Loading...
2003-1377 CN/G cityo� NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 21, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 276 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Suzy Brown 3225 Fortuna Ranch Road APN 264-090-35— Grading Permit 1377 -G Final release of security Permit 1377 -G authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 8260571115 in the amount of $17,175.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc ely, Debra GeishPechnician J Engineering Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Debra Geishart Suzy Brown File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 recycled paper O . � NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 2, 2004 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 276 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Suzy Brown 3225 Fortuna Ranch Road APN 264 - 090 -35 Grading Permit 1377 -G Final release of security Permit 1377 -G authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. Rough grade approval has all been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. A new CD for the remaining 25% will replace this CD. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 8260570356 in the amount of $68,700.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, � ,�� 4 Q ; h Maher Le bach g Senior Civil En ineer finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Debra Geishart Suzy Brown File TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 recycled paper Civil Engineering /Surveving /Planning STUART ENGINEERING PEACE ENGINEERING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 7525 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 308 San Diego, California 92108 (619) 296 -1010 FAX (619) 296 -9276 stuart0a inetworld.net City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Casa Simpatica Grading Permit Number 1377 -G Pursuant to section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 11490. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pt. No. Pad Elevation Pad Elevation per plan per field measurement 261 211.50 211.35 262 211.50 211.32 263 211.50 211.55 264 211.50 211.39 265 211.50 211.50 266 209.50 209.46 267 209.50 209.57 268 209.50 209.53 269 209.50 209.47 271 209.50 209.39 272 209.50 209.60 273 209.50 209.46 275 209.50 209.39 276 209.50 209.53 277 209.50 209.44 195 209.50 209.50 279 209.50 209.52 280 209.50 209.53 283 209.50 209.52 284 209.50 209.40 286 209.50 209.26 288 209.50 209.73 289 209.50 209.57 290 209.50 209.68 300 209.50 209.16 301 209.50 209.64 302 209.50 209.4'2 303 209.50 209.46 304 209.50 209.63 227 208.50 208.72 292 208.50 208.45 293 208.50 208.52 294 208.50 208.42 295 208.50 208.24 296 208.50 208.58 297 208.50 208.39 298 208.50 208.74 P ROFESS /0 No. 24760 � THOMAS M. HENRY, RCE 24760 Date 1 Exp. 2 - 37 - REGISTRATION EXPIRES DECEMBER 31, 2005 P ��q�CIVl1_ �C� i i I LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CASA SUZY BROWN 3225 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEP I E�G',N "tE'�fNG Scn�i�ES C)F ENCKzas C R 3 E 1V CI O RiI�mR TIE�� �i �III C IC� I I PREPARED FOR obt T ji MS. SUZY BROWN I ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA L E JULY 15, 2003 I GE ®c®N I N C O R P O RATE D GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS _ Project No. 06991 -52 -02 July 15, 2003 Ms. Suzy Brown 3225 Fortuna Ranch Road Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Ms. Suzy Brown Subject: CASA SUZY BROWN 3225 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Dear Ms. Brown: In accordance with your authorization of our Proposal No. LG -03216 dated April 29, 2003, we herein submit the results of our limited geotechnical investigation for the subject site. Our investigation was performed to observe the soil and geologic conditions that may affect the proposed additions to the existing residence. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed improvements. The findings of this study indicate that the site is suitable for development provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEO ON INCORPORATED oQ �pFESS /p,� ��aED GE WFF� c / , c7 Ho ��� Shawn Weedon Z R, h obs a NO. 1524 RCE 61803 " C61903 `CEG 1524 CEMEEPG 04v. 01136= � ' Et,iGt1�ERlNG _GEO COST SW:JH:bjl �. CNL (6) Addressee 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121 -2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558 -6900 ■ Fax (858) 558 -6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . PURPOSE AND SCOPE ........................................................................ ......................................... 2. .............................. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................ ........ 2 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2 3.1 Topsoil (Unmapped) .......................................................................................... ...... 2 ........................ uvium ......... 2 3.2 Coll i ( QcO l ) ..... .......................................................... ..................... ............................. 3.3 Santiago Formation 2 4. GROUNDWATER ............................................... ...................................................... 3 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .............................................. . . ... ... .... .......................................................... 3 5.1 F and Seismicity ............................................... .......... 3 5.2 Liquefaction .......................................................................................................................... 4 5.3 Landslides 5 AND RE COMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 6. CONCLUSIONS ...... I .......................... 5 6.1 General ................................................................................................. ........... 5 6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ....................................................................................................... ................................... 6 6.3 Seismic Design criteria .......................................... ....................................... 7 6.4 Shallow Foundations ...................................................................... ............ • ...................... 7 ................................................ 6.5 Drilled Foundations (Caissons) .......... .......................... 9 6.6 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ............................................................................ 10 6.7 Mat Foundations ................................................. . .... ........................................................ 11 6.8 Retaining Walls .......................................................... . . .................. 12 6.9 Site Drainage ..................................................................................................... ........... 12 6.10 Foundation Plan Review .......................................................................................... LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figure 3, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail Figure 4, Allowable End Bearing Capacity for Drilled Foundations Figure 5, Retaining Wall Drainage Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Logs of Trenches T-1 through T-5 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING m ax imum Dry Density and o p ti mum Moisture Content Test Results Table B-L S of Laboratory ion Index Test Results Table B-11, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Table B-111, Summary of Laboratory Water-S oluble Sulfate Test Results LIST OF REFERENCES 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Our field investigation indicated that two surficial soil deposits and one geologic unit underlie the site. The surficial deposits consist of topsoil and colluvium and are underlain by the Santiago Formation. The descriptions of the soil and geologic conditions are shown on the trench logs located in Appendix A and are described below. 3.1 Topsoil (Unmapped) Topsoil was encountered in Trenches T -1, T -2, T -4, and T -5 in relatively flat areas of the pad to a maximum depth of 3 1 /2 feet. The topsoil consists of soft to stiff, and dense, damp to moist, yellowish to reddish brown, fine- to medium - grained sandy clay to clayey sand with a "medium" to "high" expansion potential. Due to the soft conditions of the topsoil, special foundation considerations will be required if remedial grading is not performed. 3.2 Colluvium (Qcol) Colluvium was encountered in Trench T -3 in the gently sloping northwest portion of the site to a maximum depth of 5 feet. The colluvium consists of soft to stiff, and dense, damp to moist, brown to dark yellowish brown and mottled reddish brown, olive brown, and grayish brown, fine- to coarse - grained sandy clay to clayey sand with a "medium" to "high" expansion potential. Due to the soft condition of the colluvium, special foundation considerations will be required if remedial grading is not performed. 3.3 Santiago Formation (Tsa) The Santiago Formation was encountered in all trenches to a maximum depth of 7 1 /2 feet. The Santiago Formation consists of dense to very dense and stiff to very stiff, damp to moist, reddish brown, brown, olive brown, and grayish brown, clayey, fine- to coarse - grained sand to sandy clay with a "medium" to "high" expansion potential. The formational materials are considered suitable for the support of the proposed additions. 4. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation and is not anticipated to adversely impact the development of the building additions. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and rainwater will be important to future performance of the project. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -2- July 15, 2003 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity A review of geologic literature and experience with the soil and geologic conditions in the general area indicate that no known active, potentially active or inactive faults are located at the site. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 7 miles west of the site. Portions of the Rose Canyon Fault have been included in an Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the computer program EQFAULT, a maximum credible seismic event of magnitude 6.9 is postulated for the Rose Canyon Fault with an estimated maximum credible peak site acceleration of 0.33 g. These values are based on using the Sadigh, et al (1997) acceleration- attenuation relationship. The seismicity of the site is influenced by both local and regional fault systems within the southern California and northern Baja California region. Table 5.1 lists the fault zones that present the greatest seismic impact to the site. TABLE 5.1 Fault Name Distance from Maximum Maximum Credible Site Site (miles) Credible Earthquake Acceleration (g) Rose Canyon 7 6.9 0.33 Newport- Inglewood (Offshore) 14 6.9 0.18 Coronado Banks Fault Zone 22 7.4 0.15 Elsinore — Julian 24 7.1 0.11 Elsinore — Temecula 25 6.8 0.09 In the event of a major earthquake along any of the above - referenced faults or other faults in the Southern California region, the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking. With respect to seismic shaking, the site is considered comparable to others in the general vicinity. While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. We recommend that the seismic design of the structures be performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines currently adopted by the City of Encinitas. 5.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -3 - July 15, 2003 less than about 70 percent. If all four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore water pressure increase from the earthquake - generated ground accelerations. The potential for liquefaction occurring at the site is considered to be "very low" due to the dense nature of the Santiago Formation near existing grade and the lack of a permanent groundwater table. 5.3 Landslides Examination of aerial photographs in our files and review of available geotechnical reports for the site vicinity indicate that no landslides are present within the proposed building pad or at a location that could impact the subject site. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -4- July 15, 2003 i 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General 6.1.1 From a geotechnical standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed building additions, provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in design and construction of the project. 6.1.2 Our field investigation indicates that the site is underlain by topsoil, colluvium and the Santiago Formation. Minor grading is anticipated to consist of providing surface drainage for the site. 6.1.3 Groundwater was not encountered in the trenches during this investigation. ucture can be supported on shallow conventional foundations and drilled 6.1.4 The proposed str caisson foundations bearing on formational soils with the use of a raised floor system. Concrete slab -on -grade for the garage will be placed on the existing topsoil using a structural slab, a post- tensioned foundation, or a mat foundation system. 6.1.5 No project foundation plans have been provided for our review. Geocon Incorporated should review the plans prior to the submittal to regulatory agencies. Additional analysis may be required once the plans have been provided. 6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 6.2.1 The majority of the soils encountered at the site are considered to have a "medium" to "high" expansion potential (Expansion Index [EI] of 130 or less) as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18 -I -B. Recommendations presented herein assume that the additions will be placed on the surficial soils. 6.2.2 Excavation of the in -situ soils should be possible using moderate to heavy effort with conventional heavy -duty trenching or drilling equipment. 6.2.3 Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples to measure the percentage of water- soluble sulfate content. Results of the tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the on -site materials possess "moderate" to "severe" sulfate exposure to concrete structures, as defined by UBC Table 19 -A -4, indicating that special concrete requirements TBC exist. Table 6.3 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by L Table 19 -A -4. s Project No. 06991 -52 -02 - 5 - July 15, 2003 TABLE 6.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE - CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Sulfate Water- Soluble Cement Maximum Water Minimum Sulfate Percent T to Cement Ratio Compressive Exposure by Weight ype by Weight Strength (psi) Negligible 0.00 -0.10 -- -- -- Moderate 0.10 -0.20 H 0.50 4000 Severe 0.20 -2.00 V 0.45 4500 Very Severe > 2.00 V 0.45 4500 6.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in field corrosion engineering. Therefore, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed if improvements are planned that are susceptible to corrosion. 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria 6.11 Table 6.4 surmnarizes site - specific design criteria obtained from the UBC. The values listed are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as the nearest Type B fault and is more dominant that the nearest Type A fault due to its proximity to the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 7 miles from the site. TABLE 6.4 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16 -I Soil Profile Type S Table 16 -J Seismic Coefficient, C 0.40 Table 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient C„ 0.56 Table 16 -R Near Source Factor, N 1.0 Table 16 -S Near Source Factor N„ 1.0 Table 16T Seismic Source B Table 16 -U 6.3.2 Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum -level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -6- July 15, 2003 6.4 Shallow Foundations 6.4.1 The proposed structure can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded in formational soils. Foundations for the structure should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 30 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade or at least 6 inches into formational material, whichever is deeper. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet and should also extend at least 30 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade or at least 6 inches into formational material, whichever is deeper. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. A footing dimension detail is presented in Figure 3. 6.4.2 The minimum reinforcement recommended above is based on soil characteristics only (Expansion Index of 130 or less) and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations. 6.4.3 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described above and bearing in formational soils is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 500 psf for each additional foot of depth and 300 psf for each additional foot of width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. The values presented above are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one -third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 6.4.4 Total and differential settlements under the imposed allowable loads are estimated to be '/2 inch and 1 /4 inch, respectively. 6.4.5 Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated and have been extended to appropriate bearing strata. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 6.5 Drilled Foundations (Caissons) 6.5.1 Where the depth to formational soil exceeds 4 feet, consideration should be given to using drilled caissons. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -7- July 15, 2003 6.5.2 The diameter of the caissons should be a minimum of 2 feet. It is estimated that caisson lengths will be approximately 5 to 15 feet. The design length of the caissons should be determined by the project structural engineer based on the elevation of the pile cap or grade beam and the elevation of the top of the formational materials obtained from the trench logs located in Appendix B. Some variation should be anticipated during drilling operations. 6.5.3 The potential for downdrag or negative skin friction loads from settlement of the topsoil and colluvium was considered during the design of the drilled caissons. The end bearing capacity should be able to accommodate the additional load due to negative skin friction if settlement were to occur. The portion of the caissons embedded in topsoil or colluvium should not be considered for vertical load capacity. Caisson capacity can be developed by skin friction within that portion of the caisson embedded in the formational materials and by end bearing on formational materials. 6.5.4 The caissons should be embedded into the formational materials a sufficient depth to develop the required capacity. All caissons should be embedded a minimum of 2 feet into competent bedrock or possess a minimum length of 5 feet, whichever results in a deeper foundation. Caissons should be spaced at least three -pile diameters, center -to- center. If they are spaced closer than this, the efficiency of the group may be less than 100 percent. 6.5.5 A plot of the allowable end bearing capacity is shown in Figure 4 and can be used to design the caissons. These values assume a minimum factor of safety of 3. An allowable skin friction resistance of 100 psf can be used for that portion of the caisson embedded in the formational materials. Skin friction in the topsoil and colluvium should be neglected for calculation of compressive capacity. An allowable skin friction resistance for uplift capacity of 100 psf may be used for caissons embedded in topsoil, colluvium and formational materials. It should be noted that the end bearing capacity curves presented in Figure 4 assume a uniform formational soil condition from 5 feet to 30 feet below existing grade. 6.5.6 Because a significant portion of the caisson capacity will be developed by end bearing, the bottom of the borehole should be cleaned of all loose cuttings prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Experience indicates that backspinning the auger does not remove loose material and a flat cleanout plate is necessary. Concrete should be placed within the caisson excavation as soon as possible after the auger /cleanout plate 'is withdrawn to reduce the potential for discontinuities or caving. Caisson sidewall instability may randomly occur if cohesionless or loose soils are encountered. Local areas may contain gravel and cobble and Project No. 06991 -52 -02 - 8- July 15, 2003 the formational materials can become very dense with possible refusal encountered. Therefore, difficult drilling during excavations for the caissons should be anticipated. 6.5.7 Total and differential settlements under the imposed allowable loads using shallow and deep foundations within formational material are estimated to be '/2 inch and 1 /4 inch, respectively. 6.6 Concrete Slabs -on -Grade 6.6.1 Garage floor slabs underlain by topsoil or colluvium should be at least 6 inches thick, underlain by 4 inches of clean sand, and reinforced with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars at 16 inches on center in both horizontal directions. Where moisture- sensitive floor coverings are planned, the slabs should be underlain by a visqueen moisture barrier placed at the midpoint of the sand blanket. 6.6.2 The concrete slab -on -grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting equipment and storage loads. 6.6.3 If a post- tensioned concrete slab and foundation system is considered, it should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post- tensioned slab design and the design criteria of the Post - Tensioning Institute (UBC Section 1816). The post- tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 6.6 entitled Post - Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters. TABLE 6.6 POST - TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post- Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters Value 1. Thomthwaite Index -20 2. Clay Type — Montmorillonite Yes 3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 70% 4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in. /mo. 7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 8. Edge Lift 1.15 in. 9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 10. Center Lift 4.74 in. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -9- July 15, 2003 6.6.4 The UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the structural engineer proposes a post- tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 24 inches Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 6.6.5 All exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and when in excess of 8 feet wide should be reinforced with 6 x 6 — W4.0/W4.0 (6 x 6 - 4/4) welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack - control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack - control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based on the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack- control spacing. Subgrade soils for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content. 6.6.6 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs -on -grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and /or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack - control joints at periodic intervals, particularly where re- entrant slab corners occur. 6.6.7 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit areas, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. 6.7 Mat Foundations 6.7.1 The proposed building additions could be supported on a mat foundation. A mat foundation consists of a thick, rigid concrete mat that allows the entire footprint of the structure to carry building loads. In addition, the mat can tolerate significantly greater differential movement such as those associated with expansive soils. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 - 10- July 15, 2003 6.7.2 The mat may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). A modulus of subgrade reaction of 75 pounds per cubic inch (pci) is recommended for design of the mat. Anticipated total and differential settlements are estimated to be '/z inch and ' / 4 inch, respectively, under static loads. 6.8 Retaining Walls 6.8.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 40 pcf. Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 53 pcf is recommended. Expansive soils should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. All soil placed for retaining wall backfill should have an Expansion Index of 90 or less. This will likely require import for use as backfill behind the walls. 6.8.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 8H psf should be added to the above active soil pressure. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two- thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added. 6.8.3 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted (EI of 90 or less) free - draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 5 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 6.8.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 130. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 - 11 - July 15, 2003 6.8.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly • compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed formational soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.3 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. 6.8.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib -type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 6.9 Site Drainage 6.9.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 6.9.2 All underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for a prolonged period. 6.10 Foundation Plan Review 6.10.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to determine if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 -12- July 15, 2003 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS • 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result 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. Project No. 06991 -52 -02 July 15, 2003 i " I ' �oo�ISpM A 0 s - 2A F \ . ( 0 '' . TR (. M a QTY I---- j / _ TER LA COSTA N 3000 0100 !0 9 �O, ( I — SEA 3 , I �, CANYON' G( EFK n J S HS • �� G �p IITAS - _ .m g l JACK ) 4 O61��WISHBONE _i I �1 EEWRTE -�;� RD f Vp��. ' ROW \J c / �� Air BELLA ' CM LLI.NDO �' 0 �s � LONE DOVE -LN r I u G IN �gg t c -.,'" _ I y A f 0 r D PERANZA PgIs 1 ,011E CAST Up X. ! �T PASEOru MOO ZE DOUBLE FOR TUNA �NLDA Tsr� rl, LL RANGE COUNTRY: ROSE 3500 NC 1_0 e pS EO ESQ ly RFS I a ✓+� .. N'N - g nl FGAND FORTUNA SLING IE 7 (� ETA --- ^•':.�, W.. WGI'NIT 'FELICIIA.. �o /w �� p � `ti2•� — . � ;I� - ��clo velte 3000 3 400 In I I h o CHrO t.. Gr0( RIDGE / 5 M ' MIT RI °zl 13 F; o U - SA 23Tk GP CAL1E 1 6. sr ANAGA GGW CM'D( l o ✓ ccsw DL RANCFIO qp0 R r X mi I , GLLF rR< M� 25 RIp W 3 ! s VI (C -�:Q W �'.,: �E�c ° LOAKSLE OLIVENN k FA• " �..` C \ - - CAL(ff k Q V�uttsEA .� ti � l � y PA BRO :' s ;. _ o CRUZ 7 ,L. ':SM • ;z 1 ST DA FRAO�' ! { n a4J (o, •: �q DEL DUOUE . sr: w LONF fi w' a VIA OE DV x Q JACk- EL' °133 �` a - ' I O AMINO ' EGA. ��r /.-tigc�IL�, IrF '''n� ,• v ',, VIA_ :RANJAL Po il., 828001 Q� J� Oc .p 9 J4 - sr _. �, 3 Q ST , o Sc' 1 10 0 9TH ��ST DE( 4L�jO� ONtPNAS ` \r M o`' ROS�,ZTHA PRIM 25 , 64a �° —'c ° p�usT I � i f .o ° / ao° • ..:' I�� �g'� 9 ?RI? LN) 0 .�A C H� GPMINO SRC c o EL Wi R0 y , o �' °°.CC� SQ' " NTI � � 530 N OR q : E /$ PASEO CIELO J ---S n / S �i � tiQi DAM SAN ro?" m M'Y / DIEGUITO ° 1�F?xwwK 'I.r � (� "- SAP. DIEGO ` RESERVOIR SOURCE: 2003 THOMAS BROS. MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BIRDS. MAPS. THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION. NO SCALE GEOCON VICiNIW MAP INCORPORATED CASA SUZY BROWN • GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 3225 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PHONE 858 558 -6900 - FAX 858 558 -6159 SW /FL DSK/E0000 DATE 07 -15 -2003 PROJECT NO. 06991 -52 -02 FIG. 1 GVICMAr WALL FOOTING CONCRETE SLAB 4.' 4.' 0 4.' . 0 4 SAND 4 p O PAD GRADE VISQUEEN 9t C7 ' � z z � .o w O. ° . .. O. O o O 0 u- O.' , .' 4.' LL FOOTING WIDTH COLUMN FOOTING CONCRETE SLAB .4.' o .4.' .'o 0 4. 4.' p p.�o SAND °. O. °. i °. c).1 <9 4 a ` 4 .. p 4 4 .. D Q VISQUEEN EL 0o a..p O.. p. tO.. p,'O FOOTING WIDTH ......SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL GEOCON C� CASA SUZY BROWN • INCORPOR 3225 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558 -6900 FAX 858 558 -6159 SW / RSS DSK / GTYP1 DATE07 -15 -2003 1 PROJECT NO. 06991 - 52 - 02 FIG 3 COLFOOT2 VII 1021 RSS GROUND 12" MIN. SURFACE / COMPACTED /SOIL/ BACKFILL RETAINING / BELOW GRADE WALL a Q. ° ., o . Q.'° • ., o . Q. 3/4" CRUSHED GRAVEL MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC ° Q °• OR EQUIVALENT 2/3 H H .. Q. . ° 'o . q.'O . ° 'o . Q. ° D ° 0... ° 4" DIA. PERFORATED O a. .o' ^.�. a. o•.:�. a ABS OR ADS PIPE 0 ° i NOTE: 1 ..... PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF PLACING GRAVEL 2 ..... DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED AND MUST LEAD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING NO SCALE RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL %.T.El O-W CASA SUZY BROWN I N C O R P O R A T E D 3225 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD . GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -2974 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PHONE 858 558 -6900 - FAX 858 558 -6159 SW / RSS DSK / G000D DATE 07 -15 -2003 1 PROJECT NO. 06991 - 52 - 02 FIG. 5 2SSK:SITEPLN/4t RETWALLK /RSS _:► - 1. I i PENDI�C `_ i'. w , t S, s is _ '.t � � ie . I . I I � I I - I I I - I I I � - I I .. I 4 - ; - - , . : 11 � - 'i .. .. . , - -,' .. - . - 1 J _ , - � O ,� 1, �, I 1. , �� - - - - I � : I -� , I - . I 1, I I � I � ,- -, - ' 1- 4 �� .--,` �-,� --,":: ,��', ,- - .. - . X , . I _ APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Fieldwork for our investigation included a site visit on September 25, 2002 and October 4, 2002, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory trenches are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. Trench logs and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. The trenches were located in the field using a measuring tape and existing reference points; therefore, actual locations may deviate slightly. Subsurface exploration consisted of excavation of existing soils with hand tools. Bulk samples were obtained during our subsurface exploration. • • Project No. 06991 -52 -02 July 15, 2003 PROJECT NO. 06991 -52 -02 W W TRENCH T 1 Z U F Z ,� t: Wa r _ DEPTH Q SOIL ~ Z tL z SAMPLE O Q Q Z W Z N 0 O Z CLASS NO. ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 09 /25/02 & 10/04/ CV p o a o z FEET (USCS) Z w m v O O p U EQUIPMENT HAND TOOLS AND BOBCAT W /BACKHOE ATT. CL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 TOPSOIL Stiff to very sti$ moist, dark yellowish brown to reddish brown, fine - grained Sandy CLAY; trace rootlets upper 6 in. CL 2 / LI SANTIAGO FORMATION 4� Dense to very dense, moist, reddish brown with mottled olive brown and pale brown, Clayey, fine- to coarse - grained SAND; trace angular to subangular gravels up to 4 in. SC T1 -1 // 103.7 15.9 6 j . TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET FSRES.GPJ Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS F-1 • SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06991 -52 -02 W TRENCH T 2 o W F W } H U H DEPTH 0 Q SOIL ~ Z Z � ILL ~ SAMPLE W Q Z IN No p z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 09/25/02 w `� o ° a 0 ~ FEET H D (USCS) Z — }�- OZ _ wwm 20 J EQUIPMENT HAND TOOLS AND BOBCAT WIBACKHOE ATT. L� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 TOPSOIL T2 -1 Very stiff to dense, damp, light reddish brown, fine- to medium grained, CL/SC Sandy CLAY to Clayey SAND; trace rootlet in upper 6 in. 2 T2 -2 SANTIAGO FORMATION Stiff to very stiff; moist, brown, fine - grained Sandy CLAY; trace crystals CL 4 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4.5 FEET FSRES.GPJ Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO, 06991 -52 -02 0� TRENCH T 3 W H U H ~ W H 1- Z LL. to � " DEPTH 00 SOIL q Q y LZU L� Z SAMPLE J L • IN O D CLASS W FEET NO In -O a d FW- 1 z ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 09!25/02 F- (USCS) Z W m =) Ir_ V 20 x EQUIPMENT HAND TOOLS AND BOBCAT WIBACKHOE ATT. a_ 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 COLLUVIUM Stiff to very stiff, damp to moist, brown to dark yellowish brown, fine- CL grained, Sandy CLAY; trace rootlets 2 --------------------------- - - -g-- - -- - -- - -- T3 -1 Stiff to medium dense, moist, mottled reddish brown, olive brown and grayish brown, fine- to coarse- grained Sandy CLAY to Clayey SAND; some CL /SC subangular to subrounded gravel up to 4 in.; trace rootlets 4 SM/SC SANTIAGO FORMATION Dense to very dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty to Clayey, fine- to coarse- rained SAND; trace angular to suban ular gravel up to 4 in. TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5.1 FEET • FSRES.GPJ Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1 • SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06991 -52 -02 W TRENCH T 4 0 F W o �Z� (n LL -DEPTH 0O Q SOIL Q z L_ D Z SAMPLE IN o p CLASS 11) 3: NO z D U ~ IL FEET = ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED09 /02 70 /04/ uJ _ o a ` z (uscs) a m o v O O EQUIPMENT HAND TOOLS AND BOBCAT W /BACKHOE ATT. c� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 CL TOPSOIL Very stiff, damp to moist, reddish brown, fine- grained Sandy CLAY; isolated T4 -1 coarse grains abundant rootlets in upper 6 in. 2 SANTIAGO FORMATION Very stiff, moist, mottled reddish brown and grayish brown, fine- to medium - CL grained Sandy CLAY 4 T4 -2 103.1 15.9 6 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET FSRES.GPJ Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1 • SAMPLE SYMBOLS - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 06991 -52 -02 r W 0 T 5 0 L F >_ W o F F- Z LL (Q ^ DEPTH O < SOIL << C 5 Z U_ Z SAMPLE IN NO 0 Z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 09/25/02 w - p } Oa o z FEET H Z) (USCS) K a m o O EQUIPMENT HAND TOOLS AND BOBCAT WlBACKHOE ATT. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 CL TOPSOIL Very stiff, damp, reddish brown, fine- grained Sandy CLAY, isolated coarse grains abundant rootlets in upper 6 in. SANTIAGO FORMATION 2 Very stiff moist, mottled reddish brown and grayish brown, fine- to medium- CL grained Sandy CLAY TRENCH TERMINATED AT 3.5 FEET t FSRES.GPJ Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 7 • SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 1 , r - - APPEN:DI�C r _ _ r A p- i� J. k p APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were tested for their maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion, and water - soluble sulfate characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Tables B -I through B -III. TABLE B -I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 -00 Description Sample Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture P P tion No. Density (pcf) Content (% dry wt.) T4 -1 Reddish brown, fine- grained, Sandy CLAY 120.8 13.0 TABLE B -II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 -95 Moisture Content Dry Expansion Sample No. Density (pcf) Index Before Test ( %) After Test ( %) T2 -2 12.1 36.4 103.7 94 T4 -1 11.7 36.1 102.5 94 TABLE B -III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER- SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Water- Soluble Sulfate (SO,) Sulfate Exposure P in Soil Percentage by Weight T2 -2 0.510 Severe • T4 -1 0.144 Moderate Project No. 06991 -52 -02 July 15, 2003 LIST OF REFERENCES • 1. Blake T. F., E Q FAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, Users Manual 1989a, p. 79 (Revised 2000). 2. Blake, T. F., UBCSEIS, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Coefficients Using 3 -D Fault Sources, Users Manual 1989a, p. 79 (Revised 2000). 3. Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Plate 2, prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. 4. Sadigh, et al. (1997), Attenuation relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, January /February, pp. 180 - 189. 5. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953 Stereoscopic Aerial Photographs, Flight AXN -4M, Photo Nos. 73 and 74. i Project No. 06991 -52 -02 July 15, 2003 i Q O Q W Z _ ae w F z 0 w O J t� i Q Q v zW iQ ° r- ° ° O I f) Q II o w LL 0 0 Ow I ~ p O O W O >, � ^ 0 LL- U Q Q O O � z Lo Z v, ° o o (V W D O J J CV 5 Q O O M ►_ w C) Ov < w LLI CY � I L \ y i N Z < ww g =K No W N N v K aW O �$ ° o O a> ry 0 1, rr rJ IP GVO2J HONV'd `dNni1 job \ N ° N � o o 29 Ll.. ji- •w r � � ..• w r• • �A 1 / { A� P iv � 1 P g ' l - s C (� Ll CY P O eP .._ IF - gin nfJ � - � CQ_� -1mu, � '`o � Pill] Q ® N N N Z Ory Z of z = m w U � N U O w ►Q- goo 0 u.. w O � C14 Z = o Q � o , U Z r, a z Q �g� J 0 O N !y Q w U w O O rr,� go M a w W V a - . LO N Z IL LL O r4 Z Z co ~- n O Z W Q O O �z Lo Z ° o o a N W o J J cV > a o o < c� P: of w U o ° � a Q o J w o O LU —1�,� c� L N LL � N Z W" x g 2 N 111 48 O J LL CIVO2l HONV�J VNni1 joj \ h 6 = O O u- Vj IL I 1 ql; ow 'I-, e 6 ,J E e I I O Fl � 1 f!{ + i I_j « �)� U . r F R i _ R c rs I i_ n 1T- « n A l I J� I � TES i� 1�_ 1111111 � r � r � , M III - ` I �L r o LL h ► A h h� 19 00 o z co W° u HYDROLOGY STUDY CASA SIMPATICA (BROWN RESIDENCE) 3225 FORTUNA RANCH ROAD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 U U E P G SERVICES ' ' Y GL BATTAS PREPARED BY: STUART ENGINEERING 7525 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 308 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 JOB NO. 292 -03 -00 4 RpFESS /0y THOMAS M. HENRY, RCE 24760 ��PS M. yF �F rn W No, 2476Q Exp. - J'qT Cl VL ��F CAt�F September 2, 2003 • Table, of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Existing Drainage 3. Proposed Drainage......... ......... ........................................................................... 4. Conclusion Appendices 1. Vicinity Map 2. Existing Site Drainage (pocket) 3. Drainage Area Map (pocket) 4. Isopluvial Maps 5. AES Printouts a. Existing Conditions Runoff b. Proposed Conditions Runoff 6. Permanent Underground Detention System Calculations. 7. Curb Outlet detail at northeast corner of Fortuna Ranch Road. • qp Introduction This site is located on Fortuna Ranch Road in the City of Encinitas (See Vicinity Map). The site slopes down in the northwesterly direction towards Fortuna Ranch Road. Currently there is a one -story residence with a driveway and roughly landscaped areas onsite. The landscaped areas cover about 70% of the total site area. All the storm water from the site either percolates into the landscaped areas or surface flows onto Fortuna Ranch Road, which itself flows in a westerly direction into a public storm drain system which eventually outlets into Escondido Creek and the Pacific Ocean. This project proposes the removal of the existing one -story residence and construction of a new 2 -story residence with its associated patios, driveways and landscaped areas (See site plan). The residence will be built in the middle of the property and will have a total area of about 15,000 square feet (sf). The existing driveway on the east side of the property will remain with some minor modifications. A new driveway and service area is proposed on the west side of the property. Existing Drainage The site where the two -story residence is to be built currently contains a one -story residence, a driveway and roughly landscaped areas. The soil in this site can be categorized as clay, making the site somewhat impervious. Runoff percolates into the landscaped areas or surface flows out of the site towards Fortuna Ranch Road and into the public system at the intersection of Fortuna • Ranch Road and Lone Jack Road. The public system runs southerly and eventually outlets into Escondido Creek and the Pacific Ocean. Runoff for the existing conditions was calculated using Advance Engineering Software (AES). The runoff was calculated to be 1.76 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a 100 -year storm (See Appendix 5a). Proposed Drainage Runoff for the permanent conditions was calculated to be 3.48cfs also using Advance Engineering Software (AES). Area drains will be placed throughout the residence to collect roof and ground runoff (See Grading and Drainage Plan). These drains will be connected to a pipe system which will discharge into a pipe detention system for control of outflow. This system needs 637 cubic feet (cf) of volume. Two in -line 24 -inch PVC pipes will act as the primary storage for the detention system. A 6 -inch diameter outlet in the proposed downstream cleanout will act as an orifice and control the outflow from the detention system to a maximum of 1.76cfs. The 6 -inch pipe will discharge onto the existing asphalt gutter on Fortuna Ranch Road via a curb outlet (See Grading and Drainage Plan). Therefore, the direction and amount of runoff will not change under the proposed permanent conditions. Conclusion By the nature of the design the proposed residence will discharge the same amount of runoff as the previous residence (1.76cfs). Also by design, all runoff is continuing to flow to the same offsite locations. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed project due to the volume and nature of the runoff. 292 -03-00 September 2, 2003 F:\ADMIN\292\CL4407.DOC 0 0 U � � O Q Q � U O Ob'pd, � �1N�S o y `��dd' m q Z W RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference. SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1402 Analysis prepared by: Stuart Engineering 7525 Metropolitan Drive Suite 308 San Diego, California 92108 (619) 296 -1010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * STORM WATER RUNOFF- EXISTING CONDITIONS * BROWN RESIDENCE * STUART ENGINEERING JOB * FILE NAME: 294HYD1.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9:44 7/29/2003 ------ - - - - -- USER - SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY-AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------- - - - - -- ________ 985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA JSER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 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 100.00 TO NODE 200.00 IS CODE = 21 ------ - - - - -- _______ >> >>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS !'D" -------- ------ RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 300.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 2 - 16.00 DOWNSTREAM-ELEVATION = 206.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 10:00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 13.567 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.875 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.76 OTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.76 AND OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 1.76 Tc (MIN. ) = 13.57 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 3/16/94 License ID 1402 Analysis prepared hy: Stuart Engineering 7525 Metropolitan Drive Suite 308 San Diego, California 92108 (619) 296 -1010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * STORM WATER RUNOFF- PROPOSED CONDITIONS * BROWN RESIDENCE * STUART ENGINEERING JOB #294 -03 -00 ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FILE NAME: 294HYD2.DAT - - TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9 :45 7/29/2003 SER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --------------------- '_985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 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 100.00 TO NODE 200.00 IS CODE = 21 ------ - - - - -- ------------------------------- _ >> >>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" - - - - - -- MULTI -UNITS DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .7000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 380.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 216.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 203.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 13.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH 9'315 - DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 00 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.939 -, UBAREA RUNOFF (CFS ) = 3.48 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 01 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _____ - - -- = 3.48 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.48 Tc(MIN.) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.01 9.32 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS • DZTFNTIpN STOR_;OI COMPUTATION PROCEDUR S11YGL= HYDROGRA -�D.H FORft • Inrut V`_iables (Urban Conditions Six hour precipitation amount (inches) p_ Z. Time of conc entration (min,) 3Z Coefficient of runof f C J_ 70 Basin area (acres) --- A Comr)utation Time to peak T = 2 . 0 T_R / (1 + Ke) 1.10 7 2 T, Time of hydr ogr aph to begin T 116 • - = 2 T = 20 - ^ Time of hydrograph to end Ta T = 20 + 1.5 T Peak. flow P T 3S'. Y? Q CIA I- 7.44 P . / T L/, ?S- Q 3 • U6 a , ; n P Surrounding flow (Q Depth of precipitation for 2 hodrs • D120 = 7.44 P,/120""(2--h-r.) DI-2o 0. 6785 P6 in Depth of precipitation for hydrograph in. Surrounding Intensity I = 60 (DIN - D / (120 - 2 .5T Is QS CI Qs Plot NYdrocrrsnt an Surrounding Flow Outflow / Basin Size Natural Conditions outflow C T- min . I 7.44 P 1T = in /hr_ u a CLA Q 1• Plot on Hydrograph a. Draw line from surrounding flow intercept with Z• beginning hydr ograph lL to Q Intimate voiume needed r moo_ reservoir • a. Determine preliminary reservoir dimensions b• surrounding flow discharges directly through reservoir without detaining any sta 3. size outlet works orge a. Outlet f, Q less than or e b , low , goal to Q� Stay within reservoir 4. Rout the limits of the a - Reline reservoir dimensions and; or outflow Civil Engineering/Surveying/Plannin JOB 9 k: 94 'V 17 <``- (/C Z JJ _ �� _ STUART ENGINEERING SHEET NO. 7525 Metropolitan Dr., Ste. 308 OF San Diego, California 92108 n F (619) 296 -1010 FAX (619) 296 -9276 CALCULATED BY " ✓ DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ..: Ffl .. ..._ . _y . . . . . . . . r/ P Js_ .. .:.... . .... t 76 Z Z. _-- ...... ........ .z 0 .........:.. .. .. .... ........... . _ ... .. .... 1 .... �oa� wry V �•, . 4 - ` ... _... .. .....f.U) . i l/th f ........ — ..,.. . 0 Civil Engineering/Surveying/Planning JOB-A 0 3 - 0 STUART ENGINEERING SHEET No. 7525 Metropolitan Dr., Ste. 308 OF San Diego, California 92108 CALCULATED BY 1-t A 4 rV (619) 296-1010 FAX (619) 296-9276 DATE .3 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE L J 1l .... . ............ ............. ......... ... .... ------------- .. .......... .............. 7 ............ 3 ....................... .... .... ... .... ........ .... ....... ............. ........... ............. .............. .. .... . ... ........... ..... ........... ............. .......... ........... ....... ... .... .... .. ............. ............. . ............. . .... ...... 1 >4t .... .. .. .. . . . .... . ....................... ........... ........... ............. .. ........ ........... .... ........ .......... .......... ........... ........... ........... ....... ..... ............. ........... .... ........ ... .......... ..... ............. ........ .. - . .......... ........ ....... .. ......... ........... . . ...... 0 .... ...................... 7,0 ; 3, c� -, 1 i .............. .......... ......... ........ . .................................. . ........ m :,- , . = : /, A6 .......... .......... ................ ........... ......... ........... ...... .... ............ ....... .......... ............. .. ........ . ............. .............. ................ ............. .............. ... ... . ... ...... J ............. .... ... ... .... ....... . ... . ..... .... .......... ............. .... ...... .................... .... .... .... . y d ....... . .. ... ....................... ............. .......... .............. .... ... .... .............. ............ ........ .... J ............ ... .......... ...... ............ ........... Z ....... ... ... .... ... .... ............ .......... .. .......... ........... ............ ... .......... ........ .... .... .. ... ..... .... ... ........... ............. r ............. . ......... ze �� S �; - ............ ........... ................ ..... ............. . ..... ............. ............. ..... . .. .... ............ ........... .. .... ..... ................ ................... ..... ..... ..... . . ........ ... .. ... ....... .. .... ....... ..... ............ .......... .. ........ Tart ' ...... ... .. .......... .. .... .... ...... .... ........ ... - .............. .......... .. ... .. ....... ....... ... . ...... ......... . .... .. ... ..... ............. ............... ........... ............ ............ .............. .... ...... .. ............ R.- .......... ............ ........... ........ .... . ... .... ... ...... ........... ........ ... ... ..... ...... ............. ............... ............. .............. .. ... ..... . .. /7. ....... .... .. ..... .... .... ........... c .............. ............... ........... ........... .......... ...... ...... - ............. .............. 00 r i V .... .... ... ... ......... .. ......... ......... ... Usr ........... .. ...... ...... ........................... .............. ........... . ........... . .............. .............. .............. .............. .. .... .... . - - .. .... ... ... .... ........ ... .... .. . ....... ...... ....... ...... .................... .... ....... .......... .. . ... .... .... .... .. .............. ........... ....... ......... ................. .......... ............. ..... .......... .......... .......... ... ........ .. ............ ZA iz7q ....... ...... .............. ...... . ..... .......... .............. ......... ... ..... .......... .. ........... ..... . .. . ........................... .... .... .... .... ........ ................ ...... .............. U ............. ........... :..7 . ....... . ..... ? ......................... ............. .. .......... ..... . ..... A .............. ........... ..... p_ ... . ............. ..... ....................... ............. .... ...... ....... ............. .... ........ .......... . ..... ...... ......... ............. ......... .... .... ............ .............. ............... ............ .................. .. ................... ............. ........... .. ....... ..... ...... .... ... . .. ........... . ......... ... ... ... .... .. .............. . ..... ............ ............. ............................ . .............. ...... ..... ......... . ............. . ......... ............. ........ .. ............ .... ............. .............. .................. ............ ki If 7 . . ...... .. ... . .............. ............ .............. ... .... .... . ... .......... ........... -- - -... --- ............. ........................ ...... .... ............. ........... .... ...... . ...... .... .... .... .......... .............. ... . ......... ............. . ...... ... ............. ........... .. ........... .............. .......... . ................ F ....... ................ ........... . . ............ . I .. .... .... .. .... .... .... . .. .... ........... ..... ............. .. . ...... .......... . . . ............. ........... ............. ............. ... ....... .. .......... . ................... . ..... ..... ... .... .... .. .. ..... ....... - .... ....... .............. ............. ........... ... ......... .... . ............. ... .......... -- ----------------- - -------- - ------- . ...... .... ............... ............. ... .... ... . ......... ... ........ ........ ...... ................... .. .... ....... . ............ ......... .................. .......... ... ......... ... ......................................... .............. ............. . ... ....... .... .... ............ ..... .. .... . .......... ..... ........ ............... . ..... --------- - -------- ......... . ... ......... .. .... ....... --- ............... ... ... ....... .. .. ....... ............ . ............. .......... .. ............... .......... ......... ........... .............. ... .... ... .... ........ ... .... ... .... ......... . ........ ...... ...... .......... -- - -------- .......... .............. ...................... .......... ..... .......... ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -93 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.2A Release Date: 7/20/93 License ID 1402 Analysis prepared by: Stuart Engineering 7525 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, Ca 92139 Tel. 619- 296 -1010 ------- - - - - -- - -- _______________ TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11:22 8/ 4/2003 * * * * * * ** r r r * * ** r* r * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * ** r * * ** r * * * ** r ** r* r * * * ** r * UNDERGROUND DETENTION FACILITY * BROWN RESIDENCE * STUART ENGINEERING. JOB ## 292 -03 -00 >> >>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<< << - - - - -- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000 ----------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------ • PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0400 PIPEFLOW (CFS) = 3.48 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .011000 CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: ---------- CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) _ ------ - - ---- ----------- CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) 5 -------------- __ = .890 CRITICAL FLOW TOP WIDTH(FEET) = 1:875 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) _ CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.909 41.47 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 24 CRITICAL - - -- FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 47 .89 NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: --- -- - - - - -- __ NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) _ FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 35 --- FLOW TOP WIDTH(FEET) _ .36 FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(pOUNDS) _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 67.95 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 9.592 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 1.429 3:451 FROUDE.NUMBER = 24 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.77 HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -93 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.2A Release Date: 7/20/93 License ID 1402 - Analysis prepared by: Stuart Engineering 7525 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, Ca 92139 Tel. 6 19 - 296 -1010 ---------------- ------------------------------------------- - - TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11:38 8/ 4/2003 - -- >> >>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<< << ------------ ----- ----- ------ - - - - -- _______ PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000 PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0295 PIPEFLOW (CFS) = 3.00 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = 011000 CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) 60 -------------------- CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .80.1 CRITICAL FLOW TOP WIDTH(FEET) = 1.837 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) _ CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.747 34.36 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET)'= 22 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 44 .82 NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: -- NORMAL DEPTH( FEET) _ -------------------------------------- -------------- FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 35 FLOW TOP WIDTH(FEET) = 1.514 FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 51.22 8.247 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD (FEET) = 1.056 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = FROUDE NUMBER = 2.964 24 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.40 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY �TDERGROUND DETENTION FACILITY PIPE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ROWN RESIDENCE #2 24" @ 2.95% -STUART ENGINEERING JOB * * * * * * * * * * * ** >> >>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<< << -------------------------------------- PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000 PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0295 PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 3.00 MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .011000 CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: - -- ------------------------------------------------ CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .60 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .801 CRITICAL FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.837 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 34.36 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.747 CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 22 CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .44 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 82 NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: - - - -___ --------------------------------------------------- NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = .35 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .36 FLOW TOP WIDTH(FEET) = 1.514 FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 51.22 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 8.247 FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 1.056 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .24 FROUDE NUMBER = 2.964 SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ - 1.40 • n�4 @ 3" C.C. #4 bars continuous Anchor _\ T'11 I r 1 A - - - - - -- - ---- --------- - - - - -- A C_ o � , ~' Anchor ';— Monolithic Gutter #4 x 3' Curb Line Dimensions shown on plans PLAN #4 ® 3" C.C. Elev. shown Manhole frame and cover, see drawing M -2 on plans I 4' min. See Anchor Detail Elev. shown ® 3" C.C_ total 4 on plans ! 4' May be open - I 1/4" . 1' Sope channel �----16 f SECTION A —A For construction through • existing curb - Existing Gutter For all new construction- Monolithic Gutter. 3" X 3" Construction Joint 14 06' C.C. � H.0 Full Wel 3 - #4 II #5 ff 3,- 0' SECTION B -8 T 3' l NOTES 2 1/2" x 1. Concrete shall be 560 -L -3250 Galvanized 2. D= inside diameter of pipe or depth of channel. ANCHOR DETAIL 3. Section to be sloped laterally with top conforming to the grades of the existing sidewalk and curb. 4. Manhole frame and cover may be deleted with open channel. 5. Trowel finish top surface 'and reproduce markings of existing LEGEND ON PLANS sidewalk and curb. 6. Trowel finish floor of outlet. Revision By Approved Date RECOMMENDED BY THE SAN DIEGO ORIGINAL Kerchevcl 2 5 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING REGIONAL- STANaARos commmmi: CURB OUTLET - TYPE A 31m Chairpe on R.C.E. 19246 Date r' DRAWING D -Z5 i' NUMBER 3 1 1 1 1 5 ' Q lilt ' Al w a -- _� tie t ', w 5. Q a' . m rc; CD ru I ' _ \ 1,\ \1 � cn 7♦ `1 cn - -- ^N t � '_, *q, o ��, -'\ j in � B' i o 0 A`4 i d is �i.p K ` ``_ -/ o W (R tt i 1 .�'� 5' / i to Lrk Its \ � -_ `d• Iwo / // r �. Ln \ - °o . - -m _ / _ - "C y "� -- - - `moo ' 1 ` � ,,�'r � � `` �( /'. I II JJ 1 igsk \ \vV "/ • \` __ ' In e 1 1 `, p /`rPl�� `I/ �' '< - CD dry, / I -- �• i 1 .O O I y, �y ,,,� it �. M - - - - -- l i W ` 1 I Ul 1p �' C a 'o" �n r w 11 n ... O n. �.. kh....... m.. ,..... w». a. x: m^^'^ leu. ,..«....w.•m,.«...f�..,.MW.,.a` «..-.+ •.+•- .•.-- .....- ......y.mn.... i � 1 .......... v..v...,...«.,,nr,n•. «v....... ma � m R o y d N -n m 0 o `° n n / m W A Q Uq f , I , . l , I 1 , co, CD co CD CD I UY C7 � � 1 r �"1 r ` t O, `, ` ♦ �, l ( c . 1• � ' ,� � � i t . it t� p i i h i it 1 o n tw4 \t \ \' \ •` \I `IC 1 , 11 1 ! ;. p ca / ! I oil, 3 � `i _`$�� N CD I , w �` � _` ` ` , 5 ` ' moo i m , .O W lo N t \ \ cl CD j 8 (. 0 - 1 ! `ti Gq� \ I Pit ON ` 10 / � ' u loq ulr Cam. O ^l _ w `\ , , -- c ep . , I , IO , / \ t� \•, ''' - ,'' , - ^- --' - -- - - - - -' ,/ -- J UD Ln �G «..i.,u.:.i . �, 9ww.«. ,.,. m, .,.... ,.....+1 1. ...w.. . a.:,.... �-„' '..^... ,�'"..,'"^." "'._........_ --`°._ ..+,....... /��.,• .. .,,................... 1 ,.« I� _,....L, .M«.._......«..... �,«,....,«: _.! .,, ;n unoa i s g �o C ° r c cD O m ° W CD n cl Cb O ti„ CJ �� )-A . I 't7 M d tj A IM IP At NO 20 i , k e � v� `' `�.. �' °- "X� � . ' S y" � '4 �°�'j;,),.. lr'm• j T `r' �'+ � "`.. k y �d 1 �� a y d � V 1 - —1 � tai► �-�+�• A .. +�iw� mow• �_ 11�}eMRR� �•A.y� �� mow. w�II�IR� 4 �. x " TM •�141I1i grw•r ./IIY� "wlww• s +�! � I ... , . _ -.. y .. �a of ,± Y { y4 a . Aj �y* iW n an 1 t Ej ILA a b a , t tv 6 Q LU lu l- s eC T' r � < i Trh, I L lift v t l .,► tit �;, � � _ L . .,. t �.il ,. 'ra�.f g `L' l § '1 � Y l , { U '� Kw • 1 U r A i „� ❑ 13 !l` i r e a 1 L �e m a�M „ , s rq rrril t VIII e t ice' w. g — w — �,. ' s • :.4i.�. '_ . ' ,.,:z. � >`¢ ate. a , � �.' �' �F �..isr. F h .. :�',�' �a � ¢ ' 1 v 4 n • r _ T a w' b a +�►t , �► Tom 1 CA F�MW�! RAND - M t D JVW4 DA MR IV , , I - , a t� < X r , , Y t I m J i g Zt , - n W in : o _ - x_ 1 77 I _ K IL_ v = < µ J' T^ i t _ . t _ f +D � " x 0 CA- Jr C4_ ViL o- v LL. - O 0 tv LL Q F-: W ss f ? (A ,.x, w W -- Of a7 t� A Li Q s :3111 fl � w � ,� �� <.; av3H83AO x w �� , f 1. L s �� CN ti 33bMS 'ON00 'X3 u 583 13w �31VM • X A � W I L rN ►- w , _ �" S831 `�t08 -? 3 4 � N � Z w .9 1StX3 131 inn x 3 - ! �I v X 2 'on3 X 3 r - cp .. —� I 21311 p w v3 �•- ,, -,, i i . w - r a N/y $v • i N co • r F 9 6 ti N U A IX W t v 4 ii �`` • w I w X �,, o -- w Lo LLJ Li /gyp L'ty % / w ° w N �, ` ! 1 mz af X x L� E w • f' w W� r- �' ' f Q ( A W U ` / © ` ui W / LLJ a. ? `�'' N W y �- /� �, , !� w a OZ o a `v x N x Lii U) N d w \� w c LJ CN O _,< t W LLJ W r� ' ,� ! X > C/) w u,i C W w i Nino Q w X >Q ' Q D w r- I �> I d i N1 V co LLJ 7 N • N w W W I w LLJ CN i.�.i a i i (!? 1 LL. y 11_ i t i O 00 Z i ( _� . U ( O t— CN ce Li ci w � ` Lij "N c1q ZD a 1 Qf j „'fit E W ,et - ci o0 w —2 w •e,C., _„ U i C;-!) ---214 Q W G3HS 'x3 4, C13HS t4 cc d. w - cv i b ... ,. ,. _., Ir yc ,.• j�', - OZ ogg N r d ..*4 i Uj w i o f�� , r ell T. i, .r O X 1 U 1 z. r T a z � U r� r 21 r . l? r w UU Z W W tL W F A • A W'! Vl r•i 3 4 w SCALE: l 20* r t N R8° 2O' OZ" W sr' -y ....._ . M I k 1628' N8 'PVC • 2z 214.33 214 214.33 4' IIE saw fta a ' f ' z c r N ' w 0 Ix L qt X ... • 1..�r t i L .0 � LZ Lu N / �,�o ti /� 1 CA 'ti. !— r 9 .l► `,,,- T Ilk N r1 N I �= H10i ' I SO ho FLOW _ flow ho FLOW • ..� � •. . ' • �... , w •'�' Vs " loll J. ' ° N 8841'55` W , 212.76 ' �•. -- --- \ 1 BAG 72 Ll May I MT. 6' 61M FOR TUNA RANCH ROAD th ­4 k_— d -� li p p 3' RAMS 3' RAAK/S I I I I I I I I I p► �► S++ �i A `o Qo v V► f� i► f++ tv - `t INC m V 35 14 PA r * a y kc ;. N ! 9 z I & I p ti , o w .� roraaiA wn7resn, rd,.. hiica+r+xu�ewr aa1tlM oMw►r t !+iWM f l P a aw not �r od riQrArkaAad, diargad w copire! in urTy form a mennri vksczoe w trout qa�e o gird { aw .xo�N aAN�le► Drab+, arw ao aQ n nakl soon, arch. nor we to fir aaagr,od to any thMd P a as ati1aTa,p aaNd wrtlan Daen+ +-'' a- + . w+lttaKln � �+err�a on #t+a jttb'a�a. a®1• Y sNWFO. �rbu�ft b #alE A�a!►gM a�t!10 IMIr �4 d arayyaodc. do natal. . '` CA SA S I M PA T I C A rona a r cnitect 1 �- 325 FORTUNA RANCH E� OAD, CI 1T S CA M " 2M del , . h r d, , let rr r', t 't4 ph. (th} f c x -41 DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL. PLAN a -r tl: ronvAtions MCMM