Loading...
1998-5391 GC 1 —1 Y 0, F E N C 1 N !~T ENGINEERING SERVICES DEF !.RTVENT VU I ;- A N �V i- Ey,.C!V7TAS. CA 92:O AP; I NG I FR-M "New P/O" p PARCEL N10. 7 JOE SITE ArDRESS SAIG-L APPLI('-�NT NAME EL !M \0 ? EAL - EN C 1 N. 1 AS MAILING ADDRESS: 1 sJ2 X)LUX)b0W)5ff)ffkXCm del Mar CITY: DEL MAR STATE' C-1 CONTRACTOR DAVIDSON CONIMUN3TIES ;'HON V N,:". LICENSE NO. '36618 H t: 7 -- E NC I IN E E R PASCQ ENGINEERING INC. 0. PERMIT 1SSUF DATE: 6 '10 '99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 6 10 00 PERMIT ISS;,"ED By I NSPECTOR: TODD BAUNIFACH ------------------------- PERMIT FEES S DEPnslTs -------- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE o.4t'O.GU i.NSrEC7:-N 1FI`r).S,!: 2. INSPECTION FEE 3. PLAN CHEC.K DEP,.�SIT: 6, Flood Control Fee: 7,777.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - z p,r v EART HWORY , PR 1 V ATE RC—AD k !---RA i "A;, NIP!; ENVIRONMENTAL Mi-- i CT A 1 4 N 0 S ON T REC/1 VT R S-BDjVI5k:,N (.'- 4 �- � , f. 'I J`kZ A FFM X L I , � : - .1 . � 'L- 3 1 . () ' t.0(71' I -T CT To I T V CMU. . DN 0,(; 17 1,'•: T (7 11 1 7 7i A 1, 1 ',N 1 44 F A AR 7ea lug/25ea under/10500cy swale. Letter dated Sep 03 1998 applies. ---- INSPECTION DATE -- --- - -- Public improvements 6 encroachment of area drains by separat_Q permit. INITIAL 1NSPECfIQ% -j-.Z-yb0 COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED koez- ENGINEER CERT. FECEIVED /Z 17 ROUGH GRADING IN-SPErTION. 0121W F 31/0 1920 FINAL INSPECTIr,1- I HEREBY ACKNOWIEDGE THA1 HAVE INFORMATION IS CORRECT A-,'r-. .--',REE 1, Ali" S REGULATING, E X C A \7 -2, 1 D, C- ,iNy PERMIT ISSLED PUFS' TH SIGNATI'T--z TO r P I y 'q'j T3 PADINC, -MNT) THE 11'r'.0V!. !,.'NS N, I" i S contractor/developer C T Y O F E N C I N I T P E NEERING SERVICES DEPARTM 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5414G1 ........................... ..._ .................................. ............ "New P /O" PARCEL NO. 262- 061 -1100 PLAN NO.: 5414 -G JOB SITE ADDRESS: SAGE CANYON APPLICANT NAME EL CAMINO REAL - ENCINITAS L.P. MAILING ADDRESS: 1302 XXj=)8=XXXh1ftKCm del Mar PHONE NO.: 619- 259 -8500 CITY: DEL MAR STATE: CA ZIP: 92014- CONTRACTOR : DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES PHONE NO.: 619 - 259 -8500 LICENSE NO.: 736648 *ON TYPE: B ENGINEER PASCO ENGINEERING INC. 0.: 619 -259 -8212 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 6/10/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 6/10/00 PERMIT ISSUED BY• INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH ------------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS - - - - - -- - ---------------- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 6,400.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 2. INSPECTION FEE : 29,420.00 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 510,415.00 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 6. Flood Control Fee: 7',777.00 ------- ----------- -- - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------- - - - - -- EARTHWORK /PRIVATE ROAD & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS /SITE RETAINING WALLS/ ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION /EROSION CONTROL, ALL FOR TRACT 96 -185, MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF 33 SFD /2 REC /1 PVT RD /1 OS, ALL LOTS, 1 REM PCL. DIRT: 33,620CY CUT /FILL. WALL: 7,540SF ANCHORSTONE /1,382SF KEYSTONE /6,678SF CMU. DN: 2,10OLF DITCH /117CY GABION /134EA AREA /5,105LF PIPE /20LF SPLASH/ 7ea lug /25ea under /1,500cy swale. Letter dated Sep 03 1998 applies. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - -- --- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- Public improvements & encroachment of area drains by separate permit. INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERM T ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. 1 1.14 PIK rNA SIGNA URE PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER (o -1o:" DATE SIGNED szqj- TELEP41ONE NUMBER contractor /developer C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S Et "LEERING SERVICES DEPARTMF 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 IMPROVEMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5414II "AC" VERSION PARCEL NO. 262- 061 -1100 PLAN NO.: 5414 -I JOB SITE ADDRESS: SAGE CANYON APPLICANT NAME EL CAMINO REAL - ENCINITAS L.P. MAILING ADDRESS: 1302 PXVXX2VZX22A %2B CM DEL MAR PHONE NO.: 619 - 259 -8500 CITY: DEL MAR STATE: CA ZIP: 92014- CONTRACTOR : NICHOLAS GRANT CORP. LICENSE NO.: 749995 INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: ROYAL POLICY NO. KZW100350 ENGINEER PASCO ENGINEERING PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 7/08/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 12/31/99 INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH SURPLUS LINES INC. PHONE NO.: 619- 642 -7500 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE POLICY EXP. DATE: 12/31/99 P NE 9- 259 -8212 PERMIT ISSUED BY: -- ----------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES 6 DEPOSITS ------------------- --- - - - - -- 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 5,850.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 2. INSPECTION FEE 16,818.00 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 493,935.00 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 6. MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT: 5,500.00 ----------------- -- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO INCLUDE WIDEN EL CM REAL S /CONSTRUCT SAGE CANYON DR (PUB), TO INCLUDE AC PAVEMENT /BERM, ALL FOR TRACT 96 -185, A MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF 33 SFD /2 REC /1 PVT RD /1 OS /1 REM. LETTERS DATED JUN 03 1999 6 SEP 03 1998 APPLY. TRAFFIC CONTROL PER TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION. PCC /SAFETY /WALL /DRAIN PER SEPARATE PERMITS. SS- DCS266 PW -OMWD - - -- INSPECTION ---------- -- - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION AS- BUILTS AND ONE YEAR WARRANTY RETENTION REQUIRED. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. IGNATURE 'R-IC (n v1v 4J' �7" d5 PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTH 7 -,f- 6 DATE SIG ED (olq &q -z -7- oo TELEPHONE NUMBER contractor C I T Y O F E N C I N I T A.S E NEERING SERVICES DEPARTM' 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS. CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 5391GI ...................................... :..:.............................. ....... PARCEL NO. : 262- 061 -1100 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1800+ EL CAMINO REAL APPLICANT NAME SHELLEY (DANIEL T.) MAILING ADDRESS: 905 OLIVE CREST DR. CITY: OLIVENHAIN STATE: CA CONTRACTOR : LICENSE NO.: ENGINEER PERMIT ISSUE PERMIT EXP. INSPECTOR: R PLAN NO.: 5391 -G SOUTH PHONE NO.: 760 -942 -8647 ZIP: 92024- BERT SIMS GRADING, INC. 416914 PASCO ENGINEERING INC. DATE: 2/03/98 DATE: 2/03/99 PERMIT ISSUED )N BRADY ----- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS PHONE NO.: 760-724 -0398 LICENSE TYPE: A PHONE NO : 6 9 -259 -8212 BY 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 100.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 2. INSPECTION FEE 100.00 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT .00 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 --- --------- ----- -- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK --- -- ------ --------- ----- - - - - -- CLEAR & GRUB SELECTED AREAS IN ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE GRADING & EROSION CONTROL FOR TENTATIVE MAP 96 -185, A PROPOSED MAJOR SUBDIVISION OF 33EA RESIDENTIAL LOT /2EA RECREATION LOT /IEA OPEN SPACE LOT /IEA PRIVATE ROAD LOT. PLAN AS APPROVED JAN 26 1998. PLAN TO BE REPLACED BY GRADING PLAN. - - -- INSPECTION ----- ----- -- ---- DATE -- - ----- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. 0-�Ql j - - 2 -3.98 SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED Onarles LNiv-tea 766- 9L/ '- -E6Y' PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER /'Eys7DaE WALL SA6a CAAvyoA/ Kop4j c- w,gu--4odBST SioFoFcmmo o-e 79 -/S 3t 7S V- / -4-99 E s4UE C,44(104) 1-13 -99 s�9,nw 7 G*tWOW C�qrL— W"r IF*" ,54&r C RAfy*A.' il- 3 -9y IAIiN p q. hrgl�w. tom„ d -3 -49 City Of Encinitas June 3, 1999 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT atm: Valerie M. Pearce, Attorney -in -Fact Frontier Pacific Insurance Company 4250 Executive Square, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Re: Tract Map 9" as " Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering "Sage Canyon" {Major subdivision of 33 SFD, 2 REC, 1 PVT RD, 1 CIS lots, 1 REM pclj Grading Permit 5414GI [Pad Grading & Erosion Control, Private Road] Improvement Permit 541411 [Public Road /Drain, Monumentation] Sewer Construction Permit DCS266 [Public Sewer] (1800 blk El Cm Real S/Sage Canyon LLC) A.P.N. 2620611100 Substitution of securities Permit 5414GI authorized the earthwork, site retaining walls, private road and drainage improvements, environmental mitigation, and erosion control, all as needed to build 33 single family dwellings within the named subdivision. Permits 54141I and DCS266 authorized the public road, drainage, and sewer improvements, and the final monumentation, all conditions of approval for the named subdivision. The property has been sold, and the buyer has posted separate instruments of security, equivalent in value, as a substitute. Therefore, release of all of the seller's securities would be fully justified. Bonds identified and in the amount as follows: SD00033307 Performance S408,332. 00, SD00033308 Performance S493,935.00, SD00033309 Performance, Labor and Materials S 5, 500.00, and SD00033310 Performance $139,141.00, are hereby all fully exonerated. The original documents are enclosed. PGS /jsg/96- 185sb.doc I 111 1''. : - .11 .;. �-110 recycle I paper Should you have any questions, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, C re1do g Shields Senior Civil Engineer Field Operations e er Financial Services Manager Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer Todd Baumbach, Engineering Inspector Sage Canyon LLC, developer /seller (point of delivery) File /permits enc PGS /jsg/96 -185 sb.doc2 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Cityof Encinitas June 3, 1999 Bank of America N.T. &S.A. Branch No. 1 182 "Rancho Encinitas" 1340 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Tract Map 96.185'" "Sage Canyon" (Major subdivision of 33 SFD, 2 REC, 1 PVT RD, 1 OS lots, 1 REM pcl) Grading Permit 5414GI [Pad Grading & Erosion Control, Private Road) (1800 blk El Cm Real S /Sage Canyon LLC) A. P. N. 2620611100 Substitution of Securities Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering Permit 5414GI authorized the earthwork, site retaining walls, private road and drainage improvements, environmental mitigation, and erosion control, all as needed to build 33 single family dwellings within the named subdivision. The property has been sold; and the buyer has posted separate instruments of security, equivalent in value, as a substitute. Therefore, release of all of the seller's securities would be fully justified. Certificate of Deposit Account 11826-01851, in the amount of $102,083.00, has been endorsed by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. The original document is enclosed. Should you have any questions, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Grelds Senior Civil Engineer Field Operations cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer Todd Saumbach, Engineering Inspector Sage Canyon LLC, developer /seller (point of delivery) File /permits enc PGS /j sg/96- 185scd.doc I Le to Suelter Financial Services Manager Financial Services August 23, 1999 Davidson Communities 1302 Camino Del Mar Del Mar. California 92014 ATTENTION: Mr. Mark Mullin SCS &T 9911096.5 SUBJECT: Site Improvement Verification, Phase One, Lots 1 Through 5, and Lots 21 Through 33, Sage Canyon, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California. REFERENCE: Summary of As -Built Geology, Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Shelley El Camino Real, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California," Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., May 5, 1999. Gentlemen: This report has been r o verify that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., has performed fl21d obsA "ti testing for relative compaction during site improvements, subgrade and base course operations as well as AC pavement compaction testing, at the subject site. It is the opinion of our firm that the improvements compaction operations for Phase I, Lots 1 through 5 and 21 through 33 were completed in accordance with our compaction recommendations and with the City of Encinitas Grading ordinances. A report summarizing the field observations and tests for relative compaction performed during the grading operation is forthcoming. If you should have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NO. 36037 UP. 6.3000 � Daniel B: Adler R.C.E. IT71ViTA " cc: (6) Submitted INC. 5T\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL &TESTING, INC. .. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627. San Diego, CA 92160 -0627 619 - 280-4321, FAX 619 - 2804717 August 23, 1999 Davidson Communities 1302 Camino Del Mar Del Mar. California 92014 ATTENTION: Mr. Mark Mullin SCS &T 9911096.5 SUBJECT: Site Improvement Verification, Phase One, Lots 1 Through 5, and Lots 21 Through 33, Sage Canyon, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California. REFERENCE: Summary of As -Built Geology, Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Shelley El Camino Real, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California," Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., May 5, 1999. Gentlemen: This report has been r o verify that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., has performed fl21d obsA "ti testing for relative compaction during site improvements, subgrade and base course operations as well as AC pavement compaction testing, at the subject site. It is the opinion of our firm that the improvements compaction operations for Phase I, Lots 1 through 5 and 21 through 33 were completed in accordance with our compaction recommendations and with the City of Encinitas Grading ordinances. A report summarizing the field observations and tests for relative compaction performed during the grading operation is forthcoming. If you should have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NO. 36037 UP. 6.3000 � Daniel B: Adler R.C.E. IT71ViTA " cc: (6) Submitted INC. A SOIL G TESTING, IN, i i O r u s r N_ N, O N March 9, 2000 Davidson Communities 1302 Camino Del Mar Del Mar. California 92014 ATTENTION. Mr. Mark Mullin P H O N E P.O. Box 600627 (619) 280 -4321 San Diego, CA 92160 -0627 T E E FREE (877) 215-4324 6280 Riverdale Street _ F w x 1 San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 2$D=47 1'` w .scst.com _ 111 10 �10� ..,r. SEwC9s RV 9911096 -12 SUBJECT: Site Improvement Verification, Phase II, Lots 6 Through 9, and Lots 10 Through 20, Sage Canyon, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California. REFERENCE: Summary of As -Built Geology, Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Shelley El Camino Real, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., May 5, 1999. Gentlemen: This report has been prepared to verify that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., has performed field observations and testing for relative compaction during site improvements, subgrade and base course operations as well as AC pavement compaction testing, at the subject site. In addition, we have provided testing services during the placement of additional fills for Lots 10, 11, and 12, as well as retaining wall backfills for all of the subject lots. It is the opinion of our firm that the compaction operations for Phase II, Lots 6 through 9 and 10 through 20 were completed in accordance with our recommendations and with the City of Encinitas Grading ordinances. A report summarizing the field observations and tests for relative compaction performed during the grading operation is forthcoming. Remaining work consists of sidewalk and driveway easement subgrade testing. If you should have any questions after reviewing this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFC)_50fVrvM%k-AND TESTING, INC. Daniel B. 19:: cc: (6) Submitted OF A PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUTE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (619) 259 -8212 FAX (619) 259 -4812 April 7, 1999 City of Encinitas 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn: Blair Knoll RE: PAD CERTIFICATION (GRADING PLAN #5414 -G) Dear Mr. Knoll: WAYNE A. PASCO R.C.E. 29577 PE 597C Please be advised that on April 2, 1999, this office field checked the above referenced graded pads. We have found that lots I through 9 and 13 through 33 are graded within acceptable tolerance per Grading Ordinance 23.24.030R. Lots 10, 11, 12 & 35 have not been finished as of this date. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. Joe Yuhas, L.S. 5211 Director of Land Surveying JY /js iy4aN C. yGy'I O >� No. 5211 LUNDITROM ASSOCIATES Planning. Civil Engineering and 1Lantl Surveying 3333 Camino Del Rto Soul{, Ste. 300 San Diego. CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 July 30, 1999 / r, 138-04 Mr�tSir. Knoll CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 South Volcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Sage Canyon - Subgrade Certification Improvement Plan 5414 -1 Dear Blair, We have field surveyed the Subgrade of the streets within the Sage Canyon project. The street Subgrade has been graded in substantial conformance with the approved Improvement Plans and the following depths: 2 3 El Camino Real -Station 2 +09 to 213 +00 : 13 - Station 213 +00 to 219 +00 Sage Canyon Drive (Public) Sage Canyon Drive (Private) Sincerely, 7 TROMND M ES �LUNDSTROM President GS / tc 2 24" 10" 10" cc: Gary Roby - Davidson Communities Mark Mullin - Davidson Communities PROFESS /ph 4� R l R . 4! U,t,����r�� No. 021205 T Exp 9-3D-01 u! �4. CI`1 {L ASS® A ES "26W Planning. Civil Engineering and LanJ Surve i E NEERNN G I C S 3333 Cemi.,. DPI R „ So.16. Ste. 300 S.. Di�q.. CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 August 26, 1999 138 -04 Mr. Todd Bombeck CITY OF ENCINITAS Engineering Department 505 South Volcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Sage Canyon (TM 96 -185) Dear Mr. Bombeck, The below listed retaining walls have been constructed in substantial conformance to the heights and elevations shown on the Precise Grading Plans for the Sage Canyon project. As per the City's direction, these walls have been constructed on the low Lot. In addition, these walls, according to Davidson Communities, have been constructed in substantial conformance with the City of San Diego Building Inspection Department Bulletin 222. 1. Between Lots 1 and 2. 2. Between Lots 2 and 3. 3. Between Lots 3 and 4. 4. Between Lots 4 and 5. 5. Between Lots 23 and 24. 6. On Lot 27. 7. Between Lots 27 and 28. 8. Between Lots 28 and 29. 9. Between Lots 29 and 30. 10. Between Lots 32 and 33. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, LUNDSTROM & ASSOCIATES GREG SURBER Project Manager GS / tc cc: Mark Mullin - Davidson Communities Gary Roby - Davidson Communities LUND ROM SEP 09 ���® �1L 1C� CITY (IF ENCINiT 3 ENGINEERING SERVICES Planning, Civil Engineering and .and Survey ng 3333 Cnminu Del Rt. S.ut6. Ste. 300 San Diego. CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 September 1, 1999 138 -04 Mr. Todd Bombeck City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Encinitas. CA 92024 RE: Engineer's Pad Certification for Project No. 96 -185 TM Grading Permit No. 5414 -G Pursuant to Section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for Lots I through 5 and 21 through 33. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. (Per Plan) (Per Field Measurement) 1 117.5 117.47 2 121.0 120.97 3 124.0 123.92 4 127.0 127.02 5 130.0 130.04 21 134.0 133.9 22 131.0 131.02 23 129.0 129.03 24 127.0 127.02 25 131.0 130.98 26 129.0 128.99 27 122.0 121.99 28 118.0 118.01 29 116.0 116.00 30 114.0 113.99 31 114.0 114.00 32 114.0 114.00 33 116.0 116.07 23.24.310(B)1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan and City direction. 23.24.310.(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Jq%lk. I.Airldstrom R.C.E. 21245 cc: Mark Mullin - Davidson Communities Gary Roby - Davidson Communities GS /JL /tc QR,)r Essio, C212a5 a T w Exp. 930 -01 %' a ®�sr� i M� e Planning. Civil Engineering and Land Surveying 3333 Cnminn DPI R w So„tk Sty. 300 S.. Dk�.q , CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 December 15, 1999 Mr. Todd Bombeck City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Engineer's Pad Certification for Project No. 96 -185 TM Grading Permit No. 5414 -G 138-04 Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for Lots 10, 11, and 12. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. (Per Plan) (Per Field Measurement) 10 178.0 178.0 11 173.6 173.6 12 169.4 169.4 23.24.310(B)1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan and City direction. 23.24.310.(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 2 C4 Je . Lundstrom R.C.E. 21245 cc: Bill Fanning - Davidson Communities Gary Roby - Davidson Communities GS /JL /tc a ASS® ATES Planning, Civil Engineering and Land Surveying 3333 Camino Del Rio South. Ste. 300 San Diego. CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 February 16, 2000 Mr. Todd Bombeck City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Engineer's Pad Certification for Project No. 96.185 TM Grading Permit No. 5414 -G III-Ely Pursuant to Section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for Lots 6 thru 9 and 13 thru 20. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. (Per Plan) (Per Field Measurement) 6 134.6 134.6 7 137.6 137.6 8 140.6 140.6 9 143.6 143.6 13 162.0 162.0 14 157.0 157.0 15 152.0 152.0 16 148.0 148.1 17 145.0 145.0 18 143.0 143.0 19 140.0 140.0 20 137.0 137.0 23.24310(B)1. Construction of line and grade for all engineered drainage devices and retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan and City direction. 23.24.310.(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. pitOFE$tj0, y4�4' P. l4L4 �f Je . Lundstrom R.C.E. 21245 a r�.4soot cc: Bill Fanning - Davidson Communities Gary Roby - Davidson Communities GS /JL /sg Manning. Civil Engineering and Land Surveying 3333 Camino Del R a Snut6. Ste. 300 San Diego. CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 February 18, 2000 Mr. Todd Bombeck City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Sage Canyon, TM 96 -185 Precise Grading - Lots Dear Mr. Bombeck: 1 ®lB� We have field reviewed the precise grading and drainage of Lots 31, 32 and 33. We hereby certify that these Lots are in substantial conformance with the following: 1. Swales graded at 1% minimum. 2. Grade away from foundations a minimum of 2.5 %. 3. Swales a minimum of Y from the building. 4. Yard drains and inlets installed with positive outfall. Sincerely, STROM SOCCIATES �FREY R. LUNDSTROM President RCE 21245 JRLfjh cc: Gary Roby - Davidson Bill Fanning - Davidson �a paoFESslo*, P ( @ V ti ti� His Fys 4 C7iN6 � Ezp 9-3MI 138 -04 FROM : LLHDSTROM & RSSX PHOHE 143. : 619 641 +5910 Ilan. 10 2000 01:16 °M P2 LU N7 D R0 M A�- ® A'R'IES TT11 H"lanning. Civil Enginoe,rung and Lamm Surveying 3333 C,mifl., Dol Rio SoUlk Ste. 300 SAn Diego CA 93108 (6l9) 64159W Tki (6i9) 6415910 March 10. 2000 Mr. Todd Bombed' CITY OF ENCINITAS Engineering Depa=em 505 South Volcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Sage Carryon (TM 96 -185) Dear Mr. Bornbeck, 138-04 The below listed retain* wails have been constructed in substantial conformance to the heights and elevations shown on the Precise Grading Plans for the Sage Canyon project. As per the City's direction, these walls have been constructed on the low Lot. In addition, these wails, according to Davidson Communities, have been constructed in substantial confonnanee with the City of San Diego Building Inspection Department Bulletin 222. Between Lots 6 and 7. 2. Between Lots 7 and 8. 3. Between Lots 8 and 9. 4. Between Lots 9 and 35. 5. Between Lots 10 and 11. 6. Between Lots 11 and 12 7. On Lot 13 8. Between Lots 13 and 14. 9, Between Lots 14 and 15. 10. Between Lacs 16 and 17. FROM : LUADSTROM & aSSOC PHONE NO, : 619 641+5910 Mar. 10 2000 01:17PM P3 11. Between Lots 17 yid IS 12, Between Lots 19 and 20 13. Between Lota 20 and 21 If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, LUNDSTROM & ASSOCIATES GREG SURBER Project Manager GS / jh cc_ Gary Roby - Davidsou Communities LUND ROM ASS® A�'IS Planning. Gvil Engineering and .and Surveying 3333 Camino Del Ru Soui6. Sic. 300 San Diego. CA 92108 (619) 641 -5900 FAX: (619) 641 -5910 May 1, 2000 Mr. Todd Bombeck City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Sage Canyon, TM 96 -185 Precise Grading - Lots Dear Mr. Bombeck: 138 -04 We have field reviewed the precise grading and drainage of Lots 1 -5 and 21 -30. We hereby certify that these Lots are in substantial conformance with the following: Swales graded at 1% minimum. 2. Grade away from foundations a minimum of 2.5% 3. Swales a minimum of T from the building. 4. Yard drains and inlets installed with positive outfall. Sincerely, �o ganF ESSIO* ZIY TROM & SS CCIATES y? �� w. L�H,�\ �yc W rio. 021245 � Exp. 0.30.3"1 s1 Ji pvu � R. LUNDSTROM or rrUF� President RCE 21245 TRL /jh cc: Gary Roby - Davidson Bill Fanning - Davidson SEP.28.2000 8 :15AM FROM : LUNDSTRCM 8 f1$OC DP "TDSCN COM'LWITIES NO.792 P.2 RHME NO. : 619 641 +5919 Sep. 28 2200 07:97AN P2 LUND-a. QT 11ROM, ASS® ATES Nanning. Civil Enginter:ng and Laad Surveying 3333 C.mua., N R, S..,iL. Sty. 300 S.. Dui, CA 92108 (619) 6415900 VAX. (6191 641 -5910 September 28, 2000 W. Todd Ilombeck City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Yulcsu Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: Sage Carryon, TM 96 -185 Precise Grading - Lots 6-20 138-04 We have field reviewed the precise grading and drainage of Lots 620. We hereby certify that these Cots are in substantial conformance with the following: 1. Swales graded at I% minimmn. 2. Grade away from foundations a minimum of 2.5k 1. Swale$ a minimum of Y from the building. 4. Yard drams and inlets imsWIcd with positive outfall. Sincerely, 7 DROM & U L4TES R LLNDSTROM President RC$. 21245 bxpiros 09/30/01 UM X, +cansti x s+o wasr .T ; civ;� r cc: Ad= Henderson- Davidson Communities Nil Fanning • Davidson Communities 4_ 6, s� vY 4 1* a r' r,yy'tiy r� -1 SYLR. +kJ ,, Jtiy r r ( y 1 5 K 1 r4 rLl I -I led r., REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SHELLEY EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA a d PREPARED FOR: DANIEL T. SHELLEY c/o DuVIVIER COMPANY, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 230638 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INCORPORATED. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 std � "ta 1 r i 4_ 6, s� vY 4 1* a r' r,yy'tiy r� -1 SYLR. +kJ ,, Jtiy r r ( y 1 5 K 1 r4 rLl I -I led r., REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SHELLEY EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA a d PREPARED FOR: DANIEL T. SHELLEY c/o DuVIVIER COMPANY, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 230638 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INCORPORATED. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOiL &TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160.0627 619- 2804321, FAX 619 - 2804717 December 2, 1997 Daniel T. Shelley SCS &T 9711242.1 c/o DuVivier Company, Inc. Post Office Box 230638 Encinitas, California 92024 SUBJECT: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Shelley El Camino Real, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development. Most of the site is underlain by deep compressible, alluvial deposits extending to varying depths. In addition, the majority of the proposed cut slopes along the southern and northern edges of the proposed development will expose these deposits. These conditions will require special site preparation and foundation consideration as described herein. If you should have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. IV a Daniel B. Adl , R. .E. 0l36DI-.�, QRpFESSlS�t,� DBA:CRB:rr cc: (6) Submitted NO. 38037 Et ?. 6.7 r, /Cij �S R. DUq� T iC,� ILA 610. iC30 °� N C�RTIr;ED ° � c.._ tn•2H i? G TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description .......... ............................... 1 Project Scope .......................... ..............................1 Findings.............................. ..............................2 Site Description ...................... ............................... 2 General Geology and Soil Description ....... ............................... 3 Alluvium....................... ..............................3 Torrey Sandstone ................ ............................... 4 Delmar Formation ................. ..............................4 Groundwater .................... ............................... Tectonic Setting ..................... ............................... 5 Geologic Hazards ..................... ..............................5 General.......................... ..............................5 Groundshaking ..................... ..............................5 Landsliding....................... ..............................6 Surface Rupture and Soil Cracking ....... ............................... 6 Liquefaction ....................... ..............................6 Flooding......................... ..............................6 Tsunamis......................... ..............................7 Seiches.......................... ..............................7 Conclusions ......................... ............................... General............................ ..............................7 Preliminary Recommendations .............. ............................... 8 Grading and Earthwork ................ ............................... 8 Observation of Grading ............... ............................... 8 Clearing and Grubbing ............... ............................... 8 Site Preparation .................... ............................... 8 Processing of Fill Areas .............. ............................... 8 Compaction and Method of Filling ....... ............................... 9 Fill Slope Construction ............... ............................... 9 Cut Slope Construction ............... ............................... 9 Surface Drainage .................. ............................... 10 Earthwork...................... ............................... 10 Shrinkage and Swelling .............. ............................... 11 Grading Plan Review ............... ............................... 11 Slope Stability ...................... ............................... 11 Foundations ....................... ............................... 11 General........................ ............................... 11 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs .... ............................... 12 Foundation Excavation Observation ...... ............................... 12 Settlement Characteristics ............ ............................... 12 Expansion Characteristics ............ ............................... 12 Earth Retaining Walls ................. ............................... 12 Passive Pressure .................. ............................... 12 Active Pressure ................... ............................... 12 Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation .. ............................... 13 Backfill ........................ ............................... 13 Factor of Safety ................... ............................... 13 Limitations.......................... ............................... 13 Review, Observation and Testing ......... ............................... 13 Uniformity of Conditions .............. ............................... 14 Change in Scope .................... ............................... 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE Time Limitations .................... ............................... 14 Professional Standard ................. ............................... 14 Client's Responsibility ................ ............................... 15 Field Explorations ...................... .............................. 15 Laboratory Testing ..................... ............................... 16 ATTACHMENTS FIGURE Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Plot Plan Plate IA Site Cross -Section Plate 2 Unified Soil Classification Chart Plates 3 -29 Trench and Boring Logs Plates 30 -32 Grain Size Distribution Plates 33 -36 Direct Shear Tests Results Plates 37 -38 Single Point Consolidation Plate 39 Schematic Buttress Detail and Subdrain Detail Plate 40 Slope Stability Calculations Plate 41 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A, References Appendix B, Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA \T SOIL &TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 -0627 619- 280 -4321, FAX 619- 280.4717 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SHELLEY EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for a proposed residential subdivision, to be located adjacent to and east of El Camino Real, in the City of Encinitas, California. The site location is shown on the vicinity map provided as Figure Number 1 on the following page. It is our understanding that the site will be developed to receive a 23 lot residential subdivision and an associated access street. The structures will be one and /or two stories high and of wood -frame construction. A post - tensioned foundation system is anticipated. Grading will consist of cuts and fills up to about 10 feet and 15 feet high, respectively. Proposed cut and fill slopes will be constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination and extend to a maximum height of about 18 feet and 20 feet, respectively. To assist in the preparation of this report, we were provided with an undated site plan, prepared by Pasco Engineering, as well as a "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, El Camino Real Homes ", prepared by Ninyo and Moore, dated April 19, 1991. The site configuration, topography and approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are shown on Plate Number 1 of this report. PROJECT SCOPE The investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples, analysis of the field data, research of available geologic literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: THOMAS BROTHER GRID - 1167/G2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. EL CAMINO REAL BY: DBAISD I DATE: 12 -01 -97 JOB HUMBER:9711242 I FIGU SCS &T 9711242 November 25, 1997 Page 2 a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata which may influence the proposed development, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. C) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards such as landslides which could have an effect on the site development. d) Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide design information regarding the stability of cut and fill slopes. 8 Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. It is not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on -site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on -grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired, we can obtain samples of representative soils and submit them to a chemical analysis laboratory for analysis. We suggest that such samples be obtained after mass site grading is complete and the soils that can affect concrete and other improvements are in place. Further, it should be understood that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary, we recommend that the developer retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is an irregular shaped parcel of land and is located on the east side of El Camino Real, approximately 0.3 mile north of Manchester Avenue in the City of Encinitas. The property is bound on SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 3 the north and south by the side of a which ascends up to a single family residential subdivisions, and on the east by undeveloped canyon and hillside terrain. Existing improvements on the site consist of a produce stand at the northwest corner of the site and a storage shed near the west - central end of the site. Portions of the site are currently being used for farming vegetables. The property is approximately 21 acres in size; however, 13.16 acres along the side of the canyon will remain as undeveloped terrain. Topographically, the property is characterized by a branching system of canyons and tributaries. The site is bisected with a major west draining canyon which intersects the south - draining Lux Canyon at El Camino Real. Lux Canyon forms the "trunk" of the regional drainage system, directing drainage to San Elijo Lagoon to the south. The Lux Canyon drainage has been channeled along the east side of El Camino Real and encroaches onto the subject property. Two major tributary canyons intersect the west- draining canyon at the northeastern and southeastern portions of the property. Numerous minor, tributary canyons incise the canyon walls along the west draining. The upper canyon walls consist of steeply sloping, bluff -type terrain. Alluvial slopes fan out gently to moderately from the base of the canyon sides, forming a swale -like feature at the centerline of the west draining canyon. Elevations on the site range from approximately 250 feet (MSL) on the easterly canyon side on the north and south sides of the property to 90 feet in the bottom of the drainage channel along El Camino Real. The alluvial areas, forming the bottom of the canyon, are cultivated for agricultural use. The canyon sides are thickly vegetated with shrubs, grass, and weeds GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOILS DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain with recent alluvium, and two Tertiary-age sedimentary formations. The surface soils in the alluvial slope areas have been processed or graded for agricultural cultivation. These materials are described individually below. Also refer to the Test Boring and Trench Logs, (Plates Number 3 through 29) for a more - detailed description of the subsurface conditions. The locations of our subsurface explorations as well as the site cross - sections are shown on the attached Plates Number 1 and 1A. ALLUVIUM: The canyon bottom areas of the site are underlain by alluvium which has created gentle to moderate alluvial slopes descending from the base of the canyon sides. The alluvium encountered near the center of the canyon ranged from about 28 feet in thickness (Boring Number SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 4 1) at the east end of the canyon to about 75 feet (Boring Number 4) at the west end of the site near the intersection with the Lux Canyon drainage. Forty -two feet of alluvium was encountered near the mouth of the intersecting, southwest - draining canyon (Boring Number 2). Based on our findings we have prepared cross - sections to indicate the projected alluvial conditions across the canyon (see Plates Number 1 and IA). Please note that these sections are based on our limited field investigation and estimated depths can vary significantly from those indicated. Additional borings would be required to more accurately define the extent and condition of the alluvial deposits. As encountered in our subsurface explorations the alluvium ranges from tan to dark brown in color and consists primarily of loose to medium dense, to medium dense, silty sands, clayey sands and poorly graded sands. It appears that the upper two to five feet of the alluvial soil section has been disturbed by agricultural processes and grading. TORREY SANDSTONE: The Torrey Sandstone comprises the canyon walls above the alluvial slope deposits and consists primarily of tan, very dense, silty sandstones. The sandstones are massively bedded and moderately cemented. The Torrey Sandstone was generally encountered at elevations above 110 feet MSL. DELMAR FORMATION: The Torrey Sandstone and alluvium are underlain by the Delmar Formation. The encountered Delmar Formation consists primarily of hard, green to gray siltstones and claystones. GROUNDWATER: Perched groundwater was encountered in the test borings at or near the alluvium bedrock contact in the deeper alluvial areas of the site (as indicated on the boring logs). It should further be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and /or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the permeability characteristics of the soil and the anticipated usage and development, it is our opinion that any seepage problems which may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 5 TECTONIC SETTING No faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area is characterized by a series of Quaternary -age fault zones which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone s located approximately 3.5 miles west of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west, the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast, and the Agua Blanca and San Miguel Fault Zones to the south. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed development. GROUND SHAKING: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in Table I found on the following page. Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 6 TABLE I Maximum Probable Maximum Bedrock Fault Zone Distance Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 3.5 miles 6.5 magnitude 0.40 g Coronado Bank 20 miles 7.0 magnitude 0.15 g Elsinore 28 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.12 g San Jacinto 52 miles 7.8 magnitude 0.06 g San Clemente 56 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.05 g CDMG Open File Report 92 -1, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes In California (Rock and Stiff Soil Sites) shows a value of 0.6 g for the project area (Mualchin and Jones, 1992). Generally two-thirds the peak bedrock accelerations is considered when designing for seismic conditions. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity LANDSLIDING: The potential for deep seated landslide failure on the site is considered very low due to the favorable geologic structure of the Torrey Sandstone SURFACE RUPTURE AND SOIL CRACKING: Based on the information available to us, it is our professional opinion that no faults are present at the subject site proper so the site is not considered susceptible to surface rupture. The likelihood of soil cracking caused by shaking from distant sources should be considered nominal. LIQUEFACTION: The materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain -size distribution, and groundwater conditions. In order for alluvium to liquefy, the materials must be loose and saturated from a relatively high ground water table condition. The alluvium at the subject site is generally within the medium dense range of consistency. Groundwater is present only as a relatively deep, perched condition at the bedrock contact. The groundwater would only impact the lower few feet of the alluvial soil section. FLOODING: Flooding is not expected to present a hazard to the site SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 7 TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Due to the sites elevation and location, it is not likely to experience a tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. It is not likely the site will be effected by Seiches. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude construction of the proposed residential subdivision provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. The main geotechnical condition affecting the proposed development is the presence of deep, potentially compressible alluvial deposits underlying the majority of the portion of the site to be developed. As encountered in our investigation, the alluvium ranges in thickness from less than five feet at the sloping northern and southern portions of the site to about 75 feet in the eastern central portion. The alluvium is associated with a large depositional valley, and increases in depth to the east and towards the middle of the valley. It is anticipated that the actual geologic axis of the valley has varied with time. Therefore, the maximum alluvial depths shown on the geologic cross section illustrated in Plate Number IA may be somewhat different from the actual depths. The alluvium was found to range in consistency from loose, to medium dense, to medium dense. As encountered in our borings explorations, the loose to medium dense portion of the alluvium ranges in depths from about 15 feet to 30 feet. These depths vary based on the previously discussed site topography and depositional characteristics. The alluvium may be potentially compressible due to proposed foundations loads and /or the weight of proposed fills required to achieve finish grades. Furthermore, it is anticipated that in some areas, the depth of compressible alluvium may vary substantially within each building pad, thus increasing the potential for differential settlement. In order to mitigate this condition, it is recommended that the alluvial deposits be partially removed and replaced as compacted fill. Furthermore, it is recommended that formational soils within five feet from finish pad grade be removed and replaced as compacted fill. In addition, due to the partial extent of the alluvial removal, special foundation consideration in the form of post tensioned foundations is recommended. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 8 The loose to medium dense alluvial deposits will also be exposed in proposed cut slopes along the southern and northern edges of the proposed development. Delmar Formation claystones. and siltstones are anticipated in cut slopes proposed at the southwestem portion of the site. It is recommended that proposed cut slopes exposing alluvium and /or claystones and siltstones be buttressed as recommended hereinafter. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the mass grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. This is particularly important in evaluating the presence of unforeseen adverse conditions that may require changes in the recommended buttressing and the extent of the removal of unsuitable soils. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site grading should begin with the removal of all vegetation and other deleterious materials from the site that will be graded and /or will receive improvements. The resulting materials should be disposed of off -site. No structures or underground utilities are known to exist that will require demolition. Should an abandoned underground utility be found during grading, it should be completely removed and the resulting depression should be cleaned out of loose or disturbed soils and be backfilled and compacted soils. SITE PREPARATION: After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should begin with the partial removal of the existing alluvial deposits in areas to receive fill or improvements, and stockpiling them for later use as fill material. Existing alluvial deposits should be removed to a minimum depth of ten feet from existing or finish pad grade, whichever is greater. In addition, existing formational soils within five feet from finish grade should also be removed. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any excavated soils and /or filling over competent ground, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, watered thoroughly, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 9 COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D- 1557 -91, Method A or C. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. Fills should be benched into all temporary slopes and into competent natural soils when the natural slope is steeper than an inclination of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Keys should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes. The keys should extend at least one foot into firm natural ground and should be slopes back at least two percent into the slope area. Slope keys should have a minimum width of 15 feet Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and should not be part of the mass grading requirements. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix B FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION: Fill slopes may be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 or flatter (horizontal to vertical). Compaction of slopes should be performed by back- rolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill is being placed, and track - walking the face of the slope when the slope is completed. As an alternative, the fill slopes may be overfilled by at least three feet and cut back to the compacted core at the design line and grade. Keys should be made at the toe of fill slopes in accordance with the recommendations presented above under "Compaction and Method Filling." CUT SLOPE CONSTRUCTION: It is recommended that proposed cut slopes exposing alluvial deposits or claystone and/or siltstone deposits be buttressed. It is anticipated that the recommendations will affect the majority of the proposed cut slopes. A schematic buttress detail is provided on Plate Number 39. It SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 10 is anticipated that the buttressing operations will require overfilling and cutting back of the upper section of the slopes. It is recommended that all cut slopes be observed by the Engineering Geologist as they are being cut in order to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions requiring special consideration are encountered. SURFACE DRAINAGE: Surface runoff into downslope natural areas and graded areas should be minimized. Where possible, drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non - erodible devices such as paved swales, gunited brow ditches, and storm drains. Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed structures and the top of slopes and toward approved draining facilities. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of one percent should a maintained. The ground around homes should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of at least five percent within the first five feet from the structure. Homeowners should be advised that drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the lift of the proposed structures. They should also be advised to limit site irrigation to the minimum necessary to sustain landscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater conditions may occur. It is recommended that rain gutters and downspouts be installed on all homes to help control roof runoff. The gutter downspouts should be discharged away from the structures and closed drain systems. EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed foundations should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath the mat foundation should be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test D- 1557 -91, Method A or C. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 11 SHRINKAGE AND SWELLING: The estimated shrinkage and swelling percentages of the onsite soils are presented in the attached table. SOIL TYPE Upper Five Feet of Alluvium Alluvium Below a Depth of Five Feet Formational Soils SHRINKAGE SWELL 15 percent 10 percent 0 percent 0 percent GRADING PLAN REVIEW: The final grading plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain the recommendations provided in this report have been implemented and the assumptions utilized in preparing this report are still applicable. SLOPE STABILITY Provided cut and fill slopes will be constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and extend to a maximum height of about 20 feet. It is our opinion that proposed fill slopes constructed in accordance with the recommendations of this report will possess an adequate factor -of -safety with respect to deep sorted rotational failure to the proposed heights (see Plate Number 40). It is anticipated that the majority of the proposed cut slopes will expose alluvial depths. In addition, cut slopes at the southwestern corner of the site will expose siltstone /claystone deposits. It is recommended that these slopes be buttressed as recommended in the site preparation section of this report. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on the anticipated soil conditions, it is our opinion that the proposed structures should be supported on a post tensioned foundation system. The following design criteria is recommended. Edge Moisture Variation, em Center Lift: 5.2 feet Edge Lift: 2.5 feet Differential Swell, Ym Center Lift: 3.2 inch Edge Lift: 0.75 inch Differential Settlement: = 0.5 inch Bearing Capacity = 2000 psf SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 12 A minimum perimeter footing depth of IS inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade is recommended. A minimum footing setback of seven foot is recommended between the face of slopes and the bottom of proposed footings for retaining walls. The minimum setback should be increased to ten feet MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: Interior concrete on -grade slabs and slabs that will support moisture sensitive floor covering should be underlain by a moisture barrier. We recommend that the minimum configuration of the subslab moisture barrier consists of a four - inch -thick blanket of coarse clean sand, half -inch crushed rock, or pea gravel. The moisture barrier material should have 100 percent material passing the half -inch sieve and less that ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieve, respectively. A visqueen vapor barrier should be placed over the top of the moisture protection blanket. A one - inch -thick layer of sand should be placed over the visqueen to allow for proper concrete curing. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by a representative from this office prior to forming or placement of reinforcing steel. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and /or differential settlements for the proposed structures may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS: The prevailing foundation soils were found to be nondetrimentally expansive. The recommendations contained in this report an applicable to this condition EARTH RETAINING WALLS PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soils conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased on -third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soils may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one - third. The upper 12 inches of exterior retaining wall footings should not be included in passive pressure calculations where abutted by landscaped areas. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 32 pounds per SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 13 cubic foot. An additional 14 pounds per cubic foot should be added to said value for 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values assumes a drained backfill condition. Waterproofing details should be provided by the project architect. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 41. We recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN OBSERVATION: The waterproofing application and subdrain installation should be observed by a representative from this office. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to a t least 90% relative compaction> Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil friction coefficient, do not include a factor -of- safety. Appropriate factors -of- safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 14 UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and /or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not b e responsible for the interpretations by others SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 15 of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of Mr. Daniel T. Shelley, or his representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further his responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Twenty -two subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number I on October 11, 21, 27 & 28, 1997. These explorations consisted of nine borings drilled utilizing a truck mounted drill rig equipped with a continuous flight auger and thirteen backhoe trenches. The field work was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. In addition, two borings were performed off -site, and will be presented in Report No. 2, which will be forthcoming. The subsurface explorations were carefully logged when made. These lots are presented on the following Plates Number 3 through 29. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate Number 2. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. Disturbed and "undisturbed" samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. Representative undisturbed ring samples were obtained by means of a split tube sampler driven into the soils by means of a 140 -pound weight free falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler is indicated on the boring lots as "penetration resistance." Standard penetration tests (SPT) were also performed at selected locations to determine the relative density of the subsurface soils. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 16 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) MOISTURE - DENSITY: In -place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in -place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the boring and trench logs. c) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution was determined from representative samples of the native soils in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of these tests are presented on Plates Number 30, 31 and 32. d) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557 -91, Method A. The results of these tests are presented herein. MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT RESULTS Sample Description TI @ 4' -6' Light Brown Silty Sand T4 @ T -9' Light Brown Silty Sand B3 @ 1' -5' Dark Brown Clayey Silty Sand Maximum Optimum Dry Density Moisture Content 123.3 pcf 10.0 % 116.8 pcf 9.1 % 121.9 pcf 10.6 % d) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Page 17 a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plates Number 33 through 36. e) CONSOLIDATION TESTS: Single point consolidation tests were performed on selected "undisturbed" samples. The consolidation apparatus was designed to accommodate a 1 -inch high by 2.375 -inch or 2.500 -inch diameter soil sample laterally confined by a brass ring. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore fluid during testing. Selected loads were applied to the samples and the resulting deformations were recorded. The percent consolidation is reported as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The test samples were inundated to determine their behavior under the anticipated loads as soil moisture increases. The results of these tests are presented on Plates Number 37 and 38. LANE SGS &T LEGEND APPROXIMATE TEST TRENCH LOCATIOR + -� APPROXIMATE. SORIRO LOCATION ,.. { APPROXIMATE CROSS SECTION LOCATION e0 U9C o4£q d4rrgC <GEq¢rNO N ' { / p. t) PRDM 't'YAK@Sfi}8AIXF53HORNHHt802i -2D F6fii :1 _ SPBCIFI$D ASAFARi QF WAtPUtiD.6IlHSt ( ki Atlt]C#4YNRVtVR N9L57Ri 'iR®CAiiYSfA6l#6[RE��YAk4 6u lD NR" sAZ2csea> wRRermANOxsmeTwt�zPOSSa� ;.scaxMmc ,WWI i EIrvEIOPE ANO �QiY9X CURYER AT AMRtIMSJAt iSPBET. .:'.' Prw 3) MOVBHtIM SLOB YARO9RTHA9C..:fi 19'BET912PM1R ' 3) '�YAl@)RBTAMING WALLS- MAXBAF7M SfllBTHI©H- iHLLlB �] �• 't)i'BSLED WHERE NECRSSARY 'fO:AtL'OA4.SpDA'1$FOOTPRINT. RENSEO SdO-DT II .3biiSRri CA;,fFORNIA REV sm . a 9'l 5471 -& TFSSSN4e iNC t ''K611iIQ REAL�� dF m DER w;rc: 14-OtAY ��iEIRw. aee Xe 't26�t t. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND UNUTED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES 1. COARSE GRAINED, more than half of material is larecr than No. 200 sieve size. GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels. gravel -sand More than half of mixtures, little or no fines. coarse fraction is GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand larger than No. 4 mixtures, little or no fines. sieve size but smaller than 3 ". GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel. (Appreciable amount sand -silt mixtures. of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel - sand, clay mixtures. SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand. gravelly sands. little More than half of or no fines. coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little smaller than No. 4 or no fines. sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES Sht Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty (Appreciable amount mixtures. of fines) SC Clayey sands. poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. II. FINE GRAINED, more than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size. SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands. rock flour, sandy silt or clayey -silt- sand mixtures with slight plasticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity. gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays. I__ ^an clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts. micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fatday's. greater than 50 OH Organic clays of medium mhigh plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. Q Water level at time of excavation or as indicated CK - Undisturbed chunk sample US - Undisturbed, driven ring sample or tube sample - Bulk Sample SP - Standard penetration sample Project Name: Project No. Plate No. Sl SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SHELLEY 9711242 2 SOIL & TESTING, INC. EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T1 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): x °a v_ x n SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SAMPLES o m F 0 F 3 z a a� a 0 0 n a 0 a A a 5 10 15 ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Grey Brown, Humid, Loose, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) with Occasional Pockets of CLAYEY SAND and Moderately Porous Soil ------------------------------------------- Brown to Light Brown, Wet, SILTY SAND (SM) 1 5.8 7.6 5.1 6.2 103.4 97.1 99.1 99.0 84 79 cK cK YX cK cK cK Trench Ended at 15 Feet SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. +0 SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 3 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T2 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: 1BR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): <+> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 4 EL CAMINO REAL snmrLes LLI C4 F F- z a Y a W U o U T ¢ a SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS u O F 3 F a 0 a ¢ _1 E- ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) ------------------------ - -- - -- - - - - - -- Dark Brown and Light Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) and CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) 5 10.1 103.0 cK 12.4 94.9 cK 10 10.3 104.3 cK 15 Trench Ended at 16 Feet <+> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 4 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T3 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. <+> SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 5 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES O0 U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W a F z O Fa O O u �'n A C7 a cat .<.7 FW- ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) ------------------------------------------- Brown to Light Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) and CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) 5 CK Very Moist 10 ------------------------------------------- Green Tan, Moist, Very Hard, SANDY SILT (ML) Trench Ended at 12 Feet 15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. <+> SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 5 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T4 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment- BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by- JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SHELLEY 9711242 6 SOIL & TESTING , INC. EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES z Q 0 C7 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS C& U 0 < OF. < FILL (Qat) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM) Moist A� 8.8 93.8 CK ------------------------------------------- Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND J ME; (SC-SM) 5 14.9 102.1 CKK -- ------------------------------------------- Brown to Light Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND(SM) 10 r % 13.0 100.0 86 CK 15 a Trench Ended at 16 Feet SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SHELLEY 9711242 6 SOIL & TESTING , INC. EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T5 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: IBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 7 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES m 3 CD U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS F D Z 0 ¢ x a z y4 N as p F w o a a a m 0 o ¢ J ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) Dark Brown to Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) 5 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) - Tan, Moist, Very Dense, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND (SM -SP) CK 10.0 106.5 10 Trench Ended at 12 Feet 15 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 7 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T6 Date Excavated: 10 /I1 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Lo ."ged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 8 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPL S 3 x O U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a w j z O a J =t O F Q } m <F LrJ � C4 CU a m qS ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) Moist ------------------------------------ Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 5 8.8 102.7 c K 10.1 104.5 CK 10 15 Trench Ended at 15 Feet SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 8 EL CAMINO REAL c I: LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T7 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. — SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 9 EL CAMINO REAL snmrtrs J U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a W j F Z O Q F7 p Z j _� O a� Qu`� ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, SILTY SAND (SM) Moist 5 Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) cK 6.7 95.6 10 15 Trench Ended at 16 Feet O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. — SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 9 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T8 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 10 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES Q O F 3 a U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS m 1z to 0 x F x a V) � mN Q CU .¢.l k -F ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Brown to Light Brown, Humid, Loose, SILTY SAND (SM) CK TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) - Tan to Light Brown, Humid to Moist, Very Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 5 CK Trench Ended at Feet 10 IS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 10 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T9 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: IBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 11 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES � U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a H a F z o Z' CL h = O rn J SLOPEWASH (Qsw) - Dark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND (SM) TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) - Tan, Humid, Very Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) CK Moist 5 Trench Ended at Feet 10 15 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 11 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER TIO Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: 01.114 Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 12 EL CAMINO REAL SN PLGS ❑ LL) o w F 3 a U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a F z o s a t✓ Ln a a ❑ , O a � < a m ❑5 a F ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Brown to Tan, Dry, Loose, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND (SM -SP) Humid Moist to Very Moist 5 Trench Ended at 9 Feet Due to Caving 10 15 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 12 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T11 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 13 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLCS � LLI F 3 v � U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a to j z 0 F z F :D a� < a Z a }a' Q W FILL (Qat) - Dark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND (SM) Dark Brown, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 5 7.9 102.5 CK 10 8.2 98.2 cK From 12 Feet to 13 Feet, Gravel and Cobble, Maximum Size = 6" Tan, Very Moist, SILTY SAND (SM) 15 Trench Ended at 16 Feet O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 13 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T12 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 14 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES _ ,0-1 U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a W F O li a Z u mQ W p U a m � Cam —1F ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) Moist 5 Brown 10 Abundant Gravel and Cobble, Maximum Size = 6" Mottled Tan Oran e Brown, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) Trench Ended at 12.5 Feet 15 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 14 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T13 Date Excavated: 10/11/97 Equipment: BACKHOE Surface Elevation(ft): Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. <+> SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 15 EL CAMINO REAL SnMI'I,PS LL] o 3 U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS F a z ¢ x a = x o� a ¢ a O a� catQ U a co .¢_1 F SLOPEWASH /FILL (Qsw /Qat) - Dark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND (SM) TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) - Tan, Humid, Very Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 5 Trench Ended at Feet 10 15 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. <+> SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 15 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 16 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES o a 3 a U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS F j z O O .. .1 O O G? y v CO R] A V .a-iF ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Tan, Humid, Loose, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND (SM -SP) — - -- 20 us Loose to Medium Dense 5 1 17 4.7 98.8 us Moist 10 14.1 102.2 us IS Light Yellow Brown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) us 17 16.9 105.5 20 12 SP 25 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Tan, Moist to Very Moist, Very Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 30 43 SP Boring Ended at 31 Feet O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 16 EL CAMINO REAL f Cr b 6 LOG OF BORING NUMBER B2 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: IBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 17 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES z x., W U w SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 a En O E- a v O F FILL (Qaf) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) -- -- 30 us Brown, Medium Dense 5 - -- - - -- 30 us Brown and Dark Brown, Moist ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Light Brown, Moist to Very Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 10 18 13.5 106.6 us Mottled Light Grey, Brown, and Orange Brown, Medium 15 Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) 23 16.9 109.7 us 20 Brown to Light Brown, Wet, Medium Dense, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND (SP -SM) 30 19.2 106.2 us 28 20.2 104.7 us 30 -- ------------------------------------- Brown to Light Brown, et, Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 17 EL CAMINO REAL z F a Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): LOG OF BORING NUMBER B2 Logged by: JBR Driving Weight and Drop: Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): 40.0 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 18 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES m o o 3 a U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS x O F a < Q -� O W rn Q v - - -- - - -- us 37 Medium Dense to Dense . � - - -- - - -- Cobble? w. Cobble to 40 Feet 40 :. 7_ - - - -- - -- -Water Table DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Olive Green, Very Moist, Hard, SILTY CLAY (CH) 84 SP Grey Green, Very Moist, Very Hard, SANDY SILT (ML) 45 Boring Ended at 45 Feet 50 55 60 65 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 18 EL CAMINO REAL h LOG OF BORING NUMBER B3 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): 49.0 Fx. °i V a a SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS swmri,Fs 3 ° j o z o aC a OF o f ¢u F i x ALLUVIUM /FILL (Qal /Qat) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) us 14 Xx 5 Moist to Very Moist 14 16.4 106.2 87 us '' --------------------------------------- Light Brown, Very Moist to Wet, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) 10 16 18.5 106.4 us 15 28 17.1 109.9 KK us Medium Dense J. Cobble and Gravel 20 Light Brown, Wet, SILTY SAND (SM) 26 19.2 106.2 us 25 30 --------------------------------------- Light Brown, Moist, Medium Dense to Dense, CLAYEY 34 12.9 103.2 us SILTY SAND (SM -SC) O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING , INC. SHELLEY 9711242 19 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B3 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Project Manager: DBA Depth to Waier(ft): 49.0 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 20 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES 0 F o F 3 r U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS > a W F Z 0 F ¢ n W ¢ a Ca l O O C a v m� O U S m CO Q� .¢]F 40 - - -- - - -- 47 7.5 100.5 us Dense 45 S _ - - -- - -- -Water Table 50 36 19.5 105.9 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Green, Very Moist, Very us Hard, SANDY CLAY (CH), Highly Fractured, Landslide Deposits? 55 43 Sp Boring Ended at 56.5 Feet 60 65 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 20 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B4 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): 40.0 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL &TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 21 EL CAMINO REAL ,S NY LES oo 3 x ^° U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 z x N "' H c�Li o¢4 Z � 0 a CM a U a M M J E- ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid to Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) Humid $ -----------------------:---------------- Mottled Brown and Dark Brown, Humid to Moist, Loose to us 37 Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM), Disturbed Sample 10 12 SP Moist, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) 15 -grown and Light Brown, Very Moist, Medium Dense and Stiff, CLAYEY SAND (SC) and SANDY CLAY (CL) Light Brown, Very Moist, Loose to medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM), Gravel to 19 Feet 20 9 SP Brown to Light Brown, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense, 25 CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) 30 --------------------------------------- Brown to Light Brown, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense, 7 SP CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL &TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 21 EL CAMINO REAL s c F a c LOG OF BORING NUMBER B4 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(f0: Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(f0: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. 50IL & TESTING , INC. SHELLEY 9711242 22 EL CAMINO REAL SANIPL. Q a o o f- 3 0 U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a a H Z 2 F F W ce p Z .J C¢7 W 40 - - -- - -Water Table Mottled Grey Brown, Light Brown and Red, Saturated, Medium 20 Sp Dense 45 50 17 sr Mottled Grey Brown, Loose to Medium DEnse, SILTY SAND (SM), Packed Sample 55 60 Mottled Grey, Dark Brown, and Rust, Saturated, Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) and CLAYEY SILTY SAND SP 17 (SC -SM) 65 LI SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. 50IL & TESTING , INC. SHELLEY 9711242 22 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B4 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Driving Weight and Drop: Surface Elevation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 23 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPIXr m o a 3 a �? SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS C4 0 a F o F� w JC 3 Fig a Ott. Q O nS u W U O m m Q J E- DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Green, Very Moist, Hard, 75 SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL -CH), Fractured 45 Boring Ended at 79.5 Feet S0 85 90 95 100 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 23 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B5 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Equipment: DRILL RiG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): Project Manager: DBA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. <+> SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 24 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES n o o g= 3 z a U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS O w m F z t. < a. ax, p � 3 O F`n• w o� z ° a� act FILL /ALLUVIUM (Qaf /Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) 20 us 5 Brown to Light Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 14 6.4 99.7 us 10 15 20 — — 13 SP Moist, Medium Dense 25 30 -Brown to Light Brown, Moist, Medium Dense, SILTY SAND 12 sP (SM) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. <+> SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 24 EL CAMINO REAL s c F 0 a LOG OF BORING NUMBER B5 Date Drilled: 10121/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 25 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLB O m o o o [- 3 a U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS C4 OL" = Z o E Fx a = 3 C a OH tai a a O a' v Q U o o C4 .¢_t DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Green, Very Moist, Hard, SANDY CLAY (CL) Boring Ended at 38 Feet 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 25 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B6 Date Drilled: 10121/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): O4S+ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 26 EL CAMINO REAL m o 3 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS wa F E~ o a O a v ALLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid to Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) 19 us 5 Brown, Very Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) 10 16 us 15 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Green Grey, Very Moist, Very Stiff, SANDY CLAY (CL) 20 29 Boring Ended at 21.5 Feet 25 30 O4S+ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 26 EL CAMINO REAL LOG OF BORING NUMBER B7 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Driving Weight and Drop: Surface Elevation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): — 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 27 EL CAMINO REAL a snMrirs o w F 3 a o _ U o < tom. w `n Y 3 H O F�- O ALLUVIUM /COLLUVIUM (Qal /Qcol) - Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) with some Gravel and Cobble 5 TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt) - Tan, Humid to Moist, Dense, KX SILTY SAND (SM) Green Grey, Very Moist, Hard, VERY SANDY SILT (ML) 44 20.9 104.7 us 10 --------------------------------------- Tan, Moist, Dense, SILTY SAND (SM) us 38 Boring Ended at I 1 Feet IS 20 25 30 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 27 EL CAMINO REAL s c F LOG OF BORING NUMBER B8 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Surface Elevation(ft): Driving Weight and Drop: Depth to Water(ft): O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 28 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES 0 UJ o o 3 U SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a Z a t~ < F- a F O 3 C4 O E� O v� q t7 D m e7 ALLLUVIUM (Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC -SM) 39 us KX 5 - -- - - -- 26 5.1 103.8 us Mottled Dark Grey and Brown, Moist 10 29 6.7 106.4 us T. Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) 15 31 11.5 112.3 us 20 39 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Green, Moist, Very Stiff, SP SANDY CLAY (CH), Fractured Dse to Very DerLSe, SILTY SAND (SM) XT an, Moist, en Boring Ended at 21.5 Feet 25 30 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 28 EL CAMINO REAL "z r r C LOG OF BORING NUMBER B9 Date Drilled: 10/21/97 Logged by: JBR Project Manager: DBA Equipment: DRILL RIG Driving Weight and Drop: Surface Elevation(ft): Depth to Water(ft): 15.0 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 29 EL CAMINO REAL SAMPLES O Cn o Z� x a tx. a m o U nx Q a SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS o 3 a O x I O 3 F O or � G a OF o f ro FILL /ALLUVIUM (Qaf /Qal) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, SILTY SAND (SM) Brown to Light Brown, Humid to Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM -SC) 10 us 5 10 Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) us 21 7.6 105.7 15 3 - - - -- - -- -Water Table Brown to Light Brown, Saturated, SILTY SAND (SM), 12 us Disturbed Sample 20 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td) - Green, Very Moist, Very Stiff to Hard, SANDY CLAY (CL) 25 No Recovery 43 Boring Ended at 26.5 Feet 30 O SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Project Name: Project No. Plate No. SOIL & TESTING, INC. SHELLEY 9711242 29 EL CAMINO REAL ~ W 'SCALE CORRECTION' 1 1 1 1 8 p O PERCENT FINER J Lu N to W J U cc F- a 4 J U N p LL S Q - N � w N ¢ Q O U J LL W 4 cr w N ¢ O U W m 0 U 0 m 0 r 0 Z W N U) T W 0 2 IlJ N O o Q Q 2 = N Fa- Ln C 7 F- N on EN ON NEEPENEENE • �IRl�����II�IIIw1w1I1� rr�rr�rr��rrrr�YY�YYrr�rrY�Yr� ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® ��tA1�t�ItA1�tIA���ww�ww��w�I ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® YYIYWYYIYYIYY�YY�YYI��YIYY�YY� ' PERCENT FINER J Lu N to W J U cc F- a 4 J U N p LL S Q - N � w N ¢ Q O U J LL W 4 cr w N ¢ O U W m 0 U 0 m 0 r 0 Z W N U) T W 0 2 IlJ N O o Q Q 2 = N Fa- Ln C 7 F- N `n A� SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT: EL CAMINO REAL TSOIL AND TESTING BY: DBA DATE: 11 -21 -97 JOB NUMBER: 9711242 Plate No. 30 N N O Oc 0 r x n m 7D Z Z -I n m D N r ^^z O y/ m z 13 ICU 10 o < a _ `m C n m -4 m " m �o r- V N J7 N 3 A 1-+ N Z 0 a -,z) D a -4 r r' m rD z 0 1-� W N 1 V 100 90 60 20 9 60 m Z 50 i40 m S 30 20 10 0 967 65 4 3 2 1000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVES 1r2" 114' •10 •20 HO #60 HYDROMETER (MINUTES) 6676 5 4 3 2 9626 5 6 3 2 9616 5 4 3 2 9616 5 4 3 2 9616 5 4 3 2 100 10 1 0 0 1 01 001 GRAIN SIZE (m ) PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS BOULDER � COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDNIM FINE (12') 3' 314' No.4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE T6 @8' T3 @ 11' -12' (50Gm) (fODGm( _ N D 99\ m pAp 99\ D n m n r N N C ^O q 1 2 D m Z M v Z -i n m n N r- Z O Z a o m m 03 Q Z L c m 3 °w 44 m � 9 m r V (-� r+ D N A Z N O A v G m a � � m z 0 r W N 1 36' 6• 24' 12' 100 90 60 >9 a60 O i 60 40 m S 30 20 10 0 9476 5 4 3 2 1000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVES HYDROMETER (MINUTES) 2' 1. 1:2' 114' n0 620 640 660 6' 31 1 113' 314' 3I9' 64 66 616 630 660 •100 6200 1 2 6 30 160 1440 (60Gm) 967654 3 2 967654 3 2 967664 3 2 967654 3 2 967654 3 2 100 10 1 0 0 1 01 001 GRAIN SIZE (m ) PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS BOULDER � COBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUM FINE (12') 3' 3/4' No.4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE B1 @ 2.5' T1 @ 4' -6' (IOOGm) Ilk � y A m 0 � n m n S 2 u- N Y N N w H N Q W N 4 3 r 1 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY TA V -6' T4@ 7' -9' 0 1 2 3 4 5 2M L 2L (0.5181 (1.0361 (2.0701 NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2'/2" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) T1 @ 4' -6' Remolded to 90% 38 100 T4 @ 7' -9' Remolded to 90% 35 100 PROVING RING No. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. EL CAMINO REAL BY: DBA DATE: 11 -21 -97 JOB NUMBER: 9711242 ►LATE No.: 33 w.w.111. N Y f� N W cc 1- fA Q W x N 4 3 2 1 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY T5 @ 9' T6 @8' 0 ' 1 2 3 4 5 2M L 2L (0.518) (1.036) 12.070) NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 1/2" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION IPSF) T5 @ 9' Undisturbed 42 200 T6 @ 8' Undisturbed 39 100 PROVING RING No. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. EL CAMINO REAL DBA DATE: 11_21 -97 NUMBER: 9711242 1 PLATE No.: 34 LL N Y N N W H N Q W N 4 3 io DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY B3 @ 1' -5' 0 1 2 3 4 5 2M L 2L 10.5181 11.0361 (2.070) NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 14" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) B3 @ 1' -5' Remolded to 90% 35 200 PROVING RING No. S SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. EL CAMINO REAL BY: DBA DATE: 11 -21 -9I JOB NUMBER: 9711242 PLATE No.: 35 w..w.. nr• 4 LL. N Y 3 N W t— 2 Q LL! CA 1 SAMPLE B7 @ 7' m DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 10.574) 11.1501 12.300) NORMAL STRESS, KSF (23/9" SAMPLE) *1/2 Speed PROVING RING No. DESCRIPTION Undisturbed* ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 35 5 COHESION INTERCEPT (PSF) 200 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EL CAMINO REAL SOIL & TESTING, INC. Br: DBA DATE: 11 -21 -97 ,OB HUUBER: 9711242 1 Plate No. 36 SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT SAMPLE NO. T1 @ 4' T1 @ 6' T1 @ 10' T1 @ 12' - INITIAL MOISTURE, % 5.8 7.6 5.1 6.2 - INITIAL DENSITY PCF 103.4 97.1 99.1 99.0 - 9; CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1.1 2.0 1.3 1.7 - CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 3.2 7.3 3.0 2.6 - FINAL MOISTURE, 9 17.1 19.6 21.4 20.9 - AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 SAMPLE NO. T4 @ 5' T4 @ 10' B2 @ 10' B3 @ 5' - INITIAL MOISTURE, % 14.9 13.0 13.6 16.4 - INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 102.1 100.0 106.2 106.2 - % CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1.1 2.8 1.1 4.0 - CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 2.5 3.2 1.2 4.0 - FINAL MOISTURE, % 19.4 18.9 16.3 15.5 - AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S TESTING, INC. EL CAMINO REAL By: DBA IDATE: 11 -21 -97 R: 97112,2 IPlate No. 37 SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT SAMPLE N0. B3 @ 10' 65 @ 8' B8 @ 5' B8 @ 10' - INITIAL MOISTURE, % 18.5 6.4 5.1 6.7 - INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 106.4 99.7 103.8 106.4 - % CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 3.7 1.3 1.8 1.0 - CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 3.7 1.6 4.4 1.2 - FINAL MOISTURE, % 17.5 19.9 15.6 15.9 - AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EL CAMINO REAL SOIL &TESTING, INC. Br: DBA DATE: 11-21-97 JOB NUMBER: 9711242 Plate No. 38 O JUOUII HIIV -- U S' MIN H = SLOPE HEIGHT b = 10' or 1/2 H, WHICHEVER IS GREATER 'VERTICAL SUBDRAINS MAY ALSO BE NECESSARY. TO BE DETERMINED DURING GRADING SCHEMATIC BUTTRESS DETAIL No Scale 3 CUBIC YARDS OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK MIRAFI 140N or EQUIVALENT 4' PERFORATED PIPE SUBRAIN DETAIL No Scale SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC SHELLEY EL CAMINO REAL lay: DBA /SD DATE: 12 -02 -97 JOB NUMBER:9711242 (Plate No. 39 0 SLOPE STABILITY CALCULATIONS Janbu's Simplified Slope Stability Method '*A' C (P = WH C Ton6 FS =Ncf( C ) WH Assume Homogeneous Strength Parameters throughout the slope .g ( °) C(psf) W9(pcf) Incl. H (ft) FS 35 200 121 2:1 25 2.2 Where: 0 - Angle of Internal Friction C - Cohesion (psf) Ws = Unit weight of Soil (pcf) H = Height of Slope (ft) FS = Factor of Safety SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL A TESTING,INC. SHELLEY EL CAMINO REAL Y: DBA «uunEot: 9711242 DATE: 12 -02 -97 Plate No. 40 - -1% SLOPE MINIMUM 6' MAX. °. ,o 0 0 o • ' •o o, 12° • o 6' MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER i PERFORATED PIPE I I I I I I I I t 6' MIN. WATERPROOF BACK Of WALL PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS 314 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL TOP OF GROUND OR CONCRETE SLAB RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL NO SCALE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SHELLEY EL CAMINO REAL L<O+*> SOIL & TESTING, INC. •r: OBA DATE: 12 -02 -97 JOB NUMSER: 9711242 Plate No. 41 APPENDIX A SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Appendix A, Page 1 REFERENCES Anderson, J.G.; Rockwell, T.K. and Anew, D.C., 1989, "Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region," Earthquake Spectra, Volume 5, No. 2, 1989. Jennings, C.W., 1992, "Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open Report 92 -03. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Kennedy, M.P. and others, 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 123. Leighton and Associates, 1983, City of San Diego Seismic Safety Element, Map Sheet 258 -1689. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California, Journal of Geooysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS San Diego County, 1928, Photographs 52F5 and F6 San Diego County, 1970, Photographs 6-12 and 6 -13 San Diego County, 1973, Photographs 28 -26 and 28 -27 San Diego County, 1978, Flight 200, Photographs 16 and 17 San Diego County, 1983, Photographs 12 and 14 San Diego County, 1989, Photographs 1 -165 and 1 -167 APPENDIX B SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Appendix B Page I SHELLY EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL, ENCINITAS RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and /or the attached Special provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Southem California Soil & Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that my may provided his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provided these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.; construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommended rejection of this work. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Appendix B Page 2 Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -91 Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -90 or ASTM D -2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soils. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (20 percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities no to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Appendix B Page 3 All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a qualified Structural Engineer, FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Appendix B Page 4 Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over- built and cut -back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading„ these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than the allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. SCS &T 9711242 December 2, 1997 Appendix B Page 5 ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29 -C. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. SOIL • TESTING. INC z M O u z i t 0 M PHONE (619) 280 -4321 TOLL G0.EE (877) 215 -4321 FAX (619) 280 -4717 FINAL SUMMARY OF IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS SITE IMPROVEMENTS SAGE CANYON, EL CAMINO REAL ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES 1302 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92014 PREPARED BY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 P.O. Box 600627 San Diego, CA 92160 -0627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, CA 92120 www.SCSt.COm TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SCOPEOF WORK ........................................... ...................... ............ .... I............. GRADING.............................................................................. ............................... UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL ............................................... ............................... CURBAND GUTTER BASE .................................................. ............................... SIDEWALK SUBGRADE AND BASE .................................... ............................... STREET SUBGRADE AND BASE COURSE ........................ ............................... KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL BACKFILL .......................... ............................... CMU RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAINS ...... ............................... LOT9 RETAINING WALL ..................................................... ............................... FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING ............................................... I............... LABORATORYTESTS .......................................................... ............................... CONCLUSIONS.................................................................... ............................... LIMITATIONS............................................ . .......................................... I .............. I ATTACHMENTS PLATES Plates 1 -2 Plates 3 -17 Site Plans In -Place Density Results ....... ............................... 1 ....... ............................... 2 ........ ............................... 2 ....................................... 2 ........ ............................... 3 .................. I.................... 3 ........ ............................... 3 ........ ............................... 4 .... .. ...... I .......................... 4 ........ ............................... 5 ..... ............................... 5 ..... ............................... 5 ........ ............................... 6 < SOIL ■ TESTING, Ian 2 F M O N E P.O. Box 600627 LL (619) 280 -4321 San Die( g o, CA 92160 -0627 5 C TOLL rREE 6280 Riverdale Street Z (877) 215 -4321 SrT E n x San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 280 -4717 www.Scst.com 0 0 N July 26, 2001 SCS &T 9911096 Report No. 16 Ms. Beth Hutchison Davidson Communities 1302 Camino Del Mar Del Mar. Califomia 92014 Subject: FINAL SUMMARY OF IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, SITE IMPROVEMENTS SAGE CANYON EL CAMINO REAL, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Reference: 1) "Seepage Condition, Lot 9, Retaining Wall "; by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; 9911096 -15, dated December 15, 2000. 2) "Detaining Wall Backfill, Sage Canyon Residential Development, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California," by Southern California Soil and Testing Inc., #9911096.14, dated May 1, 2000. 3) "Summary of As -Built Geology, Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Shelley El Camino Real, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California," by Southern California Soil and Testing Inc., #9711242.8, dated May 5, 1999. 4) "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Shelly El Carrino Real, El Camino Real, Encinitas, California," by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., #9711242.1, dated December 2, 1997. Dear Ms. Hutchison: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to summarize the results of the in- place density tests performed in conjunction with the site improvements by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. (SCS &T). These tests were performed between January 18, 1999 and April 13, 2001. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work performed by our firm addressed by this report consisted of. • In -place density testing of the additional fill placed on Lots 10, 11 and 12 since completion of the report listed as Reference 3; • In -place density testing of the underground utility trench backfills; • In -place density testing of the curb and gutter base; • In -place density testing of the sidewalk subgrade and base; Sage Canyon July 25, 2001 SCS &T No. 9911096 -16 Paoe 2 • In -place density testing of the Keystone wall backfill; • In -place density testing of street subgrade and base; • Observation and testing of the subdrain and backfill placed behind the retaining wall east of Lot 9. SCS &T was not requested to provide observation and testing for subdrains and backfill placed behind CMU retaining walls associated with the project other than the wall east of Lot 9. In addition, SCS &T was not requested to provide observation and testing for driveway and walkway subgrade or utility trench backfill within the subject lots. GRADING Mass grading for the project was completed in 1998, as reported in Reference Number 3. Lots 10, 11 and 12 were left low from planned pad finished grades during the original mass grading due to the lack of fill material. Prior to the placement of additional fill material, the pad surfaces were prepared by scarifying to an approximate depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioning, and compacted to at least the specified 90 percent relative compaction. The soils generated from footing excavations and imported fill soils were placed on these pads as uniformly compacted fill. Typically fill soils were placed in thin, moisture conditioned lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction by means of a Kamatsu 250 and/or a Caterpillar 928 trackloader. In -place density test locations associated with these operations are indicated on Plate Number 2. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL The backfill soils for the subsurface utilitytrenches consisting of the storm drain, sewer, water, gas, electrical and joint utility trenches were tested by our firm for relative compaction on an "nn -call" basis. The approximate locations of the trench backflls tested are as noted on Plate Number 1. In most cases the backfill soils were placed and compacted prior to our arrival on -site. The storm drain, sewer, water, gas, electrical and joint utilitytrench in -place density tests have been labeled with "SD," "S," "W ", "G ", "E" and "JT" designations, respectively. Typically, the soils generated from the excavation of the trenches were used as the backfill material. The backfill material was generally compacted to at least the specified 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction was primarily achieved by means of an excavator - mounted sheepsfoot compaction wheel and other heavy construction equipment. Tests numbers E1 and E7 failed to meet the minimum 90 percent relative compaction requirement. No retests were requested. The project superintendent reported that the failed areas were reworked and additional compactive effort applied. CURB AND GUTTER BASE The curb and gutter base course was tested on an "on- call " basis at the locations shown on Plate Number 1. In -place density tests performed by our field representative indicated relative compaction values of at least the specified 95 percent. The field density tests have been designated with a "CGB ". Sage Canyon SCS& T No. 9911096 -16 SIDEWALK SUBGRADE AND BASE July 25, 2001 Pace 3 The sidewalk subgrade soils were tested for relative compaction on an "on -call' basis the random locations indicated on Plate Number 1. Relative compaction values of at least the specified 90 percent were measured in the areas tested. The sidewalk subgrade tests have been labeled with an "SWSG ". Sidewalk base course tests were taken as requested within 2 driveway aprons adjacent to El Camino Real. These tests are designated as "SWB ". Test results indicated relative compaction values of the specified 95 percent or greater. STREET SUBGRADE AND BASE COURSE Subgrade preparation for the streets within the project generally consisted of moisture conditioning and compacting the subgrade soils. In -place density tests indicated relative compaction values of the specified 95 percent or greater. The subgrade tests, labeled "SG ", were performed on an "on- call' basis at the locations indicated on Plate Number 1. Class 2 aggregate base materials were placed over the street subgrade. Generally, in -place density tests performed by our field representative indicated relative compaction values of at least the specified 95 percent. However, Tests B1 through B5 indicated relative compaction values of between 92.2 and 93.9 percent. No retests of Tests B1 through B5 were requested. The base course tests, designated with the letter "B ", were performed on an "on- call' basis at the locations indicated on Plate Number 1. KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL BACKFILL The backfill soils for the Keystone walls at the subject site were tested for relative compaction by our firm. One wall is located within the drainage channel adjacent to El Camino Real, Mile the other wall is located adjacent to the eastern terminus of Sage Canyon Drive. The approximate locations of the Keystone wall backfill tests are noted on Plate Number 2. The in -place density tests for the Keystone wall backfill have been labeled with the "WB" designation. Typically, the same soils used for the general grading of the project were used for the Keystone wall backfill. The backfill material was generally compacted in thin lifts to at least the specified 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction was primarily achieved by means of a 4- to 6 -ton riding vibratory roller or a gas - powered, hand -held compactor. Special inspection requirements with respect to the Keystone retaining walls verified in accordance with Section 1701 of the Uniform Building Code consisted of the following: • Soils conditions were substantially in conformance with the referenced geotechnical investigation. The base footings were founded in compacted soils, which were found to be suitable for the support of the proposed wall. Sage Canyon SCS& T No. 9911096 -16 July 25, 2001 Pane 4 • The Keystone wall was installed substantially per plan, including the geogrid type and placement. • The angle of the face of the wall is in substantial conformance with the wall section shown on the plans. CMU RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAINS With the exception of the retaining wall east of Lot 9, SCS &T was not requested to perform observation and testing for the subdralns and backfill behind the CMU retaining walls at the subject site. Subsequent observations indicated that the subdrains and backfill placed behind most or all of the CMU type retaining walls do not conform to our recommendations. The walls in question are located adjacent to the property lines between individual lots, and are typically 3 to 5 feet in height. The typical backfill section observed in potholes excavated behind the walls consisted of 12 to 18 inches of loose soil underlain by 12 to 24 inches of crushed rock with no filter fabric wrap. The unwrapped rock is underlain by an estimated twelve to twenty -four inches of crushed rock which appears to be wrapped in filter fabric in some cases and unwrapped or partially wrapped in other cases. The wall backfill conditions described above could potentially have adverse effects upon the adjoining residences, exterior improvements and site drainage. A more detailed description of soil conditions behind the walls, possible adverse effects and recommendations for correcting the deficiencies are presented in the report listed as Reference Number 2, LOT 9 RETAINING WALL As described in Reference Number 1, seepage and /or excess moisture was noted adjacent to the east property line CMU retaining wall by the owner of Lot 9. The seepage was apparently derived from irrigation on the adjacent open space Lot35. The seepage was exacerbated by inadequate subdrains behind the wall and the presence of weep holes in the lowest course of the masonry blocks. In order to mitigate the seepage condition, the original backfill and subdrain were removed, and a new waterproofing, subdrains and backfill were installed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Reference Number 1. After the removal of the original backfill and subdrain, the back of the wall was cleaned, the weep holes were filled and a new waterproofing membrane was applied in accordance with the recommendations presented in Reference Number 1. This operation was observed by a representative from our office. Miradrain 6000 drainage panel was placed against the back of the wall, and a subdrain was constructed at the base of the Miradrain drainage panel on top of the footing. The subdrain consisted of a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR35), surrounded by at least 1 cubic foot per lineal foot of crushed rock, wrapped in filterfabric. In most areas of the backfill zone, the subdrain extended to about 2 feet above the top of the footing. The zone above the top of the subdrain was backflled with compacted fill to the proposed top -of -wall grade. The maxim Sage Canyon July 25, 2001 SCSBTNo. 9911096 -16 Page 5 thickness of the soil backfill was about 2 feet. In -place density tests taken in the backfill indicated relative compaction values of 90 percent or greater. Test locations are indicated as "CMU" on Plate Number 2. In order to reduce potential for future seepage problems, it is recommended that open space Lot 35 be irrigated with the minimum amount of water that will support vegetative growth. In addition, positive drainage should be maintained away from the back of the wall and into the nearby area drain inlets. FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING Field observations and density tests were performed bya representative of Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. during the grading and backfill operations. The density tests were performed according to ASTM D2922 -91 (nuclear gauge) procedure. The results of the tests are shown on the attached plates. The accuracy of the in -situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we were involved with, and we also performed field density tests, which in conjunction with our observation was the basis for our opinion as to whether the work was performed in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and the requirements of the applicable agencies. LABORATORY TESTS Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted fills according to ASTM D1557 -91, Procedure A and C. Procedure A is used when the soil contains 20% or less by weight of material, which is retained on the #4 sieve. This procedure specifies that a 4 -inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in 5 equal layers with each layer compacted by 25 blows of a 10 -pound hammer with an 18 -inch drop. Procedure C is used when the soil contains more than 20% by weight of material that is retained on the 3/8" sieve and less than 30% by weight is retained on the 3/4" sieve. This procedure specifies that a 6 -inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/13 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in 5 equal layers with each layer compacted by 56 blows of a 10 -pound hammer with an 18 -inch drop. The results of these tests, presented on Plate Number 16, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted fill. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our field observations and the in -place density test results, and to the best of our knowledge, the work under our purview was generally performed in accordance with Ihe Sage Canyon July 25, 2001 SCSBT No. 9911096 -16 Page 6 recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical report, the City of Encinitas grading ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. However, substandard backfill and subdrains were found to be present behind the site CMU retaining walls noted in this report. This condition could have adverse effects upon the project as discussed in Reference Number 2. LIMITATIONS This report covers only the services performed between January 18, 1999 and April 13, 2001. As limited by the scope of the services, which we agreed to perform, our opinion presented herein are based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our services were performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading and backfill operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the performance of those services nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the contractor of the responsibility to conform with the job requirements. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHER Michael P. Fa Senior Engin u• la:_ (6) Addressee NG, INC. Vice SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA tA O r Ro m 0 Z G1 i - . Tl 4. SOLTIII RN CALIF, SOIL & TFSTING, SCS &TLEGEND • Appmx mateLocatio of I Place o e sity Te t WB Keystone- 118ackfiil CMU Lot 9 CMU Wall Backfill JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS JOB NUMBER: 9911096 TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) GRADING Tests 1 through 509 were previously reported in Report No. 9711242.8, dated May 5, 1999. Test numbers 510 through 521 have been omitted due to an error in numbering. (No tests were taken corresponding to these numbers). 522 6117/99 Lot 10 172.0 7.8 113.3 7 94.8 523 6117/99 Lot 10 171.0 16.3 104.4 7 87.4 524 6/17199 Retest of 523 171.0 11.5 108.7 7 91.0 525 6/17/99 Lot 10 174.0 11.8 109.2 7 91.4 526 6/18/99 Lot 11 166.0 13.3 111.9 7 93.6 527 6/18199 Lot 11 166.5 9.4 105.9 7 88.6 528 6/16/99 Retest of 527 166.5 10.1 108.6 7 90.9 529 6/18/99 Lot 10 167.0 10.6 110.7 7 92.6 530 6/18199 Lot 10 167.0 12.7 112.5 7 94.1 531 6/18/99 Lot 10 167.0 12.1 111.6 7 93.4 532 6/21/99 Lot 10 168.0 11.8 115.8 7 96.9 533 6/21/99 Lot 10 169.0 10.5 111.4 7 93.2 534 6/21/99 Lot 10 170.0 12.2 110.9 7 92.8 535 6/22/99 Pad 10 171.5 14.0 110.3 7 92.3 536 6/22199 Pad 10 170.0 11.9 109.5 7 91.6 537 6/22/99 Pad 10 172.0 9.9 110.1 7 92.1 538 6122199 Pad 10 171.0 8.3 110.7 7 92.6 539 6123/99 Pad 12 163.0 6.9 114.1 8 91.4 540 6123/99 Pad 12 164.0 8.2 114.8 8 92.0 541 6/23199 Pad 11 164.5 7.2 118.1 8 94.6 542 6/23199 Pad 12 164.5 13.1 112.4 8 90.1 543 6/28/99 Pad 11 165.5 12.9 109.7 7 91.8 544 6/28/99 Pad 11 165.5 11.3 108.3 7 90.6 545 6128/99 Pad 12 167.0 13.0 106.2 7 88.9 546 6/28/99 Pad 12 167.0 10.5 104.8 7 87.7 547 6/28/99 Retest of 545 167.0 8.4 109.8 7 91.9 548 6128199 Retest of 546 167.0 10.0 108.1 7 90.5 549 7/2/99 Lot 11 168.5 6.5 105.8 7 88.5 550 7/2199 Retest of 549 168.5 7.5 107.7 7 90.1 551 7/2/99 Lot 11 169.5 10.7 108.2 7 90.5 552 716199 Pads 11 169.0 10.0 111.9 7 93.6 553 716/99 Pads 12 169.5 9.0 112.3 7 94.0 554 7/7199 Pads 12 169.0 13.3 108.9 7 91.1 555 7/7/99 Pads 12 168.0 9.5 113.9 7 95.3 556 719/99 Pads 11 169.0 10.2 114.9 7 96.2 Plate No. 3 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) 557 719/99 East Slope, Private Drain FG 14.7 108.7 5 92.2 558 7/9199 East Slope, Private Drain FG 9.0 107.5 5 91.2 559 7/9/99 East Slope, Private Drain FG 16.0 106.8 5 90.6 560 7/9/99 East Slope, Private Drain FG 9.1 106.6 5 90.4 561 7/15/99 ECR, Sta 209 +70 36" RCP 93.5 13.5 112.6 5 95.5 562 7/15/99 ECR, Sta 209 +70 36" RCP 91.0 12.5 113.9 5 96.6 563 7/15199 ECR, Sta 209 +70 36" RCP 95.0 9.1 108.5 5 92.0 564 7/16/99 ECR, Sta 209 +70 36" RCP 97.5 11.1 110.5 5 93.7 565 7/26199 Lot 10 174.5 5.7 110.1 3 93.3 566 7/26/99 Lot 35 154.5 4.7 110.9 3 94.0 567 8/31/99 Lot 11 169.0 15.5 106.6 3 90.3 568 8/31/99 Lot 11 170.0 11.4 109.7 3 93.0 569 9/1/99 Lot 11 171.0 9.0 111.3 5 94.4 570 9/1/99 Lot 11 172.0 8.4 106.9 5 90.7 571 9/1199 Lot 11 172.5 11.1 107.7 5 91.3 572 9/1/99 Lot 12 169.4 FG 11.0 114.9 5 97.5 573 9/2/99 Lot 11 173.0 9.0 115.2 5 97.7 574 912/99 Lot 11 102.0 6.5 107.9 3 91.4 575 9117/99 Lot 10 177.0 13.1 112.5 5 95.4 576 10/7/99 Lot 10 174.0 9.5 113.1 5 95.9 577 1017199 Lot 10 175.5 10.7 113.8 5 96.5 578 1017/99 Lot 10 177.0 9.8 112.4 5 95.3 579 10/7199 Lot 10 177.0 9.8 110.0 5 93.3 580 10/8/99 Lot 10 177.0 13.1 112.5 5 95.4 581 11/9/99 Lot 11 175.0 12.3 111.7 5 94.7 582 11/9/99 Lot 10 178.0 10.6 112.7 5 95.6 583 11/9/99 Lot 11 173.5 FG 9.1 111.2 5 94.3 584 11/10/99 Lot 10 177.0 9.8 109.9 5 93.2 585 11/11/99 Lot 10 177.0 12.2 110.5 5 93.7 SEWER S1 6/8199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +00 135.0 8.7 110.6 5 93.8 S2 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +16 131.0 7.9 110.0 5 93.3 S3 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +72 129.5 9.3 114.2 5 96.9 S4 6/9/99 Lateral #7 132.5 10.6 109.7 5 93.0 S5 6/9199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +20 127.0 10.8 108.6 5 92.1 S6 6/9/99 Lateral #22 126.5 9.4 107.2 5 90.9 S7 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +70 123.0 10.1 109.2 5 92.6 S8 6/9/99 MH #8 123.0 6.6 106.6 5 90.4 S9 6/9/99 MH #8 122.0 10.6 109.0 5 92.5 S10 6/9/99 MH #8 122.0 9.2 104.2 5 88.4 Plate No. 4 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) S11 6/9/99 Retest of S10 122.0 6.7 112.3 5 95.3 S12 6/9/99 Lateral #23 123.0 10.4 106.1 5 90.0 S13 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +30 120.0 7.5 108.7 5 92.2 S14 6/10/99 Lateral #3 121.0 8.3 111.5 5 94.6 S15 6/10/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +45 123.5 9.0 106.3 5 90.2 S16 6/10/99 MH #9 126.0 8.6 109.5 5 92.9 S17 6/10/99 MH #9 127.0 8.2 111.9 5 94.9 S18 6/10/99 MH #9 128.0 9.9 109.1 5 92.5 S19 6/10/99 MH #10 131.0 9.0 102.3 5 86.8 S20 6/10/99 Retest of S19 131.0 8.9 109.3 5 92.7 S21 6/10/99 MH #10 132.0 8.9 108.7 5 92.2 S22 6/10/99 MH #10 134.5 9.5 101.8 5 86.3 S23 6/10/99 Retest of S22 134.5 7.2 113.7 5 96.4 S24 6/10/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +15 160.0 6.9 108.1 5 91.7 S25 6110/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +05 157.0 9.1 108.6 5 92.1 S26 6/10199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 10 +85 155.0 8.8 108.7 5 92.2 S27 6/10/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 10 +15 150.0 8.1 106.7 5 90.5 S28 6/11199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +50 141.8 8.6 110.2 5 93.5 S29 6/11199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +80 146.0 8.5 109.2 5 92.6 S30 6/11199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +00 141.0 8.0 112.6 5 95.5 S31 6/14/99 MH #12 144.7 7.3 109.4 5 92.8 S32 6/14/99 MH #12 146.0 9.5 109.1 5 92.5 S33 6/14199 MH #12 146.0 8.9 106.3 5 90.2 S34 6114/99 MH #13 152.0 7.4 101.7 5 86.3 S35 6114/99 Retest of S34 152.0 7.3 110.5 5 93.7 S36 6/14199 MH #13 154.0 9.8 107.2 5 90.9 S37 6/14/99 MH #13 153.0 6.4 107.9 5 91.5 S38 6/14/99 MH #13 154.0 7.0 107.4 5 91.1 S39 6/14199 Lateral #12 162.0 9.8 109.6 5 93.0 S40 6/14/99 Lateral #12 162.0 7.8 108.9 5 92.4 S41 6114/99 Lateral #11 165.0 7.4 109.0 5 92.5 S42 6/14/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +70 119.0 9.2 106.8 5 90.6 S43 6114/99 MH #14 161.0 8.2 106.8 5 90.6 S44 6/15/99 MH #11 136.0 8.5 110.9 5 94.1 S45 6115/99 MH #11 136.0 7.5 107.5 5 91.2 S46 6/15/99 MH #11 137A 8.0 109.7 5 93.0 S47 6115/99 El Camino Real 102.5 14.9 109.0 5 92.5 S48 6115/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +80 114.0 7.6 109.3 5 92.7 S49 6/15/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +10 108.0 9.9 108.5 5 92.0 S50 6/15/99 MH #5 110.5 6.7 107.9 5 91.5 S51 6/15/99 MH #5 112.0 8.4 106.9 5 90.7 Plate No. 5 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) S52 6/16/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 1 +10 113.0 8.2 106.9 5 90.7 S53 6/16199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +50 113.7 8.1 107.5 5 91.2 S54 6/16/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +90 113.0 9.3 112.7 5 95.6 S55 6116/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 0 +45 114.0 8.5 106.8 5 90.6 S56 6/16/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 1 +47 103.0 7.2 110.2 5 93.5 S57 6/16/99 MH #1 102.0 9.5 107.7 5 91.3 S58 6/17199 MH #1 101.0 9.8 106.9 5 90.7 S59 6/17/99 MH #1 101.0 10.3 107.2 5 90.9 S60 6/17/99 MH #1 103.0 11.1 109.8 5 93.1 S61 6/19/99 MH #6 112.5 7.0 110.8 5 94.0 S62 6/19199 MH #6 113.0 6.2 114.0 5 96.7 S63 6/19/99 MH #3 110.0 9.1 109.8 5 93.1 S64 6/19/99 MH #2 113.0 8.1 110.0 5 93.3 S65 6/22/99 MH #14 163.0 7.4 110.6 5 93.8 S66 6/26/99 Retest of S12 123.0 7.3 106.4 5 90.2 STORM DRAIN SD1 5/27/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +98 153.0 8.8 110.9 2 94.9 SD2 5127199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +25 149.0 7.7 111.3 2 95.3 SD3 5127/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 3 +00 162.0 8.5 110.0 5 93.3 SD4 5/27/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 4 +75 144.0 8.2 109.0 5 92.5 SD5 5/27/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +10 143.0 8.1 112.9 5 95.8 SD6 5/28/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +50 147.0 7.0 106.7 5 90.5 SD7 5/28/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 0 +40 139.0 9.4 112.9 5 95.8 SD8 5/28/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 1 +00 141.0 10.3 112.6 5 95.5 SD9 5128/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 1 +25 141.0 11.5 110.5 5 93.7 SD10 5128/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +90 121.0 10.7 109.5 5 92.9 SD11 611199 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 5 +30 123.0 10.7 110.6 5 93.8 SD12 6/1199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +60 124.0 11.9 111.9 5 94.9 SD13 611199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +30 126.0 10.6 110.2 5 93.5 SD14 611/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +90 129.0 9.8 109.5 5 92.9 SD15 6/1/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +20 130.0 7.0 112.8 5 95.7 SD16 611/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +60 162.0 10.0 106.6 5 90.4 SD17 611199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 10 +20 152.0 6.0 106.4 5 90.2 SD18 6/1/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +00 154.0 6.0 107.5 5 91.2 SD19 6/1/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +90 134.0 8.6 108.9 5 92.4 SD20 612/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +30 110.0 8.9 113.6 5 96.4 SD21 6/2/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +60 111.0 11.0 112.0 5 95.0 SD22 6/2/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 17 +18 143.0 9.5 110.1 5 93.4 SD23 613/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +85 110.0 9.8 109.9 5 93.2 SD24 613/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +25 113.0 8.7 111.2 5 94.3 Plate No. 6 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) SD25 614199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +50 114.0 8.1 109.5 5 92.9 SD26 6/4/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +25 117.0 9.5 114.1 5 96.8 SD27 6/4199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +60 138.0 8.1 110.1 5 93.4 SD28 6/4/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +80 140.0 7.7 106.7 5 90.5 SD29 6/4/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +80 118.0 8.2 106.4 5 90.2 SD30 617/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +97 147.0 9.0 113.0 5 95.8 SD31 619/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 116.0 8.2 108.3 5 91.9 SD32 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 115.5 8.7 111.4 5 94.5 SD33 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 116.0 9.1 108.7 5 92.2 SD34 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 115.0 10.7 109.0 5 92.5 SD35 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 114.0 9.7 112.2 5 95.2 SD36 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 115.0 9.2 111.3 5 94.4 SD37 6/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +49 114.0 9.6 110.1 5 93.4 S038 6110/99 South of Lot 11 167.5 11.2 110.6 5 93.8 SD39 6/10199 South of Lot 11 167.0 9.0 111.9 5 94.9 SD40 6/10/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 12 +20 164.0 5.9 101.0 5 85.7 SD41 6111199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +75 135.5 8.9 102.3 5 86.8 SD42 6/11/99 Retest of SD41 135.5 9.5 107.9 5 91.5 SD43 6/11199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +75 136.0 9.0 103.0 5 87.4 SD44 6/11/99 Retest of SD43 136.0 8.0 107.5 5 91.2 SD45 6/11199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +75 138.0 8.1 109.2 5 92.6 SD46 6/11/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +75 135.0 7.7 106.4 5 90.2 SD47 6111199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +756 138.0 9.8 108.7 5 92.2 SD48 6/11/99 Between Pads 17 and 18 141.0 9.5 109.0 5 92.4 SD49 6111/99 Between Pads 17 and 18 144.0 10.0 112.9 5 95.8 SD50 6/11/99 Between Pads 30 and 31 107.0 11.3 109.7 5 93.0 SD51 6114/99 Between Pads 30 and 31 110.0 9.3 108.9 5 92.4 SD52 6/14/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +69 107.0 11.7 113.1 5 95.9 SD53 6/14199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +69 111.0 9.2 112.4 5 95.3 SD54 6/14199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +69 108.0 10.0 106.9 5 90.7 SD55 6/14/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +69 109.0 9.4 106.2 5 90.1 SD56 6116199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +07 112.0 9.4 103.3 5 87.6 SD57 6/16/99 Retest of SD56 112.0 11.8 110.3 5 93.6 SD58 6116199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +07 113.0 12.3 109.3 5 92.7 SD59 6/18199 Between Pads 30 and 31 108.0 11.2 112.2 5 95.2 SD60 6/22/99 Between Pads 30 and 31 110.0 9.6 109.5 5 92.9 SD61 6/22/99 East of Pad #10 171.5 7.4 104.4 5 88.5 SD62 6/22/99 East of Pad #10 174.0 7.4 103.4 5 87.7 SD63 6122/99 Retest of SD61 171.5 8.5 107.5 5 91.2 SD64 6/22/99 Retest of SD62 174.0 7.1 106.4 5 90.2 SD65 6/23199 Drain between Pads 30/31 110.0 8.5 111.4 5 94.5 Plate No. 7 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) SD66 6123/99 Drain between Pads 30/31 110.0 8.4 110.1 5 93.4 SD67 6124199 Drain between Pads 30/31 109.0 9.8 106.4 5 90.2 SD68 6/24/99 Drain between Pads 30/31 110.0 9.0 106.4 5 90.2 SD69 6124/99 Drain between Pads 30/31 114.0 6.0 107.0 5 90.8 SD70 6126/99 Retest of SD40 164.0 6.8 106.5 5 90.3 SD71 7/6/99 East Slope, Private Drain 114.0 10.6 106.9 5 90.7 S072 7/6199 East Slope, Private Drain 110.0 10.2 109.0 5 92.5 SD73 7/7199 East Slope, Private Drain 115.0 9.7 111.4 5 94.5 SD74 7/7/99 East Slope, Private Drain 112.0 11.3 108.7 5 92.2 SD75 717199 East Slope, Private Drain 110.0 11.2 108.6 5 92.1 SD76 717/99 East Slope, Private Drain 108.0 12.2 106.1 5 90.0 SD77 7/7/99 East Slope, Private Drain 105.0 6.0 109.4 5 92.8 SD78 7/7/99 East Slope, Private Drain 110.0 10.7 108.0 5 91.6 SD79 7119/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +92 165.0 10.5 111.9 5 94.9 SD80 7/19/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +g2 165.0 8.2 107.3 5 91.0 SD81 7/19/99 El Camino Real, Sta 209 +74 101.0 6.6 106.9 5 90.7 SD82 7/19199 El Camino Real, Sta 209 +74 102.0 7.9 108.5 5 92.0 SD83 11/2199 El C Real, S of Enterance 102.0 6.1 102.1 5 86.6 SD84 11/2199 El C Real, S of Enterance 100.0 9.3 108.5 5 92.0 SD85 11/2/99 Retest of SD83 102.0 10.7 112.6 5 95.5 WATER W 1 6/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +23 133.0 5.7 111.7 5 94.7 W2 6126/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +92 136.5 6.3 106.5 5 90.3 W3 6126/99 Water Service/ Lot #6 132.0 8.4 107.8 5 91.4 W4 6126/99 Water Service/ Lot #19 138.0 7.8 108.1 5 91.7 W5 6/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +75 125.0 8.2 107.4 5 91.1 W6 6/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +75 119.5 8.4 106.1 5 90.0 W7 6/26199 Water Service /Lot #25 180.0 6.8 108.3 5 91.9 W8 6/26/99 Water Service /Lot #23 125.0 7.3 109.3 5 92.7 W9 6/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +25 118.0 6.6 106.2 5 90.1 W10 6/26199 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 3 +30 115.0 7.2 106.6 5 90.4 Will 6/26/99 Water Service /Lot #28 118.0 8.0 107.9 5 91.5 W12 6/29/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 1 +75 114.0 7.8 107.6 5 91.3 W13 6/29/99 Sage Cyn Dr. Sta 1 +00 117.0 8.0 103.6 5 87.9 W14 6129199 Retest of W13 117.0 5.0 106.8 5 90.6 W15 6/29/99 Water Service /Lot #33 116.0 6.4 106.4 5 90.2 W16 7/2/99 Water Lateral /Sta 9 +48 148.0 6.9 106.6 2 91.3 W17 712/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 10 +50 157.0 6.5 108.4 2 92.8 W18 7/2/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +27 164.0 5.8 105.2 2 90.1 W19 7/2199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +20 161.5 7.0 105.8 2 90.6 Plate No. 8 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) W20 717199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +40 163.0 9.6 106.7 5 90.5 W21 7/8/99 Fire Service /Sta 11 +27 162.5 7.3 109.4 5 92.8 W22 7/9/99 Fire HydranVCul -de -Sac 115.0 10.5 109.0 5 92.5 W23 7/9/99 Fire Hydrant /Cul -de -Sac 115.0 10.2 107.7 5 91.3 W24 7/9/99 Fire HydranVCul -de -Sac 114.5 9.3 108.1 5 91.7 W25 7/23/99 Fire HydranVCul- de-Sac 114.5 7.8 110.2 5 93.5 W26 7123/99 Fire HydrantCul -de -Sac 114.0 5.8 107.1 5 90.8 W27 8112/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +00 SG 10.7 113.1 3 95.8 W28 8/12/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +50 SG 11.3 112.2 3 95.1 W29 8/19/99 Between Lots 25 & 26 127.5 10.3 106.2 6 91.2 W30 8/19/99 North of Lot 26 128.0 12.9 106.6 6 91.6 W31 8/19199 North of Lot 26 128.0 13.2 109.0 6 93.6 W32 9123/99 North of Lot 25 130.4 7.0 107.1 5 90.8 W33 10/2/99 El Camino Real, Sta 217 +54 119.0 8.4 116.9 11 90.1 W34 10/4/99 El Camino Real, Sta 217 +54 126.5 12.6 106.9 5 90.7 W35 10/4/99 Lot 37 128.0 13.6 108.0 5 91.6 W36 10/5199 El Camino Real, Sta 217 +54 126.0 11.9 106.7 5 90.5 W37 10/5/99 El Camino Real, Sta 217 +54 127.0 18.5 109.0 5 92.5 W38 10/5/99 El Camino Real, Sta 217 +54 128.0 14.7 110.4 5 93.6 JOINT TRENCH JT1 7114/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 1 +20 117.0 6.8 106.5 3 90.3 JT2 7/14/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +50 114.0 8.8 107.4 3 91.0 JT3 7/14199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +30 115.0 9.8 108.1 3 91.6 JT4 7/15/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +70 122.0 9.1 108.6 3 92.0 JT5 7/15/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +44 130.0 7.7 107.8 3 91.4 JT6 7/15/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +00 137.0 13.5 111.4 3 94.4 JT7 7/15/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +85 149.5 8.9 107.4 3 91.0 ELECTRICAL Et 6/10199 ECR, Sta 215 +60 119.0 10.3 97.8 5 83.0 E2 7/8/99 Vault, west of channel 112.5 7.6 106.5 5 90.3 E3 7/8199 Vault, west of channel 112.0 8.5 108.7 5 92.2 E4 7/8/99 ECR, Sta 215 +20 117.0 11.2 109.9 5 93.2 E5 719/99 ECR, Sta 217 +00 123.0 9.2 107.9 5 91.5 E6 7/9/99 ECR, Sta 218 +27 117.0 7.6 107.1 5 90.8 E7 7/12/99 Crossing @ site enterance 105.0 12.1 101.3 5 85.9 Plate No. 9 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS JOB NUMBER: 9911096 TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) GAS G1 8116/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul-de-sac 167.0 12.4 101.6 3 86.1 G2 8/16/99 Retest of G1 166.0 8.1 112.9 3 95.7 G3 8/16/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac 167.0 12.5 110.2 3 93.4 CURB 8 GUTTER BASE CGB1' 813/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac Base 3.9 119.1 82 90.4 CGB2' 813/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac Base 3.9 119.0 B2 90.4 CGB3' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac Base 4.3 122.1 B2 92.7 CGB4' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul-de-sac Base 4.8 125.7 82 95.4 CGB5' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB1 Base 4.3 123.5 82 93.8 CGB6' 813/99 Retest of CGB2 Base 4.4 123.4 B2 93.7 CGB7' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB3 Base 4.7 123.9 B2 94.1 CGB8' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB5 Base 4.0 128.9 62 97.9 CGB9' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB6 Base 4.7 130.0 B2 98.7 CGB10' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB7 Base 52 128.0 B2 97.2 CGB11' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 10 +75 Base 3.2 127.7 82 97.0 CGB12' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 10 +25 Base 5.1 126.2 B2 95.8 CG813' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 8 +75 Base 5.1 126.8 B2 96.3 CGB14' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 10 +76 Base 4.9 129.4 B2 98.3 CG615' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 10 +25 Base 4.6 127.0 B2 96.4 CGB16' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB13 Base 4.6 127.8 B2 97.0 CGB17' 813/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 9 +25 Base 5.0 127.1 B2 96.5 CGB18' 813/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 8 +75 Base 5.2 123.6 B2 93.8 CGB19' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 8 +25 Base 5.3 133.1 B2 100.0 CGB20' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 7 +75 Base 4.6 128.4 B2 97.5 CGB21' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 7 +25 Base 4.8 127.9 B2 97.1 CGB22' 813199 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 6 +75 Base 6.1 128.3 B2 97.4 CGB23' 8/3199 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 6 +25 Base 6.3 128.3 B2 97.4 CGB24' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 5 +75 Base 4.1 127.0 B2 96.4 CGB25' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 5 +25 Base 6.0 130.8 B2 99.3 CGB26' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 4 +75 Base 4.9 127.9 B2 97.1 CGB27' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 4 +25 Base 4.7 127.7 B2 97.0 CGB28' 813/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 3 +75 Base 3.5 125.8 B2 95.5 CGB29' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 3 +25 Base 5.3 128.3 B2 97.4 CG830' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 2 +50 Base 3.8 124.2 B2 94.3 CGB31' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 2 +00 Base 5.5 131.7 B2 100.0 CGB32' 813199 Retest of CGB30 Base 4.9 127.5 B2 96.8 CGB33' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 3 +75 Base 4.8 127.9 62 97.1 CGB34' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 1 +50 Base 3.7 128.5 B2 97.6 CGB35' 8/3199 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 1 +00 Base 5.3 127.8 B2 97.0 Plate No. 10 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) CGB36' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 0 +50 Base 5.7 128.2 B2 97.3 CGB37' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Center Base 4.4 129.8 B2 98.6 CGB38' 8/3199 Sage Cyn Rd, Cul -de -sac Base 4.7 131.1 B2 99.5 CGB39' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Sta 0 +25 Base 5.9 131.8 B2 100.0 CGB40' 813/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Cross Gutter Base 4.9 129.3 B2 98.2 CGB41' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Cross Gutter Base 6.1 132.7 B2 100.0 CGB42' 8/3/99 El Cam Real, Sta 212 +25 Base 5.6 127.7 B2 97.0 CGB43' 8/3/99 El Cam Real, Sta 212 +75 Base 6.7 128.1 B2 97.3 CGB44' 8/3/99 El Cam Real, Sta 213 +50 Base 5.2 130.2 B2 98.9 CGB45' 813/99 El Cam Real, Sta 214 +50 Base 4.7 127.7 B2 97.0 CGB46' 8/3/99 El Cam Real, Sta 215 +25 Base 5.5 132.8 B2 100.0 CGB47' 8/3199 El Cam Real, Sta 216 +00 Base 6.6 129.7 B2 98.5 CGB48' 813/99 El Cam Real, Sta 216 +75 Base 6.1 127.8 B2 97.0 CGB49' 8/3/99 Sage Cyn Rd, Stand Conc. Base 6.6 131.9 B2 100.0 CGB50' 8/3/99 Retest of CGB18 Base 5.0 127.9 B2 97.1 CGB51' 10/6/99 El Camino Real Base 5.0 126.8 B2 96.3 SIDEWALK SUBGRADE SWSG1 917199 ECR, Sta 210 +90 Subgrade 6.7 115.5 3 97.9 SWSG2 9/7/99 ECR, Sta 211 +50 Subgrade 8.3 117.9 3 99.9 SWSG3 917/99 ECR, Sta 212 +50 Subgrade 7.1 117.1 3 99.2 SWSG4 9/7/99 ECR, Sta 213 +60 Subgrade 8.1 106.8 3 90.5 SWSG5 9!7199 ECR, Sta 214 +65 Subgrade 9.0 113.3 3 96.0 SWSG6 9/7/99 ECR, Sta 211 +10 Subgrade 10.8 116.4 3 98.6 SWSG7 918/99 ECR, Sta 214 +10 Subgrade 12.3 112.6 3 95.4 SWSG8 10/8/99 ECR, Sta 219 +18 Subgrade 9.0 103.7 3 87.9 SWSG9 10/8/99 ECR, Sta 218 +10 Subgrade 7.4 108.1 3 91.6 SWSG10 10/8/99 ECR, Sta 217 +50 Subgrade 10.0 102.8 3 87.1 SWSG71 10/8/99 Retest of SWSG8 Subgrade 8.7 107.0 3 90.7 SWSG12 10/8/99 Retest of SWSG10 Subgrade 9.6 106.3 3 90.1 SWSG13 10/9/99 ECR & Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 6.6 110.4 3 93.6 SWSG14 10/9/99 ECR & Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 7.1 110.0 3 932 SWSG15 1/17/00 S. Enterance, Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 11.8 110.2 3 93.4 SWSG16 1/17/00 S. Enterance, Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 9.1 108.9 3 92.3 SWSG17 1/17/00 N. Enterance, Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 10.6 100.9 3 85.5 SWSG18 1/17/00 N. Enterance, Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 10.3 103.2 3 87.5 SWSG19 1/17/00 Retest of SWSG17 Subgrade 8.9 115.3 3 97.7 SWSG20 1/17/00 Retest of SWSG18 Subgrade 9.1 111.8 3 94.7 SWSG21 1/17100 South Side, Sage Cyn Dr Subgrade 9.6 111.7 3 94.7 SWSG22 1/17/00 Lot 33 Apron Subgrade 9.6 108.5 3 91.9 SWSG23 1/17/00 Lot 32 Apron Subgrade 9.5 112.3 3 95.2 Plate No. 11 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST 918199 El Cam Real, Sta 214 +10 ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) SWSG24 1/17/00 Lot 31 Apron Subgrade 11.8 112.6 3 95.4 SWSG25 3/21/00 Driveway, Lot 30 Subgrade 9.7 113.4 8 90.9 SWSG26 3/21/00 Driveway, Lot 27 Subgrade 6.5 113.9 8 91.3 SWSG27 3121/00 Driveway, Lot 22 Subgrade 8.2 113.2 8 90.7 SWSG28 3/21100 Driveway, Lot 5 Subgrade 10.3 115.6 8 92.6 SWSG29 3/21/00 Driveway, Lot 2 Subgrade 9.5 114.3 8 91.6 SWSG30 3/21/00 Sage Cyn, Sta 9 +65 Subgrade 8.9 112.8 8 90.4 SWSG31 3/21/00 Sage Cyn, Sta 10 +65 Subgrade 9.8 113.3 8 90.8 SWSG32 3/21/00 Sage Cyn, Sta 6 +90 Subgrade 9.8 116.1 8 93.0 SWSG33 8/14100 Dwy Approach, Lot 20 Subgrade 9.9 113.2 8 90.7 SWSG34 8/14/00 Dwy Approach, Lot 19 Subgrade 10.2 113.5 8 90.9 SWSG35 8/14/00 Dwy Approach, Lot 18 Subgrade 10.3 113.7 8 91.1 SWSG36 8114/00 Dwy Approach, Lot 16 Subgrade 9.3 114.3 8 91.6 SWSG37 8/14/00 Dwy Approach, Lot 15 Subgrade 9.6 114.0 8 91.3 SWSG38 8/14/00 Dwy Approach, Lot 12 Subgrade 9.8 114.5 8 91.7 SWSG39 8/14/00 Sage Cyn, Sta 11 +90 Subgrade 9.5 115.2 8 92.3 SIDEWALK BASE SWB1' 918199 El Cam Real, Sta 214 +10 Base 5.4 119.0 B2 90.4 SWB2' 9/8/99 El Cam Real, Ste 214 +10 Base 6.6 128.3 82 97.4 SWB3' 9/8/99 Retest of SWB1 Base 6.7 127.2 82 96.6 ' 95 Percent Required STREET SUBGRADE SG1' 7/13/99 ECR, Sta 211 +18 Subgrade 13.9 112.9 5 95.8 SG2' 7/13/99 ECR, Sta 211 +18 Subgrade 12.0 113.7 5 96.4 SG3' 7/14199 El Cam Real, Sta 211 +18 Subgrade 11.3 108.8 5 92.3 SG4' 7/14199 Retest of SG3 Subgrade 12.0 115.6 5 98.0 SG5' 7/14/99 El Cam Real, Sta 211 +18 Subgrade 13.7 112.5 5 95.4 SG6' 7115/99 El Cam Real, Sta 211 +18 Subgrade 10.9 113.1 5 95.9 SG7' 7/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +92 Subgrade 5.7 110.8 3 93.9 SG8' 7126199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +72 Subgrade 6.3 114.6 3 97.1 SG9' 7126/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 11 +00 Subgrade 4.9 108.1 3 91.6 SG10' 7/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Ste 10 +30 Subgrade 6.1 117.1 3 99.2 SG11' 7/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +50 Subgrade 5.0 107.9 3 91.4 SG12' 7126/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +75 Subgrade 4.6 114.5 3 97.0 SG13' 7126/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 8 +00 Subgrade 7.7 112.3 3 95.2 SG14' 7/26199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +25 Subgrade 6.0 109.6 3 92.9 SG15' 7/26199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +50 Subgrade 5.6 108.3 3 91.8 SG16' 7/26199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +75 Subgrade 6.4 115.5 3 97.9 Plate No. 12 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) SG17' 7/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +00 Subgrade 7.7 104.6 3 88.6 SG18' 7/26199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 4 +25 Subgrade 6.9 118.0 3 100.0 SG19' 7/26199 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +50 Subgrade 7.2 110.4 3 93.6 SG20' 7/26/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +75 Subgrade 8.8 117.0 3 992 SG21' 7/28/99 Retest of SG7 Subgrade 5.4 112.5 3 95.3 SG22' 7128/99 Retest of SG9 Subgrade 6.5 112.3 3 95.2 SG23' 7/28199 Retest of SG71 Subgrade 7.7 112.3 3 95.2 SG24' 7/28/99 Retest of SG15 Subgrade 8.5 115.7 3 98.1 SG25' 7/28199 Retest of SG17 Subgrade 8.0 114.8 3 97.3 SG26' 7/28/99 Retest of SG19 Subgrade 8.1 116.9 3 99.1 SG27' 7/29/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +00 Subgrade 8.2 116.0 3 98.3 SG28' 7/29/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 1 +25 Subgrade 7.0 113.3 3 96.0 SG29' 7129/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul-de-sac Subgrade 8.0 117.3 3 99.4 SG30' 7/29/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac Subgrade 8.2 112.8 3 95.6 SG31' 7/29/99 Retest of SG14 Subgrade 5.4 115.8 3 98.1 SG32' 7129199 ECR, Sta 208 +56 Subgrade 8.3 108.7 1 92.0 SG33' 7/29/99 ECR, Sta 209 +30 Subgrade 3.4 105.5 1 89.3 SG34' 7/29/99 ECR, Sta 210 +70 Subgrade 4.0 103.4 1 87.6 SG35' 7/29199 ECR, north of Entrance Subgrade 8.2 114.0 3 96.6 SG36' 7/29/99 ECR, Sta 212 +30 Subgrade 10.0 109.8 3 93.1 SG37' 7/29/99 ECR, Sta 218 +25 Subgrade 9.9 109.4 1 92.6 SG38' 7/29/99 ECR, Sta 217 +25 Subgrade 3.5 109.7 3 93.0 SG39' 7/29199 ECR, Sta 216 +25 Subgrade 4.4 109.8 3 93.1 SG40' 7/29/99 ECR, Sta 215 +25 Subgrade 6.1 114.6 3 97.1 SG41' 7129/99 ECR, Sta 214 +25 Subgrade 10.7 109.7 3 93.0 SG42' 7129/99 ECR, Sta 213 +25 Subgrade 8.4 110.1 3 93.3 SG43' 7/29199 Retest of SG32 Subgrade 7.5 114.9 1 97.3 SG44' 7/29199 Retest of SG33 Subgrade 5.9 112.6 1 95.3 SG45' 7/30/99 Retest of SG37 Subgrade 12.5 112.5 1 95.3 SG46' 7130/99 Retest of SG38 Subgrade 10.6 113.7 1 96.3 SG47• 7/30/99 Retest of SG39 Subgrade 8.4 109.5 3 92.8 SG48' 7/30/99 Retest of SG34 Subgrade 8.0 115.9 3 98.2 SG49' 7/30/99 Retest of SG41 Subgrade 9.8 115.0 3 97.5 SG50' 7/30/99 Retest of SG42 Subgrade 10.6 112.6 3 95.4 SG51' 7130/99 Retest of SG36 Subgrade 10.4 112.4 3 95.3 SG52' 7130/99 Retest of SG47 Subgrade 8.0 112.2 3 95.1 SG53' 10/6/99 ECR, Sta 217 +60 Subgrade 8.4 109.5 3 92.8 SG54' 10/6/99 Retest of SG53 Subgrade 7.2 111.7 3 94.7 Plate No. 13 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (P.c.f.) TYPE (percent) STREET BASE B1' 7/13/99 ECR, Sta 211 +18 Base 4.9 134.2 B1 93.8 B2' 7/13/99 ECR, Sta 211 +18 Base 6.3 134.3 81 93.9 B3' 7114199 Center of Street, Sta 211 +18 Base 4.4 132.2 B1 92.4 B4' 7114199 Center of Street, Sta 211 +18 Base 6.4 131.9 B1 92.2 B5' 7/15/99 East Lane, Sta 211 +18 Base 6.3 133.5 B1 93.3 B6' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac Base 4.7 129.9 82 98.6 B7' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, cul -de -sac Base 3.8 129.4 B2 98.3 B8' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 10 +10 Base 4.3 130.8 82 99.3 B9' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 9 +00 Base 32 130.6 B2 99.2 B10' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 7 +75 Base 4.2 129.9 B2 98.6 811' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 6 +50 Base 4.1 130.3 B2 98.9 B12' 8117/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 5 +20 Base 3.3 129.5 B2 98.3 B13' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 3 +50 Base 4.3 129.0 82 97.9 B14' 8117/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 2 +25 Base 3.9 126.5 B2 96.1 B15' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Sta 0 +75 Base 4.8 130.1 02 98.8 B16' 8117199 Sage Cyn Dr. Office Area Base 6.0 129.1 B2 98.0 B17' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Or, North Side of Base 5.7 128.0 B2 97.2 618' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, South Side of Base 5.3 129.6 B2 98.4 819' 8/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr, Bet. Cross Base 5.3 130.2 B2 98.9 B20' 8117/99 ECR, Sta 208 +50 Base 6.8 127.1 B2 96.5 B21' 8/17/99 ECR, Sta 208 +85 Base 6.2 129.0 B2 97.9 B22' 8/17/99 ECR @ Entrance Base 5.3 131.5 B2 99.8 B23' 8117199 ECR, Sta 213 +00 Base 4.9 126.8 B2 96.3 824' 8117/99 ECR, Sta 214 +00 Base 4.4 125.7 B2 95.4 B25' 8/17/99 ECR, Sta 215 +75 Base 4.5 130.4 B2 99.0 B26' 8117199 ECR, Sta 217 +00 Base 3.4 125.7 B2 95.4 B27' 8/17/99 ECR, Sta 213 +75 Base 3.2 126.0 B2 95.7 B28' 8/17/99 ECR, Sta 215 +75 Base 4.4 130.4 82 99.0 B29' 10/6/99 ECR, Sta 217 +54 Base 6.2 128.1 B3 98.8 B30' 10/6/99 ECR, Sta 217 +70 Base 5.9 127.5 83 98.3 ECR = El Camino Real ' 95 Percent Required Plate No. 14 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) KEYSTONE WALL W81 1118/99 Station 1 +07 103.0 10.6 108.6 3 92.0 W62 1119/99 Station 2 +42 108.0 10.5 109.7 3 93.0 W83 1119/99 Station 3 +37 108.0 11.7 113.4 3 96.1 WB4 1/22/99 Station 2 +93 110.0 14.0 106.8 3 90.5 W85 1/22/99 Station 1 +65 106.5 15.4 105.3 3 89.2 W136 1/22/99 Retest of RW5 106.5 14.5 114.2 3 96.8 WB7 1123/99 Station 3 +51 112.0 12.6 111.4 3 94.4 WB8 1/23/99 Station 3 +02 112.5 13.1 111.9 3 94.8 WB9 1/23/99 Station 3 +43 113.5 13.4 111.1 3 94.2 WB10 1/23/99 Station 3 +66 115.5 10.9 113.4 3 96.1 W811 314/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 168.0 12.2 112.7 3 95.5 W812 3/4/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 168.0 9.9 115.8 3 98.1 WB13 3/4/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 169.0 9.6 113.7 3 96.4 WB14 3/4/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 169.0 11.5 110.4 3 93.6 W815 3/5/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 170.0 10.2 109.7 3 93.0 WB16 3/5/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 170.0 11.9 113.0 3 95.8 WB17 3/8199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 172.0 10.7 110.6 3 93.7 WB18 3/8199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 172.0 10.5 113.1 3 95.8 WB19 3/8/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 172.0 9.0 112.2 3 95.1 W820 318199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 174.0 10.9 106.6 3 90.3 WB21 3/8/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 174.0 9.9 103.9 3 88.1 WB22 3/8/99 Retest of RW21 174.0 10.1 108.6 3 92.0 WB23 3/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul-de-sac 176.0 10.3 104.8 3 88.8 W624 3/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 176.0 9.1 110.0 3 93.2 WB25 319/99 Retest of RW23 176.0 9.8 108.6 3 92.0 WB26 3/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 174.0 8.5 104.5 3 88.6 WB27 3/9/99 Retest of RW26 174.0 9.4 107.3 3 90.9 WB28 3/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 176.0 10.4 110.7 3 93.8 WB29 3/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 176.0 13.7 102.9 3 87.2 WB30 3/9/99 Retest of RW29 176.0 14.3 106.7 3 90.4 WB31 3/9/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 175.0 10.6 108.0 3 91.5 WB32 3/10199 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 177.0 8.8 108.8 3 92.2 WB33 3110/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 177.0 91 108.4 3 91.9 WB34 3/10199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 179.0 8.0 107.1 3 90.8 WB35 3/10/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 179.0 8.6 106.7 3 90.4 WB36 3110/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 180.0 9.9 109.1 3 92.5 WB37 3/10/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 180.0 9.5 109.0 3 92.4 WB38 3110/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 180.0 10.7 109.0 3 92.4 WB39 3/11/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 180.5 8.5 106.6 3 90.3 WB40 3/11199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 180.5 8.7 111.1 3 94.2 Plate No. 15 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) WB41 3/11/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul-de-sac 182.0 8.6 109.8 3 93.1 WB42 3111199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 182.0 8.6 111.8 5 94.8 WB43 3/12/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 174.0 7.8 113.6 5 96.4 WB44 3112/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 184.0 8.4 114.6 5 97.2 WB45 3112/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 184.0 8.5 115.0 5 97.5 WB46 3112/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 175.5 7.7 110.4 5 93.6 W847 3/12/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 172.5 9.5 112.0 5 95.0 WB48 3112/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 177.5 7.1 116.3 5 98.6 WB49 3/12/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 174.0 8.4 113.4 5 96.2 W850 3/12/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 171.0 7.9 115.1 5 97.6 WB51 3/12199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 178.0 7.2 110.9 5 94.1 WB52 3/12199 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 184.0 7.3 113.9 5 96.6 WB53 3/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 178.0 9.0 110.0 5 93.3 W654 3/17/99 Sage Cyn Or cul-de-sac 184.0 7.6 114.9 5 97.5 WB55 3/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 186.0 7.0 114.1 5 96.8 W856 3/17/99 Sage Cyn Dr cul -de -sac 188.0 8.0 115.9 5 98.3 WB57 3117/99 Sage Cyn Or cul -de -sac 183.5 7.0 109.5 5 92.9 Plate No. 16 JOB NAME: SAGE CANYON JOB NUMBER: 9911096 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) Plate No. 17 MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE SUMMARY (ASTM D1557) Soil Maximum Optimum Type Soil Description Density, pcf Moisture, 1 Yellow -Tan, Silty Sand 118.1 11.3 2 Tan - Brown, Silty Sand 116.8 11.2 3 Brown, Silty Sand 118.0 12.0 4 Gray, Silty Sand 119.6 11.1 5 Dark Brown, Silty Sand 117.9 8.8 6 Yellow -Tan, Silty Sand (Import) 116.4 11.8 7 Tan, Silty Sand (Import) 119.5 10.0 8 Brown- Grayish, Sand (Import) 124.8 9.3 9 Brown, Silty Sand 123.2 7.7 10 Light Tan, Silty Sand 122.8 9.7 11 Gray, Sand 129.8 9 B1 Class 2 Base 143.1 4.7 B2 Class 2 Base 131.7 6.9 B3 Class 2 Base 129.7 7.6 Plate No. 17 HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR SHELLEY SUBDIVISION CITY OF ENCINITAS TM 96 -185 PREPARED FOR: DANIEL T. SHELLEY 905 OLIVE CREST DRIVE U OLIVENHAIN, CALIF. 92024 a No. 29577 JANUARY 23,1998 Exp. 3/31/89 REVISED: MARCH 24, 1998 cl REVISED: MAY 13,1998 �l9lFpf Cnt�F�Q�\� REVISED: AUGUST 3, 1998 /11�� �:4K RICE 29577 'DATE IENCITY OF ENCINITASt INEERING PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING 535 N. HIGHWAY 101 SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CALIF. 92075 (619) 259 -8212 a No. 29577 JANUARY 23,1998 Exp. 3/31/89 REVISED: MARCH 24, 1998 cl REVISED: MAY 13,1998 �l9lFpf Cnt�F�Q�\� REVISED: AUGUST 3, 1998 /11�� �:4K RICE 29577 'DATE INTRODUCTION: THIS STUDY OF HYDROLOGY & HYDAULICS HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS & GRADING DESIGN FOR A 33 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, PROPOSED FOR MR. DANIEL T. SHELLEY. PASCO ENGINEERING WAS INSTRUCTED TO DESIGN A PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE 33 LOT SUDWISION & DISCHARGE THAT DRAINAGE INTO THE "LUX CANYON DRAINAGE CHANNEL ". THE "LUX CANYON DRAINAGE CHANNEL" & SUBSEQUENT IMPROVEMENTS, WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY E.F. COOK & ASSOCIATES. ON OCTOBER 31, 1979. THESE HYDROLOGY/HYDAULIC CALCULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS & PERTINENT COPIES INCLUDED WITHIN THIS REPORT. PASCO ENGINEERING USED THE ULTIMATE Q100 OF 482.44 CFS, AS QUOTED IN THE REPORT FROM E.F. COOK & ASSOCIATES' "LUX CANYON REPORT ". THIS NUMBER WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACTS OF DRAINAGE ON THE PROPOSED SLOPE GRADING & RETAINING WALLS. THE EXISTING ARCH PIPE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE @ THE ENTRY ROAD TO THE 33 LOT SUDIVISION, & THE 2 -54" RCP STORM DRAIN @ THE NORTH END OF THE "LUX CANYON DRAINAGE CHANNEL ", WERE INITIALLY DESIGNED FROM THE CALCULATIONS OF E.F. COOK & ASSOCIATES. • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS SECTION 2 HYDROLOGY REFERNECE MATERIALS SECTION 3 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS SECTION 4 CURB INLET SIZING CALCULATIONS SECTION 5 LOTS 29 -33 YARD DRAIN CALCULATIONS SECTION 6 LUX CANYON CHANNEL CALCULATIONS SECTION 7 36" RCP @ EL CAMINO REAL STA 209 +71 SECTION 8 REFERENCE MATERIALS SECTION 9 D -75 BROW DITCH CAPACITY CALC'S M04 V-111M HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS xrrxrrrrxrwxxxxrxrr* wxxrrrrrr+ rrrrrWWrtxW* WxWWx + + +w *kxkwwwxx + ++ + + + + ++ + +xr rrr• RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 Norht Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. (619) 259 -8212 Fax (619) 259 -4812 w *wx # * #xxxxxxxxxx #xxxxrr #+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY xxW #WrtWxWkkwwwkxkkkt #* * # #* * SHELLEY SUBDIVISION * SITE HYDROLOGY * 08/03/98 FILE NAME: 0597A.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9:24 8/ 3/1998 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED NOTE: CONSIDER ALL CONFLUENCE STREAM COMBINATIONS FOR ALL DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES iiki**** iiiirtiWrtiWiirt***** ii* i *i *i # ** * *iikiiii *i4iiiiixiikiii iRiii *W *W * *W *iW FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 22 >>>>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<< _______ ----- ____________________________________ ____--------------- ____________ ___________________________ SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 13.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.841 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.82 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 17.82 ++ rrrxxx+++ wwkkx+ xx++ xxrrrr*: x+ kx++ r+ i+ wwrwx+ kxk *kx * *WxWWxxxxxxx# #xx # *x #x # #e FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 3 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC. UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 117.59 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INC1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .14 PIPE IS 12.5 INCHES = 13.6 173.05 167.89 MANNING'S N = .013 i) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 - 17.82 TC(MIN.) = 13.14 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 3 ---- --- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.4 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 15.1 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 167.89 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 159.53 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 147.36 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 17.82 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .16 TC(MIN.) = 13.31 kkfk *i # *#kfkkR *fk *kfk * #kk *Rff kki# iii! # # * * * * * * #t #i# * +sisir # * * * #kf lfff #s #i# *** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 1 ----- -- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.31 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.78 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.82 l fr+ srr+l rrx+++++**# r+ tt+ tt*#+++* t+ s++s rrx lrhxr +r +ssrrr +sr! *! *x *k *kkrk :f kffr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 22 -------- ---- --- -- --- ------------ - - --- -- - -- ----- --- ------ ------------- - ---- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< --------===========--------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------ - ----- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 12.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.044 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.10 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 3 -- --- ------------- - - - --- --------------------------------------------------- >>v»COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< = OC���. = LV=C==C= ==.... v f v v m vi..YfRfC.= .=== = = =v =v vvv== q= === p.v== v= nv= = = = =__ ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 12.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.5 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 6.0 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 159.89 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 159.53 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 17.76 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.10 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .05 TC(MIN.) = 12.05 + +f wf rtf rfffrxkffxwxwr f xxfrrffrrfrr + +++ + +rwftwrr+ +++ + + + ++ +xfff li * * *ff *Af ♦wff FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< _________________________ _______________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.05 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.03 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.10 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 17.82 13.31 3.784 11.60 2 2.10 12.05 4.034 1.30 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 18.82 12.05 4.034 2 19.79 13.31 3.784 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 19.79 Tc(MIN.) = 13.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.90 xrxxxxxxxrrr+++ xx+++ xxxxxxxxxx+ xx+ xxxrxxfxxxxxxxrfw +xxxxxxxwwwxfwwr +r + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE = 3 _____________________________________________ _______________________________ >>>>> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA« <<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC. UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 184.61 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCI PIPE IS 10.5 INCHES = 18.4 159.53 143.05 MANNING'S N = .013 i) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) 19.79 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .17 TC(MIN.) = 13.47 xxxx+ xr+ xx+ r+++++ xx++++++ a+ wwaawa+ xrr++» awwawxxxxw +x + +x + + ++waawrrrwxxrxawrrr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 3 '- ----- ---- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE . FLOW)<<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.0 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 17.4 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 143.05 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 132.29 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 139.12 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 19.79 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .13 TC(MIN.) = 13.61 »++++»+»++++»» r+»+ xr+++ rr+ rrxrrtwwwwawwwwwawaawawrr + + + + +xwt » »wxww +rrarxwxxwx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 4 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.61 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.73 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 19.79 arr+ aarr+ aaawrwatat +xatxwxxaxawaawraarwxaarwarxa aartaarrraarr + +rw +r +t +atrwrx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 22 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ==== ----------------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 14.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.662 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.16 rwawwwwrrararxraaww+»» ww+ rr»++ rxrrrr» rrrrrrrrrr rraarrrr rrrrxxxwwwartwwwaaaat FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 3 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.8 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 12.9 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 139.91 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 132.29 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 152.49 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CPS) = 12.16 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .20 TC(MIN.) = 14.20 tttrtrtrrrttrrrr+ rrrrrr+ rr+# x+ wxxxrxxxwrrr+ r+ +rar # #x #x + +a +a #arr #x #wf rffrrra# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 1 --- - ----------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE <<<<< __________________________________ _______________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 4 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.20 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.63 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 12.16 rrrrrrrrrrrrttrrrttxt+ rtt# txrr# rrrrrrr#+ rr# w# xx #x #xxxx #txwxxrxrr # + : ## +aftrr+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< -------------------------- -------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 11.69(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 210.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 178.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 170.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 8.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.114 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.40 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .85 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 1.40 rtaxt+ xxxxxxrtrrtrrrttrtttrrrrarrr+ rr+ trtrtrr #taa # +ar # #rrr + #rrr #f #fwwf fffeff FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.20 IS CODE = 6 -- ----------- ---- ---- ------- - - --- - --- -- - -- - ---- -- - ----------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ------=---========----=-=---------------------------------°--------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 170.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 143.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 330.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 10.50 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 * *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.25 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .24 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.77 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.99 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.21 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) - 1.10 TC(MIN) = 12.79 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.882 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.71 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.11 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .27 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.08 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.02 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.34 Rwxwxxxx;### rrl++ itr• w+l+ it +lx+lt•exlxxxwxr + ;xx ;xxxx ; ;xfi RwwwxRw +RfrffltttlRw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.20 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 3 - -- ---------------- - ---- - ------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.9 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 6.6 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 132.75 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 132.29 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 23.03 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.11 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .06 TC(MIN.) = 12.85 +f # + +iff + +f xxxxwx# fi # + +# * # +xx * +i # ; * #f!R *wtxi*!lilf ifilli; ;lli +;x * * **xw *RxfRf• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.20 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< -------- ------ ------- -- - ----- --- --------------- - - - -- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 4 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.85 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.87 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.11 a+ ra+!!+l wwaa aaaaaara## xRiw+ xl wl wwwwwxwwwwRR # #wa #raxx #xw # #ri #wwxwwxwwR iww :lw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.51 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 21 -- ---------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------- ---- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 12.62(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 470.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 171.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 142.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 26.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.915 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.47 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.30 + +rr + + + + + +rrrrrrrrrwrw rr wr+ wwxw+ wwwwwwwwr +r + + + +rwww rrw4rrrrwxwwwwrrw + + +r +www FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.51 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 1 ______________ ______________ »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ---------------------------------------- -- ---- ---------- -- --- ---------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 4 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 4 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.62 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.91 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.47 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.30 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 18.82 12.35 3.970 12.90 1 19.79 13.61 3.729 12.90 2 12.16 14.20 3.629 8.30 3 3.11 12.85 3.870 1.65 4 2.30 12.62 3.915 1.47 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 4 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 35.23 12.35 3.970 2 35.50 12.62 3.915 3 35.85 12.85 3.870 4 36.81 13.61 3.729 5 36.46 14.20 3.629 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 36.81 T& MIN.) = 13.61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 24.32 w: rr:: rrrrrrrrrr++++++ wwrw+ rr+++ r++ r++ r++++++ +r +r + + +rrrrrw + + +rrrrrrrxxxwxwxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.60 IS CODE = 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.7 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 16.9 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 132.29 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 112.42 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 415.68 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 36.81 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .41 TC(MIN.) = 14.02 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.60 IS CODE = 1 '-------- ----------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.02 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.66 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 24.32 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 36.81 twr trrrrtr: r: t: wtrrrrtrrfi**:: f+l rrtrir x* wxww* rw *w *x * * *x * *!if!liwr *f * #rrRrRw* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 21 ------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< --------------- -------- --- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 13.22(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 500.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 143.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 123.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 20.10 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.799 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.53 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 1.60 IS CODE = 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.8 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 6.2 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 112.81 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 112.42 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 19.50 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.33 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .05 TC(MIN.) = 13.28 . FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 1.60 IS CODE 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< -----=====----- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.28 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.79 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.53 PEAK FLOW PATE(CPS) AT CONFLUENCE - 2.33 r+ + +f ♦tf tuff+ fi*+*+ r+++ rrr++:++++++ r+++ rr++++ ++ + + +++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +ir + +fi +irrr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.61 TO NODE 1.60 IS CODE = 21 >>>- > >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 13.38(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 520.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 143.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 123.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 20.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.771 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.49 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.76 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.61 TO NODE 1.60 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES <<<<< __________________________ _______________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.38 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.49 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.76 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** TABLE ** STREAM STREAM RUNOFF INTENSITY Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CPS) (MIN.) 12.77 (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 35.23 12.77 3 3.886 24.32 1 35.50 13.04 13.28 3.834 24.32 1 35.85 13.26 6 3.792 24.32 1 36.81 14.02 3.659 24.32 1 36.46 14.61 3.563 24.32 2 2.33 13.28 3.789 1.53 3 3.76 13.38 3.771 2.49 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 41.14 12.77 3.886 2 41.49 13.04 3.834 3 41.91 13.26 3.792 4 41.89 13.28 3.789 5 41.79 13.38 3.771 6 42.70 14.02 3.659 7 42.20 14.61 3.563 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 42.70 Tc(MIN.) = 14.02 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 28.34 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.60 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE = 3 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW)<< «< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 17.4 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 17.5 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 112.42 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 103.51 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 182.53 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 42.70 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .17 TC(MIN.) = 14.19 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.60 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE = 10 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 22 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< _____________________________________________ _______________________________ _____________________________ _______________________________ SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 USER SPECIFIED Tc(MIN.) = 13.000 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.841 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.45 x+++++ f*+# x++ rxiYxxx* xxxx*+ xx*+ x* xx+ x#!# xx+ rYYx # +xtxxtxx + + + + # + *ft +xxx *xxx * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 5.20 IS CODE = 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION 121.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 117.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 23.00 CHANNEL SLOPE _ .1522 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) _ .00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .75 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 6.45 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 13.80 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .48 _ TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .03 TC(MIN.) = 13.03 xx: xrrar+ r++ rwwrwrwrrrrw+ wr++ rr++++ wrwwwwwf+ wtwrt +rt +www +wwrwr :rrr +rwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.20 TO NODE 5.30 IS CODE = 3 >>>>> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.6 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 14.5 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 110.63 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 104.23 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 64.00 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 6.45 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .07 TC(MIN.) = 13.10 ++++ w++ rxwrrxxwx+ wxrwr+ xwxwwxrxr+ rr+ rwrw+ rwrw rxrx +rrwxxrxrxrrwrrrw +wwwwww■ :■ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.20 TO NODE 5.30 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE! TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.10 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.82 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.45 xwxxxrxrawrrr + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +rrr + +rrrxwx +rw wwewwwww w.w wwwfwrwwwwrwetwwwwxrwr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.40 TO NODE 5.30 IS CODE = 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< --------------- -- --- -- - --- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 12.66(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 300.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 122.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 115.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 7.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.903 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 wrww+ rtw+ xtrrxxxxxwwxxwwwrrrwrx+ w++ w+ + +rr + + +rrxxxrwxxwwwwwwwxxxxwxww wwwwrwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.40 TO NODE 5.30 IS CODE = 1 - ------- --------- - - --------- - ---------- - ----- - --------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 _. CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.68 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.90 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.17 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** Tc INTENSITY STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 6.45 13.10 3.822 4.20 2 1.17 12.68 3.903 .75 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. INTENSITY ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF NUMBER (CFS) 1 7.49 2 7.60 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ Tc (MIN.) 12.68 13.10 ESTIMATES = 7. 4.95 INTENSITY (INCH /HOUR) 3.903 3.822 ARE AS FOLLOWS: i0 TOMIN. ) = 13.1C ++ arr+ rrxxxrxxxxxwwxwrrr:+ rrrrrw+ rrerrr+ rrrrrxrrxrxtxrxxrrrrtrrrrrrewwxxwxxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.30 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE = 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW) <<<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 15.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.6 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 10.4 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 104.23 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 103.51 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 19.50 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 15.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) 7.60 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .03 TC(MIN.) = 13.13 xwwr++ x+ a+ raaxrxxxxxxxxwxxwwwwxwwwwxxwrrrrrrrrrraaratr + + + +a +rxtrtaaaa #arrrrr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.30 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE = 11 _____ - -___ _ __ _______________ >>>>> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 7.49 12.71 3.897 4.95 2 7.60 13.13 3.816 4.95 ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 41.14 12.94 3.852 28.34 2 41.49 13.21 3.801 28.34 3 41.91 13.43 3.761 28.34 4 41.89 13.45 3.758 28.34 5 41.79 13.55 3.739 28.34 6 42.70 14.19 3.630 28.34 7 42.20 14.78 3.536 28.34 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 48.16 12.71 3.897 2 48.67 12.94 3.852 3 48.93 13.13 3.816 4 49.06 13.21 3.801 5 49.40 13.43 3.761 6 49.37 13.45 3.758 7 49.23 13.55 3.739 8 49.93 14.19 3.630 9 49.24 14.78 3.536 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 49.93 Tc(MIN.) = 14.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 33.29 xwrrxrwwwxxwwwxwxrxxt wwrt w rxrrxrrxr+++ x++++ r+ +t + + +rrr +rrrrrx ++xxwwwrrxrr + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.30 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE = 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.63 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 33.29 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 49.93 ++ xxrrrrrrxxxxrxxxrxxt+ xxrxxwxrrxxrwxxrxxxxrxxxxxxxxrrxxxxxrxxr +xxxxxtxwxwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.71 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE = 21 _ - ______ -_ >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ____________________ _______________________________ SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 12.06(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 250.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 122.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 114.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 8.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.031 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.85 + + + + + + + +xxx xxxxxxwxw++ w+ xxxxx++ + + +xxwwwwww + + + + +xxxx + + + + + + + + +ww ww + +ax +wwwwxww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.71 TO NODE 1.70 IS CODE 1 __________________________________________________ _______ ____________ _______ >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< » >>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- ------ - - - -- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.06 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.03 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.85 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 48.16 12.71 3.897 33.29 1 48.67 12.94 3.852 33.29 1 48.93 13.13 3.816 33.29 1 49.06 13.21 3.801 33.29 1 49.40 13.43 3.761 33.29 1 49.37 13.45 3.758 33.29 1 49.23 13.55 3.739 33.29 1 49.93 14.19 3.630 33.29 1 49.24 14.78 3.536 33.29 2 1.85 12.06 4.031 1.15 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 48.41 12.06 4.031 2 49.95 12.71 3.897 3 50.44 12.94 3.852 4 50.69 13.13 3.816 5 50.81 13.21 3.801 6 51.13 13.43 3.761 7 51.10 13.45 3.758 8 50.95 13.55 3.739 9 51.60 14.19 3.630 10 50.87 14.78 3.536 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 51.60 Tc(MIN.) = 14.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.44 +++ xwxxwxxxxxx++ xxx++++++++ x++++ xxx+ w++++++++ xxxxxxxx +x+x +wawaaaat +ttwwawwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.70 TO NODE 1.80 IS CODE = 3 >>>>> COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER- ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON- PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 24.6 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 10.9 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 103.51 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION 101.92 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 130.39 MANNING'S N = .013 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 51.60 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .20 TC(MIN.) = 14.39 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 51.60 TC(MIN.) = 14.39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.44 * ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE * ** Q(CFS) Tc(MIN.) 1 48.41 12.27 2 49.95 12.91 3 50.44 13.14 4 50.69 13.33 5 50.81 13.41 6 51.13 13.63 7 51.10 13.65 8 50.95 13.75 9 51.60 14.39 10 50.87 14.98 IDOIi9 i31aI iwcolUTimui 0a4to]r7_lki_VRbW, SECTION 2 HYDROLOGY CALCULATION REFERENCE MATERIALS H EQIlAT /ON AfIL4 I C//. 9L 3 \ • 385 Feet Tc H J SODO Tc - Time ol - oncenfiafio17 4DDO L Length of watershed H D� /ference /n e%vafibn along 3000 elOecf/ve S /ooe 1117 (See i70pendi)r X -BI T L c . Mi /es Feef f/ouis I Minutes G — /ODD 900 3--F— /BD BOO 2 /2D 700 /OD Sao \ 90 \ BD 70 - 300 F \ SO -20D \\ 2 aD \ \ 30 �aQDO 20 40 20D0 \ 12 /900 \ 30 E 1600 /0 /600 9 IIFOR NATURAL TERSHE /200 B ZO �� ADD TEN MI ES TO /ODO 7 COMPUTED TIME CON - II CENTRATION_ j 00 6 5 400 5 9 L SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES DESIGN MANUAL APPROVED NOMOI!5RAN FOR DETERMINATION OF TIME OF NCENTRATION (Tc) FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS DATE APPENDIX X -A IV -A -10 Rev. S /81 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION E 100 -YEAR 6-HO J - ; PRECIPI I QTII.r'N FLOOD CO;TTROL .; 120—/ ISOPLUVIALS OF 160 -YEAR 6 -11OUR PREOI1 H'A Iur11i IN ETaTIEcS GI Atd II,ftI 451 I I 711kTAK J 0�� •,, f "-r— � .......�. �`ti� / ICI(:., - - -• � \ .� 90� . ELSE I AeEnrn� 2.1 `' + 35.1 \\ , d.• `.��`� \ : �A 301 t 30 °\ J r���\ Io 35 J�! ucccA '1 r '�I r q 1 SAN CI L:ENTE \ 1 T �.J9(1,.. ^\ i`. �, • + -.� .�\` • 151 nik 1 -�_• C - I - T ,1 , 1 15 / 1 15 E5COIIUIDO L •\�\� I )EL MARlj 4\�`�,_ 451 PP. :d by U.S. DEPARTAIEN T OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT. OSPIIERIC ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL STUDIES DRANCN• OFFICE OF 11 UROLOGY• NATIONAL 1ltATIIER SERVICE 301 N 1181 451 301' L 151 117° 1151 4 1 301 151 116' COUNTY OF DIEGO DEPARTMENTS OF SANITATION S 100—YEAR 244101 Id PRECIPITATION FLOOD CONTROL I �20�ISOPLUVlALS O 100 -YEAR 24 -IIOUR 451 PRECIPITATION IN f ENTHS OF AN INCH X N' z� oj Ci` - f4 100 _ �1 PN� 5t \ mc1114 S 1 ,. uu \ 70 n 35 35 ` 7 /(\ LAG I In u SAG' O Id0 1) 301 4 ZAG ,'rr' a; , au CIO SAN CL MENlf too 70 11 20 1 .. •� 151 - - - -- �..— 40 E(L I.� ( ,,too ��s _: >;`•t i .330 —�r Cp'IN� - s li,�., i ,,s , 11. Irl UP ` j .. �l l (13a 51 Pr.p.-a nr U.S. DEPARTMEN I' OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT OSPIIENIC ADMINISTRATION / { SPECIAL STUDIES URANCII, OFFICE Of 11 UROLOGY, NATIONAL NEATIIER SERVICE SA r,: '� J �`- �f ( 65 so '- i U'BO(00510 -1D" 301 I- H H i• 11110 115' 301 1 41 117' ►1!.' 301 1.1 Ili' INTENSITY4UMTION DESIGN CHART March 1902 i 4 3 L 2. a N v t U c L ,9 c J C ,i F+ .3 ro_ H X X N C 9.1 7 10 15 20 30 40 50 1 Mime °° at 2 3 4 5 _ 6 Nrnme Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) Ch s 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side iof the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. K 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for 6.0 ; the location being analyzed. S.S c 5.0 4.5 4.0 Application Form: r, 3.0 fD 0) Selected Frequency Lo_a yr. 1) P6 = t.1 in., P24= A "'0 *P6 = I38.1 %* �-7 P24 2) Adjusted *P = X1.7 in. 1.5 1.0 6 3) tc - 13 min. 4) I = -4.9 in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 IN qW� ! !9�lI f IBI I III l�Il�n� I II �' n li�� IIIII ! II In�lllllll� l(,�i I 1p i� IIIEI I I I ► lid I a I I 1 n ���l� � �11lI� III�i a :l �in II�iIIII l�il :I I�l�I lI11i11� I!= �I:� • •••• =�'i'1q' 1 ' ' I Iii 1 1 '! �IL 1 I I'll, ' �:: C7Qi C:' �� •• • �mmm� mmim...iC ...... MEN ..�zlill u III i h . IN �o�:Ea�,�9i��a��l�i� ....... III': .. @� �CCn� :: ° 111 B;'BI : C 9.1 7 10 15 20 30 40 50 1 Mime °° at 2 3 4 5 _ 6 Nrnme Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) Ch s 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side iof the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. K 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for 6.0 ; the location being analyzed. S.S c 5.0 4.5 4.0 Application Form: r, 3.0 fD 0) Selected Frequency Lo_a yr. 1) P6 = t.1 in., P24= A "'0 *P6 = I38.1 %* �-7 P24 2) Adjusted *P = X1.7 in. 1.5 1.0 6 3) tc - 13 min. 4) I = -4.9 in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 11- 67 BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROA05 JAN. 1963 180 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE ( I ) (2) (3) 156 0•AZ incnu U.5 r..p 6,000 6. 6, 144 5,000 0.120 CM1 5. 4,000 HYIA Nw 6. S. 132 0 l.., 3,000 5' 4. 111 2.5 B.B 4, 120 (2) 2.1 7,4 2,000 131 2.2 7.7 4' 108 3. to is r.c1 3. 3' 96 1,000 800 84 - 600 -- _ _ 500 72 400 - 2. f # u300 1.5 1.5 2 N 1.5 — 60 200 F Z ° 54 Q O_ ¢ W 100 IOU > 48 = 80 i a r U 4Z u 60 w 1.0 L0 U. 0 -50 H ENTRANCE ° ° SCALE - 40 TYPE w 10 1- 36 9 F W 30 (I) Gann espe .un 3 � head. oll ° ,9 a 33 20 121 croon ead..ln a w ° — 30 Moe.all x .8 .8 PI Groan end .8 27 arai.Ctinp 0 7 .7 .7 24 8 6 To vas scab (2) of PI ar.i.ce 21 , 5 harlamneua 1a .cal. Ill, then 4 au el.alghl inclines line through 0 end 0 .Cm..,......... at .6 .6 3 iNmlral.d. .8 B 2 15 5 .5 5 LO 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROA05 JAN. 1963 i i 3 L 2 0 m t U ,9 4 r W a 4J .a R� a .9 �2 x X H 'y.l INTENSITY,DUMTION DESIGN CHART p 10 15 20 Minutes 30 40 50 1 Duration m 0 c v n v K 60 °; 5..S 5.0 3 4.S 4.0 3,5 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 . 2 . 3 4 5 6 Hours A{6)�- 2. March 1982 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation reaps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency _y r. 1) P6 Z 7 in. , P2C _ . *P6 = 53.1 %* P24 2) Adjusted *P6= Z•'I in. 3) tc l A— min. 4) I in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 .I:� pp i 'W 9�II�i Illllllill i l l l l I �Illn► II!!!!II11� A° �� � �► I o��i I'I III 1 II :E @:::::::���: II3i�l�l�l� °� a a I i - -C�■ -- ■ ::° rm �ml!�il� as 1 �II IIIf �B9 C���CI������II�III II °� ° cI'99 .C�::C����I�Ig��lillll��� 9 MCI ■B°I� p 10 15 20 Minutes 30 40 50 1 Duration m 0 c v n v K 60 °; 5..S 5.0 3 4.S 4.0 3,5 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 . 2 . 3 4 5 6 Hours A{6)�- 2. March 1982 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation reaps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency _y r. 1) P6 Z 7 in. , P2C _ . *P6 = 53.1 %* P24 2) Adjusted *P6= Z•'I in. 3) tc l A— min. 4) I in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 II -C7 C I.0 L- .5 Iz HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU Of PUBLIC MOAOB JAN. 1963 180 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (I) (2) (3) 156 6, 000 D•e2 Inceu p.5 hreq - -- 6. —5 —_ 6 — 144 0-120 crs . —. 5,000 4,000 �+ rtw 6. 5, 132 0 tee, 3,000 S. 4. 111 2.5 e.B q, 120 rel 2.1 7.4 - 2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4' 106 3. 'G 1. 1u1 3• 96 - 1,000 3' 800 84 - 600 / _ -- -- —2. '27- 500 / 72 - 400 / 3 - 2. N = ` / 300 09 I.5 1.5 1,5 z N N / _ - 60 200 1.5 - z r 54 j/ G W q8 / w 100 z > i ¢ 80 - J n- u . -42 a 60 w 1.0 .0 0 0 - 50 HW ENTRANCE ¢ SGAL - 40 D TYPE °: 1.0 r - 36 30 O savor. sods .un .9 .9 w 33 neea.all 3 ° .9 — - a � a 20 121 croore end .a+ w 30 neeE.ell 2 .8 ,8 (3) Grams end - •6 27 pralecnnd 10 - 7 .7 24 8 ,7 6 7o me stole 121 or (3) pralexl 21 . 5 herisantalb to scale Ill, 'hen 4 vee el relpM Inellnea line rM1r ouaM1 0 and a stoles, er n.vse as .6 .6 3 iU USnaree. .6 IS 2 15 C I.0 L- .5 Iz HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU Of PUBLIC MOAOB JAN. 1963 NOWtril � — ��.. Offi v — L _7 ,1 ,9 A .9 a b b X X H N C �1 A10 i INTENSITY4UMTION DESIGN CHART Equation: I'•.= 7.44 P6 D"' I = Intensity (In. /Hr.) N11I `: p6 = 6 Hr. Precipitation (In. ii, { iii l �llt�l ;��., D - Duration (Min.) P 15 20 30 40 50 1 2 Minutes ' Hours Onration I� it 0 v c d 6.0 ,W 5.0 OZ 4.5 4.0 3.5 s 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 3 4 5 6 Aires 3 March 1982 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology . Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. 5) This line is the intensity - duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency _k12 —Jr. 1) P6 = Z'7 in., P24= 4_G . *P6 = 58.7 %* P24 2) Adjusted *P6 2•1 in. 3) tc = I" min. 4) I 3. C19 in /hr: *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 w leo 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (2) (3) 156 6, 000 0.42 inches U.5 14.11 6. 144 5,000 D. 120 ns . - -- _ -5 132 4,000 mw* KW D fail 3 000 5 4. 4. Kill 2- 120 108 ' — 2,000 nl 121 131 2.5 2.I 2.2 0.0 T,a 1.7 U 2 4. 3 — 60 u AD in foal 1.5 _ _ Z 96 — 1,000 _ ° 54 3• 800 w 64 - 600 w > 48 0 2 — —2.- — 500 ¢ 80 / 72 — 400 , = r - 60 U — 2. N w 300 yP�.E/ _ Kill 2- 15 IE9 1 .5 1— .5 1— .5 "fp�3 II -67 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BunEAV OF PLOUC ROADS JAM. 1961 U 2 n R — 60 u 200 / w 1.5 _ _ Z / r w _ ° 54 w 100 ° w > 48 0 2 — ¢ 80 1.0 7 c1 , = r - 60 U W 1.0 ° 0 —50 H ENTRANCE SCALE — 40 D TYPE 10 36 w - .9 r W 30 (1) saaare edge .,In a .9 n.ae.a 3r ll .9 33 °. a a 20 121 creep and with w 0 30 ns6a.6❑ _ .8 ,8 (3) G,*.n, and •8 27 waie<r�ne 10 7 .7 .7 24 6 6 T,, me scale (2) ar (3) 11.1411 21 5 noriromelll le scale III, than 4 ise s1.61ehl Inclinse line lhreaeh D one 0 .ca lea, ar menu 3 illaslraree. — 6 15 IE9 1 .5 1— .5 1— .5 "fp�3 II -67 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BunEAV OF PLOUC ROADS JAM. 1961 i i 1 0 w v U U ,9 41 r 1 c J v Ell .9 H X X H { INTENSITY *DUPATION DESIGN CHART C 1� �JU 1 •V LV VV lV vv • - 1 11 imirpc - Hc._• _ 1 March 19112 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are Printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 59 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) s 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side 0 of the chart. 4) Draw adline through the point parallel to the 6.0 n 5) This beingnanalyzedauration curve for 5.0 4.5 4.0 Application Form: 3• 5 0) Selected Frequency I_�+r• 3.0 LA 2.5 7 ) P6 = Z-1 in., P24= 4(P , P6 = Se.-1 %* P24 2.0 2) Adjusted *P6= 1 in. tc 4) I ''�•8 in /hr: 1.0 *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 Tw I Intensity (In./Hr.) I i FFEU 'q 1 �ll�n� Ig�i ill I In � li i • � tp �II ii �''�IElE� dill I I I III i VlE� t ��a � l �E��.��� I IEIEI il! I IIIIII.�� III�e��� I =. =���ii - 1 1 I �II - = 1; 1 `�I� ;Goi.Gi �9- ��E li91 lm EIE NEI I ■���C:= .1 1 C 1� �JU 1 •V LV VV lV vv • - 1 11 imirpc - Hc._• _ 1 March 19112 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are Printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 59 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) s 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side 0 of the chart. 4) Draw adline through the point parallel to the 6.0 n 5) This beingnanalyzedauration curve for 5.0 4.5 4.0 Application Form: 3• 5 0) Selected Frequency I_�+r• 3.0 LA 2.5 7 ) P6 = Z-1 in., P24= 4(P , P6 = Se.-1 %* P24 2.0 2) Adjusted *P6= 1 in. tc 4) I ''�•8 in /hr: 1.0 *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 RE R- d- II— 67 B 12 Of PUBLIC ROADS JAN, 1953 ISO 10,000 .7 24 —1 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (2) (3) 156 — 6,000 0.42 inch., (3.5 1..,) 6' ¢ 5 144 0.120 ara -- 5,000 - -- — --- 5. �. 4,000 Nwa Kw 6' 15 5. 132 0 1.., 3,000 y 4. 120 111 z.s 0.8 4. I21 2.I 7.4 2,000 (31 2.2 7.7 106 a0 in fast 3. 96 — 1,000 800 84 - 600 - - - _— ._2. —2- — 500 72 — 400 LU = / 300 2 N N — 60 200 �/ w 1.5 Z ° S4 O. 4 BIC / w J48 800 r U x 42 U — 60 W 1.0 I.0 IJ- O _ 50 MW ENTRANCE ° ¢ ° SC E — 40 D TYPE ¢ _ 10 r 36 .9 30 54..'..49. .ite a .9 W 33 3sad Aall 3 .9 ° 20 (2) C.00a. And will, R 30 aaad.011 i 13) Croaa. sI,d — •6 27 Pr41aclinq B 12 Of PUBLIC ROADS JAN, 1953 7 .7 24 —1 6 To up state (2) ac (3) d•al act 21 5 AarLonrallq to ".1. I11,IMn 6 4 uu avalpM 1n <Onsa fins tNr4a911 0 and 0 scales, ev rs.vs. as 5 5 . 3 .5 IB 2 15 B 12 Of PUBLIC ROADS JAN, 1953 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL 7 .7 ,7 6 .6 6 5 5 . .5 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL 9 e 3 e 4 3 L 0 H y u L v J 3 1 , A .3 in 5 R2 M X X H e INTENSITY4UMTION DESIGN CHART 10 15 20 Minutes 30 40 50 1 Duration rn 0 ,o n i6.0 w 15.5 c 15.0 14.5 14.D `3.5 s t3.0 .L4 2.0 1.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 Hours 1�7 March 19112 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are Printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not ar.plicable to Desert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency yr. 1) P6 = 2.7 in., P24= �- , *P6 = 58.17 %* P24 2) Adjusted *P6 2•07 in. 3) tc = l y min. 4) I 3 -45 in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 %J1 I! '��i �I) I ��� �� :.■■.rr� 11 11 I � 1 m �E , 16 1 31 ;I1I�I� =�..���i ..�.�9.68 ■■ ■ ■■ ° °�iE��B'I 31 SOMME NNI 88 •: no oi ����II� �� I � II II�� IN NMI 1 10 15 20 Minutes 30 40 50 1 Duration rn 0 ,o n i6.0 w 15.5 c 15.0 14.5 14.D `3.5 s t3.0 .L4 2.0 1.5 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 Hours 1�7 March 19112 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are Printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not ar.plicable to Desert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency yr. 1) P6 = 2.7 in., P24= �- , *P6 = 58.17 %* P24 2) Adjusted *P6 2•07 in. 3) tc = l y min. 4) I 3 -45 in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 %J1 qc�,Z4 AM JAM, L Aqm� • t -F A A Vt N -! KA i pie mid 9L WTI MIMI.. LIN on illdit A "Y4 INN It tzff.T � Womp:P"ll !j.j CIT. VIA AM PEM —LIM Opel OL xf A PERIMETER AREA A MAP ll SECTION 3 STORM DRAIN HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS + r++++r xxt# t# rt xx## x» rt» xxx## x#+++ r+ xx# r## rtxxxxxx » #xx ## +# + + +tt ## #xxrtr #x ++rxt 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: # + +# # # + + + + # + + # # # # ## # # +# #++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * » »x » # # # # # + +* + » # #tr # +#rtx ## * SHELLEY 0594A # * LINE "A" HYDRAULIC CALCS * 08/03/98 x ttt t++ x++#+ xx# xt***+t xxx* t# x* x#*#*»##»# x# 4# ►##� #i4R4* # # #xi # # # #tx #rtxx »x ## ++ FILE NAME: 0594A.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:47 8/ 3/1998 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 = 1.82 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 101.92 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 30.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 55.08 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 104.920 ______________________________________________________ NODE 1.82 HGL_ < 104.920 >;EGL_ < 106.875 >;FLOWLINE= < 101.920> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.82 TO NODE 1.73 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.73 ELEVATION = 103.18 --------------- ---- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 51.60 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 30.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 126.39 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 51.60)/( 410.171)) * *2 = .0158259 HF =L *SF = ( 126.39) *( .0158259) = 2.000 NODE 1.73 : HGL= < 107.159>;EGL= < 108.875>;FLOWLINE= < 103.180> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- --------------- -- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.73 TO NODE 1.72 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 1.72 ELEVATION = 103.51 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 42.7 30.00 4.909 8.699 90.000 1.175 2 51.6 30.00 4.909 10.512 -- 1.716 3 7.6 18.00 4 .0 .00 5 1.3 = ==Q5 EQUALS 1.767 4.301 .000 .000 .000 .000 BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .01084 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .01583 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01333 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .053 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .343 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 3.225+ 1.175- 1.716 +( .053) +( .343) = 3.081 NODE 1.72 : HGL= < 110.781>;EGL= < 111.956>;FLOWLINE= < 103.510> --------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.72 TO NODE 1.63 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.63 ELEVATION = 112.09 CALCULATE - -- --------------- --- PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 42.70 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 30.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 182.53 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 42.70)/( 410.171)) * *2 = .0108374 HF =L *SF = ( 182.53) *( .0108374) = 1.978 NODE 1.63 : HGL= < 112.759 >;EGL = < 113.934>;FLOWLINE= < 112.090> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 1.83 NODE 1.63 : HGL= < 114.590>;EGL= < 115.765>;FLOWLINE= < 112.090> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.63 TO NODE 1.62 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 1.62 ELEVATION = 112.42 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 36.8 24.00 3.142 11.717 .000 2.132 2 42.7 30.00 4.909 8.699 -- 1.175 3 2.3 18.00 1.767 1.319 90.000 - 4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 - 5 3.6 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .02648 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .01084 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01866 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS .075 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .235 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = -.462+ 2.132- 1.175 +( .075) +( .235) = .805 NODE 1.62 : HGL= < 114.438>;EGL= < 116.570>;FLOWLINE= < 112.420> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.62 TO NODE 1.53 IS CODE 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.53 ELEVATION = 131.96 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 36.81 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 415.68 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 36.81)/( 226.224)) * *2 = .0264762 HF =L *SF = ( 415.68) *( .0264762) = 11.006 NODE 1.53 : HGL= < 125.443>;EGL= < 127.575>;FLOWLINE= < 131.960> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 8.52 NODE 1.53 : HGL= < 133.960>;EGL= < 136.092>;FLOWLINE= < 131.960> --------------------------------------------- ------------------ ------- - ----- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.53 TO NODE 1.52 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 1.52 ELEVATION = 132.29 _____________________________________________ ___ _____________ ___ ______ _ __ ___ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 19.8 18.00 1.767 11.199 .000 1.947 2 36.8 24.00 3.142 11.717 -- 2.132 3 3.1 18.00 1.767 1.760 70.000 - 4 12.2 18.00 1.767 6.881 90.000 - 5 1.8 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((AI +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .03549 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .02648 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .03099 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .124 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .426 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 2.629+ 1.947- 2.132 +( .124) +( .426) = 2.995 NODE 1.52 : HGL= < 137.140>;EGL= < 139.087>;FLOWLINE= < 132.290> ___________________________________________ _______________________________ _____________________________________________ PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.52 TO NODE 1.43 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.43 ELEVATION = 142.72 ----------- - -- - ------------------------ - - ------- --- - ---- - - - -- ---- ------ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 19.79 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 139.12 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF =(Q /K) * *2 = (( 19.79)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0354940 HF =L *SF = ( 139.12) *( .0354940) = 4.938 NODE 1.43 : HGL= < 142.078>;EGL= < 144.025 >;FLOWLINE = < 142.720> PRESSURE FLOW ________________ ______,_ ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL -____ LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 2.14 NODE 1.43 : HGL= < 144.220>;EGL= < 146.167 >;FLOWLINE = < 142.720> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.43 TO NODE 1.42 IS CODE = 2 UPSTREAM NODE 1.42 ELEVATION = 143.05 _ _ _________ _________ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW MANHOLE LOSSES(LACFCD): __ PIPE FLOW = 19.79 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 1.767 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY = 11.20 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 1.947 HMN = .05 *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ .05 *( 1.947) _ .097 NODE 1.42 : HGL= < 144.317>;EGL= < 146.265>;FLOWLINE= < 143.050> PRESSURE FLOW -------------------------- ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .23 NODE 1.42 : HGL= < 144.550>;EGL= < 146.497>;FLOWLINE= < 143.050> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.42 TO NODE 1.33 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.33 ELEVATION = 159.20 CALCULATE PRESSURE -- -------- FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): ---- - PIPE FLOW = 19.79 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 184.61 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 19.79)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0354940 HF =L *SF = ( 184.61) *( .0354940) = 6.553 NODE 1.33 : HGL= < 151.103>;EGL= < 153.050>;FLOWLINE= < 159.200> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 9.60 NODE 1.33 : HGL= < 160.700>;EGL= < 162.647>;FLOWLINE= < 159.200> ______________________________________ PRESSURE FLOW _______________________________ PROCESS FROM NODE 1.33 TO NODE 1.32 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 1.32 ELEVATION = 159.53 ------- - -- - -- CALCULATE PRESSURE ------------ ------ ---- ----- ---------------- - --------- FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: - -- -- NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 17.8 18.00 1.767 10.084 .000 1.579 2 19.8 18.00 1.767 11.199 -- 1.947 3 2.0 18.00 1.767 1.115 90.000 - 4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 - 5 .0 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=( 02* V2- Q1* 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 _ .02878 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .03549 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .03214 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .129 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = .737+ 1.579- 1.947 +( .129) +( .000) _ .497 NODE 1.32 : HGL= < 161.565>;EGL= < 163.144>;FLOWLINE= < 159.530> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.32 TO NODE 1.23 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 1.23 ELEVATION = 167.56 ------------------- ------- --- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 17.82 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 16.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 125.68 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 17.82)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0287792 HF =L *SF = ( 125.68) *( .0287792) = 3.617 NODE 1.23 : HGL= < 165.182>;EGL= < 166.761>;FLOWLINE= < 167.560> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 3.88 NODE 1.23 : HGL= < 169.060>;EGL= < 170.639>;FLOWLINE= < 167.560> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.23 TO NODE 1.22 IS CODE = 2 UPSTREAM NODE 1.22 ELEVATION = 167.89 ---- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW MANHOLE LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 17.82 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 1.767 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY = 10.08 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 1.579 HMN = .05 *(VELOCITY HEAD) _ .05 *( 1.579) _ .079 NODE 1.22 : HGL= < 169.139 >;EGL = < 170.718>;FLOWLINE= < 167.890> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .25 NODE 1.22 : HGL= < 169.390>;EGL= < 170.969 >;FLOWLINE = < 167.890> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.22 TO NODE 1.12 IS CODE 1 - UPSTREAM NODE 1.12 ELEVATION = 173.05 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 17.82 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 117.59 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 17.82)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0287792 HF =L *SF = ( 117.59) *( .0287792) = 3.384 NODE 1.12 : HGL= < 172.774>;EGL= < 174.353>;FLOWLINE= < 173.050> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 1.7B NODE 1.12 : HGL= < 174.550 >;EGL - < 176.129>;FLOWLINE= < 173.050> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM rrrrxxrxrrx»» xrw+++ r++»+ rrw+ xrrrrxxw»+++ w+++ r +rr + +wwrrrrx »x +rwr +rr +rrwxrx » ++ 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: wwwawarara +w »aa »a »wrrww rrx DESCRIPTION OF STUDY x +x + +rxxxxx »w + + + +xrrr +wwww * SHELLEY 0597B w * LINE "B" HYDRAULIC CALCS a * 08/03/98 rrrrr+ rrxrrrxrrwwawrrwwrwrwwxwwxaaa++ wrww+ w +raa +w +wwww :wwwxwar► *arwtraawww FILE NAME: 0597B.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 6 8/ 3/1998 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 = 1.74 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 103.51 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 7.60 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 110.781 ---- ---- ---- --- -------------- - - - - -- -- ------ - - - - --- ---___ NODE 1.74 HGL- < 110.781>;EGL= < 111.068>;FLOWLINE= < 103.510> __________________________ _________________ PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.74 TO NODE 5.33 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 5.33 ELEVATION = 103.90 ----------- --- - ---------- --- - - ---- ---- -- - -- - --------------- - CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 7.60 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 19.50 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 7.60)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0052347 HF =L *SF = ( 19.50) *( .0052347) _ .102 NODE 5.33 HGL= < 110.883>;EGL= < 111.170>;FLOWLINE= < 103.900> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.33 TO NODE 5.32 IS CODE 5 UPSTREAM NODE 5.32 ELEVATION = 104.23 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 6.4 18.00 1.767 3.650 55.000 .207 2 7.6 18.00 1.767 4.301 -- .287 3 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 5 1.2 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00377 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00523 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00450 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .018 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .057 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = .337+ .207- .287 +( .018) +( .057) _ .332 NODE 5.32 : HGL= < 111.296>;EGL= < 111.502>;FLOWLINE= < 104.230> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.32 TO NODE 5.22 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 5.22 ELEVATION = 110.63 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 6.45 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 64.00 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 6.45)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0037704 HF =L *SF = ( 64.00) *( .0037704) _ .241 NODE 5.22 HGL= < 111.537>;EGL= < 111.744>;FLOWLINE= < 110.630> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .59 NODE 5.22 : HGL= < 112.130 >;EGL = < 112.337>;FLOWLINE= < 110.630>- END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM ww+: wr+ wwwxxxwx# wwxrrrwr+ r+ r+ xr++ rwaar+ wrrwxw +aawrr + + + + + + + + +axawrr + + +wxw + +++ 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: aarrw +aarwxwwxwaa # #w+arr ## DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * *## + +xr +rr # # ## # +x # # +x• * SHELLEY 0597C # * LINE "C" HYDRAULIC CALCS + * 08/03/98 a wrr # ## raw## axwrr+ awxx+ awxxwx# x# xr++ x+ aaa+ wrrwrr # #rr # # # # # # #ar #wr +rwxx # +rxaw FILE NAME: 0597C.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 6 8/ 3/1998 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 = 1.54 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 132.29 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 3.11 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 137.140 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ----------------------------- NODE 1.54 : HGL= < 137.140>;EGL= < 137.188 >; FLOWLINE = < 132.290> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.54 TO NODE 4.22 IS CODE - UPSTREAM NODE 4.22 ELEVATION = 132.75 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 3.11 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 23.03 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 3.11) /( 105.043)) * *2 = .0008766 HF =L *SF = ( 23.03) *( .0008766) _ .020 NODE 4.22 HGL= < 137.160>;EGL= < 137.208>;FLOWLINE= < 132.750> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM ++++++ + + + + + + +x +rr +xxxrrr♦rrwwwxw +xxxx rr + ++ + + +r + +wxwrrr rr:rwrwxxxxxrr + + +r +rrr 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY xw # #wr #rr ++ + +# # # #r #rrxwxww * SHELLEY 0597D w * LINE "D" HYDRAULIC CALCS * 08/03/98 # ++#+++++++++++++++++++ r+ r# ww+ ww# rr# rr# rwwwwrwwwwwwww •wr #rrrrr +# # + + # # #xwxw# FILE NAME: 0597D.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 6 8/ 3/1998 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 = 1.55 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 132.29 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 12.16 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 137.140 NODE 1.55 HGL- < 137.140 >;EGL= < 137.875>;FLOWLINE= < 132.290> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.55 TO NODE 3.12 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 3.12 ELEVATION = 139.91 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 12.16 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 152.49 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 12.16)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0134008 HF =L *SF = ( 152.49) *( .0134008) = 2.043 NODE 3.12 : HGL= < 139.183>;EGL= < 139.919>;FLOWLINE= < 139.910> - ------------------ ------------------------------- — - --- — --------------- -- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 2.23 NODE 3.12 : HGL= < 141.410>;EGL= < 142.145>;FLOWLINE= < 139.910> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM ++++++++ rrrrrrwrrrwwrrerr +r + » »xxwwrwwrrrrrwrwwwrrrrrr rrtx »wwwrwrrrrrwwwrr+xxw 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: + +rarrrrra xrxrarrar + »rrrrx DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * +rrrrxw »• »•rrr r•r•rr * SHELLEY 0597E * LINE "E" HYDRAULIC CALCS + * 08/03/98 + rrrrrrz+++ r+ errxxxxx• xa» x»•••• r +rx•xxa »rx » +raa•a•arwxx••w•••r »rare »rr +xx FILE NAME: 0597E.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 7 8/ 3/1998 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 = 1.34 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 159.53 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 2.10 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 161.565 NODE 1.34 : HGL= < 161.565>;EGL= < 161.587>;FLOWLINE= < 159.530> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.34 TO NODE 2.12 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 2.12 ELEVATION = 159.89 -------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 2.10 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 17.76 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 2.10)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0003997 HF =L *SF = ( 17.76) *( .0003997) _ .007 NODE 2.12 HGL= < 161.572 >;EGL = < 161.594 >; FLOWLINE = < 159.890> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM + r: r++++++++++++ r+ rrrrrrwrxrxrrxr+ w+ rrrxrrw++ + + + + + + + + + +r +rrxrrrx +rrxrrrr ++ ++ 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: rrrrrr rrr +xrxrr+rrr #rrrr ## DESCRIPTION OF STUDY +rr +rrrrrw ### # # #rrrrrrrrr+ • SHELLEY 0597F w • LINE "F" HYDRAULIC CALCS + • 08/03/98 r ri wrrrr rrrr ++rrrr +r #rrrfrrr ## rrr# +kiwwwwwwwwwRwwwwwwwwww# #rrr #wwwwwwww # #+ FILE NAME: 0597F.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 7 8/ 3/1998 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 = 1.64 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 112.42 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 2.33 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 114.438 NODE 1.64 HGL= < 114.438>;EGL= < 114.465>;FLOWLINE= < 112.420> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- - ---- ------ PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.64 TO NODE 4.12 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 4.12 ELEVATION = 112.81 ----- — -------------- — --- — ------------ — - ------------------------------- — CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 2.33 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 19.50 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 2.33)/( 105.043)) * *2 = .0004920 HF =L *SF = ( 19.50) *( .0004920) = .010 NODE 4.12 HGL= < 114.448>;EGL= < 114.475>;FLOWLINE= < 112.810> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM :3 xy Y [Sri! 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 PH. (619) 259 -8212 FAX. (619) 259 -4812 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 14:11 12/31/1997 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * *wxxwxxxx #wwwwwwwwRw* CURB GRADE @ INLET LOTS 17 -18 0594CG x *************** x* x***# x## x* xR* xxrtW* R***** R# kk *k * * * *k * * * * * * *R * * * *k # *RRkRRwk ++ xR# xxxxxxxxxxRxwwwwxwwwWwR#* xRR******++++# + + + + + + + + + + +xRxwfix + ++fi * + + +WWxW *W » »STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION «« -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) = .060000 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 3.31 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) _ .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 12.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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: -------------------------------------------------- STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.34 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.03 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.38 * *x * * *xxx * *xx *x * * * * **RW * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * CURB GRADE @ INLET LOT 9 # CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) _ .060000 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 4.22 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) _ .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 12.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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: .--------------------------------------------------------------------------- STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.72 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.80 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.44 xxxxxxxxxxzzzxzxzzzxxxxxxx DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *xxxxxx CURB GRADE @ INLET LOTS 26 -27 x x xxxxxxxxxx+ xxxxxxxxxxxx+ x+ xxxxx#+ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx + + +x + + + +xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxzxzxzxxzxzzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxzzzzzzzxzxzxxzxxxxxxxxx »» STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION «« --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) _ .050800 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 4.92 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) _ .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 12.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.41 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.91 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.54 xxxx ++ + + + +z + +x + +xxx +xxxxz+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * *xx +z + +xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * CURB GRADE @ INLET LOTS 2 -3 + > » >STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION «« CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) _ .050800 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 3.09 AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR(MANNING) _ .015000 CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF- WIDTH(FEET) = 12.50 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 10.50 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: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.34 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.70 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VEL0CITY = 1.28 xxxwrtwwwwwwwwwwwxw* wwww* wwwwww* ww* ww******### # # * # # * * * *x * *w * * *www *w * * *w *wxwww HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 PH. (619) 259 -8212 FAX. (619) 259 -4812 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:35 12/31/1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * *xR + +x + + + +x + +xxxxxxxxxrt t CURB INLET SIZING @ NODE 1.5 t LOTS 17 -18 0594I wwrtwwwwxrtrtwwwrtwxxrtxxrt+ xwwwwxwwwwwwRwwwwwwwww +wwwww + + + +xx + + +x +x + + * +wwx + +x wR »» 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) = 3.31 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .27 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) = .30 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 13.69 » »CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 13.7 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 3.3 xx +xx +xxxx + + + + + + +x + + + +x + ++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * *x + + +xx + + +xxx + +x + ++ CURB INLET SIZING @ NODE 4.2 + * LOT 9 0594I +++++ xwwww* wwwwwwR++++++++++* w+*+ w+ w+ rt++**+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ +* www** w* wwwwwwwrtwxrtxRR+ xxxx* rtrt* kx* Rxw* xxRxxxR + +x +xxxxxxRx + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ ++ ++ >>>FLOWBY CATCH BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION «« -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 0 Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. STREETFLOW(CFS) = 4.22 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .30 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) _ .30 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 15.60 »»CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = -15.6 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 4.2 * * * * * * * * ** # * * * ** * # # # * # # * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * *rt * * * *rt * * * * * * * * ** CURB INLET SIZING 2 NODE 1.6 LOTS 26 -27 * 0594I » »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) = 4.92 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .31 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) _ .30 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 9.00 »»CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 17.6 »»CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * CURB INLET SIZING @ NODE 4.1 LOTS 2 -3 0594I >>> 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) = 3.09 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .27 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) _ .30 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 9.00 » »CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 12.8 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 2.5 SVI-f- HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 PH. (619) 259 -8212 FAX. (619) 259 -4812 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 15:45 12/31/1997 # * * * * * * * * * * # * *xx *W *xRxWxxx DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * *x * * * * *x * * *x * * * * *# • SUMP INLET DESIGN @ STA 2 +69.98 • LOTS 30 -31 • 0594SI »»SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION «« Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 4.59 BASIN OPENING(FEET) _ .55 DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) _ .50 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 4.21 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * *kxx * *x * * # # # * } * #R * * * * * *x# * SUMP INLET DESIGN @ 2 +69.98 * LOT 36 x r 0594SI *******# kx* x* xx* x*********** xkkxxxxxxxxx** x * #kx * *x * * * # *xk * *xxxxxxx *x * * *WR* » »SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION «« ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 2.18 BASIN OPENING(FEET) _ .55 DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) _ .50 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 2.00 SECTION 5 LOT 29 -33 YARD DRAIN SIZING CALCULATIONS LCTS Zi - 7H9-" 4 e.55 DSO, L -� yyc o� i - 1_l « r -._ LOT 2q - - -- rIUD -7 L; 150' 4,5 _� G ice= (o.ss) (4.5) (a.,$) = 0.37 C+ l r LoT 3-C) rti`14-1 . ld)L4-.. GOT 3 3 T_ zt.5 1,4,14 . ¢o cFS , ■Cu■EONE ■C ■ ■■■■■ ■ iiC'Y'CC' ■_■■■■ ■■ ■ i C CCCminC■ ■ ICC■ ■■■■ �C■ CClu .� E ■■■ MEMO ■C: ■:Y CO■ ■■o ME moomm mumommums HCC MEN ■■ / ■ ■C■ CCCCC mommon ON C1 ■■ ■EN ■■ ■Y ■■■Y■ MORE ■Y■ ■ ■■■■■u■■■= ■ ■SYi ■.: oCCi C� C ■ iiC'Y'CC' ■_■■■■ ■ i C ICC■ ■■■■ .� E MEMO ■■.■■■■■■ ■■o ME HCC ■■ / ■ ■C■ CCCCC mommon ON C1 ■■ ■EN ■■ ■Y ■■■Y■ PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) . Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: +r +a +r +ra +a +a +a + + +a + + + +aa+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * *araarerxwa + + +axrxxrrwr• * LOT 29 YARD DRAIN + * 03/26/98 * 0597.29 xrxxl rrrxrrrrrxr4rrx *xrrrrrrrarx +xaaraara :asset rrrrrrrrat ++ +rrlrlraxrrrrrr -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - FILE NAME: 0597.29 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 8:58 3/27/1998 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) 29.20- .50 4.41 .13* 6.67 ) FRICTION 29.10- .31 *DC 3.15 .31 *DC 3.15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 10 ------------------------------- ------- ------------------ - --- -- — - --- — ------- NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 29.20 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 102.00 PIPE FLOW = .37 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 102.500 NODE 29.20 : HGL = < 102.130>;EGL= < 103.421>;FLOWLINE= < 102.000> FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 29.20 TO NODE 29.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 29.10 ELEVATION = 112.50 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL) CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = .37 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 32.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300 ----- — -------- ---- -- — --- -------------------------- ----- — - -- — -- ------ -- ---- NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .11 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .31 UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) .31 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH ----------- VELOCITY --- --- ------- - SPECIFIC -- ---- ------ PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT /SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) .000 .309 2.904 .440 3.15 .008 .289 3.139 .443 3.17 .037 .270 3.419 .452 3.23 .095 .251 3.756 .470 3.35 .196 .231 4.167 .501 3.53 .363 .212 4.675 .551 3.79 .639 .192 5.316 .631 4.16 1.106 .173 6.142 .759 4.67 1.963 .153 7.236 .967 5.39 3.865 .134 8.740 1.321 6.41 32.000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .130 9.115 1.421 6.67 NODE 29.10 : HGL . < 112.809>;EGL= < 112.940 >;FLOWLINE = < 112.500> swxrwrrrrwrw twwwwrwwrrrxwrxxxxx arrs sssxwwxwxxwxxxwxwrrsss +sxsstssxwwxwwwswxsws UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 29.10 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 112.50 ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 112.81 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS *rtrt *xxxxxxxlx + + + + + + +# art#* x !!!lrrtr } *x +xxx + + + + ++ + # # + #1f #!!r lrtxxxxx +rr #rtxf!!! #xxf PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: +r +wwwwwwwwwwwrxwwr : : +w +xr DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * *r +r +rwwwwwwwwlwwwwlxxx * LOT 30 YARD DRAIN * 03/26/98 + * 0597.30 w •!!! 1fl xl fx!l xxxl xix!l rl rxxx4** xxxxxrrxxxrr + +wf!l1xr + + + } #f!xl +flwwwwrrrr r+ --- - - " " "- FILE NAME: 0597.30 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9: 0 3/27/1998 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) 30.20- .50 4.27 .12* 7.04 ) FRICTION 30.10- .30 *Dc 2.93 .30 *Dc 2.93 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 10 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. r4lxxxrtlrt+# rt+ rrwr++ xxxxxxl xxxx* xxx* x++ r+ rrrxrrwrwrxr * * * #x *xxxxxxxx + ++ + + + + ++ +rf DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 30.20 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 101.90 PIPE FLOW = .35 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 102.400 ------------------ --- — - -------------------- — - --- -- — ------ — ---- — ---------- NODE 30.20 : HGL = < 102.015 >;EGL = < 103.640>;FLOWLINE= < 101.900> rt # # +xxxxx *rt } ;ltrif l* x # # +t +satl + + +x +xx +xxxxx * *xr;rrlr lrrl +r lrlrrtrtrrrrtr4 *xx4xrt4x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.20 TO NODE 30.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 30.10 ELEVATION = 110.50 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL) CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = .35 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 30.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300 NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .12 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .30 ----------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) _ --------------------- .30 ---------- GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH -- --------- VELOCITY ----------- SPECIFIC -- PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT /SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) .000 .300 2.843 .426 2.93 .009 .282 3.071 .428 2.94 .039 .263 3.341 .437 3.00 .101 .245 3.664 .453 3.10 .207 .226 4.056 .482 3.26 .383 .208 4.537 .528 3.50 .671 .189 5.140 .600 3.82 1.156 .171 5.911 .713 4.27 2.038 .152 6.921 .896 4.89 3.976 .134 8.290 1.202 5.77 30.000 .115 10.226 1.740 7.04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NODE 30.10 : HGL = < 110.800>;EGL- < 110.9265;FLOWLINE= < 110.500) Rxxxxxrxxrxrrkxr* xrr** xx xsrxtxxrfrxrx, tx+ xxxf: wrr: wrwrrrrrrrx +x +rrrrrrrrxx + xwwrxw UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 30.10 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 110.50 ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 110.80 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS -- -- ------- ----- - --------------------------------------------------- END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS wrxxxxxrwxxxrxxxrxrxrrrrrxxxxxxxxra++ xwxw+ x+ ww+ x + +xxxxrrr + + +arxxxx + + + + + +wxxwrr PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: rrrrrerrrrrrrrrrxrrrwrrr *+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * + + + +aa +rrrrrrrrrrrrer rrr * LOT 31 YARDDRAIN * 03/26/98 * 0597.31 ++++++++++++ rarr+ r+ rrrrrrrrrrrar+ ara+++++++ + + + + + + + +ara +a ++ +rrrwrrwrrr *►rrr _______ _ ___ FILE NAME: 0597.31 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 8:54 3/27/1998 ++++++++++++++ x+ xxxrtxxxxrtxxxxrtxrtxxxxrxx+ rxxrrrr + + +xr + + +xrxx + + + + + + + + + +wx +rxrrrx 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) 31.20- .50 4.27 .13* 5.77 ) FRICTION 31.10- .30*Dc 2.93 .30 *DC 2.93 ----- ----- — ------------------- ------------------------------- — --------- — -- MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 10 --------------- - ------ - ----- -------- -- - - --- — - — - — - --------- ------ — ------ -- NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. +++++++ aaa+ arrrrrrr++ a++ t+ aaa+ aa+ aaaaa++++ a++++ +++ + + + + + + +xrxx + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 31.20 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 101.90 PIPE FLOW = .35 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 102.400 _______________________________________________ ________________________ _______ NODE 31.20 : HGL = < 102.034>;EGL= < 103.101 >; FLOWLINE = < 101.900> xx +ra + +xwxxwarxrrrrrx wxxrrxxxxxx++ wxw+ rw+ aa+ aaa +r +rrrrrxaxxxra + + + +r +raara +wwar FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 31.20 TO NODE 31.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 31.10 ELEVATION = 109.50 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL) ------------------------ ---------------- ---- ----- ------ — --------------- ------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = .35 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 30.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300 ----------- — ---- --------- -------------- — - -- -- — ---- --------------------- — - NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .12 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .30 UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) _ .30 ____________________________________ GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: _______________________________ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH ------------------- VELOCITY SPECIFIC ---------- PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (£T) (FT /SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) .000 .300 2.843 .426 2.93 .010 .282 3.066 .428 2.94 .043 .264 3.329 .436 3.00 .109 .246 3.643 .452 3.10 .225 .228 4.022 .479 3.25 .414 .209 4.486 .522 3.47 .722 .191 5.062 .589 3.78 1.238 .173 5.793 .695 4.20 2.169 .155 6.742 .861 4.78 4.199 .137 8.015 1.135 5.59 30.000 .134 8.288 1.201 5.77 NODE 31.10 : HGL = < 109.800>;EGL= < 109.926 >; FLOWLINE = < 109.500> UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 31.10 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 109.50 - ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 109.80 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS + x+ xxrx ++xw + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + +wrw +xw wwrww +wrxxx +w +xwwwrrr wwrwr +rr + + + + + + +wwwwx+ PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFCD,LACRD, AND OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: + +xx + + + + + + + + ++ ++ +r + + + + ++ ++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * *+ + + + + ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ ++ + + ++* * LOT 32 YARD DRAIN * 03/26/98 * 0597.32 +++++++++ xxx+ r++++++ ww++ w+++ w+ wxx+++ r++++ r+ wx + + + + + + + + +xx + + +wx + + + + + +rr + + +++ FILE NAME: 0597.32 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9: 4 3/27/1998 ++++ x+ wrxxr+++ xrx+ xxw+++++++ rrr++ r++++ w++++++++ wwxxwxx +www + + + + + + +wrrxr + +rr + + ++ 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) 32.20- .50 4.27 .12* 7.04 ) FRICTION 32.10- .30 *DC 2.93 .30 *Dc 2.93 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 10 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 32.20 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 101.90 PIPE FLOW = .35 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 102.400 NODE 32.20 : HGL = < 102.015>;EGL= < 103.640>;FLOWLINE= < 101.900> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ xx+ w+ r+ r+ w+ x++ xxwr+++ +r + + + + + +wxx ++ + + + + + + +xx + + + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.20 TO NODE 32.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 32.10 ELEVATION = 110.50 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL) CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = .35 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 30.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300 NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .12 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .30 UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) .30 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DISTANCE FROM FLOW DEPTH VELOCITY SPECIFIC PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT /SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) .000 .300 2.843 .426 2.93 .009 .282 3.071 -.428 2.94 .039 .263 3.341 .437 3.00 .101 .245 3.664 .453 3.10 .207 .226 4.056 .482 3.26 .383 .208 4.537 .528 3.50 .671 .189 5.140 .600. 3.82 1.156 .171 5.911 .713 4.27 2.038 .152 6.921 .896 4.89 3.976 .134 8.290 1.202 5.77 30.000 .115 10.226 1.740 7.04 --- --------------------------------- ---- ------------- NODE 32.10 : HGL = < 110.800 >;EGL - < -- --- ---- -- - -- ------- -- 110.926>;FLOWLINE= < 110.500> rrrrrrrrrrrrrwwwrrrwwwwwrwwrwewwwwrwrwrrrrrrxrrxrrxrrxxx xxxrxxxxxxrwrrrxwrwwww UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 32.10 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 110.50 ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL 110.80 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + * * + *x# DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * LOT 33 YARD DRAIN w * 03/26/98 * 0597.33 + + + + + + +++ www+* ww + * *ww +wwww #aw #wa ;wwwwxw#w#wwww wwwwww ## +www *wwwwa +tawawwww; FILE NAME: 0597.33 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 9:16 3/27/1998 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) 33.20- .50 4.64 .14* 6.99 ) FRICTION 33.10- .32 *Dc 3.49 .32 *DC 3.49 ------------------- — ------- ----------- -------------- ------ — --------------- - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ENERGY BALANCES USED IN EACH PROFILE = 10 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 33.20 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 101.80 PIPE FLOW = .40 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 102.300 -- --- -- — --------------------------------------------------------------------- NODE 33.20 : HGL = < 101.941>;EGL= < 103.144>;FLOWLINE= < 101.800> FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.20 TO NODE 33.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 33.10 ELEVATION = 111.70 (FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CALCULATE FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = .40 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 6.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 32.00 FEET MANNING'S N = .01300 NORMAL DEPTH(FT) _ .12 CRITICAL DEPTH(FT) _ .32 UPSTREAM CONTROL ASSUMED FLOWDEPTH(FT) .32 GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW PROFILE COMPUTED INFORMATION: ---------------------- DISTANCE FROM " --------------- FLOW DEPTH - - --- VELOCITY ------------------ SPECIFIC -- - -------- - - PRESSURE+ CONTROL(FT) (FT) (FT /SEC) ENERGY(FT) MOMENTUM(POUNDS) .000 .322 2.995 .461 3.49 .009 .302 3.230 .464 3.51 .040 .282 3.511 .473 3.58 .104 .261 3.849 .492 3.71 .214 .241 4.261 .523 3.90 .395 .221 4.769 .575 4.18 .693 .201 5.409 .656 4.58 1.198 .181 6.231 .784 5.13 2.119 .161 7.317 .993 5.90 4.155 .141 8.801 1.344 6.99 32.000 - ------------------------------------------------------------ .141 8.801 1.344 6.99 ---- - - --- - - --- NODE 33.10 : HGL - < 112.022>;EGL= < 112.161>;FLOWLINE= < 111.700> UPSTREAM PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 33.10 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 111.70 ASSUMED UPSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 112.02 FOR DOWNSTREAM RUN ANALYSIS _______________________ _______________________________ END OF GRADUALLY VARIED FLOW ANALYSIS Prepared by Pasco Engineering 3/27/98 CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap = 3.0(P)(D ^1.5) / 2. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE & REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR Q100 (CFS) P (FT) D (FT) 2- CAPACITY (CFS) INLET TYPE 0.40 4.00 0.50 3.00 1.41 12" x 12" BROOKS CB CALCULATE DISCHARGE OF 6" PVC OUTLET PIPE. CONSIDERED AS ORIFICE FORMULA: Q = (C)(A)((2)(32)(3)) 10.5. 2 FEET OF AVAIL. HEADWATER DEPTH HW DEPTH LOSS COEF. AREA DISCHARGE 2.00 0.60 0.20 • 1.33 PE 750 TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coefficient, C Soil Group (1) Land Use A B C D Residential: — — — — Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55 Multi -Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 / 40) .45 Commercial(2) .70 .75 .80 .85 8011 Impervious Industrial(2) .80 .85 .90 .95 90`/, Impervious NOTES: (I)Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. (2)Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious- ness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil.- group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 8011. Revised C = 50 x 0.85 = 0.53 80 IV -A-9 APPENDIX IX -B Rev. 5/81 s. L x x 3 h L L � r9 a b x x M 10 Sl 15 20 Minutes INTENSITY=DUMTIONfDESIGN CHART dymr, ntrmmnmmn =. . . .. -. Equation: I'•�= 7.44 P6 D 64S I a Intensity (In. /Hr.) p 6 Hr. Precipitation (In.) 6 i�III; ' ' D Duration (Min.) 30 40 50 1 2 Hours n f: 3 4 5 6 March 1902 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, So and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (tiot rptpplicable to Desert) C 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the ;; plotted lines. 5. 6.0 ° the 5) slocation beingnanalyzedduration curve for S . s �. G A � 4.5 .� 4.0 5 Application Form: 3,5 n 0) Selected Frequency (_-rr. 3.0 y d.4 *P = �i3.7 %* 2 I P24 2.0 —in. 2) Adjusted 1.5 3) tc ° L° min. 4) 1 = 4.5 in /hr. 1.0 *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI IV -A -14 y �a a i SECTION 6 LUX CANYON DRAINAGE CHANNEL CAPACITY CALCULATIONS & X- SECTIONS 5 t tE L.. 4 Y ( PC 5CI -► F) tiLuK CANYotJ OAAIAA�E CHft� -, CgAc,TY „ scc_-rCCD N J 4,92.• 44- Cis ('ULTIMATE CANQ(Tiutj PER E.F. Cda1C rffP1Z.,A47*�J.' h = D . 030 (;At-0 lBa-rTa M PATuAA� %jjY+IQI�,H l ¢c4W-Ae s£--- rfj,..) Qlcu= /1. ASS u A-45' 41w = . a p - G-7. 04 23ua9 _ 009 >11- 25 r� 2.3 664 Qlw z yJ (S4- Lc. >�2•�iLG4)��3 .009) 72- 3.-7 c.FS 0 P(l osr+ —o TTw �:L Gv e° SEGTGC)N I = IOS. (v Cbi•EUc VELoc.i'Tta5 v�W �•���� C►2i�� CS�`1L VI l l 3 1 \ Z 34x-,4 JLf3 ( dog) �/L J N N z 1, 0 _ Y J m A' 102.70 14.00' �cTotJ I �rrr =Y (PE 55`7 F) rr (.UX CANYIJN &FTro>v 2 CNAx-O-EL CA,4o r y 1, ( lw= 4$2. 4A- Gfz5 (ULTrMAiL� a"ITIu✓ &-P- IF. CojK H7olwi 1%ATt~l: (0- ;i -74) 5= O.o`t% n' Q .O-iO (4.A* -g P.�D7T,*, NA.1L 4� 8rpei�4m r r �wc a✓t sccmot') Io,B ) �54.Q9)�2.3�72 �4 (. ooY ' /Z= °3•5 �s 03 S 57.92 23345 . x•81 o.03 xS7.92)(1.3345) Ll3 .cog) ` /z= 4-7j.0 CG'S ?4St-V #W EbGV e 2-=z 05.5 n - 48 6-)(2331-5 }y13 C.ovg� 7� = 8.3 FPs o �s J P v 2s.i3 ^ Z•3��Z Io,B ) �54.Q9)�2.3�72 �4 (. ooY ' /Z= °3•5 �s 03 S 57.92 23345 . x•81 o.03 xS7.92)(1.3345) Ll3 .cog) ` /z= 4-7j.0 CG'S ?4St-V #W EbGV e 2-=z 05.5 n - 48 6-)(2331-5 }y13 C.ovg� 7� = 8.3 FPs o �s J N -r /. N hl mi N' 2. •/ n M b M I�, ID2 -Ib f�. 1 PAD 12ci0 rrLv?c CANYoN kc.TIQ f . 3 Qlw = .4s3 2.. +4 cps (uuremA?� CuxorT /o„, A,:m 2 -F. CooK WlroAor 04TIOD (o -3r -Z Y) S= O. o90 /- h - D. 03 0 ( 5A,,4 %77om 1-OTL •A•c. qT-M -G -M 112t'4cx A2 C-la,-r(oA.) n) A R ,A$5 0 Ao = j o5 4 A '� _ S�•e9 � 2.3132 P p 2-4-C. "f(tA (I — �57•t79� <2.'�13L)'�3 (.Wi> /�4. Z GFS .3Gro�- r ¢b L � XSq• ►c,)(z.3(&c4)Zl; �.00g)l�, �43. s 3 (w l 0 o x pmo-�ev .� tE �"V @ C H-eUj� vt� Q-T L 5 S4-Z-rc0 � 3 = t 5. 5 V foo � - CL (. nod) `I� F3. 3 F PS V o�0 J Iz N 0 m +W .r- loy.9 141.00 0 r 102.10 f� �cC7�c�IJ ( ?G 59 -7 f) u Lvx Cap roN Ana," e C HA-; -* t Ct,,4 G/ T Y %, QIOD = 4nl2 -4 CF5 (VLT(M.4TE Cv,-D(TroN PEA £•F• COLIC h"rD�� 01rCof S- o. 09,3/. h = 0. 030 ( SA" AoTToM NATcmac. STAQA , (L66UL21W S£c7ro. -) Q�w = � ►• ��c. 1 L� R 2l3 n 1 SSuM£ Aw ; i�5 35 P - R P - 2d SS - 2,Z921 Qiw = CO.3� )��.2 ?) %L.252!)Z�3(.ov9���t= ��59.•7 cFS - ArSSuM.t Oj = /v5. 45 -4 =R 4 _ se.3d P P 2,4.4 S = 2.33 5 (� r=Clv - 1. 4b(. 0.�13��lS8 �'�l��l•3��IS��/3 .Oo4) /�L- 4L 4 Cots 9/110SE9 Pw EL-& U, @ gf�-"T/o 4 = )os• 45 V- U --La LI-T ras VIVO )(2, l 3345)L13( c�9�` /z_ {�'.�, fps I 0 I 14 .oa, si-Dc�f 10 S +P L,t- t2,t ( PE S9-1 P) `tLUK CaNro,� I)AA - ,,A.45t Cb*a &-n' 5 x{82.4¢ c*5 (t7/MA -16 eOW174w pmt £•F. c H-rMa, avro! (o -7,1 10 S= ©.oq% n = 0.030 &r]-JV M NA-zVtA, s,,� , �WL'ILAZ CZt-TtON) YO j�SS�x,C f = JU3 9 P 1.6444- �_ �I•�lE'•l� cw ' `��� 4�)(1•����)�s (.o��� YL- �Sd. � Cis 0.03 ) SS�r c Fiw = �o . a A A- 4 �1lco — C 186 1(i)•5i;)(�.�7�q) t4 (.00G) `h, 4ch.i OF � PPg0s-f-=D 4 1= L cv 5 Ct -t V- VE- w ct -r tG7S v I-*fo 1(2)L /� (S) YL 03 f'° (-j eaL—t ,ilvII- T o) (Y', scr-7 F) IlLuK N`tuw f7n � tr CAL (_.�/f}UT r k-T rory 60 4Y2. 4<d- cFs (UL7(MATE CONnrTivu %s— �6.F Cork HYAIZO, h = 0.030 C 5A" OoMM Nark Sil ) / 6 ✓� SazTrv..� 48 G ) & F n Assc/rLv yw = l03 •"7 F = Q c{3.5 0 Q (1.4P,e iw = 0.030 )CZ° 31�(�.�!(03�2�3 (.Doi ` /z= ASS. o cF5 �Ss� � �+w = ►03.8 P _ = -74-55 = I. 4clb .6 CC'S O•U3� 4u t7�1I (2p SEL Ttopr co [03.s Cf-�cc� UEI.o ci Tt� S C ) 4-VG a r(o 1 LIR ,rjt-5� 001 Oil 010 S�1'v, ( Pc 54"7 F) c Lux CXwyuN lu) CUA41NAj pctE•F ca,r i1y0��0/+7�n:l0 31-74 n = . o.3 o ( sAA-0 (k-rrOm tigTWLA r nt?h-, / re 4uL,,�e scz.- r1QA -) qcw = ( " n J ' ) A R 'A (s ' /r,) _ R _ 7Z.99 _ 1 o f4SSuptE AA= l03 � A� � o0 "frw = C'•,p3 %2.i9�(I. &tw) /5 (.UUS� rIL= �7. L G1-5 ��. Qtw ' - —�b1 �77•4 `' �i J•C�9 Ld� oc��i � YL = 515 • I cam, s Ctr CV-,- u C,-rctS: loo ,1481L �J (lz o• lCf.1o9%d)Ll; C. co9)YL - -C° FPS r( O) 17 J V OLU V 7 � /� Iw = ( !� l- 4ro1�)Z�s- 9)= �1 FPS• D .pi o (�x CANr�� C,1,4C /r5- f'rw 4:62. 44 Cur NYD,2aORrt -V: J S= o.os/ ( S/4 •9 Tu A-1 NQTL A,4� 9)M=-47", f23Tj "tA/L. SEZTe.1r+) u h �• 4i 'C jug w5 = �lz = I. B7c.Z 9"y t ov l ,p.o3o )) V 7 � /� Iw = ( !� l- 4ro1�)Z�s- 9)= �1 FPS• D .pi o I i SECTION 7 36" STORM DRAIN EXTENSION CALCULATIONS @ EL CAMINO REAL STA. 209 +71 & REFERENCE MATERIALS AREA 13 INITIAL DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING B -1 INLET @ 219 +80.92 EL CAMINO REAL ar: rr++ rr++ arra* r+++ aa+*+ rr* r* www» wx» axx+* rxarrarx +ar ++» +xt # +at : + + + *w *wwxx »» RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 Norht Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. (619) 259 -8212 Fax (619) 259 -4812 + + + + + + + + + + + +r *rrxxxxxxr »xx DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * *rr + + + +r * + + * »r * +xx » + * + + ** * SHELLEY SUBDIVISION * AREA 13 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS * 08/03/98 ** x * *x »wxx * * * * * *+ *tra +r+ *aaaraaa+ aaa + # * #arr +aaa #t # + + *r+ +aaa *xx + *xrxxxx +xrr FILE NAME: 0597- 13.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:51 8/ 3/1998 ----- ---- ------------- — ------- — ---- — - — ---------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED r+ xxw» x**** t++ r****++#* r*++ rra+ rrrr++ rarrarxaxr +x *w »xxx +xxr *arxrraar # +rr +r +# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 13.20 IS CODE = 21 -------- -- ---------------------- — — --------------------------------------- >>>>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 390.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 242.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 136.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 106.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 8.277 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.139 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .91 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 13.20 IS CODE = 1 --- --- - >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« <<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.28 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.14 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .91 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.87 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ------------------------- >>>>> COMPUTE STREETFLOW ------------------------- ------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION = STREET LENGTH(FEET) _ STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) !****+**+**********+ * * +*x ****x * **** * * * ** * ** * * *** +** 13.10 TO NODE 13.20 IS CODE = 6 --------------------------------------------------- TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- 144.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 135.50 200.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. = 41.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK - 39.50 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 * *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.25 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .26 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.75 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.93 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.03 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) _ .85 TC(MIN) = 9.12 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.826 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .77 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.64 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .27 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.36 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.00 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.09 +** xxxrtrt* rt** x+** xx* xww+ wtrxtt+ wx++* + + + + + + +xxx +rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrt +wrtrtrtrt rtrtrtx*rtx*rtx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.10 TO NODE 13.20 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES <<<<< ----- -------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.12 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.83 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.64 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.87 8.28 5.139 .91 2 2.64 9.12 4.826 1.11 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 4.35 8.28 5.139 2 4.40 9.12 4.826 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.40 TC(MIN.) = 9.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.02 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.40 Tc(MIN.) = 9.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.02 -------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS EXISTING B -1 INLET @ 219 +80.92 EL CAMINO REAL FLOWBY CALCULATIONS +a++x +rtr +tt + + +rtr +rfrr + +rrtrr #+ Prat+ rtr+ a++++ a+ as + + +r +aa +aa +axxx #xffffxrtrtxxxxf HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 PH. (619) 259 -8212 FAX. (619) 259 -4812 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:39 8/ 3/1998 xxrr * +x * *x * *R * *xf rffx #x +xx DESCRIPTION OF STUDY # # * + * #!f # * *r *rf *xxxxf * *xxx * SHELLEY SUBDIVISION * CAPACITY OF EXIST B -1 INLET 0219 +80.92 EL CAMINO REAL * 08/03/98 xfxxx* rx** RRffff# xffafarxxa ++a + + +ta + + # * +R * ++rrrf *f rf rrrrr!lrtf #rr#ffi # # +rs ## ff### x#*** 4frrfi* x#!* xRixxx *xxxxxxxxxRRxxxx *k * *RxRxf Rf RfkxR * *xRr *x!!!fx!!! >>>>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) = 4.40 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .26 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) _ .30 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 11.00 >>>>CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 18.9 >>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 3.1 36 CMPI HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS FOR EL CAMINO REAL STA 209+74.49 ++ t+ r+ rrrra+ rrrr+ r+ rrrrrwrx+ rrtxt+ aataattattaaaraataarrrrrrwxxxxwxxxxrr +r +rx RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 Norht Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. (619) 259 -8212 Fax (619) 259 -4812 xxxxrrr+rrrraaawwrx +xwr +aa DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * *t + + +a +artrxrrrrrrrrrxxx * SHELLEY SUBDIVISION * 36" CMPI HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS * 08/03/98 r rr rrr :xr + + + + +r+t +rrrrrrrrrrrxrrrrrrr rxaxwxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxaarrrrrrrwr FILE NAME: 0597ECR.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:56 B/ 3/1998 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED rr rr+ r+ r+ rrrrrrrrxrxxxxrwrrrrrrrrrrrrrr+ r++ x+ + +xx +rxrxrrrrrrrrrrrrr +rr + + + +t+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.20 TO NODE 13.40 IS CODE = 7 >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE <<<<< USER- SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: TC(MIN) = 9.30 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.30 r+++ r+ xrrrrr+ xxxrxrrxrrraawaawrwrrwrarxaxxxxxxxxxxxxrxrxrwrrrrrrwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.20 TO NODE 13.40 IS CODE = 1 ------------- -- ---------------------- --- --------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.30 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.77 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 1.30 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.30 TO NODE 13.40 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<< --------------- ----- - - -- -- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 275.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 222.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 133.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 89.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.557 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.972 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .81 *+ Rrwrrr!# w!!* Rww## wwwk* w#*#* w#* w# k* wk *wsi +wi4 +t + #i + + + *t + #if +r +i +rk w * #ww # *wf FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.30 TO NODE 13.40 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ------ ------ -- -- --- ------------------ - - - -- - -------- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 6.56 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.97 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .34 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .81 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CPS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.30 9.30 4.767 .06 2 .81 6.56 5.972 .34 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 1.85 6.56 5.972 2 1.95 9.30 4.767 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.95 Tc(MIN.) = 9.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .40 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.40 TO NODE 13.50 IS CODE = 6 >>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION 133.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION 104.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 827.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. _ STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 41.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 39.50 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 * *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 3.46 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .30 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 8.60 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.03 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.20 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 3.42 TC(MIN) = 12.72 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.895 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .97 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.02 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.37 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.97 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .34 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.45 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.11 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.38 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.40 TO NODE 13.50 IS CODE = 10 --------- --------- - --- - ------------------ - >>>>>MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.70 TO NODE 13.80 IS CODE = 21 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 360.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 230.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 120.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 110.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.648 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.408 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.30 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .60 TOTAL P.7NOFF(CFS) = 1.30 atl t#** ffR** iri4RrRRrtixxiriiiixrtrtrtirrrrrrR #4R!!!•!!!aa!!ak#a ##• ##!la #oaf #• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.80 TO NODE 13.90 I; CODE 52 ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW« «< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 120.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 117.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 15.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .1867 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.30 NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) - 4.99 (PER PLATE D -C.1) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .05 TC(MIN.) - 7.70 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.C- ? NODE 13.90 _S CODE 1 --------------------- --------- ---- -- ---------- ---- -- - ---------------------- » >>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE <<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.70 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.39 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .60 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.30 ++++• rttx* xxxxiri+ riaat+ iiiiirixifirtiirtxrtrtl xii +iir ++ + + + +++ + + + + + ++ + + + + + + ++ + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.60 TO NODE 13.90 IS CODE = 21 >>r»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< --------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 60.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 118.60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 117.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.40 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) 3.154 TIME OF CONCT3NTRATION ASSUMED AS 5- MINUTES 100 YEAR - -NFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 7.114 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .34 rr 4trratrawww!** iriii+ t!* RRRirrrtrrrtl r!!l wwRx* RRlrRiriiwaaaaaaaraalsaRlrtalir FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.60 TO NODE 13.90 IS CODE 1 --------------------------=--------------- ------------------------------- -- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< --------------- ------ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 5.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 7.11 - TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .06 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ .34 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CPS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.30 7.70 5.385 .60 2 .34 5.00 7.114 .06 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 1.32 5.00 7.114 2 1.56 7.70 5.385 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.56 Tc(MIN.) = 7.70 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .66 + + + + + +f +ff xwxx# ww***** wx* xx* xxx** xx* xxxwxxxxx * * # * * * #f # #fffx * *xx * * *xx *xwxx *xx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.90 TO NODE 13.50 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 170.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 117.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 104.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 12.70 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.602 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 7.114 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.59 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .28 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.59 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.90 TO NODE 13.50 IS CODE = 11 >>>>> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.59 5.00 7.114 .28 ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.97 12.75 3.889 1.37 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 4.31 5.00 7.114 2 5.84 12.75 3.889 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 5.84 Tc(MIN.) = 12.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 x+ xxxxxx +wwwx + + + +tt +twrrwrtwrrwarwrr srw:+ rr+ x + +xxx +xxxxxxwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwww FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.50 TO NODE 13.11 IS CODE = 6 ------------------------------ >>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION 104.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION 103.30 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 130.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 41.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 39.50 INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 * *TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 6.39 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS: STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .42 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 14.77 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.78 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 1.17 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = .78 TC(MIN) = 13.53 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.743 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 2.02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.94 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - .43 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 15.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.79 DEPTH *VELOCITY = 1.21 ------------------- - -- - -- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.94 Tc(MIN.) = 13.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.02 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS PROPOSED 36" CMPI @ STA 209+74.49 EL CAMINO REAL FLOWBY CALCULATIONS Prepared by Pasco Engineering 814/98 CALCULATE CAPACITY OF PROPOSED 36" CMPI @ 209 +74.49 FORMULA: Qcap = 3.0(P)(DA1.5)12. DIVISION BY 2 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE. PERIMETER AVAIL NW GRATE FACTOR Q100 (CFS) P (FT) D (FT) 2.00 CAPACITY (CFS) INLET TYPE PE 242M 6.94 9.43 0.42 2.00 3.85 36" CMPI, TYPE A, D -16 AREA 14 INITIAL DRAINAGE AREA CALCULATIONS FOR EXISTING 36" RCP STORM DRAIN @ STA 209 +75 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 Norht Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph. (619) 259 -8212 Fax (619) 259 -4812 + + + + + + » + + » » » + + + * » » + * » + + »x» DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + ++ + + ++ • EXIST OFF -SITE 36" RCP ® STA 209 +75 EL CAMINO REAL • SHELLEY SUBDIVISION • 0597 -OS + +f + * » + + + + + + + +! * * *kf kk** ii* ii* r***• rir* xirr ►rrrrrrrrirl +rrrrrrrrrrrr►rerrr FILE NAME: 0597- OS.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 13:33 8/ 4/1998 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.700 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED NOTE: CONSIDER ALL CONFLUENCE STREAM COMBINATIONS FOR ALL DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES !*** ix* ifit#+l iil i+ fl S* fSk +i *RxxixRx *xxxxxxxxi!!!!!!!!f ilf *!! *xRkxxxxxx * * *!* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED = 17.92(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 2650.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 391.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 102.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 289.30 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.122 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 48.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 48.46 ixxxxx# if** fil il++*»» x*x xxxxil xf+* i+ tiiiti+ t+ lxk * *x +xxxxxxxxxRYxx +xxxxxxx *xx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 21 - -_ >>>>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< _________________________________ _______________________________ SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" MULTI -UNITS DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 560.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 220.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 107.80 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 112.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 10.195 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. *CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.493 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.03 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 3 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER - ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON - PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ---------------------------------'------------------------------------ ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.5 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.3 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 100.30 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 98.68 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 108.28 MANNING'S N = .015 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .34 TC(MIN.) = 10.54 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.03 Tc(MIN.) = 10.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.50 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 PH. (619) 259 -8212 FAX. (619) 259 -4812 TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 5 5/13/1998 *rrrtrrrrx # ## # # # # # #x * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY x #rrrx +rx + + +xx #r + + +aaax * *rt * OFF -SITE 36" RCP 0 EL CAMINO REAL STA 209 +71 * SHELLEY SUBDIVISION * 0597 -36 :## rrwwww##*** a** raaaw+ aa# wwa# x+ a+#x#: r: w+ xrr : *rrrreaxx * * * *rrrr : # + :xwa +r #a arxrrtrr*** r* ar► rrwRwr#+ Rw# r#a wrRwwxwRw#*+ w** wx #Rx #xx *xx # * * * # # #ww # #x #Rwww #rw# >>>>STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION «« ----- ------------ ------ ----- - - - - -- - - - - --- --------------- - CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET /FEET) 010000 CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 48.46 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) = .78 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 32.48 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.54 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY = 3.52 ,� _ , �-, ass -„ �-- Nc CbE' CbC cer. CsD k 1%9 L F3 UF3 46 Cfs V - 1,34e I 3r; t Cwµqj. v (Joins sheet 43, Del Mar quadrangle) mu 77;; � I . Um d33000' 117-15- C*C ".99C �pb v (Joins sheet 43, Del Mar quadrangle) mu 77;; � I . Um d33000' 117-15- TABLE 11.-- INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT -- Continued e :ootnotes at end of table 33 Limitations for Soil hlydro- Erodibility conversion symbol logic from brush to group grass C Calpine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, B Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 4/ eroded. — CbB Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes - - - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. C Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes P .G Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. C arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes - - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. C..- rlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. CcC rlsbad -Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes- - - - - -- D C rlsbad -Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes - - - - -- D C rrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes-- - - - - -- [esterton A Severe 2 C_ esterton fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes-- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. CfC esterton fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes-- - - - - -- 11- Severe 9 - - - -- Slight. C � fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate. eroded. C Chesterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Chesterton------------ ------------------------------- D Urban l and ------------------------------------------- ❑ Chino fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. ❑ Chino fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. CkA Chino silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----- - - - - -- C. Moderate 2 - -- Moderate. C­ ieneba coarse sandy loam, S to 15 percent slopes, B Severe 16 - - -- Severe. eroded. C Aeneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16 - - -- Severe. eroded. C!r.1 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. eroded. C) ieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16 - - -- Severe. slopes, eroded. Cmrr ieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. slopes. Cr ieneba - Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 9 to 30 percent slopes, eroded: Cieneba------------------------------- --------------- B Severe 16 - - -- Severe. Fallbrook_____________________ ________ _______________ C Severe 16 - - -- Severe. :n ieneba - Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65 percent ..... ._ slopes, eroded: Cieneba--------------- -- ------ -- --- -- ---- ------ -- ---- B Severe 1- -- -- Severe. Fallbrobk------------------------------------ -------- C Severe 1 - - - -- Severe. :o layey alluvial land------------------------------ ------- D Moderate 2 - -- Slight. :r oastal beaches------------------------- ----------------- A Severe 2 '" orralitos ---- ------ --- A qPvArP 2- - --- a os loam sand 5 to 9 erce s ______ _______ 4. Lt. _____ - -'- orra oamy an o percent s opes------ - - - - -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight. :tE rouch coarse sandy loam, S to 30 percent slopes--- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight. :tr rouch coarse sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-- - - - - -- B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. :u rouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent B Severe 16 - - -- Moderate. slopes. :uG rouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 percent B Severe I - - - -- Moderate. slopes. :v rouch stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate. slopes. )aC Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------------- - - - - -- D Slight-- - - - - -- Slight. 1/ )an Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes---------------- ------ D Slight-- - - - - -- Slight. 1/ 1a Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------- - - - - -- D Moderate - - - - -- Slight. l/ is Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded------- - - - - -- D Moderate 1 - -- Slight. 1/ )aF Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes--------------- - - - - -- D Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate 1/ e :ootnotes at end of table 33 EXISTING B -2 INLET @ STA 209 +75 EL CAMINO REAL FLOWBY CALCULATIONS * t11******** WWkWfiWRRWWRiR *WkWWWRRR * *4RWRRR *RW *R4fi 144 *R1 * *i11411tt4kfi4t4WRRWR HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 PH. (619) 259 -8212 FAX. (619) 259 -4812 ----- --- --------------- ---------------- - ------ TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11: 9 5/13/1998 xx*4* +Rx + + + + + + + +rt + + + + + + ++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY •RWxR +xr + *+ +RRR4444 + + + + *rx • OFF -SITE 36" RCP 0 EL CAMINO REAL STA 209 +71 • SHELLEY SUBDIVISION • 0597 -36A >>>>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) = 48.46 GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .78 BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) = .25 FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 27.00 >>>>CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION = 68.5 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION(CFS) = 29.5 EXISTING 36" RCP STORM DRAIN HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS, INCLUDING PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PIPE. ++ f+++ ttwxwwwwxtwtwxxttwx +t +f + + + + + +x + + : +xwww +ww +wwf wffwttffffffffxfxxtfxwxff 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 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 Ph: xxxxxf+f +f xfftf tff +ffwtf tf DESCRIPTION OF STUDY wxtttrxttttrt�t�x x +t *�trrx • OFF -SITE 36" RCP ® STA 209 +75 EL CAMINO REAL • SHELLEY SUBDIVISION + • 0597 -OS ++ f++++++++ xxx+++ wxxwwxwwwwwxwwxfxwxtwxxxwwx + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +xx +wx FILE NAME: 0597- OS.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 14:50 8/ 4/1998 -----------------------------=-----------------------------------_----- NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 4.40 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 94.77 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 36.38 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 97.770 NODE 4.40 : HGL= < 97.770>;EGL= < 98.181>;FLOWLINE= < 94.770> ------------------- --------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.40 TO NODE 4.50 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 4.50 ELEVATION = 95.08 ----- - -- ------ - -- ----- --------------- - -- --- --- - - ------ -- - --- --- -- ------ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 36.38 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 36.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 17.55 FEET MANNINGS N = .01500 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 36.38)/( 578.052)) * *2 = .0039609 HF =L *SF = ( 17.55) *( .0039609) _ .070 NODE 4.50 : HGL= < 97.840>;EGL= < 98.251>;FLOWLINE= < 95.080> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .24 NODE 4.50 : HGL= < 98.080>;EGL= < 98.491>;FLOWLINE= < 95.080> ----------- -------- ----- ------------ -- - - -- -- -- - - - - ------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.50 TO NODE 4.60 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 4.60 ELEVATION = 95.15 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 32.5 36.00 7.069 4.602 .000 .329 2 36.4 36.00 7.069 5.147 -- .411 3 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 - 4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 - 5 3.9 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01500 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01500 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00317 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00396 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00356 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .014 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .082 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = .165+ .329- .411 +( .014) +( .082) _ .179 NODE 4.60 : HGL= < 98.341>;EGL= < 98.670>;FLOWLINE= < 95.150> -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.60 TO NODE 4.30 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 4.30 ELEVATION = 96.86 - ----- ----- -------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): - ------ PIPE FLOW = 32.53 CPS PIPE DIAMETER = 36.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 98.70 FEET MANNINGS N = .01500 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 32.53)/( 578.052)) * *2 = .0031669 HF =L *SF = ( 98.70) *( .0031669) _ .313 NODE 4.30 HGL= < 98.654>;EGL= < 98.983>;FLOWLINE= < 96.860> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 1.21 NODE 4.30 : HGL= < 99.860>;EGL= < 100.189>;FLOWLINE= < 96.860> _°°_ ------ -= ---- ------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.30 TO NODE 4.20 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 4.20 ELEVATION = 98.68 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 3.0 18.00 1.767 1.715 65.000 .046 2 32.5 36.00 7.069 4.602 -- .329 3 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 - 4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 - 5 29.5 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01800 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N . .01500 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00160 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE _ .00317 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00238 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .010 ENTRANCE LOSSES = .066 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 1.037+ .046- .329 +( .010) +( .066) _ .829 NODE 4.20 : HGL= < 100.972>:EGL= < 101.018> :FLOWLINE= < 98.680> ====---------------- -------------------------------------------- = ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.20 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 4.10 ELEVATION = 100.30 ------------- ------ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 3.03 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 108.28 FEET MANNINGS N = .01800 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 3.03)/( 75.865)) * *2 = .0015952 HF =L *SF = ( 108.28) *( .0015952) _ .173 NODE 4.10 : HGL= < 101.145>;EGL= < 101.191 >;FLOWLINE = < 100.300> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .66 NODE 4.10 : HGL= < 101.800>;EGL= < 101.846>;FLOWLINE= < 100.300> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM ZZ KIN SECTION 8 REFERENCE MATERIALS E.F. COOK & ASSOCIATES, AREA MAP & RUNOFF COEFFICENT GRAPH [MCDIrJs ca o •TE+ • a�x�uirl+s I,. UN 1.1, MA 0 nn N`t • vl. MN (IMJKD Cu44 D, a p1101+1A0. HEIGHTS pCM OTAM! — UIT _ N wrr z i� ..... :y Ti MAP 6 MAP Ii1 •'3xx M+ LCSZZ S, MIT Sw PALOMAR :;EIGHTS NIA► 1• 2114 \ J -� 1 I r ! 'tea I / /�• � � _ { lij- Q �� •V 1 . ! t LL uuw Ip ,... W o - - -- Yt 4'•�Y�I'I'm MY J w 4•nef.r+J r+r SKIT 5•� pct —c." • _ fu �,JG77 I \•F7'�'M'.� EXI` -�1 r;' C:r.l , j i � :�.'K�.S"(� 5G�15�I � � I l.4(rX) .S::tS) .ioi•ti~� � �(�. -�• :) j f 14 .70 '`; 0- 5(•5 ,scsoi .5(•5) ; 3(•5o)i � .55 •5S � T� 48 .48 1.48 1.70 55 1 .30 .42 1.4 2 _ S�ELQ( z-1 i 33 3n' 4 V "' :; � I i I 4/5 ?NpmTY - - t--1 I i i I I � 1 0 . .4s I;,.2z i E.F. COOK L ASSOC., LTD. Lux Canyon Hydrology Study S8 35.03 -85.79 Sheet 13 of 50 . SECTION 9 D -75 BROW DITCH CAPACITY CALCULATIONS DeTERMIN e CA- ?Ac.17Y OF D- '15 BP)W �'t ( ruu M Fww : 5 .0 4 cf=s d= 3.0 T= n = o.o i5 (C%VlrJ lT6 DITC4) n K (T)'/3 k _ (S.eq)(o.vis) (3.0)83 (. o)o)l _ D. 010)71- niTcN (T4'Pe D) (" ktNc's TMc,E 7- [4tp,45E 7 -(,a) p /dam a2i �qT4 vF FLOW = Q. 21 X 3D = D. &, 3 ' C 1. o �Ff4 is �—)c p �.c PEE LS A Wt S'T CASE Sc. p,2 w . Try FUXU a14S C9- c.cvc.A7-6-9 il. 144c-4 4, Lo) ?op UF- S W p E B E 4 r N D Lo -r 3c.. c g 0/1AlA,;;,9, E To /1141 s po /.L/ T 1 s 3 _ q AG/E �'F. 84 cF s) . � N ,t-1 Av1t, — I G r7 f trJtt/ Al (�. c7 D�o) ` IS Tft 647i 1- Z/4 0 N -T.�L A-�ic�+e^ CRS- Cli(�Trv.vS f A L`- Iji %l ?C� C,4 -Ppr C4 -TrG7s Crf}UTY 67F D(Tc41 6E /N4 /Ub /)E -"pt12 �f�9ti/ �•Co3 I j j;{III I 1; EM 7 -64 HANDDOOK OF HYDRAULICS Table 7 -13. Values of K for Circular Channels in the Formula Q - K D45sy,, IL D - depth of water d e diameter of channel D d .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .0 15.02 10.56 8.57 7.38 6.55 55.95 5.47 5.08 4.76 .1 4.49 4.25 4.04 3.86 3.69 3.54 3.41 3.28 3.17 3.06 .2 2.96 2.87 2.79 2.71 2.63 2.56 2.49 2.42 2.36 2.30 .3 2.25 2.20 2.14 2.09 2.05 2.00 1.90 1.92 1.87 1.84 .4 1.80 1.76 1.72 1.69 1.66 1.62 1.59 1.56 1.53 1.50 .5 1.470 1.442 1.415 1.388 1.362 1.336 1.311 1.286 1.262 1.23 .6 1.215 1.192 1.170 1.148 1.126 1.105 1.084 1.064 1.043 1.023 .7 1.004 .984 .965 .947 .928 .910 .891 .874 .856 .83 .8 '.821 .804 .787 .770 .753 .736 .720 .703 .687 .G7 .9 .654 .637 .621 .604 .588 .571 .553 .535 .516 .40 1.0 .463 Table 7 -14. Values of K' f r Channels in the Formula Q = - d95sli n D - depth of we r e iameter of channel D d .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .0 .00007 .00031 .0 .00138 .00222 .00328 .00455 .00604 .00775 .1 .00967 .0118 .014 .0167 .0195 .0225 .0257 .0291 .0327 .0366 .2 .0406 .0448 .0402 . .0585 .0634 .0686 .0738 .0703 .0849 .3 .0907 .0966 .1027 .1089 .1153 .1218 .1284 .1352 .1420 .1490 .4 .1561 .1633 .1705 .1779 .1854 .1929 .2005 .2082 .2160 .2238 .5 .232 .239 .247 .255 .2G3 .271 .279 .287 .295 .303 .G .311 .319 .327 .335 .343 .350 .358 .360 .373 .380 .7 .388 .305 .402 .409 .416 .422 .429 .435 .441 .447 .8 .453 .458 .463 .468 .473 .477 .481 .485 .488 .491 .9 .494 .490 .497 .408 .498 .498 .496 .404 .489 .483 1.0 .463 STEADS Table 7 -15 D I .00 T .0 .1 7.43 .2 3.55 .3 2.22- .4 1.56' .5 1.16 .6 .90 .7 ' 73 .8 .60 .9 .50 1.0 1 X4 Table 7 -1 D I .0, T .0 .1 .0' .2 A .3 .0: .4 .1: 8 .2 .7 .2 .8 .3 .9 .3 1.0 .4 � L)"hRAINAGE AREA PLAN I awry J I o Ni�'I� 10 AREA 13" j VYIST j x J s I PaDYED DATE aE ES I DATE BFdICFIMARK SCALS. CQkiM[1:�1TiCDSVBI,4PAffiNd' ' �'" 0. °�fl4At. MAkLNESTER pqi APPRfpYAi.S A£GQMHENpEQ ARPR VED ca � n�s r 0 f00 200 300 j x J s I PaDYED DATE aE ES I DATE BFdICFIMARK SCALS. CQkiM[1:�1TiCDSVBI,4PAffiNd' ' �'" 0. MAkLNESTER pqi APPRfpYAi.S A£GQMHENpEQ ARPR VED i}i}:.. �yb.jo {il Wtn wiz'[' 5 t.. xa oNA ve iIGE DRAINAGE kFYA PLAN F0q @ M —_..�— � � _ -•—,F_ I ! E: ilt AB WRx' Ya'!'6G5 NAY PASLD E%P, �`":2, t, u VICINrrY MAP � n�s r 0 f00 200 300 j x s I PaDYED DATE aE ES I DATE BFdICFIMARK SCALS. CQkiM[1:�1TiCDSVBI,4PAffiNd' ' �'" 0. -' FRER EQ GNCER'fgE 6lfPER135ipN OF APPRfpYAi.S A£GQMHENpEQ ARPR VED i}i}:.. pqm� xa oNA ve iIGE DRAINAGE kFYA PLAN F0q @ M —_..�— � � _ -•—,F_ I ! E: ilt AB WRx' Ya'!'6G5 NAY PASLD E%P, �`":2, r irCgK PROJECT N0, cuccr . .�. SCREENCHECK DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHELLEY PROPERTY TENTATIVE MAP /MUP LOT AVERAGE SUBDIVISION SCH /i 96111024 Prepared for: City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Prepared by: Brian F. Mooney Associates 9903 -B Businesspark Avenue San Diego, California 92131 -1120 December 9, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page SUMMARY.............. ............................... S -1 A. Introduction ..................................... S -1 B. Project Synopsis ... ............................... S -1 C. Summary of Significant Effects with Mitigation Measures and Alternatives that Reduce the Significant Effects ............. S -3 D. Issues of Public Controversy ........................... S -3 E. Issues to be Resolved by the Decision - Making Body ............ S -3 F. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant ..................... S -3 G. Growth Inducement . ............................... S -3 CHAPTER — INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 -1 A. Regulatory Documents .............................. 1 -1 B. Requested Actions .. ............................... 1 -1 C. Project Background . ............................... 1 -2 D. Environmental Impact Report Organization .................. 1 -3 CHAPTER 2 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................... 2 -1 A. Project Location ... ............................... 2 -1 B. Project Purpose and Objectives ......................... 2 -1 C. Project Description .. ............................... 2 -1 CHAPTER 3 — ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................... 3 -1 CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................... 4-1 A. Biological Resources . ............................... 4-1 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4-1 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4-7 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4 -14 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 4-15 B. Aesthetics /Visual Resources ........................... 4-17 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4-17 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4-44 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4-45 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 446 SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page i Table of Contents Chapter re TABLE OF CONTENTS P Hydrology ........... ............................... 4-47 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4-47 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4-48 3. Mitigation Measures 4-49 D. Land Use ....... ............................... 4 -50 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4 -50 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4 -57 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4 -59 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 4 -59 E. Noise .......... ............................... 4 -61 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4 -61 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4 -62 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4 -63 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 4 -64 F. Traffic ......... ............................... 4 -65 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4 -65 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4 -71 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4 -77 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 4 -78 G. Public Services ......................... .. ........ 4 -81 1. Existing Conditions .................. .......... 4 -81 2. Environmental Impacts ........... I .............. 4 -82 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4 -83 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 4 -84 H. Paleontological Resources ............................ 4 -85 1. Existing Conditions ............................ 4 -85 2. Environmental Impacts .......................... 4 -85 3. Mitigation Measures ........................... 4 -86 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation .......... 4 -87 CHAPTER 5 — GROWTH INDUCEMENT .......................... 5 -1 SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page u Table of Contents CHAPTER 6 — CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................... 6 -1 CHAPTER 7 — ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........... 7 -1 CHAPTER 8 — EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ............. 8 -1 CHAPTER 9 — REFERENCES, PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ..... 9 -1 CHAPTER 10 - CERTIFICATION . ............................... 10 -1 VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL APPENDICES A NOP and Letters of Comment B Willens & Associates Initial Study for Camino Real Homes C Biological Resources Report D Lux Canyon Drainage System E Noise Impact Assessment F Traffic Impact Analysis - Shelley Property G Wildland/Urban Interface Development Standards H Archaeological Technical Studies SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page iii Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Number Title Paae S -1 Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures .................. S-4 4.F -1 City Roadway Capacity Standards for Project Roadways .......... 4-62 4.F -2 Comparison of Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Level of Service . ............................... 4-68 7 -1 Biological Impacts- Reduced Project/Proposed Project Comparison .... 7 -3 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Paee 2 -1 Regional Location Map .............................. 2 -3 2 -2 Vicinity Map ..... ............................... 2 -5 2 -3 Proposed Project ... ............................... 2 -7 4.A -1 Biological Resources Map ............................ 4 -3 4.A -2 Biological Impacts Map (36 -lot Subdivision) ................ 4 -11 4.13-1 Viewshed Map .... ............................... 4 -19 4.13-2 Vantage Point Locations ............................. 4-21 4.13-3 Vantage Point 1 ... ............................... 4 -25 4.134 Vantage Point 2 ... ............................... 4 -27 4.13-5 Vantage Points 3 and 4 .............................. 4 -29 4.13-6 Vantage Points 5 and 6 .............................. 4 -31 4.13-7 Vantage Point 7 ... ............................... 4 -33 4.B -8 Vantage Point 8 ... ............................... 4 -35 4.13-9 Vantage Points 9 and 10 ............................. 4 -37 4.13-10 Vantage Point 11 ... ............................... 4-39 4.13-11 Visual Resource Sensitivity Map ........................ 4-41 4.D-1 Land Use - Project Vicinity ........................... 4-51 4. D -2 Zoning Map ...... ............................... 4-55 4.17-1 Circulation Plan ... ............................... 4 -67 4.F -2 Existing AM /PM Peak Traffic Volumes .................... 4-69 4.F -3 Project Generated Traffic Volumes and AM /PM Peak Hour Distribution ........................ 4 -73 4. F-4 Exiting Plus Residential Subdivision ...................... 4 -75 4.F -5 Project Buildout (with Remainder Parcel Traffic) .............. 4 -79 6 -1 Existing +Project +Cumulative Traffic Volumes ............... 6 -3 7 -1 Reduced Project Alternative ........................... 7 -5 7 -2 Biological Impact Map- Reduced Project Alternative ............. 7 -7 SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP Ent December 1996 Page iv Table of Contents SUMMARY A. Introduction The City of Encinitas is the Lead Agency and has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a 36 -lot residential subdivision and remainder parcel which may be developed at a future date. The project will utilize lot area averaging and therefore requires discretionary approval of a Major Use Permit (MUP). Approvals will also be required from the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to improvements to the Lux Canyon drainage channel which parallels El Camino Real and adjacent development areas. B. Project Synopsis 1. Project Location The project is located approximately one quarter mile north of Manchester Avenue and one mile north of the San Elijo Lagoon in southern Encinitas. The project site occupies a 27.2 -acre parcel, Assessor's Parcel Number 262- 061 -11, along the east side of El Camino Real, north of the North Coast Presbyterian Church and a single undeveloped parcel that is not a part of the project. Access to the site is by a dirt road and a bridge over the Lux Canyon drainage channel. 2. Project Description The project proposes the creation of an approximate 22 -acre residential subdivision with 36 single - family residential lots on the northern portion of a 27.2 -acre project site. The project Tentative Map /Major Use Permit utilizes lot area averaging and will develop approximately 9 acres of the northern site with roads and residential uses, while the remaining 13 acres will remain in open space. Open space preserve areas will include sensitive native habitat occupying adjacent steep slopes and revegetation areas, including the Lux Canyon drainage. Lots range in size from 6,236 square feet to 14,220 square feet. Drainage and half -width roadway improvements will be completed along the project frontage on El Camino Real. The southern 5 -acre remainder parcel may be developed at some future date. Specific plans have not been finalized but environmental analysis considers a "worst case" scenario which includes construction of a congregate care facility. 3. Purpose and Objectives The proposed project maximizes the economic potential of the subject property by providing residential uses on the site in a manner which is consistent with the General Plan and applicable SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page S -I Summary zone designation. Development will allow a profitable conversion of existing agricultural operations to a more urban use. While plans for the remainder parcel are not finalized, the applicant is considering development of a congregate care facility to provide services which will meet a portion of the future need for this type of facility in the City of Encinitas. 4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Two alternatives, a no project alternative and a reduced project alternative, have been developed in accordance with CEQA requirements. No Project Alternative. The no project alternative provides a baseline for analysis of the proposed project and the reduced project alternative. This alternative assumes that development as proposed will not occur but does not preclude future actions which are consistent with existing land use designations and zoning. Significant land use impacts will be avoided with the elimination of maximum density development. Significant aesthetic/ visual resource impacts will be avoided because noise attenuation walls will no long be required along the project frontage. However, neither half - width road improvements to El Camino Real nor planned improvements and a revegetation program to improve the degraded Lux Canyon drainage channel along the project frontage will be implemented. Reduced Project /Environmentally Superior Alternative. The reduced project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. This alternative consists of a 33 -lot residential subdivision to be constructed on the northern 22 -acre portion of the project site. Lots range from 5,500 square feet to 24,300 square feet. The project exceeds the City's 2.5 dwelling units per acre (d.u. /ac.) mid -range density objective by three residential lots, but features larger lots than the surrounding residential development to the north and south. Access to the project is the same as for the proposed project but provides a wider initial entry from El Camino Real. Required drainage improvements have been incorporated into the reduced project /environmentally superior alternative design. The reduced project/environmentally preferred alternative preserves 60 percent of the project site as open space. Significant public service impacts to fire services are reduced to a less than significant level through project design which incorporates a fifty foot restricted use area and 25 foot fuel modification zone. This alternative reduces land use impacts resulting from development at a maximum allowed density. However, the 33 -lot proposal exceeds mid -range density by three dwelling units. Impacts remain significant unless the lead agency determines that "the project excels in design excellence and /or provides extraordinary community benefits" prior to approval (Land Use Policy 8.3). All other environmental impacts are the same as those identified for the proposed project and are considered to be less than significant either through project design or required mitigation. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page S -2 Summary C. Summary of Significant Effects with Mitigation Measures and Alternatives that Reduce the Significant Effects Table S -1 presents a summary of significant effects associated with the proposed project and mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce the significant impacts. D. Issues of Public Controversy The following areas of controversy have been identified by the City of Encinitas Community Development Department and through public responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). • Protection of sensitive biological resources; • Protection of the San Elijo Lagoon and watershed; and • Protection of community assets as they relate to the issue of aesthetics /visual resources. E. Issues To Be Resolved By The Decision Making Body Can findings be made that the proposed project excels in design excellence and /or provides extraordinary community benefits through revegetation with native species, preservation of natural habitat areas occupying more than half the project site, and substantial buffering between the project and off -site properties, thus allowing the maximum proposed density of 36 residential lots? Adoption of findings will eliminate the land use mitigation measure requiring the project to reduce the number of residential dwelling units to a mid -range density. F. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant Cultural Resources were found not to be significant; a records search and previous field surveys did not identify any cultural resources on the project site. G. Growth Inducement The 36 -lot subdivision will result in development at the maximum allowed residential density of 3.0 dwelling units /acre. Although public services and utilities are already in place to serve the project, the General Plan (Land Use Policy 8.3) specifically stipulates that "density allowance shall be limited to the mid -point of the land use category range...." Therefore, unless "...findings can be made that the project excels in design excellence ", the project is considered to be growth inducing if it exceeds 2.5 dwelling units /acre. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page S -3 Summary Table S -1. Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Alternatives Which May Reduce Environmental Effect Level of Significance Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Significant Impacts Biological Resources Significant due to impacts to Avoid sage scrub habitat and gnatcatchers. Less than Significant Reduced Project Alternative (Section 4.A) sensitive sage scrub, chaparral. Minimize impacts ut chaparral. Implement No Project Alternative gnatcatchers (Federally Threatened program to revegetate on -site drainage with & State Species of Special native wetland species. Content) and wetland habitat. Aesthetics /Visual Resources Significant but mitigable due to Implement design guidelines for signage, Less than Significant Reduced Project Alternative (Section 4.13) proposed installation of noise walls architecture, etc. Landscape noise walls and No Project Alternative along El Camino Real. Views may provide landscaped buffers along El Camino be affected if not adequately Real. landscaped. Hydrology Less than significant with Improve drainage channel to previously Less than significant Reduced Project Alternative (Section 4.C) implememation of previously identified design specifications (see Lux proposed mitigation measures Canyon Drainage System EAD Log No. 81-7 - identified for the Lux Canyon 48): includes revegetation of channel with Drainage System. native wetland vegetation, annual inspection and clean out of on -site sediment trap, a comprehensive erosion control plan with final building permit and improvement plans, and restrictions on construction during wet season (October I to April IS). Land Use /Community Significant due to development Reduce development density to mid - range. Less than Significant Reduced Project Alternative Character (Section 4.13) exceeding mid -range density No Project Alternative Noise Significant due to noise impacts to A six -fat noise wall will be constructed to Less than Significant No Project Alternative (Section 4.E) future residences within the project reduce noise impacts to below the 60 Db(A) site. standards established by the City. Traffic Less than significant impacts to To reduce friction at the project driveway, a Less than Significant No Project Alternative (Section 4.F) existing roadways and intersection right -turn lane should be constructed to allow operations unless Manchester traffic to slow out of the travel lanes. No Avenue is not widened as planned. short-term turning restrictions are Unsafe ingress /egress without recommended but an overall long -term access roadway improvements to El plan should be developed for El Camino Real Camino Real at project site. between Manchester Avenue and Santa Fe Drive. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR Derember 1996 Page S4 Summary Table S -1. Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Alternatives Which May Reduce Environmental Effect Level of Significance Proposed Mitigation Mitigation Significant Impacts Public Services/Utilities Significant impacts to fire services (Section 4.G) Fuel modification requirements may prohibit construction on some planned lots. Resources (Section 4.H) Provide 50 foot fuel modification zone along Less than Significant northern and southern development areas. Provide additional 25 foot brush thinning zone along southern lot boundaries. Significant due to potential for Retain qualified Paleontologist to oversee Less than disturbance of fossil resources required mitigation and conduct pre- likely to occur in Torrey Sandstone construction meetings. Monitor all cutting of Formation. previously undisturbed deposits. Protect, preserve, and donate all fossil remains and pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, in a scientific institution or other suitable repository. Alternative SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page S -5 Summary H. Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact assessment was conducted which considered the impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with development of a proposed sports complex on Manchester Avenue, a self- storage facility on El Camino Real, and a planned road - widening project on Manchester Avenue. A determination was made that although the project will not result in significant traffic impacts, it will incrementally contribute to an already adverse daily traffic condition on Manchester Avenue. However, implementation of the City of Encinitas plan to widen and restripe Manchester Boulevard to provide two travel lanes in each direction between I -5 and El Camino Real by mid -1997 will improve operations on this segment from LOS F to LOS D. All other roadway and intersection service levels meet or exceed minimum requirements. No additional mitigation would be necessary. Cumulative impacts to biological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level through coordination with agencies responsible for implementing the State NCCP and local MHCP programs. Cumulative impacts to the San Elijo Lagoon and watershed resulting from increased runoff associated with new development will be reduced to less than significant as drainage improvements are completed throughout the Lux Canyon drainage system. Cumulative visual impacts along El Camino Real will be reduced to less than significant level through the imposition of design guidelines established by the City for scenic highways. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP E[R December 1996 Page S-6 Summary CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are informational documents intended to inform decision - makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of the environmental effects of a proposed project. The City of Encinitas Community Development Department is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and is responsible for the preparation and processing of the EIR. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was mailed to all interested agencies, groups, and individuals on November 8. 1996. All comments received during a 30 -day review period were considered during EIR preparation. The NOP and comments are included in Appendix A of the EIR. The Draft EIR is made available for review by individuals and public agencies for 45 days. Submittal of written comments to the City Community Development Department within the 45- day review period is encouraged. Responses to comments will be prepared and included as part of the Final EIR which will be considered by the City Planning Commission prior to approval or denial of the project. Should the project be denied by the Planning Commission, the decision can be appealed to the City Council. The purpose of this EIR is to analyze the potential impacts resulting from approval of a Tentative Map and Major Use Permit allowing development of a residential subdivision on approximately 22 -acres located at 1573 South El Camino Real. Although plans are not finalized, the EIR will also discuss the potential impacts associated with development of a congregate care facility on the 5.2 -acre remainder parcel. A. Regulatory Documents In addition to state guidelines, three regulatory land use plans are referenced in this report and are relevant to the future development of the proposed project. These include: • Encinitas General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1987); • City of Encinitas General Plan (1989); and • City of Encinitas Municipal Code B. Requested Actions The discretionary actions associated with the proposed project include Planning Commission approval of: • This EIR evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the project. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 1-1 Introduction • A Planned Residential Development (PRD) under a Conditional Use Permit (Major); • A Tentative Map allowing development of a 36 -lot subdivision or an Environmentally Superior Reduced Project alternative allowing development of a 33 -lot subdivision; • Habitat Loss Permit: and • Coastal Development Permit (CDP). In addition to an analysis of environmental impacts associated with these actions, the EIR provides a program level analysis of the environmental impacts associated with: • A 5.2 -acre remainder parcel. Specific plans for development of the remainder parcel have not been formulated. However, for planning purposes, impacts associated with construction of a 108 -unit congregate care facility will be addressed. Impacts to the Lux Canyon drainage will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A permit or waiver under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act will also be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Application for these permits is often made upon certification of the Environmental Impact Report and is required prior to project construction. C. Project Background Environmental review of the project site began in 1988 for a proposed 38 -lot residential subdivision (El Camino Homes) of similar scale as is currently proposed (Case No. 88- 203/SCH# 90010908). Numerous studies and reports concerning the project site have been prepared to date, including wetland mapping and impact analysis (PSBS 1990), a biological assessment (PSBS 1989), Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Report (MV Engineering, Inc. 1988), a hydrologic /hydraulic study (E.F. Cook & Associates, LTD 1989), an archaeological survey report (Brian F. Smith and Associates 1989), traffic study (Basmaciyan- Darnell, Inc. 1988), and a noise impact assessment (Hans D. Giroux 1989). Also considered are two reports prepared for the Lux Canyon Drainage System, a portion of which passes over the project site, evaluating the geologic conditions and required drainage improvements necessary to reduce erosion and downstream sedimentation of the San Elijo Lagoon (Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. 1981 and E.F. Cook & Associates 1981). Early environmental review of the development proposal considered impacts associated with a 42 -lot subdivision. Technical studies prepared for the larger project were not revised for the smaller 36 -lot proposal because, although impacts are reduced, report conclusions remain unchanged. The 33 -lot reduced project alternative was developed following subsequent SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 1 -2 Introduction coordination with the City's Fire Administration Department which revealed that requirements for fire safety and brush management would conflict with the need to preserve sensitive native habitat that would otherwise be lost with the 36 -lot project. The project site is currently being leased for agriculture and the operation of a farm stand. In 1990, the City processed an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Perrydise Farms (Case No. 90 -269) operation which subsequently allowed the cultivation of vegetables and /or flowers on approximately 9 acres of the subject property. Current operations include active cultivation areas, an agricultural products sales stand, I I unpaved parking spaces and driveway access. Environmental concerns at the time of approval were focused on potential water quality impacts should the project result in sedimentation reaching the San Elijo Lagoon. On -site sediment traps and their regular maintenance were considered adequate to prevent downstream impacts. D. Environmental Impact Reprt Organization This EIR is focused on environmental issues determined to be potentially significant in the initial study prepared by Willens and Associates for the Community Development Department (Appendix B) and through more recent consultation with Fire and Resource Protection agencies. These issues include potential impacts to biology, aesthetics /visual resources, hydrology, land use, noise, traffic, public services, paleontology and cultural resources. All of these issues are addressed in Section 4 (Environmental Analysis) or Section 8 (Effects Found Not to be Significant) of this EIR. In addition to specifically addressing the project's impacts relative to these issue areas, the EIR addresses potential cumulative impacts such as those that might occur with construction of other projects in the area, and also addresses project alternatives. These discussions are provided in Sections 6 and 7, respectively. Other CEQA - mandated sections such as a description of the environmental setting (Section 2), project description (Section 3), and analysis of growth inducing impacts (Section 5), are also provided within this EIR. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 1 -3 Introduction December 1996 This page intentionally left blank. Page 14 SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR Introduction CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location The project site is located at 1573 South El Camino Real in the southern portion of the City of Encinitas. The site lies within the community of New Encinitas, on the east side of El Camino Real approximately one quarter mile north of Manchester Avenue and one mile north of the San Elijo Lagoon (Figures 2 -1 and 2 -2). The project site is located north of the North Coast Presbyterian Church, with a single undeveloped parcel that is not a part of the project between the two parcels. The project site occupies a 27.2 -acre parcel, Assessor's Parcel Number 262- 061-11. Access to the site is by a dirt road and abridge over the Lux Canyon drainage channel. Figure 2 -3 delineates the proposed 36 -lot subdivision and remainder parcel on a detailed topographic base map. B. Project Purpose and Objectives The proposed project maximizes the economic potential of the subject property by providing a 36-lot residential subdivision on the northern 22 -acre portion of the site and allowing future development of congregate care facilities on the remainder parcel. Development will allow the profitable conversion of existing agricultural operations to more urban uses in a manner which is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zone designation. C. Project Description 36 -lot Subdivision. The proposed project consists of a 36 -lot residential subdivision, which will result in the construction of 36 single - family detached dwelling units and private internal access roads. Development will occur on the northern 22 -acre portion of a 27 -acre parcel. Figure 2 -3 delineates the proposed subdivision and a 5.2 -acre remainder parcel. The project utilizes lot area averaging to develop the planned residential development (PRD) at a maximum allowed density of 3.0 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes range between 6,236 square feet and 14,220 square feet. The average lot size is 9,268 square feet. Buildings will be a maximum of two stories and 26 feet in height. Lot width is reduced from R -3 zone requirements to 55 feet, and interior side yard widths are reduced to a minimum of 5 feet. However, 33 of the 36 lots exceed the minimum 100 foot lot depth. The project meets or exceeds zone requirements for internal circulation roads, front and rear yard setbacks, and off - street parking. The project proposes gated access and will feature private streets. Common areas, including open space preservation areas, will be maintained by a homeowners' association. The project is a solar subdivision, providing a minimum of 100 square feet of unobstructable access to sunlight on each lot. Clustered development is proposed to preserve surrounding sensitive biological and visual resources. A majority of the proposed lots are larger than adjacent developments and new SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP Ent December 1996 Page 2 -1 Project Description development will be buffered from off -site properties by biological open space ranging in width from 80 feet to more than 350 feet and an elevational difference of nearly 100 feet. Sensitive habitat will be preserved or enhanced, as in the case of the Lux Canyon drainage. Site preparation and associated grading activities will be balanced on site; a total of 25,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated and recompacted without requiring soil import. Slopes resulting from cut and fill activities will not exceed a 2:1 ratio. On -site infrastructure improvements include provision of power, water and sewer lines. An approximate 2,000 foot noise attenuation wall will be constructed east of the drainage channel along the western project boundary. The maximum wall height will be six feet from the finished grade. Drainage improvements will implement mitigation measures identified for the Lux Canyon Drainage System (Log No. 81 -07- 48). Plans include realignment and reconfiguration of the existing degraded channel followed by revegetation with native wetland species. A program to provide annual inspection and clean - out of on -site sediment traps will also be implemented. Off -site, the project will provide half -width improvements along the project frontage on El Camino Real, north of the project access road. Project design provides 63 feet of right -of -way from the center line of El Camino Real for construction of the additional northbound travel lane. No other off -site improvements are proposed. The project proposes development of a type, intensity, and location which is sensitive to City environmental regulations and development guidelines as well as those anticipated to be imposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Remainder Parcel. In order to provide a "worst- case" program level analysis, the project discusses impacts which would occur with development of the 5.2 -acre remainder parcel with a 108 unit congregate care facility. Analysis assumes that development will avoid biologically sensitive habitat and steep slope areas, thus impacting only existing disturbed agricultural areas. Access to the remainder parcel from El Camino Real will be shared with the subdivision. Future submittal of a Tentative Map for the remainder parcel must be consistent with program level analysis provided in this document or additional environmental studies will be required. Preliminary plans call for buildings to be constructed only within the estimated 3.5 -acre disturbed portion of the remainder parcel. Streets will occupy an estimated 0.5 acre. The remaining project area will be designated as biological open space. Buildings will be a maximum of two stories or 26 feet in height. Estimated grading requirements call for 30,000- 40,000 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on -site. Cut slope heights will be a maximum of 20 feet and will not exceed a 2:1 ratio. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EtR December 1996 Page 2 -2 Project Description ORANGE COUNTY r RIVERSIDE COUNTY _ SAN DIEGO COUNTY CAMP JOSEPH H. FALLBROOK PENDLETON U.S. M.C.R. • 15J • PALA 79 BONSALL 76 • WARNER SPRINGS 76 • VISTA OCEANSIDE 79 • SAN MARCOS S A N D I E G O CARLSBAD • - - 79 ESCONDIDO "Lli:i> SANTA YSABEL (� 79 • 5 19 i • ENCINITAS RAMONA gER VARDO� �a7 COUNTY 15 DEL MAR • • POWAV O o. it • MIRAMAR y LA JOLLA TEE LAKESIDE • • PINE VALLEY 57 ALPINE 5 o a PACIFIC BEACH • �3 • EL CAJON .-,i; • LA MESA POINT LOW a l•'s1 Q Figure 2 -1 o B 10 miles Regional Location Map N 1 p Shelley Proper[v This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 24 Project Description F- LS a9 Brian E N Figure 2 -2 Associates Mooney 00a 2000' Vicinity Map Source: USGS 7.5' Quad Map (Encinitas & Rancho Santa Fe) This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 2fi Project Description Figure 2.3 1GO' zoo• Proposed Project ^ 1 ]gel Rnpertv December 1996 This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-g SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR Project Description CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site consists of two small canyons surrounded by steeper slopes. The canyons have been farmed for many years while the areas of steeper slopes remain covered with native Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. A leaseholder currently uses the northern field for organic farming and operates a fruit and produce stand, located on the northwestern corner of the property, under the name of Perrydise Farms. On -site elevations range from a high of 260 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) along the ridgeline in the southeastern project area to 90 feet AMSL at the project entry on El Camino Real. A highly modified seasonal stream that now serves as the Lux Canyon drainage channel parallels El Camino Real along the western property boundary. The drainage crosses beneath El Camino Real at Tennis Club Drive and enters the subject property from the north through two large culverts. The volume and velocity of the water that exits these culverts during storm events has caused extensive erosion of the channel on -site. There is a desilting catch basin and a drop structure that was constructed beneath the mid - property access bridge by the County of San Diego in the early 1980s as part of the Lux Canyon drainage improvements. Access to the project site is from El Camino Real via a dirt road over the mid - property access bridge. El Camino Real is planned as a six -lane prime arterial, although it has not yet been improved to that configuration for its entire length; currently there are two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane at the project site. El Camino Real carries a high volume of commuter traffic between the New Encinitas Community and the Interstate 5 /Manchester Avenue interchange. The project site is located in the San Elijo Lagoon's upland /watershed area. As a result, development in this area must control runoff in order to avoid contributions to the siltation of the lagoon. The inland slopes containing important habitat should also be preserved for visual, as well as biological reasons. The Encinitas General Plan includes the project site in a Special Study Overlay Zone because a very small portion of the easternmost part of the site is rated as a High Sensitivity Area due to steep slopes and native habitat. This area will for the most part be left undisturbed by the proposed project and will be placed within open space easements. The site is zoned Residential 3 (R -3), which allows single- family detached dwelling units at a density of 1 to 3 units per acre. This zone is intended to be used as a transition area between rural and suburban areas. The minimum required lot size is 14,500 square feet. Surrounding properties to the west and south along El Camino Real are also zoned R -3. Residential developments immediately notch and southeast of the project site are zoned Residential 8 (R -8) and Residential 2 (R -2), respectively, and are Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) employing lot averaging which preserves substantial open space areas with sensitive biological resources. Lot sizes within the adjacent PRDs are much smaller than would typically be found in the R -2 or R -8 zones. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 3 -1 Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP ER December 1996 Page 3-2 Environmental Setting CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Eight issue areas have been addressed in this report: biological resources; aesthetics /visual resources; hydrology; land use; noise; traffic; public services; and paleontological resources. The report is formatted such that a brief statement of the existing conditions is presented followed by the environmental impacts section. The criteria for determining significance is established prior to providing issue analysis and significance. A. Biological Resources The project site has been addressed in three previous biological studies by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS), including: Report of a Biological Assessment of the Lux Canyon Site (1989); Wetland Delineation Letter Report (1990); and Report of a Biological Assessment of a 28.55 -Acre Proposed El Camino Real Homes Site (1992). Earlier documents evaluate impacts to a 28.55 -acre parcel, believed to include the existing 27.2 acre site and the El Camino Real right -of -way easement. BFMA staff biologists field checked the subject property to validate information included in previous reports and to note any changes that have occurred to both on- site resources and resources immediately adjacent to the project site. BFMA biologists also performed a focused survey for the California gnatcatcher. Biological resource maps were updated on a 1 inch = 50 feet topographical map and included resources 100 feet beyond the boundaries of the property. A RareFind search of the California Native Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG 1996) was conducted to assess the potential for sensitive resources to occur on the subject property. The BFMA report and attachments updating the previous biological resource studies are found in Appendix C. 1. Existing Conditions Level portions of the subject property have been dry- farmed for a number of years and include a small produce stand and an active organic farming operation with some fields currently left fallow. Adjacent slopes are covered with native vegetation, including Diegan coastal sage scrub (sage scrub) and chaparral habitat. The Lux Canyon drainage contains disturbed riparian vegetation. Existing residential development is located at the top of slopes to the north and southeast. A proposed habitat conservation bank occupies 123 acres northeast of the project site. a. Botany Based on the most recent study (BFMA), three native vegetation types are present on the project site: sage scrub, chaparral, and disturbed riparian vegetation (Figure 4.A -1, Biological Resources Map). In addition, a portion of the site is under cultivation for organic crops or has been disced and left fallow. The Lux Canyon drainage along the western project boundary has been invaded by non - native plants. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-1 Environmental Analysis A total of 6.1 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (sage scrub) is found on the steeper slopes surrounding the agricultural area. Coastal sagebrush is the dominant species within this fairly diverse habitat. Other shrubs found within this plant community include flat -top buckwheat, California encelia, white sage, Our Lord's candle and laurel -leaf sumac. The north- facing slopes of the project site are covered with a mature stand of chaparral, encompassing 7.0 acres. Chamise, mountain mahogany, toyon, elderberry, mission manzanita, warty - stemmed lilac, and scrub oak were the dominant shrub species. The understory consists of poison oak, monkeyflower, California bee plant and our Lord's candle. A sparse 0.6 -acre cover of disturbed riparian vegetation was observed in the Lux Canyon drainage channel: observed species include western ragweed, castor bean. African umbrella plant, and curly dock. The slopes of the channel are covered with pampas grass, hottentot fig, and annual grasses and forbs. Two mature arroyo willows and a few desert elderberry, toyon, mulefat, and eucalyptus were also observed on the slopes of the drainage channel. The remaining 13.5 -acre disturbed portion of the site includes the disced areas that are currently fallow, areas under cultivation, the Lux Canyon drainage inhabited by non - native dominated vegetation along the drainage slopes, and a produce stand with an associated parking area. b. Zoology One amphibian and two reptile species were observed on the property. Pacific chorus frog was detected as both tadpoles and as singing adults within the drainage. Western fence lizard and the side - blotch lizard were also observed. Several other species that may be present, but were not detected, include the southern alligator lizard, Coronado skink, coastal whiptail, orange - throated whiptail, and the San Diego horned lizard. Although, not seen during any of the surveys, several species of snakes may also he present. These include California striped racer, coachwhip, common kingsnake, gopher snake, southern Pacific rattlesnake, the San Diego ringneck snake, night snake, long -nosed snake, and the two - striped garter snake. Employees of the Perrydise Farms report that in the past they have had to remove southern Pacific rattlesnakes from the vicinity of the produce stand. Thirty species of birds were observed on the property. The chaparral supports the highest number of species. Seasonal on -site water and connectivity to off -site habitats contributes to the diverse bird populations. Four individuals /pairs of California gnatcatchers, listed by the Federal government as Threatened and by the State as a Species of Special Concern, were observed during the focused surveys of the current study: three in the sage scrub along the northern boundary and a fourth along the northeastern boundary (see Figure 4.A -1). It is likely that the foraging area for all of these gnatcatchers extends into existing sage scrub habitat off -site to the north and northeast into SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 42 Environmental Analysis q I milk ioa' zoo' LEGEND ® Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub v ? Southern Mixed Chaparral Disturbed Riparian Vegetation Disturbed * California Gnatcatcher individuals/ pairs (Number following * denotes location) NOTE: Mapped Biological Resources are based on an update of a previous survey conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services Inc. (1992) Figure 4.A• 1 ;ical Resources Ma s6eu.y Pmpary This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMlMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-4 Environmental Analysis an open space easement for the adjoining residential development, and into the proposed Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank. Four mammal species were detected on the property: desert cottontail, California ground squirrel, coyote, and gray fox. Sensitive Resources Sensitive Species and Habitats. Plant and animal species are considered sensitive if they have been listed as such by federal or state agencies, or one or more special interest groups, such as the California Native Plant Society, the Audubon Society or the San Diego Herpetological Society. Sensitive Plants. No federally or state- listed plant species were observed during any of the studies. However, six sensitive plants were observed, including San Diego barrel cactus along the crest of south - and west- facing slopes in sage scrub; warty- stemmed ceanothus, summer -holly and Nuttall's scrub oak in the chaparral; ashy -spike -moss scattered throughout the chaparral; and California adolphia on the sage scrub covered ridgeline in the southern portion of the site (see Figure 4.A -1). Another sensitive plant species, short-lobed broomrape, was observed by PSBS in 1989 but not in 1992 by PSBS nor during the current study by BFMA in July, 1996. The area where the short-lobed broomrape was first observed has been periodically disced, therefore, it most likely has been eliminated from this location. Sensitive Wildlife Species. One Federally Threatened wildlife species, coastal California gnatcatcher, was observed during each of the biological studies. In 1989 PSBS detected another two sensitive wildlife species (San Diego pocket mouse and Pacific pocket mouse) using the site. Three additional sensitive bird species (northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, and California horned lark) were observed using the site (PSBS 1992). Small mammal trapping by PSBS in 1992 failed to detect the Pacific pocket mouse. The current study detected four individuals /pairs of California gnatcatchers (see Figure 4.A -1). However, other sensitive wildlife species observed by PSBS (1989 and 1992) were not seen. The timing of the current surveys may have precluded detecting the northern harrier, Cooper's hawk and California horned lark. Small mammal trapping would need to be conducted in the spring to confirm the presence or absence of the two pocket mouse species. Sensitive Habitats. Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat because of the high loss of this habitat to agriculture and urban development, and because it supports Federally and State listed Threatened or Endangered species. Chaparral is not usually considered a sensitive habitat type, but because of the presence of several sensitive plant species and the occasional use of the area by the California gnatcatcher it is considered sensitive for the proposed project. Wetland habitats, such as the disturbed riparian vegetation, have been SHELLEY PROPERTY TMJMUP Ent December 1996 Page 4-5 Environmental Analysis disappearing rapidly in southern California due to impacts from development and the construction of flood control measures. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation The value of the on -site wildlife habitat is a function of positive and negative influences. Positive influences include the presence of seasonal water and heterogeneity provided by connection with undeveloped areas off -site. Negative influences include disturbances from the on -going agricultural activities, residential development at the top of the slopes, and proximity to major roads. Surrounding the cultivated areas are native habitats on the northern, southern, and eastern hillsides which are undisturbed and provide the best on -site wildlife habitat. The drainage along the western side of the property provides a limited water source and has been invaded by weedy species. As a result, the native habitat in the drainage is very sparse. C. Environmental Agency Compliance Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). Coastal sage scrub has been reduced by 70 %-80% of its former coverage in southern California and is the primary habitat for numerous rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, including the coastal California gnatcatcher and orange - throated whiptail. Coastal sage scrub is recognized as a sensitive community by local, state, and federal resource agencies. The State has adopted the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Process Guidelines for the preservation of sage scrub in southern California (November 1993). The program was established by State law, Fish and Game Code Section 2800 et. seq. The City of Encinitas, along with other North County cities and the County of San Diego, is participating in the NCCP process through the MHCP. The focus of the MHCP is to plan for the preservation of the most valuable (core) areas of remaining habitat while allowing development in areas containing less valuable habitat. Mitigation for impacts to the less valuable habitat includes contributions to the preservation of the core areas and restoratioNereation of habitat corridors that will connect the core areas. The project site is located in an area that will most likely be designated by the City as a core area for the preservation of sage scrub habitat and is adjacent to a 123 -acre parcel proposed for preservation as a biological mitigation bank. This mitigation bank would connect the native vegetation found on the project site with Escondido Creek and the San Elijo Lagoon Preserve. Habitat Loss Permit (HLP). Any loss of sage scrub will be considered significant and will require consultation with the USFWS and CDFG and a HLP from the City of Encinitas due to the sensitivity of the habitat. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit. The on -site drainage channel contains disturbed riparian habitat. All public and private use development proposals which would intrude into, reduce the area of, or reduce the resource value of wetlands shall be subject to alternatives and mitigation analyses consistent with Federal E.P.A. 404(b)(1) findings and procedures under the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Permit process. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 46 Environmental Analysis d. General Plan Goals and Policies. The following goals and policies contain guidelines and strategies aimed at preserving environmentally significant areas and minimizing potentially adverse impacts from new development. Goal 10: The City will preserve the integrity, function, productivity, and long term viability of environmentally sensitive habitats throughout the City, including ...riparian areas, ...coastal sage scrub and coastal mixed chaparral habitats. Policy 10.1: The City will minimize development impacts on coastal mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub environmentally sensitive habitats by preserving within the inland bluff and hillside systems, all native vegetation on natural slopes of 25% grade and over other than manufactured slopes. A deviation from this policy may be permitted only upon a finding that strict application thereof will preclude an reasonable use of the property (one dwelling unit per lot). ... Encroachments for any purpose, including fire break brush clearance around structures, shall be limited as specified in Public Safety Policy 1.2. Brush clearance, when allowed in an area of sensitive habitat or vegetation, shall be conducted by selective hand clearance. (Coastal Act /30240/ 30250/30251/30253) Policy 10.5: The City will control development design on coastal mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub environmentally sensitive habitats by including all parcels containing concentrations of these habitats within the Special Study Overlay designation. The following guidelines will be used to evaluate projects for approval: • Conservation of as much existing contiguous area of coastal mixed chaparral or coastal sage scrub as feasible while protecting the remaining areas from highly impactive uses; • Minimize fragmentation or separation of existing contiguous natural areas; • Connection of existing natural areas with each other or other open space areas adjacent to maintain local wildlife movement corridors; • Maintenance of the broadest possible configuration of natural habitat within an area to aid dispersal of organisms within the habitat; • Where appropriate, based on community character and design, clustering of residential or other uses near the edges of the natural areas rather than dispersing such uses within the natural areas; • Where significant yet isolated habitat areas exist, development shall be designed to preserve and protect them; SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-7 Environmental Analysis • Conservation of the widest variety of physical and vegetational conditions on site to maintain the highest habitat diversity; • Design of development, with adjacent uses given consideration, to maximize conformance with these guidelines; and • Preservation of rare and endangered species on -site rather than by transplantation off -site. (Coastal Act/30240/30250) In addition, all new development shall be designed to be consistent with multi - species and multi - habitat preservation goals and requirements as established in the statewide Act. Compliance with these goals and requirements shall be implemented in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG. Policy 10.6: To protect sensitive wetlands, the City controls the use and development in surrounding areas of influence. City policies prohibit approval of "subdivisions or boundary line adjustments which would allow increased impacts from development of wetlands or wetland buffers" (Coastal Act/30231). Furthermore, the City has a policy to provide a no net loss of wetland acreage or resource value as a result of land use or development. The City's goal is to realize a net gain in acreage and value whenever possible. 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination Significance determination criteria are based on City General Plan goals and policies, CEQA guidelines, and federal, state and local guidelines used to determine sensitivity of on -site resources and the extent of impact. Significant impacts include the following: • Impacts that substantially affect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or habitat supporting such species. Rare or endangered species include federal- or state- listed species or sensitive species recognized as threatened, rare or endangered by private conservation groups (e.g., CNPS) or other scientific sources (e.g., Tate 1986, "Blue List" of sensitive bird species). • Impacts that substantially affect sensitive habitats, including (a) habitats that are restricted on a regional basis. (b) habitats that serve as concentrated breeding, feeding, nesting, or migrating grounds and are limited in availability, and (c) habitats that support a high concentration of one or more sensitive species. • Impacts to regional or important local wildlife movement corridors. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-8 Environmental Anahsis • Impacts to an ecosystem that serves as core habitat to regional plant and wildlife populations even if these habitats are not biologically significant on a regional basis (e.g., a functioning ecosystem that is isolated and the surrounding area is depleted of biological value; these impacts will be locally but not regionally significant). • Impacts to biological resources that are of scientific interest because they are at an extreme in physical or geographic limits or represent an unusual variation in a population or con m miry. • Impacts that are inconsistent with the goals and policies included in the General Plan. b. Issue Analysis and Significance A significant impact to a sensitive resource may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. An impact is regarded as direct when the primary effects of the project result in loss of habitat that would cause a reduction in the density or diversity of biological resources within the region. The magnitude of an indirect impact is the same as a direct impact, however, the impact occurs from a secondary effect of the project. An impact is regarded as cumulative when the project impact is not significant for the project by itself, but the combined incremental impact of it and other projects in the region are significant. The extent of the impact to the sensitive resource must also be considered in determining the significance of an impact. For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g. an endangered species) any impact would be perceived as significant. Conversely, other resources which have a low sensitivity (e.g. species with a large, locally stable population but may be declining elsewhere) may sustain a relatively large area of impact or population loss and not result in a significant impact. Biological impacts are not considered to be significant if the resource in question does not meet the above criteria for sensitivity or the extent of impact is not considered significant. Project Impacts (36 -lot Subdivision) The project will impact approximately 12 acres of the 27 -acre site including 9.5 acres of disturbed agricultural land, 0.4 acre of sage scrub, 0.04 acre of chaparral, and 0.3 acre of disturbed riparian habitat. An additional 1.70 acres of chaparral will be thinned to meet fuel modification requirements as determined by the Fire Marshall of the Encinitas Fire District. Figure 4.A -2 delineates existing biological resources and areas which will be impacted by project development. Sage Scrub. The on -site sage scrub continues to provide habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and several sensitive plant species. The loss of any sage scrub will be considered significant and will require consultation with the USFWS and CDFG and a Habitat Loss Permit from the City of Encinitas due to the sensitivity of the habitat. Construction of lots 21 to 24 as well as the cul -de -sac will impact 0.30 acre of sage scrub. An additional 0.10 acre will be impacted due to fuel modification near lot 1 for a total of 0.4 acre of sage scrub impacted. The SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-9 Environmental Analysis impact analysis assumes no additional fuel modification zones will be required beyond the northern development boundaries as shown on Figure 4.A -2. Chaparral. Chaparral within the site supports a minimum of one individual /pair of California gnatcatchers and several sensitive plant species. It is also contiguous with sage scrub, providing a continued expanse of native habitat that extends off -site. Therefore, any impact to chaparral is considered significant. Impacts to chaparral include 0.04 acre for development, and 1.70 acre for fuel modification requirements for a total of 1.74 acres impacted. Disturbed Riparian Vegetation. Riparian vegetation is a habitat that is considered sensitive not only for its high wildlife value but also because its distribution is very limited. The impacts to wetland habitat on the study site were previously determined by PSBS (1990). Since that time considerable encroachment from weedy species has occurred within the drainage. While the quality of the riparian habitat has been diminished due to its location adjacent to a major road, development and agricultural areas, as well as the continued intrusion of weedy species, the loss of riparian habitat is considered significant. Realignment of the Lux Canyon Drainage will impact 0.3 acre of disturbed riparian vegetation. Sensitive Plants. Impacts to the San Diego barrel cactus and California adolphia are not anticipated since they were observed outside of the impact area. Impacts to Del Mar sand aster (if present) and ashy spike -moss will be avoided with preservation of on -site sage scrub. Impacts to warty- stemmed ceanothus, summer holly, and Nuttall's scrub oak observed within the chaparral will he avoided through project design and through biological monitoring during selective hand clearing for fire fuel modification. Sensitive Wildlife. The loss of any individual /pair of coastal California gnatcatcher is considered significant and requires consultation with the USFWS. The proposed elimination of 0.4 acre sage scrub due to development and fuel modification requirements reduces habitat for the gnatcatcher. The impact is still considered significant although relatively small in size. Indirect impacts to the gnatcatcher may occur due to noise impacts during construction. This type of indirect impact is considered significant. It is likely that the Pacific pocket mouse has been extirpated from the site, although the San Diego pocket mouse may still reside within the sage scrub. Potential impacts to the San Diego pocket mouse are not considered significant because of its low sensitivity status and the small area of sage scrub impacted. Preservation of the majority of on -site sage scrub and chaparral will preserve habitat for the San Diego horned lizard and orange - throated whiptail (if present). Impacts to these two species, therefore, are not anticipated. Horned larks, Cooper's hawk and northern harrier, which were all observed historically on -site, maintain relatively stable populations within the County. Therefore, potential impacts to these species are not considered significant. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 410 Enviranmenral Analysis REVEG. Figure 4•A•2 N Proposed Project with o 1 oa zoo• Biological Resources December 1996 This page intentionally left blank. Page 412 Environmental Analysis Habitat Loss Permit Findings. A Habitat Loss Permit (Permit) is required for the loss of 0.4 acre of sage scrub as a result of implementation of this project. The Permit is a component of an interim strategy to allow impacts to sage scrub prior to the finalization of the NCCP program. For this project, issuance of the Permit requires a finding that the habitat loss of 0.4 acre of sage scrub will not preclude the realization of the goals of the NCCP, particularly the preservation and linkage of areas containing high quality sage scrub habitat. Sage scrub that intergrades with other habitat types may provide habitat for a wide variety of species of special concern. Information used to prepare this habitat evaluation include the previously conducted general biological surveys as well as focused surveys for the gnatcatcher conducted by BFMA staff. Additional supplementary information used for the evaluation include maps for the area and adjoining lands. Discussion of the NCCP program and significance criteria for determining impacts is included in Appendix C. The following summarizes the draft Findings as required by the NCCP program: 1. The proposed habitat loss is consistent with the interim loss criteria in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines and with any subregional process established by the subregion. a. The habitat loss for the project is estimated at 0.4 acre and does not cumulatively exceed the 5 % guideline. b. The habitat loss does not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values. Connectivity between on -site sage scrub and similar off -site habitat will be maintained. C. The habitat loss will not preclude or prevent preparation of the subregional NCCP. The project will preserve on -site habitat and revegetate disturbed areas to comply with the subregional conservation program. d. The habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. On -site sage scrub was determined to be of intermediate potential value for long -term conservation and is in the vicinity of a Higher Value District (the proposed Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank). Impacts to 0.4 acre of sage scrub will be mitigated through preservation of 4.9 acres on the project site and additional revegetation of previously disturbed areas with sage scrub. 2. The habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild because, other than the California gnatcatcher, no Federal or State listed plants or wildlife will be impacted by project development. The loss of habitat for California gnatcatchers will be fully mitigated by preservation of California gnatcatcher- occupied sage scrub on -site and revegetation of on -site disturbed areas with sage scrub. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 413 Environmenml Analysis 3. The habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities because an EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA requirements. Wildlife Corridor. Approval of the Tentative Map will allow development to impact 2.4 of a total 12.1 acres of native habitat. This is roughly equivalent to 19 percent of the available on- site wildlife habitat. Project development avoids impacts to a majority of native habitat areas. Although wildlife movement is most likely restrained through or along the existing agricultural areas, future development will preclude even this level of activity between preserved habitat areas to the north and south. The enhancement of the Lux Canyon drainage and the revegetation of several currently disturbed areas will preclude impacts to wildlife corridors from being significant. Consistency with General Plan Goals and Policies. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and policies. Project design clusters development, thereby minimizing fragmentation of coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat through sensitive design. In addition, revegetation programs will enhance wetlands within the existing degraded drainage channel and augment existing coastal sage scrub habitat areas which are currently disturbed. Project design preserves existing connectivity with natural areas to the east and protects hillside systems which contain native vegetation on natural slopes of 25% grade or more. Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) Impacts resulting from future development of the 5.17 -acre remainder parcel can not be fully identified until development plans are finalized. As with the proposed project, any impacts, including fuel modification to sage scrub and chaparral, would be considered significant. Impacts to these resources could be avoided if all future construction is within the 3.6 acres of existing disturbed agricultural area. Required improvements to El Camino Real and the Lux Canyon drainage along the remainder parcel frontage could result in the loss of 0.3 acre of disturbed riparian habitat which is considered significant but mitigable. Summary. Although impacts are relatively small in size, impacts to sage scrub, chaparral and riparian habitat are considered to be significant. The project requires a Habitat Loss Permit because development and fuel modification requirements will eliminate 0.4 -acre of sage scrub, thereby reducing habitat for the gnatcatcher. The loss will not preclude the realization of the goals of the NCCP if mitigation measures are implemented. Except for the gnatcatcher, the project avoids impacts to rare or endangered species of plant, animals, or habitat through design, is consistent with the regional habitat preservation program, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the City General Plan. 3. Mitigation Measures Impacts to biological resources will be mitigated with implementation of the following measures. 36 -lot Subdivision SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-14 Environmental Anahsis A -1. A total of 10.1 acres will be preserved in biological open space within the Tentative Map boundaries subsequent to completion of the proposed project. This will include 4.9 acres of sage scrub, 4.8 acres of chaparral and 0.4 acre of disturbed area. The inclusion of sage scrub and chaparral in open space as well as revegetation of disturbed areas will mitigate for impacts to 0.4 acre coastal sage scrub and 1.74 acre chaparral. Prior to approval of final grading plans, a detailed restoration program for the revegetation of sage scrub habitat shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City of Encinitas, CDFG, and ACOE. The mitigation plan shall include a full description of the irrigation requirements, plant palette, planting densities and maintenance to be performed. A biological open -space easement shall be placed over the mitigation area which precludes removal of target vegetation. Monitoring for the purpose of establishment and success assessment shall be conducted at set intervals for a total period of 3 years. The program shall be bonded for a sufficient amount to ensure successful implementation of the revegetation plan. A -2. An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the City of Encinitas shall be placed on the entire open space easement to expedite the future transfer of the easements to the MHCP when it becomes established. Grading, placement of structures, removal or addition of vegetation shall be prohibited within the open space easement except for the selective removal of vegetation within the sage scrub and chaparral as discussed above. A -3. Grading activities adjacent to areas identified as occupied by the gnatcatcher shall not be conducted during the breeding season (February 1 to July 31). This measure reduces the likelihood of adverse indirect impacts (i.e., construction noise) occurring to the gnatcatcher, as well as all other breeding birds, during the breeding season. A-4. Mitigation for impacts to the disturbed riparian vegetation within the Lux Canyon drainage will consist of the reconfiguration of the low -flow channel and revegetation of the slopes. Approximately 0.8 acre shall be revegetated to mitigate 0.3 acre of impacts, allowing for well above a 1:1 mitigation ratio. Revegetation will consist of a combination of species typically found close to a water source as well as upland and ecotonal plantings. The revegetation design shall be included as part of the landscape plans. In order to utilize the sloped areas of the channel for wetlands mitigation, a temporary irrigation system will be required for plant establishment. Possible species to be planted include willows, coast live oak, mulefat, and cottonwood. A variety of dry riparian understory species shall also be included in the revegetation plans. Prior to approval of final grading plans, a detailed restoration program for the revegetation of riparian habitat shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City of Encinitas, CDFG, and ACOE. The mitigation plan shall include a full description of the irrigation requirements, plant palette, planting densities and maintenance to be performed. A biological open -space easement shall be placed over the mitigation area which precludes removal of target vegetation. Impacts to the Lux Canyon drainage will require a 1603 Streamcourse Agreement with CDFG, a 404 Permit from the ACOE, and SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 415 Environmental Analysis a 401 Permit or a waiver from the RWQCB. The revegetation plan will be submitted with the applications for the permits. Monitoring for the purpose of establishment and success assessment shall be conducted at set intervals for a total period of 3 years. The program shall be bonded for a sufficient amount to ensure successful implementation of the revegetation plan. A -5. Fuel modification efforts within the sage scrub and chaparral shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to avoid impacts to sensitive plant species. Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) A -6. Future design shall avoid impacts to sage scrub and chaparral habitat. If this condition cannot be met, the project is required to minimize impacts to these sensitive resources. If impacts occur, coordination with resource agencies would be required to implement appropriate mitigation measures as described above. A -7. Any impacts to disturbed riparian vegetation within the Lux Canyon drainage adjacent to the remainder parcel shall be mitigated as outlined in mitigation measure A-4 above. 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the MHCP and detailed restoration program for the revegetation of riparian habitat, bonding, construction monitoring, and placement of a biological open space easement over mitigation areas reduces biological resource impacts to a less than significant level. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMlMUP EIR December 1996 Page 416 Environmental Analysis B. Aesthetics /Visual Resources Visual resources have been analyzed and documented by Brian F. Mooney Associates through site visits, aerial photographs, and the use of color photographs of the project site. 1. Existing Conditions a. Methods of Visual Analysis To assess the quality of existing views of the site, an analysis of the surrounding area was conducted to locate significant view locations. Surrounding areas from which views may be affected by the proposed development have been defined as viewsheds. It should be noted that visibility of the site varies within each viewshed and may be partially or fully blocked by intervening dwellings, vegetation or topographic features. Representative vantage points were selected within each viewshed to depict views of the project site. Each vantage point is described according to view range and viewframe. The view range criteria are categorized as short, medium, or long to denote the project site's visual distance from the viewer. These visual limits can change as the size of an object being viewed changes. Generally, an object whose major dimension equals its distance from the eye is difficult to see as a whole, but the details of the object are clear. An object that is twice as far away is more apt to be viewed as a whole; when it is three times as far, it still dominates the view but tends to be seen in relation to other objects. As the distance becomes greater than four times the major dimension, the object simply becomes one part of the overall viewframe unless it has other qualities which focus our attention. Viewframe describes the visibility of a site from a vantage point. The viewframe criteria are categorized as: 1. narrow - a view that is focused by foreground features such as canyon walls or vegetation; 2. limited - the background is visible but the foreground predominates due to visual obstructions within the foreground and middle - ground; and 3. wide - the background dominates the view frame. The selected vantage points are intended to illustrate the most significant views from each viewshed; not all possible views are shown. Vantage points were chosen based on the presence of existing development and prominence of view. Visual impacts of the project are evaluated from each vantage point in terms of the distance of the project site from the viewer, the significance of the visual change to the existing viewframe, and the degree of degradation of visual quality. This study also assesses the impacts of the project on designated scenic highways as discussed in the City's General Plan. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 5-17 Environmental Analysis b. Visual Character Views of the project site from surrounding developed areas and El Camino Real consist of a small produce stand adjacent to both cultivated and fallow fields. These uses provide a rural agricultural appearance in a transitional area between the more urban/commercial development to the north and the agricultural, semi -rural and open space preserve areas to the south. The site is located within an east -west trending offshoot of Lux Canyon. Adjacent slopes retain native vegetation while residential development occupies adjacent ridgelines. Elevations range from approximately 90 feet AMSL near El Camino Real to approximately 260 feet AMSL at the southeastern project boundary. A drainage channel parallels El Camino Real along the western boundary of the property and contains a few elements of wetland habitat. A wide dirt area with an unimproved walking trail forms the shoulder of El Camino Real between the drainage and the paved roadway. Concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, features more typical of an urban or suburban setting, are found immediately north of the site. The project site is visible from an estimated 60 surrounding residential properties to the west and along ridgelines to the north (Spyglass), east and south (Pacific Ranch and Tennis Club). The site is also visible to passing motorists travelling north and south along El Camino Real. Visual characteristics of the area as viewed from El Camino Real include areas of open, undeveloped land, and a variety of more intensive uses such as a church, child care center, nursery operation, and multi - family residential units. Scenic amenities along this stretch include undisturbed hillsides covered with native vegetation and landscaping associated with existing development. The architecture of newer subdivisions overlooking the project area is typical, consisting of large contemporary or modern homes on smaller lots. C. Visibility Three viewsheds have been identified for the project site. From the north (Northern Viewshed) residents of the Spyglass residential subdivision and southbound travellers along El Camino Real experience views of the project site. From the west (Western Viewshed) views are experienced by residents and employees residing and working across from the project site and from the development on the slopes, including residential areas accessed from Crest Drive. The Southern Viewshed consists of views experienced by passing northbound motorists travelling El Camino Real and by residents of the Pacific Ranch and Tennis Club who occupy homes along the southern and southeastern ridgeline overlooking the project site. Figure 4.13 -1 illustrates the three viewsheds. Vantage Points 1 -3 are located within the Northern Viewshed (Figure 4.13 -2, Vantage Point Locations), Vantage Points 4 -6 are located within the Western Viewshed and Vantage Points 7- 11 depict locations within the Southern Viewshed. Photos taken of existing conditions from each of the Vantage Points were used to analyze the visual character and visibility of the project site from nearby affected areas. Each viewshed is described below. Northern Viewshed. This viewshed consists of the area north of the project site and includes El Camino Real and ridgeline development within the Spyglass subdivision to the north. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4 -18 Environmental Analysis T yeT VI AGE PA �.Jy UNI' w a MAN i F 1 I + I l l : [UNIT NIT _ •�.�° r`�F1+ _! -LL 1_ MAP 7Bi1 -` �— •� r F I I P � raa t.,N r -- -- - - -- ' \\ R I � � y �-- -- —_ — J I \LAS M, PA DMARES--- _ —7 � UGH- .T , -- `( �_liu�are l L eslern Viewshed 7. e w : IN r - -- - --1 r• rr: fi T7 Pi � pe`:`, .ce. . Y. r r 1 V.�'`'� —� ak i�'•tib. � i. Uw 10918 34i5•' —1 r i":i.fi Ul Iara F —� I 1`rl MAF rMe 11 - - -1: rl ' e.ra w TAT ~ I \ TR r -- / I I Figure 4-B -1 B 11 N Associates o 400 800, Viewshed Map Source: City of Encinitas '.U.,P P°"` This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-20 Environmental Analysis Figure 43"2 Mooney Brian F. N Associates ° 40�� Vantage Points Location Map Source: City of Encinitas Ehikrpr VI AGE PA . i, I: r - j, -�- 1' - •• •,T \ ~I I UNI IF MAI MA I -r-I -- jr '� I I 1 'I N iUNIT Nr? F -�- 1 f i 1 M v; MAP n I � r I } ell -- - - - - -- — I \\ R ` w . r. T—"-- LAS YAris \ QAL13"KS__ a i... t , ... —24-- 10 `r[¢"•' ..�[$': Y� ,. : 3.'n: 39�'Vii i' iGr!..i: ... /: a�Y:a ?5 '!` i .[.;::r. 3 ,. '• na .v %frylt w COTR 43M IMP lode \ 1 � r \ r J CO. ji ^;';,'E� - -_ r i`i: < •rr r. F —� 1 i�rl -I MA rJ r: , I I rl a j 1 �I . � ..a w r (o� Tr1 IlIr ,1((� ►> Tli. 1040! J_ - -___ Figure 43"2 Mooney Brian F. N Associates ° 40�� Vantage Points Location Map Source: City of Encinitas Ehikrpr This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 422 Enviranmemal Analysis Vantage Point 1 (Figure 4.B -3): This vantage point is located near 1609 Calle Ryan in the Spyglass subdivision. Views overlooking the project site and more distant western bluffs from the northeast are long range within a limited viewframe. Views of the existing agricultural /development area are restricted by intervening topography. Vantage Point 2 (Figure 4.B -4): This vantage point is located at the south facing rear yards of cul -de -sac homes near 1434 Calle Christopher. Views are short range within a wide viewframe and include virtually all of the area proposed for development. Vantage Point 3 (Figure 4.13-5): This vantage point is representative of views experienced by southbound travellers along E1 Camino Real near the intersection of Tennis Club Drive looking southeast at the project site. Views experienced by southbound travellers are restricted. Views are short to medium range from this location and viewframe is limited due to the location of the Perrydise Farms fruit and produce stand in the northern portion of the property and a hill in the foreground which obscures most of the project site. Western Viewshed. This viewshed consists of the area west of the project site and includes more distant views from crestline residential development along the western ridgeline and from development along the portion of El Camino Real directly across from the project site. Development along El Camino Real in the project vicinity includes a residential apartment complex and commercial/ recreational uses. Vantage Point 4 (Figure 4.13-5): This vantage point consists of the area viewed from above the tennis courts located on the western slopes across El Camino Real from the project site. Views of the site are mid -range and within a wide viewframe. Vantage Point 5 (Figure 4.13-6): This vantage point is located along a perimeter road north and adjacent to Children's World Child Care. Views of the site are mid -range and provide a wide viewframe. Vantage Point 6 (Figure 4.B -6): This vantage point is located on the ridgeline approximately 0.4 miles west of the project site in the vicinity of 1823 - 1849 Crest Drive. Views of the site are long -range within a wide viewframe. Vantage Point 7 (Figure 4.B -7): This vantage point is located at 1959 Crest Drive, southwest of the project site. Views are long range within a wide viewframe. Southern Viewshed. This viewshed consists of the area south and southeast of the project site. The viewshed includes a portion of El Camino Real as experienced by northbound motorists passing the project site and selected views from ridgeline locations within the Pacific Ranch and Tennis Club development (see Figure 4.B -2). SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-23 Environmental Anatvsis This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-24 Environmental Analysis yV y ' Brian F- Mooney Associates a o, o� L a y w Z J S U Q Remainder Parcel 3 0 5 i I Figure 4.B -4 Vantage Point 2 (Looking South from Residences near 1434 Calle Christopher) %h Ik, N,ry ... Vantage Point 3 - (Looking South and Southeast from El Camino Real at Tennis Club Dr.) Vantage Point 4 (Looking East from Tennis Club Dr. - West of Courrs) Figure 4.M Vantage Points 3 & 4 Sh, Ii,, ProHrry Brian E Moone- Associates Figure 4.M Vantage Points 3 & 4 Sh, Ii,, ProHrry Vantage Point 5 • (Looking East from Children's World) %'antage Point 6 - (Lookurg La.t tram Near 1823 -49 Ctcst Dn%e) Figure 4.13-6 Vantage Points 5 & 6 sh.11, , P ... .... Moe . y Brian E Mooney Associates ��` .. •. WL I _ T , .4 Vantage Point 8 (Figure 4.13-8): This vantage point represents the southern ridgeline view from a deck located approximately 300 feet south of the southern development boundary and approximately 100 feet above. Views of the proposed development site are mid -range and have a limited view frame due to the foreground hillside. Short-range views of the remainder parcel, however, are not obstructed. The existing landscape consists of views of El Camino Real as it passes through Lux Canyon and adjacent development. More distant ridgeline development can be viewed to the north and west. Vantage Point 9 (Figure 4.B -9): This vantage point is a second southern ridgeline location near Pacific Ranch Drive north of its intersection with Lorimer Lane within the Pacific Ranch and Tennis Club development. Views are mid -range and have a wide viewframe. Existing landscaping varies depending on location. Ornamental landscaping associated with the development sometimes obscures views of the project site from locations within the subdivision. Existing views include scattered development, El Camino Real, slopes with undisturbed native vegetation, and fallow or agricultural fields in the valley. Vantage Point 10 (Figure 4.B -9): This vantage point is the area east of the project site and represents views from the northern termination of Pacific Ranch Drive. Views are mid- to long range within a limited viewframe. The project site can be seen in the valley between adjacent north and south facing slopes. El Camino Real and surrounding ridgeline development to the north, west and south can be viewed in the distance. Vantage Point 11 (Figure 4.B -10): This vantage point is located on El Camino Real near the southwest comer of the project site. Views of the site from here are short to mid -range and have a wide viewframe. d. Visual Quality Visual qualities of the project site must be considered in context with the surrounding Lux Canyon and the El Camino Real transportation corridor which pass through it. The canyon width averages less than a quarter mile from the eastern to western ridgelines in the project area. Native vegetation has been removed from the valley portion of the project site to accommodate agricultural crops. Surrounding hillsides retain their native habitats. Residential or commercial development, interspersed with agricultural- related uses or open space occupy adjacent and nearby properties. Development along El Camino Real is generally more intensive to the north with commercial uses occurring in the project vicinity to the west, northwest and southwest. Residential uses are located across El Camino Real to the west and to the north, south and southeast of the project. The project site represents a small portion of the visual experience of the canyon and highway corridor. e. Scenic Highways El Camino Real has been designated a scenic highway on the Visual Resource Sensitivity Map included in the Resource Management Element of the General Plan (Figure 4.B -11). The SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-34 Environmental Analysis #�, y f� S 4 , Remainder Parcel .t1A h ,. b`.�._� �..:,?�':, t - -_.� rt !f�; '�:'r:;, 'V +} r rT •.�'th `• -,k4j, it Ax a , ij1 us . Development Area Development Area (Flat) (Open Space on Hill) o 0 r CL �W W y w w Q Figure 4.8.8 Vantage Point 8 (Looking West & Northwest from Deck Overlooking Remainder Parcel & Westem Project Area) -- shiA,'P,,q. , j '• R )r Irian F. Mooney Associates t x . ,e. _ � s f �r IT. ; %•.� a • t� ..1 Figure 4.6 -10 Vantage Point 11 (Looking North from El Camino Real near the Southwest Comer of the Project Site) Brian E Mooney Associates Figure 4.6 -10 Vantage Point 11 (Looking North from El Camino Real near the Southwest Comer of the Project Site) SOURCE: City of Encinitas OR u 2000' 4000' ® Scenic View Corridor © Significant Vlewshed F m Scenic Highway Vista Point Figure 4.B -11 Visual Resource Brian Associates F. Mooney SOURCE: City of Encinitas OR u 2000' 4000' ® Scenic View Corridor © Significant Vlewshed F m Scenic Highway Vista Point Figure 4.B -11 Visual Resource western project boundary fronts El Camino Real. Visual impacts of the project on the scenic highway are evaluated in terms of the visibility of the project site from the designated scenic highway and from surrounding properties with views of the site. f. Plans and Policies Visual quality is addressed in many areas of the Encinitas General Plan. The City discusses view preservation in the Land Use, Resource Management, Recreation, and Circulation Elements (last amended May 1995). The elements of the Plan are intended to enhance scenic, historic and recreational resources within both rural and urban areas. Goal 9 of the Land Use Element calls for the preservation of existing natural open spaces, slopes, bluffs, and lagoon areas, and the maintenance of the sense of spaciousness and semirural living within the I -5 View Corridor and within other view corridors, scenic highways and vista /view sheds as identified in the Resource Management Element. The Resource Management Element discusses such varied aesthetic values as the need to preserve trees and habitat and scenic area resources such as community views, vistas and aesthetic qualities. To preserve scenic area resources, the General Plan designates "vista points" to serve the differing needs of automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian users. The Visual Resource Sensitivity Map locates "vista points ", scenic view corridors, significant viewsheds, and scenic highways. Policies 4.6 through 4.10 emphasize the City's commitment to the protection of views in these areas. Since El Camino Real is designated a scenic highway along the portion passing the project area, Policy 4.9 requires development to be "subject to the design review provisions of the Scenic /Visual Corridor Overlay Zone... ... However, Policy 4.7 specifically designates only the segment of the El Camino Real view corridor from Encinitas Boulevard north to La Costa Boulevard as a scenic highway /visual corridor viewshed. Therefore, although the segment of El Camino Real adjacent to the project site is designated a scenic highway, it is not included in the Scenic /Visual Corridor Overlay or scenic highway viewshed area which requires application of additional road, development, setback, and other design criteria. Goal 9 encourages the abundant use of native and drought tolerant landscaping in new developments and preservation of native vegetation as much as possible in undeveloped areas. Policy 9.8 requires city review prior to brush clearing and grading for agriculture, construction and non - construction purposes. Although Goal 14 relates more specifically to the need to control erosion and sedimentation, visual impacts from grading can be reduced through implementation of Policy 14.1 which limits grading and vegetation removal to the minimum necessary (Coastal Act/30240/30250). Policy 14.4 requires revegetation and appropriate landscaping of all areas graded and scraped of vegetative cover (Coastal Act/30251). The Recreation Element encourages the protection of views along public corridors. Specifically, the Scenic Highways discussion in the Circulation Element (Goal 4 and related policies) provides for the undergrounding of utilities within street right -of -ways, promotes roadside and median landscaping, and restricts the placement of billboards and signs. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 443 Environmental Analvsis 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination Appendix G (Significant Effects) and Appendix I (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines, and Section 18 (Aesthetics of the Master Environmental Assessment for the Encinitas General Plan (1987)) provide a basis for determining the significance of a project's visual or aesthetic impact. Appendix G (b) states that "a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. " The Checklist calls for the identification of obstructions of any scenic vista or view open to the public or an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Section 18, Aesthetics, of the City's Master Environmental Assessment relates a project's visual /aesthetic impact to the potential to obstruct views of the ocean, along the I -5 corridor through the City, areas adjacent to San Elijo Lagoon and hillside areas located throughout the City. The section also notes a need for consideration of structural height, bulk, and lot coverage and any relationship these may have for the creation of shadows. Finally, the project should be consistent with any applicable design guidelines or development standards related to urban design. b. Issue Analysis and Significance Visual Quality 36-lot Subdivision Lot area averaging is proposed to minimize impacts to aesthetic views from the scenic highway corridor and preserve sensitive habitat on the surrounding hillsides. Grading requirements will be minimized because development will occur in the flatter disturbed portion of the site currently used for agriculture. The Lux Canyon drainage will be enhanced and landscaping will be consistent with requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Maximum building height and width will be 26 and 45 feet, respectively. The design density is similar to that of surrounding residential areas and no designated critical viewsheds or vista points will be affected by development (Figure 4.13 -11, Visual Resource Sensitivity Map). The most visible public view of the project site is from northbound travel lanes on El Camino Real. Visual impacts may result from construction of a six foot noise attenuation wall along the project frontage. An estimated 60 homes also view the property from surrounding ridgelines. Approximately 60 percent of the project site will be preserved in open space, including visually significant steep slope areas surrounding the development area. The preservation of these areas ensures that impacts to short range views from El Camino Real's northbound travel lanes and from surrounding ridgeline properties into the developed portion of the valley will not be significant. Panoramic views will remain unobstructed from ridgeline residences. Views from southbound El Camino Real travel lanes are obscured by an intervening hillside and impacts are not considered significant. Only a fleeting image of the site can be viewed by southbound travellers when almost perpendicular with the site. SHELLEY PROPERTY T'M/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-14 Environmental Analysis Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) Future impacts to views resulting from development of the more southerly remainder parcel could result in significant impacts to El Camino Real, a designated scenic highway corridor. Visual impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level if project development avoids impacts to vegetated steep slope areas, the noise attenuation wall is landscaped, and the reconfigured Lux Canyon drainage is revegetated. Future plans should include design guidelines and landscape plans to avoid significant impacts along the scenic highway corridor. Summary. Development of the project site will replace existing rural - agricultural uses with residential construction as allowed by existing zoning. Lot area averaging allows the project to maximize the number of lots which can be developed while minimizing impacts to undisturbed hillsides covered with native vegetation. Plans for future development of the remainder parcel are not available. Visual impacts could be significant depending on ultimate design and subsequent review will be required to evaluate potentially significant impacts. 3. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to both the 36 -lot subdivision and future development of the remainder parcel. B -1. As a condition of the Major Use Permit, the project shall implement design guidelines to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Guidelines shall be consistent with those established for new construction along El Camino Real or, at a minimum, include guidelines establishing: • signage standards; • earthtone color pallet; • architectural style; • roofing materials; and • noise and /or retaining wall design. B -2. Noise attenuation walls and landscaped buffers shall be designed to minimize visual impacts from El Camino Real. B -3. Landscaping design plans for the revegetation of the drainage along El Camino Real shall meet resource agency specifications as discussed in Section 4.A, Biological Resources. B4. All areas graded and scraped of vegetative cover shall be revegetated with appropriate landscaping to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Community Development. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 445 Environmental AnaiVSis 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation Visual impacts associated with development of a 36 -lot residential subdivision on the subject property will be reduced to a level below significant. Impacts are reduced by proposed measures requiring architectural design standards, preservation of native vegetation on the steeper slopes, and use of revegetation landscaping to mitigate visual impacts on slope cuts and to screen noise attenuation walls along the El Camino Real corridor and within the reconfigured Lux Canyon drainage. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 446 Environmental AnaNsis C. Hydrolotry The project site drains to the west into the Lux Canyon drainage which continues south into the San Elijo Lagoon, a distance of approximately one mile. The City maintains a flood control easement over the Lux Canyon drainage that will need to be adjusted to coincide with the realignment of the drainage due to improvements required along the El Camino Real frontage. The City of Encinitas has guidelines concerning impacts to streams, drainage channels, and wetlands that are presented in the General Plan. Many of these guidelines have been adopted as part of the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) as required by the California Coastal Commission. 1. Existing Conditions The Lux Canyon Drainage System was evaluated in 1981 by E.F. Cook & Associates prior to implementation of a long term program, beginning that year, to install a series of channel improvements and drop structures (County of San Diego EAD Log No. 81- 7 -48). The improvements were designed to reduce flow velocities and thus eliminate existing erosion of the natural channel and reduce sediment deposits in downstream reaches. Included in the analysis was a HEC -2 analysis of the Lux Canyon Drainage Channel. The channel alignment is intended to be constructed as each underlying property is developed (Appendix D). Analysis was performed for the subject property prior to implementation of the above program which included the plotting of topographic contours in cross section for project site drainage and the mapping of vegetation type and densities. An overlay of the 100 -year storm flow conditions were subsequently developed to determine the extent of on -site flood water inundation that could be expected. a. General Plan Goals and Policies The following policies and goals excerpted from the Resource Management Element of the General Plan may also apply to the proposed project: Policy 9.2: All drainage courses should be maintained in natural or semi - natural vegetation utilizing existing topography as opposed to concrete ditches or pipes. Goal 14: The City shall stringently control erosion and sedimentation from land use and development to avoid environmental degradation of lagoons and other sensitive biological habitat, preserve public resources and avoid the costs of dealing with repair and sedimentation removal. (Coastal Act/ 30231/ 30240/30250/30253) Policy 14.5 To minimize erosion and allow sedimentation control systems to work, no grading or vegetation removal shall be allowed to occur during the wet season, October 1 -April 15, without all systems and devices per an approved erosion control plan SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 447 Environmental Analvsis and program being in place. During other times of the year such systems shall be proved and operative as required by a comprehensive City erosion control ordinance. No grading shall occur during the rainy season within the Special Study Overlay area, or the areas upland of sensitive areas including lagoons, floodplains, riparian or wetland habitat areas, unless by site - specific determination, the grading would not be occurring on sensitive slopes, in floodplain areas or upland of floodplains, where sedimentation might occur in other sensitive habitat areas. Then, if grading is determined to be allowable, all necessary erosion control devices, including sedimentation basins, must be in place, and shall be monitored and maintained throughout the grading period. (Coastal Act/30251) Policy 14.6: To achieve the ends of the erosion control, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be required with final building permit and improvement plans, subject to review and approval prior to commencement of grading and construction. (Coastal Act/30251) 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination The project will result in significant environmental impacts to hydrology if it will: • Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation [CEQA Appendix G(q)]; • Not comply with the General Plan goals and policies listed above. b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36-lot Subdivision and Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) Proposed drainage improvements are part of a long -term program to protect the San Elijo Lagoon and environs by reducing erosion and sedimentation through the Lux Canyon Drainage System. The system was originally designed in 1981 and is progressing in installments as underlying properties are developed. Although the existing Tentative Map does not include specifications for drainage improvements, design specifications are included in the 1981 E.F. Cook & Associates document and will be implemented prior to subdivision approval. It is assumed that biological considerations may require some modification of engineering design requirements to adequately address existing site conditions. Design currently requires: (1) the Lux Canyon drainage channel be constructed with a minimum 14 -foot bottom width and sloped sides at a 2:1 slope gradient; (2) the channel accommodate a minimum water depth of five feet plus two feet of freeboard, have an area of 120 square feet, a flow velocity capacity of 4.94 feet per second, a slope of 0.09 percent, and a Mannings roughness coefficient of n = 0.020; SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-48 Environmental Analvsis (3) the five -foot water depth be maintained for the design flow so that the existing drop structure will perform as designed; (4) the channel be vegetated and irrigated until vegetation is established; (5) the on -site sediment trap be inspected annually and cleaned out as necessary; and (6) routed 'p-rap be installed over a filter cloth system to protect the off -site turbulent area w ere the 54 -inch diameter pipes discharge; Summary. Implementation of previously designed improvements are required by the City. Impacts will be less than significant level. 3. Mitigation Measures No additional mitigation measures are required. Measures to address hydraulic impacts are included in the 1981 Lux Canyon Drainage System hydrology report and subsequent revisions prepared by E.F. Cook and Associates. The plan, summarized below, realigns and reconfigures the Lux Canyon drainage as it crosses the subject property. The impacts to wetlands associated with this work are discussed in the Biological Resources section of this EIR and will be mitigated on -site through the revegetation of the drainage channel with native wetland species. The following provides a summary of previously identified mitigation measures included in the report or as identified for impacts associated with biological resources. 1. The Lux Canyon drainage channel shall be revegetated with native wetland species and maintained as stipulated in Mitigation Measure(s) of the Biological Resources section of this EIR. 2. At a minimum, the Lux Canyon drainage channel must have a 14 -foot bottom width and sloped sides at a 2:1 slope gradient. The channel must accommodate a water depth of five feet plus two feet of freeboard, at a minimum. It must have an area of 120 square feet, a potential for carrying water at a velocity of 4.94 feet per second, a slope of 0.09 percent, and a Mannings roughness coefficient of n = 0.020. The five -foot water depth must be maintained for the design flow so that the existing drop structure will perform as designed. 3. The on -site sediment trap must be inspected annually and cleaned out as necessary and the discharge area for the 54 -inch diameter pipes must be protected with grouted rip -rap installed over a filter cloth system. 4. To comply with City General Plan Goals and Policies, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be required with final building permit and improvement plans, subject to review and approval prior to commencement of grading and construction. Additional restrictions apply during the wet season between October 1 and April 15 and to all properties, including the subject property, which lie upland of the San Elijo Lagoon. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-49 Environmental Analysis D. Land Use The property has been the subject of previous project designs and environmental reviews. Information contained in this section was collected from site visits; meetings with City staff; discussions with the project engineer; and reviews of City files and policies. 1. Existing Conditions a. Existing and Surrounding Land Uses The project site consists of two small canyons surrounded by steeper slopes. The canyons have been farmed for many years while the areas of steeper slopes remain covered with native Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral. The Perrydise Farms produce stand is located in the northwestern corner of the project site. The current leaseholder utilizes the northern field for organic farming and operates the fruit and produce stand for retail sales. Figure 4.D -1 depicts the project site and surrounding land uses. Adjacent residential development employs lot area averaging with lot sizes similar to, or slightly smaller than those being proposed by the project. The Spyglass PRD is located immediately to the north. Access to Spyglass is via Calle Ryan at El Camino Real. This subdivision consists of 105 single - family residential lots and five open space lots on 40 acres. The development density is 2.7 dwelling units per acre (d.u. /ac.) with lot size ranging from a minimum of 5,700 square feet to 7,500 square feet. The Pacific Ranch and Tennis Club PRD is located to the south and east of the project site with access to this subdivision from Manchester Avenue via Pacific Ranch Drive. The Pacific Ranch PRD was approved with a development density of 1.5 d.u. /ac. and includes 68 lots on 45.9 gross acres. The average /minimum lot size is 3,120 square feet (Miller 1996). In addition, the Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank is currently being proposed for the preservation of sensitive biological habitat on 123 acres located to the northeast and east of the project site (Olson 1996). The project site is connected to natural open space to the south and east. Children's World Childcare Center is located west of the project site, on the west side of El Camino Real. The North Coast Presbyterian Church is located south of the project site with an undeveloped 5.25 - acre parcel between the subject property and the church property. b. Proposed Future Development in Project Vicinity A self- storage facility, including a truck rental operation, is proposed on 2.53 acres directly across from the project site on El Camino Real and north of Children's World Childcare Center. The Manchester Avenue Sports Complex is proposed on the east side of Manchester Avenue just south of the intersection of Manchester Avenue and El Camino Real, and includes playing fields,tennis courts, and other facilities on 18.86 acres. Finally, roadway improvements are proposed for the segment of Manchester Avenue between the I -5 interchange and El Camino Real intersection. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-50 Environmental AnaNsis IIIIIIIIIIIJ1111 12! I -1 co.Tn asoa AP 108ea r • '` VI AGE PA 71 + 1 UNI *il MAI 1uNIT Nr T MAP 7$T " � -7 ! R I� LAS I ~ Proposed I - Biological ' Preserve I —24— 1 C. Vacant; Opens - - - - -- ; Vacant --- P Church; ! .Resi'denti'al a al I , 4'325 T 10818 ``J I 1 CO. Figure 4.D -1 Brian rr { 0 4W 8m, Existing Land Use A,IIn P.e....v Source: Ciry of Encinitas ` -- .� ; blic !St4rage - ----- -- -- . tel �-___J . WAS "" -- enni Club _ ----- Nursery - - - -- Open - - - - -- -- -_ - - -- Space_m � - -_ _ _ chlld Car" 12! I -1 co.Tn asoa AP 108ea r • '` VI AGE PA 71 + 1 UNI *il MAI 1uNIT Nr T MAP 7$T " � -7 ! R I� LAS I ~ Proposed I - Biological ' Preserve I —24— 1 C. Vacant; Opens - - - - -- ; Vacant --- P Church; ! .Resi'denti'al a al I , 4'325 T 10818 ``J I 1 CO. Figure 4.D -1 Brian rr { 0 4W 8m, Existing Land Use A,IIn P.e....v Source: Ciry of Encinitas This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 452 Environmental Analysis C. Existing Zoning and Allowed Development Density (Figure 4.D -2) The project site is zoned Residential 3 (R -3), which allows single- family detached dwelling units at a density of 2.01 to 3 units per acre. The R -3 zone is intended to be used as a transition between rural and suburban areas. The mid -range density for the zone is 2.5 dwelling units per net acre and the maximum density is 3.0 units per net acre. The net acreage is the slope adjusted gross acreage not including acreage for the road right -of -way or wetlands /creek area. The minimum required lot size in the R -3 zone is 14,500 square feet with a minimum lot width of 80 feet and a minimum lot depth of 100 feet. The minimum front and rear yard setback is 25 feet, while the minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. Maximum lot coverage is 35 %. d. Special Study Overlay and Coastal Zones The project site is located within the Special Study Overlay Zone. The Special Study Overlay designation is used for preserving environmentally significant areas, as well as indicating where development standards will be more stringent to minimize potential hazards to future development. The project site is also located within the Coastal Zone as designated by the California Coastal Commission. The Local Coastal Program (LCP), consisting of a coastal land use plan (LUP) and implementing ordinances have been incorporated into the General Plan, creating a combined document. The following Land Use and Resource Management Element goals and policies establish guidelines for how development is to proceed in those areas subject to any constraints that might be present and are also important in implementing Coastal Commission directives concerning management or preservation of significant resources in the Coastal Zone. e. Policy Issues The project site is located in the New Encinitas Community of the City. Land Use Element goals and policies have been developed to both preserve community integrity and environmental sensitivity of future development (Encinitas General Plan as amended 1995). The project site has been designated and planned for low density residential development which is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained in the City General Plan. To ensure that new development does not occur at the expense of the natural environment, existing development, or before adequate infrastructure and services are in place to accommodate any new development, the following goals and policies have been included in the General Plan to manage future growth; to protect community character, quality of life and the natural environment; and ensure adequate services to support planned growth: Land Use Element Goal 2 requires the City to manage slow, orderly growth in accordance with a long -term plan which protects and enhances community values. Policy 2.10 provides that "Development shall not be allowed prematurely, in that access, utilities, and services shall be available prior to allowing the development (Coastal Act /30252)." SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4 -53 Environmental Analvsts Land Use Element Goal 6 and supporting policies seek to ensure compatibility between existing development and future development, in use, character, and scale and specifically addresses the need to develop standards for congregate care rooms and beds in nursing facilities in relationship with land use categories. Land Use Element Goal 8 provides for the preservation of environmentally and topographically sensitive and constrained areas within the City to the greatest extent possible to minimize the risks associated with the development in these areas. (Coastal Act 30240/30253) (amended 5 /11/95 Resolution 95 -32). Policy 8.3 states that "residential development on land that has physical constraints shall exclude or discount areas subject to specified constraints from density allowance. Portions of development sites subject to the following constraints shall be excluded from the net lot area used to figure density: ... (including) major utility easements, and rights - of -way and easements for public /private streets and roads. The remaining net lot area shall then be calculated for density allowance, based on the assigned land use category density range, subject to the following discounts based on site slope: • Portions of site 0 -25% slope - 100% density; • Portions of site 25-40% slope - approximately 50% density allowance; • Portions of site 40 %+ slope - no density allowance. Density allowance shall be limited to the mid -point of the land use category range, as specified by the zoning code, unless findings can be made that the proposed project excels in design excellence and /or provides extraordinary community benefits." SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-54 Environmental Analysis E ?4 Brian R Mooney I;� Associates This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 456 Environmental Analvsis Policy 8.4 applies to development within residentially designated areas and may allow lot averaging and PRDs to preserve areas of unique topographic features, ...and other significant open space areas of importance to the community based on the following criteria: • Lot averaging and PRDs shall only be used to create a quality development, but shall not increase the overall density of the subdivision; • the areas of open space shall be determined and preserved in perpetuity; • no further subdivisions of land within lot- averaged subdivisions shall occur. (Coastal Act /30240) (amended 6/16/93) Policy 8.5 applies the Special Study Overlay designation to lands which, due to their sensitive nature, should only be developed with consideration of specific constraints and features related to drainage courses, bluffs, slopes, geology and soils, biotic habitat, viewsheds and vistas, and cultural resources. Development within the overlay area shall he reviewed and approved in accordance with criteria and standards which protect coastal and inland resources. (Coastal Act/30240/30253) 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination Significant impacts related to land use will result if the proposed project results in an inconsistency /conflict with adopted goals, objectives or guidelines, including the City General Plan and Local Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance. This may include: • An inconsistency with land use designations or zoning; • Destruction of the quality of life and small town character of individual communities, or otherwise illogical growth pattern, substantial or extreme land use incompatibility; or • Development before access, utilities, and services are available to serve the site. b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36 -lot Subdivision Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. The project will develop 36 residential lots at the maximum 3.0 density. Proposed development is compatible with surrounding existing development. The project proposes a clustered development similar to both the Spyglass PRD to the north and Pacific Ranch and Tennis Club to the east and south. Proposed lot sizes range between 5,341 square feet to a maximum of 14,220 square feet. Average proposed lot size SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-57 Environmental Analysis is larger than the adjoining developments. In addition, a biological open space /buffer ranging in width from 80 to over 350 feet separates the proposed project from off -site residential development. Sensitive habitat will be preserved and in the case of the drainage which parallels El Camino Real through Lux Canyon, enhanced. General Plan and Zoning Consistency The 36 dwelling unit residential development will occupy approximately 9 acres of the total 22- acre site. An estimated 60 percent of the site will be preserved in open space to protect sensitive resources and steep slopes. The site has been planned for residential development in an area where adequate public facilities, services and utilities are in place. Residential uses will be consistent with the desired rural type of development envisioned for this area of the community. The project meets the Goals and Policies of the City General Plan with the exception being development density. The project exceeds the mid -range development density by 5.54 residential lots. Sensitive project design has been accomplished through the utilization of lot area averaging. Lot area averaging is allowed by a special provision of the zoning ordinance which allows lot size to be less than the R -3 zone minimum in order to preserve steep slopes and other resources. The project proposes a reduction of minimum lot size to 6,236 square feet, lot widths to 55 feet, and side yard setbacks to 5 feet. Lot depth on three lots is just under the 100 -foot minimum. Maximum lot coverage will remain at 35 percent. Two - thirds or 24 of the lots exceed 7,500 square feet and of these, 16 are 10,000 square feet or more. The minimum proposed lot size is 6,236 square feet and the largest lot is 14,220 square feet. Deducting 1.24 acres for streets, the site's net acreage is approximately 20.5 acres. An estimated 10.35 acres of the site contains slopes between 0 -25 %, 3.36 acres between 25 -40 %, and 6.75 acres with slopes of 40% or greater. Thus, development at mid -range and maximum densities provides 30.46 and 36.56 dwelling units, respectively. Construction of 36 units exceeds the target mid -range density specified in the General Plan and zoning ordinance and is therefore considered a significant impact. Impacts can be reduced to less than significant if overriding findings can be made (Land Use Policy 8.3). The project site is included in the Special Study Overlay Zone to protect those portions of the project site which include coastal sage scrub and chaparral covered slopes. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to these and other sensitive resources and is consistent with Land Use Policies 8.4 -8.5 and Resource Management Policy 10.1 which protect all native vegetation on natural slopes of 25% grade and over. Furthermore, the project is consistent with Policy 10.3 which encourages, where appropriate, clustering of residential uses rather than dispersing such uses within the natural areas. Remainder Parcel. Future uses proposed for the remainder parcel, though not finalized, would be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning. Land Use Policy 6.8 specifically addresses a need for development standards for congregate care facilities to ensure land use compatibility with the surrounding area. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-58 Environmental Analysis Summary. The proposed project is consistent with land use and zoning designations and avoids impacts to sensitive resources through utilization of a lot area averaging design. However, although the project preserves nearly 60 percent of the site within natural open space or habitat restoration areas, significant land use impacts will result from development in excess of the maximum allowable density rather than mid - range. Impacts can be reduced if overriding findings can be made that the proposed project excels in design excellence and /or provides extraordinary community benefits. 3. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate land use impacts. A -1. Development density shall be reduced so as not to exceed the mid -range density for the site (30.46 dwelling units based on the slope density range calculation). 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation Significant Land Use impacts will be avoided with implementation of mitigation measures. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 459 Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-60 Environmental Ana/vsis E. Noise A noise impact assessment and a subsequent review of earlier conclusions were prepared by Hans Giroux in 1989 and 1996, respectively (Appendix E). The earlier analysis was performed for a residential subdivision similar to that currently proposed. 1. Existing Conditions The 1989 noise impact assessment determined that a 36 -lot residential subdivision on the subject property would result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction and long -term noise impacts associated primarily with traffic generated projected traffic volumes on El Camino Real. a. Existing Noise Levels Noise monitoring results performed at the project site in January 1989 are summarized in Appendix E. Vehicular sources are the primary source of existing noise levels and actual measurements at two locations on the project site ranged from 54 to 60 dB. Measured noise readings were 3 to 5 dB less than computed through modeling. According to the report, this is attributed to existing terrain which shields receptor locations on the project site from full exposure of vehicular noise sources. The higher the elevation, the more the hillside deflects noise upward and blocks the exposure angle needed for straight -line noise propagation. b. Planning Implications and Recommendations The City of Encinitas noise exposure guidelines are presented in terms of CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) and Day -Night Average Level (Ldn). The CNEL is the average equivalent A- weighted sound level, expressed in decibels (dB), during a 24 -hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels and 10 decibels to sound levels occurring during the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., respectively. The Day -Night Average equivalent is A- weighted sound level during a 24 -hour day after addition of ten decibels to sound levels occurring during the nighttime from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The 10 dB penalty is to account for the increased noise sensitivity occurring during nighttime hours. Policy 1.1 accepts an increase in "noise levels up to an Ldn of 55 dB in outdoor residential use areas without mitigation. If a project would increase noise levels by more than 5 dB and the resulting Ldn would be over 55 dB, then mitigation measures must be evaluated. If the project, or action, would increase noise levels by 3 dB or more and the resulting Ldn would exceed 60 dB in residential outdoor use areas, noise mitigation must be similarly evaluated. Policy 1.2 establishes the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level in residential outdoor use areas at an Ldn of 60 dB. Where existing noise levels exceed this standard the City will allow noise walls or barriers per the Noise Wall/Barrier Installation Policy. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-61 Environmental Analysis Policy 1.7 calls for the application of California Administration Code Title 24 noise insulation standards to apply to all single- family dwellings. (Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels not exceed a CNEL of 45 dB(A) for multiple family dwellings, motel and hotel rooms.) Policy 2.1 requires noise mitigation measures to be designed into the project if new development would be located in normally unacceptable noise exposure areas. Post construction noise monitoring may be required as a condition of approval. 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination A project will normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if it will: • Increase substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas (Appendix G CEQA Guidelines); • Increase noise levels by more than 5 dB and the resulting Ldn would be over 55 dB(A); • Increase noise levels by 3 dB or more and the resulting Ldn would exceed 60 dB(A) in outdoor residential development areas; and/or • Subject new residents to exterior noise levels in excess of the 60 dB(A) Ldn community standard established by the City General Plan and Noise Ordinance. b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36 -lot Subdivision The 1989 noise impact assessment determined that construction of a residential subdivision on the subject property would result in short-term noise impacts that would vary considerably depending on equipment type. The noisiest equipment is expected to produce noise events which reach a high of 95 dB(A) at fifty feet from the source and will be easily detectable above the local background noise beyond 1,000 feet from the construction area. Quieter earth- moving equipment noise will drop below 60 dB within approximately 300 feet of the source. Hours during which construction may occur are limited by the City Noise Ordinance and impacts are not considered to be significant. The maximum project - related contribution to traffic noise on El Camino Real was determined to be less than 0.1 dB at project buildout. A change in ambient noise levels of less than 1 dB is indistinguishable from the previous background level. However, projected buildout traffic volumes on El Camino Real under the existing General Plan will result in significant noise impacts to proposed new development on the project site. Residential lots located adjacent to El Camino Real will not be subjected to noise levels in excess of the community standard in the SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-62 Environmental Analvsis short -term but will increase at buildout of the General Plan to levels ranging between 65.2 dB(A) and 67.4 dB(A). Since the Day -Night Average Level exceeds the 60 dB(A) standard, impacts to on -site residential lots will be significant. Site planning measures such as locating berms or noise walls adjacent to El Camino Real, combined with residential noise mitigating structural features, are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) Impacts would be similar to those identified for the subdivision. Site planning measures such as locating berms or noise walls adjacent to El Camino Real, combined with noise mitigating structural features, are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Summary. Impacts to off -site receptors from development of the proposed project are negligible and will not result in significant impacts. Short -term construction- related noise impacts are also not considered to be significant. Significant noise impacts will occur to proposed lots and congregate care units located adjacent to El Camino Real. Construction of noise attenuation walls or berms is necessary to effectively mitigate on -site significant impacts. 3. Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to reduce short-term construction- related noise impacts to adjacent properties. Additional measures are required to reduce traffic - related noise impacts which exceed community standards. Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts to new residential development below a level of significance: E -1. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. daily except Sundays and Holidays as specified by Municipal Code Section 9.32.410 and shall utilize the quietest equipment available. E -2. The operation of any machine, mechanism, device, or contrivance that produces a noise level greater than 100 dB within 50 feet of any sensitive receptor shall be prohibited except in an emergency. A sensitive receptor is defined as a hospital, school, library or dwelling. E -3. A six -foot tall masonry noise barrier wall shall be constructed along the rear lot line /top of slope of lots east of El Camino Real and bordering the eastern side of the Lux Canyon Drainage in order to reduce future noise levels in back yards to below 60 dB. The noise barrier shall extend from the project entrance and shall terminate at the separation slope for the northernmost lot adjacent to the drainage. E -4. Second story bedrooms facing El Camino Real shall require dual -paned windows and mechanical ventilation systems to maintain interior noise levels below 45 dBA. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-63 Environmental Analysis 4. Significance After Mitigation Excessive noise levels on properties adjacent to El Camino Real would be reduced to below the 60 dB CNEL community threshold with construction of a six foot noise wall. Impacts would therefore be reduced to a less than significant level. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-64 Environmental Anahsis F. Traffic Basmaciyan- Darnell, Inc. was retained in 1988 to do a traffic analysis which projected that the traffic of a 36 -lot residential subdivision would not be significant. Traffic engineers from Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc. have prepared a new analysis of traffic impacts (Appendix F). The 1996 analysis includes analysis of traffic impacts associated with development of the proposed subdivision as well as the maximum traffic volume that may be generated from future development of the remainder parcel. An environmentally "worst case" scenario for the remainder parcel considers construction of up to 108 congregate care units. The Linscott, Law & Greenspan report provides a discussion of existing conditions, project traffic generation /distribution/assignment, intersection and street segment capacity analysis, site access, mitigation measures, and cumulative impacts. 1. Existing Conditions Key roadways in the study area include El Camino Real, Manchester Avenue and Santa Fe Drive. Figure 4.F -1 provides the Circulation Plan and identifies the roadway classification for each of these roadways. a. Key Roadways El Camino Real is designated a Prime Arterial (6 lanes) in the project vicinity. This roadway currently provides four travel lanes, with two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane from about Manchester to Tennis Club Drive. North of Tennis Club Drive, it becomes a five lane facility with three lanes northbound and two southbound. From Santa Fe Drive north, six lanes are available. Intersections with both Santa Fe Drive and Manchester Avenue are signalized. The posted speed limit is 55 mph from Manchester Avenue north to Santa Fe Drive where the limit drops to 40 mph for the stretch north of Santa Fe Drive. A northbound bike lane is available north of Tennis Club Drive and a southbound bike lane has been constructed from Santa Fe Drive north. Manchester Avenue is designated a Limited facility Prime Arterial (6 lanes) from I -5 to El Camino real and as an Augmented two lane Local Street east of El Camino Real. The addition of a "Limited" roadway designation preserves plans for six travel lanes but reduces the required right -of -way width. The existing facility is only a two lane facility with one lane in either direction except in the vicinity of Mira Costa College and near the I -5 interchange. Proposed improvements will widen Manchester Avenue between I -5 and El Camino Real to four lanes. Completion is anticipated by the summer of 1997. Santa Fe Drive is designated an Augmented facility-Local Street (2 lanes). It is currently a two lane augmented facility with widening at selected intersections. The existing road is about 80 feet wide at the signalized intersection with El Camino Real with three approach lanes and one SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP Ent December 1996 Page 4-65 Environmental Analysis departure lane. The road narrows west of the intersection to 46 feet with two through lanes, a two -way left -turn lane, and bike lanes. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Tennis Club Drive is a narrow two lane unclassified private roadway serving the Tennis Club. Traffic is stop sign controlled at the intersection with El Camino Real. b. Roadway Capacity Standards and Level of Service (LOS) Circulation Element roadways, including key roadways serving the project site, are designed to carry traffic within a specified maximum capacity which, if exceeded, will not meet community traffic flow level standards. A summary of roadway capacity standards is included in the General Plan and Standards for Roadway Levels of Service (LOS) are included as attachments to Appendix F. LOS describes the ability of a roadway to handle current traffic loads and is based on a ratio representing the road's design capacity to the existing traffic volumes. The City has determined that significant traffic impacts will result when traffic volumes correspond to an LOS D (unstable traffic flows) with a ratio of 1.00 or greater. Table 4.F -1 provides the roadway capacity standards for the Prime Arterial, Prime Arterial - Limited, and Local Roadway- Augmented as provided in the City General Plan. Table 4.F -1. City Roadway Capacity Standards for Project Roadways Source: City of Encinitas General Plan, Circulation Element Existing Traffic and LOS Figure 4.F -2 depicts existing AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes and average daily trips (ADTs) are based on recent traffic counts conducted on October 16 and 17, 1996 and counts conducted by the City of Encinitas which provide the most recent project area street segment ADTs (see Appendix F). El Camino Real. El Camino Real traffic volumes in the area adjacent to the project site, between Santa Fe Drive on the north and Manchester Avenue on the south, are estimated at 18,600 ADT. Traffic volumes north of Santa Fe Drive increase to 26,000 ADT. Each segment is currently operating at better than LOS C. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4.66 Environmental Analysis ADT Capacity Facility Type # of Lanes LOS C LOS D LOS E Prime Arterial 6 46,000 5L200 57.000 Local Roadway- Augmemed 2 + 16.000 18.000 20.000 Source: City of Encinitas General Plan, Circulation Element Existing Traffic and LOS Figure 4.F -2 depicts existing AM /PM peak hour traffic volumes and average daily trips (ADTs) are based on recent traffic counts conducted on October 16 and 17, 1996 and counts conducted by the City of Encinitas which provide the most recent project area street segment ADTs (see Appendix F). El Camino Real. El Camino Real traffic volumes in the area adjacent to the project site, between Santa Fe Drive on the north and Manchester Avenue on the south, are estimated at 18,600 ADT. Traffic volumes north of Santa Fe Drive increase to 26,000 ADT. Each segment is currently operating at better than LOS C. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4.66 Environmental Analysis SOURCE: City of Encinitas Freeway Prime Arterial (6 Lanes) © Major (4 Lanes) •�• Collector (4 Lanes) BLocal Street (2 Lanes) nnn� Augmented Facility ® Limited Facility ® Interchange Reconstruction NOTE: Leucadla Blvd. between Interstate 5 and El Camino Real designated as 'Scenic Roadway' with aS loot right-of-way (ROW) Figure 4•F -1 Circulation Plan ShA.y N.", V NOTE: - ADT's are shown midblock CS - AM /PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections �a 14,500 .ne�1 -• SOTA FE DA 9 e CIP �• O TEMM CUM SIR � ® �p�T .� +L r214 3a/ 39 /218 tr ^N Opp N1�n rLro.4� Brian F. Mooney Associates 0 Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Figure 4.F No scale Existing AM/PM Peak Traffic Volumes �3dlev Prop.m This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-70 Environmental Analvsis Manchester Avenue. Manchester Avenue between the I -5 interchange and El Camino Real is currently operating at LOS F and carries 26,980 ADTs. With the widening of the roadway to four lanes, service levels are expected to improve to LOS D. The segment east of El Camino Real carries an estimated 7,500 ADT and operates at an LOS better than C. The Manchester Avenue /El Camino Real intersection forms a "T" and is signalized. The south and east legs of the intersection are Manchester Avenue and the north leg is El Camino Real. This intersection is currently operating at LOS B. Santa Fe Drive. Traffic volume on Santa Fe Drive west of its intersection with El Camino Real is estimated at 14,500 ADT and service levels estimated at better than LOS C. The signalized intersection at Santa Fe Drive/El Camino Real operates at LOS B. C. Existing Project Site Trip Generation Existing agricultural and sales operations generate a small amount of traffic. The entry drive to the produce stand is located on El Camino Real and the entrance to adjacent fields consists of a dirt driveway located about 700 feet to the south. The southern entrance will be improved to provide access to the proposed subdivision and remainder parcel. The eleven parking spaces currently available to serve customers of the produce stand are often filled during evening peak traffic hours. d. City of Encinitas Policies A goal of the General Plan is to maintain LOS C or better on Circulation Element roads. The City seeks to maintain LOS C conditions as a basic roadway design guideline and prohibits development which results in LOS E or F at any intersection (Policies 1.2 and 1.3). Some exceptions for existing conditions may be considered. Fairshare contributions to highway improvements may also be allowed to achieve these objectives. 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination The project will have a significant effect on the environment if: • Improvements cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Appendix G(1) of CEQA Guidelines); or • Project access to a major road or arterial road will require a driveway that will create an unsafe situation. • The Level of Service (LOS) is reduced on City General Plan Circulation Plan roads or intersections below LOS D. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-71 Environmental Analysis Table 4.F -2. Comparison of Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Level of Service Sources: Traffic Census: Citv of Encinitas Traffic Volumes, California State Highways; Cattrans: Linscou Law and Greenspan (1996) b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36 -lot Subdivision Proposed development of the residential subdivision will contribute an estimated 360 ADT (180 in/ 180 out) to El Camino Real. Figure 4.F -3 depicts project generated traffic volumes and their AM /PM peak hour distribution. AM peak hour traffic will account for an estimated 8% of the trips with 9 inbound trips and 21 outbound trips. PM peak hour traffic will account for 10% of the daily trips with 26 trips into the site and 10 out. Exiting traffic plus that generated from the residential subdivision will be distributed on project area roadways as depicted in Figure 4.F -4, Exiting Plus Residential Subdivision. Residential subdivision traffic will represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent in traffic on El Camino Real between Manchester Avenue and Sante Fe Drive. This will not result in a significant traffic increase nor will it decrease LOS operations for any of the key roadway segments evaluated. Significant impacts to Manchester Avenue, which currently operates at LOS F, could occur with the addition of any traffic if improvements are not made as planned. Assuming that the Manchester Avenue road widening project is completed, LOS will remain at D. All other project area roadways will maintain a better than LOS C (see Appendix F). The projected traffic volume for El Camino Real passing the project site in 2010 is 41,000 ADTs. Manchester Avenue, south of the project site, will carry an estimated 47,000 ADTs and Santa Fe Drive (east of Crest) 15,000 ADTs (Encinitas General Plan 1995). Assuming all roadways are improved to Circulation Element standards, the segment of El Camino Real passing the project site will maintain an LOS B, Manchester Avenue an LOS D, and Santa Fe Drive an LOS C. No significant traffic impacts will occur at buildout. Traffic impacts to Circulation Element roadways are not considered to be significant. Site Access. Existing roadway conditions will require improvements to facilitate safe project access. According to the 1996 traffic study, the preferred project entrance would be aligned opposite Tennis Club Drive if the City anticipates a future need to signalize the intersection with El Camino Real. If not, the driveway entrance is best located where currently planned. Off -site roadway improvements are required to avoid significant traffic impacts due to inadequate rum SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-72 Environmental Analvst # of Designated LOS C Design Existing /2010 Road Segment # of Lanes-Actual lanes (ADT) Buildout ADT Level of Service El Camino Real: 4+ 6 46,000 18,600/41,000 Better than C Manchester Avenue: 2+ 6 46,000 26,980/47,000 C (V�tslr b. (M Ibe u, h u�kfJ 1M Santa Fe Drive: 2+ 2+ t6,000 14,680/15,000 C Sources: Traffic Census: Citv of Encinitas Traffic Volumes, California State Highways; Cattrans: Linscou Law and Greenspan (1996) b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36 -lot Subdivision Proposed development of the residential subdivision will contribute an estimated 360 ADT (180 in/ 180 out) to El Camino Real. Figure 4.F -3 depicts project generated traffic volumes and their AM /PM peak hour distribution. AM peak hour traffic will account for an estimated 8% of the trips with 9 inbound trips and 21 outbound trips. PM peak hour traffic will account for 10% of the daily trips with 26 trips into the site and 10 out. Exiting traffic plus that generated from the residential subdivision will be distributed on project area roadways as depicted in Figure 4.F -4, Exiting Plus Residential Subdivision. Residential subdivision traffic will represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent in traffic on El Camino Real between Manchester Avenue and Sante Fe Drive. This will not result in a significant traffic increase nor will it decrease LOS operations for any of the key roadway segments evaluated. Significant impacts to Manchester Avenue, which currently operates at LOS F, could occur with the addition of any traffic if improvements are not made as planned. Assuming that the Manchester Avenue road widening project is completed, LOS will remain at D. All other project area roadways will maintain a better than LOS C (see Appendix F). The projected traffic volume for El Camino Real passing the project site in 2010 is 41,000 ADTs. Manchester Avenue, south of the project site, will carry an estimated 47,000 ADTs and Santa Fe Drive (east of Crest) 15,000 ADTs (Encinitas General Plan 1995). Assuming all roadways are improved to Circulation Element standards, the segment of El Camino Real passing the project site will maintain an LOS B, Manchester Avenue an LOS D, and Santa Fe Drive an LOS C. No significant traffic impacts will occur at buildout. Traffic impacts to Circulation Element roadways are not considered to be significant. Site Access. Existing roadway conditions will require improvements to facilitate safe project access. According to the 1996 traffic study, the preferred project entrance would be aligned opposite Tennis Club Drive if the City anticipates a future need to signalize the intersection with El Camino Real. If not, the driveway entrance is best located where currently planned. Off -site roadway improvements are required to avoid significant traffic impacts due to inadequate rum SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-72 Environmental Analvst O_ NOTE: — AOT's are shown midblock — AM /PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections w 100 BAMTA FE DR Q O TWOW CLUB D!t L l 9f CT r o � N epO tai, .► 1 0 N Brian E Mooney Associates Source: Linscott, Law & Greenspan Figure 4.F -3 Project Generated Traffic Volumes & No Scale AM/PM Peak Hour Distribution This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-74 Environmental Analysis O NOTE: — ADT's are shown midblock C4 — AM /PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections m 14 600 SANTA /S DR }�o;�y1� s� J*A v o 73N?W c7drl3 ® DR PROJECT in 0 n as «33i 9v. L 35 r214/218 tr 1� 1, Brian F. Mooney Associates I 10 Source: Linscort, Law & Greenspan Figure 41-4 No stele Existing + Project Level Traffic Volumes Ad, N, December 1996 This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP Ent Page 4-76 Environmental Anatv515 lanes. In the short -term, it is recommended that all movements be allowed at the project entrance. Interim improvements to the existing two -lane section along the remainder parcel frontage will be required to provide a right -turn deceleration lane or widened bike lane which allows turning traffic to slow down completely out of travel lanes. Ultimately, El Camino Real will provide three northbound lanes, replacing the interim deceleration lane with Circulation Element buildout. Half -width roadway improvements to El Camino Real along the northern parcel will be a condition of approval prior to allowing development for residential uses. According to the 1996 Traffic Study, short -term project access should not be constrained with a raised median or other means preventing left turns to or from the site (Appendix F). The long -term classification of El Camino Real indicates that left -turns from the project onto El Camino Real may be restricted in the future. It is important that an overall long -term access plan be developed for El Camino Real north of Manchester Avenue and south of Santa Fe Drive. Remainder Parcel Subsequent construction of as many as 108 units for a congregate care facility on the 5.2 -acre remainder parcel will, if developed, add a maximum of 216 additional ADTs. Buildout of the project will yield a combined total of 576 ADTs. Figure 4.F -5 distributes buildout of the project including traffic generated from the remainder parcel. Impacts will remain essentially the same as those identified for the residential subdivision only. Summary. Significant roadway and intersection impacts on Manchester Avenue will be avoided if widening is completed as planned. Off -site roadway improvements to El Camino Real are required to avoid significant traffic impacts due to a need for a right -turn deceleration lane or widened bike lane which allows turning traffic to slow down completely out of travel lanes before entering the project site. The project is required to widen El Camino Real to three northbound travel lanes along the project frontage and to provide a right -turn lane which meets the Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards for deceleration lane length requirements along the remainder parcel frontage. The City should develop an overall long -term access plan for the segment of El Camino Real between Manchester Avenue and Santa Fe Drive. 3. Mitigation Measures The project proponent will be responsible for half -width improvements to El Camino Real for the length of the northern parcel. This will continue the improvements that have already been made to the road north of the project site and in front of the North Coast Presbyterian Church, located two parcels to the south. In addition, a deceleration and right -turn lane into the project entrance shall be constructed. Without a turn lane, the narrower portion of El Camino Real to the south along the remainder parcel, would cause a hazardous situation for motorists slowing to turn into the project. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 477 Environmenra! Analvsis The following features shall be provided to ensure motorist convenience and safety. 1. Prior to the commencement of grading, half -width improvements shall be made to El Camino Real along the project frontage. 2. A left -turn lane shall be created within the painted median. 3. In the short-term, the project shall provide a 200 foot long (with a 60 foot transition) deceleration and right -tum lane into the project entrance. The lane shall be 12 feet wide. In the long -term, development of the remainder parcel requires construction of a third northbound lane and a bike lane adjacent to the project site and remainder parcel. It is recommended that the City widen the ultimate width of El Camino Real for a distance of 200 feet south of the project driveway by an additional six feet to provide an 11 -foot wide bike lane for right - turning traffic. However, the additional width is not consistent with other driveways along El Camino Real and the City may elect not to require the additional widening. 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation Short-term significant impacts associated with unsafe turn conditions into the project are reduced to a less than significant level with construction of a right -turn lane. Long -term impacts are reduced to less than significant with ultimate buildout of El Camino Real to six lanes and a bike lane. Safety would be further improved if an additional six feet were added to the ultimate El Camino Real right -of -way to provide a wider bike lane which can better accommodate right turns onto the project site. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 478 Environmental Analysis r` NOTE: — ADT's are shown midblock ,N — AM /PM Peak hour volumes are '► ?N shown of the intersections 0 iCIA. J � 14,665 suxre ra DR ,d CP Q C Tawas D aR ® PROJECT tt m 06 A n $n � 38/ 40 1� r 214/218 tr Op N O r \p\o N 6 `1.1,41 Brian E Mooney Associates IN Source: Linscoct, Law & Greenspan Figure 41.5 Existing + Project + Congregate Care Facility No Scale Traffic Volumes Sheller Pam December 1996 This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR Page "0 Environmental Analysis G. Public Services The purpose of the public services analysis is to determine the availability of necessary services and facilities for the proposed project and evaluate the potential impacts associated with the project. 1. Existing Conditions The data for this analysis was collected by reviewing existing documents and updating the information as necessary with interviews with the public agency staff. The public services evaluation includes sewer and water service, fire and police protection, emergency services, school services, parks, and solid waste. Sewer Service. The project site will have to be annexed to the Cardiff Sanitation District to receive sewer service. There is an existing sewer main beneath El Camino Real that can adequately handle increased flows from the proposed project. Water Service. Water service is provided by the Olivenhain Municipal Water District. The Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) has indicated that facilities to serve the project are reasonably expected to be available within the next five years. Fire Protection. Fire service is provided by the Encinitas Fire Department. The closest fire station is located on Mackinnon Avenue at Birmingham Drive, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. Police Protection. Police service is provided by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department from the Encinitas Substation, located off of Via Molena, approximately 1.25 miles from the project site. Emergency Services. The closest medical facility is Scripps Encinitas Hospital located approximately 3 miles northwest of the site. Ambulance service is provided by Hartson, with a response time of under 10 minutes for paramedic services. Life Flight helicopter service is also available through Scripps La Jolla Hospital or Palomar Hospital. Schools. The project is served by the Encinitas Union School District and the San Dieguito High School District. The Oceanknoll Elementary School, Oakcrest Junior High, San Dieguito Academy or La Costa Canyon High School would be the schools that the students would attend. The proposed project would be required to either pay mitigation fees for residential development or dedicate land on which the District could build facilities. Gas and Electricity major utility lines. Electric (SDG &E). The project site is located adjacent to El Camino Real, which contains all Gas and electric service to the site is provided by San Diego Gas and SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-81 Environmental Analvsis Parks. Oakcrest Park, located nearly 1.5 miles to the northwest of the project site, is the closest community park. It includes a horseshoe pit, a children's play structure, a picnic area, and restroom facilities. The closest regional park is the San Dieguito County Park. Solid Waste. Solid waste hauling and disposal and curbside recycling is provided by Mashburn Sanitation Company. 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination Under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, significant effects on the environment will normally result if a project will: • (a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; • (z) Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Additionally, significant effects may also occur if the project will: • Require facilities which are not available concurrent with need to serve the project or will deplete capacities available to the rest of the community; and • Require extension of facilities which will result in physical impacts to environmentally sensitive resources. b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36-lot Subdivision and Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning ordinance. The provision of public services to this site has been anticipated by the City. All public service providers have indicated, through submittal of service letters, that future service requirements at the project site can be met or are reasonably expected to be available concurrent with need. Standard development fees and connection fees must be paid to the City and the utility providers in return for a commitment to serve the project. Fire Protection. Although fire services are available to the project site, impacts to fire services are considered to be significant because project design does not include necessary setbacks and fuel modification zones to reduce fire hazards to an acceptable level. Conformance with the guidelines and development standards developed by the San Diego County Wildland /Urban Interface Task Force in 1995 could reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Wildland /Urban Interface Development Standards are included as Appendix G of this report. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM /MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-82 Environmental Analysis These guidelines establish standards for planning, construction and fuel modification. Planning standards include the requirement to provide a minimum paved street width of 24 feet. Also included are specifications for appropriate roofing and glazing materials, automatic sprinkler systems, and spark arresters. The Wild /Urban Interface Fuel Modification Standards section establishes the need to provide, in high and very high fire hazard areas, a 50 foot, irrigated zone. Guidelines require that all combustible material be removed within the zone and replaced with drought- tolerant, fire resistant plants to reduce the level of risk to an acceptable level. For the proposed project, the Fire Marshall will prohibit any structure from being located within the 50 foot fuel modification zone and will require an additional 25 foot brush thinning zone along the southern development area boundary to reduce the fuel load associated with chaparral habitat in this area. Surnmary. Public services are available to serve the project site. However impacts to fire services are considered to be significant because project design of the 36 -lot subdivision does not include necessary setbacks and fuel modification zones to reduce fire hazards to an acceptable level. Future plans for the remainder parcel should meet minimum standards to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. A 3. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are required to reduce fire protection impacts to a less than significant level. G -i Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit a Fuel Modification Plan, including an implementation plan, to the Fire Chief. For the proposed project, the design shall delineate a fuel modification/ restricted use zone. This zone shall consist of a 50 foot irrigated zone (Zone A) in which existing vegetation is removed, irrigated, and planted with drought- tolerant and fire- resistant plant material. Where lot depth allows, Zone A may extend inward from the outer perimeter boundaries of lots 1 -33. No combustible construction shall be permitted within this zone. G -2 A 25 foot, Zone B, fuel modification zone is required southerly from the outer perimeter boundary of lots 1 -16. This zone requires thinning to reduce the fuel load of adjacent chaparral. The percentage of vegetation to be removed shall be specified by the fire department and must be in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act Permit for Fire Protection Management Measures (CESA Permit) because rare, threatened or endangered species have been identified in the zone. Approval of the Fuel Modification and Implementation Plans by responsible agencies and subsequent provisions of Zones A and B shall be considered to reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-83 Environmental Analysis 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation Fire service impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. December 1996 SHELLEY PROPERTY TMlMUP EIR Page 4-84 Environmental Analysis H. Paleontological Resources 1. Existing Conditions Goal 7 of the City's Resource Management Element calls for the City to "make every effort to ensure significant scientific and cultural resources in the Planning area are preserved for future generations (Coastal Act /30250)." Policy 7.1 requires documentation, preservation or salvage of paleontological resources if threatened by new development. Compliance with Resource Management Element Policy 7.1 requires monitoring of future grading for the presence of paleontological resources. This is because fossils from rock units in the greater San Diego area have made substantial contributions to man's understanding of the evolution of life on this planet. The Eocene age vertebrates of the San Diego area have already provided valuable information about the early development of mammals in North America and the fossils from the San Diego Formation are currently providing information on the evolution of mammals in the seas. The soils of the project site consist of alluvium that has been deposited on top of the Torrey Sandstone Formation. The Torrey Sandstone Formation is known from excavation elsewhere in the County to contain paleontological resources. Torrey Sandstone is believed to have been deposited along a submerged coast on a barrier beach that enclosed and later covered Del Mar Formation lagoonal sediments. Its deposition was arrested when submergence slowed and the shoreline retreated. The Torrey Sandstone is known to contain fossils and fossil casts. Based on the past fossil production of the Torrey Sandstone formation near the study area, the rock units have been assigned a high paleontological sensitivity that expresses the potential for discovery of fossil remains during development. It is not a measure of the significance or importance of the individual fossils. It is impossible to know exactly what fossils are buried at a site or to measure their individual significance until they have been excavated, cleaned, and studied. All fossils are assumed to be significant to the regional resource data base. 2. Environmental Impacts a. Criteria for Significance Determination Significant Cultural/ Paleontological Resource impacts will occur if the project will: • Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study (Appendix GO) of the CEQA Guidelines); and • Conflict with City General Plan Goals and Policies; specifically, Resource Management Element Goal 7 and Policy 7.1. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 485 Environmental Analysis b. Issue Analysis and Significance 36 -lot Subdivision and Remainder Parcel (Congregate Care Facility) Paleontological Resources. Engineering and structural design requirements for the residential subdivision and subsequent development of the remainder parcel may require landform modification which extends into the Torrey Sandstone Formation. Because the Torrey Sandstone Formation is known to contain fossils and fossil casts, impacts will be significant. However, the existence of paleontological resources need not constrain the development of the project site if a qualified paleontologist is responsible for supervising all activities which could result in impacts to resources and a paleontological monitor is present during the cutting of previously undisturbed deposits. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will avoid significant impacts. 3. Mitigation Measures G -1. Prior to grading the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist, acceptable to the Community Development Director, to carry out the mitigation program outlined here. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) G -2. A qualified paleontologist shall be at the pre - construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. G -3. A paleontological monitor shall be on -site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits to inspect exposures for contained fossils (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.) G -4. When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen - washing operation on the site. G -5. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program should be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-86 Environmental Analysis G -6. If found, prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, should be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of the fossils should be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. 4. Summary of Impact Significance After Mitigation Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-87 Environmental Analvsis This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 4-88 Environmental Analysis CHAPTER 5 GROWTH INDUCEMENT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that environmental documents evaluate whether a proposed project would induce direct or indirect growth of population, economic development or housing construction. This includes projects which remove obstacles to growth by accommodating additional population or construction, such as expansion of public service facilities (Public Resources Code § 21100; CEQA Guidelines § 15212[g]). Growth inducement is defined by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, 1987) as any action or circumstance which produces population and /or economic growth in excess of established projections. The causes of growth typically involve a complex and varied relationship among several factors including economic setting, employment opportunities, natural population increase, public policies, and local environment. All of these can influence the rate and extent of growth, although economic and employment opportunities (and to a lesser extent local birthrates) are considered the most important factors in the San Diego Region (SANDAG, 1987). That is, regardless of the environmental amenities or favorable local attitudes toward growth in specific area, significant sustained population growth will normally not occur without adequate employment opportunities. If it is determined that a particular project would induce growth, then the secondary effects of that growth must also be addressed. These may include effects to resource values such as traffic, air quality, and public services resulting from additional population and /or construction. Because population and /or economic growth typically produce a varied range of effects which occur simultaneously, attempts to label growth as categorically beneficial or adverse are considered subjective. CEQA guidelines state (§ 14125[g]) that "growth in any area should not be assumed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment." The proposed project will displace an existing produce stand and replace agricultural fields with a 36 -lot residential housing development in an area designated for residential use. The project will attract people to the area to live in a subdivision which employs lot area averaging to achieve a maximum -range development density. With the exception of road improvements to El Camino Real, no off -site improvements are proposed. Public services and facilities are already available to serve the project site. The proposed project will result in a residential density of 3.0 dwelling units /acre, which is consistent with the maximum allowed by the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning of R -3. Earlier environmental analysis evaluating the General Plan assumed a medium - density range. Project approval will therefore allow a higher population density than anticipated by the General Plan and is therefore considered to he growth inducing. An environmentally superior /reduced project alternative has been proposed which reduces overall density. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 5 -I Growth Inducement This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 5 -2 Growth Inducement CHAPTER CUMULATIVE EFFECTS CEQA requires a discussion of project generated impacts to the environment "that may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects" (CEQA 21083(b)). As further defined in the CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15355, "Cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The proposed project is not anticipated to have significant cumulative impacts. The project is in conformance with the City of Encinitas General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and public utilities are available to serve the project site. Implementation of planned drainage improvements will reduce impacts to the San Elijo Lagoon as projects develop. Cumulative impacts to the Lux Canyon Drainage System and sensitive San Elijo Lagoon area have been addressed in an earlier comprehensive study of the entire system which provides a mitigation program designed to reduce erosion and siltation impacts along the entire drainage which empties into the lagoon (Appendix E). Increases to local traffic congestion and noise are not considered to be significant because planned roadway improvements and on -going noise mitigation requirements are sufficient to reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. The City of Encinitas has determined that the following proposed developments in the project vicinity should be included in the short -term analysis. 1. Manchester Avenue Sports Complex; Case No. 96 -127 MUP /CDP /EIA. The sports complex is proposed to be located on the east side of Manchester Avenue, just south of the Manchester Avenue /El Camino Real intersection. The project will develop 14.86 acres of a 18.86 -acre site with four playing fields, tennis courts, parking lot /drop off area, a day camp facility, picnic areas, a playground, restrooms, auxiliary hookups for concessions, a walking trail, and basketball courts. Off -site improvements to Manchester Avenue along the project frontage are also included as part of the project. 2. Public Storage, Inc.; Case No. 96 -036 MUP /DR/CDP /EIA. A public storage facility and truck rental operation is proposed to be located on a 2.53 -acre site at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Tennis Club Drive across the street from the proposed Shelley Property project. The site is zoned R -3. The public storage facility consists of a two -story over basement Self Storage Facility of 59,200 net square feet of storage area (75,350 gross square feet of building area) with one of three self - storage structures being one -story in height. The facility also provides an office /caretaker unit. 3. Manchester Road Widening. City engineers anticipate completion of the interim Manchester Avenue widening project by mid - summer 1997. With the exception of existing improved travel lanes in front of Mira Costa College, proposed improvements SHELLEY PROPERTY TMIMUP EIR December 1996 Page 6-I Cumulative Effects will he constructed between Via Poco and the El Camino Real intersection and will provide a 62 foot "berm to berm" right -of -way with two twelve foot wide travel lanes in each direction separated by a four foot painted median (Bodas 1996). Two 5 foot bike lanes will also be constructed. Shoulders on either side of the roadway will be three feet in width. Development of the above projects will produce a combined 1,292 ADTs in addition to the proposed project which is estimated to generate approximately 360 ADTs and an additional 216 ADTs with development of the Congregate Care Facility (total ADTs estimated at 576). Figure 6 -1 depicts the trip distribution for existing + project + cumulative projects. According to the Linscott Law & Greenspan traffic impact analysis (revised to reflect the 36 -lot subdivision), the combination of project plus cumulative traffic would not change the LOS of any primary street segments, but would represent an approximate 2.9 percent increase to already adverse daily operations on Manchester Avenue east of I -5 (LOS F) if the Manchester Avenue widening is not accomplished as planned. Once completed, the Manchester Avenue road widening will provide an LOS D which will be maintained with the addition of cumulative projects. Roadway segment operations will be better than LOS C on all other key roadways. Intersection operations at both the Manchester Avenue /El Camino Real and Santa Fe Drive /El Camino Real intersections will be at LOS B. Assuming the widening of Manchester Avenue proceeds as scheduled, no cumulative traffic - related impacts will result. Cumulative noise impacts will be avoided through individual project design and mitigation measures required for each proposed project. Hydrology impacts in the project vicinity are addressed through implementation of improvements to the Lux Canyon Drainage System which will be implemented as each underlying property is developed and by implementation of mitigation measures for other projects with the potential to affect the San Elijo Lagoon or watershed. Summary. No significant cumulative impacts have been identified. 3. Mitigation Measures No significant cumulative impacts have been identified and no mitigation is required. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 6-2 Cumulative Effects 0 n °O NOTE: — ADT's are shown midblock m N — AM/PM Peak hour volumes are shown at the intersections 14,765 o FN nx � ' ® TIMM CLI DR PRDIEC7 WE 3a/ 41 o; 0,728/2,30 tr n r r \p\ tl� Brian E. Mooney ©I, Associates „ Figure 6 -1 No scale Existing + Project + Cumulative Traffic Volumes 7,777 This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 6-0 Cumulative Effects CHAPTER 7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT In order to more fully evaluate proposed projects, CEQA mandates that alternatives to their implementation be discussed. Two alternatives to the proposed project have been developed in accordance with CEQA requirements, including a "no project" alternative. Each alternative is briefly discussed below and is followed by a general analysis of each major environmental impact associated with the alternative. 1. No Project Alternative The no project alternative provides a baseline for analysis of the proposed project and each alternative. This alternative assumes that development as proposed will not occur but does not preclude future actions which are consistent with existing land use designations and zoning. Biological Resources. Existing biological resources will not be affected as determined for the proposed project. However, the entire site is zoned R -3 to allow residential development. Future development of the site is therefore not precluded. Aesthetics /Visual Resources. Assuming no development, no aesthetic /visual impacts will occur. However, no guarantee can be made that existing agricultural views will be retained as the site is zoned for residential development. Hydrology. The existing degraded drainage channel will remain in its current condition. Planned on -site channel improvements will not be implemented until development is approved, nor will a wetland revegetation program be implemented. No impacts will result from the construction and buildout of the project. Any future road widening or site development proposals will require channel improvements to protect the watershed. Land Use. In the near -term, no development and therefore no land use impacts will occur with selection of the no project alternative. The site could continue to be used for agriculture and a roadside agricultural stand. Existing land use and zoning designations allowing residential development will remain in effect and future development is not precluded. Noise. Selection of this alternative will reduce potential off -site noise impacts by Ldn 0.1 dB(A). As with the proposed project, noise levels will be less than significant. Significant noise impacts to on -site residences and required mitigation would be avoided if residential development is not approved. Traffic. Approximately 360 fewer ADTs would be generated (project level) if the residential subdivision is not constructed and an additional 216 ADTs would be avoided with denial of the congregate care facility. The traffic generated by the existing roadside agricultural stand would remain. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 7 -1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Public Services. Selection of this alternative avoids any need for facility improvements and will therefore not impact public services. Paleontology. No impacts to paleontological resources would occur with selection of this alternative. 2. Reduced Project Alternative Through early consultation with City staff, resource agencies, and the environmental consultant, the project applicant was encouraged to submit a reduced project alternative that would meet setback requirements for fire protection and minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources. The reduced project alternative will develop the northern 22 -acre portion of the site with 33 residential lots, ranging in size from 5,500 square feet to 24,300 square feet (Figure 7 -1). Selection of this alternative will reduce land use, fire services, and biological resource impacts and produce an environmentally superior project alternative. Although the reduced project alternative exceeds the City's 2.5 du /ac mid -range density objective by 0.2 du /ac or three residential lots, average lot size is greater than that of immediately surrounding residential development to the north and south. Access to the project is the same as for the proposed project. The initial entry from El Camino Real is 36 feet in width, narrowing to 24 feet at the gated entry to the residential area and private internal cul -de -sac streets. A fifty -foot fuel modification/ restricted use area has been incorporated into the project design to meet fire safety requirements. An additional 25 -foot selective thinning fuel zone will also be maintained along the southern development boundary. As with the proposed project, impacts associated with the construction of a congregate care facility on the remainder parcel could result in significant but mitigable impacts. Biological Resources. The reduced project alternative would impact a gross total of 10.4 acres including approximately 0.3 acre of sage scrub, 0.6 acre of chaparral, 0.3 acre of disturbed riparian vegetation, and 9.2 acres of disturbed areas (Figure 7 -2). As designed, the impacts to sage scrub include 0.25 acre due to development and another 0.03 acre loss to fuel modification. Impacts to chaparral include 0.04 acre to development and another 0.54 acre loss to fuel modification. Table 7 -1 compares impacts associated with the proposed project with those that would occur with implementation of the reduced project alternative. Impacts to riparian vegetation and sensitive species would be identical to those discussed for the proposed project. Sage scrub preserved on the site would be comparable with what would be preserved with the proposed project. An additional acre of chaparral would be preserved and additional acreage of disturbed areas would be available for the revegetation of sage scrub (see Appendix C, Biological Resources Report). The biological open space buffer varies in width from 80 to over 350 feet and provides connectivity with a proposed conservation bank to the east and hillside protection. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be required to reduce significant impacts to sensitive sage scrub habitat, chaparral and emergent wetlands. Impacts associated with future plans for the remainder parcel remain significant but mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 7 -2 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Table 2. Biological Impacts - Reduced Project /Proposed Project Comparison"' 1° Measured in acres. Area available for revegetation as sage scrub. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 7 -3 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Existing Conditions Proposed Project (36 Lots) Reduced Alternative (33 Lots) Habitats Tentative Map Remainder Parcel Total Development Impacts Fuel Mod Impacts Preserved Development Impacts Fuel Mud Impacts Preserved Sage Scrub 5.30 0.80 6.10 0.30 0.10 4.9 0.25 0.03 5.0 Chaparral 6.50 0.50 7.00 0.04 1.70 4.8 0.04 0.54 5.9 Riparian Vegetation 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.30 0.30 Disturbed 9.90 3.60 13.50 1 9.50 0.4'"' 9.20 0.7ft') Total 22.00 5.20 27.2 1 10.14 1.80 10.1 9.79 0.57 11.6 1° Measured in acres. Area available for revegetation as sage scrub. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 7 -3 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Aesthetics /Visual Resources. Impacts are generally the same with development of 33 residential dwelling units as those identified for the proposed project and are considered to be less than significant. Hydrology. Mitigation measures required for implementation of the Lux Canyon Drainage System (1981) will be implemented regardless of the alternative selected and are considered to be less than significant. Land Use. Development of the project site will reduce but not eliminate significant land use impacts because development will slightly exceed mid -range density by 8 percent. As a result, the lead agency must make "findings" that "the project excels in design excellence and /or provides extraordinary community benefits" prior to approval (Land Use Policy 8.3). Findings may be based on project design features which utilize lot area averaging standards to provide a project which is compatible with surrounding residential areas. Preservation of 60 percent of the project site as biological open space protects significant biological resources, and provides a generous buffer between the project and off -site residential use areas. The project exceeds minimum lot depth requirements on 29 of 33 lots. Floor area ratio and lot coverage will also be lower than the maximum allowed. Noise. Off -site impacts remain less than significant. Impacts to home adjacent to El Camino Real resulting from buildout traffic volumes under the General Plan will be the same as for the proposed project, and will be mitigated by the construction of a noise wall on the east side of the drainage. Traffic. Roadway improvements have been incorporated into project design. The project will provide a right turn deceleration lane consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards. Public Services. Significant fire service impacts are avoided through setbacks from the native habitat, and selective thinning of brush. All other impacts are the same as for the proposed project and are less than significant. Paleontology. Impacts are the same as those identified for the proposed project. Potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through the monitoring of grading of native soils by a paleontologist. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EHi December 1996 Page 74 Alternatives to the Proposed Project wrirs.Y •�' 163 -in -b �wo.r _�.._�_. �__.___�__ •'">tl -O61 -d fl LOT 35 LOT 35 1 Sy_ f •: I aI ® ®1 © ,4 1 � s ! I LOT 35 i� O S S CE 1116.0 • "+�" it `ia,�`•'> a I I 1 3 I I ' IJ � 1 - 1 RENA.4:�ER LOT _ It 1 3 I ' _ 1 I , � 1 1 . .P. XC X2 Brian E Mooney N Figure 7.1 Associates ° 75' �`�' Reduced Project Alternative Sl.lky P,a m 9 REVEG. REVEG Lo �W R LEGEND ® Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Southern Mixed Chaparral _ Disturbed Riparian Vegetation Disturbed Potential Revegetation Sites * California Gnatcatcher individuals/ pairs (Number following' denotes location) NOTE: Mapped Biological Resources are based on an update of a previous survey conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services Inc. (1992) Figure 7 -2 ® � Biological Impacts Map . o 100 zoo' Reduced Project Altemarive —' shak, Po This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TMlMUP EIR December 1996 Page 7-8 Alternatives to the Proposed Project CHAPTER EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The project site has been surveyed for cultural resources on two previous occasions with negative results (Archaeological /Historical Survey Report for the Lux Canyon Drainage Channel San Diego County, CA - Dr. James R. Moriarty, III and Brian F. Smith - September 1981 and An Archaeological Survey of the El Camino Real Homes Subdivision Project - Brian F. Smith and Associates - February 10, 1989). Archaeological site record searches were obtained from the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man. The searches encompassed the area within a one -mile radius of the project, and revealed that approximately fifteen sites and several isolated artifacts have been previously recorded within the vicinity of the project. No sites, however, have been recorded within the boundaries of the project site. No further archaeological studies are required. Technical reports are included as Appendix I of this report. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 8-1 Effects Found Not To Be Significant This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 8 -2 Effects Found Not To Be Significant CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES, PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED Bodas, LeRoy, Senior Civil Engineer - City of Encinitas 1996 Personal Communication with Donna Steel. November 11. Giroux, Hans D. Atmospheric Environmental Consultant 1989 Noise Impact Assessment for El Camino Real Homes. March 2 Miller, Chris, Planning Technician, Department of Planning and Community Development City of Encinitas 1996 Personal communication with Donna Steel. October 30. Olson, Craig, Associate Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development City of Encinitas 1996 Personal communication with Donna Steel. October 29. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 9 -1 References. Persons and Agencies Consulted This page intentionally left blank. SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 9-2 References, Persons and Agencies Consulted CHAPTER 10 CERTIFICATION This report presents a full disclosure and independent analysis of all the identified environmental resources as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Brian F. Mooney, AICP Principal In Charge Michael L. Page Project Manager This report was prepared by Brian F. Mooney Associates (BFMA) of San Diego, California. The following BFMA staff members contributed to this document: Brian F. Mooney, AICP, Senior Principal B.A., Anthropology, Graduate Studies, Urban History Michael L. Page, Senior Planner B.A., Biology /Environmental Science and Geology /Biology Donna E. Steel, Environmental Planner B.A., Geography /Environmental Bruce Campbell, Senior Scientist M.A.. B.A. Environmental Studies Thomas M. Cherry, ASLA, Senior Land Planner B.S., Landscape Architecture Lisa T. Embree, Senior Biologist M.S., Biology, B.S., Zoology Gladys T. Baird, Associate Biologist B.S., Biology Roma Jones Stromberg, Environmental Planner M.S., Environmental Management, B.A., Geography Christy Rust, Graphics Coordinator SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR December 1996 Page 10 -I Certification The following consultants contributed to this EIR: John Boatman Wayne Pasco Theresa A. Stewart Kennon Corey Bill Weedman Gary Barberio David Moore Chuck DuVivier Dan Shelley December 1996 Linscott Law & Greenspan Pasco Engineering, Inc. California Department of Fish & Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Encinitas, Community Development Dept. City of Encinitas, Community Development Dept. Encinitas Fire Department, Deputy Fire Marshall Applicant Applicant SHELLEY PROPERTY TM/MUP EIR Page 10.2 Certification