JANE DOE, NOTA Y PUBLIC - personally appeared 36u c E -P. lit/ i EG ,4ALP , NAMES) OF SIGNERS) ❑ personally known to me - OR - proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(* whose name( is/afe subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he /sheAbey executed L the same in his / ", -rerm authorized SWDENWKNN JANK* CArra4don0119W3 capacity(+e.$ and that by his /heT ttrertr � ft signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. IGNATU E OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: q j DATE O DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) (V iEb',AN0 A €&4-� A 0 ' 4 G4t_7 F COR.,R . SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ;RRRP ------- : ; ;Ppapp_e; ;= pp-a ;_; 01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT ' Whereas, those parts concerned, desire to hall the Deed of Trust recorded May 13, 1 99 9as File /Page No.1 - i9538A subordinated to i the Drainage Easement ( "DOCUMENT" hereinafter) described above as ` Required as a Condition of Approval of 5876 I Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE hereby waives the priority of said Deed of Trust in favor of DOCUMENT to the same extent as if said DOCUMENT had been executed prior to said Deed of Trust. 1 41ts( (6 / GRAND PACIFIC FINANCING-CORPORATION DATED BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE By: Title: Deputy President DATED BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE By: Title: (Signature of BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement.] I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas consents to the making of the foregoing Subordination Agreement, and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Date q" q By Alan D. Archibald Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas TF /03/MS7- 872wp5 3(01- 03 -95 -7) CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOAACKNOWLEDGMENT • No. 5907 State of Ccd�r "n (a, County of S a� On A to / 9j! before me, � ,_ 1�1 ► ��laE•G , DATE �T7 NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., 'JAN E, NOTARY PUBLIC - personally appeared 1 L1 -exCo► e Clu ti'_ / NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) K personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. KE H LAM Cor= on" 1123638 WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary PubA — Calffomla Lot ArgeWs County My Comm. Epim Jan 20.2001 , L SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT ❑,INDIVIDUAL �" CORPORATE OFFICER d epdc ,► TITLE OR TYPE OF DO UMENT If V TITLE(S) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: �/� �-� / o DATE 6F DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAM � F PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) /( ! C�s1rn��d� SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 - Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 OUBORDINATION AGREEMENT • a Whereas, those parties concerned, desire to have the Deed of Trust recorded May 13. 1999 as File /Page No. 1999 - 325385 subordinated to the Drainage Easement ( "DOCUMENT" hereinafter) described above as Required as a Condition of Approval of 5876 I Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE hereby waives the priority of said Deed of Trust in favor of said DOCUMENT to the same extent as if said DOCUMENT had been executed prior to said Deed of Trust. WILL G. SUTRO and THOMAS L. SUTRO Aug us r u. SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES DATED BENtFrc I'ARY O R TE By: Title: DATED BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE By: Title: [Signature of BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement.] I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas consents to the making of the foregoing Subordination Agreement, and consents to recordation thereof by its duly off Lr W Date "� By W,411 Alan D. Archibald Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas TF /03/MS7- 872wp5 3(01- 03 -95 -7) CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOACKNOWLEDGMENT • No. 5907 State of CIJA j Fo g N i A County of .SA N U I E G n On f1 G u,5T G,l_ X9 before me, San ice k. ,Swenson lV rle•j !ku>Lic. , DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E. t., "JANE DOE, NO ARY PUBLIC - personally appeared W I L I i A n2 G. 50 , NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) ❑ personally known to me - OR - proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(,.&,) whose name(.&) is /ate subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that hekJ4eA ey executed the same in his /49fA fie-k authorized 404M K. - SVANM capacity(.ie4, and that by his /b-e-rMwir � ,# * signature( on the instrument the person(.&), Nokuy SM �' or the entity upon behalf of which the *Ca M90W*A %X= person(.&) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNA URE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) Tv © EZV oP1_ ts ,_E'GOR' 6W Sf13jf1 ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED F,•��µ /�' `�q -3aS38s' ❑ GENERAL r❑ra- ATTORNEY -IN -FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ICt-TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN /CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) A L A q z>• Q p c N , ` .&AL_ T k G, Sur" ',&.0 77id y s SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309 -7184 526 SD ESMT EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION AN EASEMENT FOR STORMDRAIN PURPOSES OVER, UNDER, ALONG AND ACROSS A STRIP OF LAND 15.00 FEET WIDE LYING WITHIN PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 10811, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. RECORDED OCTOBER 18, 1980 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, THE CENTERLINE OF SAID STRIP DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 DISTANT THEREON S73 0 31'00 "E 27.37 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF, SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A NON - TANGENT 252.38 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS N 33'21'16" E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 283.26 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64 0 18'24" TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS. THE SIDELINES OF SAID EASEMENT TO BE PROLONGATED OR SHORTENED TO BEGIN IN THE NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL 1, AND END IN A LINE THAT BEARS N87 °24'07 "W AND PASSES THROUGH THE SAID POINT OF TERMINUS. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES FOR MAINTENANCE OF SAID STORMDRAIN OVER THE SOUTHEASTERLY 40.00 FEET OF SAID PARCEL 1. C. �9 ,AND SCr O, No. 5211 .k vcaG jo.o3 ,�, � ty OR � T EL CANDO D NMWF S73 *31'00'E 27.37 ' N73 0 31'00'W 198.01 3 •til T 40.00' STORMDRA o � ST�t EASEMENT IN IC Z ACCESS q�� EASEMENT `'A_ \ o J ti 1 �� w I v PARCEL 1 f o PARCEL MAP 10811 \ IIn In zl 1 � LU ZO � \ 1 w 1 c 1 \ Ir u, 1 ,� • °'• in LO • 7 .,W 1 Z N N 87 2 A ,0 1 L_ 00 ' -------------------- S73 210.54' C. ST DV EASEWVT PLAT No � . 5211 4 PE 526 PE 526G HYDROLOGY /HYDRAULICS REPORT FOR: SUTRO FAMILY TRUST 7656 CALLE MADERO CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (760) 436 -9227 January 15, 1999 REVISED APRIL 15, 1999 _----� t � 2 514 PREPARED BY: F• SES;�l10ES ENV�'' EC +C1441sAS CITY OF ----- PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NO. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (619) 259 -8212 o4 �of ASS /p ` 0 2 W No.29577 m cr- Exp. 3/31/03 s� civic. loo CA1.1F�Q� `J G zj� WAYNE ASCO R E 29577 REGISTRATION EXPIRES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..... ..............................1 II. DISCUSSION ....... ..............................1 III. CONCLUSION ....... ..............................1 IV. 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ..............2 -8 V. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ......................9 -16 VI. APPENDIX ......... ..........................17 -24 VII. EXHIBITS ......... ..........................25 -28 PE 526G I. INTRODUCTION THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS THAT THIS PROJECT HAS ON STORM WATER RUNOFF. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, KNOWN AS A.P.N. 264 - 172 -32, IS PHYSICALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO DEL NORTE AND LUCYLLE LANE, IN OLIVENHAIN. THE SITE IS GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED AT 33 0 03'00" NORTH LATITUDE AND 117 0 14'00" WEST LONGITUDE. BASED ON THE INFORMATION, CALCULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN, A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ADEQUATE TO INTERCEPT, CONTAIN AND CONVEY Qioo TO THE HISTORIC POINT OF DISCHARGE CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. II. DISCUSSION THE DRAINAGE AREA TRIBUTARY TO THE STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES PROPOSED AS A PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COVERS APPROXIMATELY 38.6 ACRES (SEE EXHIBIT "A "). THE HYDROLOGIC CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS PRESENT IS PREDOMINANTLY "D ". SOIL TYPE "D" IS USED THROUGHOUT THE HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS TO BE CONSERVATIVE. THE DOUBLE— BARREL CULVERT SIZE AS CALCULATED HEREIN IS BASED ON THE H.G.L. CALCULATIONS AND INLET CONTROL HEADWATER REQUIREMENTS FOR 2 -24" PIPES WITH A HEADWALL. H.G.L. CALCULATIONS CONFIRM THE ADEQUACY OF THE 24" PIPES TO CONTAIN AND CONVEY Qloo. STORM RUNOFF GENERATED ON —SITE IS DIRECTED TO COLLECTION POINTS VIA 1% SWALES ON THE PAD AND STEEPER SWALES OFF OF THE PAD. THE GRADING DESIGN REFLECTS AN EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SWALE THAT WILL FUNCTION TO DIRECT FLOWS AROUND THE HOUSE IN THE EVENT OF A STORM DRAIN BLOCKAGE. III. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT, IT IS THE PROFESSIONAL OPINION OF PASCO ENGINEERING THAT THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE CORRESPONDING GRADING PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO INTERCEPT, CONTAIN AND CONVEY Qloo TO THE HISTORIC POINT OF DISCHARGE. —1— IV. 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS -2- , ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PA= ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SURE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 Ft (619) 25M12 FAX (619) 2544812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * 100 Year Hydrology for Sutro /Weigand Grading Plan * pe 5268 * SEE EXHIBITS " A " AND "B" * * Rev. 6 -7 -99 ms ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 526G.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:25 6/ 7/1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< ----------------------- -------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 13.67(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 1000.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 315.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 200.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 115.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.857 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 18.92 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 18.92 -3- ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< ----------------- - - - - -- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 200.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 122.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 1400.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0557 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 18.92 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 6.97 (PER PLATE D -6.1) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.35 TC(MIN.) = 17.02 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< --------------------- - - - - -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.348 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 19.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 28.63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 29.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 47.55 TC(MIN) = 17.02 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<< <<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< ------------------------- ----------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 122.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 84.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 750.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0507 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 47.55 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 8.59 (PER PLATE D -6.1) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.46 TC(MIN.) = 18.47 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< ---------------------- ---------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.176 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 8.71 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.61 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 59.99 TC(MIN) = 18.47 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >> >>>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE <<<<< ----------------------- ---------------- PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.5 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 77.69 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 76.85 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 167.00 MANNING'S N = .010 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 2 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 59.99 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .29 TC(MIN.) = 18.76 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< ----------------------- ----------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 18.76 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.14 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 38.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 59.99 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<< ----------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 110.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 80.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 79.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.10 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 12.271 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.134 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.20 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.134 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .32 TC(MIN) = 12.27 -5- FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW <<<<< >> >>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< ------------------------- ---------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 79.70 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 77.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 120.00 CHANNEL SLOPE _ .0183 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) _ .00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 1.75 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .30 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.14 TC(MIN.) = 13.41 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.10 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< ------------------------ ----------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.904 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .28 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .51 TC(MIN) = 13.41 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< >> >>>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE <<<<< ---------------------- -------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.5 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.4 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 76.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 76.50 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = .012 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .51 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .15 TC(MIN.) = 13.56 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.877 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .41 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .72 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .69 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22 TC(MIN) = 13.56 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.20 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ------------------------ ------ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.877 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .76 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.35 TC(MIN) = 13.56 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< >> >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<< <<< ------------------------ ------------ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.88 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .76 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.35 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 59.99 18.76 3.144 38.61 2 1.35 13.56 3.877 .76 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 50.00 13.56 3.877 2 61.09 18.76 3.144 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 61.09 Tc(MIN.) = 18.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 39.37 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE <<<<< PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.7 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 75.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 75.00 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 55.00 MANNING'S N = .013 -7- GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 2 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 61.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .09 TC(MIN.) = 18.86 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.134 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 39.51 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 61.28 TC(MIN) = 18.86 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 61.28 TC(MIN.) = 18.86 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 39.51 --------------------- -------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS -8- V. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PA= ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SURE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 42075 (619) 259 -8212 FAX OM 259-4812 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • hydraulic grade line calculations • double 24" pvc system • see exhibit "c" 100 yr. storm ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FILE NAME: 526PIPE.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 15:41 4/15/1999 *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE (Note: " *" indicates nodal point data used.) UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+ NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 1.00- 2.00* 788.83 1.77 784.99 ) FRICTION 1.10- 2.08* 804.51 1.88 Dc 780.42 JUNCTION 1.10- 2.29* 807.55 1.71 751.35 ) FRICTION 2.00- 2.44* 837.82 1.86 Dc 741.72 ) JUNCTION 2.00- 3.22* 783.33 1.73 Dc 523.32 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 1.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 75.00 PIPE FLOW = 31.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 77.000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 1.00 : HGL = < 77.000>;EGL= < 78.512 >; FLOWLINE = < 75.000> _ 10- *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.10 ELEVATION = 75.80 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 31.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 55.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01200 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 31.00)/( 245.077)) * *2 = .01600 HF =L *SF = ( 55.00) *( .01600) _ .880 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 1.10 : HGL = < 77.880 >;EGL = < 79.392 >; FLOWLINE = < 75.800> *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 1.10 ELEVATION = 75.80 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES: PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY (CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT.) (FT /SEC) UPSTREAM 30.00 24.00 .00 75.80 1.86 9.549 DOWNSTREAM 31.00 24.00 - 75.80 1.88 9.868 LATERAL #1 1.00 12.00 90.00 76.30 .42 1.273 LATERAL #2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .000 Q5 .00 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2 Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01200; FRICTION SLOPE _ .01498 DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01200; FRICTION SLOPE _ .01600 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01549 JUNCTION LENGTH = 1.00 FEET FRICTION LOSSES = .015 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000 FEET JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = ( .096) +( .015) +( .000) _ .111 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 1.10 : HGL = < 78.087>;EGL= < 79.503 >; FLOWLINE = < 75.800> *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 2.00 ELEVATION = 78.70 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 30.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 203.84 FEET MANNING'S N = .01200 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 30.00)/( 245.076)) * *2 = .01498 HF =L *SF = ( 203.84) *( .01498) = 3.054 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 2.00 : HGL = < 81.142 >;EGL = < 82.558 >; FLOWLINE = < 78.700> *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 2.00 ELEVATION = 79.03 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES: PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY - If- (CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT.) (FT /SEC) UPSTREAM 23.75 24.00 .00 79.03 1.73 7.560 DOWNSTREAM 30.00 24.00 - 78.70 1.86 9.549 LATERAL #1 6.25 24.00 90.00 79.02 .88 1.989 LATERAL #2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .000 Q5 .00 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2 Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01300; FRICTION SLOPE = .01102 DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01200; FRICTION SLOPE = .01498 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01300 JUNCTION LENGTH = 4.00 FEET FRICTION LOSSES = .052 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000 FEET JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = ( .529) +( .052) +( .000) = .581 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 2.00 : HGL = < 82.251>;EGL= < 83.138>;FLOWLINE= < 79.030> *********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 2.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 79.03 ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 80.76 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS ------------------------- ------- END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS -t2- Prepared by Pasco Engineering 06/08/1999 PE 526g CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap = 3.0(P)(D ^1.5) / 2. DIVISION BY 2 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE. MAXIMUM PERIMETER AVAIL HIM GRATE FACTOR Q100 (CFS) P (FT) D (FT) 2* CAPACITY (CFS) INLET TYPE 0.72 4.00 0.50 2.00 2.12 12" x 12" BROOKS CB -Node 10 0.12 4.00 0.50 2.00 2.12 12" x 12" BROOKS CB -Node 13 THEREFORE, 12 "x12" BROOKS CATCH BASIN IS O.K. AT NODES 10 & 13 SEE EXHIBIT "B" FOR NODE LOCATIONS "13- II -67 180 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (I) (2) (3) 156 6,000 0.42 inches (3.5 feet) — 6 • 144 5,000 0.120 cfs 6• 5. 4,000 �" nw 6 • 5. 132 o feet 3,000 5. 4, 120 (1) 2.5 e.e 4 2,000 (2) 2.1 7.4 108 (3) 2.2 7.7 4. "0 in feet 3 3. �• 96 1,000 3. 800 84 -- - --. 2� 600 2 • 2- n 4 500 'V D 72 400 / 2. v 300 1.5 Z — 60 v 200 / 1.5 Z / {V ° B4 ' V O / Q ` w /W 100 �j� ae / Z e 'r t 80 _ F- X 42 N 50 W 1.0 1.0 O ° 11W SCALE ENTRANCE ° I — C TYPE 1.0 � 36 w W 30 (1) Square edge with a 9 9 Q 33 headwall .9 p — 20 (2) Groove and with Q 30 headwall = 8 8 (3) Groove end .8 27 projecting 10 24 8 .7 .7 y .7 6 To use scale (2) 0, (3) project 21 / 5 horizontally to scale (1), then 4 use straight inclined line through 0 and 0 scales, or reverse as 6 6 3 illustrated. .6 18 2 15 1.0 .5 .5 .5 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN, 1963 WITH INLET CONTROL -- IA- ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 Ph: (619) 259 -8212 Fax: (619) 259 -4812 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16: 9 4/15/1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • CHECK VELOCITY OF FLOW DISCHARGING FORM DUAL 24" PVC CULVERT • AND VELOCITY OF FLOW IN 48" RCP. (INDICATED BY BOLD FACE TYPE) * * ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** >> >>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<< << ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000 *PIPE DIAMETER (FEET) = 4.000 PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0147 *PIPE SLOPE (FEET /FEET) = .0518 PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 31.00 *PIPEFLOW (CFS) = 47.50 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .012000 *MAN. FRICT. FACTOR = .013 CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.88 *CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 2.07 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SF) = 3.062 *CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 6.543 CRITICAL FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FT) = .962 *CRITICAL FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FT) = 3.998 CRITICAL FLOW PRES. +MOM.(LBS) = 780.87 *CRITICAL FLOW PRES.+ MOM.(LBS)= 1026.41 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(F /S.) = 10.125 *CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(F /S.) = 7.259 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FT) = 1.59 *CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FT) =.82 CRITICAL FLOW HYD. DEPTH(FT) = 3.18 *CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FT) =1.64 CRITICAL FLOW SPEC. ENERGY(FT) = 3.47 *CRITICAL FLOW SPEC. ENERGY(FT) =2.88 NOTE:GIVEN NORMAL DEPTH IS LOWER VALUE OF TWO POSSIBLE. SUGGEST CONSIDERATION OF WAVE ACTION, UNCERTAINTY, ETC. NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.73 *NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.03 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 2.89-FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 2.56 FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.366 *FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 3.498 FLOW PRESSURE + MOM.(LBS) = 789.76 *FLOW PRESSURE + MOM.(LBS) = 1775.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 10.733 *FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 18.541 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 1.789 *FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 5.338 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 2.11 * HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .73 FROUDE NUMBER = 1.301 * FROUDE NUMBER = 3.818 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 3.52 *SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 6.37 -15- 20 or 0 or l'/ T % ?' 1 - i l i th S i l l ~ I T %Ue 2- :Ti tl,out sill I ] ll:icl.l of Oesi n 9 Rock it f il'�' t): :. -ctcr _ • I � .. Velocity Classification 1 1 � �!�•' (ft. /sec.) t ' Eu_tori l:iJth of (oncrctc CL :Inac: in ` 10 12 1/4 Ton — '►K /�- lY /"/V ��/� �� on L— ` 16 • 18 1 Ton cifi2C on Pirns :F - * 7, • r //� N _ � 2 Ton LECi1C.1 Cc FIL_TEP C� Ripran ; L' ^loci N ! Pock F l l t -r i.l:ni -t .• F[ /Sec. Classification T h1Ckn - U;�er laver (T) Ft. . Sec. 20�^ L o- -r Lp 6-) t:o. 3 Sacking .6 vi 7F /S P. -110 :1 in Cackin; 3/16" C2 1 0-1 Srht 4 1/, on 0 - ° 1t -16 112 Ton 2.J 3/4• 16 -13. 1 Ton 3.4 1' Sand 12 -20 ?Ton -3 1 112• c _ ink 5.4 2• Sind Filt -r Clan %et Thickness 1 Foot or T. Whichever is less Sind 3 N C1 { A S TCf r;n.) 1 r f P�1 rs Ft l 3D or 3111 , - c T i; _, �?. �--� � . / V ' S' min - � 1 '� c`�- 9 9^��'- . r • r ;� ��IL�� .. ..,.. /y .r�CtiCC`;c17�.'ji ?el.s J l:•on,�!` PLAN Sill 420-C-200 ion A- A Class Concrete, if Shown on Plans. NOT ES - Concrete Channel 1. Type of riprao a. Regular Quarry Stone. b. Broken Concrete if Shorn on Plans. C. Cobbles not acceptable. 2. Gradation and Placement as Specified in Regional Standards Colrn. Std. Spec. Prov. Dor W �— `�,. Sec. 200 -1.6 and Sec. 300 -E. 3. Riprap is to be placed over a filter blanket which may be granular material or plastic filter cloth. Granular material specs. in Table above. %�'c: .• J.it.., _ �- �� b. Plastic Tilt �'' <:- :'•'`� i �`�;�:,. �? _ •�`': "' '::;�%�' "� . 3f Cor..i. Std. S er cloth specs. - in Reg St2s. ° nom) S. If desired riprapeandPfiltereblanketl ELEVATION class is not available, use larger class_ — :-- 2 Standard Specifications for PubTie Works A Construction by o. CA Cha p. S ?• of f�P;.q , S 1•.rC j` i �r�cto a. 1.1 scti rnco 1 :' il•»=s.r.s rc —,11tr SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD gV,,, Rrv�sion Ey Aprro:ad [) fluM ,,;rc RIP RAP ENTRGY DISSIP�'1 t D - 40 VI. APPENDIX 17- ILL GCS P2. cm LD t.. '� ' �sa� f- l ` It ,N ` `�• % \\ T �( OU. �. �a r � �� a •q.q ,. 1, 0 cr • U3 C-4 �f CJ CN LLJ •. 1i v • \ C �ls! c+ ` 1` ` p 3 r a r z� < o< C � � 0�•0 Fw Ac � W < ^z Z pu} O U u o At O a CO UA p y M 0. no O t" Z trt M 2 ti _1 • a < v M 1 Q• � r. W tiZ~ oLsio uz H 0 1 �c:o < Q C3 O W OJ M W ' z a A J u I � a a II-A-7 Ln 14:r C3 1 O O a to cm ' f � ` � i 1. -•-�; � '� cm ED If - cc vp cc CD - �` I v = > sn U . z W ' < z o�} o U uj Lo ..- r- --Y- -- oH i 2 00 1"' z 2 4. -2 _ _ _ r - < u - QOO a CC`I� a vC y am. u1 o to V < O Ou.r 0 u= v � o vi o y u, cc Z <O CL C) W -.1 O UQU- O z � W II-A- 13 ry• .. J .+ t to ..r t..x ► Tap" ddd7777��� HrC2 t �'s .+ � t �ti., r' � "•tYYq{ .� � " r . •. �` � t� J�' s ,�� ,r {.t ; «+•. 2 DZ f Sh a x 1 r 1 + t ". 4 ��� t R •�.�a. , ��.. •.w �!. .'.. ."r.j„' nGS. ��. e��`?a � {1at-„ it � f � .,f• tt' � '� �• ��� . + y. � m �•� - �}tir ` , t �,'• : ��s�:�' �,'?�� � li , � '�„ ,jSt i 1}, 1 +,� � , ;4:a ,r • 'f + t'' e. fi �•.' S'�7• fi "l�+i 1 m��,�.. I ,r Z '�� 1 . "'+r -t q C t ' s � c �'�',� ; ��,� +� �„`�'''' ' . }, •" ,�' � s ^''� t t s +.� �''i irkj, .r ." g '?l t S" H�Ds�• ^ �' • ! , .c ' a �' ri + Vi1 top Ai r i �4. � �+ ►G �; RuQ - S • i f "1 n AtE a t$ i UE AtE AtQ AWC d� ki •� 5 ''^ ? 1•JNSENITOS L +Cr 4 P O , %4 Wki Csc CSB O s + r i tt7?0 tE, JD LeCT* • ,f },...,. ? 7'F' s „�' •. Y .dky1� I i• LYU N . +� � '�� A f h f' �. � mac• � ty, . � �+ '� t•`� v � G l �1' + � � �` tr ., �� � `� •.r �► ti: :•I � r l ��j k ^ t AtE:. * ;'o +3 " ,,,„ ;� } X "e�' + �' „+ N � .sY �"t�x � �! • F', � p �' !., t �J l :< ` _ k ; ;.� r nSe ✓' ► r "! `� `. i 1 �•. 4t ti +t n r� HrC r �{� HtD a' ML },! " • C � �` ?+ csC � •.. C �• /n�At ' HrD } ♦ ? t ,;:.t�eC2 ''Y�•4. f., �R'�+ •'y.�tp ra . "! � T�' a.� .� v ir'������ ; .AtD C's. '' tt" �� � ' 1 �7�� � .� U .,� �' � s '. � �C•y '�. X .dF' r�1n�111R2' 1 r3 y. !r n '�j' f ?+ r , • � S R r 1eFl ,, � y 3•" �tl'i t �� �� ',.s• \ } + 5 �� Cs � '�A' C(C +`;r r, � + � HrO; ' f + ^����Ai"'t $• ¢�rC�'1 � „. }.� , F� • �+ . SrA .,� � e , ; " ti • . i �� -�' ! � . � •� r ;. �„ ti'r + *. o f r i► tE't � I� ` �2 +`},•� , :,� 1 ok • w�i , r 1 �sD Ham' n ow _ e r :'��� .!0• .,a J.: f�ti 2 "t r�ic � ms s, 4 +QI. , �IrY �. ti �r Eti { s „ F A i AtC' t ,{ 1 i S D, = 1 • 1,.. + 'ri. ^ AtE .Ig``, _ �' f � , h •���• t*' .. {. r > � w�r � � �, 4,� � � •r k '�a"' I f, ". z A C� tC p . '• ,rr '�, �' tD __ � r+ ri _ i � E �'' :•f CsD L J tf� r �,{ `• `AtD :�.. � �t.t.,f �, •� 'i � +DoE'^ AtE ,ryV` � ` '• yt tHrD ,� , ° � \ •. � + + s , J Hr�C2 ;/. ." `� xr! t� r �'� ,/ �•."`. r �'. '..: ' ,, s t ' ,;.: jt , F •s s ��+ " !`� -�,d rT x ,� D� � �`� � '� r + Y•., ' � ,�4. 1� _ J t_ r , O i� � A �f �� � r E,.' r � • . s �, . 4 S ,��(g4T. .� Hr�� t - ,� "" 1 ..,. �. '� a ' *': �, aR . r . 1 � t •, • ` � + s t • � a sr "'t,` � �� _� `' _mot ` �tD ° i -/ ,:.. ris, t ,y. " • s�`a. 6 -`' r fit, C�' .... �' ••. 1� • i AtCi' °',,..v .��--..... . - r I Y n r•h r,�, TABLE 11. - -IN ERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEh1ENT [Numerals indicate soil properties or qualities that affect erodibility. Numeral l,refers to slope; 2 to surface layer texture; 9 to depth to hard rock, or a hardpan, or any layer that restricts permeability; 16 to grade of structure in the surface layer. Absence of rating means no valid interpretations can be made] Fla Soil Limitations for symbol Hydro- Erodibility conversion logic from brush to group grass AcG Acid igneous rock land_________ _________ _______ ___ D Severe 1 - - - -_ - -- -- -" Severe. AtC Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent.slopes ------------------ D Slight ------- Slight. 1 AtD Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes------- ---- ---- D Slight ------- Slight. 1 At D2 Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded- - - - - -- D Slight -�- -- Sli AtE Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes------- ------ __ D Moderate 1 - -- ---- Slight. 1/ -->AtE2 Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded ----------- D Moderate 1 - -- AtF ltamont clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes-------- ----- --- --- D Slight. . AuC Anderson very gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent Severe 1- - - -- Moderate 1/ slopes. P A Severe 16 - - -- Slight. P AuF knderson very gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 4S percent A Severe 16 - - -- slopes. Moderate. 2 / AvC Arlington coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes - - - - - -- AwC Auld clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes------- ------ -- -- -- - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. D Slight ------- Slight, i AwD Auld clay, 9 to 1S percent slopes ---------------- D Slight- - - - - -- Slight AyE Auld stony clay, 9 to 30 percent slopes________ __________ p . BaG Badland_______ ________ _____________ Moderate 1 - -- Slight. " """"- --------- - - - - - -- D Severe 1 ----- Severe. BbE Bancas stony loam, S to 30 percent slopes--- - - - - -- C Severe 16 ---- BbE2 Bancas stony loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes, eroded-- - - - - -- Moderate. BbG Bancas stony loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes--------- - ----- � Severe 16 - - -- Moderate. BbG2 Bancas stony loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, eroded ------- Severe 1 ----- Moderate. BeE Blasingame loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes C Severe 1- - - -- Moderate. P D Severe 16 - - -- Slight. BgE Blasingame stony loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes ------------ D Severe 16 - - -- BgF Blasingame stony loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes ----- - - - -__ Moderate. - _ D S B1C Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes ___ _________ Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. P D Severe 9 ----- Slight. B1C2 Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, eroded-- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- B1D2 Bonsall sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded- - - - - -- Slight. BmC Bonsall sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent D Severe 9 -- - -- Slight. slopes. P D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. BnB Bonsall - Fallbrook sandy loams, 2 to 5 percent slopes: Bonsall----------------------------------- --- - - - - -- - D Severe 9 - - - -- ------ Fallbrook -------------------------------------------- Slight. -------------------- - - - - -- C Severe 9 - - - -- BoC Boomer loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes ---- - - -___ -"""---- -- -- C Slight. Moderate 2 - -- Slight. BoE Boomer loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes ---- -_____ C -""'""--"--- Moderate 1 - -- Slight. ! BYE Boomer stony loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes -- - - - - -_ _ C Moderate 1 - -- - - - -� -- Slight. BrG Boomer stony loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes--------- -- - --- C Bsc Bosanko clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes ---------------------- D Severe 1 --- -- Moderate. Moderate 16 -- Slight. 1/ BsD Bosanko clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes ---- - - -___ D -"---- -- -- Moderate 16 -- Slight. 11 BsE Bosanko clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes ----- - - - - -_ D Moderate 1 - -- - -- - -� -- Slight. 11 BtC Bosanko stony clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes -------------- D Moderate 16 -- Slight. 3/ BUB Bull Trail sandy loam, 2 to S percent slopes------- - - - --- C BuC Bull Trail sandy loam, S to 9 percent slopes Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/ P C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/ BuD2 Bull Trail sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded--- - BuE2 Bull Trail sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/ P P , C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/ CaB Calpine coarse sandy loam, 2 to S percent slopes --------- B Moderate 2 --- CaC Calpinp coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes Slight. 4/ P P B Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 4/ CaC2 Calpine coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, B Moderate 2 - -- eroded. Slight. 4/ See footnotes at end of table. 32 TABLE 11 . - - INTERPRE7'A'I'IONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT -- Continued ym bol Soil Limitations for s Hydro- Erodibility conversion )�n logic g from brush to group grass CO2 Calpine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, B Moderate 2 - -- eroded. Slight. 4 1 CbB Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to S percent slopes ------ C Severe 2 ----- CbC Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes Slight. P L. Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. CbD Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes - - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- CbE Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes Slight. P C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. CcC arlsbad -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes ------- p CcE arlsbad -Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes ------ p CeC arrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes -------- A Severe 2 CfB hesterton fine sandy loam, 2 to S percent slopes -------- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. fC hesterton fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slo es-- - - - -__ Severe 9 - - - -- Slight CfD2 esterton ine san y oam, to percent slopes, D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate. eroded. CgC hesterton -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Chesterton-------------------- - - - - -- D Urban land---------------- ------------ - - - - -- D - - - - - -- ChA Chino fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------- ------ C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. ChB Chino fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes______ _______ C Severe 16 - - -- CkA Chino silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes ------- Slight. O D2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 1S percent slopes, C' Moderate 2 - -- Moderate. eroded. B Severe 16 - - -- Severe. C1E2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16 - - -- eroded. Severe. C1G2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, B Severe 1 - - - -- eroded. Severe. CmE2 Cieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16 - - -- slopes, eroded. Severe. CmrG Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. slopes. CnE2 ieneba - Fallbrook rocky sandy loamy, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------- B Severe 16 - - -- Severe. Fallbrook -------------------------------------------- C Severe 16 - - -- CnG2 ieneba - Fallbrook rocky sandy loamy, 30 to 65 percent Severe. slopes, eroded: Cieneba------------------ ----------- -- - - --- B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. Fal lbrook_____________________________________ C Severe 1 - - - -- C o layey alluvial land________ ____________ -- - - - - - -- Severe. Cr oastal beaches ------------------------------------------ ------ D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. A Severe 2 CSB orralitos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes -- ---- CSC A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. orralitos loam sand 5 to 9 Percent slopes ------- A Severe 2 - - - -_ sD orralitos loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes Slight. CtE rouch coarse t A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. se sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes --------- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. �tF rouch coarse sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent es-- - - - - -- slo : percent uE rouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 t B Severe 1- - - -- Moderate. slopes. t B Severe 16 - - -- Moderate. :uG Crouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 ercent slopes, t B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. �vG Crouch stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 ercent slopes. t B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. )aC Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes ----------------------- D Slight -------- Slight. 1/ )aD Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes ----- -_____ )aE "----'---- D Slight -------- Slight. 11 Diablo clay, 1S to 30 percent slopes------ ----- -- D Moderate - - - - -- Slight. 1/ )aE2 - -' - "-- Diablo clay, 1S to 30 percent slopes, eroded------- - ----- )aF Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes_______ ______________ D Moderate 1 - -- Slight. D Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate . 1 / 'ee footnotes at end of table. TABLE 11.-- INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued Limitations for htap Soil hydro- Erodibility conversion symbol logic from brush to group grass IinG Holland stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 60 percent C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. slopes. HOC Holland fine sandy loam, deep, 2 to 9 percent C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. slopes. HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes------------- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. C2 Huerhuero loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded --------- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. HrD Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes------------ - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. HrD2 Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded----- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. HrE2 Iluerhuero loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded ---- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. HuC Huerhuero -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Huerhuero-------------------------------------- - - - - -- D Urban land------------------------------------- - - - - -- D HuE iuerhuero -Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: Huerhuero-------------------------------------- - - - - -- D Urbanland------------------------------------- - - - - -- D InA Indio silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 InB Indio silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 IoA Indio silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----- - - - - -- C Severe 16 IsA Indio silt loam, dark variant---------------------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 KcC Kitchen Creek loamy coarse sand, 5 to 9 percent B Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. 4 / slopes. KcD2 Kitchen Creek loamy coarse sand, 9 to 15 percent B Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. 4/ slopes, eroded. LaE2 La Posta loamy coarse sand, 5 to 30 percent slopes, A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. 4/ eroded. LaE3 La Posta loamy coarse sand, 5 to 30 percent slopes, A Severe 2 - - - -- Severe. 4/ severely eroded. LcE La Posta rocky loamy coarse sand, 5 to 30 percent A Severe 2 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes. LcE2 La Posta rocky loamy coarse sand, 5 to 30 percent A Severe 2 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes, eroded. LcF2 La Posta rocky loamy coarse sand, 30 to 50 percent A Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes, eroded. WE La Posta - Sheephead complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: La Posta--------------------------------------- - - - - -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ Sheephead-------------------------------------- - - - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Moderate. 4 / LdG La Posta - Sheephead complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes: La Posta--------------------------------------- - - - - -- A Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ Sheephead--------------------------------------- - - - - -- C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. 4 / LeC Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes--- - - - - -- D Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. LeC2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes, D Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. eroded. LeD Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes-- - - - - -- D Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes, D Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. eroded. LeE Las Flores loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. LeE2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes, D Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. eroded. LeE3 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes, D Severe 2 - - - -- Severe. severely eroded. LfC Las Flores -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Las Flores--------------------- ----------------- - - - - -- D Urban land-------------------------------------- - - -- -- D See footnotes at end of table. 23- TABLE 11.-- INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued Limitations for Map Soil hydro- F.rodibility conversion symbol logic from brush to group grass RaA Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaB Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes----------- --- - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaC Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes----------- - -- --- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaC2 Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded--- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RaD2 Ramona sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded-- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RcD Ramona gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RcE Ramona gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RdC Redding gravelly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes------- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate. ReE Redding cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes-------- - - ---- D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate. RfF Redding cobbly loam, dissected, 15 to 50 percent D Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. slopes. RhC Redding -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Redding --------------------- ------------------- - - - - -- D Urban land - - - - -- D RhE edding -Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: Redding ---------------------- ------------------ - -- - -- D Urban land - - - - -- D RkA Reiff fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RkB Reiff fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. RkC Reiff fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. Rm Riverwash -------------- --- ---- --- ----- - - -- --- A Severe 2, 4 -- Severe. RoA Rositas fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RrC lositas fine sand, hummocky, 5 to 9 percent slopes- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RsA lositas loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes--- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RsC lositas loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes--- - - - - -- A Severe 2 RsD lositas loamy coarse sand, 9 to 1S percent slopes - - -- - -- A Severe 2 RuG loueh broken land --- ----- -------- - ----- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. SbA 3alinas clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- C Moderate 2 - -- Slight. l/ SbC alinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------- - - - - -- C Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 1/ ScA alinas clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes-------------- --- - - - -- C Slight- - - - - -- Slight. 1/ SCB alinas clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes-------------- -- -- - - -- C Slight- - - - - -- Slight. 1 1 SmE San Miguel rocky silt loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate SnG San Miguel- Exchequer rocky silt loams, 9 to 70 percent slopes: San Miguel------------------------ --- ----- ------ --- -- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. Exchequer---------------------- -- ------- ---- ------ - -- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. SpE2 Sheephead rocky fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent C Severe 16 - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes, eroded. SpG2 Sheephead rocky fine sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. 4/ slopes, eroded. — SrD to in ullied land---- - - - - -- - ____ - - -_ _-- _ -__ - -_ P 8 g - -- - - - -- B Severe 2 - - - -- Severe. 4 1 SsE Soboba stony loamy sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes---- - - - - -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Moderate StG Steep gullied land----------------- ---- ---- --- --- -------- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. SuA Stockpen gravelly clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. Sub Stockpen gravelly clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes- - - - - -- D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. SvE Stony land ----- --- ------ --- -- --- A Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. TeF Terrace escarpments---------------------- ------- -- - - ----- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. Tf Tidal flats - - - - -- D Severe 2, 4 ToE2 Tollhouse rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent C Severe 9 - - - -- Severe. slopes, eroded. ToG rollhouse rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent C Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. slopes. TuB rujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes---------------- - - ---- A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. Ur Urban land ----------------------------------------------- VaA Visalia sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes---------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. See footnotes at end of table. 37 z4 - IAA._ VII. EXHIBITS i ■'I 4 Ap Lain Al > .(��� ��titC �.,,/, µ Y�Y I °i1 'S r { � `'+ G �wwllwwffiffiwwwwwwwwwwwwi :rwwalwrrlswlw ■ffi ■w ffiw11n wrwdwffiffirnffiwwdww�rwwwffi�r� ,wwwwwer wwwararr�ffi "man wMwwwllwwMtl w dffidMWMdffidffiffiwwlwwffid1affiw► an r dffiwr.w dww (°.p�,r1 wwwffilwwwffiw r. iffiimwwlffiwIMaIR�G1M ft rry m .ffirlffidasounrlMdrrdRll�.�no t, ' y wrk,rdwwwune mamma WIN 4W { n�r wwailw,` d5i1' dffi11ffiMMI I'IAffir'1ldMMwidffiMRlw111dMCl "1w memo alkali 0sigma21ffidr "pi !' IffmuWanurlIxam >p>i %'Wx wwwwww l itoo wi w memos wdwww�rwl040"k -Ism lw. w 0MOMd�R��f148 0 d. w NOR MMwdMwwl4Ngaak'3UNNdMfy�w MOMMMSA �y Mwa'am", no *&gonna Set %abnwffidwP3$ l IaffidMalffiM11dr1ffi'a ffidffiMddwlwlMffiIwC�ffiMwlwdffiRlf`'lffi ddr. PC'P�MMdI{d1L UOUVILt `Mw user.!Id`l1J0911. r, ffid"1101- -nMd1ffiffi wd:`UrVNxU8SN:!:w5 \tRR't1R1C awl dffidMi11M aRon into NOW D \M11 IMMffil!�ffi1►:dffi1111' diffi a111alwrlrlla 01 no 09301t"KIN11 l "�ww►:M1lwlw t:IwdMdnew Irwdwllw ffid�;<�R�ilfaladffiy �M`a.ffiwallhsM '►� MdOMMa iaM ffij�> affi�aaC1Pl� `e(ffiffi11:�ffiiitlw ►�,IIwL - !:006ffi2110111. on `Jwd wmumdlmwn .`**I ofinffiu+idsdd Irn 1 w11rffiI►.:b7wilPl dwlfffiMwww 0;ffiwli:w awwnui141mom Imov �rrlrawlwl�xmfllrRl r►wc;.rtw1 INNS' ad ffidlRS �P.+Ma ww Mmooh!D MON11wllbdl:Jffid j1f1�.1'p adwffiMwll►rd+.ai Mdw OWNSMMlRdffiHomes MMMwf Rlwa dddffidddddl ►IIMdNi011411dMMlson21 N @wawa ffiMMomoorkYs "Ion At�irlNis "Visa r SUWONffiYdw aMrrdMwp , ffiw'aMdMw'ldlrl��;wM�RFIIIffiVI1' ddlNMb:`SMwffi dawlwww'wlw,�wwlwal'rw l `largwffiIMffidw,:,,�dMwdwdwflwalw mass ffiwffiw�w Oman lI111 llydwdRrlwdffi dffidMMaffiM1rIRdMffi Ilfwllf� �ffiMffiwdiwffiawdddMdaffiffiffiawM alwwfwww�vffilawwwd Notonsmen WIN among annaffiMadw Isom" MUS RIR'ffi1`llUMMdM Mumma Knows mama MwdMffiMIrRa'aMdaldl IN loix We Mel mission wagon Nunn dMlwMM11r1ffib:Ild l0dll Nil Oil ofrv"Itanmusu♦llwlr$dw 'W Romans r1JwC�1111rwM !.°°. "W11`M0 Among Vienna JAN Mf1dMMf1d, w ILk yIIIMM daMN't? MdadMmouses I !n dffid1Rlrffid1iwlRl� �lltM 1!`IMMSMwffiawffiffidffidffi ffi mum" w allowsM`arldllO Wb;:4KLIMMAssam Mamma m e aMwIMffidddM1rR11'ffid1i,Mv1d11"IL `trMdddffiffi96wffiIwMffiis MdddMdl @dMlrlyd3 III slim vc dw ldddMffi Masan dNS* mama wwwwl %millwal I IdIISSBox toonslww noun* Russ wffiwwwwww rle llwffiMffinffif1r1ffidwffiffidawffiffit1;dffi adwldffi Somali BONN% �llwl lwlrl IW4111% :1 - 011ffiffi Slogan mom YMWdMddwMlidffi21 sling dffi° w**; QvMaWknowsonMa MMdMMffidlaRlffid/'i�M . �� .•www wll ffi w awMwwffi dffiwlMaffidMRiaM®dM1lr!q fffi Cffiwr1ffirl /wdw(radffi Mwa6MffirfdwrIno Or`1wt9q awww�`,wwlwwwaaelrwwffidw arlaalwalwrlwll- 111�wldltaffiaM 1l� "A Clwffiffia8tww was" A9dN no awadnamftao�MwffidwffirtounsWass dwddr®wdMl.ffirwdrlNM ffiJro' wwlawwwwrw�wwrffiwmla� wrwwrlwdwwaawwwww aMddMdrldwi° LwdwIYRffiWlff*r &ZVANNa among Issue aMffidMYdowl" Sr`l9Mal N I S 163W. Alk' 11 ri MffirllmogsRrwdA'! mamusumn K , MI k�I��MR aMffidMdeldffil.dbMM A M 10111"JM*mong MMw,� wffidMdwltlffi( wr. ffidil. I aM Iffi��YwtrallffidwwtMdwMlwdw1111 rlffiffiMffiaMMI; r www' I>ala1B ocaml lion wwpl:'4111Mwlwdlw mum f� wwwlffidrEd #I JM1- 0081Ir'.+ri .rffila? /dwdwt�'iiwridMwNiffiwd }.: a one Mlwwl = wdwiaffiLI yaMffi'lwwwwlhJMlldwwMlwas wadwwffiwMl , ffidwlwot M ""rwNIIMffia► tw alw wffi#lll wlwdMwavemadlydll �a p rldffiMwwlffi ►�1w "s:twdww' 11. ffiwlffiffiffi11ddMpoladMll ! qq r111wdwwwwwwlMlaF "°�ffidw1��:1a wlMrldffiffiaMffiMfld drll w M wdadwwalr7wl!!,`RIanP'off awloonUltdwffi.- -`affil am anffilr bpUK=m&;.ffian ml�# ffiffidMffiadw / / ■dffi11Yi' MYY`,± �•:E. $@;+1wif,.ffiffirldlaw Names 111" Vlms AI1�d w��r.M>`�:� w.�wcirmind ap+, �wwwwwraww�l�'.rfl MwilwwrrMlowlRwwwR�� Ruvuma aMlrffidwffiMMMOdMwd• rw 1dl�wwffiffiwdffiffid®IlBwwrt;�lr'� dMffiMffiffiMffiffiiiffiIaNIffi ( a11i �rE1�MdffiwMwlffiIMiffiffirlullldil V'���„; g dwMffiwffidffiMwtwwdMffilu i1111wwwdMwwdMffi [ tY w dllwawwf amma l em"Malgffi1111oat lffi1sMMSdMrMffilrMl@�:wYlwd'!ffir affiffiwwwwwwMwwwffiffiww1�ffi '�wffiwMdffiwwwrrewffiffinu�tr awiwwwalwawwllalwalrlwrl � w� wwwdwffiwaer>awlwrlalrllwlra�lll awwwlgwwwMwaffiawd�� MaMrlddMlrwdw�"" ®rIfIMR��a Imam" MffilaMl.�.�+ FPvMl � �.�ffidM. e.�M111P 11 aMffidMMffidMMMt n naw5 -- vwrwnrelfidllty :`=2 to,4. ffi MMdMMMdffiMffiMffidddffi sling _ ffiffiloublu id) %M►�f w aMMdffiMRIdMMddMd4dwla8tpp a M111wffiarffiwwdadwwladddw:ll _ tiffiffidwwridwffiffiwaaa d11ffiffiwMdlrwM ■waw>wddffi!t r� ,:ffiRldawwwiwplwlllrlllwlw adwdwwallwwrdlwdmmaMMMww dl`* Mwww#wwwffiawMllas i awwwdwawwrlffiffiawffiffiw1fd. MP► ^ .dadffirlwwffiwfaawaa. affi waffiwffialad ffidMMffiMUNMim at YOrMffiddM Souse Milan mowervagawlw�MdarvowasM r Id1' %wAan josw ■ssr11.$ssds.YtB®YM IiMHHixaetM�..]I&mum.�EM)rs� merits _