Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2007-474 G
C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S . VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. : 474GI PARCEL NO. 258-163-0900 PLAN NO. : JOB SITE ADDRESS : 763 SECOND STREET CASE NO. : 06097 / CDP APPLICANT NAME CWK PROPERTIES (WARREN SCOTT) MAILING ADDRESS : 987 HERMES AVE PHONE NO. : 760-943-8180 CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024- CONTRACTOR : VIKING COMMERCIAL CONST PHONE NO. : LICENSE NO. : 804831 LICENSE TYPE: B ENGINEER SPEAR & ASSOC PHONE NO. : 760-736-2040 PERMIT ISSUE PATF- 84 07/07 ` PERMIT 4 01VN PERMIT ISSUED BY: f INSP R: BEN OLIVER ` -� --------------- ---------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS --------------- ------------- 1 . PERMIT FEE f . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE 2 , 131 . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 S . NPDES INSPT FEE 426 . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT 42, 631 . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 530 . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00 9 . IN-LIEU UNDERGRND 6, 547 . 50 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMT . 00 ll . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 12 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: . 00 --- ------ -- - - - - -- - - -- --- - DESCRIPTION OF WORK --- ---- ------ - --------------- -- PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND MATERIALS/LABOR FOR EARTHWORK DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T. C.H. STANDARDS OR APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. LETTER DATED JULY 25, 2007 APPLIES . ---- INSPECTION ------ - --------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ---- INITIAL INSPECTION Q 7 B •011 . COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED p ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED S , ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION p FINAL INSPECTION ------- --��'`"-"---f_rv,�n� --------�-� 0� ---------------- ------------- Ife 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. Ale 07e7 SI ATIURE DATE SIGNED A�0 -- cod 3 1-17i�J PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS September 4, 2007 _ Warren W. Scott Warren W. Scott Architecture 987 Hermes Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Commercial/Residential Complex 7632 d Street Encinitas, California Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Commercial/Residential Complex 7632 d Street Encinitas, California _ Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated November 15, 2006 Dear Mr. Scott: _ In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this report. Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However,due -- to the proximity of adjacent foundations and concrete flatwork, additional compaction by hand operated equipment will be necessary during the foundation excavation stage. u' If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is greatly a Y Respectfully submitte COAST GEOTEC 1 .6-• / 7782 1 Mark Burwell, C.E. rFP.T°�'1[ a Vitha a'Sin hane P .12-31-07 ENGMEERIN�� Y g e Engineering Geologi Geotechnical Engine ' a 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Commercial/Residential Complex 7632"d Street Encinitas, California Prepared for: Warren W. Scott Warren W. Scott Architecture 987 Hermes Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 September 4,2007 W.O. G-505086 Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 Coast Geotechnical September 4,2007 W.O. G-505086 Page 3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of fill,soil and weathered terrace deposits in the two(2)building envelopes. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan,prepared by Spear and Associates. LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Maximum Dry Density Optimum _ Description Dry Moisture (% Soil T)ne Tan to brown fine and 129.0 11.5 A medium-grained sand GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The property is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth °-' by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as Torrey Sandstone on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by residual soil and fill deposits. Coast Geotechnical September 4,2007 W.O. G-505086 Page 4 DISCUSSION The grading contractor on this project was Green Leaf Grading. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) The existing structures and pavement were demolished and removed from the site. 2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits in the two (2) building pads were removed to a depth of approximately 3.0 to 4.0 feet below grade and stockpiled. The western building pad required slot cuts for grading due to the adjacent property line structure. 3) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 inches, moistened to near optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling with a Catapillar 977 and a skip loader. 4) Due to the adjacent structure,the western building pad was not overexcavated laterally along the northern property line or along the western footing line due to the existing sidewalk. 5) Hand operated compaction equipment will be necessary in order to compact the base of footing excavations in areas where overexcavation could not be accomplished at the time of rough grading. Coast Geotechnical September 4,2007 W.O. G-505086 Page 5 6) The proposed footing adjacent to the northern property line may need to be re-designed in order to support surcharge loads from the adjacent existing foundation. Slot cuts will be necessary for footing construction in this area. 7) The eastern pad was overexcavated to a maximum depth of approximately 4.0 feet and extended approximately 4.0 to 5.0 lateral feet beyond the building envelope. 8) Based on visual classification and previous laboratory testing, the fill deposits have a potential expansion in the very low range. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing,the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. However, additional recommendations for compaction will be necessary during the footing excavation stage. 2) The soil parameters recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for foundations and slab design remain valid. However, it is our understanding that the northern foundation is currently being reviewed by the structural engineer in view of the adjacent surcharge load. The northern footing for the proposed structure should be constructed in alternate sections which do not exceed 5.0 lateral feet. Coast Geotechnical September 4, 2007 - W.O. G-505086 Page 6 3) The following pavement section is recommended for the proposed driveway: (R-value 34) 6.0 inches of concrete on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive concrete. Subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. The pavement section should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. 4) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing,raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Coast Geotechnical September 4,2007 W.O. G-505086 Page 7 5) Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to migrate under concrete flatwork or pavement sections. 6) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation which are not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. - LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion,based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Enclosures: Table I Grading Plan - ENCLOSURES FIELD TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Height Content Density % Soil Date No. Location Of Fill % (Pcf Compaction Type 8/22/07 1 See Map 2 . 0 ' 10 .2 117 . 5 91 A 8/27/07 2 See Map 4 . 0 ' 10 . 9 120 . 5 93 A 8/29/07 3 See Map 2 . 0 ' 8 . 5 120 . 8 94 A 8/29/07 4 See Map 3 . 5 ' 9 . 1 118 . 2 92 A G-505086 Wm N V Zt� �Q U r Ac o� Sy o ,SZ'OS Ij3 S,ZZ.SS n^ 6 Lo O U Q fS S l c�L.Lj \� W LAJ v ,��; ��� W h Q �Q p m CO 1 o� it o. p, uS �� v M0�3� W \ i M8 o'ZL i F a ". Ve y W Ml 6 £'L / 'O'd 2/31 V, Q � ' Q O LLJ ~ .d 381-1 O Oc O --ONli1 dd o o Q W oz C �. .._.... �Qj U O / k g FS __ __ _ W O U. Q z� mo _. o. Zoo . Z -�---- Z' � °� O QWCIO� 0 0~ acv. � ��►��. U U U o o , S37O1H3r1 O w, ►� W Q � I 2/30Nn ONb1 Vd No_ U Q . m ° i 3 Snob12�3d 3 S 9�' i O -- --m O lu W o ^ ' - Zt Q Z I L a(�C 52 -- _ 0 I , Lo � j --- CO m^ W ^ a a CL 03 cl 71, 4 ; a � Z Z O Q i ib a O °4 � co^ \ � bi o ' • u z ~ I ►, w C)- �O \ - o ._.._ 68.24 --- D FS D cD v a tiZ•09 Ak gZ,CZ.�N uu ,L l - "' 3dVOSONV7 �-� 0 m °p O3SOd02/d ° D `n 3ddoSONb'7 C6 o350do8d `u7d doSGNV7- I 14103SOdo., `r' c I c tx Z G LLJJ �� -Z pp1 , 1��� ONi,Vtldd W o �,� 1332�L S 03sod02/d W W� W �o j^ Q Q N COAST GrEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS September 4,2007 _ Warren W. Scott Warren W. Scott Architecture 987 Hermes Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: PROPOSED FOUNDATION ALONG NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE Proposed Commercial/Residential Complex 7632 nd Street Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Scott: It is our understanding that the proposed footing will be founded up to 14 inches below the existing adjacent footing. Probing suggests that the adjacent footing is underlain by very moist and loose fine and medium-grained sand. It is our understanding that the project structural engineer,Palos Verdes Engineering,has reviewed this condition and has determined that the designed footing is adequate to support the surcharge load from the adjacent structure. The proposed footings should be excavated in alternate sections which do not exceed 5.0 lateral feet. Additional compaction will be required in the footing excavations by hand operated compaction equipment. Additional recommendations will be necessary at that time. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 September 4,2007 Coast Geotechnical W.O. G-505086 Page 2 Water should not be allowed to infiltrate into the footing subsoils, along the small separation r between the existing adjacent foundation and the proposed parallel foundation. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, �'� COAST GEOTECHN O � ` p,S'IN D. 2109 Exp 6 r i� f 782 a Vithay Singhanet, Exp.1 31-0 7 � _ Mark Burwell, C.E. C,9��, � � ' ENG�N�� U, , j Geotechnical Engi Engineering Geologi GEOLOG1< r _ _ OF CAV. _ COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIS'T'S November 15, 2006 Warren W. Scott Warren W. Scott Architecture Hermes Avenue ' 987 He 2 K07 Encinitas, CA 92024 r RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Commercial/Residential Complex 7632 nd Street Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Scott: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated July 31,2006, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed medical offices. The findings of the investigation,laboratory test results and recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view,it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted °; QapFESS/pN9 SING COAST GEOTEC � 2106 `,� �� CL Exp.5-31-08 c 782 CERTIFIED �1�IG�C, Exp.12-31-07 ENGINEERING VithayaSinghanet, P. * G+ Pte, Mark Burwell, C.E.G. GEOLOGIST tr- Geotechnical Engine er `fl FG%ECHN�G Engineering Geologist 9TEOF CAL�FO� 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Commerciat/Residential Complex 7632 d Street Encinitas, California Prepared For: Warren W. Scott Warren W. Scott Architecture 987 Hermes Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 November 15, 2006 W.O. P-505086 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 VICINITY MAP 5 INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 7 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 10 CONCLUSIONS 11 RECOMMENDATIONS A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION 11 B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 12 C. FOUNDATIONS 13 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 14 E. RETAINING WALLS 14 F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 14 G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 15 H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 15 1. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 16 J. UTILITY TRENCH 16 K. DRAINAGE 17 L. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 17 '- M. PLAN REVIEW 17 _ LIMITATIONS 20 REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS SITE PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP _ SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Topo USA®5.0 CF?S9 VICINITY MAP J c / l "' a � C c U �t > VIST�EILRFY BR; o - - , ` I �i D SZ jV SUBJECT PROPERTY EFST -- - �' UE2AST _ r WF ST t� , y 1 �."sx n , ;- ` r AWLST X h r J ,.'� � t Y � 1 , k 9 4 - SAN DR _. � I .. .- - Scale 1_:6,000 TN no soon Data use subject to license. m MN 100F� 0 b Do ID t. � ®2004 DeLorrne.Topo USA®5.0. - _ - _ — - V=500.0 ft Data Zoom 15-0 www.delorme.com ' Coast Geotechnical November 15,2006 W.O, P-505086 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property,the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed commercial/residential complex. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located south of F Street, along the east side of 2"d Street, in the city of Encinitas. The site is a relatively level to gently sloping rectangular commercial lot. The property includes an existing single story structure in the southwestern portion of the site. An asphalt concrete parking area occupies the remainder of the site. The property is bounded along the north and south by developed commercial lots and along the east by an alley. Vegetation is limited to small isolated planters. Drainage is generally directed to a drainage channel which traverses the parking area diagonally. The water is transferred to a subsurface drain. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans for the development of the site were prepared by Warren W. Scott Architecture. The project includes the demolition of existing improvements and the construction of a two story Coast Geotechnical November 15,2006 W.O. P-505086 Page 6 office building and a two car residential garage. It is anticipated that the proposed structures will be constructed at or near the present grade. '— SITE INVESTIGATION Two(2)exploratory borings were drilled to a depth of 14 feet with a portable auger. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination,in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. MoistureMensity The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 7 field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Log. Maximum D Densi and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. Shear Test Shear tests were performed in a strain-control type direct shear machine. The rate of deformation was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters,cohesion and angle of internal friction. Samples were tested in a saturated condition. The results are presented in the enclosed Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 8 Artificial Fill (afl _ Approximately 2.0 to 3.0 feet of fill deposits were encountered in the exploratory borings. The fill is composed of silty, fine and medium-grained sand in a moist, loose condition. Terrace Deposits (Qtl Underlying the surficial materials,poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The terrace deposits are composed of reddish brown,slightly silty,fine and medium-grained sand. The sediments are in a loose condition in the upper 4.0 to 5.0 feet. Below the weathered zone,the terrace deposits are moderately dense. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil r Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the fill deposits and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the very low range. Groundwater No evidence of high groundwater conditions were observed to the depth explored in our exploratory borings. However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from prolonged rainfall, drainage alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 9 '- Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and _ fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.4 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous,well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation(Woodward-Clyde, 1979)and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon _ faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank,Elsinore,San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Seismic Design Parameters. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 10 "- Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits,proposed remedial grading and the anticipated depth to groundwater,the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. However,certain geotechnical conditions will require special consideration in the design and construction phases. 2) The existing fill and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of proposed footings and concrete flatwork in their present condition. These surficial deposits should be r removed and replaced as properly compacted fill deposits in areas of proposed footings, concrete flatwork and exterior improvements. Removals are anticipated to be on the order of 5.0 feet. 3) Care should be exercised during removals adjacent to property lines and adjacent structures. The foundation for the adjacent structure to the north appears to be situated on the northern property line. Slot cuts,hand operated compaction or shoring will be necessary for removals adjacent to structures. Additional recommendations may be necessary based on final plans. Coast Geotechnical November 15,2006 w,O, P-505086 Page 11 RECOMMENDATIONS _ Building Pad-Removals/Recompaction The existing fill and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Removals should include the entire building pad, extending a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint,where applicable. Removals are anticipated to be on the order of 5.0 feet below the existing grade. Deeper removals may be necessary depending upon conditions revealed during grading. Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all vegetation,debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, the base of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches,moistened as required and compacted to a minimum _ of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts, moistened to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill and weathered terrace deposits in areas of proposed concrete flatwork and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non-expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer. Temporary Slimes/Excavation Characteristics Due to the friable nature of the fill and terrace deposits,temporary excavations over 3.5 feet should November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 12 be trimmed to a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or less depending upon conditions encountered during grading. Slot cuts and hand operated compaction equipment will be necessary for removals adjacent to or in close proximity to foundations. Adjacent footings should not be undermined. Additional recommendations during the grading phase will be necessary. The Pleistocene terrace deposits are generally weakly cemented but may contain hard concretion layers. Based on our experience in the area, the sediments are easily rippable with conventional earth moving equipment in good working order. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with Cal-OSHA requirements. Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non-expansive approved compacted fill deposits or extended into competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed structure should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches into compacted fill for single-story and two-story structures, respectively. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 5 bars,one along the top of the footing and one along the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes,an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for 12 inch deep footings and 1750 pounds per square foot may be used for 18 inch deep footings. November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 13 The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill or terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) _ Slabs on grade should be a minimum of a full 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 16 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket (S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on-site materials,compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Coast Geotechnical November 15,2006 P-505086 Page 14 Retaining Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active- equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an"at-rest"equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system(Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.4 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 15 along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.47g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.31 g. r Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - SD Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (N j - 1.3 Near source Acceleration Factor (Na) - 1.1 Seismic Coefficients Ca=0.49 C,=0.86 Design Response Spectrum TS=0.704 To=0.141 Nearest Type B Fault - 3.9 km Preliminary Pavement Design The following pavement section is recommended for proposed parking/driveways: 4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 16 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. _. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect or engineer. However, in general,pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street. ' Coast Geotechnical November 15,2006 P-505086 Page 17 Roof water should be collected and conducted to the street, via non-erodible devices. Pad water _ should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired,sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical "— engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. Coast Geotechnical November 15,2006 P-505086 Page 18 If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, _ our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts,specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time,however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore ` subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 19 The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. — November 15,2006 Coast Geotechnical W.O. P-505086 Page 20 REFERENCES I. Hays,Walter W., 1980,Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions,Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California,California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96-706. 3. Seed,H.B.,and Idriss,I.M., 1970,A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 4. Tan,S.S.,and Giffen,D.G., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open-File Report 95-04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 24,000. J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California 5. Treiman Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1"=750,000'. 2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02. 3. Scott, Warren W., 2006, Site Plan, 763 2" Street, Encinitas, California, Scale 1"=8'. 4. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. PM PM r- .- /- PW /- .- .- .M LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91) Max. Dry Optimum Sample Moisture Content Location Density (pcf) B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -3 . 0 ' 126 . 8 10 . 1 TAB_ LE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Field Dry Field Moisture Sample Location Density 105 . 7 7 . 4 B-1 @ 1 . 5 ' 7 . 5 B-1 @ 3 . 0 ' 88 . 4 100 . 3 6 . 7 B-1 @ 5 . 0 ' 5 .7 B-1 @ 8 . 0 ' 105 . 0 93 . 1 9 . 0 B-1 @ 10 . 0 ' 4 6 . 6 B-2 @ 1 . 5 ' 92 . 6 . 5 B-2 @ 4 . 0 ' 96 . 0 87 . 4 7 . 8 B-2 @ 9 . 0 ' 103 . 5 106 . 7 5 . 8 B-2 @ 11 . 0 ' TABLE III Direct Shear Test Results (Residual) Sample Location Angle of Apparent Cohesion Internal Friction 0 psf) B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -3 . 0 ' 30 Degrees 84 (Remolded) P-505086 EXPLORATORY BORING NO., I LOG OF _ DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-505086 B I DATE DRILLED: 09-11-06 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" LOGGED BY: MB SURFACE ELEV.: 70' (Approximate) .1 ^ zF' W O W v o W o W W U Q a x a U GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 70.00 +r 0.00 ::::::::;; ASPHALT PAVING SM FILL(af� Tan to brn.silty,fine and medium-grained sand 69.0 .III 1.00 105.7 7.4 68.00 2.00 ;:; ; Loose 67.00,:'.:'.:' sand 3.00 r SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained I 88.4 I 7.5 4.00 .e' ? Weathered,Loose J .. 65.00 4 < 5.00 ' ;_% 100.3 6.7 c Little or no cohesion '.o- 64.00': r: r:: c}d 6.00 63.00 O 7.00 Z62.00 �%i. From 8',moderately dense 105.0 5.7 I 8.00 � � I 61.00+ 9.00 r rr ' 60.00 93.1 9.0 10.0 : 59.0 58.00=i" J - 12.00 57.00 13.00 End of Boring @ 14' COAST GEOTECHNICAL SHEET 1 OF 1 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-505086 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 09-11-06 SURFACE ELEV.: 70' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB 0 z H I o a H Q H rUi� O w U U a Oa W W U Q 'S x a U Cn ¢ con GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 70.00 o.00 ASPHALT PAVING SM FILL(afl: Tan to brn. silty,fine and medium-grained sand 69.00;: �: Loose 92.4 6.6 68.00;:,5:5;:' 2.00 ppm' SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Tan to Reddish bm.,fine and med.-grained sand 67.00'::"::":': 3.00 66.00......... 96.0 6.5 -d 4.00 -- Weathered,Loose a� 65.00 Q 5.00 : :- ........... Little or no cohesion J 64.00 N 87.4 7.8 3 6.00 63.00 • 0 7.00 0 _ 62.0o From 8',moderately dense 61.00 103.5 7.7 9.00 60.00 10.0 .......... 59.0 ::...:..:... 106.7 5.8 11.00. 58.00 12.00::'::":': 57.00 - 13.00- = End of Boring @ 14' SHEET 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL - ` } x w � Q z E g- x O O� .° z W o U c U Uo� Un W v1 va F-� O U z iZ I c� Alliv Q U U Q O Q RT\ ----r o i - A � N 71 co cn �p4ni oL �Qc H i o U — O c c\i IILL' �U 0 c a IC cz I I I :fie I r ;: tia e p� �I Zwa O � w AMTS CIN003S - APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP SCOTT 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 db S I 0 .� -100 -200 -300 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 *********************** * * * U B C S E I S * Version 1.03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P-505086 DATE: 11-12-2006 JOB NAME: SCOTT FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: _ SITE LATITUDE: 33. 0428 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2945 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: - NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 45.5 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 3.9 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: - NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.1 Nv: 1.3 Ca: 0.49 - Cv: 0. 86 Ts: 0.704 To: 0.141 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME------------I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ROSE CANYON I 3.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 17.8 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS CORONADO BANK I 27.9 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I 45.5 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 45.5 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS PALOS VERDES I 65.6 I B I 7.1 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 66.9 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 68.2 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 82.2 I A I 7.2 i 12.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 85.1 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 85.7 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 86.6 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 87.3 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 89.4 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 95.7 I B I 6.8 I 2.50 I SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 104.1 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 108.4 I P I 6.7 I 12.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 114.1 I A 1 7.4 I 24.00 I SS SAN JOSE I 122.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 124.8 I B i 7.0 I 2.50 I SS CUCAMONGA I 127.0 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 127.1 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 128.1 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I SS BURNT MTN. I 131.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS ELMORE RANCH I 134.2 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 134.7 I B ; 7.0 i 1.00 I DS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 135.8 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS EUREKA PEAK I 136.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 1 136.3 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I SS CLEGHORN I 137.0 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 141.4 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS RAYMOND I 141.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 142.2 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 142.7 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 I SS VERDUGO I 145.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS HOLLYWOOD I 148.1 I B I 6.5 1 1.00 I DS LANDERS I 149.0 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 151.8 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT i 152.9 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS SANTA MONICA I 155.3 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I DS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 158.2 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS MALIBU COAST I 159.3 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 1 DS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 161.3 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 1 SS - IMPERIAL i 161.5 I A I 7.0 i 20.00 I S5 JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 162.3 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 166.0 I B I 6.7 I 2.00 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. ! SLIP ! FAULT - ABBREVIATED !DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE ! TYPE FAULT NAME --_-! (km) I (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) ! (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA-DUME ! 167.3 I B I 7.3 ! 3.00 I DS SAN GABRIEL ! 169.0 I B I 7.0 ! 1.00 I SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I 170.8 I B ! 7.1 ! 0.60 I SS CALICO - HIDALGO ! 175.0 I B ! 7.1 ! 0.60 I SS SANTA SUSANA ! 181.2 I B ! 6.6 ! 5.00 I DS HOLSER ! 190.0 I B I 6.5 ! 0.40 I DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA ! 197.2 I B ! 6.7 ! 1.00 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) ! 198.2 1 B ! 6.9 ! 4.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE ! 206.4 ! B I 6.9 ! 0.60 I SS SAN CAYETANO I 206.7 ! B ! 6.8 ! 6.00 ! DS ' BLACKWATER I 221.8 I B ! 6.9 ! 0.60 I SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 224.9 I B I 6.8 ! 1.00 ! DS SANTA YNEZ (East) ! 226.5 I B I 7.0 ! 2.00 ! SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND ! 232.2 I B I 6.8 ! 1.00 I DS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA I 235.8 ! B ! 6.7 ! 0.40 I DS RED MOUNTAIN I 238.7 I B ! 6.8 ! 2.00 I DS GARLOCK (West) ! 243.5 I A ! 7.1 ! 6.00 I SS PLEITO THRUST ! 248.5 I B ! 6.8 ! 2.00 ! DS BIG PINE ! 254.0 1 B ! 6.7 ! 0.80 I SS GARLOCK (East) ! 258.4 I A ! 7.3 ! 7.00 I SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND ! 266.8 I B ! 6.9 I 1.00 ! DS WHITE WOLF I 269.4 I B I 7.2 I 2.00 ! DS SANTA YNEZ (West) ! 270.5 I B ! 6.9 ! 2.00 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 282.8 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE I 287.4 I B ! 6.7 ! 0.70 I SS OWL LAKE I 287.7 I B I 6.5 ! 2.00 I SS PANAMINT VALLEY 1 287.9 I B I 7.2 ! 2.50 I SS TANK CANYON I 289.0 I B ! 6.5 ! 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 296.2 I B I 6.9 ! 4.00 I SS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 312.4 ! B I 6.8 ! 0.70 I DS LIONS HEAD I 330.1 I B I 6.6 ! 0.02 ! DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 338.0 I B ! 6.9 ! 4.00 I DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) ! 340.0 I B ! 7.0 ! 0.20 I DS SAN JUAN I 341.4 I B ! 7.0 ! 1.00 I SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 348.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.25 ! DS OWENS VALLEY 1 355.9 I B I 7.6 ! 1.50 I SS LOS OSOS ! 370.2 1 B I 6.8 ! 0.50 ! DS HOSGRI 1 375.7 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY ! 382.1 ' B ! 7.0 ! 2.50 I SS RINCONADA I 391.4 I B ! 7.3 I 1.00 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) ! 391.5 I A I 7.2 ! 5.00 ! SS INDEPENDENCE ! 391.7 ! B ! 6.9 I 0.20 ! DS BIRCH CREEK I 448.0 I B I 6.5 ! 0.70 ! DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) ! 448.3 I B I 5.0 I 34.00 I SS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 452.6 ! B ! 7.1 ! 1.00 ! SS DEEP SPRINGS ! 471.1 I B I 6.6 ! 0.80 ! DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 476.1 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns. ) I 483.1 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS FISH SLOUGH I 490.9 I B I 6.6 I 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK I 509.2 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA I 532.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 533.5 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 538.3 ! B I 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 540.6 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR I 541.3 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I SS QUIEN SABE I 551.6 I B I 6.5 ! 1.00 I SS MONO LAKE I 569.5 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 570.0 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 575.2 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 ! SS SARGENT I 575.4 I B I 6.8 ! 3.00 I SS - ROBINSON CREEK I 600.8 I B i 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 616.0 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE I 625.3 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 625.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 625.6 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 641.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 645.4 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 645.4 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS GENOA I 666.4 I B ! 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY i 693.3 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK ! 732.0 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I SS WEST NAPA I 732.9 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 ! SS POINT REYES I 750.7 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 755.5 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 ! SS MAACAMA (South) I 794.8 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 811.8 I B ; 6.5 I 0.60 1 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 815.4 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (Central) ! 836.4 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) I 896.0 I A I 7.1 i 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 902.3 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS BATTLE CREEK I 926.2 ! B I 6.5 ! 0.50 I DS LAKE MOUNTAIN I 960.8 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 977.8 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1034.0 I A I 7.4 I 35.00 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1040.8 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS MAD RIVER 1 1043.7 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1047.7 I A I 8.3 I 35.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE 1 1054.1 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 1 1055.7 ( B ! 7.3 I 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL 1 1056.1 I B I 6.9 ! 0.60 I DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1061.4 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1074.8 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I DS 0 LO o _ UQ W a `yi o U CO - O O 0 ^ O L h+� a N O O LO Fri{ O N O O - (�) uoiIeaa1900y lealoadg - APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented _ below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non- organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. — Subdrainaze 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. _ 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. ._ (1) 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material(see report)and tilted back into the hill. As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; C) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built"at grade"using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. °_ (2) In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed,slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete.Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's"Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. _ 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testine 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. _ (3) 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill,unless it is similar to the inplace fill,should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS (Dated: 02/27/07) For Grading Plan No: LOCATION: APN 258-163-09; Encinitas CA. OWNER: CWK Properties.L.L.C. 987 Hermes Avenue Encinitas,CA 92924 PHONE: (760)943-8180 PREPARED BY: SPEAR&ASSOCIATES,INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS U W �qp� r 475 Production Street SAN MARCOS,CA 92078 No. 20934 PHONE: (760)736-2040 EXP. 9-30 FAX: (760)736-4866 �V BY: ---- ------— ---------- - _ ----------------- -- RICHARD W. HARTLE ROJECT ENGINEER R.C.E. 20934: EXPIRES 9/30/2007 S&A,INC: J. N. 2006-148 Page 1 Table Of Contents DESCRIPTION PAGE No. 1. Introduction 2 IL Discussion 2 III. Conclusion 3 Location Map-Thomas Bros. Page 1147 4 USGS Map 5 Google Map 6--7 Runoff Coefficients 8 Ma.ximuin Overland Flow Length 9 Soil Group Map 10--11 Hydrology-2Year Storm Event 12--15 Hydrology-10 Year Storm Event 16--19 Hydrology- 100 Year Storm Event 20--23 Hydrographs for 2, 10& 100 Year Events(Post-Dev.vs Pre-Dev) 24--26 Hydraulic Calculations for On-site Storm Drains 37-47 Storm Event That Produces 1=0.2in/hr 48--51 Attachments: A. DRAIN A G L AZ(5A MAP 1.0 Project Description: The Project is located in the City of Encinitas at 763 2"d Street. The Assessor's Parcel Number is: APN 258-163-09; Being Parcel "A" of Parcel Map No. 15413; in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego. The site currently drains to 2"d Street. The Project owner proposes to remove the existing buildings and replace it with a new two story commercial building and garage. The post-development flow will be less than the pre- development flow due to the reduction of impervious area. The pre-development impervious area= 5059sf[run-off C= 0.9(5059/5059) + 0.25(1-5059/5059)) = 0.9 and post-development impervious= 4100sf. [C=0.9(4100/5059) + 0.25(1-4100/5059)= 0.77. 1.1 Topography and Land Use: The project area has an existing building and paved parking area and the ground slopes at 4f%to 2"d Street. There are no pronounced or historic features. The storm water run-off from the site currently drains to 2nd Street, and then southerly via existing curb and gutters. 2.0 Discussion: We have designed the project so that the post-development run-off is less than the pre- development run-off. This was accomplished by increasing the pervious area(see the proposed grading plan and erosion control plan). We have calculated the run-off for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events using the County of San Diego "Hydrology Manual (June 2003). A summary of each storm event is given in the body of this report. We have also calculated the Qwq (water quality flow) for the storm event that will produce an Intensity of 1=0.20in/hr(see Table 1.1 for Water Quality Flows). The post-development Qs will be less than the pre-development Qs. Page 2 Table 2.1 Post-Construction Water Quality Flows vs. Pre-Development Flows Outfall Tributary yQZ WS) _Q,o(cfs) EQloo(cfs) Area(acres) Site+Alley X0 0.12 0.29 0.39 0.61 Outfall Tributary Qwq for Area(acres) I=0.2in/hr Site+alley Xo 0.148 0.02 3.0 Conclusion: The proposed demolition of the existing single family residence and the development of a new single family residence will not increase the run-off from the site. The site and grading plan prepared, by Spear& Associate, Inc. will comply with City of Encinitas's grading ordinance and the City's SUSNIl' ordinance and the SDWQCB Order No. 2001- 01 to the maximum extent practical. Page 3 LU N h HOLLOW LN a21 A 0 Lll AM} �o � VNU03 n Q ORKNEY p N a21 LN Novo DR j S GARDENA L1! Jq�"y PIEDRAS ? RD Q Z 2� EA °11S3M ORO CALLE U a� CL REGAL — "i O CIR Y w ad NMIOWO /•Tij' o /i 'r REGAL RD as oP ad lV03a %' 2}0 0 NI Mlo n s OI 3LOVd Zd fib M3I A V3S z N DALENA $ d g 2 <7,B C O O J I-- ,. (p Imo. - co w RUg��SSE cRo o BEACH ST i i ',,. i�ry LU I Zo e- 3 m ANOXilS .. /��/ DNSNIRE DR o 21a 38IHSNOn3a LU STRATFORD DR Z as 02{031d211S a SvM�,"I Q ARDEN DR m N N U a w 210 N3a2{d P ° SAN DIEGUITO © DR d(l OlIn93IG NVS AV U x w M3IA31138 PL n 210 HSIN210D. . 2 W CORNISH 4 DR a w U MA VIn DR3` L ff W w AV N a w "gDEWITI AU AV Q blIlnr DEWITi _ VULCAN N PACL�"" co m LL �. S .r.z� VIA Qj C) �r- a IST ST ro S opST N ST N 2N0 DR in N 2ND m x 3RD 3 S ST a 20D ST i r N ST SEA�+N E e N � x s;. �' 3 00' Y)v AV 3RD ST 0 4TH 3 ST s t'„ ` AV 41H ST a ¢ C MOONLIGHT LN ST -k U C) � Q (6 � Q U 1::14 ui C6 ro 0 co .� � U ro L11 O S f- O N N M co � � n r' N T� Cr G f� ', a d '! Z 7Gb VN:tk Cam• S2 rn .^�} � �� ` .# `4'i7q --.` ice?+ �•✓J o� '� g. 31 N 1 w f/1 _ f. M' o ' C' t A V 4A, w y + - Cornish D' AMW !p Ill W , AV C. .. .- C a -.t•^rrF" �E",",sr 'Mkt L � �� � _ _ f�r r' �" K., T � m r � y( LU t 446 ': _ 3RD St t b °11 IF r 1�1 n 'F M1 ���g ao A" C� O V'9 � y a l w Ask- #'lk _ Op " Mai 7 L i9 Q .a 3, q4 k� r <�f C4 C? oT 8 Cd T� Ld Him a t4-4 OJJ a e ' y € w S 4e9 L L yyqqnn r � N 90 co Am ' s r x r x .00.14,4 x"u rte. If two Is '*5 SLo2LL ±c OC.LLI OE.LLL fr ut i r � y , s lk 1 y y 31 t a t AWJ !tiAI W Ta z V z w �� w � r� ONO 000 00 000 ' O O pj� N � u. y � O `! O O �o N vl 00 °7 [-- O 0\ 00 00 () M M 17 1t 7 l-- r� oo W or, 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 ° aj V]L1 N v U � in N 00 u W N M M d' 7 V1 kn kn lO l- [- 00 00 00 Q U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a3 4W ca O rA u [- OO Op W O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O O O 00 D W w O 'n O O Vn O O 'n ou U Q O N N 0-0 o WU� V) 79 d cz � ,�, ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •� � � O ro o Z o o rn M m 0 v v U u ° .� `� cz '� U O � N N �t � N �• O � Fiy iG cd Rf cC cd R3 is c; c, U "u, . I� I� .n m ro b "Cl b b b b b b v 0 yyO O Z Q Q Q Q Q O O v" y Q o d O ° Z a o U N z b y> Y, G 41 > C I s s C Z U U o qHq o San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3 Date: June 2003 Page: 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land-use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3-2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (LM)) of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial T;values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a detailed study. Table 3-2 MAXAUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH(LM) & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Ti) Element* DU/ .5% 1% 2% 3% % 10% Acre LM T; LM T; LM Ti LM T; LM I T; Lm T; Natural 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9 LDR 1 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4 LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 1001 5.8 LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.01 85 8.8 1 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6 MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 100 5.3 MDR 7.3 50 9.2 65 8.4 80 7.4 95 7.0 100 6.0 100 4.8 MDR 10.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4.5 MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6.5 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4.3 HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5 HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 1001 2.7 N. Com 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 G. Com 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 853.4 90 2.9 100 2.4 O.P./Com 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 Limited I. 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 1 3.1 1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 General I. 5 Ot 3.7 60 3.2 70 1 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 1.9 *See Table 3-1 for more detailed description C�,� >, 3-12 2 YEAR STORM EVENT .r .asocrr_s. s�==s= e2E:.�a"�y� =� WFA w% � FA LA'Amig?Am -O.araaaiLwwww>♦.r�aw�rl r�raa���aw�rar�w.ir ww._�rw�.w��.rr.�.,rrarrs�_�wwrsras.a. 1111i C j'EGA= MEa ttr IrA AWAWAW Mf,= MONFA F'saaltttaINN N����/►i/�Ar,�Nr�N/�If1��NiNNNONN!!! w � iiQ i�►"ri�i 0s iur"' ■'�i�'E'�i�i�ni�ri��ii�iiii�i ��� . MM• ,I•AWRAF/AWAE►JMFAM WAEHIIpElil1/!EM■M ,/ � lEIII EE OEM ;� .—:_�=s - E =asaa iO r,a a•r wr.ta.r♦[w��ww�.�ira�.aa[�[w�aw�wr��wrf ww wwwwr���,warw�rwaarara■wrar�a a w���a+w�w�a�w wrrNw�wirw►w.�rs��.r�w�w�,a�.w�ay ra�a�wI��a�.w1�[1�7I�I�w.a�rwr�rw�ww"awr�r..aaararaaraaawr wwwwwwlawwmw�n ONNOW.i1s•i/= Ann" no w w " GE;L't'il/'�ttCC�Gi��G�i�ii�i�►'i' ����.T�i�ii�7�wi�iiE"' Hong■'s■i`E`ES■C■■C■■i■�Cii'i ma AWE 'AM'AM .:. . ..at�w =_sue a `��_� 32121 =IFS e_�®__o��i�'.J:��'is`_��_�_�J�mo__�'+�J��:Neiiim"■'a'mii■"`m®Is�s_�eo�_ _ rTar�ii[ [rTiTriTr6%rrriaTri�,r'[rTrrirrrrrr.ar.T ri�rT[irwr.w.,r[..,C.iwwrC3Ci�i`aiiiGCiiririwTrrTr[i� wai a[�w��Tww i a [ .s AWAWar—r.w w—�waawr—ia- wa wr r�r—fir ►r" � �warw � w ai[�aaiwrwrw�i[�.�[a�t�i•��r��•ww��i i���rw•wue.•ai[ aaraaa � AwA WINE 'AW>♦ — aea -C.-Hp ww�.iwrwrarr— www� [a a w �aaaaaw wwwia2� i� t/USEtt/_�tttt�,�ttt�ttttt[_� _ttt tt�ttt/ttt��H10HRit■ttt'N/i�tt ���t►s�R.AW�NWr��AAA�/����st/tx�tNONNI niiiius�aa� �a/a2im ZMW,rs ,J= KmnnosRNHsono/iNN!!� 95,%I//1/E/- /�/�iNaN��� EMI !m 'A riii r1m /J/�//�IJ�E�I�i�M � �I� ��111�11���� VA a R MM Milo 92 PAFJ 9191 s . ICI 42 =I ,five $R .'T 7W •51.511 _ `fi 8f1-•.... �� .. OE.944 --2.0 0£.914 Sb.9LL �� r � 9 9Y� ,00.14E 4•r .Y.. • ° -OO.LLL •51.111 � i •5Le1LL .OE.L1L ,OE.L�L 0 '. r ® dM 3 @J u av B 4-4 b�A a � TTgg�� y fi N M ���• - :k'•. tea. '-� �� ,,�" 4LSLl � 2� ,#" SLSLI 2d i Qg AE.9Lt � �� l �•• "rte . .A 56.91E '•. •Q � �+ y a soo.LLL to. yy.rr q t SL.LLL id 4 ° OLP` cy II ,0£.L L L 0£.LLL � N cwr'-• j i I C7 10 YEAR STORM EVENT f � • • ' 'J Y Y i i I - w Is�ma�t--- —�s Baal erl�I��rs:��ss�e►�:,,�•�ae�a�a��a��mm�as�>�emsr Sell mwrfr VA I&Raw-VW RMAND ��� .rw r.•�rrri rr.r.�r.rr,s �w----.........,.---Al----- IN is fiffim aalaasaa� s�.s�rs�rwr.wr w�,.rw.wr •�.mrrs.r��rwwrwsws.�� aa�aaaa:�aa:�s�=�CiC�—�asaaa•� �:aC.'i�i:aC agar i� aa�sm�aa !!! • !i!�/iisWA �WANO/fig/[[[!/E[���IH�R� !!� !ll sl►:«lrIZlraSlWrll[[i[I ON000 '�ir'�i"i - ai'iii■'�"iisri�r�ii'rSla�S�3iTia��i� ii�i�iiia�iii�ii� OWN . • ' . ,. Aii10rAMAIMW.SNmnma11nEENE NEW -0111 Mam Mao BE! i rl�il wrw w..I/������.Ir�Iww�i�w��irlfl��lYiiiiilrr�ww�rs�i .� � I�wx��ruualHiwwwwNalilxi� ����wwi�x.ri Hrrr wwr�rl.wH.r� iirx x�xi /i�//.•�rrArw�Irrll��rli 1.•.rx rifxrrrrrr xrxri.i.riirirr wwwrl�Irliriw,=� ii�irrrwrrrrrwr.�ii/I�lrr� �rr��x.riiirrrwrrwrrrrlrr aai�C�i■T. "' aCCiG'ii'G�S� DAMMEFAM' 'w "'unlissmor wCa' '9ii ai�im= I �i still �ssi s���sss�1��s/�s�•�i-��_i/»ss��xsiisiiii■rissslitlsi�x� '•'sueO�Q�i•SS�mS. rTrCrTrrTirrTriisai�rTrirTr�rrrr�ririirrirrxi ryrxriri�ii ir�rrirriwrr+rwsrrCiuG'aasiuCCri�rrCiTrirrr wwrxat�a�� rws 1��.1►.ii.��l/I�l�w��i�I�� �� �� xi�Iri.Rir w �rwr�r �1 3 rsw�i i�//rsrrcw rar ry r.arr r ww�ri rr xrawreJ'�rr�rr�irA rWw Wrxrrr rrrli xririrri rNrrr.irri�iwr3iwTrxrwr�� iirx��a��,��arm,��r��r�i�xi�r�rx�wxuuiurwwrwa��ix� !!!lam. s��.�� /�!s!#•s�s�nil/Hill o�l!!l�/�S� ss l�s��/��r��1�/S/s���I-1��s��l��/slut/ialrrir���mm _ nnn�a r c AV ��A®An�.�nn�nnnnm��mm� !!rArIJ1��i1l►-R�!�'Rii�!!!!� WffArAFdrArAOV s`FiwAmr,m Aso rnrAin �nNONE .. ���r�n�nr�■n.nnnin ■■ �nnnn , n��� n 12 ill Ali 12 ��' ® S® Milo III ygn�y 10 PsW.J � CV � a to 4 w fill 11 w CD ro 3 J sLSLL AE.9LL � $ gip. y �,.`� ? ... -' •' � a k 3. •rib �i, - .� ` -�� Q• y'�. t S4.9LL �= AOLLL ,,! ➢ -Y.2 �c' -;fit S :k� �OE.L14 _ � AE.LLI t+1 N a 42 3 � FIE €1 W ch ffi 0° 0 y c v M m by N - p- ,S4e9LL .Sla9LL ---TZ- gg ,rte a ani �..-• .Y� hp �' •moo � °•,. ��., -; Q�_... .00oLL.L —�'°s=� �, -_,.,.'tea :- J ,8 / . _ ,'!� r- '• ryif � S - � Y s -0£oL L L O ,OCJL L M V s M M (�,1 100 YEAR STORM EVENT 2� r 7 - " - - - - - - - - - - - - gm �rrAugri.'i-.-.1 MOM w� arrr rrr�rrr.�rrrsr��r rr.r���.ssaaaasar,rrra�r��rr wry .rrr��.rr�r���r.w�.w�,rw� rrr�.aaaa.aaaa�rrrrw�arrarr �ris� s�sssn��ri►�ssir,snr�rAw �A �r�nsr�n�n•••rs��s•n� 1! ma! lM MW MMl MWA AF drEir/t llS�i��H►'/rrrrt��l�Nl���� r■�! • _ rr■rrr■rrrr OMWAr.////%/I!o!/rl�r All"Dl EMOMMummm �1•! lrrElWfl rs/trl r/Sl�rasi�►.tl rrNrN��rNE���� iii - ■'i"i'iiir"►/ i r�iii�i� fir'�■'�r'�'iic iilusl=l to MEN • MM�,I//sArAWA/AMFAM�OWAMIIUMIII�OME CSC : ON:' , W:d "l�l' 3.O...-S. rr rr r�ra�rr�rrr�a� r�r�r��� writ r�rrr��rrr�rrrr� iiiiiaar rrr����r rw w�rr..rr��.��.�r.�r..r�.���►i..r r..n rr•.rar i��iiii:iaa..r..rr��..s•.r� ���..r.�r.���.��•s���r.�.�.►�r►�r�r�.r��r������ruarva..�rr.r.nrsw� rr�r��.r�r..�ral ar=/r-Irk�������.r��.Naaa.■*rr..�N/A.•� - �?■��i��:'iiI?WG'rAlWA' D nl.iiCi�C�ii'�� r�ia'"'r.l0i '�i�9C'ilk•ir�i"ino r"r':r•ir'r'i�"�ir?n'J'� _ air.irw a . �iIW%/stirA.:r•rrrarairir .:ri3rTrrwrrir.rrrr�rrr.::C:�saG::riCiirdrCr r+iwrw �a����s"a�AWAWFa�/ .a...r �/►,w.r►arr.r.r .r�.w .w�r..naarrawr aa.+usaa.arr�w�ia.—.Ti �+rr�'r�rT. r.i +�ir a�Q.�s� orra.. r rra�ii .rrr��rr�rrrrrrrr�.r.�rar.r ri��..rrrrr.�a.n ra.raaaa..r ■ sssrr.s�sr►.r� .��,s���������s lt,.�sn�rssrrnar...•s.�a�an� POW'tl�..n�r sswra.�snls . sew s��s��nsrr ssrr.•w•rrs>,sw•sri s:rs��il�►�rrri•�����unlrrr�rrruMrrnnr••�rr�r�a=� rrt�rl�irrl����r�����r�rrrfrr��rrrr l�Nrrt�Hr•••�SN rrr��•rs��r��������■l������l�rrrrr�nlrrnna���r��r.rr� IiN/AMIFA �r00/AMENNE ll�= %WIM% E m N NN to i 1 .LE 3 " sLesu 4 ry r ._ ,� _.peg � 3�' :"�� .�` ��� .�A � •-�-_<•,�` o -- stiosLL I Ak' w. .00.LLL ^ MULL a Off, lt4 5 ° • f � M au� R1 11 Con ° d . ` � O ^ W > aaa -2 i 1i fZ! r , M i N � o o � z 3 °' m _ � $ a. b. . � j y - SLe9lL ° ,r 6Le9LL 9 ;h .OEe9LL E ffA 'L ex �4 ° O r • L�, cy ��� �9 90 � ;r 0 .0044 ag FJ, f;� I .OEoLLi h � M HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS FOR 2, 109 & 100 YEAR STORM EVENTS 2�/J Q N O O r O C) N ti N N U- A m N N CP n V) CL 0 0 U co r o Q s. .o 7 (� w Of > > 0 ca H ; L d o 0) 0 L- 70 1 C c c 0 O O 4- ` J a o Table of Contents SA 06148 CWK Properties.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Feb 27 2007,9:50 AM Hydrograph Return Period Recap ...................................................................... 1 2 - Year SummaryReport .............................................................................................................. 2 HydrographReports ........................................................................................................ 3 Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, PreDev Runoff Total Site ................................................. 3 Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, PostDev Runoff Total Site .............................................. 4 10 - Year SummaryReport .............................................................................................................. 5 HydrographReports ........................................................................................................ 6 Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, PreDev Runoff Total Site ................................................. 6 Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, PostDev Runoff Total Site .............................................. 7 100 - Year SummaryReport .............................................................................................................. 8 HydrographReports ........................................................................................................ 9 Hydrograph No. 1, Rational, PreDev Runoff Total Site ................................................. 9 Hydrograph No. 10, Rational, PostDev Runoff Total Site ............................................ 10 2� Hydraflow OF Report Page 1 of 1 Return Equation Coefficients(FHA) Period (Yrs) B D E (N/A) 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 2 8.9280 0.0000 0.6450 -------- 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 10 11.9040 0.0000 0.6450 -------- 25 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -------- 50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ------- 100 18.6000 0.0000 0.6450 -------- AASA 06148.IDF b•coo�i Intensity= B/(Tc + D)^E Return Intensity Values(in/hr) Period (Yrs) 5 min 10 15 20 25 30 36 40 45 50 66 60 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 3.16 2.02 1.56 1.29 1.12 1.00 0.90 0.83 0.77 0.72 0.67 0.64 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 4.22 2.70 2.08 1.72 1.49 1.33 1.20 1.10 1.02 0.95 0.90 0.85 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 6.59 4.21 3.24 2.69 2.33 2.07 1.88 1.72 1.60 1.49 1.40 1.33 Tc=time in minutes Hydr®graph OF Curves OF file: SA 06148.IDF nt. (in/hr) 14.00 14.00 , 12.00 �— — 12.00 1O-Yr 10.00 10.00 ?-` , 8.00 -- 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 , I 2.00 — -- — 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Time (min) s Hydraflow Hydrographs 2004 1 Hydrograph Return Period Recap A. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow(cfs) Hydrograph �. type Hyd(s) description (origin) 1-Yr 2-Yr 3-Yr 5-Yr 10-Yr 25-Yr 50-Yr 100-Yr 1 Rational ------- ------- 0.34 ------ ------- 0.46 ----- ------- 0.71 PreDev Runoff Total Site 10 Rational ------ ------- 0.29 ------- ------- 0.39 ------- ------- 0.61 PostDev Runoff Total Site '2 Proj. file: SA 06148 CWK Properties.gpw Tuesday, Feb 27 2007, 9:50 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve 2 Hydrograph Summary Report 'vd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph I. type now interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cult) 1 Rational 0.34 1 5 102 ---- ------ ------ PreDev Runoff Total Site 10 Rational 0.29 1 5 88 ---- ------ ------ PostDev Runoff Total Site SA 06148 CWK Properties.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Tuesday, Feb 27 2007, 9:50 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Feb 27 2007,9:50 AM Hyd. Flo. 1 PreDev Runoff Total Site Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 0.34 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 1 min Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.9 Intensity = 3.162 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min OF Curve = SA 06148.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1 Hydrograph Volume=102 cult PreDev Runoff Total Site Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --2 Yr Q (cfs) 0.50 — — 0.50 0.45 — 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.35 - 0.35 0.30 --- 0.30 0.25 — 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 - -- - 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) 4 Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Feb 27 2007,9:50 AM Hyd. No. 10 PostDev Runoff Total Site Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 0.29 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time interval = 1 min Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.77 Intensity = 3.162 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min OF Curve = SA 06148.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1 Hydrograph Volume=88 cuft PostDev Runoff Total Site Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 10 -- 2 Yr Q (cfs) 0.50 - 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.40 - 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.15 — 0.15 0.10 - 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 10 5 Hydrograph Summary Report .vd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph �. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cult) 1 Rational 0.46 1 5 137 ---- ------ ------ PreDev Runoff Total Site 10 Rational 0.39 1 5 117 ---- ------ ------ PostDev Runoff Total Site —/ SA 06148 CWK Properties.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Tuesday, Feb 27 2007, 9:50 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve 6 Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday, Feb 27 2007,9:50 AM Hyd. No. 1 PreDev Runoff Total Site Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 0.46 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.9 Intensity = 4.216 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min OF Curve = SA 06148.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1 Hydrograph Volume=137 cult PreDev Runoff Total Site Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 10 Yr Q (cfs) 0.50 - 0.50 0.45 - - 0.45 0.40 -- - — - 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.30 - - 0.30 0.25 — 0.25 0.20 - 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 1 7 Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs bV Intelisolve Tuesday, Feb 27 2007,0:50 AM Hyd. No. 10 PostDev Runoff Total Site Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 0.39 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.77 Intensity = 4.216 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min OF Curve = SA 06148.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1 Hydrograph Volume=117 cuft PostDev Runoff Total Site Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 10-- 10 Yr Q (cfs) 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.40 --- 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 — 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 - 0.05 0.00 - - - - - 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 10 8 Hydrograph Summary Report 'vd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Inflow Maximum Maximum Hydrograph �. type now interval peak hyd(s) elevation storage description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cult) 1 Rational 0.71 1 5 213 ---- ------ ------ PreDev Runoff Total Site 10 Rational 0.61 1 5 183 ---- ------ ------ PostDev Runoff Total Site SA 06148 CWK Properties.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Tuesday, Feb 27 2007, 9:50 AM Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday,Feb 27 2007,9:50 ANA Hyd. No, 1 PreDev Runoff Total Site Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 0.71 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.9 Intensity = 6.587 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min OF Curve = SA 06148.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1 Hydrograph Volume=213 cult PreDev Runoff Total Site Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Yr Q (cfs) 1.00 -- 1.00 0.90 - 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.50 -- 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.30 -- 0.30 0.20 - 0.20 0.10 - 0.10 0.00 - - 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 Hyd No. 1 Time (hrs) °10 Hydrograph Plot Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Tuesday,Feb 27 2007,9:50 AM Hyd. No. 10 PostDev Runoff Total Site Hydrograph type = Rational Peak discharge = 0.61 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min Drainage area = 0.120 ac Runoff coeff. = 0.77 Intensity = 6.587 in/hr Tc by User = 5.00 min OF Curve = SA 06148.IDF Asc/Rec limb fact = 1/1 Hydrograph Volume=183 cult PostDev Runoff Total Site Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 10 -- 100 Yr Q (cfs) 1.00 1.00 0.90 — — 0.90 0.80 - 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.40 -- - — 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.00 - - 0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 Time (hrs) Hyd No. 10 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS FOR ON-SITE STORM DRAIN �1 ; Rating Table for Triangular Channel - 1 Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.250 Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Left Side Slope 5.00 Wit(H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge 0.61 ft3/s Discharge(ft3/s) Normal Depth(ft) Velocity(ft(s) Flow Area(ft2) Wetted Perimeter(ft) Top Width(ft) 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.12 1.55 1.52 0.04 0.20 0.21 0.19 2.01 1.97 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.26 2.34 2.29 0.08 0.26 0.24 0.33 2.61 2.56 0.10 0.28 0.26 0.39 2.83 2.78 0.12 0.30 0.27 0.44 3.04 2.98 0.14 0.32 0.28 0.50 3.22 3.15 0.16 0.33 0.29 0.55 3.38 3.32 0.18 0.35 0.30 0.60 3.54 3.47 0.20 0.36 0.31 0.65 3.68 3.61 0.22 0.37 0.32 0.70 3.81 3.74 0.24 0.39 0.32 0.75 3.94 3.86 0.26 0.40 0.33 0.79 4.06 3.98 0.28 0.41 0.33 0.84 4.17 4.09 0.30 0.42 0.34 0.88 4.28 4.20 0.32 0.43 0.35 0.92 4.39 4.30 0.34 0.44 0.35 0.97 4.49 4.40 0.36 0.45 0.36 1.01 4.58 4.49 0.38 0.46 0.36 1.05 4.68 4.59 0.40 0.47 0.37 1.09 4.77 4.68 0.42 0.48 0.37 1.13 4.86 4.76 0.44 0.48 0.37 1.17 4.94 4.85 0.46 0.49 0.38 1.21 5.03 4.93 Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.001 2/27/2007 11:08:50 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06796 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 - Rating Table for Triangular Channel - 1 Input Data Discharge(ft'/s) Normal Depth(ft) Velocity(ft/s) Flow Area(W) Wetted Perimeter(ft) Top Width(ft) 0.48 0.50 0.38 1.25 5.11 5.01 0.50 0.51 0.39 1.29 5.19 5.08 0.52 0.52 0.39 1.33 5.26 5.16 0.54 0.52 0.39 1.37 5.34 5.23 0.56 0.53 0.40 1.41 5.41 5.30 0.58 0.54 0.40 1.44 5.48 5.38 0.60 0.54 0.40 1.48 5.55 5.45 0.62 0.55 0.41 1.52 5.62 5.51 0.64 0.56 0.41 1.56 5.69 5.58 0.66 0.56 0.41 1.59 5.75 5.64 0.68 0.57 0.42 1.63 5.82 5.71 070 0.58 0.42 1.66 5.88 5.77 0.72 0.58 0.42 1.70 5.94 5.83 0.74 0.59 0.43 1.73 6.01 5.89 0.76 0.60 0.43 1.77 6.07 5.95 0.78 0.60 0.43 1.80 6.13 6.01 0.80 0.61 0.43 1.84 6.19 6.07 Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster 108.01.058.00] 2/2712007 11:08:50 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Triangular Channel - Q100=0.61 cfs Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.250 Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Left Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge 0.61 ft3/s Results Normal Depth 0.55 ft Flow Area 1.50 ftz Wetted Perimeter 5.58 ft Top Width 5.48 ft Critical Depth 0.25 ft Critical Slope 1.87664 ft/ft Velocity 0.41 ft/s Velocity Head 0.00 ft Specific Energy 0.55 ft Froude Number 0.14 Flow Type Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 0.55 ft Critical Depth 0.25 ft Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Critical Slope 1.87664 ft/ft Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster 108.01.068.00] 2127/2007 11:16:18 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06796 USA +1-203-766-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section for Triangular Channel - Q100=0.61cfs Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.250 Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.55 ft Left Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge 0.61 ft'/s Cross Section Image T _5, L H 1 Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.00] 212712007 11:06:13 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06796 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 10 0 0 N N Oi y C:) ° N m i a N 0 N O N N N C J O Z t� -T N F 7 3 � x Q o > 4. Y Al -- U 00 m � co C) m E LO y g § ° / k 2 ---- ---- ---- --- ---- R Cl) $ - U \ $ / C) / & a / / . / 77 CN CO VO + E e . ) = E & --- --- ---- 0 . . ----� � --- q C) O F r 00 c) ) � /a d � wom C 0 E e R 5 D $® 46! ---- ---- � —�--y����� o k } ' C� O kco L 6 + C) .6 F ) \ Cc E , / j( cn i k 0 q \ / / / R Cl) 2 / / R / / �� N T pO � N N CL 3 e s U) d o � a J _ O X N X X r N N _ O a7 UJ O p N C.9 N el !O cco O O�Y O �. r2 c2 Z R C O O > O O N d W D w Ta ° v T C N^ c CL r> m Z >? LO = oo L O O IV >� v i°n `IL coo d C 0 g G O CL V- C CM M y V O O D e~0" O O o �1 C i. Y ci ci 0 0 0 CJ a' c a ° Z N 5 tm V/ ui d c DR o a. L Y Q � 3 " m ° = do �ez w L L- O ° z N d Storm Sewer Summary Report Page Line Line ID Flow Line Line Invert Invert Line HGL HGL Minor HGL Dns No. rate size length EL Dn EL Up slope down up loss Junct line (cfs) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) N (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) No. 1 X-X1 0.15 3 c 13.0 67.41 67.48 0.538 67.66* 68.04* 0.02 68.06 End 2 X1 A2 0.15 3 c 8.0 67.50 67.54 0.500 68.06* 68.29* 0.15 68.43 1 Project File: SA 06148 CWK Properties.stm Number of lines:2 Run Date:02-27-2007 NOTES: c=cir; e=ellip; b=box; Return period=100 Yrs. ;*Surcharged(HGL above crown). Hydraflow Storm Sewers 2005 � a � § � a { 4 § ) \ 2 £ \ C) / � 3 § 2 } § to o k E G u a F 2 § § G � > £ \ $ \ w § § \ t & c C £ k 7 E G § 0 m J2 7 $ o 0 CL L £ n n — K § § �k ¢ 6 6 a o �2 t 6 6 }E R g . 0 0 2 � / \ $ \ 8 a f = g 0 f a o ] CL o E u / d § J O ■ 8 § $ a o E f 7 ƒ �\ § § $ o % + 2 E § § - � c w k k k % % \ G 0 o a CO < \ \ E g Cl) g _ c 02 ] i �2 / o u \ LU IL 5 � m ILI N r i o C N O LO A O O IL E � $ Y - 0 0 L) o I- 0 2 U') b C M � Cl) r > V W 0..., O O N s L O av,e � o N N 0 C w OD 00 Ul \ 00 O0 J > W W CD oD 00 O O L L i1> O O _ NNN H O O C Cl) M — L 0 Q N O O O O E 7 L Z y N N O O O J d.r 00 tD O 4)d to> d" C J M O OO N 000 000 o M M (V (V > W iC OD N OCD (0 d d� N O O E M M O ` C O O L C � N N D O O •� E co =dam o `° `° CL 0 CD L , m v in `1 ♦V11 c d" (0 c U V a w 0 0 N M M LL C �/J 2 J N d � ! STORM EVENT FOR I=0.20IN/HR Y m E U F- W 0 N N C O O N ti O C 11 m = C O a > O m N .- ao ' C N r U o O zc a `oi �i s R ? 7 o W co C) U5 I O N d 171 O Ui O N N Z 11 O_ a w o _ o N 00 4 - V w r g o J 02 U J O U N Ix J ° o N } � r o a o Y A�NY1 @ V d U U C Q Q w E Z ° O C H d LU a N3 c Q y o o U o a O LU 0 N y N � ocaiM w a � 0 00v W U O LL W U Q d C A (L to C C 0 .r d ~O Cl) to CO EL to a 4 Z m < �� Triangular Channel - Qwq=0.02cfs Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.250 Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Left Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge 0.02 ft3/s Results Normal Depth 0.15 ft Flow Area 0.12 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.55 ft Top Width 1.52 ft Critical Depth 0.06 ft Critical Slope 2.96009 ft/ft Velocity 0.17 ft/s Velocity Head 0.00 ft Specific Energy 0.15 ft Froude Number 0.11 Flow Type Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 0.15 ft Critical Depth 0.06 ft Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Critical Slope 2.96009 ft/ft Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.001 2127/200711:15:15 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 157 Cross Section for Triangular Channel - Qwq=0.02cfs Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.250 Channel Slope 0.02700 ft/ft Normal Depth 0.15 ft Left Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope 5.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge 0.02 ft3/s Cross Section Image s ,. I L H 1 Bentley Systems,Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.001 212712007 11:14:10 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown,CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT "A"