The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-7588 G ,ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPAR TMENT E IJIC initas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering May 19, 2005 Attn: Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 15 Mountain View Road P.O. Box 1615 Warren, New Jersey 07061-1615 RE: Garden View Medical Center 1200 Garden View Road DR/EIR 01-249 APN 257-470-16,17 Improvement Permit 7588-1 Final release of security Permit 7588-I, authorized improvements as shown on approved plan, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the improvements and has approved the one-year warranty inspection. Therefore, a full release in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 8149-65-00, in the remaining amount of$3,506.25, is hereby released in entirety. The original bond amount was $14,025.00. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, /Ainanc Debra Geish art ch Engineering Technician anager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Garden View Medical Center, LP Debra Geishart File u Ic.i11 ,i,.riiuc Ln��ni,.i~. 1..��i(-urr,.i �,r�'i..;�,. s I!li� •,;-G.;: ' !;f? •,44 rocycled 1.apef 7 NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City o� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 19, 2004 Attn: Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 15 Mountain View Road P.O. Box 1615 Warren,New Jersey 07061-1615 RE: Garden View Medical Center 1200 Garden View Road DR/EIR 01-249 APN 257-470-16,17 Improvement Permit 7588-I Partial release of security Permit 7588-1, authorized improvements as shown on approved plan, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the improvements. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 8149-65-00, in the amount of$14,025.00, may be reduced by 75% to 3,506.25. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The remainder will be released after the one-year warranty inspection is approved. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. n Sinc ly, / Masih Maher J Le Bach Senior Civil Engineer finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Garden View Medical Center,LP Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper y' City o NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 19, 2004 Attn: Union Bank of California Southern California Trade Service Operations 1980 Saturn Street Mail Code VO1-519 Monterey Park, California 91755 RE: Garden View Medical Center 1200 Garden View Road DR/EIR 01-249 APN 257-470-16,17 Grading Permit 7588-G Final release of security Permit 7588-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading. Therefore, a full release of the security deposited is merited. Letter of Credit 3065234608, in the amount of$78,762.60, is hereby released in its entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sinc ely, )hance ��kv�Masih Maher e ach Senior Civil Engineer Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Garden View Medical Center,LP Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT K Capital Improvement Projects - ' city of District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 19, 2004 Attn: Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 15 Mountain View Road P.O. Box 1615 Warren, New Jersey 07061-1615 RE: Garden View Medical Center DR/EIR 01-249 APN 257-470-16,17 Grading Permit 7588-G Final release of security Permit 7588-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 8149-64-99, in the amount of$315,050.40, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Q Masih Maher J et a c h Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Garden View Medical Center,L.P. Debra Geishart File Enc. t'EL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS SAN DIEGO CANCER CENTER, ENCINITAS, CA PREPARED FOR: SAN DIEGO CANCER CENTER 1500 GARDEN VIEW ROAD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 DATE: 6-10-2002 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HWY. 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 ®FESS1p ,Ao. 29577 '� �Or, xp. 3/31/U3 cl F WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1 B. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................1 C. CONCLUSION........................................................................................1 D. 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .................................. 2-10 E. HYDRAULICS .................................................................................11-25 APPENDIXA...................................................................................26-29 A. INTRODUCTION The subject property is physically at 1500 Garden View Road in Encinitas, California The purpose of this report is to analyze the impacts of 100 year storm flows on the proposed storm drain system Based on data, calculations and recommendations contained within this report, a system can be constructed to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qioo to the appropriate discharge points. Also included are calculations and recommendations for a storm water treatment system based on guidelines set forth by The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Specifically, a biofilter and catch basin filter inserts. B. DISCUSSION The hydraulic soil group classification for the site is"D". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is modified rational. The program utilized is by Advanced Engineering Software (AES). The attached site hydrology map(Appendix A) shows the hydraulic node location map for the HGL calculations herein. Hydrology Calculations can be found in Section D. Also, see Section E for hydraulic calculations. C. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q,00 to the appropriate points of discharge. D. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS *--� CU Op iz) V ip O O _ 4 W cl NCC •CC � O N � N w Q � W ' ImperialCounty 1 ' 1 , 1 , 1 , O ' 1 i Ln N I ' N j to 1 1 l C , % 1 // _ ---- \ Ln o E / It Ln Lci LO Lq I � ,O •Gd. �•L---- ,. i Xy�;J-,` � •` i �/ . \ •x'11 I - 1 _ / 1`-iQ` -, L ~1 , 1 N `I fi• 1 �i I i 1 \I \'' •r•V 1 ' / 1 C i V � i via / � 1� � ';'�� !�• `. \to � O �� `� N \ to ♦ `� r -- In o th L. �\ `` -1 ♦ '-tip- ~� r ``\(``�f`�l,\ ` `N %l...i+ i` ♦ � 1 ` y 1p R o ` .N \ v ♦ \ ir b. U \ -,O `♦ `-' In 1 �� o e a n I M 1 I I 11 1 1 Y 1 ;" I 1 5 CU ulw/ q v a 0 0 , 00 T•'�1 '� qq C W cp v o S N V 7 0 W $ z Lout m .-o ; Imperial Count Lli------ 1 Y 1 1 i i ; - ' `% vp I It 00 OR %% % % of I", It --------- %'C) % 1, ----------- i � ' ' i 0 O•- _N 1 `-rte i i'' � ; It ; ; ; ; 1 ,, ., , .` t0 `, Cd Lri •'--/ /p•_-_� ♦'''i `�, `\ i'- , i'' -p4` �' � '`\'��O'.0�. i i ;/ •l!'Er V�•`,C_ _� / ,r i(q'� ; `,`, ��1�AAA 1 \ \ i i ' � `,�\ `, � __-�-�'� `ION PMS�: i /' ♦ � 1 \ 1 ` p�'•I I `gray 1 ' , %,`,, • •JIB._ Go -- N -� p (/ 1 ♦ , A. o I ♦ E r r I 1 o, \ �, L, r ' 1 r `, `. 1 I •IIo , \ / � a \ 11 101 . - _ _�4 �1^ - ...111. 1--- I �:�'N_I�'\``. },; ;;�' `n''��,'`�-__► to , / '`. T'`---'' /-' /-/ iV 'rr1Ii -vl'� /J\J N %/ 1 S to \ �.�1 / / / ;• / I I ,♦ r `I I it w `�= 1 , % I. \` Or / y3_ I%` Icy '_ ,` - �� ♦ i 1�..1 ; .` � 8 - —.r � r" I /, -- ' LLI i O r can c r � ac ' s / r F Al 5 ;a *********************************************************************** 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 North Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ********************** Hydrology Study for San Diego Cancer Center *********************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1003.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11: 5 6/12/2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 95.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 169.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 168.10 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.10 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.177 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .47 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE««< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.5 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.2 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.82 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.70 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = .009 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .47 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .13 TC(MIN. ) = 5.13 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.737 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .29 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .75 TC(MIN) = 5.13 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE««< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.5 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.7 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.70 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.57 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = .009 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ .75 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .11 TC(MIN. ) = 5.24 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.644 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .05 SUBAREA-RUNOFF(CFS) _ .28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.03 TC(MIN) = 5.24 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.7 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.9 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.57 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.41 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 32.00 MANNING'S N = .009 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .14 TC(MIN. ) = 5.38 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.534 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .28 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.31 TC(MIN) = 5.38 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE««< PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.8 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.41 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.29 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 25.00 MANNING'S N = .009 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.31 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .11 TC(MIN. ) = 5.49 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.448 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.92 TC(MIN) = 5.49 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 7.20 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE««< ---------------------------------------------------------------=------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.2 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.7 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 166.29 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 165.59 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 135.00 MANNING'S N = .009 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.92 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .48 TC(MIN. ) = 5.97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 7.20 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.108 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .45 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .79 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.39 TC(MIN) = 5.97 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.20 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 165.59 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 164.89 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 140.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0050 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 5.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.39 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.77 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .42 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1.32 TC(MIN.) = 7.29 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.370 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .89 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.90 TC(MIN) = 7.29 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 270.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 164.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 155.93 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 8.57 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.032 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.823 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.04 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 200.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 168.09 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 163.09 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 5.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.689 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .55 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.20 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 9.20 IS CODE = 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE««< DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 23.0 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 163.09 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 158.80 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 15.00 MANNING'S N = .009 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .01 TC(MIN. ) = 5.01 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.20 TO NODE 9.10 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 158.80 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 157.60 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 120.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = .0100 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 3.20 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 2.12 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .33 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ .94 TC(MIN. ) = 5.96 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.10 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.120 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .61 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.51 TC(MIN) = 5.96 *********************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 140.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 160.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 150.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 10.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 2.765 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .41 Tc(MIN. ) = 5.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .07 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS E. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS HYDRAULICS SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS • STORM WATER TREATMENT SIZING CALCULATIONS • PIPE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS • BROOKS BOX CAPACITY CALCULATIONS • SDRSD D-8 CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS • D-25 CURB OUTLET CALCULATIONS • DITCH CAPACITY CALCULATIONS PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PE=3 DATE ASS LS 0r/LTET D Prr6� 1 (spc "v rL��oUI' yopr m, ) . ► Fc ��1or�L�7 r L�?pr�,;r �2 � C � _- D� -?q { . GIB} ar9fX,2�(. (j .l �': s ... ..... .___ ..... ..... r f l�r�}� P c,` vr\ .�''I�f✓ �. tug-��.... _ _ _.." . 1 . - � 3r � 1 �- �. _ __ _ G . 6 '([�f} r Q' PASCOENGINEERING, LVC:. — 535 VORTFIHWY. 101, SUITE, - SOLe _VA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 2075— 854.259.821.: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PE= DATE_ S 1 _ ..... f Ql t Fs .0. `y_ .. .. (�.1�"�f� } >.Ava� so r .. .. ... ._ .. .. ._. .. } :.. __. .. _ ..... -.. ._ ... b4-JA= o.. . IZ I'1 SG()ENGINEERING, LVC:'. - 5351I"47()R 7'H HW Y. 101, S L:'ITE,i - OL 4 NA BE.•I C'H, C A LIFOR NIA 92075- 858.259.821 PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PE DATE ........ ..._ L44 5: ... . I 7 RI C,'CI ENGI: EERI!G, LVC. - 535 'S'OR H HWY. 101, L,771:-A - >SOL4 AA BEE(11, C4 LITIOR i IA .92075- 858.259,821? PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PE. r DATE F��i�tZ G�zCs Str1 G y�-1 GqT +� SA,-s,d T�,-cf NODE 10.1 3.2c�c, s til ll0'��, HYD.c)-(Ae—!:e3 ,- AIVEL yl2o-m (,Z ' Z3�, .. ... _ ooz� o }0 6r .. 06xis ld -Z 13 :1 ?v�p _ ... .. PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. - 535:4'ORTH HIV Y. 101, S L'HTE A - S(11.:4 NA BE CH, C4 LIEtt NA 92075- 858.259.8212 FROM Advanced Aquatic Products Intl PHONE N0. 305 292 3771 Ma Y. 10 2001 12:35PfM P1 n 1 r' EnWrbnnunml Products to Protect Our World e - Hydra Cartridge® Maximum Flow aci �P tY {All flow surface areas are Sq. In.) (GPM/0"Head) Grate 71 ugh) H Flow: Ann 2 Area 3 Ara S Am 6 Flow C aae:+y M-- 4102 -- 93.75 76.36 26.25 28.5 360 - 4105 165.76 145.2 64.38 63.56 871.7 4120 "" 261.37 218.25 193.73 189.26 2,593.6 4155 --- 272.83 235.2 95.55 93.24 1,278.7 4130 --- 240.0 197.75 1 63.30 135.80 1,862.4 DOTE "-"' 419.22 360.0 277.73 256.25 3,574-3 DOT F "' 419.22 360.0 277.73 256.25 3,514.3 4605 ____ , 98.28 .90.0 55.89 60.56 766.5 4130 »-• 177.5 1 50.75 68.74 .70.92 94 .7 4170 _-- 27830 255.88 168.75 167.40 2,295.8 3100 --- 70.9 57.3 17.68 18.83 242.5 3115 ---- 132.39 111.0 30.97 30.28 413.3 Not" The shove Inow Capsdly 1Na:ienan v; aaawne no grad a is in place and k therdot to Abaohec Maxirywn Aow nee(arironrieg lY'of had above the grate M raoie alorrndrain synlema VMS yata i k impataet!o Mote QW the 9irnPlac flat6'of eforate in*dual field 11 C um witl be the uW- flow throe eh W&M arm. iAII above surface am"mfer to the dWg=below] AW s- 400 s a Anwo r TLt 4460 4/ _ 1107 Kay PhLza, #201 Key West, Florida 33040 • 305/292.3070 49.L stv4ov The West Coast Home of the Hy ro-Cartridge 18612 Saugus Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 734-8419 FAX(714) 505-2188 Hydro-Cartridge Sizes and Pricing Schedule As of 10/05/2000 Note: * Dimension is taken from the Top of the Grate, to the Bottom of the Hydro-Cartridge. H/C Length Grate Shape Depth Weight of Spill Holding Price Model# S,M,L Dim. Note* H/C Capacity per Unit 4102- S 14"x 25" Red. 18" 10 Lbs. 2.4 Gals. $749.00 4102- M 14"x 25" Rect. 30" 16 Lbs.. 7 Gals. $749.00 ---_ L ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- 4105 - S 18"x 28" Rect. 18" 15 Lbs. 4 Gals. $799.00 4105- M 18"x 28" Rest. 30" 21 Lbs. 12 Gals. $799.00 4105- L 18"x 28" Rect. 42" 27 Lbs. 20 Gals. $799.00 --- S ---- ---- _-__ --- ___- ---- 4120- M 24"x 36" Rect. 29.4" 23 Lbs. 21 Gals. $869.00 4120- L 24"x 36" Rect. 38" 40 Lbs. 27 Gals. $869.00 --- S ---- Rect. ---- --- ---- ---- --- M ---- Heavy --- -- ----9130- L 28"x 34" Duty 42" 35 Lbs. 16 Gals. $1,059.00 9150- S 29"x 29" Square 15". 13 Lbs.. 4 Gals. $849.00 9150- M 29"x 29" Heavy 31" 20 Lbs.. 13 Gals. $849.00 --- L --- Duty ---- ---- ---- --- ---- S -- Square ---- --- ---- --- 9151 - M 29"x 58" Heavy 31" 52 Lbs.. 20 Gals. $1,899.00 ---- L --- Duty -- ._– --- ---- S ---- — --- ---- ---- ---- 4155- M 28"x 36" Rea. 31" 30 Lbs.. 13 Gals $869.00 .� L _--- __ ---_ ---- ---- ---- ---- S ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- Type"F"- M 35"x 46" Rect. 31" 52 Lbs.. 20 Gals. $1,499.00 Al2 H/C Length Grate Shape Depth Weight of Spill Holding Price Model# S,M, L Dim. Note* H/C Capacity per Unit ---- S ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- Type"F- M 40"x 53" Rcct. 38" 70 Lbs- 20 Gals. $1,699.00 M_ L 4605- S 18"x 18" Square 22" 15.5 Lbs. 3 Gals. $749.00 --- M ---- ---- -- ---- --- ---- __ L ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ____ 4130- S 24"x 24" Square 23" 13 Lbs. 4 Gals. $799.00 4130- M 24"x 24" Square 30" 20 Lbs. 13 Gals. $799.00 4130- L 24"x 24" Square 42" 27 Lbs. 22 Gals. $799.00 4608- S 26"x 26" Square 15" 13 Lbs.. 4 Gals. $799.00 4608- M 26"x 26" Square 31" 20 Lbs.. 13 Gals. $799.00 --- L ---- ---- --- ---- ____ 4170- S 30"x 30" Square 15" 13 Lbs.. 4 Gals. $869.00 4170- M 30"x 30" Square 31" 20 Lbs.. 13 Gals. $869.00 .� L S 3115- M 16"Dia.. Round 25" 22 Lbs. 6 Gals. $749.00 3115- L 16"Dia.. Round 36" 26 Lbs. 9 Gals. $749.00 ---- S 23" ---- ---- ---- ---- --- 3600- M & Round 27" 22 Lbs. 6 Gals. $799.00 3600- L 24"Dia.. Round 38" 26 Lbs. 9 Gals. $799.00 3120- S 25"Dia.. Round 25" 22 Lbs.. 6 Gals. ---- 3120- M 25"Dia.. Round 36" 26 Lbs.. 9 Gals. ---- __� L __ 3650- S 23"&24" Round 25" 22 Lbs.. 6 Gals. $799.00 3650- M Dia. Round 36" 26 Lbs.. 9 Gals. $799.00 ---- L --- S 15"Dia. Auger ---- ---- ____ ___ 4102 - M & Hole. 26" 22 Lbs.. 9 Gals. $749.00 ---- L 18"Dia. No Struct. ---- ---- ---- --- ---- S ---- Auger Hole 4105 - M 24"Dia.. No Struct. 30" 31 Lbs.. 11 Gals. $799.00 --- L --- ---- --- --- ____ 53 • • tzuu:L S:Ys•rs3i{${ i// t3>r ` 33.z:z2:<€222<xk e�<zkr`»s?�4 / /j • /�/i ttE t ��//,N-, /a r//tz s /i r,/ //� S i fi i�> � ys�� no • — • r %�/ f<� �Ft �ejj 9,2�3ri < }E }(2 £ 2> f i r, ij!/%/��//ii�/ ' / �/�' 2E s# �� { t sts ��s��#i £� �i�if�? � IF r / • • - •• • - // r —• • / r/ {s ` £�:F alit # ?34# if�y ff ttf ti R� Ef 3 �lir/ i;,i r//../i,,v, .,., .. .r./ii r 5? s� � °'�� {3` ��EES�5ztl�,22•}tfE t�� s< �2 / i {` t3F�3yp3p`2' �f3I z s} Ef? k32t` Lz 2F �r /� Yiiit 55 E 3 $3ii ifl r ;'v i Vii; i Mal,, ,t t 3 iz#t�#z ti£� fI=23;�•>Y33'is>:''.i.:. 333>� 3'r 'f`3att3r£I `' :; i /jj�i/ • — — • • • • • — 1 9 • ® — _ • - System Hydro-Cartridge Filter Installation D2000-12-03 �� IYI1111111111111111111111YII11111111111111111111111111111 JItI11111111111111Ililllllll _ » 3t> r ?? }.fZ, }F � $£; °sti ??? Ei 343iEf€#33' i£,£s}'}s�`:�J{> # zi f?st 1 �if s ` $s h;}i / ��/ • s /// •<s<��'a2Y..<s.,.s.,:?;z r S�zfii�ytEssa : } tyi"? £ }2# {iF�S S S E2 5 / � } /// �� OAMI /rr ?ii • — /ii r / r�r� •i ? k<>� f2 ? �Sf F(.} i . / /r9 ��`f`I`��fE;i�t��? r � r / � E t E 00 � #qfs s s ?i i 2 {�{f z 3 r �i • c •. 2 Et.}£.. i £ff t 3: i:2 ? / "tip} :M? f �E'<j?'3�� f}�� it p 2111 >»�3ss ...... si �t>»E,>»»:.a_ // /� / // I%.. Parking Lot to Curb Drainage System Hydro-Cartridge - Installation • • • _ • • • • - • _ • • - • - I • ! 111 �� Node 1.1 to 2.1 Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestadlacademic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 0.29 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.47 cfs 8.00 in 0.29 ft 1 � V H 1 NTS 06/12102 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 03:52:39 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node 2.1 to 3.1 Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 0.38 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.75 cfs 8.00 in 0.38 ft 1 VD H 1 N TS 06/12/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster Y5.17 03:53:22 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Pape 1 of 1 Node 3.1 to 4.1 Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.005000 fvft Depth 0.47 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.03 cfs 8.00 in 0.47 ft 1 � V H 1 N TS 06/12/02 Academic Edition Fkm&4aster v5.17 03:54:09 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node 4.1 to 5.1 Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 0.59 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.31 cfs 8.00 in 0.59 ft 1 V H 1 NTS 06/12/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 03:54:53 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node 5.1 to Cleanout Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.005000 fVft Depth 0.52 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 1.92 cfs 12.00 in 0.52 ft 1 V H 1 NTS 06/12/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 03:56:43 PM Haested Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Cleanout to Headwall Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.005000 ft/ft Depth 0.67 ft Diameter 18.00 in Discharge 4.39 cfs 18.00 in 0.67 ft 1 V H 1 N TS 06/12/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 03:57:56 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node 10.1 to Node 9.2 Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.050000 ft/ft Depth 0.36 ft Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 3.20 cfs 12.00 in 0.36 ft 1 V H 1 NTS 06/12/02 Academic Edition FlouvMaster v5.17 04:06:52 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node 8.1 to Existing D-75 Cross Section for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet Pipe Capacity Calculations Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.020000 fUft Depth 0.30 ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.04 cfs 8.00 in 0.30 ft 1 � V H 1 NTS 06/12/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 04:01:34 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 San Diego Cancer Center Hydraulic Calculations Brooks Box Calculations CALCULATE CAPACITY OF 24"W4"BROOKS BOX. FORMULA: Qcap=3.0(P)(D^1.5)/3. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE& REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR NODE Q100(CFS) P(Fn D(FT) 3* CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE 1.1 0.47 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24")Q4" BROOKS BOX 2.1 0.29 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24')Q4"BROOKS BOX 3.1 0.28 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24"524"BROOKS BOX 4.1 0.28 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24"W4"BROOKS BOX 5.1 0.60 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24"x24"BROOKS BOX 8.1 1.04 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24'5Q4"BROOKS BOX San Diego Cancer Center Hydraulic Calculations SDRSD D-8 Catch Basin Calculations CALCULATE CAPACITY OF D-8 CATCH BASIN. FORMULA: Qcap=3.0(P)(D^1.5)/3. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE& REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR NODE Q100(CFS) P(FT) D(FT) 2= CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE 10.1 3.20 10.00 0.50 3.00 3.54 24"x 36 Single G-1 D-25 MdWT F� r Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlacademiclfmw11003.fm2 Worksheet D-25 CAPACITY Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 fVft Depth 0.17 ft Bottom Width 6.00 ft Discharge 4.90 cfs 1 v a 0.17 ft 1 6.00 ft V H 1 USj✓ DD�$�� D-2�. NTS 06/13102 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 11:06:25 AM Haested Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 D-25�Mff Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\1003.fm2 Worksheet D-25 CAPACITY Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 fVft Depth 0.22 ft Bottom Width 3.00 ft Discharge 3.51 cfs 0.22 ft 1 3.00 ft V H 1 NTS 06/13/02 Academic Edition FlowMaste v5.17 11:05:56 AM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Capacity Ditch 1 Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestadlacademiclfmw11003.fm2 Worksheet Ditch 1 Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.005000 fvft Depth 0.58 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Bottom Width 3.00 ft Discharge 4.90 cfs 0.58 ft 1 3.00 ft V H 1 NTS 06/13/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 10:52:06 AM Haestad Methods.Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury.CT 06708 (203)7551666 Page 1 of 1 Capacity Ditch 2 Cross Section for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Project File c:lhaestadlacademiclfmw11003.fm2 Worksheet Ditch 1 Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.010000 fttft Depth 0.34 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H :V Bottom Width 4.00 ft Discharge 3.51 cfs =0.34 ft 1 4.00 ft V H 1 N TS 06/13/02 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 10:53:00 AM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX A �J DEC 19 2002 i! ENGiNErfiiilG LIMITED SOIL INVESTIGATION AND UPDATED SOIL-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Lots 16 and 17, .Garden View Plaza ' Encinitas, California i • JOB NO. 01-8068 I 10 September 2001 I Prepared for: IMr. Russell Ries I GARDEN VIEW MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3. III. GRADING NOTES 15 IV. LIMITATIONS 16 FIGURES Ia. Site Location Map Ib. CPT Boring Location Map II. CPT Data Package III. Retaining Wall Schematic J� GEOTECHN_ ICAL EXPLORATION, INC . ' SOIL&FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY r 10 September 2001 r ' GARDEN VIEW MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. Job No. 01-8068 9225 Dowdy Drive, Suite 106 San Diego, CA 92126 r Attn: Mr. Russell Ries 1 Subject: Limited Soil Investigation and Updated Soil-related Recommendations . Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Lots 16 and 17 - Garden View Plaza Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Ries: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. submits this report as an update to our "Final Report of Rough Grading Observation and Field Density Testing", dated June 18, 1990 (Job No. 86-4824). It is our understanding that conceptual development plans are being prepared for Lots 16 and 17 (see Figure Nos. Ia and Ib) since the issuance of our initial report, and that the site is to be developed to receive a 39,000-square-foot, three-story with below-grade parking medical research building with adjacent asphalt parking and other improvements. The medical facility will be situated on Lot 16, and Lot 17 will be primarily utilized for parking area. The site has not been significantly altered since our initial rough grading observation and soil testing of the subdivision's mass grading. A representative of our firm observed the grading operation and tested fill soils that were placed during the preparation of Lots 16 and 17. Review of our original report indicates that Lots 16 and 17 are underlain by a wedge of thickening fill toward the west that ranges from 3 to 4 feet along the eastern side of Lot 16, to approximately 18 feet along the western side of Lot 17. As part of this update, cone penetrometer 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (858)549-7222 • FAX: (858)549-1604 • E-MAIL: geotech @ixpres.com Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 2 I tests (CPTs) were performed in the area of the proposed building and one in the 1 parking area. The CPT results are provided in the appendix as Figure No. II. I I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION I In addition to our recent site visit, we reviewed the following documents prepared Iby Geotechnical Exploration, Inc, concerning the subject site and adjacent lots. 1. "Report of Geotechnical Investigation -- Unit No. 1 and No. 2," by GEI, Job I No. 86-4824, dated February 13, 1987. I2. "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Garden View Plaza -- Unit No. 3," by ( GEI, Job No. 86-4824, dated March 27, 1987: I3, "R-value Test Results and Preliminary Pavement Cross Section Recommendations, Garden View Plaza," by GEI, Job No. 86-4824, dated September 19, 1989. I4. "Final Report of Grading Observations and Field Density Testing, Garden View Plaza," by GEI, Job No. 86-4824, dated January 18, 1990. 5. "Limited Soil Investigation and Updated Soil-related Recommendations, Lots I13, 14 and 15 -- Garden View Plaza," by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., Job No. 01-8068, dated May 8, 1995. 6. "Report of Grading Observations and Field Density Testing, Lots 14 and 15, Garden View Plaza," by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., Job No. 01-8068, dated July 17, 1995. Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 3 I Our document reviews and recent site visit revealed that the site is underlain by dense formational materials and a westerly thickening wedge of compacted fill soils that were found to be suitable to. support the proposed structure and improvements. However, the proposed configuration -of the building will result in the structure straddling a cut/fill transition. In order to reduce the effects of dissimilar bearing strata below the building, we recommend the fill portion be undercut to formational soils up to approximately 7 feet below proposed finish basement soil grade and be recompacted to 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density (MDD) per ASTM D1557-97. We anticipate that the fill areas will constitute the approximate western one-third of the building. Actual limits shall be field-verified by the project geologist during grading. For cut and surface exterior parking areas, the soils shall be reworked to a depth of at least 18 inches to provide a uniform soils base. The removed soils shall be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of MDD. The finish subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density prior to pavement base layer placement. The findings described in the original soil investigation report are still considered valid when used in conjunction with the following "Conclusions and Recommendations" section. This new section updates the report to existing standards and shall be adhered to for the proposed development. II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the original site work conducted by our firm in 1990, the exploratory work performed in 2001, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with the soils in the City of Encinitas. Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 r Encinitas, California Page 4 1 1 A. Preparation of Soils for Site Development f1. Any existing debris and vegetation observed on the site must be removed prior to the preparation of the building pad and/or areas to receive structural improvements. 2. The findings in the original soil investigation report are still considered valid when used in conjunction with the following "Conclusions and Recommendations" section. This new section updates the report to existing standards and shall b` adhered to for the proposed development. 3. No uncontrolled fill soils shall remain on the site after completion of any future site work. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during the new grading operation, the loose fill soils shall be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation. 4. Any buried objects that might be discovered on the site shall be removed and the resulting excavation be properly backfilled with approved on-site or imported fill soils, and shall then be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 5. Any backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls that support structures and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, driveways, pavements, etc.) shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 6. The basement subgrade level area that currently includes compacted fill shall be overexcavated to expose dense formational soils. The fill soils shall be Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 5 Irecompacted to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density per ASTM D1557-98. The soil moisture content shall be within approximately 2 percent of optimum. On the exterior areas of the property, the upper 1'/2 feet of finish subgrade soils shall be removed. The bottom 6 inches shall be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density per ASTM D1557-98. The finish subgrade surface (upper 6 inches) shall be compacted, prior to base placement, to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. B. Design Parameters for Foundations and Retaining Walls 7. The recommended allowable bearing value for design of foundations for the proposed building structure is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This load-bearing value may be utilized in the design of continuous foundations and spread footings when founded a minimum of 24 inches into the firm natural ground or properly recompacted fill (as previously indicated), measured from the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. The minimum foundation width is 12 inches. This total load- bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. If imported soils are required to bring the site to grade, the imported soils should be obtained from an approved off-site borrow area. Fill soils intended for support of exterior improvements may be compacted to 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density and shall have an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for the same basic foundation dimensions described above. Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 6 An increase of up to 500 psf in the static soil value (of 2,500 psf) may be allowed for every additional foot in footing width, up to a maximum total bearing value of 6,000 psf. i 8. The passive earth pressure of the encountered natural-ground soils and compacted fill soils (to be used for design of shallow foundations and footings to resist the lateral forces) shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. This passive earth pressure shall only be. considered valid for design if'the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the Ifoundation and is properly compacted or dense natural soil. 9. A Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete foundations, walls, or floor slabs. 10. Based on our laboratory test results, and our experience with the soil types Ion the subject site, the soils should experience differential settlement in magnitude of less than 1 inch. The maximum differential angular rotation will should not exceed 1/300. I11. Due to numerous reasons, footings and slabs occasionally crack, causing ceramic tiles or other brittle floor coverings to become damaged. Footings and slabs should therefore contain at least a nominal amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur. 11.1 A minimum of steel for continuous footings should include at least four No. 5 steel bars continuous, with two bars near the bottom of the footing and two bars near the top. i ! Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 7 11.2 Isolated square footings should contain, as a minimum, a grid of No. 5 steel bars on 12-inch centers, in both directions, with no less than three bars each .way. 11.3 The basement slab should be a minimum of 5 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with at least No. 3 steel bars on 18-inch centers, in both directions, placed at midheight in the slab. Basement slabs should be underlain by a 4-inch-thick layer of properly compacted crushed rock gravel. Areas with moisture-sensitive floor coverings shall be provid-ed with a moisture barrier placed mid-height in a 4-inch- thick layer of clean sand (S.E. = 30 or greater). Slab subgrade soil shall be moistened prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. It is recommended that moisture content of subgrade soil for slabs and footings be checked within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. 11.4 We recommend the project Civil/Structural Enaineer incorporate isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slab in' any floor designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab cracking. In any case, spacing of control joints for reinforced slabs on-grade shall not exceed 20 feet between centers and at re-entrant corners. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can still be expected. 11.5 Concrete pavement slabs may be built with no shrinkage reinforcing if the control joints are placed at spacing of no farther than 15 feet apart and within 12'hours after concrete placement or as soon as concrete Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 8 can be cut without raveling. Construction joints shall be keyed and doweled. Butt joints shall be doweled. The minimum basement slab ' thickness is 5 inches. The pavement concrete strength in the basement shall be not less than 3,500 psi at 28 days of age. NOTE: The project Structural Engineer shall review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum safeguards to reduce possible crack separations. The actual reinforcing schedule shall be as per the direction of the Structural Engineer. 12. As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, it is recommended ithat all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, walkways, etc.) be at least 4 inches thick, underlain by at least 3 inches of clean sand on properly ■ compacted subgrade, include 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh at the center of the slab thickness, and contain adequate isolation joints. Proper shrinkage joints ■ (sawcuts) should be provided and spaced no farther than 15 feet or the width of the slab, whichever is less, and also at re-entrant corners. It should be ■ noted that the performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction, and is therefore the responsibility of the designer and the contractor installing the improvements. ■ All concrete. (flatwork) slabs or rigid improvements should be built on properly compacted and approved subgrade and/or base material. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will accept no liability for damage to flatwork or rigid improvements built on untested or unapproved subarade or ® base material. Proposed San Diego.Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 9 13. The following table summarizes site-specific seismic design criteria to calculate the base shear needed for the design of the residential structure. The design criteria was obtained from the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition) based on the soil type and distance to the closest active fault. Parameter Value Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-I Soil Profile Type S, Table 16-3 Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40Na Table 16- Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.56N, Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor,'N„ 1.0 Table 16-T Seismic Source Type I B Table 16-U The soils at the site have a negligible probability of liquefying under a seismic event affecting the site. In addition, no soil strength loss or soil instability is anticipated to occur at the site due to the design earthquake. C. Retaining Walls All proposed retaining walls should be founded in dense native materials or properly �} compacted fill and designed utilizing the following criteria: ■ 14. The active earth pressure (to be utilized in the. design of cantilever, walls) ■ shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only). ' In the event that a retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based upon the appropriate Equivalent Fluid ' Weight presented in the following table: Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 10 1 1 Height of Slope/Height of Wall* Slope Ratio 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00(+) 2.0:1.0 44 48 50 52 *To determine design active earth pressure for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. The design . pressures presented above are based on utilization of an 1 uncontrolled mixture of soils native to the site in backfill operations. In the event that imported, clean granular fill soils or approved on-site clean sands are utilized as backfill material, this firm should be contacted for possible reduction of design pressures for level backfill, sloping backfill or restrained 1 wall conditions. We recommend that the structural plans indicate the type of soil that can be used in the backfill as assumed in the structural design. 1 In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 8xH (eight times the total height of retained wall, considered in pounds per square foot) shall be considered as acting every- where on the back of the wall in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid 7 Weight, when utilizing an uncontrolled mixture of existing soils as backfill. Retaining walls supporting any surcharge applied within the potential failure block shall also be considered in the design. For cantilever retaining walls, the load conversion factor (vertical to I� horizontal) is 0.31, and for restrained retaining walls, the load conversion factor is 0.50. 1 tf 1 GIN iProposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 11 Retaining walls shall be properly waterproofed in accordance with the project architect and be fitted with a continuous backdrain and a subdrain pipe. Figure No. III presents a conceptual schematic of this recommendation. D. Temporary Cut Slopes 15. In order to build the basement perimeter walls, the on-site, properly compacted fills and formational soils may be cut at a slope ratio no steeper than 0.5:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) for cuts up to 16 feet in height. In areas where the temporary cut slope may not be fully developed, shoring will need to be installed. 16. A representative of our firm shall periodically evaluate the soil exposures while the cuts are being made. Modified or additional recommendations may be provided by our firm if warranted. 17. The temporary cut recommendations are provided with the assumption that the cuts will remain for a period not exceeding 60 days after the cutting is completed. After that period, additional evaluation of the slope shall be made by our firm. `A 18. No surcharge of any type may be placed within 8 feet of the top of the temporary cuts. 19. The temporary cuts should be backfilled as early as possible after the basement wall construction. The contractor shall provide proper drainage around the top of the basement excavation to prevent water runoff on the slope face and/or into the excavation. Furthermore, the contractor shall keep a journal with daily entries describing the slope's visual condition. Any . .......... ........ ......... Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 12 evidence of soil instability shall be promptly reported to our firm and the work in the area of distress shall be stopped until further evaluation and recommenclations-by our firm. 20. General safety guidelines shall be followed at all times unless superseded in writing by our firm. E. Preliminary Pavement Design 21. Based on R-value results from adjacent lots (averaging R=40), we recommend a preliminary pavement design consisting of 3 inches of A.C. over 4 inches of Class II base for light parking areas and parking stalls, and 3 inches of A.C. on 6 inches of Class II base for heavy traffic areas. Actual pavement design shall be based on R-value results obtained from on-site finish grade soils. 22. Contemporary pavement section design methods require compaction of the upper 6 inches of subgrade soils (natural ground or compacted fill) to 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density, an-d all base materials to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. We therefore recommend that the upper 6 (� inches of subgrade soils and all base materials beneath the proposed, ►# driveway and parking area pavements be compacted to these standards. ' This recommendation also applies to the upper soils in backfilled trenches or behind retaining walls which will support pavement sections. F. Site Drainage Considerations 23. Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 13 t site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Proper drains and downspouts should be installed on all structures, with runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper, sufficient subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site. MIn addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all time during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations and ponding on finished building pads or pavement areas. In Maddition, a swale shall be provided at the top of any retaining walls to help Nprevent erosion of the soils and to quickly transport the runoff or irrigation water. 24. Due to the presence of groundwater (derived primarily from rainfall and irrigation), excess moisture is a common problem in below-grade structures and behind retaining walls that may be proposed on this site. These problems are generally in the form.of water seepage through walls, mineral staining, mildew growth and high humidity. In order to minimize the potential for moisture-related problems to develop at the site, proper drainage ventilation and waterproofing must be provided for any below- ground areas as well as in the backfill side of all structure retaining walls must be adequately waterproofed and drained. 25. Proper subdrains and free draining backwall material or geodrains (such as Miradrain 600) shall be installed behind all retaining walls on the subject T� Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 14 project. The subdrains shall outlet into approved drainage facilities. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures that is attributable to poor drainage. The perimeter basement wall subdrain shall be placed at an elevation at least 1 foot lower than the bottom of the interior slab bottom elevation. 26. Planter areas, flower beds, and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a closed bottom and a subsurface drain, installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility. Sufficient area drains shall be provided to landscape areas to prevent water ponding and to provide quick runoff disposal. G. General Recommendations 27. Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time should be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings could result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish-floor materials. 28. We recommend the placement of a PCC slab (at least 6 inches thick) beneath and in front of any proposed trash enclosures. It has been our experience that most concentrated point loads often occur surrounding the trash ienclosures from both the trash vehicles and the wheel loads of the trash container, resulting in damage to the asphaltic pavement. 1 29. In order to minimize any work delays at the subject site during site development, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for 1 0 GIN Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 15 q inspection of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observation of the excavations;- in the event that our observation reveals the need for deepening or re'designing foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc.). III. GRADING NOTES Any required grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork Specifications (Appendix B) and the requirements of the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. 30. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be asked to verify the ' actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavations to be as anticipated in this "Limited Soil Investigation and Updated Soil-related Recommendations." In addition, it is our recommendation that the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading- work be tested by a representative of our firm. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading ordinance. 31. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in the report are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for design of the project are incorporated in the building and grading plans. Our firm should review the dr�� Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 16 final grading and foundation plans when they become available and before construction operations start. 32. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the reasonability of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. IV. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data wobtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils and formation materials located in this area of the City of Encinitas. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our dprofession within the San Diego County area. No warranty is provided. This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building and/or grading plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. r IProposed San Diego Cancer Center Job No. 01-8068 Encinitas, California Page 17 I The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or Ichanging drainage patterns,'which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. I Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the project coordinator. Reference to our Job No. 01-8068 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, 1 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. n� Ja iser, Project Coordinator__-. Le Reed, resi ent - CEPT,7 1CU C.E.G. 999EexP 3-31-033/R.G. 3391 EN'C;;NE,Er'.,; i /riy ate--%. f fl 0 A0 1 Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/LDR/JAC/pj /�RpF E OSS l! Nry� 002007 w i oc Exp.' ,'30/ * ,\cam ✓t�� ,.,�. 4 5 SITE MAP L VD - FkllNl�aS Z 'x UNCH '017 VALLEY 4 ; Gt1E1," ;°L TOWN C�'EW - •�fti`FQ � j�WILLOtdt1'.VEN �, �' rT 10 — -- '+ 57po ---- Alf: PARK n L16Vi ` �-•D.RS?' +,tx� `t A J".x)Scr � f4 r c\!• � � r�ietilNGt f' � Si `\�\,.�✓''p4 .� r _; SLr i�?i�`,yq` r-+ `� ° ESLOS__.x� .. i q-•r'4� ,!� a�fN &'rr_ �-- I r ��;. }� O :u`Rp.✓L i of 4 * av i —' Aro ."eA PRBOP;r" a=_ 'kI1•L GkODE V_ANESSA _�� 'o� -�,-m• cc TEcr E N4 ASUfM kr n'ta Sjte'',,1A-LLQA ELON Av4ri9� Xis \1. -.~- J� .Pt._._i:p- / A !s�•J�;��T � of �ii; �." � :��`s\c 6`v, rSrA 11 Ji SuE LN YOUN � `'� '\�;�. iE�i,'IS NAF yr (�FV\�a`•ti(�Tz��.� ``: ^FIAiR_lHCt � H A:N_QV W E Z 4CLL BREiZE LY PL C. i SHERIFF STA j2 T LiS+ K��i�-.'•, �'.;� �� ;. ENCINITAS - VILLA&E >�jpAvEU7 - ,. X94 ��• ,1.; V��_ . PLAZA ENCINITAS BLVD> ; t I goo AFB, t�KCRfs r � r _ GE u Proposed San Diego Cancer Center Lots 16 and 17 Garden View Plaza Encinitas, CA. Figure No. la Job No. 01 -8068