2005-9301 G 05/12/2005 09:57 FAX 8587922422
- FRIEHAUF ARCHITECTS
�w<11
B $ B ENGINEERING 002
PAGE 03
CIVIC OGOTECNAI�J��1(,''L1',I���Is ,I��s
FOUNOA T/ON D C i OUAUT-Y EN(i/NELrpryC
6SiON.L.dVp SURVFY/NG.SO/L T
CONSTRUC]Ipp MANACENFHT,,/NSr GST,VG
6CTION
CLIENT: HOLLAND
PROJECT: HOL 1204-LW
MR. LAWRENCE HOLLAND DATE: 4 MARCH 2005
871 Neptune Ave,
Encinitas, CA,. 92024
Subject: Soil ,Investigation for the propO9ed Cons
to the Residence located at 871 Ne P traction for the Room Addition
(A.PN: 256-012-17) tune Ave., Encinitas, CA.
Dear 1ytr. hlolland.
Pursuant to your request, `Ve have co
5arnpling, and our laboratory testine mpleted our site inspection, soil
a representative from our o for the subject parcel. On 20 Decer�•�ber 2004,
evil firm visited the site in order to obtaL soil samples and to
uate the general surface soil conditions relative to the ro ose
P P d construction,
Based on our visual inspectiozks and observations iri the fie
laboratory tesr results, the following conclusions were s i t field, and our
that the subject lot may su ort xx ed. It is our op,,
FP the proposed addition to the residential �°n
I�owcve�-, t;,�e concl��siors and recommendations
report shall be 112co found in the Iaerpart - , e
orated in the design plans and specifications.
GRADING
All grading shall be performed in accordance
recommended grading specifications containe �� the applicable
Encinitas Grading Ordinance, this report and the City of
On the basis of our investigation, development of the site �
considered feasible from a soils engineering stsndent o he provided proposed is
.recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design that the
systems and are implemented in the field• on of foundation
Site ptepaation should be
debris, and o gm With the removal the existing other deleterious matter, These materiel;, as well as vegetative ash,
nOZ suitable .for use stz1sctzu.
Also, any subsurface struc aI fills and should be exported fro t s after'
Which such as cesspools, wells, or abandoned
�._. ----- are Uncovered during the grading operation, shall be rer7oved or pipelines,
ackfilled
1671-,4 SO MELROSE DRIVE g --_"
265, VISTA, CA 92063-5497 .
760-945-3760 FAX: 700_945-4221
V,1.L�:1-1°oo,a'�cy4�4t21 RItIEHAUF ARCHI
TECTS
8 8 ENGZNEERING 0003
PAGE eq
FOVNDAT7oNOGSfGN. C/TYENGINFERI�yQ
r CO'V5MLC77ON C�NO BURVEN/n+p-SOIL TES?.vC7
In accordance wit MANAQ1VMF,�41N5PECT/O,v
[jl the re�uirerrle7its of the City ofEncirutas.
All on-sire earth materials
propOSed Structures. are considered suitable
surface However,prior to cons for the support Of the
soils occurrin tructiaII the u er
to a de g in the area of the PP 12 inches of loose
depth where f rm, dense native soils Proposed house addition shall be
excavation and recompaction shall e.>�end a encountered, removed
Proposed perimeter building foundations. m�rnur of. The limitde f over
be approximatel g undations, The de the
Y 12 inches below the e P of removal is anticipated to
by °Ver-excavating the u xistIng surface. This ezn s acco
bottom surface to a Peer 8 in Of the Surface soils z�i ,�� mPlished
design grade. �n-'main depth of I2 inches PP'Ltr the exposed
and recompacting the soil to the
All structural �I] shall be compacted to at least 9o% oftho
P melsture content as dete ma'�um �y
AST Test procedure rtrtined in accordance with
excavation process, the pr1557-91 r equivalent.
As an alternative to the over-
surrace soils to the uridations may be deepened
foundation; i.e., 1 g Proper
embedment into P ned t;�,;ough the loose
mbe xm native soils. For a two_story
depth of 12" _ 18" ; 30" arzd foment$ the Perimeter footing sha?I extend t a
surface. Foundation depths shah be v�iced ln� 12" + 12" � �4« below
representative writhin b the existing
prior to placing concrete. g Y °trl n°ld
Site drainage Should be disperse,, b
Preclude concentrated by non devices
City fEnoff over graded and natural areas in acc zd�canner to
tY Tzelr�ltaS requiremeritS.
ith the
GEOLOGIC .HAZARDS
According to published
Potentially active faults on or In Onnzaiorl there
erefore are no known active or
the potential for the immediate vicinity of the su'o;e
are, however, several faults ground
rated Wpm t this site is co act site,
considered low, There
movement associated with close proximity to this site that the
following table presents the di t ncelo cause si
gnifican ground ^potion. The
maxirnuxn credible e major faults from the site
antianticipated at the sith9uake maSrutudes and est' , the assumed
e The probability xzated peak accelerations
m of this project is considered IoWfsuch an earhquake occ�i?�n
The severity of , g during the
grOL1rid_motion is not
1677-A $O. MELRQSE DgIV 2
E+285, V/STA, CA 92083-5497 760-945_375
F�JC. 7607-945-4227
"R EHALTF ARCHITECTS
B a B ENGrNEERING Z004
PAS as
Crv/L OCorcc."'Nl0^L 111C.
FO(/NQ,7YONOES/GN.uN09L4VNG /AID R/NC
arnicipated to be CC.V9PliUC N e
M^^'�aE�eNr�rNSV orc resnNc
an greater at this szte t �noN
SETS �C1'I'y OF MAJOR than in other areas of San Die
FAULTS . go County.
FA UL T DZST,gNCE CREDIB
MAOi\1ITUD,E LE EST�t1�1A7'.ED
Rose Canyon (RICI� R) ACCE ATIONC
� g
Y n S
Elsinore
28 rni. 6.0
San Jacinto 5 7.5 0.25
San Andreas 7 . 7 3 0.35
75 mi.
8.3 0.17
e folio 0.i2
SeismiThc wing info,rzzlation .i zelative to
Zone 4 the he U.B.C.: s presented the subject site and
I _ E
(z) Je'1srnlc zone factor= 0.4 C TABLE
(Na) Near-souuce factor= I.2 16 A-z
Seismic source t 16 A-S
(Sd) Soil profile typegd B
(Ca 16 A-U
Cti j Seismic coefficient= 4.44 Nra 16 A4
Seismic coefrcient= 16 A-Q
(Nv) Near-source 0x64 r,'v
factor= I.0 16 A-R
LIQUEFACTION pOTEN SAL 16 A-T
Liquefaction analysis of the soils and
consideration of various factor9 �'lzich
ee the the site was based on the
relative
density, uiclude the water level, soil e
Liquefaction p�t nt intensity i of ground shaking and duration ofshakin gzadation,
level is shallow been found to be the
conditions and loose fine sands oc greatest where the
are not preSent Within the �Within a de °mod water
generalized liquefaction in the a site area P of SO feet or less. nese
faults is considered to ba Iow and, therefore, the potential for
Vent of a strong to moderate earthquake on nearby
arby
The relatively dense nature of the surface.
- --. soils within the siie arzcl the nature
. . 167 7-A SO. ME�RpSE D 3 ----
Rl�E#285, 1/7S7.A, CA 9208,3-5497 .
— - 760-945-3750 � ,=qX. 7
-- _. 60-345=4227
�" "va UY:38 FAX 8587922422
FRIEHAUF ARCHITECT$
� � � ENGINE�ING �00 5
PAGE 0e
Crli1i"4- •r���� /
„. FOU/v OGOrFGNNip�G OVAL/TY �`9 it C�,
� 04 no"vem.N- AND UND$1jgVe77 ENO
of the material �.w'gG*VeNr f WSoE'crr0"
landslide underlying �e site e
conditions. The areas generally ally preclude the occ
area of ground subsidence. The urrounding the Site is not �rence Of Major
subject site is The
low, potential for de Oef it r e t t Le an
deep seated slope failure at tote
Tb.e site surface
their materials consist of sit s
d state_ These materials are ty ands that are relatively dense
essential to maintain susceptible to erosion- Drain 1n
the stability of any planned slopes or slope age control is
FOUNDATrONS areas.
For foundation des-
calculated calculated based ono g Purposes, the following e
fodatiori de Shear Vest Results (Enclosure earth Pre`''1re5 were
depth and width Of 12 inches: ) and based on a
Shear Test: Cohesion = .3
Allowable Be X20 Psf, Angle of Friction =330 .
Equivalent Fluid.Pressure`2400 f f
Acti Passive Lateral Resistance— 410 p f
Pressure := 35 psf
Coefficient of Fz iction= 0.35
Expansion Index = I (VERY L0110
These values are for dead plus Live
(I/3) for seismic loads and may be increases o
values are in accordance dance th ids were allowed b code. e a . Y one-Hurd
based on Terzaghis'
he Unifo y These. Cesipi bearing
Fo�nuIa. rrtz Building Code g
and ":'_r2 calculated
Yt is recommended that the continuous
slabs for a light weigh Perimeter foundador,
oh eight wood_,frarned stri.FC L� �.yd conexete
With the f011OWing 1zlinimtztn designs: e shall be reinforced
$ns: u� accordance
a. For slab-On-grade, floors: it is recommended fou.ridations for a single story that the conti,7luous perimeter
and a rninirnurn width of structure shall extend a uu�um de, of 2 inches
as measured from the ow12 niches into &M native soils or compzcted f
inches wide I es-t adjacent 1 material
shall be used for a grade. t �iinim,� o f 18 inches deep b
two story Structure, P Y Is
1671-Fi 50. M-CAO 4.... .
SE ORIV� #785, V/S-A. CA 92083_5497 760-945-3150 c�
X. 760_945--4221
oauiazz4zz
ll: l i iaby4,':54221 FRIEIIAC'F
ARCHITECTS
B & B ENGINEERING Q0a8
PAGE p?
tlt�t�tt,•t•�ttt/O /r
_ FDUNOAT/pNrGCNN/CAt /O • ' tli
C.
LAND C ONSTgUCTION GEM Ven,,G.$OIL .fig
b.
All foundations shall be reinforced eM1�NSPF,CT/oN
bars shall be with at least two N
placed 3 inches from the to 0.4 steel bars, one
be placed 3 inches from the bottom. P of the foundation and
�e Other bar shall
c• All interior concre te slabs shall be a��
and rezrlforced with a minimum of No. 3 re '� of 4 inches in Chic
placed zn the center of the b�' at 24 inches on center both ways
downward 'nto the e . slab. The slab steal reinforc Ways
inches on center. 11' zzmeter footings and co ement sr!all be bent
In order to nnected to the foundation steel at 24
membrane (ze' 6 .tz�il tits uee minimize vapor transmission
inches of clean n) shall be placed over the ' � impermeable
The mere br-a�' P°Orly graded, coarse s tzative sandy soil or 2
ne shall be covered with and' decomposed grarst-, or crushed rock.
construction and the s 2 inches of sand to protect it d
concrete, All concrete Should be lightly wring
ncrete used, on this ro cY moistened just prior to placing
strength of 2500 psi Mess otlie P - t shall have a
Se stared on the Building1pl1 compressive
If irnported soil materials are used durin
to the design elevations, or if v g grading to bru., .
encountered ariations of soils or buildin i a `be building pad
, foundation and slab designs locailOns a.,
the completion of foundation excavations shall be reevaluated by our fu7n upon
Footings located on or adjacent to t1Z` to o
sufficient depth to provide a P f sIO es shall e
bottom edge of zmnzmu� horizontal distance of 71`y e"'tended to a
ge footing and the face of the slope, t bet�cx-•een the
These foundation reco
the soils enco rnmendatio;ns are
ur�tered during this investigation; however,acSZ� r=qu>rements for
be designed by the S�'uctuz'aI En tuaI row-�dations shall
foz" wind and seismic gineer for the expected live and dead loads, and
loads.
Findi.ngs of this P Re ort
conditions of a roe are valid as of this date; however, changes in
natural process or work o can
fm�Occur o with Passage Of
n this or ad"acente, whether they be due to
changes in applicable or a J properties. L� addition,
legislation or broadetzin p"oroPriate standards ocour whetllex �`�,
be invalidated wholly g of knowledge. AccorditZ o-" cone
Report � Y r partral,Iy by Ghana b'lY, findings of this e
P 1s subject to re or P changes outside our control. R port may
Year. and should not be rel1ed upon after a e Therefore, this
r Hod of one
._ rsr>- s
Aso. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VisTA, CA 92043-5497 760-945-3756 FAX 760-945_4221
"411"005 09:38 FAX 8587922422
03�03!2(�05 11. 13 7609454221 FRIEHAUF ARCHITECTS
$ B ENGINEERING 1@007
44; I
WI 'tit inn, file.
CN/�•GCOTECHN/CA�,q Ovwn,ENQ/NEEQ/NQ
_ FOUNQATIDN 06S/GN.C+IND SVRVB'r/
�' � •• CONg'/'gUG770N MA
NAQBMENT/ N�aC?'EBTJNC
I.n the evens that ECT/ON
are planned, the conclus ons and Greco the name, design, -
not be considered valid
mmendations contained an do Re buildings Unless the this Report, are modified or verified hanges are reviewed P shall
writing. anal the conclusions of
This Report is issued with the
the owner or of his rep1esentative to ensure that the that it is the responsibility of
recommendations contained herein to 1nf0nnation an
Architect are caked to d the
and Engineer and are incorporated into the lesson of the project
steps shall be taken to ensure that the cunt contractor and s� Funher, the necessary
recommendations in the field. bcont7'actors carry out such
It is recommended that lthe Soil Engineer be Provided general revieVV of the p ded the ooportuni
that the recd final design plans and specifications far this project� for a
recommendations Of this report J ir, order
implemented in the des@ P may be Properly inte
provided the o It is also recommended rpa•ered and
pportunity to verify the foundation that the Soil Engineer be
prior to placing concrete. that
slab const Lctiorl in the field
making these reviews, he cant assume Erg�,,er is not accorded the
recOmmendations) no responsibility privilege of
ty for misinterpretation of his
The Soil Engineer has prepared this Report for the
client and authorized agents. exclusi'.� T?
generally accepted soil and foundation en has been r 5e °f the
either expressed or implied, are prepared iri accordance with
nglneering practices. I ot:�er warranties,
the terms of this agreement, and included in the Pro essional advic- udr
°provided under
Report_
& B Engineering Inc. and Associates a
service. Should you have anv PPreciate this o
hesitate to contact us. questions regarding
PPo�nity to be of
g this project, please do not
'�09 Qp,OFESS,/Q ,
Sincerely;
y�
RGE !27 M
P 137/05
Arthur C. Beal-d RCE RGE
itcNN`o���Q Chief Engineer
FOF CALF
1611-4 SO. MELR05E DRIVE# -6
-` 285. V/STA, CA 92083-5497 • 760-945-3750
FAX: 760-94,5-4221.-
05/12/2005 09:39 FAX 8587922422
X3108/2005 11:13 7609454221 FRIEHAUF ARCHITECTS
$ B ENGINEERING 1@008
PAGE 09
2000
a. 1600
z
I
Iz 1200
z
Q 800
Lk)
i
400
0 +
0 400 80.0
1600
2000
NORMAL LOAD (pS�•
SOIL TYPE
aaRENG N0. DEPTH MOISTURE
(13N) COHESION ANGLE OF
' (ft)
f3JZOwN ��{Npy (PSF) FRICTION ( o
s�c,•r /� TP- I
a v6 3 3
GV�4QEOiEGyNtCAL AQWu1YEXO/NEER9f
�d q' '9TRUCTURr1 ENOUVEZ"a-LAND SURVEY7NO
•PERCOLA77ONR SOIL rES77Na
.. -CON 7.Rrl(MON Mq'VA5ZM wr•INSv
- SHE.QRING ST-RENGTN f " iN�
DATE
FIELD — 3 � 0 � PROJECT NO.
PROJECT
REPORT LO
canoN < v
NT OR
TO c� Lv O NER
c WEATH R TEMLIP"
P.
PRESENT ITE
L
UMMA F INSPECTION;
IP
F7� LA
v
Y
v '
= s
{
RECOMMENDATIONS;
SIGNATURE ' J' 'o Q GE
OPACU ICA
GEOTECIMCAL CONSULTANTS
COPIES ro; TEL; (760) 721-5488
FAX; (760) 721-5539
3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
FIELD Gd Q PROJECT NO.
REPORT
LOCATION
/, CONTRACTOR C �a
TO �-/ T G%� WEATHER OWNER
TEMP.
PRESENT AT SITE
SUMMARY OF (VSPECTION:
i
RECOMMENDATIONS:
4 SIGNATURE GEgAcnqCA
COPIES TO:
GB0nCIMCAL CONSInTAN'I'S TEL: (760) 721-5488
FAX (760) 721-5539
3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
reg Shield's -
GR-93017 on halcyon, cross street is vulcan
Pagel
From: Dave Moore
To: Greg Shields
Date:
Subject: 9/20/2005 2:57:15 PM
GR-9301 on halcyon, cross street is vulcan
Greg, the above is required to pave the full twenty feet of this easement
building permits being issued. This .t a condition I
Your guys aware that there is not i full c between the fences and that it's their grading
Put on the project for it's tpm approval.g plan Prior to
south that has the
fence ull 0, the easement,the a pro Please make
pp, th approved grading plan. The builder says it's t the will
property to the moved
me know it there is a ement, the property to the north is Paul Ecke school. Thanks Dave I
question.
David Moore et
Fire Marshal
City of Encinitas
(760)633-2822
dmoore @ci.encinitas.ca.us
T
ENGI NEER IN3' SERVICE S DEPARTMENT
05 S . V17L'CAN AVE
F-NCINIT_�,.s . '_
_� 92024
A E,T N-�
I T
R'm I
PARCEL No. ==19 r
JOB SITE ADDRESS .- ="6-301 --1
1
APPLICANT NAME HALCYON ROAD T NO,MAILING ADDRESS : : KEWECO TNC. -LAWRENCE HOLLAND CASE
871
CITY : ENCINITAS NEPTUNE AVENUE
STATE : CA ZIp : PHONE NO . . 7 F. q
CONTRACTOR : KEWECo 9 2 0 24
LIC No
ENSE , : 84522-1
ENGINEER p PHONE 6 C,
PERMIT - ASCO FNC41NEEFING LICENSE TY _
ISSUE DATE: 8/(),5 PF.
PHOP,,E
- DATE : 7/29/og 9-
PERMIT EXP 05
INSPECTOR : RON PERMIT V�
ISSUED S z---/
-- ---------
--------------
PER-MIT FEES s DEP"�SITS 17
PERMIT FEE
INSPECTT
ON F F E F K
5 , PLAN C14 - _)F p 0
_ECK FEE INSPECTION
7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 4 IV SECURTT
DEP-SIT
"3
- -----
DF_Ql_
----- FTPTT0N OF WORK
EARTHWORK DRAINAGF ,
PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFt
CONTROL , ' RETAT E AND LABOR AND ;f
CONTROL T
CONTRA ETA? W.P�LLS , -PRTVATE IMp F-ALS FOR
CTOR MUST MAINTAT RovFm.'7ZNTs 1�'N_'
APPRO*\7EL TRAFFIC TRAFFIC , _r EF
C :70N
-'-- ONTROL PLAN oF pE ROL "iT ALT T ;_,'mE,:�
R T , pER
STAt'�LaA,DS
---- INSPECTION ---------------- DATE- --- -----
INITIAL INSPECTION NSPFCTOR "r.
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ---------
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HAVE READ THE APPJ T,—ATION
INFORMATION IS
LAWS CORRECT AND AGREE To coMp :1,ND S T ATE REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING L! WITH ALI _rli '-T
L ORDINANCI:s 7, --
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS A AND THF PRI' AND S
'_,V 7 E NS AND C 0
ON ,
PPLICATI
SIGNATURE
DATE
PRINT NAME
CIR I C LE ONE: OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 , OTHER TELEPHcNE NUMB_�
1UH 1.11#011ccri����, lilt,:
C/VlL.GE07ECHNICAL.6 OUALl7V
FOUND TION DESIGN•LANO SURVEYI ENGINEERING
NG•SOfL TESTING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 6/NSPEC TION
CLIENT: KEWECO
PROJECT: KEW 1104-MV
KEWECO, INC. DATE-
871 Neptune Ave.
Encinitas, CA. 92024
Attention: Mr. Lawrence Holland
AUG - 5 2005
Subject: Preliminary Soil Investigation for the P
Construction located v Halcyon Road, FNGINEOF.EN INITASES
Proposed 3 �� Of FN iNITAS
(APN: 256-301-13, 14, & 15)(Parcels 2, 3n&of CA.
4 of PM 12549)
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, we have completed our
sampling, and our laboratory testing for the subject site inspection, soil
development consists of the construction of 3 level parcels. The proposed
single/two story, wood framed, stucco t el Pads for the support
type residential structures. PPort of
Based on our visual inspections and observation
laboratory test results the followin s In the field, and our
that the subject lots may sup g conclusions were derived. It is our opinion
conclusions and recommendations Y PPort the proposed residential structures.
mmendations found in the latter part of this report b the
incorporated in the design plans and specifications.
P hall be
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is located approximate)
Highway 101 . T 0.2 miles east of North Coast
on Halcyon Road in Encinitas he property is bounded on the
north by an Elementa
ry School, on the south and east by existing single
relatively flat lots falling to the west at a he site to 6%. o ra g e family
residences and on the west by Vulcan Avenue. T
investigation, the lot had a few trees approximate] P At the time of this
g PhY consists of
y
native vegetation. and was in
Y covered with low 1 g grasses and
FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
On 13 August 2004, a Field Investigation was
performed at the subject site.
1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA, 1
CA 92083-5497 - 760-945-3150 - FAX.- 760-945-4221
FOUNDgTION0 SIGN/CgC s OUALlTYENGINEE��GI,��•
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT •SOIL TESTING
ENT 6 INSPECTION
This investigation consisted of the excavati
backhoe. Location of these test holes are shown of 3 test its du
and the detailed Logs of the Test pit �'n on the plot plan, Enclosure a
Pits are presented on Enclosures 2 sure .
As the test pits were advanced the ( ) and (3),
Engineer. Undisturbed and bulk samples, a soils visually classified b
obtained at various depths representative of the different as in-place density y the Field
samples were returned to our laborato different soils horizons.stAll were
ry for detailed testing.
Results of the in-place compacon
values for the various soils sampled and the tests Maximum D
ry presented on Enclosure 4 , Expansion Potential TeDst rinresult Test
Strength, Enclosure (5) ( ) These materials were also tested for Shearing
s are
g
Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine
in which the rate of strain is 0.05 inches per minute. m the strain control type
that tests may be performed ensuring a P minute. The machine is so designed
conditions. g minimum of disturbance from the field
Saturated, remolded specimens were subjected
normal loads. Expansion tests were to shear under various
soils. These tests were performed performed on typical
P rmed in accordance with h the specimens of natural
the Uniform Building Code. procedures outlined in
SOIL CONDITIONS
As indicated by our Test Pit Logs,
underlain with approximately 1 to 2 feet of loose to of and 3
dry, porous, silty ), the lot is
ty sands with some roots, topsoil materials consisting of
Terrace Deposit materials consisting of Underlying the topsoil materials are the
damp, dense to very dense silty sands.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
According to published information, there are
Potentially active faults on or in the immediate Own active or
Therefore the mmediate vicinity of the subject site.
are, however, Potential for ground rupture at this site is considered
Gated within a close proximity to this site thatht re
movement associated with them could cause significant
following table presents the distance of ma or ant ground motion. The
he
J faults from the site, the assumed
1611-A Sp, 2
MELROSE DRIVE,1285, VISTA, CA 92083-5497 780_g45-31
- ---• .. 50 FAX 760-945-4221
CI
FOUNDATION DESIGN•LAND SURVEY NG GINEERI G ,i
c•
CONSTgUCT10N MANAGEMENT 'SOIL TESTING
6 INSPECTION
maximum credible earthquake magnitudes and estimated
anticipated at the site. The Probability peak accelerations
p ty of such an earthquake occurrin
lifetime of this project is considered low. T
anticipated to be an he severity of ground motion is not the
y greater at this site than in other areas of San Diego g County.
SEISMICITY OF
MAJOR FAULTS
FAULT DISTANCE G MAXIMUM CREDIBLE ESTIMATED
m''
Rose Canyon 5 TUDE(RICHTER) ACCELERATION(g)
Elsinore 6.0 RATION(g)
San Jacinto 28 mi. 7.5 0.25
51 mi. .8 0.35
7
San Andreas 75 mi.
8.3 0.17
The following information is re 0.12
Seismic Zone 4 per the U.B presented relative to the subject site and
C.:
SEISMIC PROFILE
(z) Seismic zone factor = 0.4 UBC TABLE
(Na) Near-source factor = 1.0 16 A-I
(B) Seismic source type = B (Rose Canyon) 16 A-S
(Sc) Soil profile type = Sc y ) 16 A-U
(Ca) Seismic coefficient = 0.40 Na 16 A-J
(Cv) Seismic coefficient = 0.56 Nv 16 A-Q
(Nv) Near-source factor = 1,0 16 A-R
16 A-T
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying t
consideration of various factors which include h g he site was based on the
relative density, water level, soil
Liquefaction Potential a of ground shaking and duration of shaking.
type gradation,
level is shallow and loose finesands nd to be the along.
greatest where the ground water
conditions are not present within the occur to area arida depth of 50 feet or less.
generalized liquefaction in the event of a strop to therefore the These
faults is considered to be low. Potential for
g moderate earthquake on nearby
3
1611-,q SO. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA, CA
92083-5497 9 760-945-3150 FAX.' 760-945-4221
114CH
C1VIL,GEOTEC""ICA, 6 QUgL1TY •
FOUNDATION DESIGN•LAND SURVEYING GINEERING
CONSTRUCTION MANq GSURV E SOIL TESTING
6 INSPECT/ON
STABILITY
The relatively dense nature of the surface soils w•
of the material underlying the site generally preclude
landslide conditions. The are Y p the occurrence of major
Rhin the site and the nature
a surrounding the site is not kno wn to be within an
e se
subject site is considered low, slop
area of ground subsidence. The potential for de
p seated e failure at the
The site surface materials consist of silty sands
their dry state. These materials are susce tible that are relatively dense in
essential to maintain the stability of any planned slopes or slope areas.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on field data and our laboratory tests resu
Conclusions and Recommendations are present its, the following
conjunction with the Grading and Building Plans: and are to be utilized in
All grading shall be performed in accordance with
recommended grading specifications contained in h the applicable
Encinitas Grading Ordinance, this report and the City of
On the basis of our investigation, development o f the s
considered feasible from a soils engineering stand o ite as proposed is
recommendations stated herein are incorporated
int provided that the
orated
systems and are implemented in the field in the design of foundation
Site preparation should begin with the removal
other deleterious matter. of any trash, debris, and
These materials, as well as vegetative matter, ar
suitable for use in structural fills and should be e
subsurface structures such as cesspools, wells or ported from the site. e not
uncovered during the grading operation, shall be sh abandoned pipelines, whi�h are
accordance with the requirements of the Ci removed or back
flled in
ty of Encinitas.
All on-site earth materials are considered suitable
for the support of the
occurring in the area of the proposed house
loose topsoil materials
pads shall be removed to a depth
1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA, CA 924
083-5497 • 760-945-3150 • FAX-' 760-945-4221
nazi ,.. .
Irlc,:
FOUNDATION DESIGN!CAL ,6 OUALlTY FNGlNEERING
CONSTRUCTION`ANA GEMENTYI NG•SOIL TESTING
6 INSPECTION
where firm, dense native soils are encountered.
anticipated to be approximately 3 feet below the existing depth of removal is
accomplished during the rough xisting surface.
Upper
accomplished
inches of the surface grading g operation and/or b This can be
surface to a minimum depth of soils inches, grade ripping the
pping the exposed bottom
grade. hes, and recompacting the soil to the design
g
In the event that the finish grade soils expose
a cut/fill daylight line throe P se a transition lot condition; i.e.,
through the proposed structure, the cut portion of the
pad shall be over-excavated and recompacted to a
finished grade. The limits Of over-excavation depth of 3 feet below the house
outside of the perimeter building foundations. This extend a minimum of 5 feet
blanket for an even support will provide a uniform fill
differential settlement.pport of the structure and will help mitigate the effects of
In general, the site surface materials were found
expansion potential 0.e.: expansion index = 2 to have a very
Test results, Enclosure 4 , rY low
) according to our Expansion Index
� ) Therefore, additional foundation or slab re
are considered not necessary rY in regard to soil expansion. It is anticipated that the
b footings may experience less than 1 inch settle
differential settlements between adjacent footings he
settlement ith less than %2 inch
gs of similar sizes and loads.
Foundation designs shall be verified and/or evaluated
soils exposed following rough grading-
constructed in accordance with Foundations shall be zed a finish grade
pressures and the allowable bearing Svalutural Engineer's design
and
live and dead loads, and the projected es listed below, �' based on the earth
ed wind and seismic�loads� with the expected
All structural fill shall be compacted to at leas o
density at near optimum moisture content as det t 90% of the maximum dry
ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-91 or equivalent.ermined in accordance with
Site drainage should be dispersed by non-erodible
preclude concentrated runoff over graded and natural ble devices in a manner to
City of Encinitas requirements. al areas in accordance with the
reviewed by the Soil Engineer. All grading and/or foundation plans shall be
S
>611-A SO. MEL ROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA, CA 92083-5497 760-945-3750 0 945-3150 • FAX: 760-945-4221
CI d O(/ALITYENGINEERING
FOU COTTON DESIGN•LAND SURVEYING•SOIL TESTING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT d INSPECTION
FOUNDATIONS
For foundation design purposes, the followin
calculated based on our Shear Test Results wig earth pressures were
( °
foundation depth and width of 12 inches: Sure 4 and based on a
Test Pit #1 at 3' (Brown Silty SAND)
Maximum Dry Density = 126.0; Optimum
Shear Test: Cohesion — Moisture = 10.5%
Allowable Bearing Value50 psf. of Friction = 39�
Equivalent Fluid Pressure = 3000 psf
Passive Lateral Resistance — P f
Active Pressure — 30 psf — 550 psf
—
Coefficient of Friction = 0.35
Expansion Index := 2 (VERY LOW)
These values are for dead plus live loads and
(113) for seismic and wind loads where allowed may be increased b
values are in accordance with the Uniform Building Y one-third
based a Tin accordance
is' Formula. Y These design bearing
ng Code and were calculated
It is recommended that the continuous perimeter
slabs for a light weight wood-framed structures foundations and concrete
hall be reinforced in accordance
With the followin
g minimum designs:
a. For slab-on-grade floors: it is recommended that
foundations for a single sto
and a minimum width of 12 inches shall extend a minimum continuous perimeter
hes into the firm native soils with a relative inches
compaction exceeding 90% as measured from the low
minimum of 18 inches deep by 15 inches wide s est adjacent grade. A
structure. Building foundations shall be verified
hall used for a two story
for depth into competent soils prior to Placing concrete.ete. n g b y our field engineer
b. All foundations shall be reinforced with a
bars, one bars shall be placed 3 inches from the
bar shall be placed 3 inches minimum of two No-5 steel
top of the foundation and the other
from the bottom.
c. All interior concrete slabs shall be a minimum Of four inches in thickness
1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA 6
CA 92083-5497 • 760-945-3150 • FAX.. 760.945-4221
1��FOUNDATION DES�GN!CAL,6 OUY EN ���•
CONSTRUCTION AMN D SURVEYING•SOIL TES rING
and reinforced GEMENT6INSPECTION
with a minimum of No. 3 rebar at 24 inches on
placed in the center of the slab.
both The downward into the perimeter footings and tees reinforcement shalltbe bent ways
inches on center. In order to Connected to the foundation steel at 24
membrane in 6 minimize vapor transmission, an impermeable
mil visqueen) shall be placed over 2 inc e l
graded, coarse sand, decomposed inches of clean
covered with 2 inches of saps to protect granite, or crushed rock. Poorly
protect it during construction and membrane shall be
be lightly moistened just prior to placing conc
project shall have a minimum compressive he sand should
g rete. All concrete used on this
stated on the Building plans. p ve strength of 2500
psi unless otherwise
If imported soil materials are used during
to the design elevations, or if variations of soils or b i to bring
encountered, foundation and slab d r buill to
locations are
pad
the completion of foundation excavations shall be reevaluated b e
your firm upon
Footings located on or adjacent to the to
sufficient depth to provide a minimum horizontal p of slopes shall be extended to a
bottom edge of the footing and the face of the al distance of 7 feet between the
slope.
These foundation recommendations are minim um design requirements for
the soils encountered during this investi ation•
g , however, actual foundations shall
be designed by the Structural
Engineer for the expected live and dead loads
for wind and seismic loads.
and
Findings of this Report are valid as of this date;
conditions of a property can occur with however, changes in
natural process or works of man on this oaad'acenttime, whether the
changes in a properties. In addition,
to
legislation aPplic ble.or appropriate standards occur whether
be invalidated wholly or partially they result from
knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this Report may
Y y changes outside our control. Therefore, this
y
Report is subject to review and should not be relied
year, upon after a
period of one
In the event that any changes in the nature de
are planned, the conclusions and recommendations sign, or location of buildings
not be considered valid unless the changes are dations contained in this Report shall
this Report are modified or verified in
writing. sewed and the conclusions of
1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA, CA 92083- 497 . 7
5 60-945-3150 - FAX.• 760-945-4221
acit Lltjrlil, cra , /roc.
CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL.6 OUAL1TYfNGlNEER/NG
FOUNDATION DESIGN•LAND SURVEYING*SO// TESTING
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT i INSPECTION
This Report is issued with the understandin g t hat it is the responsibility of
the owner or of his representative to ensure that the recommendations contained herein are called to the information and
Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans. Further, the Project
recommendations that the contractor and subcontractors pe necessary
mmendations in the field.
carry out such
The Soil Engineer has prepared this Report for
client and authorized agents. This Report has b
generally accepted soil an the exclusive use c the
been prepared in accordance with
either expressed or implied, are oration engineering practices. No other
de e i the professional advice provided under
the terms of this agreement, and included in they
Report. er
B & B Engineering Inc, and Associates a
service. Should you have an appreciate this Opportunity
hesitate to contact us. y questions regarding this project, p ease do not be of
Sincerely,
oQQ�OFESS/pN�
g RGE 127 ° m Arthur 4�c�
cc
m Beard RCE RGE
* pExp.12/31/05/ # Chief Engineer
cti
FOF CAI-W
1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE#285, VISTA, CA 92083-5497 . 7
- 60-945-3150 FAX: 760-945-4221
rP;Z I •, -
•! ! _ �� � �� ` - ��T 719 .FACE
P 3
Z
i 7-
-------
TO
-- -_-_ _
WA Z c Yom! kOA
TR3
Rq
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF FIELD
EXPLORATORY TEST PIT
P L 0 T
OWNER: KGw�co P L A A/
LOCATION:
A
C C1N1"1/4 s z4vil, jr •
A• P• N, 2
56 -301 - 13 C!✓IL,GEOTECHNICAL,6 OUgLITY ENGINEERS
14 !S •STRUCTURAL fNGlNEERlNG
PROJECT: V'Ek/ 1 •PERCOLA TION 6 SOIL ESTIVGRVEYING
'ro� DATE:1 Z Zao¢ •CONSTRUCT IONMANAGEMENT&INSPECT/ON
C!V/L,GEOTECHN/CAL.&QUA Ll��///,/�
•STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING
•PERCOLATION 6 SOIL TESTING
•CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT&INSPECT/ON CE
EW 11
EXCAVATED_; OF TEST PITS
_.._. _8= t ----
PIT DIMENSIONS -___ Backhoe
I N FEET W
3a
SURFACE ELEVATION
IN FEET 77 ��-
G E O L O G I C A L DATUM Mean Sea
�W rW � Level
CLASSIFICATION c W `'W
o
an
W ENGINEERING
DESCRIPTION oz CLASSIFICATION AND TEST DATA
W H
TOpSD fL DESCRIPTION M iR
CI 0
2 �oWlu _51LTIf�C1x1 D
TE f2 � u S R
DEaU51T5 51LT`f SANpJ Poi2nu
S
-S
LDoS E _ f
7 Rusr slliH 54"'Jo
DAM p, _ 75- 3E
9 vCccovy -TAN
Go?Tvr'1 of-TESI --PIT @ 9/
'v0 wgTE� nb CAvmjc
is
PIT DIMENSIONS IN
FEET W �o"
SURFACE L
ELEVATION IN FEET 78
_ ropso 1c,
-f3�20'wN 5 T P- 2
I L.Ty_ S t�N() k/�20pTS� .
T�F?(Z/�C,& POeous�
DF--Po TS TAN_RUS T
SCMI - 2EFuS�gL .@S ,
io
DOTTOM OF TEST P1 T-
- No wa i ER) No cdVI,,j
/5
CIVIL,GfOTECHN/CAL,g OUA
STRUCT URA L/TyENGINEERS
• L ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING
PERCOLAT/pN g SOIL lEST/NG
•CONSTPUCTION MANAGEMENT g INSPECTION
T
EXCAVATED : �- I3-pq 0F EST P I TS
Backhoe C4T 4ZO
PIT DIMENSIONS p
IN FEET W 51"1 L Zoe D 7 '
SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET 90
DATUM Tf -`3
G E O L O G I C A L ►- _ Mean Sea Level
CLASSIFICATION ~ W U.
J
a `" ~`" o W ENGINEERING
DESCRIPTION � ? ez >- CLASSIFICATION DATA
SSIFICATION AND
W _ N M DESCRIPTION D
TOPSOIL
T1;22a TAN_ M (RC) 0
CE �31ZO WN 5►�ry SA�uO w 1
DEPOSITS PO ROUS (�R
S _TAN 5ILT� sdNp� ScIG4TV1
__�bi20v5� DRLf) L0DSE - DENS-
_TArti -2uST 51L t
7 op s N O
� `1 �Eti.1sL_ _ r __-
��r'l
/0
EEOTiOM T PIT e� 7
15 No W4T, 2� N0 CAVIf116,
PIT DIMENSIONS IN FEET W L D
SURFACE ELEVATION
IN FEET
5
/0
/5
849
CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL
C , ERS
RERCOLAT/ON 8 8 OUALITYENGINE .1 filco
•STRUTURAL ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING
• SOIL TESTING
•CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 8 INSPECT/0,N
CLIENT: KEW r✓ cp
Test Test )E kEW
Test I IC}4— Ir.IV
No.
Date location Test Soii Dr Densit DATE: OF C, zop q.
1 S1�3 E1/Depth T ype y cf
Field Moisture, s
TP—1 I y Maximum. Field Opt. Relative
Compaction Retest
A 75.0 12 i ,p No.
T P- 2 6 � 7 TP- 12, 4 GZ
I
109. 1 � �,2 10.5 57
4 1
4 u � 09,0 I�,o
7'P-2 Z ' 7,1 ►o, S 87
S �I � ! i l, g 1-292 T?-?- 3 ! 5,2 11 , 87
2
Tp- 3 C 107. 1 179.0 6,3
I III 83
g
105,8 1 zb.o
0,4 )0,S 94
COMPACTION
CDR DATA
SOIL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
Q OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY
ROHJ�J 511. 1 AND MOISTURE % DENSITY DRY
)
TAAJ S)LTA 5
C T/�, AND TP- I @ 3 ' 12, 4 121,a
n1- GUST 51L-T`1 SA NQ TP- I 10, 5 Iz6,0
1!, 5 1z910
EXPANSION POTENTIAL
)ON
21 20 = Lowy Low
- 50
_- ------ 91 -130 _ Moderate
131 -above_-CrTitit
ical
EXPANSION AND COMPACTION
TEST DATA
_ _.._ ENCLOSURE (4)
2000
LL
a 1600
v
I
z
LU
Cc 1200
0
_Z 1
rr
W 800
39°
400 ---
0
0 400 800 '
1200 1600
NORMAL 2000
LOAO (pSF)
SOIL TYPE
6 80RING N0, DEPTH
c m (8N) MOISTURE COHESION
(ft) COHESION ANGLE OF
SA - (PSF) FRICTION ( o
CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL,8 QUA L/Ty ENGINEERS
•STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING
•PERCOLATION 6 SOIL TESTING
•CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 6 INSPECTION
JTRENGTr, i EST KEvv 1104- IAJV
SHEARING
EN cc-osQ a.E Cs�
PASCO ENGINEERING, INt,, WAYNEA.
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITEA
RGE.29577 ��
SOL ANq 8)25 12 92075 JOSEPH YUF >C`'`!�'
FAX(858)59-4812 P.L.S.5211 P12
W.JUSTIN SUIIFR// 2 (�
July 30, 2008 R G E.68964
City of Encinitas PE 1231
Engineering Services Permits
SOS South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA. 92024
RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING
PROTECT N0. 04-216 CDP A G AD I G PE ON FOR
GRADING PERMIT NO. 9301-G,
The grading plan permit number 9301-
approved grading plan or as shown on the ttachedpAs Graded"in confo
Final grading inspection has demonstrated s Graded nuance with the
plan.
Plan and that swales drain a ated that lot drainage confo
system. minimum of 1% to the street and/or an s to the approved grading
appropriate drainage
All the Low Impact Develo
as shown on the drawin Pment, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best
cons p g and required by the Best Management Practices
constructed and are Operational, together with the required Practice Manual pa
Engineer of Record quired maintenance coven re
�� �O OFESS/O,yq
Date ' 3 o �� NE A.
� r
cc No.29M M
EV•X31/11 �D
Verification b CIVIL P
y the Engineering �� Ls �
Will take place on] g Inspector of this fact is done by
Of the ultimate responsibility: is signed and stamped and will not relieve
Inspector's signature hereon and
the Engineer of Record
Engineering Inspector
Date
Very truly yours,
p LAND
C.
Joseph yuhas,L.S. 5211 O ti
Vice President of Land Surveying Ex p.06/30/09
�
9
OF CA1.1F���
Ci ty p�NGINEE
RING SER VICES DEPART
Enci;p tds AI
Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Sand Replenishment/Stormw t rlCoOperation,
February 28, 2008 Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
Attn: First Republic Bank
1110 Camino Del Mar#A
Del Mar, California 92014
RE: Lawrence Holland
Halcyon Road
APN 256-301-13,14,15
Grading Permit 9301-GI
Final release of security
Permit 9301-GI authorized earthwork
control, all as necessary to build described project. The Fie
private drainage improvements, and erosion
grading and finaled the project. Therefore, full release o
Field Inspector has approved the
The following f the security deposit is merited.
g Certificate of Deposit Accounts have been cancelled
Payment to the depositor.d by the Financial
Services Manager and are hereby released for
Account# CD09800000177 in the amount of$1379178-27 positor.
amount of$46,000.00. and CD09800000169 in the
The document originals are enclosed.
contact Debra Geishart at 760 Should you have an
Department. ) 633-2779 or in writin y questions or concerns
g, attention the Engineering ,please
Sincerely,
6 L�
Debra Geis s'!�
Engineerin g
Subdivision Engineering y L ach
g mance Manager
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Financial Services
Lawrence Holland Manager
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
TEL 760-633-2600
.m
/ ._FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas
California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700
74 14
4U recyc%d paper
Y 0 F
ENG I NEER I NC, I TV
505 S
ENCIt VULCAN A VF�
,,I
NSTRUCTI
PARCEL
JOB SITE ADDRESS : 65--lo _N
_L 7Z
APPLICANT NAME 87, NEPTUN.;;- ZIN
LAW?MAILING ADDRESS , El"; HOLI�AN-f
C 17%7: E N.-1 N, �0,-7'_ E,
TZ::- N-EF T TT E
TA T ,TIT-.
CONTRACT01;, : -"
7 A D J A N
I-ENSE
Nf, , e_ -03
iAf - -i h �, �7,0 e,��
-DURANO-E 4,4 u . rlrt
P 0 L I r y N, A N y
E
Q T 7
C A r)0 r.)000- 71,
EN G E E
PERMIT IS
SUE' DATE -
2 F
PERMIT
N S P E C DA-tF
RONALD U'^-G PERMIT ISSUED
Y .
PERM FEE PERMIT FEES ",Fpf)SITS
2 . '-'qSPECTION DE,
- OSIT:
'3 ; qp'CURITY' DEPosiT
PERM I T JF �-c)Ry
FoF
TY DETAIL 7
.k T L T R, _T DF Rl-
STANDARD- - ' ;�-TOF -. N z
STANDARDS 0 R T 0 t4 1-1 -.'- ' SPALF
TR
TRAM F
J�T R cq
INSPECTION DATE
INITIAL
INSPECTION 1 5 P E
FINAL INSpE,,IOM
I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED -T HE COMPLETED
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL TH PER--M_..I_.._T AND Do HERER,
F INFORMATION
-IS TRUE,
SIGNA' U
!NT
PC L E ri E
WNFF
EF-,-
jp
PA
SCO ENGINEERING, INC.
535 NORTH HI WAYNE P pAsC� '
GHINAY 101, SUITEq RC.E.29577
SODA BEACH, CA 92075 //
( )259-8212
JOSEPH Yti `/
FAX(858)259-.4812 P.L.S.5211 V7
W JusnN
68964
July 30, 2008 RC.E.
City of Encinitas PE 1231
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA. 92024
RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL G
PROJECT N0. 04-216 CDPD ND ERTIFICATION FOR
GRADING PERMIT
/ NO. 9301-G.
The gradin /-4,/c Y i,/
g plan permit number 9301-G has been
approved grading plan or as shown on the attached l?As Gr d in subs.
As Graded"substantial conformance with the
Final grading inspection has plan
Plan and that Wales drain a demonstrated that lot drainage conforms system. minimum of 1 /o to the street and/or an a
o n a r the approved grading
ppropriate drainage
All the Low Impact Development,
as shown on the act De pment, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management dra
constructed and are wing and required b
operational, together the Best Management Practice g ent Practices
gether with the required maintenance coven al Pa
Engineer of Record Q re
�0 OFESSjO��
Date 3 6 6 y E p
�r NO.295n m
Ern
V.3131/11 'D
Verification b
y the Engineering Ins
Will take place only Inspector of this fact is done b
of the ultimate responsibility,he above is signed and stamped the Insp
ped and will not rehe�e'the gnature hereon and
Engineering Inspector gineer of Record
Date
Very truly Yours,
0
IAN.
pH C.
Yuh
Joseph
as, L.S. 5211 �
Vice President of Land Surveying LS 5211
ExA.06/30/09
N
9�OF UFO��Q-
CA
HYDROLOGYSTUDY
for
PARCELS 2, 3, & 4 OF PARCEL MAP 12549,HALCYON ROAD
GRADING PLAN DWG NO. XXXX-G
City of Encinitas, CA
PREPARED FOR:
Lawrence Holland
Keweco, Inc.
871 Neptune Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
DATE:
February 17, 2005
Mv
y
r I No. 29577 rs i
Exp.3131107
rf
c!'J. QVIL
CALM
�► a,Q�o-� � z" cad"
WA PASCO, RCE 29577 DA E
HYDROLOGY STUDY
PE 1231 for Halcyon Road
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SEA
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0/
0,91"t
Aa�av/z.
F� 2,?"/
,r
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
- PE 1231
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Hydrology Study for the proposed development of three existing parcels at the
and
easterly terminus Of Halcyon Road has been prproject s teyzThisereport oin�nds to
hydraulic characteristics of the existing a proposed
resent both the methodology and the calculations used conditions
and ithe the runoff from developed
p re-developed (existing)
the project site in both the p in ad
conditions produced by the 100 year 6 hour storm.and storm drain piping necessary
(proposed) storm drain facilities a
propose the sizing of all necessary
for the storm drain system to safely convey the runoff from the 100-year rainfall event.
1.2 Existing Conditions
117°17'40"• The site is
The property is geographically located at N 33°03'25" W en playground
p residential development to the east and south. A large op p Yg
surrounded by elementary school lies to the west and the school bounds on the
Hydrologic Area and more
area as with an e The project is located at the
north. The project site is located in the San Marcos y alc on Road and
specifically, the Road,uapP Hydrologic Sub he(904.51).
end of Halcyon approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Y
Vulcan Ave. presently vacant. The site
parcels which are p site
ro ect site consists of three p to the west. Drainage from the existing
The existing p J gently sloping project site. A
consists of relatively flat areas g y h of the site just west of the
ed in a westerly/ southwesterly direction across the p ] ff b
property nuns t runoff y
n set is primarily convey acts the existing
impedes flow and imp discharges onto Vulcan
large raised sand box he sandcbox mP existing driveway
Th, westerly boundary driveway. The e
site it south to the existing flows north along Vulcan Avenue.
? directing
Indic, Avenue and the discharge
Condit )n, 'Project dwellings.
associa ` 1.3 Proposed Prof le-family of the
train project is to construct three de pa edndriveway The project
he
agf "Q The intent of proposed aved. p
development will include three will also be p
The proposed he existing gravel driveway le-family
T suitable for the constructiree Sir
g residential
driveway• multi-lei pads s with
existing fading to create m walls, the construction of associated
proposes g round utilities typically
structures, the constnucti tion tof all underg
st and the cons
' o, residences,
residential development. uately
s includes the co to more adegwa e
re design principally orated
s water system will be incorporated
Proposed storm related piping A long treatment Swale proposed
Thep Area drains and ads. Thep p
and ditches. varied nature of the pads. driveway-
and due to the in the center of the
convey will be constructed
water quality
M.wydrolo9Y HydrPF#12311141 PM ti 21204
show`'Ouhty o'Roaa
otkeo lr�the
0 es Oo
Of ran ty has a1
ne fa ff so
Of the �, a�f'elpat�ee�efeped
CI ar d pre .
10 d, t;s de sables o f ��i a 91. Altat o� ;
o o���d pen�►��t Q the `�� stON esve Vial coy
as wlt�.
tab 1� Ply u, equat;oo of�l e IOp�ur maps t
M r
I�
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
the county. The County has also developed precipitation isopluvial contour maps that
show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100-year, 6-hour
storm).
One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient, C. The runoff
coefficient is dependent only upon land use and soil type and the County of San Diego
has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied to basin
located within the County of San Diego. The table categorizes the land use, the
associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of
impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated runoff coefficient, C, for
each soil type class.
The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of
concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the
Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation
essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths of
100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and slope.
2.3 City of Encinitas Standards
The City of Encinitas has additional requirements for hydrology reports which are
outlined in the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Please refer to this
manual for further details.
2.4 Runoff Coefficient Determination
As stated in section 2.2, the runoff coefficient is dependent only upon land use and soil
type and the County of San Diego has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban
Areas to be applied to basin located within the County of San Diego. The table, included
at the end of this section, categorizes the land use, the associated development density
(dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area.
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics11231\1231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
3.0 HYDROLOGY MODEL OUTPUT
3.1 Pre-Developed Hydrologic Model Output
****************************************
************************************
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 ANALYSIS OF 100 YEAR STORM
* PARCELS 2, 3, & 4 OF PARCEL MAP 12549,
* PE 1231 - HOLLAND HALCYON ROAD
ENCINITAS, CA
******************************************************
*
********************
FILE NAME: 1231PRE.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12:28 02/17/2005
----------------- - -
--- --------- -----
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
------------------
---
"
1985 SAN DIEGO ----
------------------
MANUAL CRITERIA --------------
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.400
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL
NOTE: "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW
HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MODEL*
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP
._ NO. (FT) MANNING
_-FT) ===(FT)-- SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) HIKE FACTOR
--- - -------- ----- - (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:
I. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)p-of-Curb)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
1.--- -- NODE 1.40-IS_CODE = 21
--FROM-NODE------
»» BA
>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA REA ANALYSIS««< ---------------
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : ---- _
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00
M:IHydrology&Hydraulics4123111231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 144.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION =
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 138.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND .40
*CAUTION: SUBAREARS OPETEXCEEDSFCOUNTY NOMOGRAPH 6.205
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.501
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.33
0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
---------------- ----1-40-TO NODE -1-30-IS CODE = 51
----------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL C --___-_--- _
CHANNEL FLOW««< ------------------'---
--»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA, (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA UPSTREAM(FEET) _
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA FEET = 138.0. DOWNSTREAM SLOT) = 99.50
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 ) 320.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1203
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSIT NCH/HOUR) =DEPTH(FEET)
.353 500.00
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 0'331 97
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.71
Tc(MIN.) = 8.92
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(C FS) _
END OF SUBAREA C 0.33
CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.97
1.50 TO NODE 1.30 = 420.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
1--- -- NODE
_-_--_1--- CODE = 81
---FROM-NODE------
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
-- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.353
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) =
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.98
TC(MIN) = 1.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.31
= g.92
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
_-1-30 ---------
NODE -1.20_IS CODE = 51
--------------- __ ______
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
-----------------
--»»>TRAVELTIME-THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) ____________________________________________
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 9160.00DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = CHANNEL SLOPE = 050
MPNNING'S FACTOR = 0.0304'00 "Z" FACTOR = 0.1050
MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)2=0500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.157
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _
2.31
M:\Hydrology&HydraUlics11231\1231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.03
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.66
Tc(MIN.) = 9.58
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.12 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.31
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.03
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.20 = 580.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 81
---------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
------------------------------------------------------
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.157
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.52 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.99
TC(MIN) = 9.58
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 51
--------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 82.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 76.40
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 220.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0286
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.837
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.99
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.27
Tc(MIN.) = 10.85
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.52 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.99
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.89
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.10 = 800.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.837
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.94 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.46 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.47
TC(MIN) = 10.85
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 1
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
---------------------------------------------------------
»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««<
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.85
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.84
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.46
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.47
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 21
---------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 134.30
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 122.60
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 11.70
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.075
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.622
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.28
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 51
-----------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 122.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 78.60
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 450.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0978
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.939
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.28
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.70
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.41
TC(MIN.) = 10.41
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.28
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.70
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.00 = 550.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 81
------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.939
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600
MAHydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
S•C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) =
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.52 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _
TC(MIN) = 10.41 0.63 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.94
1.23
*****************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM
-----------------------------------------------NODE 2.00
TO NODE ***********
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL 1.10 IS CODE = 51
==?»»TRAVELTIME HRUSUBACHA NEL FLOW««< ---'---------
----
(EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 78.60 DOWNSTR
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 110.00 EEL SLOT) = 76.40
MANNING'S FACTOR = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = .0oo EL SLOPE = 0.0200
100 YEAR RAINFALL IN'TENSIT�NCMH OURTH(FE3T79= 500.00
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC IL) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2 8
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 1.23
Tc(MIN.) = 11.05 ) 0.10 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 6
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.64
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6300 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.00
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: 1.23
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.10 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2 86
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM
NODE 2.20
***************************************TO*NODE 1.10 =
660.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE *********************************
-------------------------- 1_10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 1
»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««<
»»>AND COMPUTE -----------------
VARIOUS-CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««<
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS =--2
CONFLUENCE VALUES
TIME
USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.05
RAINFALL, INTENSITY(INCH/HR)
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ = 3.79
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE 3=
** 1.23
CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF
NUMBER Tc INTENSITY AREA
1 (4F47 10x85) (INCH/HOUR)
2 1. 4 3.837 (ACRE)
11.05 3.791 2.46
0.63
RAINFALL INTENSITY
CONFLUENCE AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION
FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. RATIO
** PEAK FLOW RATE
TABLE **
STRREAM RUNOFF Tc
(CFS) INTENSITY
1 5.68 Tc
(INCH/HOUR)
2 10.85 3.837
5.64 11.05
3.791
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAT{ FLOW RATE(CFS) _
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.68 Tc(MIN.) =
3.09 10.85
LONGEST FLO
WPATH FROM NODE
1.50 TO NODE
1.10 = 800.00 FEET.
MAHydrology&HydraulicM123111231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
-- PE 1231
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
-------------------- 1.10 TO NODE --100-IS-CODE = 51
--------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL C ------
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA
HANNEL FLOW««< ------------------------------
BARER (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA:
UPSTREAM(FEET) 76.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)FEET =
= 70.00
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" TOR CHANNEL SLOPE
MANNING'S FACTOR = Z FACTOR = 2.000 = 0.0278
100 YEAR - 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.690
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 5.68
5.65
AVERAGE FLOW 1.53H(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.68
Tc(MIN.) = 11.53
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.00
END OF SU 5.68
BAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.65
1.50 TO NODE 1.00 = 1030.00 FEET.
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
1.00 -- NODE -1_00-IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA FLO
BARER TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<-------------------'--
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.690
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 SUBAREA TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.20 RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.17
TC(MIN) = 11.53 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.85
END OF STUDY S
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) RY. _
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3'20 TC(MIN.) = 11.53
---------------------------- ____ ___
---------------
END OF ------------- --------_____
RATIONAL METHOD AN -
ALYS IS
M:1Hydrology&HydraulicM123111231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
3.2 Post-Developed Hydrologic Model Output
**************
**************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM pACK7�GE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
(c) Co 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
pYright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software
(aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 0110112002 License ID 1452
Analysis prepared by:
Pasco Engineering, Inc.
535 N. Highway 101, Suite A
Solana Beach, CA 92075
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
* POSTDEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY
**************************
* PARCELS 2, 3, & 4 OF PARCEL MAP 12 549 49 100 YEAR STORM OF
* PE 1231 - HOLLAND MAP 12 , HALCYON ROAD, ENCINITAS, CA
FILE NAME: 1231POST.RES **
-_TIME/DATE_OF-STUDY: 13:33 02/17/2005
------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFO
-----------------------
-----------
MANUAL
1985 SAN DIEGO -----------------------------------------------------INFORMATION:
CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) =
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 2.400
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF G
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE
NOTE: ONLY p MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIO = 0.95
*USER-DEFINED
PEAK CONFLUENCE
COUPLEDRpDpEFLOW METHOD
�F- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL; '� STREETFLOW MODEL*
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / O _ P CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES:
NO� _(FT) ___�FT) SIDE / SIDE/ AR HEIGHT WIDTH LIP MANNING
(FT) (FT) HIKE FACTOR
--- (FT) (FT) (n)
1 30.0 20.0 ______ _____ ====== _
0.01810.01810.020 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)
2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint _ (Top-of-Curb)
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER 6.0 (FT*FT/S)
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
**************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
---L--_PR C____ 1.30 TO NODE **
»»>USER SPECIFIED ---_ 1.30 IS CODE _
HYDROLOGY INFO ---
RMATION ----
_______________ AT NODE««< ----------
-- ------------------------------------------ ___
USER-SPECIFIED V --- _
ALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
------------ ___ __
TC(MIN) = 8,92 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _
1.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _
2.31
M:1Hydrology 8 Hydraulics1123111231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SE�1V
Executive Summary
Introduction 1.0
Existing Conditions 1.1
Proposed Project 1.2
Summary of Results and Conditions 1.3
Conclusions 1.4
References 1.5
Methodology 1.6
Introduction 2.0
County of San Diego Criteria 2.1
City of San Diego Standards 2.2
Runoff coefficient determination 2.3
2.4
Hydrology Model Output
Pre-Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.0
Post-Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.1
3.2
Hydraulic Calculations
4.0
851h Percentile Peak Flow and Grassy Swale Design
Appendix 6.0
7.0
M:1Hydrology8 Hydraulics11231\1231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Hydrology Study for the Proposed
easterly terminus of Halcyon Road has beenylopment of three existing
hydraulic characteristics of the existing prepared to analyze the parcels at the
Present both the methodolo g and proposed project site. This report�ln ends to
the project site in both thegy and the calculations used for determining the nlnoff from
(proposed) conditions producd Pre-developed (existing)y the 100 g) conditions and the °m
Propose the sizing of all necessary Year 6 hour storm. In addition his report ill
for the storm drain system to safely Crm drain facilities and storm drain Piping necessary
will
convey the runoff from the 100- g
1.2 Existing year rainfall event.
g Conditions
The property is geographically located at N 33003'25" 0
surrounded by residential development to the east and s
area associated with an elementary o '25 W 117 17'40".
outh. The site is
north, ntary school lies to the west and he school bo bounds on the
The project site is located in the
specifically, the Batiquitos Hydrologic Marcos H n the
end of Halcyon Road Ydrologic Sub-Area (904.51 ydrologic Area and more
Vulcan Ave. , approximately 250 feet from the intersection Of Halcyon at the
yon Road and
The existing project site consists of three
consists ti relative) parcels which are
is
consists o y flat areas gently Sloping presently vacant. The site
Primarily conveyed in a westerly/ southwesterly west. Drainage from the existing site
-.-- large raised sand box on the school property
westerly direction across the project site. A
Y boundary. The sand box impedes flow the length of the site just west of the
directing it south to the existing drivewa and impacts
Avenue and the discharge then floss north The Vu the existing runoff n
Y The existing driveway discharges onto Vulcan
along Vulcan Avenue.
1.3 Proposed Project
The intent of proposed project is to construct three
The proposed development detached single-family
existing ment will include three individual g s dwellings.
g driveway. The existing paved driveways off of the
Proposes grading g gravel driveway will also be
structures, the construction of multi pads suitable for the construction
The project
residences, and the construction of all underground u of residential
g walls, the construction of three single-family
residential development.
utilities typically associated with
The proposed storm water system design principal) in
and ditches. Area drains and related Piping Y includes the construction of swales
convey runoff due to the varied nature of the will be incorporated
water y will be constructed in the center d the orated to more adequately
quality pads. A long treatment Swale for storm
e main driveway. The proposed
MAHydrology&Hydraulicsl123111231 HYDRO.doc
____ PE#1231 1:41 PM 2/22/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
residential lots in the development will utilize swales and channel s to drain the pads to
the driveway and ultimately to Halcyon Road.
To address the storm water quality
Permanent BWs will be incorporated into the storm drain system
goals established for this development proposed
proposed include a series of biofilter swales, which are intended to
concentrated storm water; thereby filtering the st tend design. The BMPs
velocity and shallow depth, and allowing suspended Water due to its relatevely slow
within the swale. pollutants to settle and deposit
1.4 Summary of Results
Upon performing a hydrologic analysis of the project site in both th
and existing condition the following results were produced. In the existing
hydrologic model included the analysis of the a proposed developed
Output data from the hydrologic analysis model of the project site in the existing
site at one point of discharge.
condition, the
condition indicates that the 100-year peak runoff flow of 5.85 cfs is
project site and other off-site contributors. The total area of the existing
contributing storm water runoff is equal to 3.20 acres; of whic generated by the
with the proposed development and 1.75 acres is associated xisting conditions
reaches the point of analysis. h 1.45 acres is associated
ated with off-site drainage that
The points of analysis for the proposed project site are the same as for
site. The output data, from the hydrologic analysis model of th
indicates that the 100-year peak flow is equal to 6.26 the existing project
conditions contributing storm water runoff is equal to 3.20 e proposed project,
_ associated with the proposed water r cfs. The total area which the proposed
pment and 1.75 acres ise associated with off-site
drainage that reaches the point of analysis.
1.45 acres is
- 1.5 Conclusions
The proposed drainage system incorporates the design of a series
and swales to collect the entire 100-year peak flow from the proposed ditches, channels,
as contributing off-site flows. The sizing of the 4'. PVC pipe which conveys
from parcels 2 & 3 is in the hydraulic calculations P p°sed project site as well
drains on parcels 2 & 3 are also in the hydraulic calculation the runoff
1n this report. The sizing for the area
priority treatment swales is included in the hydraulic calculations. The '
s• The sizing of the non-
brow ditch is included in the hydraulic calculations. The treatment
85' minimum in length to reach a nine minute residence sizing of the D-75
site exceeds 200' in length. Sizing of the treatment sw swale will need of ct
hydraulic calculations section. The treatment period. The in this s our project
atment swale isesizedstoshandlet 1.33 cfs. in the
project is required to treat 0.60 cfs. The driveway has been sized to ha
Sizing of the driveway is in the hydraulic calculations of this cfs. This
outlet onto Vulcan Ave from the driveway and will be co handle the 6.26 cfs.
the existing conditions. Therefore, the drainages stem report. The runoff will
sized i safely collect and convey the 100- e conveyed north ro Vulcan Ave by
Y design for the proposed project is
00-y ear peak flow.
MAHydrology&Hydraulics1123111231 HYDRO.doo
PE#1231 1:41 PM 2/22/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 99.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 83.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 385.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0429
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.032
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.31
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.71
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.12
Tc(MIN.) = 10.04
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.12 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.31
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.71
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1.20 = 385.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
--------------------------------------
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.032
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.52 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.10
TC(MIN) = 10.04
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
-------------------------------------
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 83.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 77.10
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 262.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0225
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.783
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.10
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.18
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.04
Tc(MIN.) = 11.09
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.52 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.10
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.18
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1.10 = 647.00 FEET.
MAHydrology&Hydraulics11231\1231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 81
------------------------------------------------------
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.783
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.94 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.74
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.46 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.84
TC(MIN) = 11.09
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 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.) = 11.09
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.78
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.46
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.84
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 7
-------------------------
----------------------
»»>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE««<
USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN) = 10.41 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.94
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.63 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.23
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 51
--------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««<
»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 78.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 77.10
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 110.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0136
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.778
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.23
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.61
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.70
Tc(MIN.) = 11.11
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.23
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.61
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1.10 = 110.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 1
--------------------------------------------
»»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««<
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics11231\1231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
»»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««<
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.11
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.78
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.63
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.23
** CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 4.84 11.09 3.783 2.46
2 1.23 11.11 3.778 0.63
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 6.07 11.09 3.783
2 6.07 11.11 3.778
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.07 Tc(MIN.) = 11.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.09
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1.10 =
647.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 51
--------------------
»»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< -----------------------------
--»»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 77.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 70.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 230.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0309
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.577
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.07
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.81
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.01
Tc(MIN.) = 12.09
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.07
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.81
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE
1.00 = 877.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 81
---------------- ___________________
------------------ ___
»»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.577
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) :
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/1812005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.26
TC(MIN) = 12.09
END OF STUDY SUMMARY;
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.20 TC(MIN.) = 12.09
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.26
----------------------------------------- ___
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
M:1Hydrology&Hydraulics11231\1231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
4.0 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
Worksheet for DRIVEWAY IN EASEMENT
Project Description
Flow Element: Triangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.016
Channel Slope: 0.04000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope: 0.33 ft/ft(H:V)
Right Side Slope: 50.00 ft/ft(H:V)
Discharge: 3.10 ft'/s
Results
Normal Depth: 0.18 ft
Flow Area: 083 fv
Wetted Perimeter: 9.28 ft
Top Width: 9.15 ft
Critical Depth: 0.25 ft
Critical Slope: 0.00762 ft/ft
Velocity: 3.73 ft/s
Velocity Head: 0.22 ft
Specific Energy: 0.40 ft
Froude Number: 2.18
Flow Type: Supercritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft
Length: 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps: 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth: 0.00 It
Profile Description:
Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft
Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s
Upstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s
Normal Depth: 0.18 It
Critical Depth: 0.25 ft
Channel Slope: 0.04000 Rift
Critical Slope: 0.00762 tuft
Cross Section for DRIVEWAY IN EASEMENT
Project Description
Flow Element: Triangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Section Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.016
Channel Slope: 0.04000
ft/ft
Normal Depth: 0.18
ft
Left Side Slope: 0
Wit(H:V)
Right Side Slope: 50.00
ft/ft(H:V)
Discharge: 3.10
ft/s
r/
0.18 ft
V. 1
H: 1
Worksheet for DRIVEWAY
Project Description
Flow Element: irregular Section
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Input Data
Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft
Discharge: 6.26 ft/s
Options
Current Roughness Weighted Meths ImprovedLotters
Open Channel Weighted Roughness ImprovedLotters
Closed Channel Weighted Roughnes Horton
Results
Roughness Coefficient: 0.018
Water Surface Elevation: 0.43 ft
Elevation Range: 0.00 to 0.92 ft
Flow Area: 2.79 ft2
Wetted Perimeter: 20.02 ft
Top Width: 19.50 ft
Normal Depth: 0.43 ft
Critical Depth: 0.43 ft
Critical Slope: 0.00900 ft/ft
Velocity: 2.25 ft/s
Velocity Head: 0.08 ft
Specific Energy: 0.50 ft
Froude Number: 1.05
Flow Type: Supercritical
Segment Roughness
Start Station End Station Roughness
Coefficient
(0+00,0.92) (0+09,0.25) 0.015
(0+09.0.25) (0+12,0.25) 0.030
(0+12,0.25) (0+21.0.92) 0.015
Section Geometry
Station Elevation
Worksheet for DRIVEWAY
Station Elevation
0+00 0.92
0+00 0.92
0+01 0.42
0+09 0.25
0+09 0.00
0+12 0.00
0+12 0.25
0+20 0.42
0+20 0.92
0+21 0.92
Cross Section for DRIVEWAY
Project Description
Flow Element: Irregular Section
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Section Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.018
Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft
Normal Depth: 0.43 It
Elevation Range: 0.00 to 0.92 It
Discharge: 6.26 ft/S
0.43 ft
L
19.50 It
Y: 1
H:1
Worksheet for TREATMENT CHANNEL
Project Description
Flow Element: Rectangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.030
Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft
Normal Depth: 0.25 ft
Bottom Width: 3.00 ft
Results
Discharge: 1.33 ft/s
Flow Area: 0.75 ff=
Wetted Perimeter: 3.50 It
Top Width: 3.00 It
Critical Depth: 0.18 ft
Critical Slope: 0.02694 ft/ft
Velocity: 177 ft/s
Velocity Head: 0.05 ft
Specific Energy: 0.30 It
Froude Number: 0.63
Flow Type: Subcrttical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft
Length: 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps: 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft
Profile Description:
Profile Headloss: 0.00 It
Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s
Upstream Velocity: Infinity ff/s
Normal Depth: 0.25 ft
Critical Depth: 0.18 ft
Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft
Critical Slope: 0.02694 ft/ft
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
1.6 References
"San Diego County Hydrology Mamral", revised June 2003, County of San Diego,
Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section.
"Drainage Design Manual", City of San Diego, April 1984, addendum March 1989.
"Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance/Chapter", City of Encinitas,
Engineering Services and Community Development Department, revised November
2002.
"California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 2001-01, " California
Regional Water Control Board, San Diego Region (SDRWQCB).
"City of Encinitas Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual, Part A Storm
Water Manual for New Development and Redevelopment, " City of Encinitas, Revised
April 9, 2003.
"City of Encinitas Storm Water Program Best Management Practices Manual, "City of
Encinitas.
"Chapter 20.08, Storm Water Management, Ordinance 2002-14, "City of Encinitas.
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this report
Q
utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, =CIA. The RM formula estimates the peak
rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity.
The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to:
I= 7.44xP6 xD
Where:
I =Intensity(in/hr)
P6= 6-hour precipitation(inches)
D = duration(minutes—use Tc)
Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given element of
water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the
point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed. The RM equation determines
the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow (typically in cubic feet
per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons per minute (gpm)). The RM equation is as
follows:
Q = CIA
Where:
Q=flow (in cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water
runoff(runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc)
I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the
area, in inches per hour.
A= drainage area contributing to the basin in acres.
The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to
the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a .
raindrop falls at the most remote of rainfall that arrives at the
o pthetrunoff coefficient
RM also assumes that the fraction
C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number.
In addition to the above Ration Method assumptions, the conservative assumption that all
runoff coefficients utilized for this report are based on type"D" soils.
2.2 County of San Diego Criteria
As defined by the County Hydrology Manual dated June 2003, the rational method is the
preferred equation for determining the hydrologic characteristics of basins up to
approximately one square mile in size. The County of San Diego has developed its own
tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing storm water runoff for areas within
M:Wydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/1812005
TREATMENT CHANNEL
Cross Section for TREATMENT CHANNEL
Project Description
Flow Element: Rectangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For. Discharge
Section Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.030
Channel Slope:
0.01000 ftlft
Normal Depth:
0.25 ft
Bottom Width:
3.00 ft
Discharge:
1.33 ft'!s
T
0.25 ft
3.00 ft
Y 1
H:1
Halcyon 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(F7) D(F7) 3* CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE
n/a 0.2 4 2 3 11.31 12" x 12"YARD DRAIN
Worksheet for 4" PVC PIPE
Project Description
Flow Element: Circular Pipe
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Full Flow Capacity
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.010 ItIft
Channel Slope: 0.01100 It
Diameter:
0.33 ft
Results
Discharge:
0.25 ft%s
Normal Depth:
0.33 ft
Flow Area:
0.09
Wetted Perimeter: 1.04 ft
Top Width: 0.00 It
Critical Depth: 0.28 It
Percent Full: 100.0 %
Critical Slope: 0.01033 ft!ft
Velocity: 2.95
ft!s
Velocity Head: 0.14 It
Specific Energy:
0.47 ft
Froude Number: 0.00
Maximum Discharge: 0.27 ft 3/s
Discharge Full: 0.25 ft3/s
Slope Full: 0.01100 ft ft
Flow Type: SubCritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft
Length: 0.00 It
Number Of Steps: 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft
Profile Description:
Profile Headloss: 0.00 It
Average End Depth Over Rise: 0.00 %
Normal Depth Over Rise: 1.00 %
Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s
Worksheet for 4" PVC PIPE
Upstream Velocity:
Infinity ft/s
Normal Depth:
0.33 ft
Critical Depth:
0.28 ft
Channel Slope:
0.01100 ft ft
Critical Slope:
0.01033 ft ft
Cross Section for V PVC PIPE
Project Description
F Circular Pipe
Flow Element:
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Full Flow Capacity
Section Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.010
001100 ft ft
.
Channel Slope: ft
Normal Depth: 0.33
ft
Diameter: 0.33
fNls
Discharge:
0.25
0 0.33 ft 1.33 ft
V: 1
H:1
Worksheet for D-75 DITCH
Project Description
Flow Element: Triangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Discharge
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.013
Channel Slope:
0.01000 ft ft
ft
Normal Depth:
1.00
Left Side Slope:
2.00 ft/ft(H:V)
Right Side Slope:
2.00 ft/ft(H.V)
Results ft'/s
Discharge: 13.37
ft2
Flow Area: 2.00
Wetted Perimeter:
4.47 ft
ft
Top Width:
4.00
Critical Depth: 1.23 ft
Critical Slope:
ft/
0.00336 ft/s
Velocity: 6.68
Velocity Head:
0.69 ft
Specific Energy:
1.69
ft
Froude Number. 1.67
Flow Type: Supercritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth:
0.00 ft
Length: 0.00 ft
Number Of Steps: 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth:
0.00 ft
Profile Description:
Profile Headloss:
0.00 ft
ft/s
Infinity Downstream Velocity:
Upstream Velocity: Infinity ft/S
Normal Depth:
100 ft
Critical Depth:
1.23 ft
Channel Slope:
0.01000 ft ft
Critical Slope:
0.00336 ft ft
Cross Section for D-75 DITCH
Project DesalPtion
Triangular Channel
Flow Element:
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Discharge
Section Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.013
Wit 0.01000
Channel Slope: It
Normal Depth: 1.00
2.00 tt/ft(H:V)
Left Side Slope: Wit(H:V)
Right Side Slope: 2.00
ft
Discharge:
13.37 �s
T7 T
1.00 ft
V:1
H: 1
Worksheet for NON-PRIORITY SWALE
Project Description
Flow Element: Triangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.030
Channel Slope:
0.01000 ft ft
Left Side Slope:
10.00 ft/ft(H:V)
Right Side Slope:
10.00 ft/ft(H��
ft'!s
Discharge:
0.79
Results ft
Normal Depth: 0.25
Flow Area:
0.64 ft
ft
Wetted Perimeter.
5.07
Top Width:
5.05 ft
Critical Depth:
0.21 ft
Critical Slope:
0.02808 ft/ft
ft/s
Velocity: 1.24
Velocity Head:
0.02 ft
Specific Energy:
0.28 ft
Froude Number: 0.62
Flow Type: Subcritical
GVF Input Data It
Downstream Depth: 0.00
Length:
0.00 ft
Number Of Steps: 0
GVF Output Data ft
Upstream Depth: 0.00
Profile Description:
Profile Headloss:
0.00 ft
Downstream Velocity:
Infinity ft s
Upstream Velocity:
Infinity ft/
Normal Depth:
0.25 ft
Critical Depth:
0.21 ft
Channel Slope:
0.01000 ft/ft
Critical Slope:
0.02808 ft/ft
Cross Section for NON-PRIORITY SWALE
Project Description
Flow Element: Triangular Channel
Friction Method: Manning Formula
Solve For: Normal Depth
Section Data
Roughness Coefficient: 0.030
Channel Slope:
0.01000 ft/ft
Normal Depth:
0.25 ft
Left Side Slope:
10.00 ft/ft(H:V)
Right Side Slope: 10.00 r/ (H:�
Discharge:
0.79 fr/s
0.25 It
V 1 b
H:1
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
5.085 TH PERCENTILE PEAK FLOW AND GRASSY SWALE DESIGN
M:\Hydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
� r
n
m 09 ef
Gn
f a �
0
1
1
Grassy Swale Design Spreadsheet
Given:
Design flow 0.6 cfs
Residence time (req) 9 minutes
Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters:
y 0.25 feet
t 3 feet
w 3 feet
z 50 ft/ft
A 3.875 sq ft
Find Qmax of channel: Find Velcoity in channel
V=Q/A
Q= (1.49/n) *A*R"(2/3) *s^.5 Therefore:
n 0.2 V= 0.154839 fps
s 0.03 ft/ft (long. Slope)
r 0.508197 ft
Q= 3.18427 cfs
Required Length of Channel:
L=vt
Therefore:
L= 83.6129
L= 100
S
Height V
Qpeak= Peak flow rate,cfs d
1 _ 1
SS1 SS2
W
Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet
HYDROLOGY STUDY for Halcyon Road
PE 1231
6.0 APPENDIX
MAHydrology&Hydraulics\1 231\1 231 HYDRO.doc
PE#1231 11:48 AM 2/18/2005
fi
VJ;
O
cd
cd
� � •� 7 ���t X83 si iF
«i a, g5q
In y y.
� � E
Q p as
LU
^ ;
o x�' ;, z °I*-
U
g Imperial County e
- � N
7
3.
' `�•'�-• SLSu
.St.9t L •�• � •'
trr:
c
..
� �• - _ — AS.ML
M—Stt h' ......... U
...........
..._..
..._
r 6t- i `" S4.9Lt
watt •• � � _�'` ....
� is 4i' r•,••• ,— •-4E....-
. •,.__•.
SL.Ltt
P av�
LI£.LLL ry
�2.
OU
g �
Q
_
�
Imperial County
ep
Stdtt
`
cr
��AWAWM-W�W-�
MMM I MA Wr A-Am Ma
��Amr~�'=I-AZ"WWA An WAZ
'A�
n
EMS =LAO uwmz= a
,27
TA� 'i
=rAmWAwM=rA== muumuu
MrAMV
A! AN
=�IWA,WAFAVAMMOW
WA
mum ��MWALFS A91M
Uzz ArA
WAWAM.24 RMWAM
Aiir"A
'Alir ,
'Alir 'A
'Alir 'A
'A
No IMMOMMAWAUJAFRPLAN 0
MIN
Mm --MM
C
a w M-
MwAwmAMW
w�,
AW= samommuffum
on a
�A
Minas
5�Em
WWAWAZAMW�A ow on mm
,jr�"%AO W�EW WA
A
WAN
AWA
MAW IVA MIND,=
Wj]MFAFJ
1 OWAWAK MEN
r1m lion
POWArA IMA MMA ON
Y'Ams"A
WA
m
go W,d
AWFAI �—WA U
ArAMWA
c
O
03
c �
N to 4n r-
to Y1 to %0 r-: 00 00 00 00 y
en N A O O C O O C G O C C O C O O O 0 to
4.
O v
4.
04 4.
O %C N to 00 V• 0% 00 00 .... V• e` i •••
() M M V; d' V' h h %0 %0 [•t• r- 00 co 00 oC
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v^U1 too
C u
V C
d C
O U H w E
be
4L) es
..
V]0. C O
ch
•�,U, of N oo 00 l— [— 'tom O V' V• r- -
/n %0 n r- 00 00 a0 00 es
p C C O C o o O L6 O O O O O O O •U
ens
0 5 S
Q' >
N �n \O �C �O O M
N
C G C O O C G C G C O C C O O •p u
•U
C
a * o o Wn o o kn o %n o o U
v, %0 00 00 00 m ch p, r
u
F 0.4 o
V
id a
.0
O V w w V v a a ¢ a ¢
—v V y V V V V
u:1R .2 1. 4. F 'W E
O O O O 2 O O o o O a a
a a u o
h o-
.
a a b
F. W jo E-
C -ti
U O O O� M M O � �• e�1 .d in m y �p
lV N V• l w •-• N V' p F
N m m m at as a^n _as
u aFi •u nFi u •°i u d •a°i � � u u t..° � 3 u .
;o ;v_ ;o ;c ;o ;c ;o � ;d •� u v � c � �
y N y h y
o O
.d
O
C
0 0
n n n 4" 94 E E O O O U
6�n c Aa A 0 i e m ,e C U U c..
o c c a c 0 O .a C� '-
O E u tC C4 C* 'O 'd 'O 'b .� v .d y .a y O
N f ' C C O vi 'N 'in to C C W 00 R tC u
w u u u u v u u .d b E 5 5 5 '� 1° a s
o c b b c H %;. g R
/A N y u .2 C Z C C C C C as U V y .0
C jN
z •o �' �' �.' u a0i u u .�'_' �' � � is % a � „�• C 3 w
U
a a
Cn
0 0 90 A Z
rn A ,� ,� ,S x U u U U
rl� VO� ?� � IqqIG l 1 _•1 1 N � VI N N
S m m
t G E O
... O O O vim ^� `gym a
o 'A
C t i t.i'•d v U I 1 I 1 i ..
V E L O aa N O'
C O
� 0'. Ov
C r ° C O C
appOpe O
LEOO • c f»r4. n
h ` 111
r 6 l
46 D W
Q�1.W w V
w o cts
a+-I HE-v y 100
_
0 P11 N 1 y - C N G ^ !
(,, L. v Oc
•G Y
" rQ� m� f
O G Of 1 to n
ib,
0
6
a MO D .-
c m}
1 �►• a �� �Ka os E
L L • 9 O � 6
oo `` •�t
} 9 0 E
N Of C O • 7 C V O � ~
O 0 E y 'O U ! C t v a
L L:9 t J W 1�' 'D" O .p c +.IN. yt 1 31- }
c Ch
us
49- C4 cc
lo
q a cLt 1 4- 60 C Pf +O-
.� �_8
c N � D s
a � o � O a, o�
= O
86
N bbd $
C �
o+
a �t Y a
c o o jo. 30. N �} O fN^^�O�N�•• Q M
O "C 0
— a �
1 I
1
_.11
1
1 l AI
I 11
i.f
.II
r:1.
i hl
f,4
1
i
1'
2 '
1
► 3 1
1
1
1
b'
1
1
b�
1
1
1
1
0
o�
b'
1
1.
1
1•
i