1994-4119 G1pmU -1,�l
AUG 01 1995
ENu!NF _RI',G SER'. !c:
CITY OF ENUNI
I
J/%SA John A Sayers and Associates
Geotechnical Consultants
J
EL CAMINO REAL CENTER
ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
FOR
SOIL RETENTION SYSTEMS
W.O. 563 -1 -01 - JULY 27, 1995
Jf%SA John A Sayers and Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants
Soil Retention Systems
6120 Paseo Del Norte, Suite Q -1
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Attention: Mr. Jan Jansson
July 27, 1995
W.O. 563 -1 -01
Subject: Loffel Wall Structural Design, El Camino Real Retail Center, Encinitas, San Diego
County, California
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to present the structural design and
supporting calculations for the proposed geogrid reinforced wall to be located adjacent to the proposed
building No. 1 of the El Camino Real Retail Center in Encinitas, California.
Based on a review of the submitted plan prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, the maximum proposed
exposed wall heights will be 8± feet. Baclfill behind the walls will be level with a surcharge from
the proposed structure.
Strength parameters for soil were obtained from the geotechnical engineer of record for the project,
Robert Prater & Associates. Soils which will be used in the reinforced zone should possess a
minimum internal angle of friction of 30 degrees. Direct shear testing should be performed during
construction on proposed fill soils to verify strength parameters.
The proposed geogrid (Miragrid 10T) has been assigned a long term design strength (LTDS) of 3000
lb/ft as determined by Mirafi, Inc., the grid manufacturer.
The calculations included herein address internal and external stability of the soil reinforced wall
only. "Global" Stability of the overall slope should be performed by the geotechnical engineer of
record.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you should have any questions, please call.
submitted,
& ASSOCIATES
JS /mw
Dist: (8) Addressee
Encl: Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Local Wall Stability Analysis
Plate I - Structural Plan
27071 Cabot Road, Suite 101 • Laguna Hills, California 92653 -7009 • (714) 582 -2144
Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls (1993), National Concrete, Masonry Association
2. "Geotechnical Investigation, El Camino Real Retail Center, Encinitas, California "; Prepared
by Robert Prater & Associates, dated January 18, 1994
JOHN A SAYERS & ASSOCIATES
CALCULATIONS FOR LOFFEL WALL DESIGN
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
using the NCMA design manual for SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS
EL CAMINO REAL CENTER,ENCINITAS, CA
10.3 FT. MAX. HT. LOFFEL WALL
STATIC CALCULATION
SOIL PARAMETERS
--------- - - - - --
Soil parameters in degrees unless noted
Peak internal friction angle of retained soil 30
Peak internal friction angle of reinforced soil 30
Peak internal friction angle of base soil 34
External interface friction angle 20
Backslope angle 0
Wall batter angle ( +from vertical) 30
Depth of Embedment 1.6 ft
Foundation soil cohesion 100 psf
Coulomb failure angle for reinforced soils 43.9
Coulomb failure angle for retained soils 43.9
Horizontal ground acceleration 0 g -ft /sec *sec
Unit weight of retained soil 125 pcf
Unit weight of reinforced soil 125 pcf
-------------------------------
EXTERNAL STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Ka ret= .121344
Ka rein= .121344
Live surcharge load= 0 psf
Dead surcharge load= 500 psf
Bearing capacity factors (Nc, Nq, & Ny):
Nc= 30
Nq= 18
Ny= 22
embedment= 1.6
Base Grid length= 5
Wall height= 10.29173 ft
Number of blocks= 19
check against base sliding
--------------------------
Weight of reinforced soil= 6432.331 lbs
Weight of overburden= 0 lbs [Eq.5 -14]
Psoil= 791.0914 [Eq.5 -5]
Psurcharge= 586.7629 [Eq.5 -6]
Seismic loading= 0
Total Horizontal Load= 1377.854
Sliding Resistance= 5846.826 lbs
check against overturning
------------------- - - - - --
Resisting moment= 50649.69 ft -lbs
Overturning moment= 5733.302 ft -lbs
check for adequate bearing capacity
----------------------------- - - - - --
Bearing capacity factors
Nc= 30
Ny= 22
Nq= 18
Qult= 5098.691 lbs [Eq.5 -25]
Qa= 1619.796 lbs [Eq.5 -24]
B =- 1.091861 ft [Eq.5 -22]
ECCENTRICITY 3.045931
Wall height= 10.29173 ft
---------------------
--------------- - - - - --
Soil self weight(inte
Grid spacing measured
Number blocks between
Number blocks between
Number blocks between
Number blocks between
Number of grids 4
[Eq.5 -13]
FSliding= 4.243428 [Eq.5 -15]
(Eq.5 -9]
(Eq.5 -11]
[Eq.5 -16]
[Eq.5 -20]
FSot= 8.834296 [Eq.5 -21]
FSbearing= 3.147736 [Eq.5 -26]
-------------------------------
INTERNAL STABILITY
-------------------------------
rnal calcs.), Pal= 1406.025 lbs
in blocks
layer 0 and layer 1 2
layer 1 and layer 2 4
layer 2 and layer 3 4
layer 3 and layer 4 4
E(x)= distance from base of wall up to layer x
Ac(x) = contributory area of grid x [Eq.5 -36]
D(x) =dist. below top of wall to middle of contributory area [Eq.5 -41]
Fg(x) =force in geosynthetic layer x [Eq.5 -35]
E(
1 )=
1.08334
Ac(
1 )=
2.16668
E(
2 )=
3.25002
Ac(
2 )=
2.16668
E(
3 )=
5.4167
Ac(
3 )=
2.16668
E(
4 )=
7.58338
Ac(
4 )=
3.791689
D(
1 )=
9.208389
Fg(
1 )=
427.4887
D(
2 )=
9.208389
Fg(
2 )=
427.4887
D(
3 )=
7.041709
Fg(
3 )=
357.3642
D(
4 )=
1.895844
Fg(
4 )=
333.9325
Safety Factors WRT overstress [Eq.5 -30]
FS overstress in layer(
1
)= 7.01773
with 3000
lb grid
FS overstress in layer(
2
)= 7.01773
with 3000
lb grid
FS overstress in layer(
3
)= 8.394797
with 3000
lb grid
FS overstress in layer(
4
)= 8.983852
with 3000
lb grid
Safety
Factors WRT reinforcement
pullout
[Eq.5 -43]
Layer( 1 ) gridlength =
5
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 1
)= 10.09646
Layer( 2 ) gridlength =
6
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 2
)= 8.439806
Layer( 3 ) gridlength =
7
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 3
)= 8.1144
Layer( 4 ) gridlength =
8
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 4
)= 6.56344
(The grid length used in all external stability calcs. is 5 ft.)
Safety Factor WRT internal sliding [Eq.5 -47]
FS internal sliding in layer( 1 )= 3.532125
FS internal sliding in layer( 2 )= 4.78999
FS internal sliding in layer( 3 )= 7.827799
FS internal sliding in layer( 4 )= 109.3116
CALCULATIONS FOR LOFFEL WALL DESIGN
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
using the NCMA design manual for SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS
EL CAMINO REAL CENTER,ENCINITAS, CA
10.3 FT. MAX. HT. LOFFEL WALL
4920 1P946COMOA001 VAJ 0told
Soil parameters
--------- - - - - --
Soil parameters in degrees unless noted
Peak internal friction angle of retained soil 30
Peak internal friction angle of reinforced soil 30
Peak internal friction angle of base soil 34
External interface friction angle 20
Backslope angle 0
Wall batter angle ( +from vertical) 30
Depth of Embedment 1.6 ft
Foundation soil cohesion 100 psf
Coulomb failure angle for reinforced soils 43.9
Coulomb failure angle for retained soils 43.9
Horizontal ground acceleration .15 g -ft /sec *sec
Unit weight of retained soil 125 pcf
Unit weight of reinforced soil 125 pcf
-------------------------------
EXTERNAL STABILITY CALCULATIONS
Ka ret = .121344
Ka rein = .121344
Live surcharge load= 0 psf
Dead surcharge load= 500 psf
Bearing capacity factors (Nc, Nq, & Ny):
Nc = 30
Nq = 18
Ny = 22
embedment = 1.6
Base Grid length= 5
Wall height= 10.29173 ft
Number of blocks= 19
check against base sliding
--------------------------
Weight of reinforced soil= 6432.331 lbs
Weight of overburden= 0 lbs [Eq.5 -14]
Psoil= 791.0914 [Eq.5 -5]
Psurcharge= 586.7629 [Eq.5 -6]
SEISMIC loading = 964.8496
Total Horizontal Load= 2342.704
Sliding Resistance= 5846.826 lbs
check against overturning
------------------- - - - - --
Resisting moment= 50649.69 ft -lbs
Overturning moment= 11691.29 ft -lbs
check for adequate bearing capacity
----------------------------- - - - - --
Bearing capacity factors
Nc = 30
Ny = 22
Nq = 18
Qult= 7121.717 lbs [Eq.5 -25]
Qa= 1619.796 lbs [Eq.5 -24)
B= .3794303 ft [Eq.5 -22]
ECCENTRICITY 2.310285
Wall height= 10.29173 ft
Soil self weight(inte
Grid spacing measured
Number blocks between
Number blocks between
Number blocks between
Number blocks between
Number of grids 4
[Eq.5 -13]
FSliding= 2.49576 [Eq.5 -15]
[Eq.5 -9]
(Eq. 5-11)
[Eq. 5-16)
(Eq. 5-20]
FSot= 4.33226 [Eq.5 -21]
FSbearing= 4.396675 [Eq.5 -26]
--------------- - --
INTERNAL stability
rnal calcs.), Pal= 1406.025 lbs
in blocks
layer 0 and layer 1 2
layer 1 and layer 2 4
layer 2 and layer 3 4
layer 3 and layer 4 4
E(x)= distance from base of wall up to layer x
Ac(x) = contributory area of grid x (Eq.5 -36]
D(x) =dist. below top of wall to middle of contributory area [Eq.5 -41)
Fg(x) =force in geosynthetic layer x [Eq.5 -35]
E(
1 )=
1.08334
Ac(
1 )=
2.16668
E(
2 )=
3.25002
Ac(
2 )=
2.16668
E(
3 )=
5.4167
Ac(
3 )=
2.16668
E(
4 )=
7.58338
Ac(
4 )=
3.791689
D(
1 )=
9.208389
Fg(
1 )=
442.4844
D(
2 )=
9.208389
Fg(
2 )=
442.4844
D(
3 )=
7.041709
Fg(
3 )=
413.4041
D(
4 )=
1.895844
Fg(
4 )=
602.5919
Safety Factors WRT overstress [Eq.5 -30]
FS overstress in layer(
1
)= 6.7799
with 3000
lb grid
FS overstress in layer(
2
)= 6.7799
with 3000
lb grid
FS overstress in layer(
3
)= 7.256822
with 3000
lb grid
FS overstress in layer(
4
)= 4.978494
with 3000
lb grid
Safety
Factors WRT
reinforcement
pullout
[Eq.5 -43]
Layer( 1 ) gridlength =
5
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 1 )=
9.754292
Layer( 2 ) gridlength =
6
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 2 )=
8.153782
Layer( 3 ) gridlength =
7
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 3 )=
7.014434
Layer( 4 ) gridlength =
8
feet FS
pullout in
layer( 4 )=
3.637197
(The grid length used in all external stability calcs. is 5 ft.)
Safety Factor WRT internal sliding [Eq.5 -47]
FS internal sliding in layer( 1 )= 3.532125
FS internal sliding in layer( 2 )= 4.78999
FS internal sliding in layer( 3 )= 7.827799
FS internal sliding in layer( 4 )= 109.3116
A
"-- - -=1
3ru15 M!5 NOVIID531
3D1lD_d ONro' NDllii3l��10 38r.ED�id HINT3 :o -C 3ar.D!i
v1G G7tl• � SDS 13 -s i.Nh3: - vw 711 T c -mw m
r N.cC amp C :,L'aBr3 �vre:3t1C b - Tarr Y7.iaA mIJDM
♦ - 1 D [r
j end
D
i
i
i 1
V 3n'Y
mi 'Wahi1W
be om3M 31CuoRr3S
y tC =r VL ON 3"r M /
:JI9T.1 T'NJM tly 3L:, Jr
'i. -ve 4 od
:Z= r.'TlaA
b _qy-p- b
�1 C k 6 iiYT� •D 'D 'A� "TM, T.,w Z
'AlMOG US-IM, KLVr SK== 1II1 �- Dom/ I
-- fill=
AaM= CCNTnIEUTCRY AREA TO OE7�iHINE FFCRC=
IN RENFCRCE'4E4T, Fy e
D -OE =TH TO WOPOINi OF C.:Nr IEUTORY
AREA. A j
FA„1 -FCRC= W RENFCRC31E4T AT LAYER n
d- = a DEPTH OF CNEREURCEV GVE7
RENFCRCEVENT A14 -GRACE LCNG�N, L.bj
a; = CRILNTATCN OF INTERNAL FAILURE SURFAC
E; =E EVAMCN OF LAYER n AECVE REFEiCiC--
OA—,UU
E.'.1 -U ==UE E'VAPCN OF LAYER n AECVE
RUERLNCE OATUM (` c_ 5 -30)
L..,1 -ANC iCRACE L"�G'ri OF LAYER n
AC. - ANC:-!CRAGE CAPAC.T. CF LAYER n
H, - L-r = -1i/E MEG;-'T (SE= E]_ 4 -3)
q. =OEAO LCAO SURCHARGE
q, — L1VE LCAO SURCHARGE
q = Y.CRIZCNTAL PRE=,URE (SEE F:G. 5 -1)
Y - WAL_ INC;'NA—,,CN C- -;, 1
F
AI4d0)
I
A .—
Acm
A .0)
L
a; =5c= E ;. 3 -13
dy:
W
ER.)
FICURE 5 -5: FCFcCES & STRESSES USED IN CA.LCUTATICN CF INTERVAL
STA.EIUTY FCF, GcOS ;'N T HE iC SOIL REINFORCED SRW
t7
C
77
fn
N
I
N
�Om
Fli
a1
�kTm
D�
r p
(n 2
1�
I_T) 0
jEt Cp
n�
—<
�o
I;;n
-I
O u)
Z 0
Mr-
fn
z
"n
O
a'1
t7
m
u
In
al
2
WALL INCLINATION:
i -wails
Ih
N If
7
Lr
14f ..1.0/2 — 1 qa
r� I r ql
I t�
I I
h
WV _I.
Wr
lb I
t.
L —�— 2e —I
04 APPLIED FOIINRATION
PRESSIIAL
REARINQ CAPACITY IS GOVERNFR BY
PRIIIIOATION SOIL PROPERTIES
e,
qj -REAP MAD SURCHARGE
ql .LIVE TOAD SIIRCIIARGE
P, '(4 �41K.hl,.n)co�U,
P.
111, 4 hI/ 1
P
hl /7
PRESSURE AT HACK
OF REINFORCED
CON to
ZONE
lonHT'ont
Lp- I:fl.'
I��I.AIonP
P. -P, i P,
A, - ENTERNAI.
INTERFACE FRICTION ANGI E - of OR •,
K,- IISING COIII.ON13 EQUATION ] -ID
REIAINEO
SOIL I'NOPERNES (1I)
II.-EFFECTIVE
HEIGHT SEE Eq. 4 -3
NOI E; IF
Io -O. 11, .-I I
A.i
AC,
a.
NOTATIONS & ABBREVIATIONS
contributory area %r tensile load in e e = ec=ascry of =ultanr ve^cal bearng
lave. of tciriiorc=meat (ft), aerially t:, fore_ (ft)
but unit width urde -stood
anchomgc cipacry `or nth zinforcmcm
Jaye: (lb /ft)
apparent minimum ultimate cormce Zon
srreagth be :wcca gcosynthe :ic
rrniorrment and segmental units (lbift)
a'.
= apparent minimum service state
cormecnon strength between geosynthenie
E.
reinforc:mcm and segmcntal units Obif:
ACS
= apparent opening size of the gratexnle
a,
= aucarcar minimum ultimate shcnr
FSy
epacry be weca segmental units kjbtft)
Y.
= aucarear minimum se.-.+ic: state shcr
C.
=r:aCry be-.we--r sc=ca3l :nits (lbrfr)
B
= equivalent footing width of a =asiimily
FC
loaded foundation base of soil reinforced
FS,tu
SR`,Vs (ft)
BE
= expanded footing width for gravity
SRWs (ft)
B'r
= equivaleat footing width for ccc:nniclly
loaded gravity SRWs (ft)
C
= cohes:oa of soil (psr)
Cy
= coefficient of dueC sliding
Cr
= cohesion of foundation soil (psf)
q
= coeffcent of shear stress inte,acioa
CRF
= =-2p reduction favor for geosynthctic
reinforcement
d, = average depth of overburden of a' lave:
of reinforcement over the anchorage
length Lx.i
D. = depth to mid -point of contributory at=
of Aq,t of n' reinforc:ment layer (ft)
E,
= c:fc =ve e:evaaon of a' rc aforc= e
lave. above bearing nad c'evarion (ft)
E.
= elevation of a' re'nforczmear laver
FSn
above base of wall (f:)
C.
= ecGnQ:Cty of seif- we :gnr of reinforc=e
FSy
zoac Pius surcharge (ft)
E
= e- mcolarion atio
C.
= ccc=ncdty of gravity SR`+V (ft)
F3
= material Ic:or'or bioiagicil de2tadanon
FC
= mate-' ai factor for consntr &-on iim
FS,tu
damage
F7
= ma :tai `acor for c`e-:ici de- -caeca
FE = mater3l facoI for elrep ex— aapolarion
Fi,t = forc: in a' geosv»ede rc:=Orcme=
lave. (lb /ft)
FS,, = factor of safety, bearing c[pacry
FS90 = partial factor of safe:v for biologi 11
deTadadca (.fedod A)
FSc.
= partial factor of safety for chemical
degradation (Method A)
F%
= facmr of safety, coanecdon strength
FSn
= pawn! favor of safety for c:ep
de:or- mation (Meted A)
FSy
= factor of safe^, vobai s ability
FSm
= partial favor of safery for imcalladeo
dama¢e (;Vie tod A)
FS t
= .partial factor of safc:v for joints (scams
and cinncc -Ons) (Method A)
FS,tu
= partial fa=r of safety for mateaal
unc:rmiaries (Method A)
F%
= factor of satey, ove- rurmag
FSr
= f: c:or of safety, pullout
F5,
= bc-Dr of saftey, shear c=oadty
FS
= Etcmr or sate v, sliding
F;�
= LCMr of safey, tensrie ovcazcss
G.
= horizontal center of gravity of segmental
Jd5'c
unit (ft), vertical center of gravity
n
assumed at H„2
h
= inc- se in hcignt dare to bacsslope (ft)
H
= total height of wall (ft)
1i
= --.rased height of wall (ft)
FIv
= CDicoping height for sezmemal unit (ft)
H,
= efc^ve bc•ht for bartercd SRWs (ft)
Ei .
= total wall embedment (ft)
Ht
= hinge height of SRW (ft)
H,
= sc =nral unit height (ft)
y
= incdnation of SRW base (dcg)
K�
= acive earth pressure coefficent
normal pemeabiaity of a otezale (fVscc)
It,,, = soil permeability (ft/sec)
L' = width of reinforc--d zone at DOD of wall
(ft)
L" = intense in width due to backslope 0 (ft)
1-� = horizontal width of rc°nforc_-d zone at
intc -se -ou with baccslove. 0 (ft)
L r,� = ancbomge length for a' reinforc:ment
lave. (ft)
L = efecave length of reinforcement during
pullout test
]� = length of reinforcement at base of
internal sliding wedge (ft)
[' = width of trnforcd zoec at too of rail
for internal sliding on tte mall
reinforcement layer (t.)
i =
long term design strength (Ibrft)
L=S_
= long -term design strength of
,4. =
rcintorc=mcm ype a• jbrft)
L
= segmental unit len =--th (ft)
P. =
= ove nIIning moment (E,—lb/ft)
M
= resisting moment (ft,bift)
Jd5'c
= mechanically sabili ed nrth
n
= ntmbe: of an individual lave. of
reinforce:ncnr
i =
number of to nforcmcnt'.aye s in design
bearing ranac ^t �='or
,4. =
minimum numbe. of rein15017 cm
laves
P. =
active earth fore_ (Ibif:)
p =
acive earth fore-- acang ovc- then.
,
effec:ive height of the wall (lb/ft)
=
horizonal eomponcm of acive earth
force (lbift)
P,-,, =
total aeive earth force (Ibift)
p =
vc -M l c ^ ^• • ^f scavc c^h `or=
(Ib /ft)
ps =
resultant honzonal fotr_ due to acive
Garth pressure from uniform smcb2 ,a g
+ q, (lb /ft)
P,
resultant honzonml fort-- due to arve
earth pressure Lrcm soil se.f -tee :pr
(Ib /ft)
Q = applied bearing stress (psi)
01 or OA = uniform surcharge ioading
at tOD oC 0.211
(psf) (live or dean)
= Ultimate bearing --panty of fbundation
Q,. soils (psf)
R
= radius of porezmal slip carte in slope
W,
= se --east -unit width (ft)
stability analysis (ft)
W-
= weight of SRW unit including aggr=m
R,
= resultant veal bearing fore (lbift)
fill (!b)
R.
= resistance in direr: s: ear :mr t'ibift)
W-
= we:g^t ofsc3mental Ctaimng wall (ThIc"
Rz„
= sum of the resistanc= of all
X
= momcat arm for W, A
reinforesmenr lavca above the a' laver
(lbift)
X,
= momcat arm for W. (ft)
R„
= resistant= in puilour rsr (lb/f.')
Ys
= moment arm for P, (ft)
R,
= sliding resismnc= at base of soil
Y.
= moment arm for P, (fr)
rcinforc =d SRW (Ibrft)
Q,
= IIIO:1naC0II OC Coulomb 5llule SuI;a=
R•,
= base sliding -esisanc for Lnm :--al sliding
for e. Ie nal smbiliry (deg)
wedge (Ibifr)
CL
= inclination of Coulomb failure surac=
RSA
= sliding resisranc at base of SRW units
for rote nal stability (dc;)
(Ib /ft)
�
= 6ac',il slope an¢!e. from 'lpczontai IT
S,
= facing coanc-cuon sneagda (ibiF)
too of wall (deg)
Sat ;V
= se=e-tal maining wail
= Stec-. of daish Fade at :oe of wail (de_;
t
= time (hr)
= moist unit weigin Of drainage U tPc
t�
= time limit for design. i.e.. design life (hr)
Yr
= moil: unit weight of fDUndation soil (pc
T;,,,
= index tensile strength (lbift)
Tr
= moist unit weight of inlill soil (pa)
%
= limit state teastie strength (Ibift)
T
= moist unit wcght of retained soil (pc)
Tp
= m=c-,arure CC)
Y.
= weight per unit volume for se -ratan
units as plac=d including soil in
.
= sign
i� "j
Ce'vJUTp,
Tp„(
= tempe:arum CC)
b,
= wall to soil friction angle for exm: al
stability analysis (de;)
tr
= the number of diff6mat remforc==1
in design
d,
= wall to sail friction angle for inte rnal
types
stability analysis (deg)
t,,;
= refc.enr_ time of known ce p
pc- ror'nanc= Of :einforczment (hr)
AI_
= reduction in resiS n° IC=Tlt Of the
geos•/nthe_c -einfO==eat (ft)
V,
= ma cmum shear fortes eapacty at any
= setback pc: course (m-)
irate fac= be weca segmental units (Ib /ft)
A.
V.
= shear caoacty between scgmcatal units
c,
= performance limit snuin of gensvnrhenc
(Ib /ft)
reiaforc =meat
W,
= weight of the reinforced zone (Ibifi)
e
= inclination ante at the base of slit in
slope stability analysis (deg)
yb = apparent angle of frcaon for peak
connection strength of segmental units to
gcosynthezic rcmforemear (deg)
ti = aooarent angle of frieaon be we =n
segmental units for peak shear =parry
(deZ)
�'e
= apparent angle of eaczoa for service
state Connection strength of segmenral
units to geosvnthetic zinforcmcat (dc,)
t
anoareat angle of frcaon between
segmental [nits for sc:vic. sate shear
=party (deg)
A
= coe2!jcem of ime—faa friction for
sezricaral unit sliding on soils
J.
= ac:ive earth pressure (psz)
G.
= normal s :ess (psf)
J
= ve.ac3l soil stress (ps)
P4
= angle of intemal t7:c=pC d_uirzagc fill
(deg)
of
= angle of imernal friction. foundation soil
(dr g)
IN = angle of internal friction. retained sort
(deg)
h = angle of internal fricfioa inU soil (deg)
17 = total wall inclination from vez'acl
c;ocdwise positive (CO-ij (deg)
m = unit inclination due to setback per SBW
unit H. (deg)
[Eq. 5 -11
[Eq. 5 -21
L' = L - W" (cos iy)
L" = L, tan B tan
1 - tan B tan w
:Eq. 5 -31 L, = L' + L"
:Eq.
5 -41
h =
L, tan 0
:Eq.
5 -51
Pa
O.SKa yr(H" +
WCOS(d" - t)
Eq.
5 -61
Pq
(q, + %) K" (He
+ h) cos (a. - r)
Eq.
5 -71
Yo _
(HQ +h) /3
_Eq.
5 -81
Yq =
(He + h) /2
iEq.
5 -91
Ps =
Ps + Pq
[Eq.
5 -101
Ro
Cds (qd L, +Wr())
+ Wr(,)) tan ¢{
[Eq.
5 -111
Rs =
Cd. (qdL, + Wr(t)
+ Wr(,,)) tan¢d
[Eq.
5 -121
Rg
Cd+[cf L + (qd
L, +Wr(i) + Wrod tan ¢f1
'Eq.
5 -131
Wr())
= Lyi H*
Eq.
5 -141
Wro)
- (L' y,L, sin #) / (2cos Q)
[Eq. 5 -15]
(Eq. 5 -16]
[Eq. 5 -17]
FSa( = Rs /Ps
Mr = Wr()) XrCi) + Wr(G) Xr(i) + qd L, Xgco)
Xr()) _ (L + Hs tan 0 / 2
(Eq. 5 -18]
Wr0) = Hs tan - Hu tan m + [COS [ ( (L' + h tan *) /cos 0) + L' COS p] /31 +
Wu cos ib + (L' sin 2p) /3
(Eq. 5 -191 XqC,) = L + [(Hs + h) tan *1 - (L, /2)
[Eq. 5 -201 Ms - Ps Ys + Pq Yq
[Eq. 5 -211 FSot = Mr /Mo
[Eq. 5 -221 B - L - 26
Eq. 5 -23]
Pays + PgYq - Wr(i)(Xr(i) - L /2) - Wr(s) (Xr0) - L /2) - qdL +(Xq(,) - L /2)
Wr(i) + WrCs) + qd L.
Eq. 5 -241 as = [Wr(t) + Wrw + (qt + qd) L,] /B
Eq. 5 -25] Qutt = CENe+0.5yfBN7+-tfH,bNq
.Eq. 5 -261 FSba - Qutt /Qs
tEq. 5 -27] Ps• = 0.5% y) Hat COS (b) - *)
Eq.
5 -281
Pq'
_ (q( + %) Ke He cos 0i - �)
Eq.
5 -291
Pe'
= Pe' + Pq'
Eq.
5 -301
FSte
= LTDStr(n) -17w)
Eq.
5 -351
F9(n)
= (7; Dn + a( + qdl K. cos (b) Accn)
Eq.
5 -361
Ac(l)
_ (Ee(2) + Ee(t)) / 2
Eq.
5-371
Ac(n)
= ( (Ee(mt) + Ee(n)) /21 - (Ee(n) +EKn -t)) /21
.Eq.
5-381
Ac(n)
_ (Ee(n•t) - Ee(n -t)) /2
LEq.
5-391
Accts)
= He - EEO(M) + Ee(N -u) / 21
(Eq.
5 -401
Di =
He - (Acct) / 2)
(Eq. 5 -411 Dn = He - Ac(t) - Acc23 - - Ac(n -1) - (Ac(n) /2)
[Eq. 5 -42] Dm = (Ac(N) /2)
(Eq. 5 -431 FSPe = ACn / Fs(n)
'Eq. 5 -44] ACn 2 Lecn) Ci (dn 7t + qd) tan
Eq.
5 -451
Le(n)
= L
- Wu cosie - Ee(n) tan(90
- a)) +
Eecn)
tan i
Eq.
5 -461
do =
(He
- Ee(n) + ( (Ee(n) /tan a)) -
He tan
* +
(L,(,,)/2)] tan 6
T SFCZION
H -N
ro12r rs
SEE SNEET J FOR
_
PLGN tMEW �
IluMial
&
'
ie ii. ¢ c �i_�
`�►iGw®i
-RO.
+oi®r®i®7®r�1
eriiri�is�sl
\1%i7iG f�i,�'
IPIH
■�/II
ti��lrlY
\Ill1�11
O—
�
�Vi Y
i►1�11
FS a `�'
R.
�Y•
T SFCZION
H -N
ro12r rs
SEE SNEET J FOR
_
PLGN tMEW �
&
�
-RO.
t+e' o
- -:
-
Source; Orefe Grading and
Wall Location Map Private Improvement Plan for
El Camino Real Center
-
Scale: I" = 20' Prepared by Fuscoe Engineering,
ad = 500 pef Dead Load Surcharge
Dated June 16, 1995
5
Miragrid IOT
L = .78H
General NOteS
-
30'
8'
,. Lm _e
Max. Total
Ht,
4
i z i r
H= 10.3`
d
Miragrid IOT L = .68H
M PROJECT SITE
7.
e:
a
m z
e, za oars pe: I.e.
4
Y
w - ,.,
Number
Reinforced Zone
rye r e
of
Miragrid
JOT L =.58H
- and
Retained Zone Soils
" - -
8locics
Must Have
- me., -..�. e.�ee� -�. io .,m„s
maz.
or Greater
Site Vicinity Map
4
,
�, e. n .d Coen eo F cars
Mira rid IOT
L = ASH
s. spec ei :n ea e
Embedment = 1:6'
_a p �neca e_
L,—k -,t —IN
2
ma
',,
ICe
BackdoM per geoleMMCai engineer of records recommendation
N 6t0a J M 990c gn muso e,
pc repo¢ —11
Foundation Soils
Typical Cross Section
,oche ce
sy m
Must Have 0 = 34'
Through Maximum Height
p
or Greater
SOII Retention Systems Inc.
—1 d �,e" "'_
Scale: r = r
Geogrid Reinforced Loffel Wall
cfc daaerored by gin e ve
'
:ne so. a report.
Revisions
o crW ti
N - Date
Piepored under the supervision of
pso °f$
Rp
Project: E Camino Real Center
—. on e
D,_ GR TTZSTSS
o gned' JAS xsRisaa
\ \
a
,;
Location: City of Encinitas
W.O. No. 563
cheexea
J mono RCE %193
aE zzea
.a *e�
ov ,
Date; 7/26/95 Plate 1
Sheet of
I
��.
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC STUDY
FOR
EL CAMINO REAL CENTER
CIRCUIT CITY
ROUGH GRADING PLAN
DECEMBER 22, 1994
PREPARED FOR: NOTTINGHAM & ASSOCIATES
S
R
ERIC K. ARMSI
R.C.E. 3
S84 "Oherhn.JOiic 4W . xm Diego.Ldif. 92121 N Phone (619)ii+IiDD ■ F.%X 0,19)iV -033i
0�-f),- ..,
7
INDEX
SUMMARY
SITE ROUGH GRADING
HYDROLOGY
OFF -SITE CALCULATION
OFF -SITE MAP
ON -SITE CALCULATION
HYDRAULICS
PUBLIC CURB INLET CALCULATIONS
PRIVATE INLET CALCULATIONS
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STORM DRAIN
MISCELLANEOUS TABLES
SITE MAP
SUMMARY
The Grading Plan this report is intended to support utilizes the
existing erosion control basin built under Permit No. 3955 -GI. Our
calculations indicate that this basin is adequate for the proposed
grading. The estimated runoff from this site after rough grading is
7.0 cfs. A quick estimate of the capacity of the existing 24" RCP
in El Camino Real (assuming soffit control for the HGL) is 42.0 cfs.
The preliminary estimate for the total runoff tributary to that 24"
RCP is 42.8 cfs. This shows that, assuming all flows can be
conveyed to the inlet, the existing system will convey most of the
runoff. In reality, the existing system is not designed to inlet that
volume of flow from El Camino Real and in the interim condition
much of the flow will bypass the inlet and continue northerly within
the street.
The Improvement Plans for El Camino Real prepared by Fuscoe
Engineering show one proposed 30 foot long curb inlet to intercept
20.9 cfs of the 24.53 cfs which presently flows down El Camino
Real. A new 24" RCP which empties into the existing open channel
west of El Camino Real will serve to accomodate the on -site runoff
and 85.2% of existing right -of -way runoff.
SITE ROUGH GRADING
(INTERIM CONDITION)
' 5897 Oberlin, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT \0:
San Diego, Cali[. 92714 BY: DATE: CIEECK: DATE:
Phone (619) 5541500
Fax (619) 597 -0335 SHEET OF
20(V-Al GnArn/NC RuAJOr-f
T /M£ or CGWC&A3'2AT16Q
L= 535 /57W = 0 -/013 A-:&s
Qu= r65- 147 ^ Zt'
O.3'rS
TC: 6o .a(o•lw31 alp = 13.4Hw
l zl
=CIA
=
0•4S' 4PeA = 7,o 4c p = l -6
O.6lS
rr7.44el -403 4)- = Z- ZZ«, /H¢
= o. 45 (Z•Z -Z)(7-0) = 7. OZ c 5
2A" 72.0 P Cop c--*Y
AvAtL A%4; }(eA p = 147.0 - CJ•S ��cr_c'3oA:p } — 142.0 = 4
1JGL; d51
L'S t/L FOIL 24' QGP 4 = 2Z(v -7
5; 4.5 /130 = 6.0945 ;+ /�k
= �ZZ ca) Co 0345-) � 47.ob C--s
?b-PC r2113uI1BY AaCA FALry r- OAJ-AIAJ vISGo To PAOJ4G 511t
4, (cJG E'[. C/AVUAXG l5 19' iL'W-5 ASso"I'V4
C -0.65- ,I- 7.72'&, 1HQ
� _ (l9) (o•9sj(7z2): 35•SS -h 7.oz � 42.87c s
5897 Oberlin, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT N0:
San Diego, Cali(. 92714 BY: DATE: QMCK DATE:
Phone (619) 5541500
Fax (619) 597 -0335 SHEET OF
VC-fI $A51 A.) L/'PAC,- --r ESrl M!Tc / PC, C.(� OA 5ar
l y /
Z1O C .
v
UsE qv' X46 x 3'
NOTE c 4 ,0 X 46x3 w/ 2:( 5!oE
5'4OPC HAS wlbr!l 6: 4(,' j f. T
DC�T'
-7i2k 2A "VIA. L= 2 rrf1= to -26,
,4 —7 0c�s %3.o (a.a�� 2�3 = D•5! �
Ut5E 24" ZiSCQ
OUTLe Pt PC D&5 /CaIJ
Q = l•4y �QZ ut i Co¢ viAE Q 7.d63 A�� t`� n= 0.011
h t1
Tee y" vla S,o•vi Q = 17.5 4z�'
SP�ja,wA`C Dt;StG1J
Q = 3 -o L N 31Z wF1t;¢k Q = -7.02 Lc 4. Z6
Z/ ,
" (7-0/-S o(c. ZB, }1 3 = 0. rl
HYDROLOGY
(DEVELOPED CONDITIONS)
5897 OberBn, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
San Diego, U . 92714 BY: DATE: C1EECK DATE:
f
Phone (619) 5541500
Fax (619) 597 -0335 SIM OF
Orr- SITE OWOfkr
4c, C. 0.6T L = 500 /SZ90 = 0.09 47
/ ;� 0'S�5
7C = ro0 / 11 9 % 90947 / /O s 14.38 NNAf-
/Voc /D YQ.
pb = 1.6 pia =3. o
,w
(P — 0.015= 'I.A4(I (- )(l4. ?9 -a - 6 f S
i = Z.13,ti /N2
Q,, = cl4 % 0.8Tez,ls kt.1) , S.LZ r-Is
r ` 730 -S-rifer r1 06v a 44f, .
T�5 = 182 .S su 3.0A rAIN
TC = /4.39 + 3. o4 = 17.43 HI,IL
= 7.44 (1.6) ( 17.43) -0 "S iN /HQ
0,,= UA r7.9S(!•�8�(11.3)= 18.09 c g
qA o -53 Ac
L - 770 ' sr27 Fco.v s.� f
Z� G2.117 sec -- 1.64 Aa,N
4.3
5897 Oberlin, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
San Diego, Cal. 92714 BY: DATE: CHECK DATE:
Phone (619) 5541500
Fax (619) 597-0335 SHEET OF
7C = i. 04 /7.43 a 1,5 . 4b AAw
Qio -CIA C�3
41 RF.9 j'Z + 4r?EA03 r 5.&? 4 15.09
Tv'A(. YvxjOrF 7- 4.S3�}r
it
;t Jro,
Alf
IV
jw
7r,
T ..ter - •'�i 7- -1a� - _"'71' t Y.:,_ _ :.__..
f It .. � 1 �� rf, �. 17
MEW
'` • <i {� �� -'!• :� _ � i.Y
-may t < t ;1: <'�j f� -�-_ .�r Y i _ r-1r, •r e1
r?<�:' ') ' _
ti.�•lr``?
JL
je
dw
jk
! �: _ . � - � � , ^.i .c �. i .t ate. -r w 3 -� . �• 7 • � � 1 _ - 3,�� � ��.!
1 i r• � � -` . ., �- +,� /yr-_ �— — _mac
,'� � i... �i �I �� :/� li .��� -c •_ , '�,< a� �� rte!- �i � w°'���
tee _
Ise �_
5897 Oberlin, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
San Diego, Calif. 92714 BY: DATE: CHEM DATE:
Phone (619) 5541500
Fax (619)597 -0335 dN "S' %E CA[eu�rtvJ SHELF OF
T/ N E of C'AUC�T1Z+tT101U
L = 1200 15Z30 = O.Z3 males
aN = Zv'
p. 3aS //!.9(O.z3 3 io.ses
` dN J zo
MIAJ 5.1 It' gtin /,V .
foe /V
Ye
pya = 3.o PA4
-T = 7.44 (P�) iTC) -0.645 _ 7,44(1.6�(9� v • 64s _ 2 89 tU /HP
Afle,4 C Q,o = C 14
A
1.86 O •1�5 S.10 crs
g 0.93 Z S5 cfs
C 0.45 " f•246Fs
D 1.21 " 3 .32 ers
E 1.24 3. 40 c ns
F U.76 z . 14 cfs
HYDRAULICS
PRIVATE AND PRIVATE CURB
INLET SIZING CALCULATIONS
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1355
TIME /DATE
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
--------------------------------
OF STUDY: 13:42 3/15/1995
EL CAwuao Q4E!�'^,L
>>>STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION <<<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE (FEET/ FEET) _ .014000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 24.53
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) _ .015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 53.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 51.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) _ .50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) _ .03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) _ .12500
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS
- ---------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STREET FLOW EXCEEDS TOP OF CURB.
THE FOLLOWING STREET FLOW RESULTS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT NEGLIBLE FLOW OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE STREET CHANNEL.
THAT IS, ALL FLOW ALONG THE PARKWAY, ETC., IS NEGLECTED.
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .60
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 23.63
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.30
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 2.58
>>>FLOWBY CATCH BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
STREETFLOW(CFS) = 24.53
GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .60
BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) _ .30
FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
>>>>CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 43.3
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 20.9
CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS FOR
DRIVEWAY INLET AND
ON -SITE BASINS
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 14:30 3/15/1995
LRYc-t+
* * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * ** * * # * * * * * * # # * * * * **
>>> STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) _ .055000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 1.24
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) _ .024000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 39.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 37.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .030000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .030000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) _ .50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- LIP(FEET) _ .03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER- HIKE(FEET) _ .12500
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS
--------------------------------------------------- ------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .25
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.72
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.81
PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = .71
******##****##***###***##**####**#***#**#**# * # * # # # * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * # * * * * # * * **
>>>>FLOWBY CATCI1 BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------- ----- - - - - --
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
STREETFLOW(CFS) = 1.24
GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .25
BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) _ .30
FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 5.50
>>>>CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 5.6
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 1.2
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17: 0 1/25/1995
>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------- --- - - - - --
Ih1Le.T 'A,' 10`f2 SToRr-j
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 5.10
BASIN OPENING(FEET) _ .45
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) _ .60
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 3.98
** t**, t, t, r, t*, t*** �******** �***** r * *�,r� *,t� * *,t,t * * *,e,e * * * * * *t* *mot * *,t *,t ,r * *r� * * *�� *,r•
>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION <<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------ -- - - - - - --
INLET 14 IOo {Q Snov_NA
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 7.97
BASIN OPENING(FEET) _ .45
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) = 1.07
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 4.00
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17: 1 1/25/1995
******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION««
----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- - - - - --
itic.c-T `E' iv'i'es STOR✓1
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 3.40
BASIN OPENING(FEET) _ .45
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) _ .42
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 4.05
>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION <<<<
--------------------------------------------- --- --------------------- - - - - --
1 e.Jt-CT �E 100 `tR S-roz"
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 5.31
BASIN OPENING(FEET) _ .45
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) _ .62
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 3.99
5897 Oberlin, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT `((
Sat Diego, Cag. 92714 BY: DATE: CFBiCK DATE:
Phone (619) 554 -1500
Fax (619)5
97 0335 SfiEEf or
C4P,4Cr7-Y o>' aw-rc !Alter to sump
Fb+e /NLe7 D
Pt51=C� 71 -r,,`3,g[E '� /N kNSCCGLAA/FOUS ?ASLC -" eeCr'oA)
Z(Z4 3 33) _ /0.67 or Aj 11,(o•ts63)(3.33)
R= T.V Grz
Q = P(3)(E /)3't wNEKe N - NFi�Dj 0.4'
Q: 10 .c7(3)(p.4�3ja: p,.o9 cFs
As5oMc So % Due To CLo 4GiN6 * G76 r
Q = 4.04 cfs > 3.3Z cF5 trltCr b'
CALCULATION OF HGL AT NODE
No. 2:
I) FLOW SPLIT @ NODE No. 2
1. First, calculated the downstream HGL's for open channel
and existing 81" R.C.P.
2. Then, by trial, calculated the HGL in both Northerly and
Southerly storm drain. HGL for both systems must be
equal in cleanout @ Sta. 37 +20.00
II) RESULTS
Q North = 18 CFS
Q South = 20.65 CFS
HGL at Node 2 = 146.20
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1355
TIME /DATE
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
OF STUDY: 15:15
12/23/1994
OPttil CV4NWQeL. WeST OF eL CA"IN.lo V!�Al.
>>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION ««
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL Z1(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 2.00
Z2(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 2.00
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 9.00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .020000
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 2400.00
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0150
--------------------------------------
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
--------------------------------------------------------- ---- ------- --- --- --
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 4.65
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 27.59
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 85.05
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 3.08
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 28.22
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 2.833
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 141494.80
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 12.366
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 17.014
CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 40.33
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 193.22
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 4.79
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 12.42
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 7.83
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 94994.65
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 2.396
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 10.229
tiGL of Noe TMeje- SYoY�M S
3-7 5 d.65 = 142. [5'
1 �
OEPTN OF
HYDRAULICS FOR
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
STORMDRAIN SYSTEM
5897 Oberlin, Suite 209 PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
San Diego, Calif. 92714 BY: DATE: DATE:
Phone (619) 554.1500
Fax (619) 597 -0335 SI= OF
STOeF'I DO�IA fJirr�21L
� I1
20 L, b' lvcrs
l `J
50 1 % 1.24GFS
ro'' o'I�� IdSoo
�1 V .1-7 3
\q \5'>i t —2 `l1 "4IUs
lE 'A
LIN `4 '
1 } ` —
1 po ors.
� } _
a I 3
' 6 lul.aT'o,
w A C45 i
PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
----------- - - - - -- ==='--------------------------------------
FILE NAME: ELCAM.N
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 15:16 3/15/1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 20.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 137.50
PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 18.00
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 142.150
NODE 20.00 : HGL= < 142.150>;EGL= < 142.660>;FL0WLINE= < 137.500>
- ---------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 21.00 ELEVATION = 138.36
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------ - - - - - --
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) :
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 99.07 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 18.00)/( 226.224)) * *2 = .0063309
HF =L *SF = ( 99.07) *( .0063309) _ .627
NODE 21.00 HGL= < 142.777>;EGL= < 143.287 >; FLOWLINE = < 138.360>
-- ----------------- - - - - --
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.00 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 3
UPSTREAM NODE 22.00 ELEVATION = 138.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE -BEND LOSSES(OCEMA):
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE = 45.200 DEGREES
PIPE LENGTH = 17.25 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 3.142 SQUARE FEET
FLOW VELOCITY = 5.73 FEET PER SECOND
VELOCITY HEAD = .510 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) _ .1772
HB =KB *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ ( .177) *( .510) _ .090
PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 226.224 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) _ .0063309
FRICTION LOSSES = L *SF = ( 17.25) *( .0063309) _ .109
NODE 22.00 : HGL= < 142.977>;EGL= < 143.486>;FLOWLINE= < 138.510>
--- - - - - -- - -- --------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 22.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 5
UPSTREAM NODE 23.00 ELEVATION = 140.65
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- -- - - --
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES:
NO.
DISCHARGE
DIAMETER
AREA
VELOCITY
DELTA HV
1
18.0
24.00
3.142
5.730
.000 .510
2
18.0
24.00
3.142
5.730
-- .510
3
.0
.00
.000
.000
.000 -
4
.0
.00
.000
.000
.000 -
5
.0 = =
=Q5 EQUALS
BASIN INPUT = ==
LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Ql*V1 *COS (DELTAI)-Q3*V3 *COS (DELTA3)-
Q4 *V4 * COS (DELTA4)) /((A1+A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00633
DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00633
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00633
JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = .032
ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000
JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1- HV2+(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = .000+ .510- .510+( .032) +( .000) _ .032
NODE 23.00 : HGL= < 143.008 >;EGL = < 143.518>;FLOWLINE= < 140.650>
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 23.00 TO NODE 24.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 24.00 ELEVATION = 142.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 82.85 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 18.00)/( 226.224)) * *2 = .0063309
HF =L *SF = ( 82.85) *( .0063309) _ .525
NODE 24.00 HGL= < 143.533>;EGL- < 144.043>;FLOWLINE- < 142.880>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 1.35
NODE 24.00 : HGL= < 144.880>;EGL= < 145.390 >;FLOWLINE = < 142.880>
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 24.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 25.00 ELEVATION = 143.83
25.00 IS CODE = 3
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE -BEND LOSSES(OCEMA):
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE = 89.330 DEGREES
PIPE LENGTH = 35.08 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 3.142 SQUARE FEET
FLOW VELOCITY = 5.73 FEET PER SECOND
VELOCITY HEAD = .510 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) _ .2491
HB =KB *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ ( .249) *( .510) _ .127
PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 226.224 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) _
FRICTION LOSSES = L *SF = ( 35.08) *( .0063309) _ .222
.0063309
NODE 25.00 : HGL= < 145.229>;EGL= < 145.739>;FL0WLINE= < 143.830>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .60
NODE 25.00 : HGL= < 145.830>;EGL= < 146.340>;FL0WLINE- < 143.830>
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 2.00 ELEVATION = 144.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 27.41 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 18.00)/( 226.224)) * *2 = .0063309
HF =L *SF = ( 27.41) *( .0063309) _ .174
NODE 2.00 HGL= < 146.004>;EGL= < 146.513>;FLOWLINE= < 144.570>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .57
NODE 2.00 : HGL= < 146.570 >;EGL = < 147.080>;FLOWLINE= < 144.570>
END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM
PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
---------------------------------------------
FILE NAME: ELCAM.N
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:57 3/15/1995
***** t*****#* t* t******* t* t*** tt*** t* tttt# t# tt# #ttt # #t # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * # #t # # # *t
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM
NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE
(Note: " *" indicates nodal point data used.)
UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN
NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+
NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
20.00- 4.65* 915.39 1.22 378.52
)
FRICTION
21.00-
4.42*
869.75
.84
526.38
)
FRICTION +BEND
22.00-
4.47*
879.46
.77
584.35
)
JUNCTION
23.00-
2.36*
466.15
.99
444.91
)
FRICTION ) HYDRAULIC
JUMP
24.00-
1.53 Dc
354.13
1.04*
426.78
)
FRICTION +BEND
25.00-
1.53 Dc
354.13
1.12*
400.62
) FRICTION
2.00- 1.53 *Dc 354.13 1.53 *Dc 354.13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
t**** t*##**#*#*############### t### t########### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * # * # # * # # * # # *#
DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 20.00 FLOW-LINE ELEVATION = 137.50
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 142.150
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 20.00 : HGL = < 142.150>;EGL= < 142.660 >;FLOWLINE = < 137.500>
## t# t# t# t########*####*######## t## tttttt#### t# # # # # # #t * # # * * * * * * * *t # #t #tt #t # #tt
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 21.00 ELEVATION = 138.36 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW =
18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH =
99.07 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = ((
18.00) /( 226.225)) * *2 = .00633
HF =L *SF = (
99.07) *( .00633) = .627
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 21.00 :
HGL = < 142.777 >;EGL-- < 143.287 >;FLOWLINE = < 138.360>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.00 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 3
UPSTREAM NODE
22.00 ELEVATION = 138.51 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PIPE -BEND LOSSES(OCEMA):
PIPE FLOW =
18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE =
45.200 DEGREES MANNING'S N = .01300
PIPE LENGTH =
17.25 FEET BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) _ .17717
FLOW VELOCITY =
5.73 FEET /SEC. VELOCITY HEAD = .510 FEET
HB =KB *(VELOCITY
HEAD) = ( .177) *( .510) = .090
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = ((
18.00)/( 226.221)) * *2 = .00633
HF =L *SF = (
17.25) *( .00633) = .109
TOTAL HEAD LOSSES = HB + HF = ( .090) +( .109) _ .200
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 22.00 :
HGL = < 142.977 >;EGL = < 143.486>;FLOWLINE= < 138.510>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 22.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 5
UPSTREAM NODE
23.00 ELEVATION = 140.65 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES:
PIPE
FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY
(CFS) (INCHES) (DEGREES) ELEVATION DEPTH(FT.) (FT /SEC)
UPSTREAM
18.00 24.00 .00 140.65 1.53 5.730
DOWNSTREAM
18.00 24.00 - 138.51 1.53 5.730
LATERAL 11
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .000
LATERAL #2
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .000
Q5
.00 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = ==
LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*Vl *COS (DELTAl)-Q3*V3 *COS (DELTA3)-
Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1+A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01300; FRICTION SLOPE = .00633
DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01300; FRICTION SLOPE = .00633
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00633
JUNCTION LENGTH = 5.00 FEET
FRICTION LOSSES = .032 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000 FEET
JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = ( .000) +( .032) +( .000) = .032
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 23.00 : HGL = < 143.008>;EGL= < 143.518 >;FLOWLINE = < 140.650>
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 23.00 TO NODE 24.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 24.00 ELEVATION = 142.88 (HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 18.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 82.85 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT) = .98 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.53
UPSTREAM
GRADUALLY
CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) 1.04
VARIED FLOW PROFILE
---------- --- -- -- --
DISTANCE FROM
CONTROL(FT)
.000
1.746
3.575
5.497
7.519
9.651
11.905
14.293
16.832
19.538
22.435
25.548
28.910
32.560
36.549
40.942
45.823
51.307
57.558
64.811
73.435
82.850
FLOW DEPTH
(FT)
1.038
1.036
1.033
1.031
1.029
1.027
1.024
1.022
1.020
1.018
1.016
1.013
1.011
1.009
1.007
1.004
1.002
1.000
.998
.996
.993
.991
COMPUTED INFORMATION:
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
10.930
2.894
426.78
10.960
2.902
427.58
10.989
2.910
428.39
11.019
2.918
429.20
11.049
2.926
430.03
11.080
2.934
430.85
11.110
2.942
431.69
11.140
2.951
432.53
11.171
2.959
433.38
11.202
2.968
434.23
11.233
2.976
435.09
11.264
2.985
435.96
11.296
2.994
436.84
11.327
3.002
437.72
11.359
3.011
438.60
11.391
3.021
439.50
11.423
3.030
440.40
11.455
3.039
441.31
11.488
3.048
442.23
11.520
3.058
443.15
11.553
3.067
444.08
11.583
3.076
444.91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
DOWNSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 2.36
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
PRESSURE
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
HEAD(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
2.358
5.730
2.868
466.15
17.409
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.000
5.730
2.510
395.89
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM
PRESSURE
HEAD(FT) =
2.00
20.376
�e�; i�• Iil���f• ��t: �. t��l•) airC• 1: 1��•] a�4R��•] �I•l +ty�1��4�1a[•)ciYr=gyS•1:t�
-------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
17.409
2.000
5.728
2.510
18.240
1.981
5.737
2.492
18.995
1.962
5.753
2.476
19.704
1.943
5.774
2.461
20.376
1.925
5.799
2.447
21.016
1.906
5.828
2.433
21.628
1.887
5.860
2.420
22.212
1.868
5.894
2.408
22.770
1.849
5.932
2.396
23.302
1.830
5.972
2.384
23.810
1.811
6.015
2.373
24.292
1.792
6.061
2.363
24.750
1.774
6.109
2.353
--------------- - - - --
PRESSURE+
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
395.89
392.51
389.39
386.45
383.66
381.01
378.49
376.10
373.83
371.67
369.64
367.73
365.93
25.181
1.755
6.160
2.344
364.25
25.587
1.736
6.214
2.336
362.69
25.965
1.717
6.270
2.328
361.26
26.316
1.698
6.329
2.320
359.95
26.637
1.679
6.390
2.314
358.76
26.928
1.660
6.455
2.308
357.70
27.187
1.641
6.522
2.302
356.78
27.413
1.623
6.591
2.298
355.98
27.603
1.604
6.664
2.294
355.32
27.756
1.585
6.740
2.291
354.81
27.869
1.566
6.819
2.288
354.43
27.939
1.547
6.901
2.287
354.20
27.963
1.528
6.986
2.287
354.13
82.850
1.528
6.986
2.287
354.13
---------------- -
- - - -- -END OF HYDRAULIC
JUMP
ANALYSIS ------------------
- - - - --
PRESSURE +MOMENTUM BALANCE OCCURS AT
5.38 FEET UPSTREAM OF
NODE 23.00
DOWNSTREAM
DEPTH = 2.248
FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE DEPTH
= .993 FEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 24.00 :
HGL = < 143.918>;EGL=
<
145.774 >;FLOWLINE =
< 142.880>
t, t, t, t**, r* t*, r�***, t*,
r, t* r+, t, t*, t, t+, t++*+
,ttf : * *,t,t
*,tt *,t,t * * *,ts,t *,t *,t ,t * * *,►,t,t
* *,t * *,t *f * *,t ,t•
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 24.00
TO NODE
25.00 IS CODE = 3
UPSTREAM NODE
25.00 ELEVATION =
143.83 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PIPE -BEND
LOSSES(OCEMA):
PIPE FLOW =
18.00 CFS
PIPE
DIAMETER 24.00
INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE =
89.330 DEGREES
MANNING'S N = .01300
PIPE LENGTH =
35.08 FEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ .98
CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) =
1.53
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM CONTROL
ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT)
=
1.12
GRADUALLY VARIED
FLOW PROFILE
COMPUTED INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
1.122
9.921
2.651
400.62
1.399
1.116
9.982
2.664
402.14
2.881
1.111
10.045
2.678
403.69
4.453
1.105
10.108
2.692
405.27
6.124
1.099
10.173
2.707
406.89
7.904
1.094
10.238
2.722
408.54
9.804
1.088
10.304
2.737
410.23
11.838
1.082
10.371
2.753
411.95
14.020
1.077
10.438
2.770
413.70
16.369
1.071
10.507
2.786
415.49
18.907
1.065
10.577
2.803
417.32
21.660
1.060
10.647
2.821
419.19
24.660
1.054
10.719
2.839
421.09
27.947
1.048
10.792
2.858
423.03
31.571
1.043
10.865
2.877
425.02
35.080
1.038
10.930
2.894
426.78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 25.00 :
HGL = < 144.952
>;EGL = <
146.481>;FLOWLINE=
< 143.830>
* �** �*******, r�* r***,
r�*** �* �:***,
t*, r* r, r, r��t:
t, e** r***** * * * *,r : * * * *
*� * * * *,►r,r,r,r,rr�•
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00
TO NODE
2.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE
-----------------------------------------------
2.00 ELEVATION =
144.57 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL)
------ ---------
----- ---- - - - - --
PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
----------------- €f�,L.. 5 ✓7 L�
FILE NAME: ELCAM.S
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 15:19 3/15/1995
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
SET ez s�< Nz.
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 1.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION 141.57
PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 20.65
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 144.950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 1.00 : HGL= < 144.950>;EGL= < 145.621>;FLOWLINE= < 141.570>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 2.00 ELEVATION = 144.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 20.65 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 130.00 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 20.65)/( 226.224)) * *2 = .0083323
HF =L *SF = ( 130.00) *( .0083323) = 1.083
NODE 2.00 : HGL= < 146.033 >;EGL = < 146.704 >;FLOWLINE = < 144.570>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .54
NODE 2.00 : HGL= < 146.570>;EGL= < 147.241>;FLOWLINE= < 144.570>
END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW =
18.00 CFS
PIPE
DIAMETER = 24.00
INCHES
PIPE LENGTH =
27.41 FEET
MANNING'S N = .01300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT)
_ .98
CRITICAL
DEPTH(FT) =
1.53
UPSTREAM CONTROL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH (FT)
1.53
GRADUALLY VARIED
FLOW PROFILE
COMPUTED INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
1.528
6.986
2.287
354.13
.034
1.506
7.089
2.287
354.23
.140
1.484
7.197
2.289
354.55
.324
1.463
7.310
2.293
355.10
.596
1.441
7.427
2.298
355.87
.963
1.419
7.550
2.305
356.89
1.437
1.397
7.679
2.313
358.15
2.031
1.375
7.814
2.324
359.68
2.759
1.353
7.954
2.336
361.47
3.639
1.331
8.102
2.351
363.55
4.692
1.309
8.256
2.368
365.92
5.943
1.288
8.417
2.388
368.60
7.426
1.266
8.586
2.411
371.60
9.178
1.244
8.762
2.437
374.94
11.249
1.222
8.948
2.466
378.63
13.704
1.200
9.142
2.499
382.70
16.627
1.178
9.346
2.535
387.15
20.132
1.156
9.560
2.576
392.03
24.382
1.134
9.785
2.622
397.34
27.410
1.122
9.921
2.651
400.62
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 2.00 :
HGL = < 146.098 >;EGL = <
146.857>;FLOWLINE=
< 144.570>
r*, r**, t*, r***** �* r* ��* �r r�* �** rr, t* ar*** r, t* rr**,►*,►**, t* ,rrr,t * * * * *rr�,t * *rf�� * *,rr *,r*
UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 2.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 144.57
ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 146.10 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS
PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
FILE NAME: ELCAM.S
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 17:39 3/15/1995
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM
NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE
(Note: " *" indicates nodal point data used.)
UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN
NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+
NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
1.00- 3.38* 729.60 1.14 503.98
) FRICTION ) HYDRAULIC JUMP
2.00- 1.63 *Dc 428.68 1.63 *Dc 428.68
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
****}#}#}##}####}}##}}##}}*#########}*#**##### # # # # # # # # # * ** # * } # } * * # } # # # } # } } } }*
DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 1.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 141.57
PIPE FLOW = 20.65 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 144.950
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 1.00 : HGL = < 144.950 >;EGL = < 145.621 >;FLOWLINE = < 141.570>
**}}}}}}}#}}#}}}}#}#}}#}#}}####}}}####*}***##} # # # } # } # } } # } } # # * } } } } } } # # # # } # # * }*
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 2.00 ELEVATION = 144.57 (HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 20.65 CFS PIPE DIAMETER 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 130.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.12 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) = 1.63
------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) = 1.63
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
1.629
7.533
2.511
428.68
.040
1.609
7.622
2.512
428.78
.165
1.588
7.715
2.513
429.08
.383
1.568
7.813
2.516
429.58
.700
1.547
7.915
2.521
430.31
1.129
1.527
8.021
2.527
431.25
1.679
1.507
8.132
2.534
432.41
2.365
1.486
8.247
2.543
433.82
3.203
1.466
8.368
2.553
435.46
4.212
1.445
8.493
2.566
437.35
5.413
1.425
8.624
2.580
439.51
6.836
1.404
8.760
2.597
441.93
8.515
1.384
8.902
2.615
444.64
10.491
1.363
9.051
2.636
447.63
12.818
1.343
9.205
2.659
450.93
15.566
1.322
9.366
2.685
454.55
18.826
1.302
9.535
2.714
458.49
22.720
1.281
9.710
2.746
462.78
27.424
1.261
9.894
2.782
467.43
33.191
1.240
10.085
2.821
472.46
40.416
1.220
10.285
2.864
477.88
49.761
1.199
10.495
2.911
483.72
62.469
1.179
10.714
2.962
490.00
81.328
1.159
10.943
3.019
496.74
115.292
1.138
11.183
3.081
503.96
130.000
1.138
11.183
3.081
503.98
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
DOWNSTREAM CONTROL
ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT)
= 3.38
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED
INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
PRESSURE
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
HEAD(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
3.380
6.573
4.051
729.60
93.592
2.000
6.573
2.671
459.07
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM
- -- ---------------------------
PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 2.00
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE
-----------------------------------------
COMPUTED INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
93.592
2.000
6.571
2.671
459.07
94.482
1.985
6.578
2.658
456.45
95.270
1.970
6.591
2.645
454.07
96.000
1.956
6.608
2.634
451.85
96.683
1.941
6.628
2.623
449.77
97.326
1.926
6.651
2.613
447.80
97.933
1.911
6.676
2.604
445.94
98.507
1.896
6.703
2.594
444.19
99.050
1.881
6.733
2.586
442.54
99.564
1.867
6.765
2.578
440.98
100.050
1.852
6.799
2.570
439.52
100.507
1.837
6.835
2.563
438.14
100.937
1.822
6.872
2.556
436.87
101.339
1.807
6.912
2.550
101.714
1.792
6.953
2.544
102.061
1.778
6.997
2.538
102.380
1.763
7.042
2.533
102.670
1.748
7.089
2.529
102.931
1.733
7.137
2.525
103.161
1.718
7.188
2.521
103.359
1.703
7.241
2.518
103.525
1.689
7.295
2.516
103.657
1.674
7.352
2.514
103.754
1.659
7.410
2.512
103.813
1.644
7.470
2.511
103.833
1.629
7.533
2.511
130.000
1.629
7.533
2.511
---------------- - - - - -- -END
OF
HYDRAULIC JUMP
ANALYSIS ---------
PRESSURE+MOMENTUM BALANCE
OCCURS AT 86.40
FEET UPSTREAM OF
DOWNSTREAM DEPTH
--------------------------------------------------------------
= 2.106 FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE DEPTH
NODE 2.00 : HGL = <
146.199 >;EGL = < 147.081
>; FLOWLINE =
435.68
434.58
433.58
432.66
431.84
431.11
430.47
429.93
429.48
429.13
428.88
428.73
428.68
428.68
NODE 1.00
= 1.213 FEET
--------- - - - - --
< 144.570>
e**** r** ��* r�** �r,► *r *� * * * * * * *,e * *r *r *�r +r # * * * *r *, err *�rrrrr * * *r *,r * * * *tafr * *� * *r
UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 2.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 144.57
ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 146.20 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS
PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
iti:E'A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FILE NAME: LINEA.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 19:43 3/15/1995
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM
NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE
(Note: " *" indicates nodal point data used.)
UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN
NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+
NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
2.00- 2.06 *Dc 870.90 2.06 *Dc 870.90
1 JUNCTION
3.00- 3.62* 459.19 .88 260.25
1 FRICTION
4.00- 2.75* 363.71 .76 300.72
1 JUNCTION.
5.00- 1.33 155.22 .88* 156.92
1 FRICTION
6.00- 1.12 *Dc 145.35 1.12 *Dc 145.35
) JUNCTION
7.00- 2.46* 123.17 .52 57.56
) FRICTION 1 HYDRAULIC JUMP
8.00- .78 *Dc 46.94 .78 *Dc 46.94
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*+++++*+*#+*** * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++
DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 2.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 144.57
PIPE FLOW = 38.65 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 33.94 INCHES
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 146.200
*NOTE: ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL DEPTH( 1.63 FT.)
IS LESS THAN CRITICAL DEPTH( 2.06 FT.)
CRITICAL DEPTH IS ASSUMED AS DOWNSTREAM CONTROL DEPTH
FOR UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 2.00 : HGL = < 146.625 >;EGL = < 147.595>;FLOWLINE= < 144.570>
+++++********+******++++#********+++#***+***++ * + * + + + # # * * + + + + + + + + + + + + * + # + + + + ++
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 5
UPSTREAM NODE 3.00 ELEVATION = 144.77 (FLOW IS AT CRITICAL DEPTH)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES:
(CFS)
(INCHES)
(DEGREES)
ELEVATION
PIPE
FLOW
DIAMETER
ANGLE
FLOWLINE
CRITICAL
VELOCITY
1.12
(CFS)
(INCHES)
(DEGREES)
ELEVATION
DEPTH(FT.)
(FT /SEC)
UPSTREAM
11.41
18.00
.00
144.77
1.29
6.457
DOWNSTREAM
38.65
33.94
-
144.57
2.06
7.903
LATERAL #1
6.34
18.00
10.00
144.77
.97
3.588
LATERAL #2
20.90
24.00
80.00
144.75
1.64
6.653
Q5
.00 =
= =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = ==
LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1 *COS (DELTAI)-Q3*V3 *COS (DELTA3)-
Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00845
DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01300; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00596
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00721
JUNCTION LENGTH = 5.00 FEET
FRICTION LOSSES = .036 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000 FEET
JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 1.406) +( .036) +( .000) = 1.442
----------------------------x-----------------------------------------------
NODE 3.00 : HGL = < 148.3905-;EGL= < 149.037 >; FLOWLINE = < 144.770>
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 4.00 ELEVATION = 146.43 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 11.41 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 94.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01100
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 11.41)/( 124.143)) * *2 = .00845
HF =L *SF = ( 94.00) *( .00845) _ .794
NODE 4.00 : HGL = < 149.184 >;EGL = < 149.831>;FLOWLINE= < 146.430>
********************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 5
UPSTREAM NODE 5.00 ELEVATION = 150.20 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE)
(NOTE: POSSIBLE JUMP IN OR UPSTREAM OF STRUCTURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE JUNCTION LOSSES:
PIPE FLOW DIAMETER ANGLE FLOWLINE CRITICAL VELOCITY
LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)-
Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .01540
DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00845
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01193
JUNCTION LENGTH = 5.00 FEET
FRICTION LOSSES = .060 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .129 FEET
JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 2.226)+( .060) +( .129) = 2.415
---------------------------------------------- --------- --------- ----- - - - - - --
(CFS)
(INCHES)
(DEGREES)
ELEVATION
DEPTH(FT.)
(FT /SEC)
UPSTREAM
8.01
15.00
20.00
150.20
1.12
8.659
DOWNSTREAM
11.41
18.00
-
146.43
1.29
6.457
LATERAL 01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.000
LATERAL #2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.000
Q5
3.40 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = ==
LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)-
Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .01540
DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00845
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01193
JUNCTION LENGTH = 5.00 FEET
FRICTION LOSSES = .060 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .129 FEET
JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = ( 2.226)+( .060) +( .129) = 2.415
---------------------------------------------- --------- --------- ----- - - - - - --
NODE 5.00 : HGL = < 151.082>;EGL= <
152.246>;FLOWLINE= <
150.200>
ANGLE
FLOWLINE
CRITICAL
VELOCITY
(CFS)
(INCHES)
(DEGREES)
FLOW PROCESS FROM
NODE 5.00 TO NODE
6.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM
UPSTREAM NODE
6.00 ELEVATION =
155.00 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
.78
4.227
PIPE FLOW =
8.01 CFS
PIPE DIAMETER = 15.00
INCHES
PIPE LENGTH =
304.00 FEET
MANNING'S N = .01100
LATERAL $1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ .87
CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) =
1.12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM CONTROL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) =
1.12
.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRADUALLY VARIED
FLOW PROFILE
COMPUTED INFORMATION:
.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
1.115
6.927
1.861
145.35
.042
1.106
6.973
1.861
145.37
.169
1.096
7.021
1.862
145.42
.388
1.086
7.071
1.863
145.51
.703
1.077
7.123
1.865
145.64
1.123
1.067
7.177
1.867
145.80
1.654
1.057
7.234
1.870
146.00
2.309
1.048
7.292
1.874
146.24
3.099
1.038
7.352
1.878
146.51
4.038
1.028
7.414
1.882
146.83
5.145
1.018
7.479
1.888
147.18
6.442
1.009
7.546
1.893
147.57
7.956
.999
7.615
1.900
148.01
9.720
.989
7.686
1.907
148.48
11.777
.980
7.760
1.915
149.00
14.181
.970
7.836
1.924
149.56
17.006
.960
7.915
1.934
150.17
20.350
.951
7.996
1.944
150.82
24.351
.941
8.080
1.955
151.52
29.213
.931
8.166
1.968
152.27
35.250
.922
8.256
1.981
153.07
42.990
.912
8.348
1.995
153.92
53.423
.902
8.443
2.010
154.82
68.776
.893
8.541
2.026
155.77
96.186
.883
8.642
2.043
156.78
304.000
.882
8.657
2.046
156.92
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 6.00 : HGL = < 156.115 >;EGL-- <
156.861 >; FLOWLINE = <
155.000>
* �* r****** ���********,
r* r**, r**,► r* r, r*:f* r* * *t� *� * :,t,t * * * * * * * * * * *►,►r
: *,t ,t *r��r�,t,r*
FLOW PROCESS FROM
NODE 6.00 TO NODE
7.00 IS CODE = 5
UPSTREAM NODE
-----------------------------------------------
7.00 ELEVATION =
155.20 (FLOW IS AT CRITICAL DEPTH)
-- ----- ------ ---- ------- - - - - --
waM4ol wcv 1 f 2 wllj uQ 0 to] : o w,.xX9 34
PIPE
FLOW
DIAMETER
ANGLE
FLOWLINE
CRITICAL
VELOCITY
(CFS)
(INCHES)
(DEGREES)
ELEVATION
DEPTH(FT.)
(FT /SEC)
UPSTREAM
3.32
12.00
20.00
155.20
.78
4.227
DOWNSTREAM
8.01
15.00
-
155.00
1.12
6.930
LATERAL $1
2.55
12.00
90.00
155.20
.68
3.247
LATERAL 12
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.000
Q5
2.14 =
= =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = ==
LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1* COS (DELTAI)-Q3*V3 *COS (DELTA3)-
Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00622
DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00977
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00799
JUNCTION LENGTH = 5.00 FEET
FRICTION LOSSES = .040 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .149 FEET
JUNCTION LOSSES = (DY +HV1 -HV2) +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = ( .886) +( .040) +( .149) = 1.075
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 7.00 : HGL = < 157.658 >;EGL = < 157.936>;FLOWLINE= < 155.200>
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 8.00 ELEVATION = 160.50 (HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS)
---------------------------------------------------------- ---------- --- -- - - --
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 3.32 CFS
PIPE LENGTH = 228.00 FEET
PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES
MANNING'S N = .01100
HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .51 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) _ .78
- -------------------------------
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------- ---------------------- --- - - - - --
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
.780
5.051
1.176
46.94
.020
.769
5.121
1.176
46.95
.081
.758
5.195
1.177
46.99
.189
.747
5.272
1.179
47.06
.347
.737
5.352
1.182
47.15
.560
.726
5.436
1.185
47.28
.835
.715
5.523
1.189
47.44
1.179
.704
5.615
1.194
47.62
1.600
.693
5.710
1.200
47.84
2.109
.683
5.810
1.207
48.10
2.717
.672
5.915
1.215
48.39
3.439
.661
6.024
1.225
48.72
4.293
.650
6.138
1.236
49.09
5.301
.640
6.258
1.248
49.49
6.492
.629
6.383
1.262
49.95
7.902
.618
6.514
1.277
50.44
9.579
.607
6.651
1.294
50.99
11.588
.596
6.795
1.314
51.58
14.022
.586
6.945
1.335
52.22
17.013
.575
7.104
1.359
52.92
20.771
.564
7.270
1.385
53.68
25.646
.553
7.445
1.414
54.50
32.291
.542
7.628
1.447
55.39
42.181
.532
7.822
1.482
56.35
60.039
.521
8.025
1.522
57.37
228.000
.519
8.061
1.529
57.56
HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
DOWNSTREAM CONTROL
ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT)
= 2.46
--- - - - - -- --
PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE
------------------------------------------
COMPUTED
INFORMATION:
--------- - -----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
PRESSURE
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
HEAD(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
2.458
4.227
2.736
123.17
85.640
1.000
4.227
1.277
51.70
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM
PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 1.00
---------- ____________________________________
_______________ a..a=== := : :_____
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE
COMPUTED INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
85.640
1.000
4.226
1.277
51.70
86.106
.991
4.232
1.269
51.31
86.526
.982
4.243
1.262
50.95
86.919
.974
4.257
1.255
50.61
87.290
.965
4.273
1.248
50.29
87.642
.956
4.292
1.242
49.98
87.978
.947
4.313
1.236
49.70
88.297
.938
4.336
1.231
49.42
88.602
.930
4.361
1.225
49.16
88.891
.921
4.388
1.220
48.92
89.167
.912
4.417
1.215
48.69
89.428
.903
4.447
1.210
48.47
89.675
.894
4.479
1.206
48.27
89.907
.885
4.512
1.202
48.08
90.125
.877
4.548
1.198
47.90
90.328
.868
4.585
1.194
47.74
90.515
.859
4.623
1.191
47.59
90.686
.850
4.663
1.188
47.46
90.841
.841
4.706
1.185
47.34
90.979
.833
4.749
1.183
47.23
91.098
.824
4.795
1.181
47.15
91.199
.815
4.842
1.179
47.07
91.279
.806
4.892
1.178
47.01
91.338
.797
4.943
1.177
46.97
91.375
.789
4.996
1.176
46.95
91.387
.780
5.051
1.176
46.94
228.000
.780
5.051
1.176
46.94
---------------- - - - -
-- -END OF HYDRAULIC
JUMP
ANALYSIS ------------------------
PRESSURE +MOMENTUM BALANCE OCCURS
AT 78.73
FEET UPSTREAM OF NODE 7.00
DOWNSTREAM DEPTH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
= 1.118
FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE
DEPTH = .520 FEET
NODE 8.00 : HGL
= < 161.280
>;EGL = < 161.676
>; FLOWLINE = < 160.500>
���* r* �**r+.: r�+ rrr, r, r, r#, r*, r*****, r* �r* �* �*, e:*tt: r, r* e,► r* r ,r *r►,r,r,rr * * * * *r * :� :r�tf,r,r•
UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 8.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 160.50
ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 161.28 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
----------------------------------
END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS
UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 8.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 160.50
ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 161.28 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
-------------------- - - - - --
END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS
7r_ L L 6 3. Z C �. �
PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
------------------ 1= L1`=-`- ��------------ -------------------------------------
FILE NAME: LINEB.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 18:28 3/15/1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 40.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 144.75
PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 20.90
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 148.390
--------------- - - --
NODE 40.00 : HGL= < 148.390>;EGL= < 149.077>;FLOWLINE= < 144.750>
------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 41.00 ELEVATION = 145.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 20.90 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 72.04 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 20.90)/( 226.224)) * *2 = .0085353
HF =L *SF = ( 72.04) *( .0085353) _ .615
NODE 41.00 HGL= < 149.005>;EGL= < 149.692 >; FLOWLINE = < 145.610>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 41.00 TO NODE 41.00 IS CODE = 8
UPSTREAM NODE 41.00 ELEVATION = 145.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW CATCH BASIN ENTRANCE LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 20.90 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00
PRESSURE FLOW VELOCITY HEAD = .687
CATCH BASIN ENERGY LOSS = .2 *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ .2 *( .687) _ .137
NODE 41.00 : HGL= < 149.830>;EGL-- < 149.830 >; FLOWLINE = < 145.610>
END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM
TG I'S o• 29
PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
-------------- - - - - -1 _1rJ- -`c - - - - --
------------------------------------------
FILE NAME: LINEC.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 18:37 3/15/1995
**#****#**######*#******##*######*####******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # #*
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM
NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE
(Note: " *" indicates nodal point data used.)
UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN
NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+
NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
29.00- 3.62* 360.55 .96 Dc 96.38
)
FRICTION
30.00-
3.52*
349.18
.97 Dc
96.37
JUNCTION
31.00-
3.81*
226.57
.48
139.54
)
FRICTION
) HYDRAULIC
JUMP
32.00-
.92 *Dc
87.32
.92 *Dc
87.32
)
CATCH BASIN
33.00-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.77*
62.13
.92 Dc
20.73
------ -- - - --
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 25
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
***##*##*************####********#####*####### # * * * * * # * * * # # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 29.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 144.77
PIPE FLOW = 6.34 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 148.390
NODE 29.00 : HGL = < 148.390>;EGL= < 148.590 >; FLOWLINE = < 144.770>
####******************#########********#*#**** * # * * # # # # # # # # * * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ##
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 29.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 30.00 ELEVATION - 145.00 (FLOW IS UNDER PRESSURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 6.34 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 48.63 FEET MANNING'S N = .01100
SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 6.34)/( 124.145)) * *2 = .00261
HF =L *SF = ( 48.63) *( .00261) _ .127
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 30.00
: HGL = <
148.517>;EGL= <
148.717 >;FLOWLINE = <
145.000>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00261
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + ++
FLOW PROCESS
FROM NODE
30.00 TO NODE
31.00 IS CODE = 5
UPSTREAM NODE
31.00
ELEVATION = 145.20
(FLOW IS UNDER
PRESSURE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE JUNCTION
LOSSES:
( .868)+( .043)+( .040) _ .952
PIPE
FLOW
DIAMETER ANGLE
FLOWLINE CRITICAL
VELOCITY
(CFS)
(INCHES) (DEGREES)
ELEVATION DEPTH(FT.)
(FT /SEC)
UPSTREAM
5.10
12.00 80.00
145.20 .92
6.493
DOWNSTREAM
6.34
18.00 -
145.00 .97
3.588
LATERAL 01
.00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.000
LATERAL 02
.00
.00 .00
.00 .00
.000
Q5
1.24 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT
= ==
FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
LACFCD AND OCEMA FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY= (Q2*V2-Ql*Vl*COS (DELTAI) -Q3*V3*COS (DELTA3) -
Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1)
UPSTREAM: MANNING'S
N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .01467
DOWNSTREAM: MANNING'S
N = .01100; FRICTION SLOPE _ .00261
AVERAGED FRICTION
SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00864
JUNCTION LENGTH =
5.00 FEET
FRICTION LOSSES =
.043 FEET ENTRANCE LOSSES = .040
FEET
JUNCTION LOSSES =
(DY +HVl- HV2)+(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
( .868)+( .043)+( .040) _ .952
NODE 31.00 : HGL
= < 149.014 >;EGL = < 149.668>;FL0WLINE= <
145.200>
Tc h`) b3
FLOW PROCESS FROM
NODE 31.00 TO NODE 32.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE
32.00 ELEVATION = 150.00 (HYDRAULIC JUMP
OCCURS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION
LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW =
5.10 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00
INCHES
PIPE LENGTH =
62.67 FEET MANNING'S N = .01100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ .46 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _
.92
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM CONTROL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) _ .92
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADUALLY VARIED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT) (FT /SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
.922 6.736 1.627
87.32
.021
.903 6.829 1.628
87.38
.085
.885 6.934 1.632
87.57
.193
.867 7.050 1.639
87.88
.349
.848 7.177 1.649
88.32
.555
.830 7.316 1.662
88.88
.818
.812 7.467 1.678
89.59
1.144
.793 7.630 1.698
90.43
1.539
.775 7.807 1.722
91.41
2.015
.757 7.997 1.750
92.56
2.581
.738 8.202 1.784
93.87
3.253
.720 8.424 1.822
95.35
4.048
.702 8.662 1.867
97.02
4.990
.683
8.919
1.919
98.89
6.105
.665
9.195
1.979
100.99
7.432
.646
9.494
2.047
103.31
9.021
.628
9.817
2.125
105.90
10.938
.610
10.166
2.215
108.77
13.280
.591
10.544
2.319
111.94
16.187
.573
10.954
2.437
115.45
19.879
.555
11.400
2.574
119.34
24.722
.536
11.886
2.731
123.64
31.408
.518
12.417
2.913
128.40
41.492
.500
12.998
3.124
133.69
59.970
.481
13.636
3.370
139.56
62.670
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.481
13.634
3.370
139.54
- - - - --
HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOWNSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 3.81
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
DISTANCE FROM
CONTROL(FT)
.000
45.438
-------------------
-------------------
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM
--------------- - --
GRADUALLY VARIED
PRESSURE
VELOCITY
HEAD(FT)
(FT /SEC)
3.814
6.494
1.000
6.494
PRESSURE HEAD(FT) =
SPECIFIC PRESSURE+
ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
4.468 226.57
1.655 88.68
1.00
FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
--------------- - - --
DISTANCE FROM
CONTROL(FT)
45.438
45.482
45.521
45.556
45.588
45.618
45.646
45.671
45.695
45.718
45.738
45.757
45.775
45.791
45.805
45.819
45.831
45.841
45.851
45.859
45.866
45.871
45.875
45.878
45.880
45.881
62.670
- -- ---------- - - - - --
PRESSURE+MOMENTUM
FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
1.000
6.492
.997
6.493
.994
6.497
.991
6.502
.987
6.507
.984
6.513
.981
6.520
.978
6.527
.975
6.535
.972
6.544
.969
6.552
.966
6.562
.962
6.572
.959
6.582
.956
6.593
.953
6.604
.950
6.615
.947
6.627
.944
6.639
.941
6.652
.937
6.665
.934
6.679
.931
6.692
.928
6.706
.925
6.721
.922
6.736
.922
6.736
- -- -END OF
HYDRAULIC
BALANCE OCCURS AT
SPECIFIC
ENERGY(FT)
1.655
1.652
1.650
1.647
1.645
1.643
1.642
1.640
1.639
1.637
1.636
1.635
1.633
1.632
1.632
1.631
1.630
1.629
1.629
1.628
1.628
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.627
JUMP ANALYSIS----- -
32.68 FEET UPSTREAM
PRESSURE+
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
88.68
88.55
88.43
88.32
88.22
88.13
88.04
87.96
87.89
87.82
87.76
87.70
87.64
87.59
87.55
87.51
87.47
87.44
87.41
87.39
87.36
87.35
87.33
87.33
87.32
87.32
87.32
OF NODE 31.00
DOWNSTREAM DEPTH = 1.790 FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE DEPTH = .522 FEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 32.00 : HGL = < 150.922>;EGL= < 151.627>;FLOWLINE= < 150.000>
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 33.00 IS CODE = 8
UPSTREAM NODE 33.00 ELEVATION = 150.00 (FLOW IS AT CRITICAL DEPTH)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE CATCH BASIN ENTRANCE LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 5.10 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES
FLOW VELOCITY = 6.74 FEET /SEC. VELOCITY HEAD = .705 FEET
CATCH BASIN ENERGY LOSS = .2 *(VELOCITY HEAD) = .2 *( .705) = .141
NODE 33.00 : HGL = < 151.768>;EGL= < 151.768 >; FLOWLINE = < 150.000>
UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 33.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 150.00
ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 150.92 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS
TL = ISA .53
PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1355
Analysis prepared by:
FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC.
5897 OBERLIN DRIVE, SUITE 209
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(619) 554 -1500
-------------- - - - - -- Liti� -- -----------------
------------------------------
FILE NAME: LINED.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 18:46 3/15/1995
*******************************#************** * * * * * * * # # * * # # # * # * * # # * * * * * * * * * **
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS FOR PIPE SYSTEM
NODAL POINT STATUS TABLE
(Note: " *" indicates nodal point data used.)
UPSTREAM RUN DOWNSTREAM RUN
NODE MODEL PRESSURE PRESSURE+ FLOW PRESSURE+
NUMBER PROCESS HEAD(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) DEPTH(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
9.00- 2.46* 112.10 .53 35.57
) FRICTION ) HYDRAULIC JUMP
10.00- .68 *Dc 32.77 .68 *Dc 32.77
CATCH BASIN
11.00- .85* 14.11 .68 Dc 10.76
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
***************#*###**#####**###*######*#***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # # # # # # # # * * * ##
DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 9.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 155.20
PIPE FLOW = 2.55 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 157.660
----------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------- - - - - --
NODE 9.00 : HGL = < 157.660>;EGL= < 157.824 >; FLOWLINE = < 155.200>
****************###******###**#*******##***#** * * # # * * # * # * # # # # * * * * # # # # * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 10.00 ELEVATION = 160.00 (HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 2.55 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 401.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRAULIC JUMP: DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .53 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .68
UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) _ .68
------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -
GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
.684
4.452
.992
32.77
.017
.678
4.497
.992
32.77
.071
.672
4.543
.993
32.78
.164
.666
4.590
.993
32.80
.301
.660
4.638
.994
32.83
.486
.654
4.687
.995
32.86
.723
.647
4.738
.996
32.91
1.020
.641
4.790
.998
32.96
1.383
.635
4.844
1.000
33.03
1.820
.629
4.899
1.002
33.10
2.341
.623
4.955
1.005
33.18
2.959
.617
5.013
1.007
33.27
3.686
.611
5.072
1.011
33.37
4.543
.605
5.133
1.014
33.48
5.550
.599
5.196
1.018
33.60
6.739
.592
5.260
1.022
33.73
8.147
.586
5.326
1.027
33.88
9.827
.580
5.394
1.032
34.03
11.853
.574
5.464
1.038
34.20
14.331
.568
5.536
1.044
34.38
17.430
.562
5.610
1.051
34.57
21.428
.556
5.686
1.058
34.77
26.852
.550
5.764
1.066
34.99
34.879
.544
5.844
1.074
35.22
49.292
.537
5.927
1.083
35.46
401.000
.535
5.965
1.088
35.57
HYDRAULIC JUMP: UPSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS RESULTS
DOWNSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED PRESSURE HEAD(FT) = 2.46
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
PRESSURE
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
HEAD(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
.000
2.460
3.247
2.624
112.10
175.854
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.000
3.247
1.164
40.55
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE HEAD(FT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADUALLY VARIED
FLOW PROFILE
COMPUTED
INFORMATION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTANCE FROM
FLOW DEPTH
VELOCITY
SPECIFIC
PRESSURE+
CONTROL(FT)
(FT)
(FT /SEC)
ENERGY(FT)
MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
175.854
1.000
3.246
1.164
40.55
177.250
.987
3.254
1.152
39.97
178.540
.975
3.268
1.141
39.42
179.768
.962
3.286
1.130
38.90
180.948
.949
3.309
1.120
38.40
182.087
.937
3.334
1.110
37.92
183.189
.924
3.362
1.100
37.46
184.257
.912
3.393
1.090
37.02
185.291
.899
3.427
1.081
36.60
186.293
.886
3.463
1.073
36.19
187.263
.874
3.502
1.064
35.81
188.199
.861 3.544
1.056
35.45
189.102
.848 3.589
1.048
35.10
189.969
.836 3.636
1.041
34.78
190.799
.823 3.686
1.034
34.48
191.589
.810 3.738
1.028
34.20
192.336
.798 3.794
1.022
33.94
193.036
.785 3.853
1.016
33.70
193.686
.773 3.915
1.011
33.49
194.280
.760 3.981
1.006
33.31
194.812
.747 4.049
1.002
33.15
195.273
.735 4.122
.999
33.01
195.656
.722 4.198
.996
32.91
195.949
.709 4.278
.994
32.83
196.137
.697 4.363
.993
32.78
196.205
.684 4.452
.992
32.77
401.000
.684 4.452
.992
32.77
---------------- - - - - -- -END OF HYDRAULIC JUMP ANALYSIS ----------- --- ---- - - - - --
PRESSURE+MOMENTUM BALANCE
OCCURS AT 188.02 FEET UPSTREAM OF NODE 9.00
DOWNSTREAM DEPTH
= .863 FEET, UPSTREAM CONJUGATE DEPTH =
.536 FEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 10.00 : HGL = <
160.684>;EGL= <
160.992>;FLOWLINE= <
160.000>
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
10.00 TO NODE
11.00 IS CODE = 8
UPSTREAM NODE 11.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVATION =
160.20 (FLOW IS AT CRITICAL DEPTH)
CALCULATE CATCH BASIN ENTRANCE LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 2.55
CFS PIPE
DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES
FLOW VELOCITY = 4.45
FEET /SEC. VELOCITY HEAD = .308 FEET
CATCH BASIN ENERGY LOSS
= .2 *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ .2 *( .308) _
.062
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE 11.00 : HGL = <
161.054> ;EGL= <
161.054>;FLOWLINE= <
160.200>
UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 11.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 160.20
ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 160.88 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS
END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS
MISCELLANEOUS TABLES
I
1.
c
7
uj .< -5 -t .5 .G .7 .11.9 LO 2 5 i
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS CAPACITY OF GRATE
DIVI51ONTWO WASH;, D.C. WATER PONDED
' ASSUME 25% CLOGGING
-59-
5 V. 7 8910
INLET IN SUMP
ON GRATE
�ASea l
w b
1_��
!
r
-
I �j
__.. ;F
I I
I
I
I
- !
I---- i
I_I
� .I
I
�I
—�--I,
b)
P r z (a -F 2F
A -Gaw
_I
I
I
0_ 0 ,., I• ...I . •.L ' ............l
n::
1•r �I•. ,.,. ••p.: f.•l
I
I 1
I
i r
I 1
1 1
I
I I I I
I
I
I
t
l l
l
I
I
I
I I I
I
I I
- W
I I I
I
11
1
I !
I
I
I
_L
I�
LLLL��
I,
III
. C /PI
3.10"4=
I
A
L
I_
I
FI
I
I
I
1
I
III{
-
I I I I I
�I
IIII
- HEADS
UIP TO 10_;}
,[111dVEl(41
f
�lIlES
I
I_I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HEADS ABOVE
I4 6AVEIC6II
ILIES�_�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-HEADS B�TvE&6.4$L
SECTOR
�f
IA OPE'ROI7 ONIIS)
,4,
�
OH!DL°
A
fI
ION
INITEI
I
I
(
I
I
I
=r
--
►
I I
�
�
I
I
I
I
r
1
I
I
I
I!
I
I
t
I
I 1 1
I
IF
I
IE�t
IE
l
Dll SCI RGt
.I,i...l
P.q
D O
P�
N�
..
, ,
(
DISGH/�R
r I • i., ...,
.�.
PeR
.,..
�naT
I....1-
f OFIpI2E
I a
I
.
uj .< -5 -t .5 .G .7 .11.9 LO 2 5 i
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS CAPACITY OF GRATE
DIVI51ONTWO WASH;, D.C. WATER PONDED
' ASSUME 25% CLOGGING
-59-
5 V. 7 8910
INLET IN SUMP
ON GRATE
�ASea l
F — L5,
n:.015 —+}
013
n : 0175
i
0.5.
04-
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10
DISCHARGE (C. F S.)
RESIDENTIAL STREET
ONE SIDE ONLY
EXAMPLE
Given: 0= 10 S= 2.5%
Chart gives: Depth = 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 fps.
A,
I I I I
20 30 40 50
1
-r4&C Z
SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY
GUTTEit AND ROADWAY
DEPARTMENT OF
SPECIAL
I
DISCHARGE - VELOCITY CHART
I
I
I
14—
I I I
I
1 !
I
ry
L�
s
0
4 —O�'
H
w
4
4
�.
LL
2-
18-7
�
'
o
14—
10-
09—
+
0.6—
0.7—
i
0.5.
04-
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10
DISCHARGE (C. F S.)
RESIDENTIAL STREET
ONE SIDE ONLY
EXAMPLE
Given: 0= 10 S= 2.5%
Chart gives: Depth = 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 fps.
A,
I I I I
20 30 40 50
1
-r4&C Z
SAN
DIEGO
COUNTY
GUTTEit AND ROADWAY
DEPARTMENT OF
SPECIAL
DISTRICT SERVICES
DISCHARGE - VELOCITY CHART
DESIGN MANUAL
APPROVED -Alk DATE 12 30 F
APPENDIX X-D
IV-A- 13
SITE MAP
}e�
}3
40V I'A' I i A 'S'
-10 38 +8
I - L
•
1 r Q2
,t\.
t I -U IFS
,
,
201 c rs .a
AS cps
SY
t
i
�f
I
4
IP
I
I
I
I
I
4' IP
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Consulting Soil, foundation B Geological Engineers
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
EL CAMINO REAL
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 1994
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Consulting Soil, Foundation & Geological Engineers
January 18, 1994
526 -1, 94 -3
Nottingham Associates, Inc.
2910 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200
Post Office Box 5047
Costa Mesa, California 92628 -5047
Attention: Ms. Mary L. Rohrer
Re: Geotechnical Investigation
El Camino Real Retail Center
Encinitas, California
Gentlemen:
Robert R. Prater, C. E. 1942 -1980
Wm. David Hespeler, C.E.
In accordance with your request we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the
subject site. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation,
laboratory tests, and engineering analysis. The soil, foundation, and geologic conditions are
discussed and recommendations for the geotechnical engineering aspects of the site
development are presented.
If you have any questions concerning our findings, please call.
Very truly yours,
L3�7e1�IN11�� :7yr�1:7_�XY�Zy /:�r�l.�
�� Q0.�Frssroyt � Geo
�e���' "v\ ti���o oAV10 H,FS,o� F^4, I (vC6\ ysPE•N J 14
CERTIFIED
Wm. D. Hespeler, G.E. * UP. 331 sa * Lawrence J en, C.E.G. N ENGINEERIt:G Q
0 �,, ��' GEOLOGIST
^. Fr \�P �
WDH /U -.jkk rF OC ECH `\��P �F A`\F�
Copies: Addressee (6)
Fuscoe Engineering, Attn: Mr. Eric K Armstrong (2)
James Leary Architecture and Planning, Attn: Mr. Jim Leary (2)
10505 Roselle Street, San Diego, California 92121 . (619) 453 -5605
FAX: (6 19) 453 -7420
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
For
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Encinitas, California
To
NOTTINGHAM ASSOCIATES, INC.
2910 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, California
JANUARY 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
Title Page
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE
SITE CONDITIONS
A. Surface
B. Subsurface
C. Ground Water
D. Seismicity
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Earthwork
1. Clearing and Stripping
2. Treatment of Existing Fills
3. Excavation
4. Subgrade Preparation
5. Material for Fill
6. Compaction
7. Temporary Construction Slopes
8. Permanent Slopes
9. Trench Backfill
10. Drainage
11. Construction Observation
B. Foundations
1. Footings
2. Slabs -On -Grade
3. Retaining Walls /Crib Walls /Loading Dock Walls
4. Sign Poles
5. Lateral Loads
6. Corrosion Potential
7. Asphalt Concrete Pavements
8. Concrete Pavements
LIMITATIONS
Figure 1 - Site Plan and Geologic Map
Figure 2 - 2:1 Cut Slope
Figure 3 - 1.75:1 Cut Slope
Figure 4 - Typical Retaining Wall Details
Page No.
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figure A -1 - Key to Exploratory Boring Logs
Exploratory Boring Logs 1 through 9
APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING
Table B -1 - Results of No. 200 Sieve Tests
Table B -2 - Results of R(Resistance) -Value Test
Figures B -1 and B -2 - Compaction Test Results
Figures B -3 through B -5 - Direct Shear Test Data
OUTSIDE LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
Analytical Technologies, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
In this report we present the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed retail
center located on the east side of El Camino Real just south of Garden View Road in
Encinitas, California. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the soil and geologic
conditions at the site and to provide recommendations concerning the soil, foundation and
geologic engineering aspects of the project.
As an aid to our study we have been provided a 40 scale topographic map of the site dated
November 16, 1993 and a conceptual grading study plan dated November 22, 1993 prepared
by Fuscoe Engineering. It is our understanding that the retail project will include
construction of a large supermarket building and three outlying retail buildings. The
buildings will be one -story, masonry-block and /or wood -frame structures with slabs -on-
grade. Maximum column loads will be on the order of 70 kips and maximum continuous
footing loads will be about 4 kips per lineal foot. Paved parking and drives will be
provided. Grading for the planned shopping center development will include cuts up to 35
feet deep and fills up to about 10 feet. The deeper cut will occur at the northeast comer of
the supermarket building where a large temporary cut in the slope area will be required to
construct retaining walls. About 40,000 cubic yards of export are planned.
SCOPE
The scope of work performed in this investigation was in according with our proposal dated
December 7, 1993 and included a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory
testing, engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this
report. The data obtained and the analyses performed were for the purpose of providing
design and construction criteria for site earthwork, building foundations, slab -on -grade
floors, retaining walls and pavements.
SITE CONDITIONS
A. Surface
The subject property is roughly rectangular in shape and includes about 8 acres. The site
has been previously sheet graded and slopes gently to the west (See Site Plan and Geologic
Map, Figure 1). Elevations across the graded pad area range from a high of approximately
180 feet at the southeast corner to a low of about 146 feet at the northwest corner. The
property includes a relatively large slope along the eastern boundary inclined at about 2 -1/2
(horizontal) to 1 (vertical) which reaches a maximum height of about 85 feet. A smaller
slope (10 to 15 feet high) borders the southern property line. The property is essentially
526 -1
Page 2
vacant except for a Christmas tree lot in the northwest corner (present during field
investigation). The pad area is covered with a light growth of native grasses. The
slopes are generally well landscaped.
B. Subsurface
A subsurface investigation was performed using a truck - mounted, continuous -flight auger
drill to investigate and sample the subsurface soils. Nine exploratory borings were drilled
on December 21, 1993 to a maximum depth of 25 feet at the approximate locations shown
on the Site Plan and Geologic Map, Figure 1. Logs of the borings and details regarding the
field investigation are presented in Appendix A. Details of the laboratory testing and the
laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
The materials encountered in the borings consisted predominantly of very dense silty sand
(formational sandstone) to the depths explored. In Boring 1 the materials encountered
included very dense, silty sand to a depth of 4 -1/2 feet underlain by very dense, clayey -silty
sand to the depth explored. Fill soil comprised of loose to medium dense, silty sand was
encountered in Borings 2 and 3 to depths of 3 -1/2 and 4 -1/2 feet, respectively. The fill
soils were underlain by very dense sandstone. No potentially expansive soils were
encountered on -site.
As previously mentioned the subject property has been previously graded and is essentially
a cut lot. Based on review of older topographic maps the property previously included a
prominent ridgetop at the northeast comer of the site. The topography sloped moderately
down to the west - southwest and approached the elevation at El Camino Real. Based on
our past experience this property, as well as adjacent sites, were previously mined for sand.
Scattered outcrops of sandstone are present across the pad area. Our geologist also logged
exposures of sandstone across the eastern slope area. The sandstone is considered part of
the Tertiary (Eocene age) Torrey Sandstone. The sandstone generally consists of very
dense silty sand and ranges from lightly cemented to well - cemented. Some of the sandstone
materials encountered in the borings on -site had very little to no cementation. Some well-
cemented (concretionary) zones were observed in the existing slope area. In the area the
Torrey Sandstone is typically relatively flat - lying. Cross - bedding within sandstone beds is
relatively common. Limited exposures on -site revealed beds striking N60W and dipping 3 -5
degrees southwest. No evidence of faulting, landsliding, or other geologic hazards were
observed on -site.
The boring logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific
locations shown on the site plan and on the particular date designated on the logs.
Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these
boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in changes in the subsurface
conditions due to environmental changes.
C. Ground Water
Free ground water was not encountered in any of the exploratory borings drilled at the site
and no surface seeps were observed. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the
level of ground water may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface
526 -1
Page 3
stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors which may not have been evident at the
time of our field investigation.
D. Seismicity
Based on a review of some available published information including the County of San
Diego Faults and Epicenters Map, there are no faults known to pass through the site. The
faults generally considered to have the most potential for earthquake damage in the vicinity
of the site are within the active Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones mapped approximately
25 and 49 miles northeast of the site, respectively. In addition, offshore active faults include
the Coronado Bank fault zone located approximately 18 miles southwest of the site. The
offshore extension of the Rose Canyon fault is mapped approximate 6 miles southwest of
the site. Recent geologic evidence indicates that portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone
have moved within the Holocene epoch (last 11,000 years). According to the California
Division of Mines and Geology this defines the Rose Canyon fault as active. The geologic
structure and seismicity of the Rose Canyon fault zone are still not well understood. It can
generally be said, however, that if this fault system is active it has a much lower degree of
activity than the more distant active faults east and west of the San Diego metropolitan
area.
Although research on earthquake prediction has greatly increased in recent years,
seismologists and geologists have not yet reached the point where they can predict when
and where an earthquake will occur. Nevertheless, on the basis of current technology, it is
reasonable to assume that the proposed development will be subject to the effects of at
least one moderate to large earthquake during it's design life. During such an earthquake,
the danger from fault offset through the site is remote, but strong ground shaking is likely
to occur.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for
construction of the proposed retail center provided the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
Detailed earthwork and foundation recommendations are presented in the following
paragraphs. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are
contingent upon Robert Prater Associates being retained to review the final plans and
specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork and installation of
foundations.
A. Earthwork
1. Clearing and Stripping
The site should be cleared of any trash and debris and stripped of any surface vegetation
that may be present at the time of construction. Prior to any filling operations, the cleared
and stripped materials should be disposed of off -site.
526 -1
Page 4
2. Treatment of Existing Fills
As previously mentioned some relatively shallow existing fill soils were encountered along
the western margin of the site. The existing fills are believed to be associated with the
construction of berms for drainage control on -site. The estimated limits of fill are shown on
Figure 1. In order to provide suitable foundation support for the proposed improvements,
we recommend that all existing fill material that remains after the necessary site excavations
have been made be removed and recompacted. The recompaction work should consist of
a) removing all existing fill material down to firm natural ground, b) scarifying, moisture
conditioning, and compacting the exposed natural subgrade soils, and c) replacing the fill
material as compacted structural fill. The areal extent and depth required to remove the
fills should be determined by our representative during the excavation work based on his
examination of the soils being exposed. Any unsuitable materials (such as oversize rubble
and /or organic matter) should be selectively removed as directed by our representative and
disposed of off -site.
3. Excavation
Based on the results of our exploratory borings and our experience with similar materials, it
is our opinion that the natural formational materials can be excavated utilizing ordinary
heavy earthmoving equipment. Some heavy ripping could, however, be required if layers of
well- cemented sandstone are encountered. Excavations in well- cemented sandstone
materials may also generate oversize material. In addition, any required excavations for
foundations and /or buried utilities extending into any layers of well- cemented sandstone
may be difficult to accomplish using ordinary light backhoe equipment. Contractors should
not, however, be relieved of making their own independent evaluation of the excavatibility
of the on -site materials prior to submitting their bids.
4. Subgrade Preparation
After the site has been cleared and stripped, the exposed subgrade soil in those areas to
receive fill, building improvements and /or pavements should be scarified to a depth of 8
inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements of Item A.6,
"Compaction." In non - paving areas where dense undisturbed formational soils are exposed
at the subgrade surface, the subgrade need not be scarified and compacted; all pavement
subgrade should be scarified and compacted.
5. Material for Fill
All existing on -site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are
suitable for use as fill, except for oversize sandstone blocks that may be generated from cuts
in well - cemented zones. Imported fill material should be a low- expansion potential (U.B.C.
expansion index of 30 or less), granular soil with a plasticity index of 12 or less. In
addition, both imported and existing on -site materials for use as fill should not contain
rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension, not more than 15 percent larger than
2 -1/2 inches, and no more than 25 percent larger than 1/4 -inch. All materials for use as fill
should be approved by our representative prior to filling.
526 -1
Page 5
6. Compaction
All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent
based upon ASTM Test Designation D 1557 -91. Fill material should be spread and
compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness.
Before compaction begins, the fill should be brought to a water content that will permit
proper compaction by either: 1) aerating the fill if it is too wet, or 2) moistening the fill
with water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction to
ensure a uniform distribution of moisture.
7. Temporary Construction Slopes
Based on our subsurface investigation work, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis,
temporary cut- slopes in sandstone should be safe against mass instability at inclinations of
&�2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) W1 to 4rfor slopes up to 25 and 60 feet high, respectively.
Temporary cuts exceeding 60 feet in height should be no steeper than 1 -1/4 to 1. Some
localized sloughing or ravelling of the soils exposed on the slopes, however, may occur.
Since the stability of temporary construction slopes will depend largely on the contractor's
activities and safety precautions (storage and equipment loadings near the tops of
cut- slopes, surface drainage provisions, etc.) it should be the contractor's responsibility to
establish and maintain all temporary construction slopes at a safe inclination appropriate to
his methods of operation.
8. Permanent Slopes
Based on our a) examination of the dense sandstone materials exposed in the exploratory
borings and existing slopes, b) past experience with similar soils, c) laboratory test results,
and d) engineering analyses, it is our opinion that cat slopes up to Wfeet high should be
safe against mass and surficial instability (minimum static factor of safety of 1.5) at an
indi ohm of 1.75 (horizontal) to 1 (ver*al). Cut slope stability was analyzed using the
STABL 4 computer program. Strength parameters for the sandstone material included a 0
atingle of SWdegrees and a cohesion value of 0.2 ksf. We also believe the presence of
occasional cemented zones will further enhance the overall slope stability.
The City of Encinitas grading ordinance specifies that graded slopes should not exceed an
inclination of 2:1. A 2:1 cut slope inclination for the planned development would
necessitate construction of a large retaining wall /crib wall type structure at the rear of the
proposed supermarket building (see Figure 1). A 1.75:1 slope inclination would significantly
reduce the height of the required retaining wall as well as associated temporary cut slopes
(see Cut Slopes, Figures 2 and 3). In our opinion the 1.75:1 slope configuration with only
one mid- height terrace drain results in an overall more stable geometry. Construction of a
1.75:1 cut slope would require approval from the City of Encinitas.
Proposed cut slopes should be inspected by our representative at the time of construction to
assure that no adverse geologic conditions exist which may not have been discovered in
connection with the work performed for this investigation.
526 -1
Page 6
Fill slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2 to 1 and so as to assure that the
required degree of compaction is attained out to the finish slope face. Construction of the
outer edges of the fills should in general be accomplished by operation of the compaction
equipment parallel and up to the edge of the fill with the grading surface sloping down and
away from the slope edge. We recommend that a sheepsfoot roller or segmented wheel
compactor be used to compact the soils at the outer edge of fills adjacent to slopes. The
slope face should be thoroughly backrolled with a sheepsfoot roller in two -foot vertical
increments as the fill is raised. In addition, placement of fill near the tops of slopes should
be carried out in such a manner as to assure that loose, uncompacted soils are not sloughed
over the tops and allowed to accumulate on the slope face.
The on -site sandy soils will be very susceptible to erosion. Therefore, the project plans and
specifications should contain all necessary design features and construction requirements to
prevent erosion of the on -site soils both during and after construction. Slopes and other
exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with a protective ground cover.
It should be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary
during grading to provide erosion control devices in order to protect slope areas and
adjacent properties from storm damage and flood hazard originating on this project. It
should be made the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes in their as- graded form
until all slopes, berms and associated drainage devices are in satisfactory compliance with
the project plans and specifications.
9. Trench Backfill
Pipeline trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill. Backfill material should be
placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and
compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent by mechanical means. In
pavement areas, that portion of the trench backfill within the pavement section should
conform to the material and compaction requirements of the adjacent pavement section.
Our experience has shown that backfills for even shallow, narrow trenches, such as for
irrigation and electrical lines, which are not properly compacted can result in problems,
particularly with respect to shallow ground water accumulation and migration.
10. Drainage
Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the buildings and roof gutters and
downspouts should be installed so as to direct water away from foundations and slabs
toward suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed,
especially adjacent to foundations or on pavements.
11. Construction Observation
Variations in soil and geologic conditions are possible and may be encountered during
construction. In order to permit correlation between the preliminary soil and geologic data
and the actual conditions encountered during construction and so as to assure conformance
526-1
Page 7
with the plans and specifications as originally contemplated, it is essential that we be
retained to perform on -site review during the course of construction.
All earthwork should be performed under the observation of our representative to assure
proper site preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, as well as placement and
compaction of the fills. Sufficient notification prior to earthwork operations is essential to
make certain that the work will be properly observed.
B. Foundations
1. Footings
We recommend that the proposed buildings be supported on conventional, individual- spread
and /or continuous footing foundations bearing on undisturbed formational sandstone
and /or well- compacted fill material. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Footings located adjacent to the tops of slopes
should be extended sufficiently deep so as to provide at least 8 feet of horizontal cover or
1 -1/2 times the width of the footing, whichever is greater, between the slope face and
outside edge of the footing at the footing bearing level. Footings located adjacent to utility
trenches should have their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1 -1/2 to 1 plane
projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench.
At the recommended depths footings founded entirely in dense undisturbed sandstone may
be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 4,001 "ands per square foot (psf) for
combined dead and live loads and 5,300 psf for all loads, including wind or
seismic. Footings bearing on well- compacted fill soil should be designed for 2,500 psf for
dead and live loads and 3,300 psf for all loads. The footings should, however, have a
minimum width of 12 inches. All continuous footings should contain top and bottom
reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities.
We recommend that a minimum of one No. 4 top and one No. 4 bottom reinforcing bars be
provided in the footings. In order for us to offer an opinion whether the footings are
founded on soils of sufficient load bearing capacity, it is essential that our representative
inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed
structures. For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the
preceding paragraphs we estimate that post - construction differential settlements across any
one building should not exceed 1/4 inch.
2. Slabs -On -Grade
Concrete slabs -on -grade may be supported directly on low - expansion potential compacted
fill soil and /or firm undisturbed low - expansion potential natural soil. Slab reinforcing as
well as slab thicknesses should be designed in accordance with the anticipated use of and
loading on the slab. As a minimum, however, we recommend that the slabs have a
minimum thickness of-5 inches for the large market building and 4 inches for the small
retail buildings. We recommend that the slabs be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars
placed at mid height on Minch centers both ways to control concrete shrinkage cracking.
526 -1
Page 8
Alternatively, 6x6- W2.9xW2.9 welded wire fabric may be used. The wire fabric should be
supported on small concrete block chairs or equivalent during placement of concrete and
not hooked into place in the slab. It has been our experience that hooking the wire fabric
to lift it into position prior to placement of the concrete is not always effective and often
results in the wire fabric being positioned at the bottom of the slab.
In areas where moisture - sensitive floor coverings are to be utilized and in other areas where
floor dampness would be undesirable, we recommend that visqueen be provided beneath
the slabs. The visqueen should have a minimum thickness of 6 mils and should be covered
with 2 inches of sattld (minimum sand equivalent of 30) to protect it during construction.
The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete.
3. Retaining Walls /Crib Walls /Loading Dock Walls
Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral
pressures caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining retained surface. We recommend that
unrestrained (cantilever) walls with level backfill be designed for an equivalent fluid
pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that restrained walls with level
backfill be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pcf plus an additional uniform
lateral pressure of 5H pounds per square foot where H = the height of backfill above the
top of the wall footing in feet. Unrestrained walls with up to 1.75 (horizontal) to 1
(vertical) sloping backfills should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf.
Restrained walls with up to 1.75 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) sloping backfills should be
designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf plus an additional uniform lateral
pressure of 8H pounds per square foot where H = the height of backfill above the top of
the wall footing in feet. Unrestrained walls with 2 to I sloping backfills should be designed
for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf. Restrained walls with 2 to 1 sloping backfills
should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf plus an additional uniform
lateral pressure of 7H pounds per square foot.
Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads, they should also be designed for an
additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one -third the anticipated surcharge pressure in
the case of unrestrained walls and one -half the anticipated surcharge pressure in the case of
restrained walls. It should be noted that the large retaining system east of the market
building may impose lateral loads on the loading dock wall depending on details of the
large retaining system. Alternatively, the large retaining system may be designed so as not
to impose loads on the dock wall.
The preceding design pressures assume that there is sufficient drainage behind the walls to
prevent the build -up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Adequate
drainage may be provided by means of weepholes with permeable filter material installed
behind the walls or by means of a system of subdrains. (See Figure 4, "Typical Retaining
Wall Details ").
Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction
of 90 percent using light compaction equipment. If heavy equipment is used, the walls
should be appropriately temporarily braced.
526 -1
Page 9
Retaining walls should be supported on footing foundations designed in accordance with the
recommendations presented previously under Item B.1., "Footings." Lateral load resistance
for the walls can be developed in accordance with the recommendations presented under
Item B.S., "Lateral Loads."
For design of crib walls or other retaining wall systems we recommend that an angle of
internal friction of 34 degrees be utilized with a moist soil weight of 115 pcf. 'l4te design of
4etaining systems should include global stability analyses using a o angle of 34 degrees,
cohesion of 200 psf and a unit weight of lWmpcf. Our office should be provided stability
analyses for review of geotechnical parameters used in design. We should also be provided
details regarding drainage provisions prior to the development of detailed plans.
4. Sign Poles
Sign poles may be supported on drilled, cast -in -place caissons. The caissons should derive
their vertical load carrying capacity through skin friction in the natural soils and /or
compacted fill materials and should be designed for an allowable skin friction value of 250
pounds per square foot. The upper 18 inches of the caisson shafts should not be considered
as contributing to the load carrying capacity of the caissons and should be neglected in
computing design capacities. Recommendations for lateral load carrying capacity of
caissons are given under Item B.S., "Lateral Loads."
5. Lateral Loads
Lateral load resistance for structures supported on footing foundations may be developed in
friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction
coefficient of 0.35 is considered applicable. An additional allowable passive resistance
equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot acting against the
foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against the
adjacent undisturbed formational soils and /or compacted fill materials. These lateral
resistance values assume a level surface in front of the footing for a minimum distance of 3
times the embedment depth of the footing and any shear keys and are based on a factor of
safety of 1.5.
Lateral load resistance for caissons supporting sign poles will be developed by passive
pressures against the embedded portion of the caissons. It is recommended that an
allowable lateral bearing pressure of 600 psf per foot of depth up to a maximum value of
9,000 psf allowable lateral pressure be used in design. The design method as given in the
Uniform Building Code, Section 2907, (g) 2.A., 1991 edition is applicable.
6. Corrosion Potential
Laboratory pH, resistivity and sulfate tests were performed by Analytical Technologies,
Incorporated on a sample representative of the on -site soils to evaluate their corrosion
potential on metal pipes as well as degradation of concrete from sulfates. Details regarding
the tests and the test results are included in Appendix B.
526 -1
Page 10
Based on criteria developed by the State of California, Department of Public Works,
Division of Highways and presented in Test Method No. Calif 643 -C, we have utilized the
pH and resistivity data to estimate a service life of 31 years for 16 gauge metal piping.
Based on this estimate, it is our opinion that the on -site materials have a mild potential for
corrosion attack on metal piping.
The sulphate content test indicates less than 100 parts per million (ppm). Based on Table
26 -A -6 of the Uniform Building Code, 1988 edition, this value indicates a negligible
potential for sulfate attack on concrete. Table 26 -A -6 indicates the use of Type I1 cement
is appropriate at the site.
7. Asphalt Concrete Pavements
A bulk sample representative of the near surface soils at the site was obtained and an
R(Resistance) -value test performed to evaluate the pavement subgrade quality of the soils.
The results of the test are presented in Appendix B and indicate a design R -value of 73.
Based on traffic indices of 4, 5, and 6 for different pavement loading requirements, we have
developed pavement sections using Procedure 301 of the State of California, Department of
Transportation. The recommended pavement sections should provide a pavement life of 20
years with normal maintenance.
We recommend that pavement sections for the proposed development consist of 2 inches of
asphalt concrete on 3 inches of Class H aggregate base for parking stalls and minor traffic
channels, 2 -1/2 inches on 3 inches for major automobile traffic channels, and 3 inches on 3
inches for pavements subject to heavy vehicular loadings such as truck access drives, truck
loading areas, and approaches to trash enclosures. The 3 -inch base thickness reflects a
minimum for construction resulting from the excellent subgrade characteristics of the on -site
soils. Alternatively, full -depth AC pavement could be constructed with no base layer. The
full depth sections should be 2k, 3,'&d 4 inches, respectively, for the previously discussed
traffic loadings.
Asphalt concrete, aggregate base, and preparation of the subgrade should conform to and
be placed in accordance with the requirements of the State of California, Department of
Transportation, Standard Specifications, January 1988, edition, except that the test method
for compaction should be determined by ASTM D 1557 -78. The upper 6 inches of the
pavement subgrade soil as well as the aggregate base layer should be compacted to a
minimum degree of compaction of 95 percent. If full -depth AC is utilized the upper 12
inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent. Preparation
of the subgrade and placement of the base material should be performed under the
observation of our representative. Our representative should also be allowed to observe the
subgrade and base grade surfaces just prior to base and AC placement to check for possible
disturbed areas from site improvement activities.
8. Concrete Pavements
We recommend that concrete vehicular slabs for truck loading areas have a minimum
thickness of 6§ inches and be reinforced with No. 3 bars placed at mid- height on 18 -inch
centers both ways. Alternatively, 6x6- W2.9xW2.9 welded wire fabric may be used. The wire
526 -1
Page 11
fabric should be supported on small concrete block chairs during placement of concrete and
not hooked into place in the slab. The upper 8 inches of the underlying subgrade soil
should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 95 percent. The above
recommended concrete slab thickness is based on a minimum 28 -day concrete compressive
strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch.
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented in this report are specifically for the proposed construction
of the El Camino Real Retail Center. Qur office should be notified of any changes in the
proposed development for further recommendations, if necessary, based on our review. As
grading and foundation plans are developed we should be retained to review them for
conformance to our recommendations. We also recommend that our office review any
other plans which may affect the geotechnical conditions on -site such as landscaping,
irrigation, plumbing, or other similar type plans. We should also be retained to review any
future development plans including building additions in order to develop specific
recommendations for proposed construction. Additional subsurface exploration could be
required.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our evaluation
of the subsurface materials encountered on -site, our understanding of the proposed
development, and our general experience in the geotechnical field. If significant variations
in the geotechnical conditions are encountered during construction our office should be
consulted for further recommendations.
The satisfactory performance of the site is also dependent on proper maintenance. Proper
maintenance includes, but is not limited to, providing and maintaining good drainage away
from structures and slopes, establishing good vegetation cover on slopes, and avoiding
excess irrigation.
Significant variations in geotechnical conditions may occur with the passage of time due to
natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes
in the state of the practice may occur as a result of legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report
should be reviewed and updated, if necessary, after a period of two years.
Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in
lieu of all other warranties either express or implied.
LEGEND
Qaf
Artificial Fill
FTSI
Torrey Sandstone
Indicates approximate
i2�
location of geologic
contact; queried where
questionable.
EB -1 -1�,
Indicates approximate
location of exploratory
boring.
Indicates approximate
location and orientation
of geologic cross - section
(see Figures 2 and 3).
Approximate Scale (feet)
0 40 80 160
Base: An existing topography map titled "El Camino Real Center ", dated November 16, 1993,
prepared by Fuscoe Engineering.
A
CROSS - SECTION A -A'
2:1 CUT SLOPE CONFIGURATION
A
A'
280
P.L.
260
240
W
Existing Cut Slope
0
220
m
2:1 Cut Slope
w
200
– —�
m
E
0
~Retaining Structure
a
160
Planned Finish Grade
140
—�
120
0
100
200 300
400
Horizontal Distance (feet)
2:1 CUT SLOPE
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Comulrnp Sod. fou.dnr.on
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO DATE
Figure 2
526 -1 January 1994
c4u
m
C 220
`i 20C
i�
18C
X
0
CL
a 16C
14C
n
I@]
CROSS - SECTION A -A'
1.75:1 CUT SLOPE CONFIGURATION
Existing Cut Slope /
/ 1.75:1 Cut Slope
t_ _/ Retaining Structure
I
Planned Finish Grade
WE
Horizontal Distance (feet)
P.L.
A'
SCHEMATIC ONLY
NOT TO SCALE
Temporary cut slope at a
maximum inclination of 1/2
(horizontal) to 1 (vertical)
for cuts in formational
sandstone up to 25 feet. See
report for details regarding
temporary cut slopes.
Drainage provision with a four -inch
minimum diameter rigid perforated
pipe placed with perforations down
and surrounded by at least four
inches of permeable filter material
Notes:
1) Positive surface gradient and /or drop inlets to be constructed behind the walls to
prevent ponding and infiltration of surface water runoff.
2) Perforated pipe to discharge into a free outlet at a lower elevation.
3) Perforated pipe to have a minimum drainage gradient of 0.5 percent.
4) Permeable filter material shall consist of washed concrete sand conforming to the
standards of ASTM C33. Alternatively, 3/4" gravel completely surrounded in a suitable
filter fabric may be used in lieu of concrete sand.
5) Drainage behind walls may also be provided by means of weepholes with permeable
filter material placed behind the weepholes.
6) Waterproofing behind walls should be included where wall dampness is not allowable.
7) Drainage provisions for crib walls or other types of retaining structures should be
reviewed and approved by our office prior to construction.
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Consulting Soil, Foundation & Geological Engineers
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DETAILS
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Encinitas, California
Proiect No. I Date
4
526 -1 January 1994 Figure
A -1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration
program using a truck mounted, continuous -flight auger drill. Nine exploratory borings
were drilled on December 21, 1993, at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan
and Geologic Map, Figure 1. The soils encountered in the borings were continuously
logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D 2487). Logs of the borings as well as a key for soil
classification are included as part of this ap endix. The boring locations shown on the site
plan were estimated from existing cultural features depicted on a topographic map titled "El
Camino Real Center ", dated November 16, 1993, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering.
Representative samples were obtained from the exploratory borings at selected depths
appropriate to the investigation. All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation
and testing. Standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by driving a 2 -inch
O.D. split spoon sampler with a 140 -pound hammer dropping through a 30 -inch free fall.
The sampler was driven a maximum of 18 inches and the number of blows recorded for
each 6 -inch interval. The blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the
accumulated number of blows that were required to drive the last 12 inches or portion
thereof. Samples contained in liners were recovered by driving a 2.5 -inch I.D. California
sampler 18 inches into the soil using a 140 -pound hammer. Boring log notations for the
standard split spoon and California samplers as well as for jar and sack samples taken from
auger cuttings are indicated below.
WStandard Split Spoon Sampler W California Sampler
"X11 Indicates jar sample taken M Indicates sack sample taken
from auger cuttings. s from auger cuttings.
The boring logs show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions on the date and at the
locations indicated, and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface
conditions at other locations and times.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS
200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12"
SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES I BOULDERS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE I FINE I COARSE
SANDS,GRAVELS AND
NON - PLASTIC SILTS
l
BLOWS /FOOT
VERY LOOSE
PRIMARY DIVISIONS
LOOSE
GROUP
ISYMBOL
SECONDARY DIVISIONS
10 -30
DENSE
30 - 50
VERY DENSE
OVER 50
STIFF
1 - 2
8 -16
VERY STIFF
2 - 4
16 - 32
GRAVELS
OVER 4
CLEAN
GW
Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
G
GRAVELS
fines.
GP
Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures, little w
V) M O
MORE THAN HALF
(LESS THAN
5
Q -
OF COARSE
5% FINES)
no fines.
GRAVEL
GM
Silty gravels, gravel - sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines
V) 2 O
FRACTION IS
p
w Z
Ow
LARGER THAN
WITH
?
Q
in
NO 4 SIEVE
FINES
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
Qw
S ¢
w
SANDS
SANDS
SW
Well graded sands. gravelly sands, little or no lines.
N
Q
m
MORE THAN HALF
(LESS THAN
$P
poor) graded sands or ravel) sands, little or no fines.
y g gravelly
Q
OF COARSE
5% FINES)
SANDS
SM
Silly sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- plastic lines .
w
U ¢O m
FRACTION IS
0
SMALLER THAN
WITH
NO. 4 SIEVE
FINES
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic lines.
tn
w
N
SILTS AND CLAYS
ML
Inor anic sills and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or
clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity.
w
O J
C L
)nor anic Clays of low to medium plasticity gravelly
-� w
LIQUID LIMIT I$
V)
w Q
w
Clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.
Q
= ti
—
rn
LESS THAN 50%
OL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
Z
Z N
O
_
O
^'
SILTS AND CLAYS
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous rp diatomaceous fine sandy or
/- Q
silty sails, elastic sills.
Z
w
¢ w
LIQUID LIMIT
IS
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, (at clays.
Z
LL
O Q
G
=
GREATER THAN
50%
OR
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Pt
i Peat and other highly organic soils
DEFINITION OF TERMS
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS
200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12"
SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES I BOULDERS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE I FINE I COARSE
SANDS,GRAVELS AND
NON - PLASTIC SILTS
l
BLOWS /FOOT
VERY LOOSE
0 - 4
LOOSE
4 - 10
MEDIUM DENSE
10 -30
DENSE
30 - 50
VERY DENSE
OVER 50
GRAIN SIZES
PLAST LAY C NDTS
STRENGTH;
BLOWS /FOOT[
VERY SOFT
0 - 1/4
0 - 2
SOFT
1/4 - 112
2 - 4
FIRM
1/2 - 1
4 - 8
STIFF
1 - 2
8 -16
VERY STIFF
2 - 4
16 - 32
HARD
OVER 4
OVER 32
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
f Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O. D. (1 -3/8 inch I. D.)
split spoon (ASTM D- 1586).
{Unconfined compressive strength in tons /sq. If as determined by laboratory testing or approximated
by the standard penetration test CASTM D- 1586), pocket penetrometer, torvane, or visual observation.
Unified Soil Classification System CASTM D -2487)
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Consulting Sod. Foundoiwn d Geological Engineen Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO. DATE
526 -1 January 1994 Figure A -1
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Aug
SURFACEELEVATION 148' (approx.)l
LOGGED BY JB
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
w
° i
rt °_
: a
o
i y
DEPTH
(FEET)
lzw-
a
i
QFi/t
rn
�z
a:1-
_
wzT
=wpy
N
zWze,,
pawy
SVM
SOIL
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
BOL
COLOR
CONSIST.
TYPE
uQi
z w m
a rt _
O
0 m
z ZOO
O
o
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
grayish
dense
brown
61
8
z
3
4
CLAYEY -SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
Sc-
sandstone)
grayish
dense
SM
5
x
brown
6
7
80
8
9
30
to
6"
Bottom of Boring = 10 Feet
Note The slrabbcation fines represent the approximate
boundary Oetween material types and the transition may
tie gradual.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRAYER ASSOCIATES
PRAT
Encinitas, California
Ir.,.ys�-rr 6GedSOCIATES
PROJECT NO
DATE
1
BORING 1
526 -1 1
January 1994
NO
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 153' (approx.)
LOGGEDBY JB
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
DEPTH
(FEET)
11
i
<
`�
a s `�`��
¢l�ir>
ib 0,
u m m
w i
<r
3z
O
¢ l- > LL
'ZwOY
0
rn m
z w,
zZx'y
0
zoo
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SYM-
BOL
COLOR
CONSIST.
SOIL
TYPE
SILTY SAND fill
light
medium
SM
s
grayish
brown
dense
2
30
11
3
S
FILL
SILTY SAND (formational
sandstone)
light
grayish
very
dense
SM
brown
s
76
6
7
g
X
Bottom of Boring = 10 Feet
Note The stratification lines represent the apprnmmale
houndary oetween material types and the transition may
L* gradual
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
l n�sulbnp Sod Foundol•o•. 8 Ger✓ag.rol Eynee•�
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO.
DATE
BORING 2
NO.
526 -1
January 1994
DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 158' (approx.)
LOGGEDBY JB
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
a
o r,
x °—
`
__ a =
DEPTH
ffEE7)
1z'_
LL
<
W,p
¢<
y� Z"
Y
LL W 2 N
x
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SYM'
COLOR
CONSIST.
SOIL
m
i N
3 z
m m O
U i¢
BOIL
TYPE
a¢m
o
Nm
zoo+
SILTY SAND (fill)
light
loose
SM
grayish
t
brown
8
2
3
4
FILL
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
s
70
ish
91,
brown
6
and
light
7
gray
e
9
x
Io
Bottom of Boring = 10 Feet
Note The stratlbca0on ones represent the apprnvmate
boundary between material types and the transition .nay
be gradual.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ES
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
R08 E
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Encinitas, California
s v.,RA •,., s cent.,9.,,,� e.,,.
PROJECT NO.
DATE
BORING
No. 3
526 -1
January 1994
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACEELEVATION166' (approx.)
LOGGED BV CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
a
°
l-
1 z
w
w w x_
DEPTH
(FEET)
i
M
¢4\
rn
w~
aI
wi¢y
E-Oiz
paws
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SYM
COLOR
CONSIST.
SOIL
N
= W
3 =
o
=wpy
BOIL
TYPE
WMW
Nm
ZOO
U
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
ish
brown
56
6
and
z
light
gray
a
a
6
60
6n
6
7
8
9
50
gray
o
it
6
Bottom of Boring = 10J Feet
Note The strallLcabon lines represent the appmxnnale
boundary between material types and the transition ,nay
be gradual
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
PRATER ASSOCIATES
ROBERT AS
Encinitas, California
d En
y oqe ymee•.
R "SOB Sod fowATE B
PROJECT NO.
DATE
BORING
NO 4
526 -1
1 January 1994
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 16$' (approx.
) LOGGED BY CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER $ Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
¢
W
g uF�
°-
Z y l
DEPTH
IFEE7)
rZLL
aam
WF
wZ
Q1,
WALL
ZM,
LLNU'
w
O a Y
DESCRIPTION AND REMAR KS
SYM
COLOR
CONSIST
SOIL
a
O
Z W m
y
o
O y
m>
iX
pm
BOL
TYPE
w
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
ish
brown
and
z
light
X
gray
3
4
5
74
611
6
T
8
9
10
51
611
11
1z
13
14
X
Bottom of Boring = 15 Feet
15
Note- The strat, icabon lines represent the apprnvmate
boundary between material types and the transition may
he gradual.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Encinitas, California
to .an .n,acenwp,rnlL9,ee"
PROJECT NO
DATE I
BORING
No 5
526 -1
January 1994 1
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 173' (approx.)
LOGGEDBY CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
w
°z- Z G
M'
Q^
i w
DEPTH
tFEETI
Qain
¢N3
wZ
¢F
Q
c0 >tz
=WoY
al wc�LL
zoawY
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SYM
COLOR
CONSIST.
SOIL
N
z w OJ
3 z
w ¢ l —
U m ¢ "
BOIL
TYPE
a¢ m
a m
ZOO
U
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
1
ish
x
brown
and
2
light
gray
3
a
65
6't
8
5
6
7
S
8
9
95
_7
10
11
12
13
Id
X
1s
16
17
18
19
Bottom ot boring = ee
x
Note The stratification lines represent the app rn.0 nate
boundary between matenal types a d the transition may
o0
be 9'adual.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
�: ^SUtlm[t50.1 {OJ PI)nlipn s Gening,rnl
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO
DATE
BORING
No. 6
526 -1
1 January 1994 1
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 174' (approx.)
LOGGEDBY CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
¢
O u r
�_
¢
F z
w
z_ m
DEPTH
(FEET)
a
f
QFrn
y3
Fz
ar
_
ug ZIM
xwoy
"LUZ.
pawy
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
sYM
COLOR
CONSIST.
SOIL
y
'W'
3 z0
a - �'
i N _
BOL
TYPE
a ¢ _
u
m
O
u
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
ish
brown
and
z
light
gray
3
x
4
5
6
7
x
8
scattered gravel /cobbles from
8 to 10 feet
g
10
93
911
I1
,z
13
14
15
x
16
17
18
g
Bottom of Boring = 20 Feet
Note The strabhcation lines represent the approximate
x
boundary between material types and the Irar,SihOn ,may
�Q
be gradual
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Encinitas, California
so,I Pno,doi,n„ gGedng,cnl E y,nee,
PROJECT NO
DATE
BORING
NO 7
526 -1
January 1994
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACEELEVATION 173' (approx.)
LOGGEDBY CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
w
zz
¢ 1
w
DEPTH
(FEET)
d
f
y
`
¢r�
ENO
Zww
w �
1-Z
ar
�z
wz¢m
imi—
m�>
Zwzv1
ppQt
UO�
SYM.
SOIL
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
BOIL
COLOR
CONSIST.
TYPE
a ¢ m
Op
1O m
rn
U
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
ish
brown
2
3
S
scattered gravel from 3 to 4
feet
4
s
6
7
x
light
8
ray
9
83
10
n
12
x
13
14
15
50
61'
16
17
18
19
Bottom of Boring = 20 Feet
Note The stratification Imes represent the app,mirnale
x
boundary hetween material types and the uans,hon inay
20
_.._
be gradual.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRAYER ASSOCIATES
Encinitas, California
„••1 I„ g foo•dol•nn scen4,g.nl F yner.
sn•l
PROJECT NO.
DATE
BORING
NO. 8
526 -1
January 1994
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 179' (approX.
) LOGGED BY CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
z w
-
DEPTH
(FEET)
a
F
_-
¢r r5
N;O
1-~
a r
Qi¢y
Z"
_
LLNZLL
p n w x
SYM
SOIL
y
�ii m
z
N
U �'
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
BOL
COLOR
CONSIST.
TYPE
z
w¢ we m
O
F
N m
p u1
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SM
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
1
ish
brawn
2
and
light
gray
3
s
4
5
6
7
50
8
6"
e
9
10
17
X
Q
13
14
15
50
611
16
17
18
19
Note. The slratil¢ation lines represent the approrrrnale
Lqundary belween natenal types and The Iransdion inay
X
he gradual
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
SriJ Foundouo SGeMogrc nl fgmeev
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO
DATE
BORING
"0 9 (pg. 1)
526 -1
1 January 1994 1
DRILLRIG Continuous Flight Auger
SURFACE ELEVATION 179' (approx.)
LOGGED BY CBW
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None
BORING DIAMETER g Inches
DATE DRILLED 12/21/93
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
w
g Z
i
a I Q
=' z
DEPTH
(FEET)
i
y�
minis
¢w
u�wmy
w
lz
=¢wm
SYM-
SOIL
y
= rn of
3 z
x o Y
Ov o- ¢ x
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
BOL
COLOR
CONSIST.
TYPE
m
O
N m
O N
a¢
SILTY SAND (formational
light
very
SC
sandstone)
yellow-
dense
ish
21
brown
and
22
light
gray
23
24
x
25
Bottom of Boring = 25 Feet
_
Note: The stratification lines represent tt a approairnate
boundary between matenal types and the transition may
be gradual.
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Encinitas, California
Co. r„ bi ng Sod, FovndorionaGedogicr,lEnp;nees
PROJECTNO.
I DATE
BORING
No. 9 (pg. 2)
526 -1
1 January 1994
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
The natural water content was determined on selected samples and is recorded on the
boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.
Four No. 200 sieve tests were performed on selected samples of the subsurface soils to aid
in classifying the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The results of
these tests are presented in Table B -1.
One R -value test was performed on a sample representative of the on -site soils for use in
evaluating the pavement subgrade quality of the soils. The results of the test are presented
in Table B -2.
Two laboratory compaction tests (ASTM D 1557 -91) were performed on representative bulk
samples of the on -site soils. The results of these tests are presented on Figures B -1 and
B -2.
Two laboratory direct shear tests were performed on samples of the subsurface soils
recovered with the California sampler and one test was performed on a sample remolded to
approximately 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. The samples were sheared at
a constant rate under various surcharge pressures; failure was taken at the peak shear
stress. The results of these tests are presented on Figures B -3, B-4, and B -5.
One laboratory pH and resistivity and sulphate test was performed on a selected sample of
the subsurface soils and aid in evaluation of the corrosivity of these soils. The testing was
performed by Analytical Technologies, Inc. The test results are presented at the end of
Appendix B.
526 -1
TABLE B -1
RESULTS OF NO. 200 SIEVE TESTS
Percent
Sample
Passing
Exploratory
Depth
No. 200
Boring No.
Feet
Sample Description
Sieve
2
0 -3
SILTY SAND (SM), light grayish brown
26
6
5 -9
SILTY SAND (SM), light gray
24
8
1 -5
SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish brown
12
9
7
SILTY SAND (SM), light gray
11
TABLE B -2
RESULTS OF R(RESISTANCE) -VALUE TEST
Exploratory Boring Number: 2 Sample Depth (feet): 0 -3
Description: SILTY SAND SM light q ra ish brown
SPECIMEN
A
B
C
Water Content at compaction %
13
12
11
Dry Density c
119.6
122.9
124.2
Exudation Pressure (psi)
179
442
747
Stabilometer R -value
68
77
84
Ex ansion Pressure Thickness feet
0.13
0.26
0.26
ASSUMED TI: 4, 5, and 6
ASSUMED GRAVEL FACTOR: N/A
R -VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE: 73
R -VALUE BY EXPANSION PRESSURE: N/A
R -VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: N/A
Boring DEPTH SPECIFIC LIOUID PLASTIC
No. sFT.) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION GRAVITY LIItI INDEX
6 1 5 -9 1 SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish brown
130
125
V
CL
}
120
Z
w
0
}
D
115
110
Zero Air Voids Curve
MOISTURE CONTENT
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT %
10.5
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pcf
125.8
TEST DESIGNATION
ASTM D 1557 -78
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Consvinnp Sod, foundonon A Geolo9'col fnpmees
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO DATE
FIGURE B -1
526 -1 jJanuary 1994
Boring OEPTM SPECIFIC LIOUIO PLASTIC
No. (FT.) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION GRAVITY MIT NDE%
roIT
8 1 -5 SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish brown - -- - -- - --
120
115
U
n
r
F-
110
z
Li
0
r
0
105
100 L
0
Zero Air Voids Curve
5 10
MOISTURE
0
15 20 25
CONTENT
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT %
8.9
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pcf
112.9
TEST DESIGNATION
ASTM D 1557 -78
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Consuhmg $oml. Foundolion d Geolog¢ol Eng,neen
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO DATE
FIGURE B -2
526 -1 1 January 1994
5.0
4.0
CC
Y 3.0
W
(O
W
cr
in
H
cc
a
= 2.0
(n
1.0
n L n 9.n 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF)
SAMPLE DATA
DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND (SM) , light gray
BORING NO 4
DEPTH (11 ): 5 ELEVATION (11) - --
TEST RESULTS
APPARENT COHESION (CI: 0.29 ksf
APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 101: 3L
TEST DATA
TESTNVMBER
1
2
3
4
NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF)
1.10
2.20
4.40
SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF)
1 .08
1.58
3.28
INITIAL HID CONTENT ( %)
11.6
10.8
10.7
FINAL HO CONTENT 4%)
--
--
--
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF)
101.7
98.1
98.8
FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF)
STRAIN RATE: 0.02 inches /minute approx.
Note: Test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample obtained with a
California sampler.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Consebmg Sod. Foendonon 6 Geolog000l Engineers Encinitas California
PROJECT NO DATE
Figure g_j
526 -1 January 1994
. 3
TEST DATA
5.0
1
2
7
�
NORMAL PRESSURE IKSFI
1.10
2.20
4.40
SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF)
0.85
1 , SS
2.99
4.0
INITIAL HA CONTENT ( %I
6.5
6.2
6.2
FINAL Hp CONTENT ( %)
--
--
--
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCFI
95.0
95.7
94.6
FINAL DRY DENSITY (PC
--
--
--
STRAIN RATE' 0.02 inches /minute
(approx.
En
Y 3.0
rn
W
W
cr
Q
a
w 2.0
M
1.0
0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF)
SAMPLE DATA
DESCRIPTION. SILTY SAND SM), light gray
BORING NO 6
DEPTH (It l: 9 ELEVATION pt1. ---
TEST RESULTS
APPARENT COHESION (C): 0.16 ksf
APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION Im)
Note: Test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample obtained with a
California sampler.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Consu lying $oil, Foundation dGeologiml Enp sneers
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO
DATE
Figure B -4
526 -1
January 1994
. 3
TEST DATA
TEST NUMBER
1
2
7
�
NORMAL PRESSURE IKSFI
1.10
2.20
4.40
SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF)
0.85
1 , SS
2.99
INITIAL HA CONTENT ( %I
6.5
6.2
6.2
FINAL Hp CONTENT ( %)
--
--
--
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCFI
95.0
95.7
94.6
FINAL DRY DENSITY (PC
--
--
--
STRAIN RATE' 0.02 inches /minute
(approx.
Mal
4.0
iZ
x 3.0
LO
ir
w
F-
U)
cc
a
= 2.0
U)
1.0
U
n i_n 9_5 3_5 4.0 5.0 6.
SAMPLE DATA
DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM) , light
yellowish brown
BORING NO.'. 8
DEPTH (II. F. 1 -5 ELEVATION (11) - --
TEST RESULTS
APPARENT COHESION IC) 0.55 ksf
APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 101'_ 3
NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF)
C)
TEST DATA
TEST NUMBER
1
2
3
4
NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF)
1.10
n
2.20
4.40
SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF)
1.23
2.07
3.51
INITIAL HIO CONTENT (%1
9.6
9.6
9.6
F INAL HID CONTENT I%)
--
--
--
INITIAL DRY DENSITY IPCFI
101.7
101.7
101.7
FINAL DRY DENSITY IPCF)
I --
I --
I --
STRAINRATE. 0.02 inches /minute (ap rox.)
Note: Test was performed On a sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum density.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
Consulting Sod Fovndaoon Encinitas, California
PROJECT NO DATE
526 -1 1 January 1994 Figure B -5
AAfI(] yiICaITeChnOlOg1es, Inc. Corporate Offices 5550 Morehouse Drive Son DleggCA92121 (619) 458 -9141
ATI I.D.: 312346
January 04, 1994
-OBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
10505 ROSELLE STREET
AN DIEGO, CA 92121
Project Name: EL CAMINO CENTER
°roject # : 526 -1
ttention: CHARLES WHILE
nalytical Technologies, Inc. has received the following sample(s):
Date Received Quantity Matrix
December 22, 1993 1 SOIL
she sample(s) were analyzed with EPA methodology or equivalent methods as specified in the
enclosed analytical schedule. The symbol for "less than" indicates a value below the reportable
etection limit. Please note that the Sample Condition Upon Receipt Checklist is included at the
ad of this report.
-he results of these analyses and the quality control data are enclosed.
Gy�
N. BREWSTER H. E. SHICLE__ # #//
PROJECT MANAGER LABORATORY MANAGER
Analyk olTechnologies,ln,
J�
SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE
'.Iient : ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
roject # : 526 -1
roject Name: EL CAMINO CENTER
--------------------------------------
�TI j' Client Description
--------------------------------------
1 EB -1 @ 5'
Matrix
SOIL
Page 1
Report Date: January 04, 1994
ATI I.D. : 312346
-------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Date Collected
-------------------------------------------------------
SOIL 21- DEC -93
- -- TOTALS - --
,¢' Samples
1
ATI STANDARD DISPOSAL PRACTICE
The sample(&) from this project will be disposed of in twenty -one (21) days from the date of
this report. If an extended storage period is required, please contact our sample control
3epartment before the scheduled disposal date.
JkAnolyhcolTechnologies,lm
ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE
_lient : ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Project # : 526 -1
'roject Name: EL CAMINO CENTER
___________________________________________
Malysis
.--------------- -------------- ------- - -____
EPA 120.1 (RESISTIVITY)
-.PA 9038 (SULFATE)
IPA 9045 (pH SOIL)
Page 2
ATI I.D.: 312346
_________________________________________________
Technique /Description
ELECTRODE
TURBIDIMETRIC
ELECTRODE
J� AnalyncolTechnologies , lr,c
GENERAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS
.:lient : ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Project # : 526 -1
Iroject Name! EL CAMINO CENTER
.---------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Client ID Matrix
I
---------------------------------------------------------------
EB -1 @ 5' SOIL
----------------------------------------------------------------
arameter Units 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
,B UNITS 7.1
RESISTIVITY OBMS 2920
;ULFATE MG/KG <100
Page 3
AT! I.D.: 312346
.-------------- ------ - - - - --
Date Date
Sampled Received
21- DEC -93 22- DEC -93
AAna y,culechnologies,Irc.
GENERAL CHEMISTRY - QUALITY CONTROL
DUP /MS
Page 4
lient :
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
roject :
526 -1
ATI Z.D.
: 312346
Project Name:
EL CAMINO CENTER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arameters
REF Z.D.
Units
Sample
Dup
RPD
Spiked
Spike
9
Result
Result
Sample
Conc
Rec
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_ ESISTIVITY
312346 -01
OHMS
2920
3060
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
ULFATE
312314 -01
MG/KG
<100
<100
0
214
196
109
rH
312377 -03
UNITS
6.5
6.8
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100 /Spike Concentration
PD (Relative 9 Difference) _ (Sample Result - Duplicate Result)•100 /Average Result
IA. AnolyScalTechnologies,lnc
GENERAL CHEMISTRY - QUALITY CONTROL
BLANK SPIKE
Page 5
lient ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
roject 526 -1 ATI I.D. : 312346
Project Name: EL CAMINO CENTER
_____________ _____ ___________ __ _____ ______ --- __---- ________-- _- _- __ -___
arameters Blank Units Blank Spiked Spike %
Spike IDi Result Sample Conc. Rec
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ULFATE 42879 MG /KG <100 211 200 106
b Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result) "100 /Spike Concentration
PD (Relative 8 Difference) _ (Sample Result - Duplicate Result)-100 /Average Result
ACCESSION #: 1 Z
INITIALS:(�-J
SAMPLE C010MON UTO RECEIPT HEG'%LIS7"
;{FOR R1iAGEESSKINS;;COMPIEIE #7 t'f�U 97
-
1
Does this project require special handling according to NEESA Levels C. D, AFOEHL
or CLP protocols?
If yes, complete a) thru c)
a) Cooler temperature
b) pH sample aliquoted: yes / no / n/a
c) LOT #'s:
YES
NO
2
3
Are custody seals present on cooler?
If yes, are seals intact?
Are custody seals present on sample containers?
If yes, are seals intact? (
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
4
Is there a Chain -Of- Custody (COC)*?
YE
NO
5
Is the COC complete?
Relinquished: fts/no Requested analysis: (Y /no
YE
NO
6
Is the COC in a eement with the samples rec ived?
# Samples: /no Sample ID's: s /no
Matrix: y s /no # containers: s /no
YES
NO
7
Are the samples preserved correctly?
I Y
NO
8
Is there enough sample for all the requested analyses?
NO
9
Are all samples within holding times for the requested analyses?
YES
NO
10
Were the samples received cold?
YES
NO
11
Were all sample containers received intact (ie. not broken, leaking, etc.)?
YES
NO
12
Are samples requiring no headspace, headspace free? N/A
I YES
NO
13
Are there special comments on the Chain of Custody which require client contact?
I YES
N/A
14
If yes, was ATI Project Manager notified?
I
YES
NO
DIl "no' it
Was client contacted? yes / no
f yes, Date: Name of Person contacted:
Describe actions taken or client instructions:
•Or other representative documents, letters, and shipping memos
JI SAN DIEGO, Chain of Custody
\Anal ticaTechnolo 1 @SrIrIG SAN D1EGQ GA 92721J7G9
y g I619J e5e.9r41
DATE Z 5 PAGE --L OF—L
PROJECT MANAGER: ,,/,
Recommended
Quantity
and
Preservative
(Provide
triple
volume
on
QC
Samples)
-
COMPANY., �o%!r� // / Socr�
°
J
J
M
O
a
N
ZI
°
JJ'F
N
E
xE
N
}E
N
�
��oa]I
^
\�'
F
.lE�
N
•g,
F
g
g
ADDRESS:
�y�
BILL IV:
y
rt
P
�'
n
O
=_O
c0
O
ro
C
O
o 0
OeV
.e
E m °.
�
c0Q[O
3
�
'�
.�
0
$
c
U
4�
Q
C
$
t L$
U=
i
°
o
o
°'
g
E
W
�/l
9
mU
3
e'
'
¢
cZi
U
g
c
k
@
z
2
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
MPLER : Sf nature PHONE NUMBER
MPLf 10
GOATEE
TIME
MATRIX
LAB ID
Ftf-
PROJECT INFORMATION
SAMPLE RECEIPT
RELINOUIS
ED BY I.
RELINQUISHED BY 2.
RELINOU/S ED BY., 3.
PROJECT NUMBER:
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTAINERS
Time:
Signature: Time.
Signat . Time:
PROJECT NAME: F1(1a,*j;hy
CHAIN OF CUSTODY SEALS YIN /NA
t d Name: Date:
lrV,i
Printed Name: Date:
'fiInted Name: Date:
PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: —_
SEALS INTACT? YIN /NA
VIA:
RECEIVED GOOD COND. /COLD
Company:r
r
Company:
Company:
TAT. O24HR 048HRS
LAB NUMBER Z 3 ({ (o
RECEIVED Or t.
RECEIVED 8N 2
RECEIVED
SAMPLE DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS
gnature: Time:
- � O55
Signature: Time.,
Signature: Time:
ATI Disposal @ $5.00 each O Return O Pickup
.
P'nled Name., D te:
Printed N e: Date:
Print Name: Date:
Comments:
Company.,
Com y:
1,Xnatyticai Technologies, Inc.
DISTRIBUTION: While, Canary ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC • Pink - ORIGINATOR
RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS
October 6, 1994
Prepared for:
Nottingbam Associates, Inc.
2910 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200
P.O. Box 5047
Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -5047
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1 Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 553 -0666
LSA Project #NOA401
LSA AS CiWe; Ina
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....... ............................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........... ............................... 2
Purpose............ ............................... 2
General Project Description and Location .................. 2
Methodology ........ ............................... 2
PROJECT................. ............................... 5
EXISTING STREET SYSTEM ... ............................... 5
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES . ............................... 8
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ..... 10
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........ ............................... 10
Existing Plus Project Traffic Condition 10
Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Condition ....... 17
PROJECT ACCESS ......... ............................... 19
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY .............................. 20
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 20
APPENDICES
A - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS
B - INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS
C - CIRCUIT CITY TRIP GENERATION STUDY
D - CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP ASSIGNMENT
E - ETAM DATA
I 0/06i94(6\N0A401 \TRAFFIC.RM li
LIST OF FIGURES
LSA Ass cwt*; I
PAGE
1 - Project Vicinity Map ... ...............................
3
2 - Site Plan ............ ...............................
6
3 - Existing Circulation System .............................
7
4 - Existing Daily and P.M. Peak Hour Volumes ................
9
5 - Trip Dist ribution ..... ...............................
13
6 - El Camino Real Retail Center Project Trip Assignment ........
14
7 - Existing Plus Project Daily and P.M. Peak Hour Volumes ......
15
8 - Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Daily and PM Peak Hour
Volumes ........... ...............................
18
10 /06/94(1:\.N0A401 \TRA17F1C.RM iii
U4 AUO0 Inc
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
A - Existing Intersection Level of Service ..................... 11
B - Trip Generation ..... ............................... 12
C - Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Level of
Service............ ............................... 16
10/06/94(1:W0A401 \TRAFFIC.RFT) iv
tM Assonates, M,
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to assess the potential
circulation impacts associated with the development of the El Camino Real
Retail Center, consisting of a Circuit City home electronics store and other
retail uses in the City of Encinitas.
Key findings of this analysis are
• All six of the study area intersections currently operate satisfactorily,
with LOS D or better during the p.m. peals hour.
• Circulation improvements are planned at the intersections of El
Camino Real/Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real/Encinitas Boule-
vard. With the implementation of these committed circulation
improvements, all study area intersections are forecast to operate at
LOS D or better in an existing plus cumulative plus project condition.
• The total trip generation of the proposed retail center is approximate-
ly 2,500 ADT and 240 p.m. peak hour trips. The effective p.m. peak
hour trip generation of the proposed retail center is approximately
220 p.m. peak hour trips.
• The proposed retail center will have no short-term traffic impacts. All
study intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D conditions or
better with the addition of the project traffic to the existing plus cu-
mulative traffic base. Project mitigation measures are not necessary.
• The project is consistent with the current General Plan land use and
zoning of the site and will, therefore, have no traffic impacts in the
General Plan horizon time frame.
10/06/940 N1OA40hTRAFFIC.RPY)
EL CAMINO REAL RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
can Am" r�
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to identify the potential
circulation impacts resulting from the development of a retail center located
on the eastern side of El Camino Real, south of Garden View Road, in the
City of Encinitas. Issues addressed in this analysis include local off -site
intersection impacts, on -site access, and General Plan consistency.
General Project Description and Location
Methodology
The proposed project considers the development of a 66,702 square foot
retail center comprised of a Circuit City home electronics store, a Pet Metro
pet and pet supply store, and other in -line retail stores. Figure 1 illustrates
the project location in relation to the local circulation system. Within the
project vicinity, Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real are part of the San
Diego County Regional Arterial System. In addition, Congestion Management
Program (CMP) routes include the I -5 freeway, El Camino Real, and
Olivenhain Road.
This traffic impact analysis is prepared consistent with the applicable provi-
sions of the San Diego County CMP guidelines, the City of Encinitas, Appen-
dix F - Projects Requiring Enbanced Traffic Analysis, and the City of
Encinitas, Interim Traffic Impact Study Requirements, July 29, 1992.
The study area for the traffic impact analysis is determined based on the CMP
criteria, which state:
All Regionally Significant Arterial (RSA) system segments where the
proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips in either
direction to adjacent street traffic.
• Mainline freeway locations where the project will add 150 or more
peak hour trips in either direction.
As discussed in subsequent sections, the project trip assignment, which is a
function of the trip generation and trip distribution, results in a study area
that includes El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Boule-
t0 /06/94(1ANOA401 \TRAPPIC.RPn 2
LEGEND:
■ ■ ■ • San Diego County
Regional Arterial System
Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
Highway System
OStudy Area Intersections
9r29194(NOA401)
` f
Ciq of Encinilae Roandary
�I
JS A Schematic - Not to Scale
Ilk
■
■� cO °. q
Y ■ OLIVENHAFN RD
■
■
3 ■
■ GPRDFN VIC•W�
•
• PROJECT
♦, SITE
Ar&-�
♦ -`�4i.EETT
SANTA FE DR
■
•
.a p
�n
■■NT-
9
H�
�U
C
'ac
Figure I
Project Vicinity Map
LSA Amcta"x Ina
vard. Key intersections to be evaluated in this analysis have been determined
in consultation with City of Encinitas staff, and include the following loca-
tions:
El Camino Real at:
Olivenhain Road,
Garden View Road,
Via Montoro,
Mountain Vista Drive,
Via Molena,
Encinitas Boulevard.
This study focuses on the operation of these intersections in the p.m. peak
hour in the existing, existing plus project, and existing plus cumulative plus
project conditions.
Existing p.m. peak hour traffic counts were collected by LSA Associates, Inc.
(LSA) in May, 1994. Existing daily volumes for the roadways in the study
area were provided by the City of Encinitas. The existing daily and p.m. vol-
umes reflect the traffic base for the existing plus project and the existing plus
cumulative plus project scenarios.
To assess the potential project related impacts, daily and p.m. trips are gener-
ated for the proposed retail center based on trip rates determined by an
independent trip generation study for Circuit City Stores, Inc. and the
SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego
Region, October, 1993, for the other retail uses.
The proposed El Camino Real Retail Center project trips are generated based
on rates of similar land uses, and are assigned to the study area street system
based on project specific trip distribution percentages. Trip distribution per-
centages are established based on the potential market area and logical travel
routes in the study area. The resulting project trip assignment is added to
the existing and existing plus cumulative traffic bases to determine project
related and cumulative circulation impacts.
The existing plus cumulative plus project condition includes the contribution
of p.m. peak hour traffic volumes from the Home Depot project, as described
in the Traffic Study for Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative Map EIR,
prepared by Basmaycian- Darnell, Inc., November, 1991; the Vons super-
market project, as described in the Vons Encinitas Traffic Impact Analysis,
prepared by ISA. June, 1994; and the Encinitas Ranch Phase I development
as described in the Encinitas Ranch Phasing Analysis, prepared by Austin -
Foust Associates, Inc., March, 1994.
Intersection operation is determined through the use of the intersection
capacity utilization (ICU) analysis technique. A description of the ICU analy-
sis methodology and level of service is included in Appendix A. According to
10/06/94(1:\HOA40I \11WFIC -FYn 4
PROJECT
LSA Aonai s. Ma
the City of Encinitas criteria, satisfactory intersection operation is expressed
as LOS D or better (ICU values from 0.00 to 0.90).
The proposed project includes the development of a 66,702 square foot retail
center on a vacant site. This center will be comprised of a 33,338 square
foot Circuit City home electronics store, a 20,044 square foot Pet Metro pet
and pet supply store, and 13,320 square feet of other retail uses. Figure 2
illustrates the project site plan. The retail center is located on the east side
of EI Camino Real, south of Garden View Road.
Access to the proposed retail center is via a signalized intersection, which
will also provide protected left turn movements to the Liquor Faucet retail
center adjacent to and west of the proposed El Camino Real Retail Center
project. As part of the project plan, a driveway connecting an existing medi-
cal center to the north will be constructed to the El Camino Real Retail
Center. This driveway will allow for medical center patrons to circulate
through the project site and have a protected left turn outbound movement
onto El Camino Real.
The total parking supply in the center is 307 spaces. A total of 10 handi-
capped accessible parking spaces is provided. The parldng supply is pri-
marily perpendicular parking spaces, with two-way aisles.
The site has a General Plan designation of General Commercial (GC), and is
zoned General Commercial (GC).
EXISTING STREET SYSTEM
Figure 3 illustrates the existing study area circulation system. Arterial lanes,
median treatments and intersection turn lanes are indicated in the Figure.
El Camino Real is a north/south arterial, which extends from the City of
Oceanside on the north through the study area to its intersection with Man-
chester Avenue in the southern portion of the City of Encinitas. El Camino
Real is classified as an augmented six lane Primary arterial in the City of
Encinitas. The portion north of Garden View Road is a County of San Diego
facility, and is classified as a six lane Primary arterial. South of Garden View
Road, El Camino Real currently provides three travel lanes in each direction
from Santa Fe Drive to Via Montoro. From Via Montoro northward past La
Costa Avenue and from Santa Fe Drive southward, two travel lanes are pro-
vided in each direction. In general, this roadway has bicycle lanes on both
sides of the road and a two-way center left turn lane. In the vicinity of major
intersections, a raised median with left turn channelization is provided. The
City of Encinitas is currently planning to construct a raised planted median
along El Camino Real in the project study area. In addition, The City of
10/0"4(1:WOA40 I \TRAFFIC.RM 5
G77'D DD
n n
ISourcc: Notlingham Assmutics, Inc.
I WIM(NOA401)
N
LSA
)I,JE-f 1<4�UISEo Ell--eE-P figure 2
Site Plan
111, ®2U 4D
rrl ouv6NFIAIN KD
4D 11�,
rrr-�
4U �*MTA VIP RD
6D
PR07ECT
SITE
VV MONr�
\ \ \ 6D 2D Mo�NT uh V lgT� �R
\ \ \� 6D
A ill 1. a+
6D --71, I r * r
4D
4D
�i11►.4 � 6D
a
LEGEND: p
6 - Number of Medal Through Lanes
DIU - Divided/Undivided
® - Signalized Intersection
- Intersection Travel/rum Lane
10/4194(NOA401)
N
LS-A Schematic • Not to Scale
Figure 3
Existing Circulation System
Lt,t,+�, L lnG
Encinitas will provide dual left turn lanes on the4ierclea southbound
and westbound approaches at the intersection of El Camino Real/Encinitas
Boulevard, and dual southbound left corn lanes at El Camino Real/Mountain
Vista Drive.
Encinitas Boulevard is a four lane divided east/west facility, which has its
easterly terminus at its intersection with Manchester Avenue /Rancho Santa Fe
and its westerly terminus at its intersection with Old Highway 101 and B
Street. Encinitas Boulevard is classified as a Primary arterial in the City of
Encinitas Circulation Plan west of El Camino Real and as a Major arterial east
of El Camino Real. In general, this roadway has bicycle lanes on both sides
and a two-way center left turn lane. In the vicinity of major intersections, a
raised median with left turn channelization is provided.
Olivenhain Road is an east/west facility that has its westerly terminus at its
intersection with El Camino Real, and becomes Rancho Santa Fe just east of
Camino Alvaro. This roadway is classified as a Primary arterial in the City's
Circulation Plan, and is planned to ultimately be extended west of El Camino
Real. This roadway currently provides one travel lane in each direction with
double yellow centerline striping between El Camino Real and Amorgosa
Drive, and generally two travel lanes in each direction between Amorgosa
Drive and Camino Alvaro. As a condition of approval for two other commer-
cial projects, Olivenhain Road will be improved adjacent to the site. Interim
improvements for the proposed Home Depot project will consist of sliver
widening of the east leg in the eastbound direction and widening of the east
leg in the westbound direction to two lanes. Planned improvements for the i �[
Phase 1 Encinitas Ranch project include the addition of southbound left,
through and right turn lanes, and the construction of a west leg consisting of
dual left turn lanes, a through lane, and a shared through/right turn lane.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 4 presents the existing daily arterial volumes and p.m. peak hour
intersection turn movement volumes. Daily traffic volumes are based on
information supplied by the City of Encinitas. The p.m. peak hour inter-
section turn volumes were collected by LSA in May, 1994. Appendix B in-
cludes copies of the p.m. peak hour turn movement volumes.
To determine peak hour intersection operation, ICU analysis was completed
for intersection locations within the study area. The ICU worksheets are
presented in Appendix A. Briefly, the ICU methodology compares the v/c
ratios of conflicting rum movements at an intersection, sutras these critical
conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the
overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of level of service,
where LOS A represents free flow activity and LOS F is overcapacity opera-
tions. For the City of Encinitas, the upper limit of LOS D, represented by an
ICU value of 0.90 or lower, is considered satisfactory operation. An ICU
value in excess of 0.90, either LOS E or LOS F, is considered unsatisfactory.
10 o6r94p:woA40nTxAMC.ttrn 8
24
• y °�'
19
OUvENHAIN RD
Pr
orN t 159
175
34
• y
N �
O
CgRDEN CIEµ.
i •
h ,
�
RD
-
X06 i
33
Pao.ieCT
SITE
,AN MONK,
Alpo
SS 120
'
11
o� tzAtN vIST -1 p
M
34
R
f' 4 L► 273
62S hSS�
69 y n
a
5
vu
N ^f 4-16
A
41: 4 r66
272—+
5i
39
123— -=
27
26
33
4J W I► 339
'9s
4X71' 41 * r+
�C
618 y
L
941
Cy
O
LEGEND:
618 —+ PM Peak Hour Tum Volumes
Average Daily Arterial
33 Segment Volume (in Thousands)
90-9194(NOA401)
4'?
N
LSh Schematic - Not to Scale
Figure 4
Existing Daily and
PM Peak Hour Volumes
LSA ASboc es. Inc.
The existing ICU and LOS values are presented in 'fable A. As Table A indi-
cates, all of the study area intersections currently operate satisfactorily, with
LOS D or better during the p.m. peak hour. As will be discussed in subse-
quent sections of this report, mitigations recommended for this intersection
from previous studies will result in satisfactory levels of service in future year
scenarios.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Daily and peak hour trips are generated based on the application of trip rates
provided from an independent trip generation study of Circuit City stores by
Arthur Kassan, P.E., for the Circuit City store (see Appendix C), and the
SANDAG Brief Guide of Vebicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego
Region, October, 1993, for the remaining retail uses.
Table B presents the project trip generation. According to the Circuit City
and SANDAG trip rates. the proposed El Camino Real Retail Center will
generate approximately 2,500 total ADT, of which 244 will occur in the p.m.
peak hour. It is recognized that not all trips generated by retail land uses are
new trips destined solely for the retail establishment. A portion of the total
trip generation is pass -by trips, or trips made to the retail center as part of
some other trip purpose. According to the SANDAG rates, the total new trips
generated by a Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial land use account for 90
percent of the total trip generation in the p.m. peak hour only. It should be
noted that, given the project location along the commercial arterial of El
Camino Real and the anticipated patronage of the center, a pass -by trip per-
centage of up to 35 percent is not unlikely. Application of the pass -by trip
percentage in the p.m. peak hour results in a total net effective trip genera-
tion of 220 p.m. peak hour trips.
The trip assignment is based on trip distribution patterns that account for
minimum time travel paths and logical travel corridors. While the total trip
generation is accounted for at the driveway, the net effective trips have been
assigned to the adjacent street system. Figure 5 illustrates the trip distribu-
tion. Application of these percentages to the project trip generation on the
local street system results in a trip assignment, which is illustrated in Figure
6. This trip assignment is added to an existing and existing plus cumulative
traffic base, and intersection levels of service are determined.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Existing Plus Project Traffic Condition
The existing plus project traffic base is illustrated in Figure ?. The intersec-
tion geometries and the number of arterial lanes are considered unchanged
from the existing condition. Table C presents the existing plus project level
of service results. As seen in the Table, all six of the study area intersections
t 0/06/94(1:\NOA401 \TRAFFIC. Wn 10
LSA Associates riot
Table A - Existing Intersection Level -of- Service
9R9M (1.WOA401WWC15UAL=
PM Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU
LOS
1. El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road
0.87
D
2. El Camino Real/Garden View Road
0.56
A
3. El Camino Real/Via Montoro
0.58
A
4. El Camino Real/Mountian Vista Drive
0.63
B
5. El Camino Real/Via Molena
0.63
B
6. El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard
0.78
C
9R9M (1.WOA401WWC15UAL=
land Use
Trip Generation Rates'
Table B - Trip Generation
Size Units ADT
LLt AnociauX 1n .
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
Circuit City
per TSF
34.93
1.89
1.83
3.72
Major B
per TSF
40.00
1.80
1.80
3.60
Shops A
per TSF
40.00
1.80
1.80
3.60
Pad A
per TSF
40.00
1.80
1.80
3.60
Trip Generation
Circuit City
33.34
TSF
1,164
63
61
124
Major B
20.04
TSF
802
36
36
72
Shops A
9.00
TSF
360
16
16
32
Pad A
4.32
TSF
173
8
8
16
Trip Generation 2,499 123 121 244
Pass -by Trips' N/A 12 12 24
Total Trip Generation
2,499 111 109 220
' Daily and p.m. peak hour trip rates for Circuit City are based on an independent
trip generation study perfomed by Arthur KAssan, P.E. for Circuit City stores
(February 11, 1994).
Daily and p.m. peak hour trip tales for Major B, Shops A. and Pad A are based on
the Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,
SANDAG, October. 1993.
Z Pass -by trip percentage of 10% based on Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Genera-
tion Rates of the San Diego Region, SANDAG, October. 1993. According to the
SANDAG guide, pass -by rates are to be used only during the p.m. peak period.
TSF - Thousand Square Feet
9128194 (7, yVOA40(iTR /PGEIV M S)
LEGEND:
V
0
�P�CA �¢�
5% Regional Trip Distribution
sP�
OLIVENNAIN
RD�
L_ t
'N,A
GP�DFNVIEWRD
S
j
PROJECT 50%
SITE
Cue of £ncinita.r Raundnry - vIN
v
IAOPUbpp
V[STq DR
MAN
0
15%
w
A
tT
t
T
h
O
r,
SANTA FE DR
h
y a
pr
f
iU�
9r9M(NOA401)
N
J� schematic - Not to scale
Figure 5
Trip Distribution
9/29196(NOA401)
N
LSA Schcmauc - No( to Scale
Figure 6
El Camino Real Retail Center
Project Trip Assignment
24
p
s/
19
LN
OLIVENNAIN RD
a�
Z 159
Q
_ 192
34
:4 A�
e'1 N
MN
CgRpEN VIE4,
Rp
35
PROJECT
SITE
JU' MON�pR0
137
,u .4--- 34
11
OV;iCAIN VISTA
Ni`► i 273
62
69 i N
It �g
L78
5
u:lVA
_Mm
4-16
fl 4 764
283 '1 T r*
40
123- —_
27
26
33
R-Xi F6011
�J 4 i 339
'9
s
5n4 -1' 41 ? r►
�f
658 r
C
LQ
9�ek
0
P�7
r
LEGEND:
618 —* PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes
Average Daily Arterial
33 Segment Volume (In Thousands)
9129/94(NOA401)
LSASchematic -Not to Scale
Figure 7
Existing Plus Project
Daily and PM Peak Hour Volumes
UA.Leocfous 1=
Table C - Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project
Intersection Level -of- Service
Existing+ Project Existing+ Cumulative +Project
929/94 /1 WQA401TR10ESVX LS)
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
1. El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road
0.88
D
0.79
C
2. El Camino Real/Garden View Road
0.57
A
0.80
C
3• El Camino Real/Via Montoro
0.61
B
0.89
D
4. El Camino Real/Mountian Vista Drive
0.65
B
0.84
D
5. El Camino Real/Via Molena
0.65
B
0.76
C
6. El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard
0.79
C
0.88
D
929/94 /1 WQA401TR10ESVX LS)
LLt Asoclater. Inc.
are forecast to operate at LOS D or better, during the peak hours. The
project will not create any significant circulation impacts on study area inter-
sections.
E.visting Plus Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Condition
A cumulative traffic base is developed by adding the traffic contributions
from other approved projects within the study area to the existing 1994
traffic base. Three approved projects have been identified by City staff as
comprising the cumulative traffic base. These projects are the Home Depot
hardware store, the Vons supermarket, and the Encinitas Ranch Phase I
development.
The Home Depot project is located on the southeast corner of El Camino
Real/Olivenhain Road. The Home Depot project traffic contribution is based
on the trip assignment presented in the Traffic Study for Home Depot
Specific Plan and Tentative Map EIR. prepared by Basmaycian- Darnell, Inc.
(BDI), November 1991. The Home Depot trip assignment, as presented in
the BDI study, is included in Appendix D.
The Vons Supermarket project will replace the recently closed Builder's
Emporium hardware store located on the west side of El Camino Real at
Mountain Vista Drive. Traffic contribution for the Vons project is based on
the trip assignment presented in the Bons Encinitas Traffic Impact Analysis,
prepared by LSA, June, 1994. Appendix D includes the Vons trip assignment.
The Phase I Encinitas Ranch project includes approximately 475,000 square
feet of discount commercial land uses and 300 dwelling units of multifamily
housing located on the northwest corner of Olivenhain Road and El Camino
Real. Daily and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the Phase I Encinitas
Ranch have been determined based on traffic data supplied by the City of
Encinitas staff. Appendix D includes the Phase I project traffic data as pre-
sented in the Encinitas Ranch Phasing Analysis, prepared by Austin -Foust
Associates, Inc. (AFA), March, 1994. This data has been modified to reflect
the Phase I project as proposed.
The proposed El Camino Real Retail Center project traffic is added to the
existing plus cumulative traffic base. The existing plus cumulative plus pro-
ject daily arterial volumes and p.m. peak hour intersection turn volumes are
presented in Figure 8. Committed circulation improvements are pro-
grammed into the existing plus cumulative plus project traffic condition.
These improvements are listed below.
El Camino Real / Olivenhain Road
• Construct a second southbound left turn lane, third through lane,
and a right turn lane (Phase I Encinitas Ranch).
10/06/94(1: \N0A401 \TRAFFIC.RF n 17
14 *6 x I a]
618 --* PM Pea
33
Average mmiy n ----
Segment Volume (In Thousands)
10/4/94(NOA401)
N
L►✓1 1 Schematic - Not to Scale
Figure 8
Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project
Daily and PM Peak Hour Volumes
LSA ACm *A Ma
• Add a dual eastbound left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right
turn lane (Phase I Encinitas Ranch).
• Construct a second westbound left turn lane and a shared
through/right turn lane (Home Depot).
El Camino Real /Encinitas Boulevard
• Construct dual southbound left turn lanes (Frog's Athletic Club).
Mitigation measures recommended for the Frog's Athletic Club include the
addition of dual left turn lanes at the south and westbound approaches to
this intersection.
• Construct dual westbound left turn lanes (Frog's Athletic Club).
El Camino Real /Mountain Vista Drive
• Add dual southbound left turn lanes (City of Encinitas).
Table C illustrates the resulting existing plus cumulative plus project ICU
values and levels of service. The existing plus project condition ICU/LOS
analysis is presented for comparison. All study area intersections will operate
satisfactorily, at LOS D conditions or better. The addition of the project
traffic does not change the levels of service at any of the study area intersec-
tions. No additional intersection improvements are required as a result of
project implementation.
PROJECT ACCESS
The proposed project access is planned at a newly created signalized inter-
section along El Camino Real. The proposed signalized access will align with
the existing access to the Liquor Faucet retail center across El Camino Real to
the west of the proposed project. The design of the intersection will provide
for protected left turn movements from El Camino Real into the proposed
project and Liquor Faucet center.
Adequate vehicular storage is required at the project access to accommodate
the outbound left turning vehicles. Approximately 120 feet of storage is
required in the driveway throat to store outbound vehicles and provide an
unimpeded entrance for inbound vehicles. The internal parking drive aisles
of the proposed project shall align with the access throat to provide a direct
path into the Circuit City parking area. The project applicant will provide
the necessary entrance design, consistent with these requirements.
10/06N4(1:4N0A401 \TRAFFIC.FM 19
LSAA; r�
An ICU analysis has been prepared for the proposed project signalized access
intersection. The ICU worksheet is provided in Appendix A. The p.m. peak
hour traffic volumes are based on the contribution of existing traffic, the
proposed Circuit City project, traffic from the adjacent northerly medical
center that would use the project access, traffic from the adjacent southerly
medical center that would use the intersection for northbound U -turns and
traffic from the Liquor Faucet retail center. Based on the ICU analysis, the
proposed project signalized access will operate with satisfactory levels of
service, LOS &during the p.m. peak hour.
e)
GENERAL. PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed El Camino Real Retail Center is a commercial/retad land use,
consistent with the City of Encinitas' General Plan designation and zoning for
the site.
The proposed project is located within traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 121 of the
Encinitas Transportation Analysis Model (ETAM). Appendix E contains the
ETAM land use, trip generation, and traffic volume data. This TAZ is com-
posed of a larger area than the proposed project site, and includes General
Commercial, Professional Office, Medical Office, and Car Wash land use
designations. The total new General Commercial land uses within TAZ 121
(the difference between the existing and post -2010 conditions) include
108,560 square feet of development. The proposed projects accounts for
66,702 square feet of this total new General Commercial development. The
project is less than the total new General Commercial land use development
anticipated in the post -2010 ETAM traffic model. The proposed retail center
is accounted for and is consistent with the ETAM land use and trip genera-
tion data.
The post -2010 ICU analysis indicates that, with the build out of the General
Plan Land Use Element (including the proposed project) and the Circulation
Plan (including ultimate intersection geometrics), the study area intersections
along El Camino Real will operate at LOS D or better conditions.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOAMfENDATIONS
The proposed project, the development of a 66,702 square foot retail center,
will have no short -term significant traffic impacts. All study area intersections
will operate at or below LOS D conditions in the p.m. peak hour with imple-
mentation of the project.
The implementation of circulation improvements at El Camino Real/
Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard, required as part of
other project developments, will accommodate existing plus cumulative and
existing plus cumulative plus project traffic volumes. AB study intersections
are forecast to operate at LOS D conditions or better.
10i0"4(1:\N0A401 \77_kMC.RP[) 20
LSA At ctaux Inc
The project is consistent with the current General Plan designation and
zoning of the site and. therefore. should have no traffic impacts in the Gen-
eral plan horizon time frame.
Project mitigation measures are not necessary.
10/06M(I:\NOA401 \TRAPPIC.RYn 21
L51 Au jw x Ina
APPENDIX A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS
IO/04/94(I: NOA401 TRAFFICAM
LSA As ,ate& Inc
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
In traffic engineering, the concept of capacity and the relationship between
capacity and traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of levels of
service (LOS). These levels recognize that, while an absolute limit exists as
to the amount of traffic travelling through a given intersection (the absolute
capacity), the conditions which motorists experience rapidly deteriorate as
traffic approaches the absolute. Under such conditions, congestion is experi-
enced. There is general instability in the traffic Flow, which means that
relatively small incidents (e.g., momentary engine stall) can cause consid-
erable fluctuations in speeds and delays.
This near capacity situation is labelled LOS E (levels of service are defined A
through F). Beyond LOS E, capacity has been exceeded, and arriving traffic
will exceed the ability of the intersection to accommodate it. An upstream
queue will then form and continue to expand in length until the demand
volume again reduces.
A complete description of the meaning of level of service can be found in th
e Highway Capacity Manual (Highway Research Board Special Report 87,
Highway Capacity Manual). The manual establishes levels of service A
through F. Brief descriptions of the six levels of service, as abstracted from
the manual, are as follows:
LOS DESCRIPTION
A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle
waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach
appears quite open, turns are made easily and nearly all drivers
find freedom of operation.
B This service level represents stable operation, where an occa-
sional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number
are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted
within platoons of vehicles.
C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occa-
sionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red
signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning
vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objec-
tionably so.
D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction ap-
proaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching
vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak
period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to
permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus prevent-
ing excessive backups.
1W04N4(1: NOA40l %TPAFFIC.RM
LSA Atao ex Inc
LOS DESCRIPTION
E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It repre-
sents the most vehicles that any particular intersection ap-
proach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle
is seldom attained no matter how great the demand, unless the
street is highly friction free.
F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds,
where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result
from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction down-
stream. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may
occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion.
In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
The methodology used in this analysis to determine the intersection peak
hour level of service is referred to as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU).
In essence, this analvsis determines a volume /capacity ratio of the intersec-
tion by comparing conflicting movements based on peak hour volumes and
intersection geometries. The relationship between LOS and ICU is as fol-
lows:
Intersection
Level of Service Capacity Utilization
A < 0.6
B o.6-0.7
C 0.7-0.8
D 0.8-0.9
E 0.9- 1.0
F > 1.0
t0/04/94(I: XOA401 .tRAFFIC.RPr)
I ±v.� r=1n
EL CAMINO REAL/OLIVENHAIN ROAD
INTERSECTION #1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
MOVE-
MENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VOLUME ViC RAno
LANE CAP AM PM AM
PM
LANE
CAP
EXISTING + PROJECT
VOLUME VX RATIO
AM PM AM PM
NBL
0 O
O
0
0.00 •
0.00
0
0
0
O
0.00 •
0.00
NBT
2 3,200
0
936
0.00
0.29 •
2
3,200
0
936
0.00
0.29
NBR
I 1,600
0
771
0.00
0.00
1
1,6110
0
782
0.00
0.00
SBL
I 1,600
0
224
0.00
o.14 •
1
1,600
0
224
0.00
0.14
SBT
2 3.200
0
742
0.00 •
0.23
2
3,200
0
742
0.00 •
0.23
SBR
0 0
0
O
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
EBL
0 0
0
0
0.00 •
0.00 *
0
0
0
0
0.00 •
0.00
EBT
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
EBR
o 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
WBL
II 0
0
542
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
553
0.00
0.00
W 3T
1 1,600
0
O
0.00
0.44 •
1
1,600
0
0
0.00 •
0.45
WBR
Il 0
0
163
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
163
0.00
0.00
jS Critical Movements
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.43
Critical Movements
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.45
Right Tu vi Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
leannce Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CU
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.87
ICU
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.88
LOFSERVICE
A
C
A
D
LEVEL OF SERVICE
C
A
D
MOVE-
MINT
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP A.M PM AM PM
LANE
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
WITH MITIGATION
VOLUME VjC RATIO
CAP AM PM AM PM
NBL
0 0
0
0
0.00 •
0.00
0
11
O
0
OAo •
0.00
NBT
2 3.210
0
1,142
0.00
0.36 •
2
3,200
0
1,142
0.00
0.36 0
NBR
1 1,600
0
930
0.00
0.00
1
1,600
O
930
0.00
0.00
SBL
2 3.200
O
224
0.00
0.07'
2
3,200
0
224
0.00
0.07
SET
3 4.808
0
1,341
0.00'
0.28
3
4,800
0
1.341
0.00 •
0.28
SBR
1 1,600
0
392
0.00
0.00
1
1,610
0
392
0.00
0.00
EBL
2 3,200
0
431
0.00 •
0.13
2
3,200
O
431
0.00 •
0.13
EBT
2 3,200
0
367
0.00
0.11 •
2
3,200
0
367
0.00
0.11
EBR
I 1,6o0
0
0
0.00
0.00
1
1,600
0
0
0.00
0.00
WBL
3,200
0
816
0.00
0.25 •
2
3200
0
816
0.00
0.25
WBT
2 3,200
0
112
0.00 •
0.09
2
3.200
0
112
0.00 •
0.09
WBR
0 0
0
163
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
163
0.00
0.00
i5 Critical Movements
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.43
Critical Movements
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.36
Right Tum Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CU
0.00
0.79
ICU
0.00
0.79
LEVELOFSERVICE
A
C
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
C
• - Indicate, the critical turning movements at the intersection. The sum of these critical moverttetlts adds up to the o 11 intersection
ICU value.
10/4/94 p: WOA401VCU
GA 3c4 ate, f,c
EL CAMINO REAUGARDEN VIEW ROAD
INTERSECTION #2
INTERSECTION CAPACn Y UTILIZATION
MOVE-
MENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VOLUME VtC RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
LANE
CAP
EXISTING + PROJECT
VOLUW Vx RATIO
AM PM AM
PM
NBL
0 0
0
0
0.00-
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00 v
0.00
NBT
3 4.800
0
1,362
0.00
0.33 •
3
4.800
O
1,373
0.00
0.33
NBR
0 0
0
206
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
222
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
215
0.00
0.13 v
1
1.600
O
215
0.00
0.13
SBT
2 3.200
0
1,130
0.00-
0.35
2
3.200
0
1,141
0.00 •
036
Sea
o 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
O
0
n
0
0.00
0.00
EBL
0 0
0
0
0.00 •
0.00 v
0
0
0
0
0.00 *
ODD
EBT
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
EBR
0 0
O
0
0.00
0.00
O
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
WBL (1)
0 O
0
175
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
192
0.00
0.00
WBT
2 3,200
1
0
0
0.00 s
0.10 v
2
3.200
0
0
0.00 •
0.11 v
WEIR
0 0
0
159
0.00
0.00
0
n
0
159
0.00
0.00
NHS Critical Movements
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.46
FaW Critical Movements
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.11
Right Tum Critical Movement
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
Clearance Inc l
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.56
ICU
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.57
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
C
A
A
LEVEL OF �ERNICE
C
A
.A
'NOVR-
MENT
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
VOLUME Vx RATIO
LANE CAP .AM PM AM PM
LANK
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
WITH MITIGATION
VOLUME VtC RATIO
CAP AM PM AM PM
NBL
1 1.600
0
235
0.00-
0.15 •
1
1,600
0
23S
0.00 •
0.15
NBT
3 4.800
0
1.714
0.00
m41
3
4.800
0
1,714
0.00
0.41
NBR
0 O
0
253
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
253
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
277
0.00
0.17
1
1,600
0
277
0.00
0.17
SOT
2 3.200
0
1,573
0.00 •
0.49 v
2
3.200
0
1,573
0.00-
0.49
SBR
O 0
O
0
0.00
0.00
0
O
0
0
0.00
0.00
EBL
0 0
0
0
0.00 •
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00 v
0.00
EBT
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00 v
O
0
O
0
0.00
0.00
EBR
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
WBL
1.5 2,400
0
222
0.00
0.09 *
1.5
2.400
O
222
0.00
0.09
IV"
0 0
0
0
0.00 •
0.00
0
0
O
0
0.00 v
0.00
WEIR
0.5 800
0
191
0.00
0.07 *
0.5
800
O
191
0.00
0.07
NiS Critical Movements
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.64
F.Mr CritiMi MOVetnenW
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.09
Right Tum Critical Movement
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.07
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.00
0.30
ICU
0.00
0.80
LEVEL OF SERNWE
A
C
I -EVEL OF SF.RA"ICF.
A
C
- Indicates the critical turning movements at the intersect il. The sum of these critical movements adds up to the overall intersection
ICU value.
(1) -Actual westbound geometries are 1 WBL and 1 WBLIL
10/494 (I:W0A40IVCU/=
L.1 ]n,
EL CAMINO REAL/VIA MONTORO
INTERSECTION #3
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
MOVE-
KENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
LANE
CAP
EXISTING + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
AM PM AM
PM
NBL
t 1.600
0
131
0.00 •
0.08 •
1
1,600
O
131
0.00 •
U.08 •
NBT
3 4,800
0
1,297
0.00
0.27
3
4,800
0
1,369
0.00
0.29
NBR
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
0
0.00
0.00
1
1,600
0
0
0.00
0.00
SBT
3 4,800
0
11256
0.00 •
0.30 •
3
4,800
0
1,327
0.00 •
0.32
SBR
0 0
0
202
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
213
0.00
0.00
EBL
1 1,600
0
323
0.00 •
0.20 •
1
1,600
0
334
0.00 •
0.21 •
EBT
0 O
o
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
EBR
1 1,600
0
106
0.00
0.00
1
1.600
0
106
0.00
0.00
WBL
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
WBT
0 U
0
O
0.00 •
0.00 •
0
0
0
O
0.00 •
0.00 •
WBR
1 0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
\iS Critical Movements
0.54
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.54
E,'W Critical Movements
0.00
0.40
F/W Critical Movements
0.35
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.35
Right Tom Critical Movement
0.00
0.21
Right Tum Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
clearance Inteml
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.89
ICU
0.00
0.58
ICU
0.00
0.89
LEVEL OF SERVICE
0.00
0.61
LEVEL OF SERVICE
D
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
A
LEVEL OF 9FRVUCE
A
B
MOVE -
ANT
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
WITH MITIGATION
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
NBL
1 1.600
0
177
0.00 •
0.11 •
1
1.600
0
177
0.00 •
0.11
NBT
3 4.800
0
1.809
0.00
0.38
3
4.800
O
1.809
0.00
0.38
NBR
1) O
0
O
0.00
0.00
0
O
O
0
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1.600
O
0
0.00
0.00
1
1,600
0
0
0.00
0.00
SEIT
3 4,800
0
1.775
0.00 •
0.43 •
3
4,800
O
1.775
0.00 •
0.43
SBR
U 0
0
291
0.00
0.00
O
O
0
291
0.00
0.00
EBL
1 1,600
0
565
0.00 •
0.35 •
1
1,600
0
565
0.00 •
0.35 •
EBT
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
O
0.00
0.00
EBR
1 1,600
0
129
0.00
0.00
1
1.600
0
129
0.00
0.00
WBL
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
O
O
0
0
0.00
0.00
WIT
0 0
0
O
0.00 •
0.00 •
0
0
0
0
01000
0.00 -
WBR
1 0 0
n
0
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
N/S Critical Movements
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.54
E,'W Critical Movements
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.35
Right Tom Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.00
0.89
ICU
0.00
0.89
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
D
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
D
• - Indicates the critical fuming movements at the intersection. 71te sum of these cnucal movements adds up to the overall Intersection
ICU value.
10/4/94 (f.•W0A401VCU -=
EL CAMINO REAL/MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE
INTERSECTION #4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
MOVE-
MENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VOLUME VIC RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM
PM
LANE
CAP
EXISTING + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
AM PM AM PM
NBL
1 1,6W
0
109
0.00 •
0.07
1
L,6o0
0
109
0.00 •
0.07
NET
3 4,800
0
1,347
0.00
0.35 •
3
4,800
0
1,402
0.00
0.36 •
NBR
0 0
0
345
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
345
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
147
0.00
0.09 •
1
1,600
0
163
0.00
0.10
SBT
3 4,800
0
11203
0.00 •
0.26
3
4,800
0
1,257
0.00 •
027
SBR
0 0
0
38
0.00
0.00
O
0
0
38
0.00
0.00
EBL (1)
0.5 800
0
62
0.00 •
0.08 s
0.5
800
0
62
0.00 •
0.08 •
EBT
1 1,600
0
69
0.00
0.04
1
1,600
0
69
0.00
0.04
EBR
1.5 2,400
0
118
0.00
0.00
1.5
2,400
0
118
0.00
0.00
WBL
1.5 2,400
0
273
0.00
0.11 •
1.5
2,400
0
273
0.00
0.11
WBT
0.5 800
0
34
0.00 •
0.04
0.5
am
0
34
0.00 •
0.04
WBR
1 1 1.600
0
120
0 -00
0.00
1
1,600
0
137
0.00
0.00
NS Critical Movements
0.55 o
0.00
0.44
o.W 0
0.55
E1W Critical Movements 0
0.00
0.46
E,W Critical Movements
0.29 0
0.00
0.19
0.00 0
0.29
Right Turn Critical Movement 0
0.00
0.19
Right I= Critical Movement
0.00 0
0.00
0.00
0.00 0
0.00
learance lntesmi 0
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00 0
0.00
0.00
0.00 0
0.00
1Cti 0
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.84 I
ICU' 0
0.00
0.63
ICU
0.00 0
0.84
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
0.00
0.65
ENTL OF SF.RVICE.
D I
ISVEL OF SERNICI; A
A
B
I.EVEL01 SFR�ICE
A
B
MOVE- V
EXISTING + CUMUTATIVE + PROJECT E
EXISTING + CUMUTATIVE + PROJECT
WITH MITIGATION
NBL 1
1 1,600 U
U 2
291 0
0.00 • 0
0.18 • 1
1 1
1,600 U
U 2
291 U
U.11(I • 0
0.18
NBT 3
3 4,8011 0
0 1
1.634 0
0.00 0
0.41 3
3 4
4,800 U
U 1
1.634 0
0.00 0
0.41
.NBR 0
0 0 1
11 3
345 0
0.00 0
0.00 O
O 0
0 0
0 3
345 0
0.00 0
0.00
SBL 2
2 3.200 0
0 1
196 0
0.00 o
o.06 2
2 3
3.200 0
0 1
196 0
0.00 0
0.06
SBT 3
3 4.800 0
0 1
1,651 0
0.00 • 0
0.37 • 3
3 4
4.800 0
0 1
1,651 0
0.00 • 0
0.37
SBR 0
0 0 0
0 1
11/6 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
106 0
0.00 0
0.00
EBL 0
0.5 80o 0
0 1
130 0
0.00 • 0
0.16 • 0
0.5 a
am 0
0 1
130 0
0.00 • 0
0.16
EBT 1
1 1,6oO 0
0 1
115 0
0.00 0
0.07 1
1 1
1,600 O
O 1
115 0
0.00 0
0.07
EBR 1
1.5 2.400 0
0 2
255 0
0.00 0
0.00 1
1.5 2
2,400 0
0 2
255 0
0.00 0
0.00
WBL 1
1.5 2,400 0
0 2
283 0
0.00 0
0.12 1
1.5 2
2,400 O
O 2
283 0
0.00 0
0.12
WBT 0
0.5 800 U
U 1
102 0
0.00 • 0
0.13 • 0
0.5 S
SOD 0
0 1
102 0
0.00 • 0
0.13
WBR 1
1 1 1.600 0
0 1
138 0
0.00 0
0.00 1
1 1
1.600 0
0 1
138 0
0.00 0
0.00
NS Critical Movements O
O.W 0
0.55 o
o.W 0
0.55
E1W Critical Movements 0
0.00 0
0.29 0
0.00 0
0.29
Right Turn Critical Movement 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00
learance lntesmi 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00
1Cti 0
0.00 0
0.84 I
ICU' 0
0.00 0
0.84
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
A D
D I
ISVEL OF SERNICI; A
A D
D
Indicates the critical turning movements at the Intersection. The sum of these tribal movements adds up to the overall intersecuon
ICU value.
(1) . Actual exdlound geometric are 1 EBVE. 1 EBT/R, and f EBR
1014/94 f1: WQ4401VCU.=
LSA ACa,clares /=..
EL CAMINO REALNIA MOLENA
INTERSECTION #5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
MOVE-
MENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM
PM
LANE
CAP
EXISTING + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
AM PM AM I'M
NBL
1 1,600
0
119
0.00 •
0.07 •
I
1,600
0
119
0.00 •
0.07
NBT
3 4,800
0
1,517
0.00
0.32
3
4,800
0
1,561
0.00
0.33
NBR
0 0
0
34
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
34
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
48
0.00
0.03
1
1,600
0
48
0.00
0.03
SBT
3 4,800
0
1,279
0.00 •
0.29 •
3
4,800
0
1,323
0.00 •
0.30
SBR
0 0
0
128
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
139
0.00
0.00
EBL (1)
0 0
0
272
0.00 •
0.00
0
0
O
283
0.00 •
0.00
EST
I 1,600
0
5
0.00
0.17 •
1
1,600
O
5
0.00
0.18
EBR
1 1,600
0
123
0.00
0.00
1
1.600
O
123
0.00
0.00
WBL
11 0
0
64
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
64
0.00
0.00
WBT
1 1,600
0
16
0.00 •
0.10 •
1
1.600
0
16
0.00 •
0.10 -
WBR
1 0 0
0
78
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
78
0.00
0.00
/S Critical Movements
0.00
o.46
0.00
0.36
0.011
0.46
0.00
0.37
Critical Movements
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.28
Right Turn Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Clearance interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CU
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.63
ICU
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.65
nvwi OPSERVICE
A
C
A
B
LEVEL OF SERVICE
C
A
B
MOVE-
MENT
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
LANE
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
WITH MITIGATION
VOLUME V/C RATIO
CAP AM PM AM PM
NBL
1 1.600
0
119
OAK) •
0.07 •
I
1,600
O
119
OAK) •
0.07
NET
3 4.800
11
1.809
0.00
0.38
3
4,800
0
1.809
0.00
0.38
NBR
0 0
0
34
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
34
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
48
0.00
0.03
1
1.600
0
48
0.00
0.03
SBT
3 4,800
0
1,697
0.00 •
0.39 •
3
Lsoo
0
1,697
0.00 •
0.39
SBR
0 0
0
169
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
169
0.00
0.00
EBL
0 0
0
314
0.00 •
0.00
0
0
0
314
0.00 •
0.00
EST
1 1,600
0
5
0.00
0.20 •
1
1.600
0
5
0.00
0.20 •
EBR
1 1,600
0
123
0.00
0.00
1
1,600
0
123
0.00
0.00
WBL
0 0
0
64
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
64
0.00
0.00
WBT
1 1,600
0
16
0.00 •
0.10 •
1
1.600
0
16
0.00 •
0.10 •
WBR
1 0 0
0
78
0.00
0.00
0
11
0
78
0.00
0.00
/5 Critical Movements
0.00
o.46
0.011
0.46
Critical Movements
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.30
'ght Turn Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
learance Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CU
0.00
0.76
ICU
0.00
0.76
LEVEL Of SERVICE
A
C
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
C
• - Indicates the critical turning movements at the intersection. The sum of these critical movements adds up to the overall intersection
ICU value.
(1) - Actual nstbound geometric arc I EBL/I' and 1 EBR
!014194 (l.. wQA40IVCU.XLS)
f_L. { :1� xzntes lrrc
EL CAMINO REAVENCINITAS BOULEVARD
INTERSECTION #6
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
MOVE-
,ANT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
VOLUME VIC RATIO
LANE CAP A.N PM AM PM
LANE
CAP
EXISTING
VOLUME
AM
+ PROJECT
WC RATIO
PM AM
PM
NBL
1 1,600
Il
160
0.00 +
0.10
I
1,600
O
I60
0.110 '
0.10
NBT
3 4.800
0
1,081
0.00
0.28 +
3
4,800
0 1.098
0 0
0.00
0.28 '
NBR
0 0
0
258
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
258
0.00
0.00
SBL
2 3,200
0
288
0.00
0.09 +
2
3,200
0
299
0.00
0.09 s
SBT
3 4,800
0
844
0.00 •
0.25
3
4,800
0
860
0.00'
0.26
SBR
O 0
0
360
0.00
0.00
O
0
0
376
0.00
0.00
EBL
2 3,200
0
487
0.00 •
0.15 '
2
3,200
0
504
0.00 •
0.16
EBT
2 3,200
0
618
0.00
0.24
2
3,200
0
618
0.00
0.24
EBR
0 0
0
158
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
158
0.00
0.00
WBL
2 3,20
0
339
0.00
0.11
2
3,200
0
339
0.00
0.11
WBT
2 3,200
0
601
0.00 •
0.26 •
2
3.200
0
601
0.00 •
0.26
WBR
1 0 0
0
221
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
236
0.00
0.00
5 Critical Movements
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.42
F1W Critical Movemenb
0.00
0.37
Critical Movements
OAO
0.41
0.00
0.46
Right Tom Critical Movement
0.00
0.42
Right Turn Critical Mwement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICI,
0.00
0.00
ICU
ICU
0.00
0.78
ICU
0.88
LF.VFI. OF SF-R,ICE
0.00
0.79
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LEITL OF SERVICE
A
C
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
C
MOVE-
MENT
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
VOLUME V/C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
WITH MMGATION
VOLUME V!C RATIO
LANE CAP AM PM AM PM
NBL
2 3,200
0
160
0.00 •
0.05
2
3,200
0
160
0.00
0.05
NBT
3 4,800
0
1,206
0.00
0-31-
3
4,800
0
1,206
0.00
0.31 •
NBR
0 0
0
258
0.00
0.00
0
O
0
258
0.00
0.00
SBL
2 3,200
0
344
0.00
0.11 '
2
3,200
O
344
0.00
0.11 '
SBT
3 4,800
0
1,100
0.00 •
0.33
3
4,800
0
1,100
0.00.
0.33
SBR
0 0
0
461
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
465
0.00
0.00
EBL
2 3,200
O
573
0.00 +
0.18 +
2
3,200
0
573
0.00 •
0.18
EBT
2 3,200
0
618
0.00
0.24
2
3.200
0
618
0.00
0.24
EBR
0 0
0
158
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
158
0.00
0.00
WBL
2 3,200
O
339
0.00
0.11
2
3,200
0
339
0.00
0.11
WBT
2 3,200
0
601
0.00'
0.28 •
2
3,200
0
601
0.00 +
0.28
WBR
0 0
O
296
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
296
0.00
0.00
N/S Critical MoPE111Mts
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.42
F1W Critical Movemenb
0.00
o.46
0.00
0.46
Right Tom Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ICI,
0.00
0.88
ICU
0.00
0.88
LF.VFI. OF SF-R,ICE
A
1)
LEITL OF SERVICE
A
D
' - Indicates the critical mming movements at the intersection. The sum of these critical movements adds up to the oven8 intersection
ICU value.
1014194 (I.-WOA401VCU.=
LMAsnciatet 1w..
EL CAMINO REAL/COMMERCIAL CENTER DRIVEWAY
INTERSECTION #7
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
Notes:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization
V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio
* - Indicates the critical turning movements at the intersection. The sum of
these critical movements adds up to the ovetall intersection ICU value.
10/4/94 (I.- MA4010R1P17CUMS)
*4..vr C(UTU-^'----
F..
EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT
MOVE_
VOLUME
V/C RATIO
MENT
LANE CAPACITY
AM
PM
AM
PM
NBL
1 1,600
0
111
0.00 *
0.07
NBT
3 4,800
0
2,500
0.00
0.55 *
NBR
0 0
0
124
0.00
0.00
SBL
1 1,600
0
41
0.00
0.03 *
SBT
3 4,800
0
1,808
0.00 *
0.39
SBR
0 0
0
47
0.00
0.00
EBL
1 1,600
0
77
0.00 *
0.05 *
EBT
0 0
0
0
0.00
0.00
EBR
1 1,600
0
55
0.00
0.00
WBL
1 1,600
0
190
0.00
0.12 *
WBT
0 0
0
0
0.00 *
0.00
WBR
1 1 1,600
0
41
0.00
0.00
N/S Critical Movements
0.00
0.58
E/W Critical Movements
0.00
.0- - .
Right Turn Critical Movement
0.00
0.00
Clearance Interval
0.00
0.00
ICU
0.00
075.7
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
-E' a
Notes:
ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization
V/C - Volume to Capacity Ratio
* - Indicates the critical turning movements at the intersection. The sum of
these critical movements adds up to the ovetall intersection ICU value.
10/4/94 (I.- MA4010R1P17CUMS)
*4..vr C(UTU-^'----
F..
fSA AC Clafos Inc.
APPENDIX B
INTERSECTION TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS
10/04/94(Ir.NOA401 *TRAFFIC Fn
Traffic Data Services. Inc.
COMMENTS:
TABULAR
SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING
MOVEMENTS
N/S STREET:
EL CAMINO
E/W STREET:
GARDEN
CITY:
ENCINITAS
REAL
VIEW RD
DATE: 5/24/94
DAY: TUESDAY
FILENAME:
0541401P
-----------------------
15 Min
Northbound
-------------------------------------------------
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Period
Beginning
NL NT
NR
SL
ST SR
EL ET ER WL WT
WR
TOTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANES:
3
0
1
2
1.5
0.5
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
341
43
43
245
42
35
749
15 PM
320
40
45
254
36
33
728
30 PM
318
40
46
236
34
34
708
45 PM
312
60
50
291
50
39
802
5:00 PM
323
46
54
243
42
51
759
15 PM
349
52
59
310
44
38
852
30 PM
378
48
52
286
39
31
834
45 PM
288
43
61
257
33
32
714
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
---------------
--------------------------------------------
------------------
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
1645
VOLUMES =
0 1362
206
215
1130 0
0 0
0 175 0
159
3247
COMMENTS:
Traffic Data Services. Inc.
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
N/S STREET: EL CAMINO E/W STREET: VIA CITY: ENCINITAS
REAL MONTORO
DATE: 5/24/94 DAY: TUESDAY FILENAME: 0541402P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Period
Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANES: 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 1
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 36 299 12 314 39 75 18 793
15 PM 41 345 11 262 42 82 25 808
30 PM 33 321 7 323 46 70 25 825
45 PM 26 312 11 336 53 77 25 840
5:00 PM 35 319 17 296 50 90 25 832
15 PM 37 343 19 317 47 83 27 873
30 PM 33 323 17 307 52 73 29 834
45 PM 31 313 21 311 49 84 25 834
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
1645
VOLUMES = 131 1297 0 64 1256 202 323 0 106 0 0 0 3379
COMMENTS: SL - U -TURNS
Traffic Data Services, Inc.
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
N/S STREET: EL CAMINO E/W STREET: MOUNTAIN CITY: ENCINITAS
DATE: 5/24/94 REAL DAY: TUESDAY VISTA OR FILENAME: 0541403P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Period
Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANES: 1 3 0 1 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 1 0.5 1
2:00 PM
89
9
29
897
16
59
11
34
15 PM
25
62
12
39
977
23
62
9
30 PM
774
19
132
19
29
1074
23
66
45 PM
35
1022
29
52
2
22
902
47
3:00 PM
6
34
867
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
12
341
66
29
269
10
8
8
15 PM
24
316
78
24
219
7
12
13
30 PM
19
366
78
52
291
6
20
7
45 PM
18
235
61
35
258
6
12
18
5:00 PM
20
362
94
36
294
3
28
38
15 PM
35
334
95
47
349
11
11
9
30 PM
28
317
93
38
288
13
9
11
45 PM
26
334
63
26
272
11
14
11
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
----------------------------------------------------
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
1700
27
89
9
29
897
16
59
11
34
813
25
62
12
39
977
23
62
9
37
774
19
132
19
29
1074
23
66
7
35
1022
29
52
2
22
902
47
23
6
34
867
VOLUMES = 109 1347 345 147 1203 38 62 69 118 273
COMMENTS:
34 120 3865
COMMENTS: 85% OF SL WERE U -TURNS
Traffic Data Services. Inc.
TABULAR
SUMMARY
OF
VEHICULAR
TURNING
MOVEMENTS
N/S STREET:
EL CAMINO
E/W STREET:
VIA MOLENA
CITY:
ENCINITAS
REAL
DATE: 5/24/94
DAY:
TUESDAY
FILENAME:
0541404P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Min
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Period
Beginning
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL WT
WR
TOTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANES:
1
3
0
1
3
1
0.5
0.5
I
0 1
0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
27
335
7
14
316
36
70
2
36
19 3
23
888
15 PM
28
358
9
8
264
30
47
3
29
10 5
24
815
30 PM
32
373
11
16
282
49
58
2
22
10 6
16
877
45 PM
33
381
7
10
339
32
41
0
32
17 1
16
909
5:00 PM
24
389
8
11
283
38
50
4
20
16 4
14
861
15 PM
38
379
9
9
299
28
78
1
38
14 6
11
910
30 PM
24
368
10
18
358
30
103
0
33
17 5
37
1003
45 PM
26
343
7
11
340
24
58
1
29
16 2
35
892
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
1645
VOLUMES =
119
1517
34
48
1279
128
272
5
123
64 16
78
3683
COMMENTS: 85% OF SL WERE U -TURNS
Traffic Data Services. Inc.
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
N/S STREET: EL CAMINO E/W STREET: ENCINITAS CITY: ENCINITAS
DATE: 5/24/94 REAL DAY: TUESDAY BLVD FILENAME: 0541405P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Period
Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANES: 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 0 1 2 0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM 40 209 71 67 211 113 147 141 42 91 156 81 1369
15 PM 35 225 45 46 203 77 129 131 36 79 158 56 1220
30 PM 42 237 81 56 184 78 109 164 48 64 153 47 1263
45 PM 32 217 64 68 166 91 112 138 29 75 139 43 1174
5:00 PM 38 245 57 70 169 88 139 184 36 79 188 65 1358
15 PM 43 306 65 61 258 93 109 156 41 84 134 57 1407
30 PM 35 276 67 71 231 85 121 163 47 94 165 57 1412
45 PM 44 254 69 86 186 94 118 115 34 82 114 46 1242
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
1700
VOLUMES = 160 1081 258 288 844 360 487 618 158 339 601 225 5419
COMMENTS:
Traffic Data Services, Inc.
COMMENTS:
TABULAR
SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
N/S STREET:
EL CAMINO
E/W STREET:
OLIVENHAIN CITY:
ENCINITAS
REAL
RD
DATE: 5/24/94
DAY: TUESDAY
FILENAME:
0541406P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Min
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound Westbound
Period
Beginning
NL NT
NR
SL
ST SR
EL ET ER WL WT
WR
TOTAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANES:
2
1
1
2
0 1
0
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
3:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
4:00 PM
249
156
44
208
128
32
817
15 PM
251
153
47
201
132
35
819
30 PM
205
201
54
179
125
48
812
45 PM
225
175
56
187
130
46
819
5:00 PM
229
189
56
191
140
41
846
15 PM
235
209
53
195
145
36
873
30 PM
247
198
59
169
127
40
840
45 PM
230
190
42
174
137
25
798
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Peak Hr
Begins at
1645
VOLUMES
0 936
771
224
742 0
0 0 0 542 0
163
3378
COMMENTS:
LSA Au cdalet Inc
APPENDIX C
CIRCUIT CITY TRIP GENERATION STUDY
10/04/94(1: -.NOA401, TPAFFIC.RP7)
7:t 'a` `- :,!%E S
R SHPG CNTR
JJ. 1b: 44 _3.!0 3Z .i31 0220 _
`t"-$4 -195 '_5:17 --Cr --F t3ti l SIMP
A1=T L. KA5SA , PE.
consulfing Traffic Engtnter
February :1. 1994
Mr. GeMc Pu=
Director of Design. & Developmen`
circuit City Stores, Inc -
9950 Mayland Drive
Ricl=.cnd, Virginia 23233
Dear Mr. Fasir.i:
p. V..J' Yom•
__ r3'i00Y:OOB_
4-540222 ? 32
As the consulting traffic engineer for the Ciry cf Culver Cirl, California, and the
G`alver Cary Redevelepx=t Agency, r. have prepared mnna^cus Traffic Impact Studies
of developtne tits rats air$ fmm residential etirnplexes to regioral shopping ccmmn.
Curren .ly, I = engaged in a :mdy of a retail cwuor that will contain a Circuit Clry
consumer eL- one and appliance specialty sure among the r_aiI end financial
facilities.
Early in the study, it was recognized that t e electronics specialty store would probably
have *trip generation patterns that are not rectzs=md by the types of retail
establishstenrr for which the Institute of Transportation Engineers (rM has published
data in tJ= book, Tr,,r Gentntien, Fifth Edition, 1991. Therefore, is would be
necessary to collect rata that are specint to that type of score.
In August and Septemtra 1993, a traffic rousting firm retained by ine c :unted the
numbers of vehicles e- feting and 'leaving two existing C:rc it Ciry stoics is Orange
County, California (an area of suburban development and, fhereiore, generally high
trip generation at retail facilities). Subsequently, we decided to supplement the original
data with data front two suburban stores in Los Angc1cs County. and those :aunts were
taade earth this r:cnth. The count= were at the folcwing locations and on the
following dates:
Santa Ana, Wednesday, August 25, 1993
Nowpott Eeaeh, Wednesday, September 1, 7993
Norwalk. '! ucsday. February 9. 1994
3otrh Torrance, Wednesdav, February 9. 1994
Telephoga 5105 Ciaurmn L.me FAX
n_to) sstt.08c8 0 cu:ver Oti . California 9023a 1 (310) 5S9 -1929
o9 15 34 ..'::g �$'•ta 'JS
_,�sCCO z1G.
: 2i15 :34 :1 :Si 7?3 _Oti 0--00
0 —
rpY-04 -1594 16.1_ --RM '?-4 %e'Re-M-N zJP -G
Mr. George Pasha
February 7I, 19,$4
?age -
.v VOI: 4i1'
Ty�OSiCCe
45422220 a3
The =,-,= were coad=md during L' a. afternoon ccmmuts peak period, 4:00 p.ra. to
6:00 p.m. and reccri--d in 15 -mint intervais. All stores were open u=il 9:00 p.m.
on the worn dM.
The results of tie rro -hour and pez&hM vehicle ccanm are summarized in Table :.
Also shown ere the peak-hour tri: rates (vehicle yips per 1,000 square f-=) for each
store and for the average. Fcr toil Sips in the afternoon peak hour, the average t in
rate eourad waS IM trim per I roo sagam trot.
Although the trip rzte for Cir:lit Cloy stoats is different Tom typical retail sap rates, it
can be assumed that the hcurly variation in n-4Tz follows similar per=mage paattt~as•
According to data in the ITE book, Trip Cm=mtirt?_ Fifth. Edition, the percentages of
the total traffic LI: t will appear in the afte =Don peak hour will be 10.3% cf enrering
traffic and I1.07a of leaving tmftsc (Table 2, pg. 1232). The avenge of thorn
netrentages is 10.65%.
Applying that average percentage to :.he peak-hour trip rates in Table 1 results in the
estimatr s cf 24 -hour =ip rates shown in Table 2. The average 24 -hour xip rate is
gyc;na[ed ar ;A 43 gins ter 1 4Qq^ctnare fe-t, :oral in both directions.
I hope that this information will he useful ro you in planning your future projects. If
you have any qucsrons about this informa; ion, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Arthur L. iCassan, P.F.
i
1
- _lI_ • Ki �cO ��G.
u9• :3. 04 15..
trtiY- 8a-:494
STORE
i DaAT"QH
,zewpott Beach
Norwalk
South Torrz=
AVERAGE
TABLE
SATED TRLP RATES
c1RCUrT = STORES
24 HOURS OF WMMAY
tr :-
3.14
4.25
3:19
3.72
29.48
39.91
30.89
34.93
Toni Tr p Rate - ?rusnber of , ehic'e [rrtt, total entering Pius leaving, por 1,� sq,
• feet of 6Lildiog flcar area.
o
1- o
o � 1
O N
O
Kf O
O
tq n
I
G1
a �I
w ri l;
C.
w
�I
r
,_ CI
In �,
,n n>
.n u
tiCI .1
1-
I'
1j
A
I A
CI'
'1 Y
Y
}S
YA
'A-
D
M'1
'1.
OI>
'fAOLII 1
lL
vEmcLH TWs AT CtaCOiP CITY S RMLS +�
WFal)AY AFf GHNOON PEAK PE111On
AVER ARf_ti 3],85) i2U tO9 279
62 60 121 149 1.93 3.12
s k i, 7- i
_.�9Afi]lUuRralvanm__...
SIURII
FLOOK
�tn�nacnryrllxi_1tc
___
101
T _
_IR1P531�1.IIU(1SUS1d}tBPBHC
Sgyua
l[3TLSR[li 13tAYiN4 TQIAL
F.NT giC19
LIiA3litiSx
S4TAL—
LRIUM LFAYUIS _iUiAL_
FrAl
Sanh Nam
]),796
12L 130
2-56
61
67
134
1.01 2.01 4.01
h
Noa1>nn beach
77,405
ii 79
157
79
47
1,4 2 1.72 314
.
ii ol wnik
34, SS5
116 136
282
71
'It
l4/
2.21 2.61 4.25
5nmh Tanance
75,SS7
129 91
730
M
53
Ili
1.81 1.40 1.19
AVER ARf_ti 3],85) i2U tO9 279
62 60 121 149 1.93 3.12
s k i, 7- i
i
1
'.'.t _JVER 38F6 cNTRS
21
3:5y F:S :4 i U22C
29 /Zir9i
R L. ICiiSSAN
FtTHU
TO
�tECG:iAEn'��•
N
:30
;DO
o
jS
�o: d
r.
:3
�4
i�
19
/3
t�
/7
19
�0
�t
A3
r
r
a-D
l9rl � (Frraiay� :�t.G `�U.
�wuT.:�ur
� OOOraOB
!St As ciotes Inc
APPENDIX D
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP ASSIGNMENT
10/04/94(1: NOA401' TRAYFICAPT)
LA
607181 Og l4 744181 6fl 71U) 41,4-
n
i
� N Z
C Z p
G T �
` E DE
z 2,8401A1 0
° O 2
= QT
A �
1
v
r ° OLIVEII IIAIII
BLVD
LEUCADIA — YNOJECI SIiE %r.
D O
(• 9 D N
z
y
m a O y
° i r UD Ill:unl
M111 VISTA
2 <
%%%- 11AIl.Y YIIIUECI IIIAhI u:
°
a 14 ► IfAI'AC f
to TAI - USIIIII UIIIVkWAY !:III'
MIDI GElik hA IIUN IIA1L
.1 y IUI IISINIi CIInIM11N 11Y IL11'al.l I
781181 (iC IlL IIA IIIIt! IIAIE
254101 ENCINITAS
7611fl1 78110) 507181 �(7..0
\�\ESTIMATED DAILY PRO,Ir-CT TnAFI IC IMPACT FIGURF B
1. me
m
o
z S
O
1
i 0111E of 4�
o �
�1 II
1
� 107 /
v a OI IVEf111AM
In
AD
91 V D %'"
a v �EUCAOIA — POOJECT SIT >'1J
r
y -7B tO
N
N
1 �o
n ym S w - -2 •1
O 10O3j u� 101 yI
V
f f `pV ,j11
(� V
11
,1^ n
= 46 Y Mf11 VISIA�
a.l z P
s �
%00 m a Ofd
13 L 26 --0 'VOg I f `
12- _ � -+I 1^ 0
EfIr..INITAS
O -k
70 , �1° eCI.O
0 --1
ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURI- 10
/� •qr •11. INC --
617ro4(vc1401)
N
LS-A Schematic - Not to Scale
rigurc i
Vons Project Trip Assignment
_`®AUST /N -FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC,
IRA FFIC ENGINEERING All TRA NSPOR TA rill PLANNING
2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE - SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rob Blough, Associate Traffic Engineer
Alan Archibald, Director of Engineering Services
FROM: Terry Austin
DATE: March 7, 1994
SUBJECT: ENCINITAS RANCH PHASING ANALYSIS
TELEPHONE (714) 667 -0496
FAX (714) 667 -7952
The attached material summarizes the results of our revised phasing analysis for Encinitas
Ranch. This is based on a Phase I development of 520,000 square feet of discount commercial and
240 residential dwelling units.
As discussed with you, we have analyzed the base case which assumes only the extension of
Via Cantebria through to Leucadia Boulevard and then an alternative I circulation system with
Leucadia Boulevard constructed through to I -5 as two lanes. The ICUs and ADT volumes associated
with these alternatives are included in the attached material. When you have had a chance to review
this information I suggest we discuss their implications and determine how they can be used in
implementing suitable improvements for the first phase of the project.
Note that these results assume the ten percent ambient traffic increase to correspond to year
2000. I have not specifically added traffic from either Home Depot or the Carlsbad area, this being
assumed as part of that ten percent growth. Depending on the pace of development in Carlsbad, this
ten percent assumption could possibly be low for El Camino Real traffic. If it becomes important
to make a more definitive estimate of future traffic from those developments, we could increase the
ICU volumes to what would be a "worst case" scenario under which Home Depot is fully built out
and a significant portion of Carlsbad is built out.
r
f
Zone
- - - - - -- Lana - Use -Tvoe
179 5. Res -Mich (15 +)
39. Park (Passive /OSI
SUB -TOTAL
180 38. Park (Active /Rec)
S. Res -Mich (15.1
SUB -TOTAL
181 38. Park (Active /Rea)
39. Park (Passive /OS)
64. Discount Commercial
SUB -TOTAL
182 38. Park (Active /Ree)
39. Park (PassiveiOSI
64. Discount Com i-cial
SUB -TOTAL
Land Use Tvoe
-------------------------
5. Res-Mich (15*1
38. Park (Active7Rec)
39. Park (Passivei OS)
64. Discount Commercial
TOTAL
ETAM - PHASE I ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
Units
120.00 DU
2.70 ACRE
7.30 ACRE
120.00 DU
4.20 ACRE
2.70 ACRE
100.00 TSF
4.20 ACRE
2.70 ACRE
420.00 TSF
-- AM Peak Mour --
In Out Total
12 46 58
0 0 0
12 46 58
4 4 8
12 46 58
16 SO 66
2 2 4
0 0 0
84 56 140
86 ° -9 L44
2 2 4
0 0 0
353 235 588
355 237 592
ETAM - PHASE I LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-- PM Peak Hour --
In
-- AM Peak Hour --
Units
In
Out
Total
----------------------------------
_UL.00
DU
24
92
116
15.70
ACRE
8
8
l6
8.10
ACRE
0
0
0
520.00
TSF
437
291
728
2
350
469
391
860
-- PM Peak Hour --
In
Out
Total
55
24
79
1
1
2
56
25
81
7
7
14
55
24
79
62
31
93
4
4
8
1
1
2
350
350
700
355
355
710
4
4
8
1
1
2
1470
1470
2940
1475
1475
2950
- PM Peak Hour --
In Out Total
I10 48 158
15 15 30
3 3 6
1820 1820 3640
1948 1886 3834
ADT
720
14
734
183
720
903
105
14
7000
7119
105
14
29400
29519
ADT
1440
393
42
36400
38275
Table 1
PHASING YEAR ICU SITMMARY
2000 2000
(NO PROJECT') (PHASE I)
BASE CASE BASE CASE
INTERSE=ON AM PM AM Pm
2000
(PHASE 1)
CIRC. ALT. 1
AM PM
3. 1 -5 SB Ramp & " Coati Ave
S0
50
S4
.65
.48
.49
4. 1 -5 NB Ramp & La Cosa Ave
52
52
55
.65
.49
.52
5. Samm Road & LA Costa Avc
.95
1-20
.99 '
1.64 •
.88
1.06
6. El Cammo Real & La Coin
87
.76
.64
1.07 •
59
.61
7. Rancho Santa Fe & La Coat
67
.61
.68
.67
.62
.64
10. 1 -5 SB Ramp & Leuadla
M
.60
Sl
.63
.73
1.45
11. 1 -5 NB Ramp & 1 xucadLa
.54
.86
54
.89
.76
1.25
12. Samov Road & 1 eucadm
31
.43
31
.44
-53
1.09
El Camino Real & Olivenhaln
.94
96 •
SS
1.08 •
58
.89
14. R Saau FrJOIiv & AkiwWRS
35
.49
M
.62
.60
.60
wE1 Camino Real & Gardm View
S8
.70
.59
.83
.68
.88
I& F3 Camino Real & MM Vista
39
.73
39
.75
38
.74
ZL 1 -5 SB Ramp & Eocimtas
87
.88
.89
.94 •
80
.91
23 1.5 NB Ramp & Enninitas
.68
1.02
.69
1.08 •
.66
.99 •
74. Sam" Road & Eadnitas
.61
.90
.64
.96 •
.60
.87
25. Quad Gardens & Encinitas
57
.77
58
.84
51
.74
26. Balour & Encinitas
55
.74
.60
81
SO
.70
27. Vu C Mbrsa & Encinitas
37
.73
.65
.91 •
.47
.74
2&) El Camino Real & Encinitas
.61
.96
32
.89
.49
88
5& Garden View & Vu Cautebm
-
-
.09
.43
19
30
59. El Camtnn Real & Woodley
-
-
38
.6B
38
.62
60. Accra Rd & Leuradia
-
-
23
.88
33
117
• Ezcuds LAS "D'
Level of semce range: .00 - .60 A
.61 - .70 B
.71 - .80 C
81 - .90 D
.91 - 1.00 E
Above 1.00 F
PACIFIC
OCEAN
e
Figure I
pHAMG YEAR ADT VOLUMES (0003)
PHASE I PAOdECT
—RASE CAST CIRCVIATMN
Figure 2
PHASING YEAR ADT VOLUWM (0009)
PHASE I PROJECT
—c:Mf= ATION ALT. I
TOTAL P.03
Figure 1
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
2000 (PHASE I) —BASE CASE
Figure 2
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
2000 (PHASE I) —BASE CASE
Figure 3
AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
2000 (PHASE I) —CIRC.
Figure 4
PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
2000 (PHASE I) —CIRC. ALT. 1
13. El Camino Real 6 Olivenhain
2000
(No Project) -Base Case
Alt. 1
AM PK HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
PM PK
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
0
1600
0
.02*
NBT
2
3200
499
.16*
1004
.31*
NBR
1
1600
372
.23
990
.62
SBL
1
1600
130
.08*
266
.17*
SBT
2
3200
716
.22
939
.29
SBR
0
0
0
0
0
EBL
0
0
0
1600
0
.04
EBT
0
0
0
1600
0
.07*
EBR
0
0
0
0
0
WBL
0
0
880
1600
575
.41*
WBT
1
1600
0
.70*
0
.48*
WBR
0
0
232
0
186
Note:
Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for
NBR
for NBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .94
96
2000
(No Project) -Circ.
Alt. 1
AM PK HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
30
.02*
30
.02
NBT
2
3200
471
.15
975
.30*
NBR
1
1600
353
.22
938
.59
SBL
1
1600
119
.07
174
.11*
SBT
2
3200
662
.22*
865
.33
SBR
0
0
37
200
EBL
1
1600
62
.04
45
.03
EBT
1
1600
106
.07*
279
.17*
EBR
0
0
0
0
WBL
1
1600
660
.41*
545
.34*
WBT
1
1600
348
.31
128
.19
WBR
0
0
151
171
Note:
Assumes
Right -Turn
Overlap
for NBR
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .92
13. E1 Camino Real & Olivenhain
2000
(Phase
I) -Base Case
1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
0
30
0
30
NBT
2
3200
505
.16*
1075
.34*
NBR
1
1600
375
.23
1020
.64
SBL
2
3200
130
.04*
266
.08*
SBT
3
4800
783
.16
1439
.30
SBR
1
1600
204
.13
431
.27
EBL
2
3200
100
.03
474
.15
EBT
2
3200
53
.02*
403
.13*
EBR
1
1600
0
.00
0
.00
WBL
2
3200
934
.29*
728
.23*
WBT
2
3200
16
.01
123
.08
WBR
0
0
232
.15
186
.12
Right Turn
Adjustment
NBR
.07*
NBR
.30*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 1.08
2000
(Phase
I) -Circ. Alt.
1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
30
.02
30
.02
NBT
2
3200
479
.15*
977
.31*
NBR
1
1600
356
.22
782
.49
SBL
2
3200
119
.04*
130
.04*
SBT
3
4800
684
.14
880
.18
SBR
1
1600
208
.13
471
.29
EBL
2
3200
122
.04
289
.09
EBT
2
3200
164
.05*
648
.20*
EBR
1
1600
0
.00
0
.00
WBL
2
3200
851
.27*
517
.16*
WBT
2
3200
223
.12
469
.20
WBR
0
0
151
163
Right Turn
Adjustment
NBR
.07*
NBR
.18*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58 .89
15. E1 Camino Real & Garden View
2000 (No Project) -Base
Case
Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
0
54
0
65
NBT
2 3200
741
.23
1686 -
.53*
NBR
1 1600
34
.02
149
.09
SBL
1 1600
68
.04
160 '
.10*
SBT
2 3200
1527
.48*
1328
7.42
SBR
0 0
0
0
0
0
EBL
0 0
0
0
0
0
EBT
0 0
0
46
0
67
EBR
0 0
0
123
0
72
WBL
1.5
101
.06*
102
.06*
WBT
0 3200
0
69
0
19
WBR
0.5
165
.10
108 '
.07
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.04*
WBR
.01*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58
70
2000
(No Project) -Circ.
Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0 0
54
(.03)*
65
NBT
2 3200
730
.25
1731
.56*
NBR
1 1600
33
.02
132
.08
SBL
1 1600
65
.04
162
.10*
SBT
2 3200
1482
.46*
1269
.40
SBR
0 0
0
0
EBL
0 0
0
0
EBT
0 0
46
67
EBR
0 0
123
72
WBL
1.5
97
.06*
102
.06*
WBT
0 3200
69
19
.01
WBR
0.5
153
.10
106
.07
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.04*
WBR
.01*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59 .73
15. El Camino Real & Garden View
2000 (Phase I) -Base Case
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59
N
2000
(Phase I)
-Circ. Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
0
.00
258
.16
NBT
2
3200
796
.26
1892
.64*
NBR
0
0
34
2015
149
NBR
SBL
1
1600
71
.04
195
.12*
SBT
2
3200
1574
.49*
1636
.51
SBR
0
0
0
1554
0
SBR
EBL
0
0
0
21
0
EBL
EBT
0
0
0
47
0
EBT
EBR
0
0
12
50
0
EBR
WBL
1.5
120
101
.06*
102
.06*
WBT
0
3200
1
105
0
WBT
WBR
0.5
85
165
.10
110
.07
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.04*
WBR
.01*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59
N
2000
(Phase I)
-Circ. Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
36
.02*
271
.17
NBT
2
3200
888
.28
2015
.63*
NBR
1
1600
33
.02
139
.09
SBL
1
1600
72
.05
210
.13*
SBT
2
3200
1615
.51*
1554
.49
SBR
0
0
31
21
EBL
1
1600
0
.00
47
.03
EBT
1
1600
43
.10*
50
.05*
EBR
0
0
120
35
WBL
1.5
83
.05*
105
.07A
WBT
0
3200
85
25
.01
WBR
0.5
153
.10
107
.07
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .Bs
16. El Camino Real & Mtn Vista
2000
(No Project) -Base
Case
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
45
.03*
127
.08
NBT
3
4800
725
.18
1478
.40*
NBR
0
0
154
443
SBL
1
1600
102
.06
257
.16*
SBT
3
4800
1058
.23*
1217
.27
SBR
0
0
30
67
EBL
0.5
11
(.01)*
74
(.05)*
EBT
1
4800
11
.01
46
.05
EBR
1.5
42
113
WBL
1.5
359
333
WBT
0.5
3200
33
.12*
42
.12*
WBR
1
1600
146
.09
180
.11
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .39
73
2000
(No Project) -Circ.
Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
45
.03*
127
.08
NBT
3
4800
682
.17
1489
.40*
NBR
0
0
135
410
SBL
1
1600
102
.06
263
.16*
SBT
3
4800
1054
.23*
1158
.26
SBR
0
0
30
70
EBL
0.5
11
(.01)*
74
(.05)*
EBT
1
4800
11
.01
46
.05
EBR
1.5
42
114
WBL
1.5
322
327
WBT
0.5
3200
33
.11*
42
.12*
WBR
1
1600
173
.11
ISO
.11
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .73
16. E1 Camino Real & Mtn Vista
2000
(Phase I)
- Base
Case
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
45
.03*
127 _.:
.08
NBT
3
4800
737
.19
1557
.42*
NBR
0
0
154
443
SBL
1
1600
102
.06
257
.16*
SBT
3
4800
1091
.23*
1427
1.31
SBR
0
0
30
67
EBL
0.5
11
(.01)*
74
(.05)*
EBT
1
4800
11
.01
46 %_
.05
EBR
1.5
42
113
WBL
1.5
359
333
WBT
0.5
3200
33
.12*
42
.12*
WBR
1
1600
147
.09
181
.11
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .39 .75
2000
(Phase I)
- Circ.
Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
45
.03*
127
.08
NBT
3
4800
690
.17
1568
.41*
NBR
0
0
135
410
SBL
1
1600
102
.06
263
.16*
SBT
3
4800
1085
.23*
1248
.27
SBR
0
0
30
70
EBL
0.5
11
(.01)*
74
(.05)*
EBT
1
4800
11
.01
46
.05
EBR
1.5
42
114
WBL
1.5
322
327
WBT
0.5
3200
33
.11*
42
.12*
WBR
1
1600
174
.11
181
.11
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .38 .74
28. E1 Camino Real & Encinitas
2000
(No Project) -Base
Case
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
67
.04*
152
.10
NBT
3
4800
426
.12
1115
.30*
NBR
0
0
167
337
SBL
1
1600
167
.10
219
.14*
SBT
3
4800
691
.20*
883
.26
SBR
0
0
253
367
EBL
2
3200
264
.08
674
.21
EBT
2
3200
569
.21*
804
.30*
EBR
0
0
92
143
WBL
1
1600
254
.16*
351
.22*
WBT
2
3200
570
.22
694
.30
WBR
0
0
125
265
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61
2000
(No Project) -Circ.
Alt. 1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
63
.02*
149
.05
NBT
3
4800
426
.12
1144
.31*
NBR
0
0
167
337
SBL
2
3200
160
.05
221
.07*
SBT
3
4800
704
.19*
877
.25
SBR
0
0
212
299
EBL
2
3200
178
.06
608
.19*
EBT
2
3200
535
.20*
776
.29
EBR
0
0
94
160
WBL
2
3200
226
.07*
352
.11
WBT
2
3200
532
.21
685
.30*
WBR
0
0
131
271
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .48 .87
28. El Camino Real 8 Encinitas
2000
(Phase
I) -Base Case
1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
67
.02*
152
.05
NBT
3
4800
436
.13
1158
.31*
NBR
0
0
167
337
SBL
2
3200
167
.05
219
.07*
SBT
3
4800
723
.20*
1071
.30
SBR
0
0
254
389
EBL
2
3200
264
.08*
674
.21*
EBT
2
3200
569
.21
804
.30
EBR
0
0
92
143
WBL
2
3200
254
.08
351
.11
WBT
2
3200
570
.22*
694
.30*
WBR
0
0
126
279
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .89
2000
(Phase I)
-Ciro. Alt.
1
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
63
.02*
149
.05
NBT
3
4800
432
.12
1187
.32*
NBR
0
0
167
337
SBL
2
3200
160
.05
221
.07*
SBT
3
4800
734
.20*
945
.26
SBR
0
0
213
321
EBL
2
3200
178
.06
608
.19*
EBT
2
3200
535
.20*
776
.29
EBR
0
0
94
160
WBL
2
3200
226
.07*
352
.11
WBT
2
3200
532
.21
685
.30*
WBR
0
0
132
285
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .88
LSA Al cias*A Inc..
APPENDIX E
ETAM DATA
10/04/94(L NOA401'.77UFFIC. RM
� �..
a >'
o W
7.
00 O
� N
SIAM - EXISTING ZONAL LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION icons.)
Zone
Lana Use -
Units
---------------------------------------------------
116
13.
Rest (Sit Down)
6.00
TSF
57.
Shopping tenter
205.15
TSF
(Equation base -
=30.76 TSF
)
SUBTOTAL
117
2.
Res-Low (1 -5)
29.00
OU
7.
Res- Mobile Hone
201.00
DU
9.
General Commercial
2.18
TSF
14.
Professional Office
35.42
TSF
27.
Auto Repair
44.07
TSF
39.
Park (Passive /OS)
4.00
ACRI
SUB -TOTAL
118
33.
Park (Passive/OS)
13.65
ACRI
SUB -TOTAL
119
39.
Park (Passive /OS)
26.35
ACRI
SUB -TOTAL
120
2.
Res -Law (1 -5)
75.00
OU
3.
Res - Medium (5 -8)
61.00
OU
45.
Vacant Land
27.07
ACRI
SUB -TOTAL
121
9.
General Commercial
36.50
TSF
14.
Professional Office
43.12
TSF
15,
Medical Office
137.19
TSF
33.
Car Wash
1.00
SIT
45.
Vacant Lana
7.98
ACR
SUB -TOTAL
122
2.
Res-Low (1 -5)
58.00
DU
3.
Res - Medium (5 -8)
311.00
OU
39.
Park (Passive /OS)
14.00
ACA
44.
Agric. (Open Field)
1.00
ACR
SUB -TOTAL
123
1.
Rea - Estate (0 -1)
5.00
DU
2.
Res -Low (1 -5)
1.00
DU
3.
Res - Medium i5 -8)
167.00
OU
19.
Preschool
122.00
STU
39.
Park (Passive /OS)
22.54
ACR
45.
Vacant Land
1.22
ACR
SUBTOTAL
124
2.
Res-Low (1 -5)
81.00
OU
3.
Res-Medium i5 -8)
496.00
DU
4.
Res -Med /High (8 -15)
84.00
OU
-- 4M PeaK Hour --
:n Cut total
50 50 100
118 59 :37
168 119 287
5 i9 24
28 52 90
2 1 3
89 10 99
49 21 70
0 0 0
173 113 286
1 1 2
l L 2
3 3 6
3 3 6
12 48 60
10 37 47
0 0 0
22 as 107
26 23 49
109 12 121
329 82 411
18 l8 35
0 0 0
482 135 817
9 37 46
51 190 241
1 1 2
0 0 0
61 228 289
1 4 5
0 1 L
30 112 142
31 32 53
2 2 4
0 0 0
64 151 215
13 52 55
79 298 377
13 42 55
-- ?M PeaK Hour --
:n Out Total
- ---------
45 30 75
392 332 -34
437 122 359
20 9 29
72 48 120
5 5 10
18 74 32
29 68 97
1 1 2
145 205 350
3 3 5
3 3 a
5 5 LO
5 5 10
53 23 76
37 18 55
0 0 0
90 41 131
80 35 165
22 90 1:2
206 480 586
40 41 31
0 0 0
348 596 1044
41 17 58
190 35 265
3 3 6
0 3 0
234 Lis 349
4 2 6
1 0 1
112 i6 168
33 33 66
5 5 10
0 0 0
155 96 251
57 24 31
298 149 447
42 25 67
ACT
1260
3385
9645
290
1005
131
708
Sal
20
3035
68
68
132
132
750
525
0
1275
2190
862
6860
900
0
10812
580
2726
70
2
3378
55
10
1608
366
113
0
2152
810
4265
596
1
..- ..7 :.-
sA � H , t 9.3 1=rAAA
.'i.ANI 'oaA. LAND ME ANO fs,13 GENERATION
lane .ana �Sa Tv ^e
1nits
-- AP Ptak rkLr ..
-- P14 Peak
01", --
'
is
Out
:ot41
:n
Oat
i,cal
nor
1L
el, AvtO Rena lr
44.C7 '31
49
---------------
Z9
68
-- ---
-- -- -
.18. PCs- Office
!0 cc TI;
7:7
M
420
240
1. ^U
97
981
39. Park (Passive /OS)
4.00 A'.RE
0
4R0
6000
SUB -TOTAL
0
337
333
670
428
450
@7B
13090
1DOb0
:IB
35. P4rx fiasatec;oS)
1 "30 ACRE
1
l
2
Sun -rn L
2
2
4
47
4
4,
!19
:7" 'ndustriai
11.20 TSF
L7
7
24
15
23
39. Perk (Pa331- 10'i0S)
:6.20 ACRE
?
2
6
39
156
64. 01scamt Comnerr, ial
102,00 TSF
96
57
143
3
357
1
6
81
65. Mar
Mal-Eery
20.04 TV
!•;
10
?4
357
714
7 140
SU8 - TOTAL
40
AO
80
902
.19
75
L95
416
.23
839
8179
120
2. Rea -Low fl -Si
x1.00 DU
7
27
29
3. Rq- Maaiun (5-9)
113.30 CU
19
98
.34
86
13
a2
420
14. Professional O,fhce
319.56 TSF
80..
89
694
88
34
102
872
SUB-TOTAL
:88
SE5
8]1
6391
630
.84
1014
263
712
975
7783
120
9. Gerseral Coemereral
141.06 TSF
103
93
198
316
?37
(
14. Profeolenal urfi,,
180.31 151
454
SO
504
94
653
A104
S08 - TOTRL
375
:69
3608
5557
143
100
410
712
1121
12310
122
2. Res -Law (1 -5)
36.00 DC
E
23
29
3. Res- Nediura (5 -8)
278.00 %
44
167
21!
25
11
35
391
A. Res- Ned /Nigh (6 -15)
211.0C OU
34
105
140
is?
101
93
150
2391
39. Park [Passive /OS)
6.U0 ACRE
1
63
189
1488
SUB -TOTAL
p
1
r
2
30
85
237
382
299
158
457
4178
173
!. Res - Estate 10 -1)
5 00 D;
4
5
a
2. aw Il -a)
Rae -L
2/" 00 DU
4
2
6
55
3. Ras - Medium (5 -8)
192.00 DU
31
115
21
148
19
B
27
270
17. Inaustrlal
30.00 TSF
16
115
58
113
1651
38. Park ;Active /Rec)
2.00 AW
1
7
23
i5
23
38
150
39. Park (Passive/OSI
:9.71 ACRE
2
1
2
?
4
2
2
4
50
SUB -TOTAL
4
4
4
90
55
l46
201
:59
•7,'
256
1256
124
2. Res -Low (1 -5)
65.;0 OU
10
42
52
46
1. Ras- Neclut (5.8)
533.00 OU
BS
320
465
32C
20
68
650
4. Rn- Ned /N1gN (6.15)
347.Cu DU
58
!74
230
150
480
4584
20. Elaeensary Schxl
900.00 STJ
200
117
32:
174
.04
218
2484
39. Park (Pasrove /OS)
3.10 ACRE
0
0
l8
45
61
1273
908 - TOTAL
0
1
1
?
16
351
583
1014
559
3,1.1
89:
8987
1'25
2. Res -Law (1 -5)
100.00 DU
.,.
r0
E4
80
70
3. Res- liecim (5 -8)
1.00 Du
30
NO
:DOD
=. Res -4sai Ntgh (8 -15',
43 "90 OU
7
1
22
1
19
1
0
-
9
21. Junior M! h School
9
198.00 STU
34
!4
22
13
35
305
48
A
10
14
198
Figure 17
POST -2010 ADT VOLUMES (0003)
— SPECIFIC PLAN
—'NITH VIA CA_NTEBRIA EXTENSION
13. E1 Camino Real 3 Olivennain
Post -2010 (Specific Plan /Via Cantebria
Ext.) -Mft.
AM PK
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
40
.01*
120
.04
NBT
3
4800
880
.18
1290
.27*
NBR
1
1600
670
.42f
1250
.78f
SBL
2
3200
90
.03
320
.10*
SBT
3
4800
1210
.25*
1360
.28
SBR
1
1600
180
.11
370
.23
EBL
2
3200
60
.02
340
.11
EBT
3
4800
370
.08*
890
.19*
EBR
1
1600
70
.04
90
.06
WBL
2
3200
1310
.41*
930
.29*
WBT
3
4800
1060
.31
84600
.21
W120
0
0
430
TOTAL
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.84
* Assumes Right -turn overlap
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10 • °J
Past -2010 (Specific Plan /Hwy 680)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2 3200
40
.01*
140
.04
NBT
3 4800
950
.20
1670
.35*
NBR
1 1600
780
.49
1510
.94
SBL
2 3200
140
.04
440
.14*
SBT
3 4800
1530
.32*
1480
.31
SBR
1 1600
370
.23
590
.37
EBL
2 3200
170
.05
860
.27
EBT
3 4800
460
.10*
1020
.21*
EBR
1 1600
.70
.04
110
07
WBL
2 3200
1300
.41*
1120
.35*
WBT
3 4800
1100
.31
890
.23
WBR
0 0
390
Right
Turn Adjustment
NBR
.24*
* Assumes Right -turn overlap
TOTAL
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
.84
1.29
15. Ei Camino Real 3 Garden View
Past -2010 (Specific Plan /Via Canteoria
Ext.)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
90
.03
170
.05
NBT
3
4800
1470
.37*
2000
.45*
NBR
0
0
310
150
SBL
2
3200
60
.02*
240
.08*
SBT
3
4800
1550
.33
2200
.47
SBR
0
0
50
60
ESL
1
1600
20
.01
40
.03
EST
1
1600
SO
.05*
120
.08*
EBR
1
1600
90
.06
130
.08
WBL
1.5
60
.04*
350
(.15)*
WBT
0.5
3200
120
.08
130
.15
WBR
1
1600
210
.13
210
.13
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
Multi
.06*
.01*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54
.76
Post -2010 (Specific Plan /Hwy 680)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
70
.02
170
.05
NBT
3
4800
1590
.39*
2350
.51*
NBR
0
0
270
120
SBL
2
3200
80
.03*
300
.09*
SBT
3
4800
1740
.37
2350
.50
SBR
0
0
40
70
EBL
1
1600
10
.01
70
.04
EST
1
1600
110
.07*
110
.01*
EBR
1
1600
110
.07
120
.08
WBL
1.5
60
.04*
310
(.14)*
WBT
0.5
3200
110
.07
140
.14
WBR
1
1600
260
.16
270
.17
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.06*
EBR
.01*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .59
EI�A
16 E1 Camino Real & Mtn Vista
. Post -2010 (Specific Plan /Via Cantebria
Ext.)
AM PK
HOUR
PM
PK HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
IOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
10
.00
20
.01
NBT
3
4800
1670
.35*
1880
.39*
IN BR
1
1600
130
.08
590
.37
SBL
2
3200
180
.06*
320
.10*
SBT
3
4800
1440
.30
2140
.45
SBR
0
0
10
10
EBL
1
1600
10
.01*
10
.01
EBT
1
1600
20
.01
60
.04*
EBR
1
1600
10
.01
50
.03
WBL
1.5
450
260
(.09)*
WBT
0.5
3200
20
.15*
40
.09
WBR
1
1600
400
Z5
290
.18
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
WBR
.10*
WBR
.06*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .67
T
Post -2010 (Specific Plan /Hwy 680)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
10
.00
20
.01
NBT
3
4800
1670
.35*
2130
.44*
NBR
1
1600
160
.10
580
.36
SBL
2
3200
200
.06*
370
.12*
SBT
3
4800
1530
.32
2090
.44
SBR
0
0
10
10
EBL
1
1600
10
.01*
10
.01
EST
1
1600
10
.01
40
.03*
EBR
1
1600
10
.01
40
.03
WBL
1.5
490
280 (.09)*
WBT
0.5
3200
10
.16*
20
.09
WBR
1
1600
350
.22
310
.19
Right
Turn Adjustment
WBR
.06*
WBR
.08*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .64 .76
28. El Camino Real 3 Encinitas
Past -2010
(Specific Plan /Via Cantehria
Ext.)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
Y/C
NBL
2
3200
70
.02*
120
.04
NOT
3
4800
660
.14
1040
.22*
NOR
1
1600
40
.03
100
.06
SBL
2
3200
170
.05
500
.16*
SOT
3
4800
1070
.22*
1400
.29
SBR
1
1600
180
.11
140
.09
EBL
2
3200
460
.14*
420
.13
EST
3
4800
340
.07
1070
.22*
EBR
1
1600
70
.04
170
.11
WBL
2
3200
70
.02
190
.06*
WBT
3
4800
450
.09*
510
.11
WBR
1
1600
380
.24
370
.23
Right
Turn
Adjustment
WBR
.15*
WBR
.08*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .62
74
Post -2010
(Specific Plan /Hwy 680)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
80
.03*
120
.04
NOT
3
4800
670
.14
1120
.23*
NOR
1
1600
50
.03
110
.07
SBL
2
3200
250
.08
370
.12*
SOT
3
4800
980
.20*
1370
.29
SBR
1
1600
270
.17
200
.13
ESL
2
3200
520
.16*
590
.18*
EST
3
4800
470
.10
1130
.24
EBR
1
1600
70
.04
300
.19
WBL
2
3200
60
.02
180
.06
WBT
3
4800
530
.11*
650
.14*
WBR
1
1600
310
.19
430
.27
Right
Turn
Adjustment
WBR
.08*
WBR
.13*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .58
F-71