The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-1443 G CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Vendor No. Depositor Name: Phone No. Address: State Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER �� `7`J 2/J 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ Notes- AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordin r Date �' Supervisor 44 Date 11114,10-f Department Head Date DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date GENERAL PROJ. It BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER# (25 Characters limit) 101-0000-218.00-00 - - - - - - Security Deposit - ______ TOTAL$ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY FINANCE DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL DATE OF REQUEST DATE DATE CIfECK REQUIRED Next Warrant CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Vendor No DepositorNarne: %�' y ------- -- – ,�J Phone No.,J�� Address: State Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: $ � 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ Notes: ze4:�Iz A i AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordk t ate Supervisor i Date `. Department Head Date ---- _ — Dates DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept GENERAL PROD. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER # (25 Characters limit) 101-0000-218.00-00 - - - - - - Security Deposit - TOTALS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY FINANCE DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL DATE OF REQUEST -- DATE CIIEC K REQUIRED Next Warrant _ DATE PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259-8212 FAX (858) 259-4812 April 13, 2004 PE 1142CS City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION FOR 811 SAXONY ROAD LOT 6 OF MAP NO. 3547 (GRADING PLAN DRAWING NO. 1443-G) To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code,this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for Grading plan 1443-G. As the Surveyor for the subject project, I hereby state the rough grading for this lot has been completed in substantial conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. Certification was preformed on April 13, 2004. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation per Ulan per field measurement Storage area 105.23 105.14 Upper area 107.37 107.03 23.24.310(B)5 The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. * SEE ATTACHED SKETCH If you have any questions in regards to the above,please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC 5t�p {AND SUS Sean C. Englert, LS 7959 ' Senior Land Surveyor N L S. 7959 XP. 5-31-up Of Op � a - - Q uj COQw WW2 00'T9 3,OT . d5 . TN - - - - - - — __ C co ui E c / L C :`� _/�i�Y- - --- -• I fir^ _: oZ r " L 6 OCQ,Q L h cj) rn ti� v� _- ti¢v o i �oCc �Q I La a / a w F- o I cv Q,y 7d.3 �x IX3 , LL cr ui CL 1 5 4 - _ own 1• _31V60 HjNaa % FC3 R ti U O 3 J cn Q W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING November 12, 2003 Barbara Langolf C`X/E 203.740.1 811 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL J INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, 811 SAXONY ROAD, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA. Dear Ms. Langolf: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated September 15, 2003, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the subject property. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude the construction of the proposed residential addition provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. The site is underlain by '/2 foot to 8 feet of surficial soils (artificial fill and residual soil) that are considered to be unsuitable to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive structures in their present condition. For the portion of the site in front of the existing retaining wall, the surficial soil consisted of only fill that was about '/2 foot thick. The thicker layers of surficial soil were located behind the existing retaining wall. Based on the proposed finish floor elevation of the lower floor of the proposed addition, it appears that the proposed cut depths will remove most of the unsuitable surficial soil from the area, exposing competent terrace materials at ' the finish floor grades. However, any remaining surficial soils in this area will need to be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The area to support the proposed covered porch should be moisture conditioned and compacted using hand-whackers or roller-type compaction equipmentr t�tl3e eet� 1 slabs. 4925 Mercury Street f San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 CWE 203.740.1 November 13, 2003 Page No. 2 If you have any questions after revieu.-ing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional semce is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN \WHEELER ENGINEERING r Charles H. Christian,RGE # 00215 Curtis R. Burdett, CEG # 1090 ICHC:CRB:ms cc: (3) Submitted (3) Pasco Engineering /QQc O US/pN� aED GE0/ No.1090 � ' W U No.GE215 z m '� CERTIFIED Ev.9-30-05 >k ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST * cF�ECHN\GPI * Exp. 10-04 T �. OF CALIFO��`Qq�� \ � t I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description...............................................................................................................1 ProjectScope.........................................................................................................................................................2 Findings..................................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription................................................................................................................................................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions.............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description......................................................................................................3 ArtificialFill..............................................................................................................................................4 ResidualSoil...............................................................................................................................................4 TerraceDeposits......................................................................................................................................4 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................................4 TectonicSetting............................................................................................................................................4 GeologicHazards.............................................................................................................................................5 General...... ...................................................................................................................................................5 Groundshaking.............................................................................................................................................5 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability.....................................................................................................6 ExpansiveSoils.............................................................................................................................................6 ' Surface Rupture and Soil Cracking............................................ .....................6 . .. ........................... Liquefaction..................................................................................................................................................6 Flooding.........................................................................................................................................................6 Tsunamis.......................................................................................................................................................7 Seiches............................................................................................................................................................7 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................................7 Recommendations................................................................................................................................................7 Gradingand Earthwork..................................................................................................................................7 General...........................................................................................................................................................7 Observationof Grading...............................................................................................................................7 Clearingand Grubbing.................................................................................................................................8 SitePreparation............................................................................................................................................8 TemporaryCut Slopes.................................................................................................................................8 Processingof Fill Areas...............................................................................................................................9 Compactionand Method of Filling...........................................................................................................9 SurfaceDrainage...........................................................................................................................................9 Foundations......................................................................................................................................................9 General...........................................................................................................................................................9 BearingCapacity................................................................................:........................................................10 FootingReinforcement..............................................................................................................................10 LateralLoad Resistance..............................................................................................................................10 SettlementCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................10 ExpansiveCharacteristics.........................................................................................................................10 ` Foundation Plan Review...........................................................................................................................10 1 Foundation Excavation Observation.......................................................................................................11 SeismicDesign Parameters.......................................................................................................................11 On-Grade Slabs............. 11 InteriorFloor Slab......................................................................................................................................11 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs...................................................................................................12 ExteriorConcrete Flatwork.......................................................................................................................12 EarthRetaining Walls.....................................................................................................................................12 PassivePressure..........................................................................................................................................12 CVVE 203.740.1 Proposed Residential Additions 811 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California ActivePressure...........................................................................................................................................12 Backfill..........................................................................................................................................................13 Limitations...........................................................................................................................................................13 Review, Observation and Testing........................................................... ..13 ................................................... Uniformityof Conditions.............................................................................................................................13 Changein Scope.............................................................................................................................................14 TimeLimitations............................................................................................................................................14 ProfessionalStandard....................................................................................................................................14 Client's Responsibility....................................................................................................................................14 FieldExplorations...............................................................................................................................................15 LaboratoryTesting..............................................................................................................................................15 ATTACHMENTS TABLES Table I Maximum Ground Accelerations,Page 5 Table II Seismic Design Parameters,Page 11 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan and Geotechnical Map Plates 2-6 Boring Logs Plate 7 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications CWT 203.740.1 Proposed Residential Additions 811 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 SAXONY ROAD ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential addition to be constructed at 811 Saxony Road in the City of Encinitas, California. The following Figure Number 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the property. In general, the purpose of our investigation was to provide the necessary recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed construction. The subject site is a developed residential lot that presently supports a one-and two-story, single family home. We understand that an "L" shaped addition will be added to the rear of the home. The longer portion of the "L" shaped addition (i.e. east/west) unll extend to the east from the rear of the existing residence. This portion of the addition will consist of two and three stories and will have a section of single-story bedrooms that are constructed over a covered porch area. T1ie north/south leg of the addition will be three stories, including a lower story garage that is about two feet below the existing driveway on the west side. The lower floors twill be cut into an existing hillside such that retaining walls up to about eight feet high will be necessary along the north, east and south sides of the addition. Grading is expected to be limited to making the excavation for the addition,which is expected to extend up to about eight feet below the existing grades. To aid in the preparation of this report,a site plan prepared by Kristin von Zweck Arclutect was provided to us. The plan shows the proposed additions to the site. This site plan was used as the base map for our geotechnical map and is included herewith as Plate Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Barbara Langolf and her consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 SITE VICINITY MAP PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 SAXONY ROAD ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA 117.30000-W 117.26333-W WGSB4 117.26667°W }� kk, 8 t4 a, i • u , 13 �- y t U' �� I.,:a Icy 4u ��,� '/L�.n sf ".,!- ticadi�� i.#= W i �- �,'f � iii;. �`�,�-+� i� "�,•� �'` i , ° 1- r � yy Its a `rkI E f r1i116(SeatllR ; w ITE jo Se4cWa lyuaa( T ej'ke 1c;J.� fe I � 1. S /•I,R'ti F4� \1 iRSf'tx'J.P•e�1�Ltt fT1 GtS '"I�r�"'. 1. Cnri�lUS � t ;} un'° F�"Xn\ ,r 1 L.I•. 1. 117.30000°W 117.28333°W mE WGS64117.26667^W i 13�• fi..T G fmm m PrmtW 11om TOP0101999 Wr110own Pndrciiorc(www.lopo.rnm)rmo ONE 203.740.1 November 2003 Figure 1 �'. CNVE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 2 for conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed,our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied. PROJECT SCOPE Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples,laboratory testing,analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination,recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structure,or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction; b) Evaluate,by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed development,including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential; C) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the site development, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code; d) Address potential construction difficulties that may y be encountered due to soil conditions,groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading, and address the stability of temporary construction slopes; f) Provide design parameters for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls; CWT 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 3 g) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of construction anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design; h) Present our professional opinions in this report,which includes in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summary of the laboratory test results. It is not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired,we can submit samples of the prevailing soils to a chemical laboratory for analysis. Further, it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary,we recommend that the owner retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a developed residential lot that presently supports a one-and two-story, single family home. The home is on a relatively level pad that slopes up about six feet above Saxony Road. The site is bounded by Saxony Road on the southern side of the property and single-family residences on the other three sides. The driveway on the north side of the home and about one-half of the rear yard is covered with concrete pavement. The rear portion of the yard is separated by an approximately 4 foot high retaining wall and the yard east of the wall slopes gently upward towards the east and is covered with small shrubs and brush. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION:The project site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace materials, overlain with surficial soils consisting of artificial fill and residual soil These materials are described individually below: C'vN E 203.740.1 November 12,2003 Page No. 4 ARTIFICIAL FILL(Qaf): Man-placed fill material was encountered in each of our five exploratory borings.The fill in front of the existing retaining wall was approximately V2 foot thick and the fill behind the retaining wall ranged from 2 '/2 to 3 '/z feet in depth. In general, the fill material consisted of medium to dark brown,clayey sand (SC). In Boring B-1,located on the northeast corner of the property, the upper 1 foot of fill however, consisted of silty sand (SM) there was a 2 feet thick layer of sandy clay(CL) below that. The fill material was typically damp and loose to medium dense in consistency. The fill material is expected to possess an Expansion Index ranging from "low to high".The fill is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. RESIDUAL SOIL:A layer of residual soil was encountered above the terrace deposits in two of our five exploratory borings. In BoringsB-1 and B-2, the residual soil consisted of light to medium yellowish-brown, sandy clay(CL) and clayey sand(SC),respectively. The residual soil layer had a thickness of approximately 5 feet within Boring B-1 and was typically moist and medium stiff in consistency. In Boring B-2,the residual soil was approximately 1 foot thick and was generally moist and medium dense in consistency Based on our experience with similar soil types, the existing residual soil is expected to have an Expansion Index ranging from"low to high", and is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Quaternary-age terrace deposits were found to underlie the surficial soils in each of our exploratory borings. The terrace deposits consist of light to medium orangish-brown to grayish-brown,silty sand (SM), which were damp and dense to very dense in consistency. Based on our experience with similar soil types, the existing terrace deposits are expected to have a`low"Expansion Index and are considered suitable in their present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered within either of our subsurface explorations. We do not expect groundwater to be a problem during or after the construction provided that proper drainage is maintained. TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the CV/E 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 5 zone) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. The nearest active fault zone is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 5.9 kilometers to the west. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone to the northwest; the Coronado Bank and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the southwest; the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast; and the Earthquake Valley Fault Zone to the southeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site for residential use are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements. GROUNDSHAKING: One of the more likely geologic hazards to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum ground accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following table. TABLE I MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS Fault Zone Distance Max. Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 5.9 km 6.9 magnitude 0.34 g Newport-Inglewood 17 kin 6.9 magnitude 0.18 g Coronado Bank 30 km 7.4 magnitude 0.15 g Elsinore (Temecula) 43 km 6.8 magnitude 0.09 g Palos Verdes 66 km 7.1 magnitude 0.07 g Earthquake Valley 67 km 6.5 magnitude 0.05 g San Jacinto (Anza) 80 km 7.2 magnitude 0.07 g W km 6.8 magnitude 0.05 g C`T 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 6 It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements. It should be recognized that Southern California is an area that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considered economically feasible nor technologically practical to build structures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related hazards. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code should minimize damage due to seismic events. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication,"Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area"by Tan, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 3-1. Area 3 is considered to be "generally susceptible"to slope movement;Subarea 3-1 classifications are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. Due to the competent nature of the Quaternary-age deposits forming the relatively gently sloping hillside,the potential for deep-seated landsliding is considered to be very low. EXPANSIVE SOILS: The surficial soils at the site appear to have an expansive index ranging from "low" to "high". However,we anticipate the highly expansive soil will be removed during the proposed excavations therefore, no special consideration or design will be necessary to mitigate for expansive or heaving soil conditions. SURFACE RUPTURE AND SOIL CRACKING: Based on the information available to us,it is our professional opinion that no active or potentially active faults are present at the subject site proper so the site is not considered susceptible to surface rupture. The likelihood of soil cracking caused by shaking from nearby or distant sources should be considered to be low. LIQUEFACTION: The materials at the site are not anticipated to be subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and depth to ground water. FLOODING:The site is not located within either a 100-year or a 500-year flood zone according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. CWT 203.740.1 November 12,2003 Page No. 7 TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Based upon the location of the site it will not be affected by tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors,bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location,it is considered to have a negligible risk potential for Seiches. CONCLUSIONS In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude the construction of the proposed residential addition provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. The site is underlain by 1/2 foot to 8 feet of surficial soils (artificial fill and residual soil) that are considered to be unsuitable to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive structures in their present condition. For the portion of the site in front of the existing retaining wall, the surficial soil consisted of only fill that was about 1/2 foot thick. The thicker layers of surficial soils were located behind the existing retaining wall. Based on the proposed finish floor elevation of the lower floor of the proposed addition,it appears that the proposed cut depths will remove most of the unsuitable surficial soil from the area, exposing competent terrace materials at the finish floor grades. However, any remaining surficial soils in this area will need to be removed and replaced as compacted fill.The area to support the proposed covered porch should be moisture conditioned and compacted using hand-whackers or roller-type compaction equipment prior to the constructing any new slabs. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GENERAL:All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines,if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during any grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow C\XiE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 8 adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing improvements that are designated for removal. This removal should include all existing foundations, slabs,pavements, and above grade and underground utilities as well as any vegetation,trees,and other deleterious materials including all root balls from trees and all significant root material. The resulting organic materials and construction debris should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility. SITE PREPARATION: For the portion of the property behind the existing retaining wall, the excavation for the lower level is expected to remove the existing surficial soils and expose competent formational soils. However, any remaining surficial soils in this area will need to be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. For the portion of the site in front of the existing retaining wall, any areas to support new slabs should be moisture conditioned and compacted using hand-whackers or roller-type compaction equipment. The area to support the slab can also be wheel-rolled with the backhoe or equipment used to trench for foundations prior to trenching. This should extend 2 feet outside the covered porch. The bottom of the excavation should be approved by our project geologist, engineer, or technician supervisor prior to placing fills or constructing improvements. TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES: Temporary cut slopes of up to 8 feet in height are anticipated to be required during the proposed construction of the garage level. Temporary cut slopes of up to 8 feet in height for retaining walls can be excavated vertical for the bottom 4 feet and at an inclination of 1.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter above. All temporary cut slopes should be observed by the engineering geologist during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as the temporary supports for the existing structure, soil,equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to three- quarters of the slope height. If there is not room to construct temporary slopes, temporary shoring of the excavation sides may be necessary. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore,slope,or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor's "responsible person",as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR,Part 1926,should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance xith the recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height,slope inclination, CWE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 9 or excavation depth,including utility trench excavation depth,exceed those specified in local,state,and federal safety regulations. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and approved by the geotechnical consultant or his representative,the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture conditioned,and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING:All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content,in lifts six to eight inches thick,with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris,roots,vegetation,or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of sir inches in maximum dimension. Based on our subsurface observations and laboratory testing,we anticipate the removed surficial soils will be suitable for use as structural fill. All utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SURFACE DRAINAGE: Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the proposed structure and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas,a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed building should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the building without ponding. In general,we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas inhere runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of five percent within the first five feet from the structure. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our investigation,it is our opinion that the proposed residential addition may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings.New spread footings should be embedded at least 18 and 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for rivo- and three-story portions of the structure,respectively. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and 18 inches for vvo and three story structures,respectively. Isolated spread footings and retaining wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. C\X'E 203.740.1 November 12,2003 Page No. 10 BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional spread footings that have the above minimum dimensions may be assumed to have an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot.This pressure may be increased by 350 psf and 700 psf for each additional foot of width and depth, respectively.This value may also be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCEMENT: The project structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for foundations. However,based on soil conditions,we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and one No. 5 bar positioned two inches below the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil,and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.35. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot.This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and'/2 inch, respectively for new foundations,provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS:The foundation soils were found to have a low expansive- potential. The surficial soils at the site appear to have an expansive index ranging from"low" to "high". However,we anticipate the highly expansive soil will be removed during the proposed excavations therefore,no special consideration or design Xnll be necessary to mitigate for expansive or heaving soil conditions. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented,and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated construction. CWE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 11 FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION:All footing excavations should be observed by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level,and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Based on a maximum magnitude (Mmax) earthquake of 6.9 along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site would be approximately 0.33 g. For structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening,and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended (UBC Table 16-J). Based on the site's location of approximately 5.9 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault Zone(Type B Fault),Near Source Factors Na equal to 1.0 and N,-equal to 1.16 are also applicable. These values,along with other seismically related design parameters from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition,Volume II,Chapter 16,utilizing a Seismic Zone 4 are presented in tabular form below. TABLE II SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC—Chapter 16 Seismic Design Recommended Table Number Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type Sc 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient G. 0.56 N,- 16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.0 16-T Near Source Factor N,. 1.16 16-U Seismic Source Type B ON-GRADE SLABS INTERIOR FLOOR SLAB: On-grade concrete floor slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer. However,based on the anticipated soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum slab thickness be at least four inches (actual). Interior slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcing should be positioned on chairs at inid-height in the floor slab. CNKE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 12 MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: It should be noted that it is the industry standard that interior on-grade concrete slabs be underlain by a moisture retarder. We suggest that the subslab moisture retarder consist of at least a two-inch-thick blanket of one-quarter- inch pea gravel or coarse, clean sand overlain by a layer of 10-mil visqueen. The visqueen should be overlain by a two-inch-thick layer of coarse,clean sand. The clean sand should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieves. Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on-grade slab. This may be an excess amount of moisture for some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary, the concrete mix can be designed to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and thus moisture emission upwards through the floor slab. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. When patio,sidewalk and porch slabs abut perimeter foundations, they should be doweled into the footings. EARTH RETAINING WALLS PASSIVE PRESSURE:The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. ACTIVE PRESSURE:The active soil pressure for the design of"unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 and 55 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These values assume a drained backfill condition and doe not consider any surcharge pressures. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. Waterproofing details should be provided by the project architect. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 7. We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant be requested to observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. CWE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 13 BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until die masonry has reached an adequate strength. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CVUE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 14 CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can,however, occur with the passage of time,whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes,the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services,we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our test pits,surveys,and explorations are made,and that our data, interpretations,and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,interpretations,and recommendations,but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied,is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us,or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of the client,or their representatives, to ensure that the information and recorrunendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. CWT_ 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 15 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Five exploratory test borings were made on October 13,2003 at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan and Geologic Map included herewith as Plate No. 1.These borings were drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig advancing 8-inch diameter continuous flight augers. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made.The boring logs are presented on Plates 2 through 6. The soils are described in general accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided.The density of granular materials is given as very loose,loose,medium dense, dense or very dense.The consistency of silts or clays is given as very soft,soft,medium stiff, stiff,very stiff,or hard. Relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and transported to our laboratory for testing.The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2-3/8-inch inside diameter split-tube sampler ahead of the auger using a 140-pound hammer free-falling approximately 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each foot was recorded and this value is presented on the attached boring logs as "Penetration." Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also collected in bags from the auger cuttings and transported to our laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a C\X'B 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 16 percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results of these tests are presented on the attached boring logs,Plates 2 and 6. c) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY:The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557,Method A. The results of this test are presented on the following page. Sample: Trench B-1 @ 3'-8' Description: Brown,sandy clay Maximum Density: 115.5 pcf Optimum Moisture: 11.2 percent Sample: Trench B-3 @ 4'-9' Description: Light brown, clayey sand Maximum Density: 116.7 pcf Optimum Moisture: 12.3 percent d) DIRECT SHEAR TEST:A direct shear test was performed to deternune the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. The sample was tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented below. Sample Number: Boring B3@ 4-9' feet Description: Remolded To 90 Percent Angle of Friction: 12 degrees Apparent Cohesion: 450 psf e) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION:The grain size distribution was determined from representative samples of the topsoil in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of these tests are on the following page. CWT- 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Page No. 17 Sample Number Boring B-1 @ 3'-8' Boring B-3 @ 4'-9' Sieve Size Percent Passing Percent Passing #4 100 100 #8 100 98 #16 99 93 #30 95 82 #50 85 60 #100 75 46 #200 68 34 Classification CL SM f) EXPANSION INDEX TEST:Expansion Index tests on remolded samples were performed on representative samples of the clayey portions of the existing fill material.The tests were performed on the portions of the samples passing the#4 standard sieve.The samples were brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back to constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 + 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimens were then compacted in a 4-inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch,and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen were placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom,a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 pso,and the samples were allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The samples were saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal.The Expansion Index is reported on Plate Number 15 as the total vertical displacement times 1000. Sample Number Trench T-1 @ 3'-8' Initial Moisture 11.4% Initial Dry Density 105.5 pcf Final Moisture 25.8% Expansion Index 97 (High) LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 Date Excavated: 10/13/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLES Oa W OZ o x w H F, F x SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W a Z O F-q z 'S Q Artificial Fill(Oao:Dark brown,damp,loose,SILTY SAND (SM), 2 fine to medium- ained. •---------------- -------------------------------------------------------' Medium to dark brown,moist,medium stiff,SANDY CLAY(CL). 4 Residual Soil:Light to medium yellowish-brown,moist,medium SA, stiff,SANDY CLAY (CL). Cal 12 232 96.2 El, 6 MD 8 Terrace Deposits (Ot): Light grayish-brown,damp,dense to very dense, 50/3" 10 SILTY SAND (SM). 12 14 .... :! Cal 50/5" 7.7 91.2 16 18 50/3" 20 Boring terminated at 19 feet. J I I * No sample recovery. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHLFLER BY: HF DATE: November 2003 L N C, i N 1- r a 1 N c J07B NO. : 203.740 PLATE NO.: 2 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-2 Date Excavated: 10/13/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLES 0 H SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W Q W CIO ' O H W W Artificial Fill (Qaf): Dark brown,moist,medium dense,CLAYEY 2 SAND (SC). X 4 ; Residual Soil:Medium yellouash-brown,moist,medium dense, CLAYEY SAND (SC). Cal 32 6 Terrace Deposits ((2*. Light brown,damp,very dense,SILTY Cal 50/2" 15.7 96.7 SAND (SM),fine to medium-grained. 50/2" 8 Refusal at 7 feet. 10 12 14 16 18 20 *No sample recovery. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AN 811 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California CHKIS 11AN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: November 2003 t. N c i N r r R I N c JOB NO. : 203.740 PLATE NO.: 3 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-3 Date Excavated: 10/13/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLES C7 � z -- v w F x P. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS � Z U OF Q0 Q z � o w Q Artificial Fill(~Qafl:Medium brown,moist,medium dense,CLAYEY 2 `: SAND(SC). 4 Terrace Deposits (Qt):Light to medium orangish-brown,damp, dense to very dense,SILTY SAND (SNI), fine to medium-grained. Cal 50/4" 13.1 85.8 SA, 6 NI D, DS 8 Cal 8.1 88.7 10 12 14 so/2° Refusal at 14 feet. 16 18 20 * No sam le recove PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION W811 Saxony Road,Encinitas, California CI-IRISIIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: November 2003 R I N G JOB NO. : 203.740 PLATE NO.: 4 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-4 Date Excavated: 10/13/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLES SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a U W� W z o V) O F 5 inch layer of Asphaltic Concrete. Artificial Fill(Qaf)Medium brown,moist,loose,CLAYEY Cal 50 2 - SAND SC . 4 Terrace Deposits (Qtl:Light to medium orangish-brown and gray, damp, dense to very dense,SILTY SAND (SI`7),fine to medium-grained. Cat 50/4"HHI 6 Practical refusal at 5 feet. 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 Saxony Road,Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: November 2003 I_ N c. i N I. r. IZ i N G. JOB NO. : 203.740 PLATE NO.: 5 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-5 Date Excavated: 10/13/2003 Logged by: STH Equipment: Beaver Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: N/A Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: 140 lbs./30" SAMPLES `) z F x SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W Q z7 o PQ W � Q � 5 inch layer of concrete. 2 Artificial Fill(Qaf):Medium brown,moist,loose,CLAYEY Cat 50/5" 12.0 100.0 SAND (SC). 4 Terrace Deposits (Ot):Light to medium orangish-brown,damp, 50/2° dense to very dense,SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium wined. 6 Refusal at 31/2 feet. 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California CHKIS11AN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: November 2003 F N C. I N E i_ R I N C JOB NO. : 203.740 PLATE NO.: 6 L s-- 1%Slope Minimum nl� 6-inch Y 6-inch Minimum Max. 3/4 inch Crushed Rock or 1\liradrain 6000 or Equivalent � d � . Waterproof Back of Wall o Per Architect's Specifications a C a. 12" Top of Ground or Concrete Slab v' Geofabric Between , Rock and Soil l� inch Minimum Minimum 4-inch Diameter Perforated Pipe PVC Schedule 40 YXn<; RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale Id PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 Saxony Road,Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER I'. \ C I N 1 P. R I N G BY: his DA'Z'E: No%-cmbcr 2003 4925 MI;ItCCRI'S'IRUi'I' 'ILL,(858)496-9760 5-\N DIItGO,C,v-n o1z-M,. 92111 FAX.(858)469-9754 JOB NO.: 203.740.1 PLATE NO.: 7 CWT 203.740.1 November 12,2003 Appendix A,Page A-1 REFERENCES Anderson,J.G.;Rockwell,R.K. and Agnew,D.C., 1989,Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region,Earthquake Spectra,Volume 5,No. 2, 1989. - _ Blake,T.F.,2000,EQFAULT,A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from 3-D Fault Sources,Version 3.0,Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software,Thousand Oaks,California. Boore,David M.,Joyner,William B.,and Fumal,Thomas E., 1997,"Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration,Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra",in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68,Number 1,January/February 1997. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998,Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source-Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe,7.5' Quadrangles;DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Jennings,C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, Michael P., Tan, Sean Siang, Chapman, Rodger H., and Chase, Gordon W., 1975, Character And Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 123. Kern, P., 1989,Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press, 73 pp. Tan, S.S., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area,San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04. Wesnoush-y,S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California",in Journal of Geophysical Research,Volume 91,No. B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986. 'CVT 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Appendix B, B-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS — PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 811 SAXONY ROAD ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled,and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that lie may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: CWE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Appendix B, B-2 Maximum Density& Optimum Moisture Content-ASTM D-1557-91 Density of Soil In-Place-ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width,whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation unll be necessary. All water wells which %x ill be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 CWE 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Appendix B, B-3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material,but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that x rill allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks,no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report,when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. CW`E_203.740.1 November 12,.2003 Appendix B,B-4 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other Field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or hthified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report,no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or CWT 203.740.1 November 12, 2003 Appendix B B-5 the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. HYDROLOGY& HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS FOR: 811 SAXONY RD PREPARED FOR: BARBARA AND DUNCAN LANGOLF PE 1142 i f E PREPARED BY: I cES PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 �O pRoc (858) 259-8212 ,�� g �P•�NE A.A ; DATE: 10/15/03 �CALIFO �a 1 WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 DATE TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction 3 B. Discussion 3 C. Conclusion 3 D. 100 year hydrology calculations Predevelopment Hydrology Calculation 5 Postdevelopment Hydrology Calculation 8 E. Hydraulic calculations Grass Lined Swale at 1% Slope 17 Grass Lined Swale at 291/o Slope 19 Rock Lined Swale at 29% Slope 21 Inlet Hydraulic Calculations 22 Pipe Sizing Calculations 23 F. Appendix Vicinity Maps 25 Isopluvials 27 Intensity Duration Curve 29 Runoff Coefficients 30 SCS Soil Classification 31 Node Maps 33 A. INTRODUCTION The subject property is physically located at 811 Saxony Rd in Encinitas, CA. The property is geographically located at N 33°03'48" W 117°17'02" The purpose of this report is to analyze the impacts of 100 year storm flows on the proposed storm drain system B. DISCUSSION Based on data, calculations, and recommendations contained within this report, a system can be constructed to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qioo to the appropriate discharge points. All drainage, predevelopment as well as post development, will be discharged onto Saxony Rd. The total Qloo of the predevelopment was calculated to be 1.11 CFS. The total Qloo of the post development was calculated to be 1.18 CFS. The drainage for the post development will reach the street through a drainage system rather than sheet flow as compared to the predevelopment. The maximum calculated Qioo flowing in a swale was 0.33 CFS. The pipes were all sized according to the Qloo and the maximum flow in any pipe is 0.77 CFS. A short rock lined ditch will required between nodes 8.1 and 8 due to the 29% slope and 0.33 CFS. The velocity at the outlet of the brow ditch was calculated to be 4.03 ft/s. The outlet of the brow ditch is an area drain and this Q 10 will be transported out to node 4 in the street through the drainage system. No rip rap energy dissipators or similar BMP's will need to be installed on this site. The hydraulic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is modified rational. The program utilized is by Advanced Engineering Software (AES). The attached site hydrology map shows hydrologic and hydraulic node locations. Hydrology calculations can be found in Section D. See Section E for hydraulic calculations. C. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qloo to the appropriate points of discharge. O D. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** • PREDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY • PE 1142 - LANGOLF - 811 SAXONY RD * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1142PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:28 10/13/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.570 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT} (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30. 0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7400 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) 0 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 245.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 117.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 100.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 17.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.297 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.020 . SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.71 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.71 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.40 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 29.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.71 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.41 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 1.74 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) = 0.41 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.28 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.28 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.847 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.71 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.41 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 1.74 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) = 0.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 1.00 = 274.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.847 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.40 O TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) TC(MIN) = 6.28 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TC(MIN. ) = 6.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS �c/ RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * POSTDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY * PE 1142 - LANGOLF - 811 SAXONY RD * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1142POST.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:27 10/13/2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.570 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)* (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 O INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 94.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 115.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 110.85 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4.75 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.068 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL. INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.020 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 106.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 106.60 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 11.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.74 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW) / (PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 4.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.33 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.05 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 7.00 = 105.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.00 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. ) = 6.05 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.99 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.21 TO NODE 7.20 IS CODE = 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 45.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 107.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 105.63 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.37 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 1.250 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOURO 6.020 8 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.14 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.20 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.63 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 105.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 1.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 3.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 8.84 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 3.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.00 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 7.21 TO NODE 7.10 = 46.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.11 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.019 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 TC(MIN) = 6.00 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 105.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL-FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.07 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)/(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 3.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.15 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.05 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 7.21 TO NODE 7.00 = 56.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.00 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. ) = 6.06 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.98 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 O PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.15 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.33 6.05 5.988 0.08 2 0.15 6.06 5.984 0.03 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 0.48 6.05 5.988 2 0.48 6.06 5.984 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.48 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.05 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 7.00 = 105.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 104.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.13 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.48 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.37 Tc(MIN.) = 6.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 6.00 = 175.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ----------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 104.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.13 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.48 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.11 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 5.00 = 195.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ------------------- O TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 6.53 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.70 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.48 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.31 TO NODE 5.30 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8300 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 58.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 115.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 110.90 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4.70 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 1.843 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.020 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*++++++++++++++*+*++**+++*++++***+++*++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.21 TO NODE 5.20 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.020 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.30 TC(MIN) = 6.00 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.20 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ------ ------------------ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 104.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 13.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 4.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 4.23 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 4.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.30 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.05 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.31 TO NODE 5.10 = 71.00 FEET. +*+++++++++++++++++++*++++*++++++++++*+**++++++++++++++++++*+++++++*++++++++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 104.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 36.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.45 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.30 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.17 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.31 TO NODE 5.00 107.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.00 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. ) = 6.23 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.88 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.30 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.48 6.53 5.701 0.11 2 0.30 6.23 5.879 0.06 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 0.76 6.23 5.879 2 0.77 6.53 5.701 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.77 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 5.00 = 195.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 100.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 10.47 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 �a PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.03 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 4.00 = 215.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.683 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8350 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.08 TC(MIN) = 6.56 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 100.40 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 38.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSS FALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.08 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 1.68 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) = 0.36 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.38 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.94 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.483 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.08 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.68 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.36 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 3.00 = 253.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3. 10 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 13 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.483 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.18 TC(MIN) = 6.94 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TC(MIN. ) = 6.94 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.18 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS E. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS Cross Section Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:iprogram fileslhaestedlacademiclfmw 11142.fm2 Worksheet PE 1142-LANGOLF- 1%GRASSY SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 0.26 ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H :V Discharge 0.33 cfs W 0.26 ft 1 VN H 1 NTS �5 10/13103 Academic d Lion F1owMaster v5.17 05:18:45 PM Haested Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 PE 1142 - LANGOLF- 1% GRASSY SWALE Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File Oprogram fileslhaested\academiclfmw11142.fm2 Worksheet PE 1142-LANGOLF-1%GRASSY SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth ^Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 4.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 4.000000 H :V Discharge 0.33 cfs Results Depth 0.26 ft Flow Area 0.27 ftz Wetted Perimeter 2.13 ft Top Width 2.06 ft Critical Depth 0.21 ft Critical Slope 0.028874 ft/ft Velocity 1.24 ft/s Velocity Head 0.02 ft Specific Energy 0.28 ft Froude Number 0.61 Flow is subcritical. 1� 10/13103 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 05:18:09 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File Oprogram files\haested\academiclfmwN 142.fm2 Worksheet PE 1142-LANGOLF-29%GRASSY SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.290000 ft/ft Depth 0.18 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 0.33 cfs 0.18 ft 1 VD H 1 NTS l� 10113/03 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 05:22:05 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 PE 1142 - LANGOLF -29% GRASSY SWALE Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\program files\haested\academiclfmw\1142.fm2 Worksheet PE 1142-LANGOLF-29%GRASSY SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.290000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 0.33 cfs Results Depth 0.18 ft Flow Area 0.07 ftz Wetted Perimeter 0.81 ft Top Width 0.73 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Critical Slope 0.029338 ft/ft Velocity 5.00 ft/s Velocity Head 0.39 ft Specific Energy 0.57 ft Froude Number 2.93 Flow is supercritical. �a 10/13/03 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 05:21:56 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:lprogram files lhaestedlacademiclfmw\1142.fm2 Worksheet PE 1142-LANGOLF-29%ROCKLINED SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.040 Channel Slope 0.290000 fttft Depth 0.20 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Discharge 0.33 cfs 0.20 ft 1 V N H 1 NTS 6 10/13/03 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 05:24:33 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 PE 1142 - LANGOLF- 29% ROCKLINED SWALE Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\program f 1es\haested\academic\fmw\1142.fm2 Worksheet PE 1142-LANGOLF-29%ROCKLINED SWALE Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.040 Channel Slope 0.290000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H:V Discharge 0.33 cfs Results Depth 0.20 ft Flow Area 0.08 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 0.90 ft Top Width 0.81 ft Critical Depth 0.28 ft Critical Slope 0.052165 ft/ft Velocity 4.03 ft/s Velocity Head 0.25 ft Specific Energy 0.45 ft Froude Number 2.23 Flow is supercritical. 0 10/13/03 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 05:24:24 PM Hassled Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 811 Saxony Rd - Hydraulic Calculations Area Drain Inlet Calculations CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap= 3.0(P)(D^1.5)/3. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE & REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR NODE Q100(CFS) P(Fn D(FT) 3" CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE 8 0.33 4 4.05 3 32.60 12"x 12"YARD DRAIN 7.1 0.01 4 0.7 3 2.34 12"x 12"YARD DRAIN 5.3 0.1 4 2.4 3 14.87 12"x 12"YARD DRAIN 5.2 0.04 4 1 3 4.00 12"x 12"YARD DRAIN **************************************************************************** PRESSURE PIPE-FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD, & OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * PE 1142 - LANGOLF - 811 SAXONY RD * HYDRAULIC CALCULATION FOR PIPE THROUGH NODES 4,5,6,7,7.1,& 8 * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1142NTH.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 19:06 10/14/2003 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD-LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 0.77 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 100.80 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 0.77 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 101.300 L.A. THOMPSON`S EQUATION IS USED FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS NODE 0.77 : HGL= < 101.300>;EGL= < 101.539>;FLOWLINE= < 100.800> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 5.00 ELEVATION = 104.30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.5 6.00 0.196 2.445 79.130 0.093 2 0.8 6.00 0.196 3.922 -- 0.239 3 0.3 4.00 0.087 3.323 79.870 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Ql*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4) ) / ( (A1+A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00732 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01883 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.01307 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 3.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.039 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.416+ 0.093- 0.239+( 0.039)+( 0.000) = 0.309 NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 101.755>;EGL= < 101.848>;FLOWLINE= < 104.300> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 3.04 NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 104.800>;EGL= < 104.893>;FLOWLINE= < 104.300> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 3 UPSTREAM NODE 6.00 ELEVATION = 104.50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE-BEND LOSSES (OCEMA) : PIPE FLOW = 0.48 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES CENTRAL ANGLE = 79.610 DEGREES PIPE LENGTH = 20.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 0.196 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY = 2.44 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 0.093 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) = 0.2351 HB=KB* (VELOCITY HEAD) _ ( 0.235) * ( 0.093) = 0.022 PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 5.611 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = 0.0073180 FRICTION LOSSES = L*SF = ( 20.00)* ( 0.0073180) = 0.146 NODE 6.00 : HGL= < 104.968>;EGL= < 105.061>;FLOWLINE= < 104.500> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.03 NODE 6.00 : HGL= < 105.000>;EGL= < 105.093>;FLOWLINE= < 104.500> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 7.00 ELEVATION = 105.20 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.3 4.00 0.087 3.782 0.000 0.222 2 0.5 6.00 0.196 2.445 -- 0.093 3 ' 0.2 3.00 0.049 3.056 40.280 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4) ) / ( (Al+A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.03007 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00732 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.01869 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 1.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.019 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 a3 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = -0.093+ 0.222- 0.093+( 0.019)+( 0.000) = 0.055 NODE 7.00 : HGL= <: 104.926>;EGL= < 105.148>;FLOWLINE= < 105.200> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.61 NODE 7.00 : HGL= < 105.533>;EGL= < 105.755>;FLOWLINE= < 105.200> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 8.00 ELEVATION = 106.80 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 0.33 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 4.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 11.48 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 SF=(Q/K) **2 = ( ( 0.33)/ ( 1.903) )**2 = 0.0300671 HF=L*SF = ( 11.48)* ( 0.0300671) = 0.345 NODE 8.00 : HGL= < 105.879>;EGL= < 106.101>;FLOWLINE= < 106.800> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 1.25 NODE 8.00 : HGL= < 107.133>;EGL= < 107.355>;FLOWLINE= < 106.800> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM PRESSURE PIPE-FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * PE 1142 - LANGOLF - 811 SAXONY RD * HYDRAULIC CALCULATION FOR PIPE THROUGH NODES 4,5,5.1, AND 5.2 * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1142STH.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 18:49 10/14/2003 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD-LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 4.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 100.80 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 0.77 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 101.300 L.A. THOMPSON'S EQUATION IS USED FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS NODE 4.00 : HGL= < 101.300>;EGL= < 101.539>;FLOWLINE= < 100.800> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 5.00 ELEVATION = 104.30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.3 4.00 0.087 3.323 79.870 0.171 2 0.8 6.00 0.196 3.922 -- 0.239 3 0.5 6.00 0.196 2.445 79.130 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT=== LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4) )/ ( (Al+A2)*16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.02322 as DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.01883 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.02103 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 3.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.063 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.576+ 0.171- 0.239+( 0.063)+( 0.000) = 0.571 NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 101.939>;EGL= < 102.110>;FLOWLINE= < 104.300> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 2.69 NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 104.633>;EGL= < 104.805>;FLOWLINE= < 104.300> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 3 UPSTREAM NODE 5.10 ELEVATION = 104.90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE-BEND LOSSES (OCEMA) : PIPE FLOW = 0.29 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 4.00 INCHES CENTRAL ANGLE = 78.630 DEGREES PIPE LENGTH = 36.04 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 0.087 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY = 3.32 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 0.171 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) = 0.2337 HB=KB* (VELOCITY HEAD) _ ( 0.234)* ( 0.171) = 0.040 PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 1.903 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = 0.0232199 FRICTION LOSSES = L*SF = ( 36.04) * ( 0.0232199) = 0.837 NODE 5.10 : HGL= < 105.510>;EGL= < 105.682>;FLOWLINE= < 104.900> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5. 10 TO NODE 5.20 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 5.20 ELEVATION = 105.30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW = 0.29 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 4.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 13.20 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01300 SF=(Q/K) **2 = ( ( 0.29)/ ( 1.903) ) **2 = 0.0232199 HF=L*SF = ( 13.20)* ( 0.0232199) = 0.307 NODE 5.20 HGL= < 105.817>;EGL= < 105.988>;FLOWLINE= < 105.300> -------------- - --------- END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM aG F. APPENDIX $ x cJ'p 1r .� ' a Y! �' sR qb ,t[�y0 l'_ D } � � o.s. •-. a r - a .� 11 u[c, rA^'•'"'1 F 'r �dej "* - AT IM, a l;; '�►1L"' ate$' "»•� � � $ a'� '�rAL�Qa YEN,.- L^'.:. s c.o � g d 4A^" � y w,.r �!� ♦ ¢ �� "te t<�..i� �+� �•� � y E`^.°�� r,,.°".:!�' a`p'rdd�op .t;.�. �.pa* tm -. 1t - r�i-pit 1d��y, � °p � _ F o- 3�°t y a'3 s� , xa.f' •- c 1 �a*m,U �-t �R" �pA�,a I SIT ° t a st F lY0 :f Ilr._ rq' ILL M K � qp L` ! `� M' b y'-. c4. d, CIR is aA1FRr r�" R� $ La Y d�pF ISTs 3 � ah ` .v L x -gym. Qp 5 wne'.._. 'lYAtlIW p,) $ �� , Etn ca�v. .ri v.; u � Sl'8 faup •'!5 ! I h �Y134n..n II �'.r +f o•cc ..N- Q»ql,Y' E Cal¢!Y►V t .._ _ �n u, - -.J `?• l�, Q I '�"�-S i^ ' T se-T", NA�Ef10 iJ 1 z 3 a bw .t 4 !j IW' Fr : ", �,+' �8Ii. a i sr. ,fi ' ' a gS ti• w 7s `► �� 40.r gll"�1 8 J � ' PV "3-I[ y� +d'w i1. Y ` .A}d s,. !fi i +.''�a, t .. .....� ., f — °[w`ICi geN "r A J CTJ In .f s 1R '1"4 F - $ 4a rt'�s'i YI1N fM01 `' a don dire y ` S. '� M rlymb;N .y Yu Ira3 �. � ' •c , yr: t�; °• C1R.! LUCIA 't9 lL 5� Y1w5 Ct Cf RIIIJ YY >a;h taclb .Old$ �qf�! a., iOS PtRDS i, , } y f� � 6°3z Y �l s ,� 3 r,z'"3 7UNNEapY. °t, .'A ttr: mwm w... c rws. !Rpu y y��Ituayl � -- ' n * �.i nc A juarsw S �- 3A� 'R "S 3y 7[ads 3 °d •,�+�u 3 w.. l PAT c�, $ � cr c nr[to Isom, yes 3 .. uAtnt t>wwa JS 'o % !. - -- ,'w- sg [a` 3t •=t by __. 'c to 5 a��111 YFIIIOI` 3j aw tus I )q - m S El m i afumf cs.L h...cTa'31` C 03SYd G w"7 ' GtJtUFM nEY i, + GY1IIq a1ZiD160TCC I: ��, Diu 1 Sollls. o E # CAMINO DR .. • '' sb o,i y,.,�U� " YITW✓J1 g0. �• 0 F. J `# p¢f f'1 TTT�� V1A 'cam 3 11V_J 21 1!,s g n$ A r VIA -VIA,. .N 7IENRA -1c OR pP ti SEEIWH"pR Aro a ! 'w ' a _ , LvIOgOD - ea"vN`y x alOfF- atwrt[' �4. J TO,oll v Jew wt CT y3 Cj,. a MIS, > < _I A- ? - ' °a:°'l t IN Ri1DD CM EE OO �u ssl! m`CAMINO Of Cl r(yivT OP �I N OR t4, ORCHIDIA `�' v'ui �' � ,y Hsu � _ t J !wuw en 'F... ;tNImO_.Al OR DELTA V15TA M gg g _ Uj '� J 15311 7--7- o`er•• °tyu�'' yrot � t � �°� �♦ U I e i ~ t ^b d ni ArtlD01 _ ' ly.w a I tea" ti afu xn m Z S rn Fr J REGAL `ti_RO 1��'. _ !�;^•. I RD � as - " IG -- pA[NGDM RIO6E AY ()19 ..•." � f'fli_... LN _� yk �..`^'�_"� ._�' I - 'n i�, 7 lti�+ - y _iii APDER_ DR J GASCOKI ". r { AY NIYIIIX Ylr flr0j ! __. C'" wvat bR RD IM6WIA m AV-_ c 73�_ �� $ tf t3 8 9UPC{RIDY g� t r AY No OtFfil(m' oa.. .. w if MMYI7 '� fAMt913 [ W. ~' 1 ,Fk' 'is �' L'3j1p8d .FOCEI� $t VIEM :I AY _ e ru ! 8 V M°qa ! q� �Frb: yd 1 �� T - [3� f VON y °!r '' $ h_..+W AV A �a:.N __...k Ay --3t °ti t M..- ow ....ice ST k ato 4d Z _ `Iu1F fJ�t,sc� AV - AV. .^Y`. S s�' TR Si q v t G �7•n'- _ IttFE'i1N5 ,-:_ 3�� . � �,y- :� r/ �;- `�A siR _ gcfi ... g3 */lG..,� Is MM r .L ^ T I ` w RUM OWN , = r fwd TIM M AM IMNIAM WT Aft aP r ' I � 6` of ,.. Fit • 1 1 l r I Jill ,9p, .. r a • j WiY R r 4m1 ¢ �.-'` E a``� �111t y „�q+ .t�Ysa+ i• f i�'a(#� AL s� f di VI LA ; MI&M C2 c CD -Ae C:6 C6 CD uv Um 0'a, dc CD 7 t a.� .mss cm �..r = �+ r•� .� '.. Q J" rte.. CN LLJ •� s. CV ppaates� 1 LSJ was/ N + r �w CYN co VON* Id qr Q � w W W hz _ ° v QUC ^o M doo �. U z O g SO o. o O cu toM W Z W < O C A - D o O I-- < M 4c 40 0 0 U) w Oft u W ail i.. z � oe,� o u ' vi o�► � u 5 c -C � � ° " O oin C3 h w O LL 1 ZC h t a (t{ a u m L e 11-A-7 ..__ .. Ln Pte.. worm .• j / ' woe, l � `'•, of W7 cm M . + •'� �r l""' 'N � ,a CZ3 co.7 Lai c - n 1 w• ! '--�\ r ca as C3 cm ca LIJ cm Cz -- - CD Ups LLJ c l a z H CCM uj n 46 tom•, V z 0 Oh 1 i I I I I 1 i e O �x � a i oy z � av u - Ls. LA OU4Q u pi e CWJ M, 0 .0 z � M a J 3O U '" I I-A•13 Gs.v a i c C'� vii o a a a+ ILS t�Pi''sv.v si.i - +4 > a: H C �a S-40 A N i X `a b C X u L O O u1 O 4-3 a u O ►-�et S- C?fir W 4J r S+ r +" r3 t0 a+7 u a G. cl r C a Q i C tC u a2 C •r- O u O r C ct r s- to +A t0 N•r a' -r-'a V ul 4-b a O. to 0- It3 3 auLE ++ a 4J r a C r 1 'v a D vaci3 OCR O G. wN 6 N r N b +J i 0 O a Nr = G. aO` a r r L C td � O Rf= a O +J a 4J +J +J a C d r E+J+3 r- a r L to A +j e0 ■ i.. r 4J C i G.+J 4J +J L C d C L L r Cm r \ to u 0 0 i C u C G. 06 r r 4- (S ttG a a r-r- 4J a S.._C u V L C a a7 • r M to N a/C' O 0.4-J (U a -C +-3 O G. CL +-)+J i L7 i r S- i iJ N Cr C 11 G. G.G i i a C r 0 i s- " to©'O L VI to C•.- r O LL 4J O u Mr- C r i+J S_L v-r a+J tL O v- ataaya 160 Li Lu r cto -0 M 'v z i E +J a -0 •r- V C a • a .11 . us C. r C 4J r c?''to to a A a r O O 4J t{ 4J C i art CA vi N a L +J r-- r u to o E to " o+J o 4J+J 3 a+ H +-2 a n o n r o as c H -n to a o too r as to r •n u +► a 10= C0 r-4-- S-.r L= u a t0 a V u U-N 1– Q Q+►+J 4J d. O O G. 1---4-) r (Al G: Q +� ►'+ a i a C3 r N M eL• In Q O t– N M -' G a6-Hour Precipitation (inches) OtoO anOIn O Ul O•. Ln O vs W Vd tllt[3 met Srf L•f N N _r r Q cis tat ++ _ '- —_ - _ t_• _. "4 Gam. 1~ i; .l' Ir''.+ 93W 44 'ef 0 So t ' CIS I �� et 4J A H Cd �FXE v- CA C%4 QJ — + - _ + + tA7 •C APPENDIX XI IV-A-14 jtayouO d}isua�uI TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coefficient, C Soil Group (1) Land Use A B C Residential: D Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55 Multi-Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Comme rc i a] (2) .70 .75 .80 .85 80% Impervious Ind ustrial (2) .80 .85 .90 .95 90% Impervious NOTES: (t)Soil Group mans are available at the -offices of the Department of Public Works. (2)Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious- ness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil,-group. Actual imperviousness - 50% Tabulated imperviousness - 80% Revised C = 80 x 0.85 0.53 v IV-A-9 ® APPENDIX 581 r ; r= Olt . fff Vo- Ck r - _M r' a4R�.".' .✓'� �' �} .'} ((s� �'' +�/ ,pry "f .`: °!�� ; + �� -�a ,iy t� 1 � ��_► +� q ��— ��`��" �"il� p„pakA�"fur -- ,,�'1��yw-• ��aea "'"" �. r" .4 �.1 lJ`' SL•/ "+R��„57�krr�',�!k>_. 0�"�,�`a,�Y �9 f�4 � ^, �" �,`° r -`=may• #a '�� a�u�� `�� iyt-�"` .-�,,.� y , ` '+b(�- 1.< 'rF fi� :i� � R �° Ri.• * $�. y n '`tan d �• MW7. ,. rrIm r r n J TABLE 11.—INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MAMAGENW--Continued Limitations for Map Soil Hydro- Erodibility conversion symbol logic from brush to s group grass CaD2 1pine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, B Moderate 2--- Slight. 4/ eroded.. CbB Isbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to S percent slopes------ C Severe 2----- Slight. CbC lsbad gravelly loamy sand, S to 9 percent slopes------ C Severe 2----- Slight. CbD arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to IS percent slopes----- C Severe 2----- Slight. CbE lsbad gravelly loamy sand, 1S to 30 percent slopes---- C Severe 2----- Slight. Ccc Isbad-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes------- D CcE arlsbad-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes------ D CeC zo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes-------- A Severe 2 CfC esterton fine sandy loam, S to 9 percent slopes-------- [_D Severe 9----- Slight esterton fine sandy 13W,— o percent slopes, vere ----- Moderate.- eroded. CgC esterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Chesterton------------------------------------------- D Urban land-------7----------------------------------- D ChA 3duo fine sandy loan 0 to 2 percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. ChB no fine sandy loam, 2 to S percent slopes------------- C Severe 16---- Slight. CkA 3dno silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- C Moderate 2--- Moderate. CID2 ieneba coarse sandy loan, S to 1S percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. CIE2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16---- Severe. eroded. C1G2 ieneba Coarse sandy loam, 30 to 6S percent slopes, B Severe I----- Severe. eroded. CmE2 ieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Severe. slopes, eroded. `" C®rG ieneba very rocky coarse sandy loss, 30 to 7S percent B Severe 1----- Severe. slopes. CnE2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky s_aondy loans, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 16---- Severe. Fallbrook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 16---- Severe. CnG2 ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loans, 30 to 6S percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba---------------------------------------------- B Severe 1----- Severe. Lch allbr ook-------------------------------------------- C Severe 1----- Severe. Co y alluvial land------------------------------------- D Moderate 2--- Slight. Cr as beaches------------------------------------------ A Severe 2 CsB litos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CSC litos loamy sand, S to 9 percent slopes------------- A Severe 2----- Slight. CsD litos loamy sand, 9 to 1S percent slopes- --_--- A Severe 2----- Slight. z` CtE coarse sandy loam, S to 30 percent slopes--------- B Severe 16---- Slight. CtF uch coarse sandy loan, 30 to SO percent slopes-------- B Severe 1----- Moderate. CuE much rocky coarse sandy loan, 5 to 30 percent B Severe 16---- Moderate. slopes. CuG ch rocky coarse sandy loan, 30 to 70 percent B Severe 1----- Moderate. slopes. CvG roach stony fine sandy loan, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1----- Moderate. `? slopes. DaC ablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------------------- D Slight-------- Slight. 1/ DaD iablo clay, 9 to 1S percent slopes---------- -- D Slight-------- Slight. 1/ DoE iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------------- D Moderate------ Slight. 1/ DaE2 iablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded------- ----- D Moderate 1--- Slight. 1/ DaF iablo clay, 30 to SO percent slopes--------------------- D Severe 1----- Moderate. 1/ See footnotes at end of table. 33 34 C cu aI,- 0 h WN 1 � [A Q OL W LLJ CU ---- �¢zt� -. - ---- Z-1"2 t { k C,m}Q ZIMW Li 10 >i t 4 ''� 1 (V •Q O^ZZ t - N Q W Lomo y F.,. ( h 9 : R! �LIIPT it.k 4e. e { M At � �^ e � 3. f Siii s y f 1- o � 3 y } �'�."tee=�•e ��. ��_ �;'#z..� N Z r w ¢ �a a ----- U Z crOS fi Z 1 3w ! wtOrnSID .�... rc- 0 N Z Z u-- / CL to( A F M ry If M i z ba 'Fl x'• �' fir+' �` x � s��