The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-1532 G City OfNGINEERING SER DICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering December 7, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 1403 Sartori Avenue Torrance, California 90501 RE: Valerie Sheriff 1320 Summit Avenue APN 260-620-56 Grading Permit 1532-GI Final release of security Permit 1532-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 7578757085 in the amount of$ 13,913.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Paul M. Dupree at (760) 633-2808 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, l Paul M. Dupree 4yLe h Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Valerie Sheriff Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT City Of Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering July 30, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: Surety Company of the Pacific P.O. Box 10289 Van Nuys, California 91410-0289 RE: Valerie Sheriff 1320 Summit Avenue APN 260-620-56 Grading Permit 1532-G Final release of security Permit 1532-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 M105939, in the amount of$55,653.00, 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, f Debra Geishart y L bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,FinanceManager Valerie Sheriff Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper -MEN% evans, colbaugh & assoc., inc. 1565 creek street•suite 107 san marcos, california 92069 (760) 510-9686 fax 510-9685 March 25, 2004 Ms. Valerie Sherriff 1380 Plum Street San Diego, CA 92106 ECA 02-13-02 Subject: Geotechnical Grading Plan Review, 1320 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California References: 1) "Grading Plans",3 Sheets,Dated February 1,-2004,By'Sampo Engineering, Inc. 2) Our"Report of Geotechnical Investigation, ...", Dated January 23, 2003 Dear Ms. Sherriff, fn response to your request, we have reviewed-the referenced grading plans ffom a geotechnical perspective. We understand that this is being required by the City of Encinitas due to the time lapse since our investigative report(Reference 2)was submitted.-We consider our previous work as remaining applicable to the grading of the site and is supplemented herein by the additional recommendations presented below. Our review of the plans indicate that, although more detailed than those which were reviewed as part of our investigation, the concept is the same and the finished grades have been established. The focus of our review is the differences in the planned grades and the existing grades for the three structures. We offer the following recommendations: Unner/Eastern Structure (Pad Elev. 149 8'). The current pad elevation for this structure is roughly at existing grade. Subsequent to the clearing and grubbing operations,the remnant grade will, undoubtedly be lower than the planned pad grade. While this should not be an issue for the foundations,the slab subgrade may need to be elevated via scarifying the existing soil in-place and adding a small amount of fill soil(i.e.,less than one foot thick). As an alternate,you may wish to consider lowering the pad grade of this particular structure to meet whatever grade is left after the clearing and grubbing operations. The footings for this structure will be at a depth such that they will, most likely, be founded in in-place terrace deposits regardless of either option chosen. geotechnical engineering low& Ms. Valerie Sherrill ECA 02-13-02 March 25, 2004 Page 2 Lower/Western Structures. Both ofthese structures are planned'fior basement levels with mid-level-garages. While- the basements will be entirely in cut into in-place terrace deposits, the garage pads will require some fill be placed to achieve finish pad grade.From existing grade,these garage pads will require up to roughly 1.5 feet of fill at the western end of the pads. However, subsequent to the demolition of the exiting structure and amenities the resulting grades will be such that roughly 2'to 21/2 ` of fill may be required to achieve the proposed grades. Depending on the actual grades upon completion of the clearing and grubbing operations,the remnant grades should be graded such that a uniform thickness of fill is provided beneath the entire garage pad area. Subsequent to this preparation,the exposed soils should be properly moisture conditioned and the till should be placed in accordance with those recommendations presented in Reference 2. A qualified qeotechnical engineer should be present at the completion of all removals and during the earthwork to achieve pad grades and retaining wall backfill operations. Respectfully submitted, Q�OFESs Evan olbaugh&Associates, In/ �V �D cot 9� � 4Q� �Cc w � No.228 Z Z Exp.3-31-07 m E. Davi olbaugh,M.Sc., GE President ��q�0 CHN\�'A �! Principal Geotechnical Engineer, GE F CAI�F� Iowa% euans, colbaugh & assoc., inc. 1565 creek street•suite 107 san marcos,california 92078 (760)510-9686 fax 510-9685 August 24, 2006 Michael F. Aulert, Inc. C/o Ms. Valerie Sherriff 390 Rosecrans Street San Diego, CA 92106 ECA 02-13-02 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Observation and Testing, Driveway SubgradeBase, 1316, 1318 and 1320 Summit Ave., Encinitas, California Grading Permit NO G 1532 APN: 260-620-56 Parcel No. 2,PM 912 References: 1) Our "Report of Geotechnical Engineering Observation and Testing, Dated March 19, 2006 2) "Grading Plans", 3 Sheets,Dated February 1,2004,By Sampo Engineering, Inc. 3) Our""Report of Geotechnical Investigation,...",Dated January 23, 2003 Dear Ms. Sherriff, In response to your request,we visited the site on August 24,2006 to perform the last of the in-place density testing to be performed on this site. The testing consisted of performing sand cone tests on the driveway subgrade/base material in the pan handle as well as in the common driveway area east of 1316 Summit(see Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map). In-place density tests on the subgrade of the driveway area were reported previously (Reference 1). The material tested and reported herein consisted of either Class II base and or on-site soils mixed with gravel/base materials. In either case the maximum density for Class H base was utilized for purposes of determining relative compaction. As recommended in our preliminary investigative report(Reference 3),base material was not needed for the on-site soils conditions. The results of the tests are shown below. Test No. In-Place Dry Density{,pcf) Maximum Density(psf) Relative Com action 53 132.5 135 98 % 54 132.8 135 98 % geotechnical engineering Michael Aulert, Inc. ECA 02-13-02 August 24, 2006 Page 2 We understand that the concrete pavement section will consist of at least 5-inches of Portland Cement Concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars at 24-inches on-center which exceeds the minimum section as recommended in our investigative report(Reference 3). Based on the results of our observations and testing reported herein, the requirements of Note 3 on the referenced grading plan and/or our previously reported recommendations have been met or exceeded. Respectfully submitted, ?,OFFS Evans, Colba h&Associates, In ��PJ\D C0z W NO.228 s Z cal Exp.3-31-07 ^' E. David Co ba gh, ,PE, President 9TH TFCHIO Principal Geotechnical Engineer, GE CALIF Enclosures: Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map % QC op czo 04 t.%A '16 JOY w �2 �N 23 1 V Fi c') Q cz IV Z41 01 L'J I J 5z - . cr TZ C)e V 4.0tz "21 IA2 C'o To- Jf LQ 'R5% C% L41 ::zS TIM CJ cis, "'K L 6M -j. . CIA CN LO Lo C:) cd Cd L'_ C71 ad (d L Ocopc L—W IY ... ..... CL V LC) _4j to. a-U . L 1Z ckz CN 97 W wi L'u L v' zzz Wi r7 CL L(3 12 LIL 11 Ir k August,2006 ECA 02-13-02 (40, Geotechnical Map 1316, 1318& 1320 Summit Ave. Plate I COMM em & UM., Inc. 1565 creek street•suite 107 san marcos, california 92069 (760) 510-9686 tax 510-9685 March 25, 2004 Ms. Valerie Sherriff 1380 Plum Street San Diego, CA 92106 ECA 02-13-02 Subject: Geotechnical Grading Man Review, 1320 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California References: 1) "Grading Plans",3'Sheets,Dated February 1,"2004,By'Sampo Engineering, Inc. 2) Our"Report of Geotechnical Investigation, ...", Dated January 23, 2003 Dear Ms. Sherrifl', In response to your request, we have reviewed the referenced-grading plans from a geotechnical perspective. We understand that this is being required by the City of Encinitas due to the time lapse since our investigative rs;port(Reference 2)was submitted.-We consider our previous work as remaining applicable to the grading of the site and is supplemented herein by the additional recommendations presented below. Our review of the plans indicate that, although more detailed than those which were reviewed as part of our investigation, the concept is the same and the finished grades have been established: The focus of our review i!i the differences in the planned grades and the existing grades for the three structures. We offer the following recommendations: Unner/Eastern-Structure rnad Eley 149 . The current pad elevation for-:his structure is roughly at existing grade. Subsequent to the clearing and grubbing operations, the remnant grade will, undoubtedly be lower than the planned pad grade. -While this should not be an issue for the foundations,the slab subgrade may need to,be elevated via scarifying the existing soil in-place and adding a small amount of fill soil(i.e.,less than one foot thick). As an alternate,you may wish to consider lowering the pad grade of this particular structure to meet whatever grade is lell after the clearing and grubbing operations. The footings for this structure will be at a depth suer that they will, most likely -be founded i_'n inmate_terrace deposits regardless of either option chosen. geotechnical engineers _ Ms. Valerie Sherriff ECA 02-13-02 March 25,2004 Page 2 L werA g=rn Structures. Both ofthese structures are plained for basement levels with mid-level garages. While the basements will be entirely in cut into ,n-place terrace deposits,the garage pads will require some fill be placed to achieve finish pad grade.From existing grade,these garage pads will require up to roughly 1.5 feet of fill at the western e:nd of the pads. However, subsequent to the demolition of the exiting structure and amenities the: resulting grades will be such that roughly 2'to 2''Y= of fill may be required to achieve the proposed grades. Depending on the actual grades upon completion of the clearing and grubbing operations, the remnant grades should be graded such that a uniform thickness of fill is provided beneath the entire garage pad area. Subsequent to this preparation,the exposed'soils should be properly moisture conditioned and the fill should be placed in accordance with those recommendations presented in Reference 2. A qualified geotechnical engineer should be present at the completion of all removals and during the earthwork to achieve pad grades and retaining wall backfill operations. Respectfully submitted, QRpFE.SQ Ev olbaugh&Associates, 4k. ,�>D COQ� � No.?28 3S z � d ca Exp. $7 E. David olbaugh,M.Sc,, GE * 'P President ��'��CHN�� ' Principal Geotechnical Engineer, G CAI.tF warA Colbum& ==.I Inc. 1565 creek street•suite 107 san mamas: california 92069 (760) 510-9686 fax 510-9685 March 25, 2004 Ms. Valerie Sherriff 1380 Plum Street San Diego, CA 92106 ECA 02-13-02 Subject: Geotechnical Grading Aan Review, 1320 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California References: 1) "Grading Plans",'3'Sheets,Dated February 1,2004,By'Sampo Engineering, Inc. 2) Our"Report of Geotechnicai Investigation, ...", Dated January 23, 2003 Dear Ms. Sherri:ff, In response to your request, we Have reviewed-the referenced grading plans from a geotechnical perspective. We understand that this is being required by the City ofEncinitas due to the time lapse since our investigative report(Reference 2)was submitted.`We consider our previous work as remaining applicable to the grading of the site and is supplemented herein by the additional recommendations presented below. Our review of the plans indicate that, although more detailed than those which were reviewed as part of our investigation, the concept is the same and the finished grades have been established. The focus of our review is the differences in the planned grades and the existing grades for the three structures. We offer the following recommendations: Unpgi/Eastem Structure(Pad El � 119.x. The current pad elevation for-.his structure is roughly at existing grade. Subsequent to the clearing and grubbing operations, the remnant grade wilt, undoubtedly be lower than the planned pad grade. -While this should not be an issue for the foundations,the slab siibgrade may need to be elevated via scarifying the existing soil in-place and adding a small amount of fill soil(i.e.,less than one foot thick). As an alternate,you may wish to consider lowering the pad grade of this particular structure to meet whatever grade is left after the clearing and grubbing operations. The footings for this structure will be at a depth such that they will, most likely, be founded in in-place terrace deposits regardless of either option chosen. j geotechnicai engineering _� Ms. Valerie Sherriff ECA 02-13-02 VEIL March 25, 2004 Page 2 Lgwer/Western Structures. Both ofthese structures are planned tor basement levels with mid-level garages. While the basements will be entirely in cut into in-place terrace deposits,the garage pads will require some fill be placed to achieve finish pad grade.From existing grade,these garage pads will require up to roughly 1.5 feet of fill at the western cnd of the pads. However, subsequent to the demolition of the exiting structure and amenities the, resulting grades will be such that roughly 2'to 2'1/2 of fill may be required to achieve the proposed grades. Depending on the actual grades upon completion of the clearing and grubbing operations,the remnant grades should be graded such that a uniform thickness of fill is provided beneath th.-entire garage pad area. Subsequent to this preparation,the exposed soils should be properly moisture conditioned and the fill should be placed in accordance with those recommendations presented in Reference 2. A qualified geotechnical engineer should be present at the completion of all removals and during the earthwork to achieve pad grades and retaining wall backfill operations. Respectfully submitted, OQ�OFE-SR Ev olbaugh& Associates, oP��'�CO)t b C.0 G'=G� a 10.278 z Exp.3.31-07 E. David olbaugh,M.Sc., GE " 0. President 9 11 CHII�G � Principal Geotechnical Engineer, G f CALF `L � • 3 0,1 —loss% evans, colbaugh&assoc., inc. 1565 creek street,suite 107 _ san maroos,California 92069 (760)510-9686 fax 510-9685 ECA 02-13-01 January 23, 2003 Ei REPORT OF GEOTECEMCAL INVESTIGATION 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Mr. Michael Aulert 500 S. Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 106 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 PREPARED BY: w EVANS, COLBAUGH& ASSOC.,INC. 2453 Impala Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 •geotechnical engineering •engineering geology loss% evans, colbaugh&assoc., inc. 2453 impala drive carlsbad, california 92008-7234 (760)438-4646 fax 438-4670 January 23, 200 Mr. Michael Aulert 500 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 106 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 ECA 02-13-01 Mr. Aulert, This letter transmits our "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, 1320 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California". Our work was performed in response to the request of Ms. Valerie Sherriff on your behalf. In our opinion, the subject property is suitable for its intended use providing the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction phase of the proposed development. This report has been prepared for your exclusive use in developing the subject property in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. Respectfully submitted, EVANS, COLBAUGH&ASSOCIATES, Q�QQROFES.Sgl \D CO(�GCyy�2 No.228 jD -� Exp.3-31-03 Dennis A. Ev `y��R S E�' �, E. David 9TFOF CAS _ ,. Co ugh Certified E G�10.ligist, 19 Principal Geotechrical Engineer, GE 228 Distribution: 5 Addressee •geotechnical engineering •engineering geology VEIL ECA 02-13-01 Page I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . 2 Proposed Development 2 SurfaceConditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colluvium . . . . . 3 Terrace Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ground Water Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " " 4 Slo a Stability RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Site Preparation and Corrective Grading 4 Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Compacted Fill Blanket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Fill Material and Fill Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • , • . • . . • . 5 Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compaction Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moisture-Content 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compaction of Fill Slope Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slope Landsca ping 5 Pavement Design 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Bearing Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 6 FootingDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Slab-on-Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presoaking 7 CementType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Earth Pressure " " " " " " " " " 7 Unrestrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allowable Passive Resistance 7 Friction 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Friction Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . 7 Subdrain Waterproofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Backfill Exterior Concrete Flatwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 APPENDIX A-Supporting Data and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION loss% Purpose The purpose of our study was to perform a geotechnical investigation of the subject property to determine the engineering and geologic characteristics of the subsurface soil and/or rock pertinent to developing the site to accommodate three single family residences and appurtenances. Location The subject site comprises roughly one-half of an acre of land which was previously developed to accommodate a single family residence and is located on the west side of Summit Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California. This parcel is also known as Parcel 2 of San Diego Parcel Map 912 (APN 260-620-56). Scone The scope of our work undertaken to complete our investigation consisted of the following: • Review of topographic, site and elevation plans provided by Ms. Sherriff. • Review of available published reports,plans, maps, etc. related to the geotechnical and/or geologic conditions of the subject site and vicinity. • Subsurface exploration consisting of excavating two small diameter borings to assist in delineating the subsurface soil and/or rock conditions and retrieve samples for laboratory testing. • Laboratory testing of the samples retrieved to determine the engineering characteristics pertinent to the proposed development. • Engineering and geologic review and analysis of the findings. • Computer enhanced geologic evaluation of the site regarding seismic source factors. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings,conclusions and recommendations. Volk ECA 02-13-01 Page 2 REFERENCES 1. "Topographic Plat", by Sampo Engineering, Inc.,Dated October 21, 2002. 2. Site and Elevation Plans, by Kevin Love Architecture, undated. 3. "UBCSEIS", Computer software by Thomas Blake, dated January, 1998. 4. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada:, by CDMG, dated February, 1998. S. "DMG Open-File Report 96-02",Geologic Map of The Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, Plate 2, dated 1996. FIN DINGS Proposed Develo ment Review of the site topographic map(Reference 1)which depicts the existing conditions and the proposed site and elevation plans (Reference 2) which depict the preliminary elevation of the proposed structures indicates that minor cut and fill grading techniques will be utilized to establish level pads for one two-story and two three story single family residences with attached garages. Most of the proposed elevation changes will be accommodated with retaining walls within the structures and exterior walkways with steps. We have superimposed the estimated locations of the proposed structures on the topographic map as shown on the enclosed Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map. Surface Conditions The site is accessed from the west side of Summit Avenue via a roughly 20 feet wide driveway which descends roughly three feet over a distance of 190 feet.. At the terminus of the driveway,the site descends an additional roughly one and one-half feet to an existing single family residential structure.which occupies the mid portion of the site. The rear yard area descends gently an additional thirteen feet to the west property line. At the time of our field investigation the vegetation consisted of grass in the front yard area of the existing residence and various planter beds, shrubs bushes and trees in both front and back yard areas. Volk ECA 02-13-01 Page 3 Subsurface Conditions Toosoil/Colluvium -The soil in the upper one to one and one-half feet consists of colluvial material. This material consists of loose to medium dense silty sand. Terrace Deposits-The terrace deposits which underlie the colluvium consists of medium dense to dense and silty to clayey sand with minor amounts of gravel to the depths explored. Geology The site is located less than one-quarter mile from the coast line on a known Pleistocene marine terrace. According to References 3 and 4, the closest active fault zone is the Newport - Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault which is located roughly four kilometers west(offshore)of the site. There are no known landslides in the vicinity of the site nor were any detected during our investigation. Ground Water Ground water was not encountered in any of our exploratory borings. Seismic Design Considerations Review of Reference 4 indicates that the site is within l Okm of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Therefore, according to Section 1629.4.2 of the 1997 UBC, the site must be assigned a "near source"factor. The near-surface soil is classified as being equivalent to soil profile type"SD"of the Uniform Building Code(UBC)Table 16-J-Soil Profile Types. This information along with the longitude and latitude coordinates of the site were provided as input parameters in the referenced software "UBCSEIS". The program performs a search of the most current California Division of Mines and Geology database of known active faults and calculates the UBC near-source factors based on the closest,most critical active fault to the site. The findings are summarized below and a copy of the output file is attached as Plates A-5.1 through A-5.6. VEIL ECA 02-13-01 Page 4 Soil Profile Type: SD UBC Seismic Zone: 0.4 Nearest Type B Fault: Rose Canyon Distance to Fault: 3.9 km UBC Seismic Coefficients: Na=1.1 Nv=1.3 Ca--0.49 Cv--0.86 Ts=0.704 To=O.141 No other seismically related phenomena(e.g.,liquefaction and seiching)are considered to be factors in developing the subject site. CONCLUSIONS Feasibility The development of the subject site to accommodate the proposed single-family residences is considered to be geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction phase of the proposed development Slope Stability Although a detailed grading plan has not been prepared as of the date of this report, review of the site topographic map and proposed structure elevations (References 1 and 2, respectively) indicate that any slopes that may be required to accommodate the proposed elevations would be less than 10 feet in height. Cut and/or fill slopes in this height range would, in our opinion, be considered to have an adequate factor of safety against both deep seated and surficial stability provided they are planned at a gradient of no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Corrective Gradin Clearin. All dense grasses,bushes and trees which are not intended for replanting should be cleared and disposed of off-site. The existing structure and all of it's foundation elements,utility and service lines should be properly demolished and removed from the site. VEIL ECA 02-13-01 Page 5 Strip iLnn�,. In fill areas, all topsoil and/or colluvial soil should be removed to expose dense terrace deposits prior to fill placement. In shallow cut areas where the depth pf the planned cut results in topsoil and/or colluvial soils exposed at grade,the area should be overexcavated to a depth such that the unsuitable soils are removed and be replaced with compacted fill. . Compacted Fill Blanket. Upon completion of the grading plans, they should be reviewed to determine if there are any cut/fill transitidns which cross through the proposed resident structures. If cut/fill transitions are generated in the planning process, we recommend that the cut portion of the building pad (and five feet horizontally beyond) be over excavated three feet and be replaced with compacted fill. Additionally,the fill area near the transition may also require over excavation to maintain a minimum three foot thick compacted fill blanket. The demolition of the exiting structure as well as removal of tree root balls may also create transitions which will need to be addressed. It may be feasible to accommodate some of these transitions with deepened footings so that the entire foundation system is supported by materials with similar engineering characteristics. Fill Material and Fill Placement Suitability. All on-site soil material is suitable for use as compacted fill provided these materials are brought to the proper moisture content prior to compaction. Compaction Standard. All proposed fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-91. Moisture Content. All fill soils should be moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture content in the range of at to two percent above the optimum determined for this soil. Compaction of Fill Slope Surfaces. Fill slopes should be carefully constructed to minimize the amount of loose material present on the slope surface. The final slope surface should be over- filled on the order of one to two feet and trimmed back to the compacted core. Alternatively,the slope surface can be compacted at roughly two-feet intervals with sheepsfoot type compaction equipment and grid rolled to form the finished surface. Slope I-andscapins. Landscaping of the slope surfaces promptly after the completion of the slope grading will be essential, particularly for slopes exposing granular soil. This landscaping should consist of drought-resistant varieties of grass or ground cover, or other plant material Volk ECA 02-13-01 Page 6 recommended by a landscape architect. The use of any sprinkler system should be predicated on providing(1) the minimum flow necessary for plant growth, (2) protection from erosion, and (3) maintaining a more or less constant soil moisture content within the outer three feet of the slope surfaces. We recommend that all irrigation pipe-lines be located either on, or immediately above, a graded slope area rather than in a trench. Pavement Design Although we are not aware of any plans for types of pavement alternatives at this point, several are available which include Portland cement and/or asphaltic concrete. A Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) driveway should be at least four-inches thief and be reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars positioned 24-inches on center. Based on our preliminary laboratory testing, which indicates the subgrade soil exhibits a very low expansion potential, a base course will not be required beneath the concrete. As an alternate, three inches of Caltrans,Type B,%-inch asphaltic concrete over four inches of Caltrans Class 2, %-inch aggregate base would provide a life to first maintenance of about 20 years. Asphaltic concrete pavement should be maintained on a relatively regular basis for the design life of the pavement. Foundation Des' n Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the surficial on-site soil exhibits an expansion potential classified as very low according to the Uniform Building Code(UBC). Since the plans call for multi-level pads,we have assumed that conventional concrete slabs-on-grade will be utilized to accommodate the foundation system. Soil Bearing Pressure. We recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot,with a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads against buildings may be resisted by friction between the footing bases and the supporting soil. Food n Desim. Exterior footings for both single and two-story structures and the garage should be at least 18-inches deep and reinforced with two No. 4 deformed, steel reinforcing bars, one near the top and one near the bottom. All interior footings should be at least 12-inches below the top of the floor slab. VEIL ECA 02-13-01 Page 7 Slab-on-Grade. The slab-on-grade for both the resident structure and garage should be at least five inches thick and should be reinforced with No.3 deformed steel reinforcing bars 24 inches on center. The reinforcing bars should be positioned at the mid-height of the slab and maintained during concrete placement. The slab-on-grade should be underlain by one inch of clean moist sand overlying a six-mil polyvinyl chloride(PVC)plastic sheeting with all joints overlapped at least 12 inches. There should be at least two inches of clean moist sand or gravel beneath the plastic sheeting. The intent of the sand and plastic sheeting beneath the slab-on-grade is to provide a capillary break for any moisture that may migrate beneath the slab. It is not intended as a waterproofing system. Press. Even though the fill soil beneath the building pad area will be placed at or above optimum moisture conditions, additional moisture conditioning is recommended prior to concrete placement. Cement Tvne. Based on the results of our laboratory testing, Type II cement may be utilized for all concrete in contact with the subgrade soils provided that all provisions of Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC are satisfied. Lateral Earth Pressure Unrestrained Walls. Retaining walls which are unrestrained(free to rotate)maybe designed to resist the static pressure exerted by a fluid having a unit weight of 30 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill and 45 pound per cubic foot for a two horizontal to one vertical sloping backfill provided that the wall backfill consist of clean, free draining granular soil (M.30). Restrained Walls. Retaining walls which are restrained against rotation should be designed to resist the static pressure exerted by a unit weight of at least 60 pounds per cubic foot. Allowable Passive Resistance. The allowable passive resistance for compacted fill may be taken as the pressure exerted by a fluid having a unit weight of 200 pounds per cubic foot. Friction Factor. The friction factor between concrete and stiff subgrade soil may be taken as 0.4. MEaL ECA 02-13-01 Page 8 Retaining Walls Sub drain. All retaining walls(including those that form the structures)should be supplied with a subdrain system consisting of a four inch diameter, Schedule 40, PVC, perforated pipe encased in four cubic feet of free-draining granular material per linear foot,wrapped in a filter cloth (Mirafi 140 NS or equivalent). The drain should be sloped to drain to either side of the structures and either daylight into the surrounding area or be incorporated into an area drain system. Waterproofing. The entire length of the retaining walls should be waterproofed to prevent moisture migration through the face of the wall. The waterproofing material will also need to be protected from any potential damage during the wall backfill operations. An appropriate design professional should be consulted for the specifications for this feature. Backfill. Subsequent to the installation of the subdrain as discussed above, the retaining wall should be backfilled to within two feet of the top of the wall by either placing and mechanically compacting free-draining granular soil (SE>_30)or placing"self-compacting"rounded pea gravel. The upper two feet of the wall backfill should consist of native soil mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557-91. We recommended that all exterior retaining walls incorporate a swale behind the top of the wall to direct surface runoff away from the wall. Exterior Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Frequent joints should be provided to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approve outlets. The subgrade soils should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. Patios and walkways should have a 4-inch minimum thickness and be reinforced with No.3 reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center,placed and maintained at mid-height through concrete placement. ECA 02-13-01 Volk Page 9 _&U_rface Drainage The performance of foundations is partly dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage both during and after construction. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that surface water will be carried quickly away from the building without ponding. The minimum gradient within five feet of the building will depend upon surface landscaping and hardscape. In general,we suggest that paved and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of two percent. Planters should be constructed so that moisture is not allowed to seep into foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavements. The impact of heavy irrigation can artificially raise existing groundwater tables or create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Attention to surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for future groundwater problems. 000 NoText APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DATA and PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I APPENDIX A EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3 General Moisture-Density Compaction Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrosivity Expansion Test . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct Shear Test PLATES Plates A-1.1 and A-1.2 - Log of Boring Plate A-2 - Explanation of Logs Plate A-3 - Compaction Test Data Plate A4 - Direct Shear Test Plates A-5.1 through A-5.6 - UBC Seismic Design Parameters VElk ECA 02-13-01 Page A-1 APPENDIX A SUPPORTINGS DATA PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS EXPLORATION The subsurface exploration was performed on January 7, 2003 and consisted of the excavation of two small (six inch) diameter borings ranging in depth from 11 to 16 feet. The borings were excavated utilizing a limited access drill rig. The estimated locations of these borings are shown on the enclosed Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map. The borings were logged by our project geologist. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a drive sampler, a steel, solid-barrel sampler containing a brass sleeve eight inches long in which the sample is obtained. The sampler was driven utilizing a 140 pound hammer with a fall of 18 inches. The inside diameter of the sleeve is 2.62 inches. The outside diameter of the sampler is 3.38 inches. All samples were sealed and capped upon extraction from the borings. The logs of each boring are presented as Plates A-1.1 and A-1.2 -Log of Boring. The geologic and engineering field descriptions and classifications which appear on these logs are prepared according to ASTM, Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation standards. Major soil classifications are prepared according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Since description and classification which appear on these logs are intended to be those which most accurately describe a given interval of boring(frequently an interval of several feet),discrepancies do occur in the Unified Soil Classification nomenclature between that interval and a particular sample in the interval. For example, a two-foot-thick interval in the log may be identified as a SILTY SAND (SM) while one sample taken within the interval may have individually been identified as a SANDY SILT(ML). This discrepancy is frequently allowed to remain to emphasize the occurrence of local textural variations in the interval. Plate A-2 is a "foldout" legend to those logs. The descriptive terminology generally conforms to current ASTM standards and is summarized as follows: Volk ECA 02-13-01 Page A-2 a. oil T e-per Legend to Logs b. Color-at field moisture C. Moisture-(as estimated during the excavation) ltdry„ "damp" - some moisture but less than optimum for compaction "moist" - near optimum "wet" _ above optimum "saturated" - containing free moisture d. Grain Size - "fine", "medium" and "course" e. Densi (granular soil) - "loose" and "dense" f Consistency (cohesive soil) "soft" _ easily penetrated several inches with thumb firm" - penetrated several inches with thumb with moderate effort "stiff' - readily indented with thumb, but only ith Y great effort "very stiff' - readily indented with thumbnail "hard" - indented with difficulty with thumbnail g. Hardness(used with "ROCK") "soft" can be dug by hand and crushed by fingers "moderately" - friable, can be gouged deeply with knife hard" and will crumble readily under light hammer blows "hard" - knife scratch leaves dust trace, will withstand a few hammer blows before breaking "very hard" - scratched with knife with difficulty, difficult to h. Strati break with hammer blows fication ECA 02-13-01 Page A-3 "thinly laminated" - Iess than 1/10 inch "laminated" - 1/10 to %Z inch "very thinly bedded" - %2 to 2 inches "thinly bedded" - 2 inches to 2 feet "thickly bedded" - more than 2 feet I. Fracturing "intensely fractured" - less than 1 inch spacing "very fractured" - 1 to 6 inch spacing "moderately fractured"- 6 to 12 inch spacing "slightly fractured" - 12 to 36 inch spacing j. Weatherin "very" - abundant fractures coated with oxides, carbonates, sulfates, mud, etc., thorough discoloration, rock disintegration, mineral decomposition "moderately" . - some fracture coating, moderate or localized discoloration, little to no affect on cementation, slight mineral decomposition "Slightly" - a few stained fractures, slight discoloration, little to no affect on cementation, no mineral decomposition. "fresh" - unaffected by weathering agents, no appreciable change with depth TESTING neral. The following sections describe the procedures for laboratory tests commonly performed by Evans, Colbaugh & Associates, Inc. on soil and rock samples obtained during the exploratory phase of our investigation. The selection of certain samples for laboratory testing is based primarily on engineering judgement, and all laboratory tests described below have not necessarily been performed on every sample obtained. ECA 02-13-01 Page A-4 Moisture-Density. Field moisture content and in-place density were determined for each sample of undisturbed soil material obtained. The field moisture content is determined according to ASTM Test Method D 2216-98 by obtaining one-half the moisture sample from each end of the tube. The in-place dry density of the sample is determined by using the net weight of the entire sample. At the same time the field moisture content and in-place density are determined, the soil material at each end of the sleeve is classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System and pocket penetrometer readings are made in the cohesive samples. The results of the field moisture content and in-place density determinations are presented on the logs (Plates A-1.1 and A-1.2). The basis for our classification of the soil is explained on Plate A-2-Explanation of Logs. Compaction Test. A bulk sample representative of the major soil type on-site was tested to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. These compactive characteristics were determined according to ASTM Test Method D 1557-91. The results are summarized on Plate A-3 Compaction Test Data. Corrosiyity The sulfate content of the near surface soil was tested in accordance with California Test Method 417-99. The results are as follows: Sample Location Soluble Sulfate Content Sulfate Ex osure B-1 @1-5' <0.10% Negligible EXpansion Test. The one-dimensional expansion of a remolded sample of on-site soil was evaluated. To provide a standard definition of one-dimensional expansion,the test was performed according to the Expansion Index test referred to as Standard Test 18-2 of the uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials. The results from this test procedure are reported as an"Expansion Index". ECA 02-13-01 MEN% Page A-5 The procedure basically consists of performing a loaded swell test on a sample one inch high and four inches in diameter, remolded to a density equivalent to a compactive energy of about 10,300 foot-pounds per cubic foot, at a moisture content equivalent to percent saturation not less than 49 nor more than 51. . The results of the expansion test performed as part of this work are summarized below. Sample Location Expansion Index B—C Classification B-1@1-5, 3 Very Low Direct Shear Test. Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the near surface soil to obtain the drained peak and ultimate strength. The tests were performed on cylindrical samples having a diameter of 2.625 inches and a height of one inch. Prior to testing the samples are soaked in the consolidometer under the same normal stress to be employed during the test to allow the sample to expand or consolidate and reach equilibrium under load. Soakingperiods were at least three days. After consolidation, the sample is placed in the direct shear box the normal stress is reapplied through a loading frame and lever system, and the sample is submerged. Prior to testing, cohesive samples are allowed to restablize. Vertical movement is monitored electronically by a digital dial indicator. The samples were sheared at a strain rate of 0.05 inches per minute. The shearing force is measured by means of an electronic load cell. Horizontal displacement of the sample is monitored electronically by a digital dial indicator. Shear force, normal force,and vertical movement of the sample are all automatically recorded by computer link and stored in a unique data file. For peak and ultimate strength, each sample is sheared to a displacement of approximately one-half inch. After achieving the desired displacement the drive motor is turned offand the sample is allowed to relax under the applied normal and shearing stresses until a constant shear force is achieved. The results of the direct shear tests are presented on Plate A4 - Shear Test Data. The Plates that are attached and complete this Appendix are listed in the Table of Contents. 000 Log of Boring No. B-1 FL�0�ggg�ed e: 118/03 Elevation: 145! JMC Hole Si ze/Type: — 6"Milvi u>fr 4J 4J v "�,°' as o a o > �w 04J A44 o AU Description 0E--, � SM Fill:Silty sand,medium dense,moist, SM — very dark brown and black,medium Honed. 2 TERRACE(Qt):Clayey to Silty sand,dense,moist dark reddish brown,fine to medium grained sand,slightly micaceous. D 12 121 7 4 21 6 Becomes medium to coarse grained. D 16 116 g 8 22 10 D 33 113 8 12 50-5" 14 D 20 104 6 16 35 TOTAL DEPTH 16 FEET NO WATER-NO CAVING Please Note Limitations Discussed on "Explanation of Logs" L^� Drive Energy: f- f7 d 0 a Date: January 2003 Project No.: 02-13-01 s LOG OF BORING B-1 Plate 1320 SUMMITT DRIVE 14-1.7 W evans,colbaugh&assoc.inc. 1 of 1 Log of Boring No. B-2 FDrnilling : t/8/0 Elevation:iMr Hole Size/Type: 6" MIM RI a� ° o tia-i!U "4al v4J [b� Aw rtrE, a�aowg0 a) �aNi (n 040 0 off �a Description Grass on surface. TERRACE(Qt):Clayey to Silty sand,dense,moist,dark reddish brown,medium 2 grained sandisli�ht�micaceous. — — -- — ---------------- 4 D 14 108 10 6 14 Becomes medium to coarse grained. 8 10 D 20 112 7 25 Medium to coarse grained,dark reddish brown and black. TOTAL DEPTH 11 FEET NO WATER-NO CAVING Please Note Limitations Discussed on "Explanation of Logs" C4 Drive Energy: 0 c� a 0 " Date: Janus '2003 � Project NO.: 02-13-01 s LOG OF BORING B-2 Plate gh&assoc.inc. 1320 SUMMITT DRIVE A-1.2 W evans,colbau 1 of 1 MOISTURE CONTENT(%Dry Weight) 140 135 130 ero air void curves 12s 2.40 through 2.80 R 120 2.40 Y 11s 2.50 D N 110 2.60 S 2.70 1 105 T Y 2.80 (pc0 100 95 90 85 80 0 10 20 30 40 Line Symbol Location De th Ft. B-1 3.0 Re resentative For: USCS Grou S bol Soil Name Li uid Limit Plastici Index % Fines % Com action Method 1557A Max. D Densi cf. 127 t. Moisture Content % 8 E ansion Index S ecific Gravity Soluble Sulfate % H/Resistivi ohm-cm Date: January 2003 Job No.: 02-13-01 COMPACTION TEST DATA Plate evens,colbaugh&assoc.inc. 1320 SUMMITT DRIVE A-3 3.000 2,000 H A R S R SE Q0 S (psf) 1,000 J�« 1,000NOAL STRESS(psf) 2.000 3,000 TEST CONDITIONS Tests performed on samples taken from RESULTS boring *B-1@3A11 samples Peak: submerged at least 3 days prior to phi-40, c-50 psf testing.Strain rate= 0.005 Ultimate: phi-32, C'50 psf Date: January, 2003 Project No.: 02-13-01 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Plate evans,colbaugh&assoc.inc. 1320 Summit A-4 13-01 OUT *********************** * * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1.03 * * COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 02-13-01 JOB NAME: 1320 SUMMITT DR DATE: 01-09-2003 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33. 0331 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2875 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 45.9 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 ******************************************************************** * CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are * limited in number and have been digitized from small- * scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale) . Consequently, Page 1 Plate A-5.1 13-01 .OUT =❑ * the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by * several kilometers, * the distances be carefully fchecked forlaccuracy andt ortant are used in design. * SUMMARY-OF-FAULT-PARAMETERS Page 1 ABBREVIATED I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT NAME IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I FAULT (km) I (A,B,C) I (MW) I TEBT) ROSE CANYON DS (mm/Yr) I (SS _1========1======= NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 3. 9 I B 1 6.9 1 1.50 I SS CORONADO BANK I 19.0 1 B ELSINORE-JULIAN I 27.7 1 B 1 6'9 I 1.50 I SS 3. ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 45.9 1 A 1 7.4 I 1 7.1 1 5.. 00 I SS PALOS VERDES I 46.0 1 B 00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 66.7 I B 1 6,8 1 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 67, 9 I B 1 7.1 I 3.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 68.1 I B 1 6.5 I 2. 00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 82. 6 I A 1 6.8 I 5.00 1 SS I ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I B 1 7.2 I 12.00 I 85. 9 SS I SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 86.6 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I SS I 86.6 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 B I 6. 8 I 4.00 I SS I CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. I B I 6.8 1 4.00 I SS {Elsinore) 90.7 ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 6.9 I 1.00 I SS I B I 6.7 I 1.00 1 DS B SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 96'9 I SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 103. 6 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 1 SS SAN ANDREAS I 109.4 1 B 1 6.6 I 4.00 I SS SAN JOSE Southern I 6.7 I 12.00 1 SS I 114.9 I A 1 7.4 1 24.00 I SS PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 124.0 I B SUPERSTITION MTN. 1 125.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 2.50 I DS CUCAMONGA (San Jacinto) I 127.4 i 7.0 I SS I B 1 6.6 1 5.00 I SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 128'2 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 SS DS BURNT MTN. 1 128.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 DS ELMORE RANCH 1 132.3 1 B SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 133.6 I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS I B 1 6.6 I 1.00 1 SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 1 135.1 1 B NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 135.4 1 6. I 4.00 I I B 1 7.0 0 3.50 I SS SS I EUREKA PEAK I 135.8 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 CLEGHORN I 136.7 I B I DS I 6.5 NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 138.1 B SS I 0.60 I I I 6.5 I 3 RAYMOND I 142.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.50.00 I SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 142.7 1 B I DS SAN ANDREAS 1 143.4 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS 1857 Rupture 1 0.50 I DS VERDUGO 1 A I 143.8 HOLLYWOOD 1 146.4 1 B I 7.8 I 34.00 I SS LANDERS 1 149.4 1 6'7 I 0. 0 I DS I B I 6.5 I 1.000 I DS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 149.6 1 B I 7.3 I 0.60 1 SS 1 151.4 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 1 SS Page 2 Plate A-5.2 13-01 -OUT =❑ HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT SANTA MONICA I 153.7 I B I 7.1 1 0.60 I LENWOOD_LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 1 156.6 SS I B I 6.6 I MALIBU COAST i 158.9 1.00 i B I 7.3 I 0,60 I SS IMPERIAL I 160.5 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I I 160.8 A 7 1 .0 I 20.00 1 DS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 161.8 i B 1 6.9 SS I 0.60 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 162.9 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 1 SS I 167.2 I B I 6.7 I 2.00 I DS ------------ SUMMARY-OF-FAULT-PARAMETERS Page 2 ---------------------------- ABBREVIATED I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. 1 SLIP I FAULT FAULT NAME IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. 1 RATE I TYPE --- 1 (km) 1 (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) ( (SS,DS,BT) ___ ANACAPA-DUME 1========1==== SAN GABRIEL 1 168.5 I B I 1 7.3 .00 PISGAH-BULLION MTN•-MESQUITE LK 1 170.2 1 B I 7. I .00 1 DS .2 CALICO - HIDALGO B i 7. 1 1 1 0.60 I 1 171 I SS I I SANTA SUSANA 1 175. 6 I B I 7.1 1 0. 60 SS HOLSER 1 182.4 1 B 1 6.6 I 5.00 I SS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 191.3 I B I 6.5 1 0.40 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 198.4 1 B I DS GRAVEL HILLS I 199.4 1 B I 6.7 I 1.00 1 DS B SAN CAYETANO - HARPER LAKE I 207.4 I 6.9 6.9 I 4.00 I DS I I I BLACKWATER I 207. 9 0.60 1 SS I B I 6.8 I 6.00 VENTURA - PITAS POINT 1 222' 8 I B 1 6.9 I 0.60 I DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 226.2 I B I 6.8 I 1. 60 1 SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 227.7 I B 1 7.0 1 2 00 1 DS M,RIDGE-ARROYO pARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 237. 3 I B I 6. 8 I 1.00 1 SS RED MOUNTAIN I B I DS GARLOCK (West) I 239.9 1 B 1 6.7 I 0.40 I DS PLEITO THRUST I 244. 8 I A 1 1 7.1. I 2.00 I DS BIG PINE I 249.7 I B 1 ( 6.00 I SS GARLOCK (East) I 255.3 I B 1 6.8 I 0.80 1 DS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 259.6 1 A 1 6.7 I 0.80 1 SS WHITE WOLF 1 267.8 I B SS 7.3 I 7.Op 1 SS SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 270.6 I B 1 6.9 I 1.00 I DS 1 7.2 SO. SIERRA NEVADA 1 271.7 1 B I 2.00 I DS LITTLE LAKE 1 284. 0 1 B 1 6.1 I 2.00 I SS OWL LAKE 1 288.5 ( B I 7. 1 I 0.10 ► DS PANAMINT VALLEY 1 288.7 I B I 6.7 I 0.70 1 SS TANK CANYON I 288.9 1 I 6.5 1 2.00 I SS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 29 B 0.1 1 B 1 7.2 I 2.50 I SS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 297.1 I B I 6,5 ► 1.00 I DS LIONS HEAD 1 313.5 1 B 1 6.8 I 4.00 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 331.3 I B I 6.8 I 0.70 I DS SAN LUIS I 339.0 I 6.6 I 0.02 I DS RANGE (S. Margin) I 341.2 g 1 6.9 I 4.00 ► DS I 7.0 I 0.20 I DS Page 3 -'late A-5.3 13-01.OUT SAN JUAN CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 342.6 I B 1 7.0 I 1.00 I SS OWENS VALLEY I 349.4 ( B I 6.5 I 0.25 DS LOS OSOS I 357.1 ( B I 7.6 I 1.50 I SS HOSGRI I 371.4 ( B 1 6.8 ( 0.50 I DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 1 376.9 ( B 1 7.3 1 2.50 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 383.2 I B 1 7.0 I 2.50 I SS RINCONADA 1 392.6 ) A ( 7.2 I 5.00 1 SS INDEPENDENCE 1 392.6 I B 1 7.3 I 1.00 I SS BIRCH CREEK 1 392'9 1 B I 6.9 I 0.20 1 DS 449'5 B 5.0 I 34.00 SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 449.2 1 B 1 6.5 ( 0.70 WHITE MOUNTAINS I 1 DS 1 1 DEEP SPRINGS I 453.8 1 B 1 7.1 1 1.00 SS I 472.2 I B I 6.6 1 0.80 I SS I DS SUMMARY-OF-FAULT- � -PARAMETERS Page 3 ----------------- ___________ ABBREVIATED I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP ---- FAULT NAME IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I FAULT I TYPE --- i (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I !mm/yr) I (SS, DEATH VALLEY (N. of CucaYPE __ _ _________ mongo) I 477.2-1 -= ROUND VALLEY 1 A FISH SLOUGH (E' Of S.N.Mtns. ) 1 484.3 I 7. 0 I 5. 00 1 SS I B 1 6.8 I 1.00 1 HILTON CREEK 1 492. 1 1 B I 6.6 1 0.20 ( DS ORTIGALITA I 510.4 1 B I 6.7 I 2.50 HARTLEY SPRINGS I 534.2 1 B I DS CALAVERAS 1 534.7 I B I 6.9 I 0.50 1 SS (SO-Of Calaveras Res) I 6. 6 I DS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 539.5 I B 1 6.2 I 15. 00 1 SS PALO COLORADO - SUR 1 541. 8 1 B ( 7. 1 I 0.50 QUIEN SABE i . 1 B 1 7.0 I 3.00 ( SS MONO LAKE 5528 1 B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 570. 7 ( B I 6. 6 I 2.50 SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 571.3 I B 1 6.8 1 0.10 I DS SARGENT 1 A I SS 576.5 I 7.9 I 24.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK I 576. 6 1 B 1 6.8 I 3.00 I SS SAN GREGORIO I 602. 0 I B 1 6.5 I 0.50 I DS GREENVILLE I 617.2 ( A 1 7.3 I 5.00 I SS SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 626' 6 1 B 1 6.9 I 2.00 I HAYWARD (SE Extension) 1 626' 7 I B 1 6.5 I 0.40 1 ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 626.9 I B 1 6.5 I 3.00 ( DS HAYWARD (Total Length) 1 642.3 1 B 1 6. 7 I 0.80 CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 646. 7 i A ( 7. 1 ( 9.00 1 DS GENOA I 646.7 1 B I SS CONCORD - 1 I 6.8 I 6.00 I GREEN VALLEY I 667.7 B I 6.9 SS. 1 1.00 I RODGERS CREEK I 694.5 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 DS I SS 0 WEST NAPA I 733.3 ( A ( 7. 1 9.00 POINT REYES I 734.2 ( B I SS HUNTING CREEK - I 751. 9 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I SS BERRYESSA I 756. 8 I 6'8 I 0.30 I DS I B 1 6.9 I 6.00 I SS Page 4 Plate A-5.4 13-01.OUT =❑ MAACAMA (South) COLLAYOMI 1 796.1 1 B 1 6.9 1 9.00 1 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 813.0 I B 1 6.5 I 0.60 1 SS MAACAMA (Central) I 816.7 I A 1 7.1 i 6.00 1 SS MAACAMA (North) I 837.7 1 A 1 7.1 I 9.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 897.3 I A 1 7.1 I 9.00 1 SS BATTLE CREEK 1 903.6 I B 1 6.8 1 6.00 I SS LAKE MOUNTAIN 1 927.4 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 1 962.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 1 MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 979.1 I SS B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1035.3 1 A 1 7.4 1 35.00 1 MAD RIVER 1 1042.1 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1045.0 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.70 1 DS McKINLEYVILLE 1 1049.0 1 A 1 8.3 1 35.00 1 DS TRINIDAD 1 1055.4 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 1 DS FICKLE HILL 1 1057.0 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 1 DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1057.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1062.7 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 I 1 1076.1 1 DS B 1 7.1 1 1.00 I DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 4 ----------------- ___ _____ ABBREVIATED I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT FAULT NAME IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE I (km) 1 (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/Yr) I (SS,DS,BT) BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1 1093.9 1 B 1==7.3 1 ==0.50==1=====_____ DS Page 5 =D Plate A-5.5 a Q V o Q _cn �+ . ' o � � v { N C/) Q o Q N N - — - LO a� o o LO N 4 ° '� o o o ° Q Q (B) U04eJ91933V #8113194 Plate A-5.6 .M, E& euans, colbaugh & assoc., inc. 1565 creek street•suite 107 san marcos, california 92069 (760) 510-9686 fax 510-9685 March 19, 2005 Michael F. Aulert, Inc. c/o Ms Valerie Sherriff 390 Rosecrans Street San Diego, CA 92106 ECA 02-13-02 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Observations and Testing, 1316, 1318 and 1320 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California. Grading Permit No. G 1532 APN: 260-620-56 Parcel No. 2, PM 912 References: (1) Our "Geotechnical Grading Plan Review,1320 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California"Dated March 25, 2004. (2) "Grading Plan for 1320 Summit Avenue" Prepared by Sampo Engineering, Inc., Dated February 9, 2004 (3) Our"Report of Geotechnical Investigation, ...", Dated January 23, 2003 Dear Ms. Sherriff, This letter-report summarizes the results of our geotechnical observation and testing services on the subject property. The period covered by this report spans from June 22, 2004 through February 9, 2005 Scope of`York • Attendance at pre-grade meeting on June 22, 2004 • Part time,on call observation and testing during over-excavation of the building pad for the lot at 1320 Summit Avenue, retaining wall backfill for the buildings at 1316 and 1318 Summit Avenue, subgrade processing and utility trench backfill. • Laboratory testing of various import soils during the grading and retaining wall backfill. • Preparation of this letter-report, geotechnical engineering ME& Ms. Valerie Sherriff ECA 02-13-02 March 19, 2005 Page 2 Grading Operations The grading operations of the site essentially consisted of over-excavation of the building pad for 1320 Summit Avenue(upper/eastern lot)due to: a) the presence of topsoil near the surface of the pad grade, b) removal of an abandoned septic tank and c) removal of the root system of a large pine tree along the eastern boundary. Additional grading operations consisted of over- excavation of the garage areas of 1316 and 1318 Summit Avenue, subgrade preparation of the"pan handle" area of the driveway and retaining wall backfill. All fill soils were placed in loose lifts not exceeding roughly 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Dl 17-00 . Where testing indicated less than 90 percent relative compaction,the soils were either removed and replaced or the area re-worked until the minimum requirement was achieved. In-place density testing was performed utilizing the sand cone method(ASTM D1556-00). The equipment utilized during the grading operations consisted of a Kawasaki 70Z rubber tired front end loader, a Caterpillar D61) dozer and a Caterpillar D8 dozer. Retaining Walls The major retaining walls on the site consisted of structure basement walls associated with the buildings at 1316 and 1318 Summit Avenue. Prior to the backfill of these walls, they were provided with subdrain systems consisting of four-inch schedule 40 PVC perforated pipe placed within at least two cubic feet per lined foot of free-draining granular materials wrapped with filter fabric equivalent to Mirafi 140NS. On-site and imported soils were utilized as backfill for the subject walls. The backfill soils were placed in loose lifts, moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditioned compacted with manually operated wacker type compactors. Utility Lines The backfill of the trench excavations for the sewer and joint utility lines were observed and tested, including the trench with Summit Avenue associated «ith the SDG&E crossing. Foundation Preparation : Subsequent to the grading operations the excavations for the foundations of al l the structures were observed to be founded in dnese and unyielding soil The foundation elements for 1320 Summit Avenue are founded in engineered fill and the foundations for the structures at 1316 and 1318 Summit avenue are founded in terrace deposits. Where disturbed during the basement level excavations, the terrace deposits were moisture conditions as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and mechanically compacted. Ms. Valerie Sherriff le W"- %- March 19, 2005 Page 3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed during the grading and retaining wall backfill operations on soil samples from both on-site and import sources. The maximum density and optimum moisture content were determined by ASTM D1557-00. The results are tabulated below: Curve Maximum Optimum No. Soil Tvge Density Moisture 1. Silty Sand 127 8 2. Silty Sand 130 8 3. Silty Sand(Import) 125 11 4. Silty Sand(Import) 132 8.5 5. Aggregate Base 125 6 Field Testing The in-place dry density and field moisture content were determined during grading using the sand volume replacement method(ASTM Test Method D 1556-00). Where density tests showed less than 90 percent relative compaction the area of fill was either removed and/or reworked to achieve 90 percent relative compaction. Work to be Completed. The localized areas remaining to be addressed are a) subgrade preparation of the interior paved areas, b) a minor amount of backfill associated with the window wells at the west of the buildings at 1316 and 1318 Summit Avenue and c) the contouring of the drainage area along the western edge of the property. Conclusions In our opinion the vast majority of the grading as shown on the Grading Plan(Reference 2) has been completed in substantial conformance with the recommendations presented in our referenced reports. At the time and locations of testing, the fill placed exhibited a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. The foundation design criteria and recommendations included in our referenced reports regarding the resident structure were achieved where observed.. ME& Ms. Valerie Sherriff ECA 02-13-02 March 19, 2005 Page 4 In summary,based on our observations and testing while on-site,the subject site is suitable for it's intended use from a geotechnical engineering perspective. This report has been prepared for your exclusive use in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty, either expressed or implied is made. Respectfully submitted, OQRpFESSj� Evans, C&gn &Associates, Inc. PJ`p cDteq � � � CSC ca No.228 2 C(_ EW 3-31-07 rr E. David h, M.Sc., PE, GE J'�cF0 President TECHN��a OF Principal Geotechnical Engineer, GE 228 CAl.IFO Distribution: (2) Addressee (1) City of Encinitas, Attention Mr. Ronald Quigg Enclosures: Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Plates 2.1 and 2.2 - Results of Field Density Tests M O z z r, a N a v � o 0 N G �., x M x V^ 7 M x O o N O d' v1 l� '�t �' �C ef' O G1 O CC G1 G1 Q` G1 G1 C, C, C, C, CT C, C, C, 0 o R o o c, C, c� c, oo c� oc x c c� c C� c� c� C W O C, N C W �. CN r M d' O V'1 O �, N N N N N N N N N N N M a tw O uj Ll ^NM U, COO <7, r, r, 00 xc� xt� xoo x g ► z 'u •�+ ' x d N ••• •.• d x v� vi x M •-• Q ^�' M �•^• O oL V'1 �!' x ,_l C � d F=. oo: Oc xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx fJ+ O � vO � v xcNo N N � M y O N v N N N N r,4 N N C, ^ O 0 w m N C 'r l Uz Uz z ,9 U C � �... �• � � �-• � t� G1 G1 [� G1 x V' �' W � l� V v. _ t� O V^ t� x x N N x M �C v1 ca C4 N O '7 v�� C C ryii O O c3 r W W Ln u I I I C C C O � s I � ► .N. �� N C r N M OC C, w. N N N N N N C y 9 x P .� c �.0 rJN v h cnwcnvzl I N M et Cd O b o o 0 o b ti ti [` CT G\ G1 �.. v v M M M d' C 0 v A. V1 [� N N N N N N N O O O O C O O N N O C O O C O O C O ^ M M M M M - - _ cz P. V � � M 0 � N o 's G1 G1 c u, ayo xx � ° x ° ocx ° xocoo �+ � o, � F •y �M � x V'1 �� V' M �O M O V' V; � V' V't O M 7 �n � C'1iV � � Q EN � xxxxxc� C, xxC,- c, t- cc�Nc, c, �^ zH � Q x o rA '�., •N C C O O O O N N O O N N N N N N N Vl M M M M M M M M M M M M M N M M M M M F � o a W = N N N N N �t '� N N `�' V '7 7 'S �• '7 'n N N N N N Q1, x C O O G1 x 0 N O 7 d' M ^ I C O N - - - - - M M M - - - 7 7 7 d' cn C N O ti r � I 'y� � I U I v I z v I cc I I -2 2 'O N M '7 'r1 V [- x O - N M �' In 'V [� x G1 ^ •-» N �." �•• U M M M M M rn M M M `7 '7 V'� '•t et 7 '7 '7 ^t '7 `7 '�' `1' 7 `7' `7 7 7 'S `7 In ri n In �^N M V C zzzzzQQQCBQOQCQwww � 0; N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N O O C NoText N Sampo FngineerinL.Inc. Land Planning,Civil Engineering, Surveying,Mapping 1 S L.. 3 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE CARDIFF, CA APN: 260-620-56 PARCEL 29 PM 912 January 9,2004 j.n.02-137 Q�pFESS/ON '3 �� ANT �• Sq 9�F ..: ��. t��j�°�"�l�, 6 No. 4 P��.4� y{ w � cr. Ex . 6-30-0 civic OF CALIF - V 829 Second Street, Suite B ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 sampoengineering @sbcglobal.net N I w_ _E SamjDo En ineerin Inc. j.n.02-137 Land Planning, Civil Engineering,Surveying,Mapping January 9,2004 S page 1 of 2 DRAINAGE STUDY FOR: 1320 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, APN: 260-620-56 Hy )logy Criteria 1. Use the current County of San Diego Hydrology Manual"Rational Method". 2. Design on-site private storm drain for a 100-year frequency storm using the County of San Diego 6 hour and 24 hour precipitation isopluvials. See attached. 3. Runoff coefficients are based on soil type"D". "C" factors have been weighted based on the individual"C" factors for different surfaces(i.e. concrete=0.95), and the areas of the individual surfaces. 4. Times of concentration(Tc) are determined from the urban overland flow formula. 5. Refer to the attached drainage map for basin areas and locations. Introduction 1. The subject property is located at 1320 Summit Avenue in Cardiff. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and garage, driveway, asphalt and concrete pavement, pavers, decks, and planters. This project proposes to demolish the existing residence and improvements and to construct three new single-family homes and associated improvements. Legal access to the subject property is from Summit Avenue,to the east, along an existing asphalt pavement driveway that extends the entire length of a 20-foot wide by 120-foot long property panhandle. The property descends in an east to west direction at an average lot slope of approximately eight percent. The entire site has historically drained across the westerly property line. This project proposes to maintain the historical drainage pattern to the west, and storm water is not allowed to cross property lines onto private properties, adjacent to, and north and south of the subject property. The majority of the developed lot adjacent to and east of the subject property drains onto the subject property. This project has sized the private storm drain system and outlet conditions to account for the off-site flow from the east. 2. Storm water surface runoff in the redeveloped condition will mostly be directed toward grass and/or landscaped areas and swales. These areas will flow by gravity to on-site private catch basins where the storm water will be conveyed underground in four storm drain lines to the westerly portion of the subject property. The velocity of the storm water in the four pipes near the westerly side of the property will be dissipated using four private concrete catch basins, all without pipe outlets, that force the flow to "bubble" out of the top of the catch basin grates after reaching a velocity of nearly zero in the basin("bubbler" basins). 829 Second Street,Suite B ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone:760-436-0660 ♦ fax:760-436-0659 sampoengineering @sbcglobal.net 3anuary 9, 2004 page 2 of 2 Introduction(cont) The storm water will then drain on the surface to a small detention basin, where low flows (24-hour, 85`" percentile storm event) will be treated before leaving the property. Larger flows will pass through openings formed in a new concrete wall. The wall will be constructed approximately one foot east of the westerly property line of the subject property and will be approximately 3 feet in height. The wall has been designed so that in a 100-year storm event the water will flow evenly over the northerly portion of the wall, through a weir. Storm water that passes through the desngne wa openings nstributed across the westerly property line in perforated pipes laid along the ground surface over a gravel base, so that the outfall simulates sheet flow to the maximum extent practical. Tory Walker Engineering, Inc. has designed the detention basin system and outlet conditions along the westerly property line. A copy of their calculations is attached. The calculations show that during times of peak runoff,the flow rate leaving the subject property in the redeveloped condition will be equal to or less than the flow rate that currently exits the property. 3. Temporary erosion control measures and construction Best Management Practices (BMP's) include, at a minimum, the use of silt fences, stabilized construction entrance, gravel bag inlet protection and velocity check dams. Refer to the erosion control plan. ICI fjz-13� Wg� 11 4A ST, -------------- ----------- ------------- ----------------- o2-► ;V7 tj 065-t- ! A PAtJ 1,4 NO Lr- "rr-, t3,45W pgAws -72, 5v,-w--Tr- AMC, c,s� -k- (-Z-k C) ±)�o�) C, iDA K&W Qom= �a,�o �,a ) o,o�o 0,=4S ---------- ------------ --------------- f7 79 L14 A Z)v k-TLOSI5. /5 ftj co, F5 1,03 0#010 Of Coo-s-rv.� --------------- 7filjj4A JDI ANQ pvrttmr,� or /J 4USS�C�9?�>v CSC �X-Al Na Cr, M gql) ?b OIJ-244C- ----------- -��5N, ---------- 0�'7 i-rD WILY ,' r7 Cao u4It4 A------- --------- -------------------- -%, j]) !F2 c,�5 62-1"',-7 Wad,wr-ry —4 AS /Jvrc-.f -oq /,�j u,5 F-- Cwvn 07 ---I NCA-U*pe-5...--Tl*. H- 5 r ' L? U-el6tm-V C,/ -7o Cr",Ock ljo 14 it- ©Z-131 _/ GSv INGLUp3ac�7 � t_ —`��-b� 77r _. i . USE fo - `rte _ ____ 12&5 1 tJ Vii! +Igloo WIN�t i:�M how P trl OF-F- 5t-m- -5Asili 64sr OF 0,11 5y$ 09 Ob 3 o0up 5x>(O ------------ 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE CARDIFF, CA Rainfall Intensity(in/hr) Duration Fre ncy 85th 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Percentile 5-Minute 3.16 3.95 4.35 5.14 6.06 6.59 1.58 10-Minute 2.02 2.53 2.78 3.29 3.88 4.21 1.01 15-Minute 1.56 1.95 2.14 2.53 2.98 3.24 0.78 30-Minute 1.00 1.24 1.37 1.62 1.91 2.07 0.50 1-Hour 0.64 0.80 0.88 1.03 1.22 1.33 0.32 2-Hour 0.41 0.51 0.56 0.66 0.78 0.85 0.20 3-Hour 1 0.31 0.39 0.43 0.51 0.60 0.65 0.16 6-Hour 0.20 0.25 1 0.28 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.10 Computed Point Rainfall Duration Frequent 85th 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Percentile 5-Minute 0.26 0.33 0.36 0.43 0.50 0.55 0.13 10-Minute 0.34 0.42 0.46 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.17 15-Minute 0.39 0.49 0.54 0.63 0.75 0.81 0.19 30-Minute 0.50 0.62 0.68 0.81 0.95 1.04 0.25 1-Hour 0.64 0.80 0.88 1.03 1.22 1.33 0.32 2-Hour 0.81 1.02 1.12 1.32 1.56 1.70 0.41 3-Hour 0.94 1.18 1.29 1.53 1.80 1.96 0.47 6-Hour 1.20 1.50 ' 1.65 1.95 2.30 2.50 0160 24-Hour 1.75 2.40 2.90 3.30 3.80 4.00 0 fi0 input data from isopluvial maps; depends upon location hydrograph parameters/1-D Design Chart 2/9!2004 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE, CARDIFF, CA EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS PRECIPITATION (from County Hydrology Manual and NOAA Atlas) Duration Freq. 5-min. 15-min. 1-hr. 2-hr. 3-hr. 6-hr. 12-hr. 24-hr. 100-YR 0.55 0.81 1.33 1.70 1.96 2.50 3.30 4.00 50-YR 0.50 0.75 1.22 1.56 1.80 2.30 3.15 3.80 25-YR 0.43 0.63 1.03 1.32 1.53 1.95 2.65 3.30 10-YR 0.36 0.54 0.88 1.12 1.29 1.65 2.30 2.90 5-YR 0.33 0.49 0.80 1.02 1.18 1.50 2.00 2.40 2-YR 0.26 0.39 0.64 0.81 0.94 1.20 1.55 1.75 SCS CURVE NUMBER (from County Hydrology Manual) FSU -1 JSUB3 LAND USE AREA SOIL CN LAND USE AREA SOIL CN (ac) (ac) OPEN SPACE 0.34 D 84 OPEN SPACE' 0.09 D 84 IMPERVIOUS 0.13 D 98 IMPERVIOUS 0.09 D 98 TOTAL AREA 0.48 1 87.9 (avg) TOTAL AREA 0.18 91.0 (avg) AREA TOTAL AREA= 0.0007 sq. mi. TOTAL AREA= 0.0003 sq. mi. INITIAL ABSTRACTION (1a= 0.2S,where S= 1000/CN-10) SUB1 SUBS la= 0.27 inches la= 0.20 inches LAG (from Rational Method results) SUB1 SU63 Tc= 12.4 min. Tc= 8.0 min. lag=0.8xTc= 9.9 min. lag=0.8xTc= 6.4 min. 0.17 hrs. = 0.11 hrs. 1 Residential Landscaping K/Excel/1859/101hydrograph parameters/exist 2/9/2004 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE, CARDIFF, CA DEVELOPED CONDITION HYDROLOGY HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS PRECIPITATION (from County Hydrology Manual and NOAA Atlas) Duration Freq. 5-min. 15-min. 1-hr. 2-hr. 3-hr. 6-hr. 12-hr. 24-hr. 100-YR 0.55 0.81 1.33 1.70 1.96 2.50 3.30 4.00 50-YR 0.50 0.75 1.22 1.56 1.80 2.30 3.15 3.80 25-YR 0.43 0.63 1.03 1.32 1.53 1.95 2.65 3.30 10-YR 0.36 0.54 0.88 1.12 1.29 1.65 2.30 2.90 5-YR 0.33 0.49 0.80 1.02 1.18 1.50 2,00 2.40 2-YR 0.26 0.39 0.64 0.81 0.94 1.20 1.55 1.75 SCS CURVE NUMBER (from County Hydrology Manual) SUB1-4 j SUB3 LAND USE AREA SOIL CN LAND USE AREA SOIL CN (ac) (ac) OPEN SPACE 0.16 D 84 OPEN SPACE 0.09 D 84 IMPERVIOUS 0.31 D 98 IMPERVIOUS 0.09 D 98 TOTAL AREA 0.48 93.2 (avg) TOTAL AREA 0.18 91.0 (avg) AREA TOTAL AREA= 0.0007 sq. mi. TOTAL AREA= 0.0003 sq. mi. INITIAL ABSTRACTION (18=0.2S,where S= 1000/CN-10) SUB1-4 SUB3 18= 0.15 inches la= 0.20 inches LAG (from Rational Method results) SU61-4 SUB3 Tc= 7.3 min. Tc= 8.0 min. lag =0.8 x Tc= 5.8 min. lag=0.8 x Tc= 6.4 min. = 0.10 hrs. = 0.11 hrs. 1 Residential Landscaping H:/ExceV1859/10/hydrograph parameters/dev 2/9/2004 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE, CARDIFF, CA ELEVATION - STORAGE DATA ELEV. AREA S STORAGE . ft) (sfl (ac cu ft) (ac-ft) (cu ft) (ac-ft) 137.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 137.50 555 0.013 139 0.0032 139 0.0032 137.67 893 0.021 121 0.0028 260 0.0060 138.00 1400 0.032 489 0.011 628 0.014 138.50 1545 0.035 736 0.017 1364 0.031 139.00 1690 0.039 809 0.019 2173 0.050 139.40 1920 0.044 722 0.017 2895 0.066 140.00 2120 1 0.049 1 1212 1 0.028 4107 1 0.094 ELM AREA S STORAGE (tt) (s fl (ac) (6u-ft) (ac-ft) (cu ft) (ac-it) 137.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 137.50 555 0.013 139 0.0032 139 0.0032 137.67 893 0.021 121 0.0028 260 0.0060 137.67 893 0.021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138.00 1400 0.032 382 0.009 382 0.009 138.50 1545 0.035 736 0.017 1118 0.026 139.00 1690 0.039 809 0.019 1927 0.044 139.40 1920 0.044 722 0.017 2649 0.061 140.001 21201 0.049 1 1212 1 0.028 1 3861 0.089 Elevation-Storage 2/912004 137 0 Hllo 4 1 +0.0 2120 7 Mir F37 PAI I INS lz ir FF 139.4 T Ku TC 1R.39 --- 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE, CARDIFF HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF OUTLET STRUCTURE LOW FLOW ORIFICE Weir Formula for Orifices&Short Tubes(free&submerged) Q= Ca(2gh)0,5 (Eqn. 1) Q= Ca(64.32h)0'5; C= 0.56 Q= 4.491 a(h)0*5,where a=area of orifice opening, h=head(ft)above centerline of orifice Orifice Size, L= 4 in. , a= 0.111 sq.ft., invert elevation= 137.67 ft. H= 4 in. HIGH FLOW Weir Formula for Weir&Spillway Q=CLH'5; C= 3.3 for Weir (Eqn.2) 3.3 for Overflow Weir: L= 10.0 ft. @ elevation 138.90 ft. ( 1.23 ft.) Overflow: L= 98.0 ft. @ elevation 139.10 ft. Lo Flow(Eq. 1) Weir Flow(Eq.2) ELEV. Orifice Weir 10verflow TOTAL feet h ft Q cfs Hft Q cfs H ft Q(cfs) Q cfs 137.67 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 137.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 137.92 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 138.00 0.17 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 138.08 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 138.17 0.33 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 138.25 0.42 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 138.33 0.50 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 138.42 0.58 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 138.50 0.67 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 138.58 0.75 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 138.67 0.83 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 138.75 0.92 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 138.83 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 138.90 1.07 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 139.00 1.17 0.54 0.10 1.04 0.00 0.0 1.6 139.10 1.27 0.56 0.20 2.95 0.00 0.0 3.5 139.17 1.33 0.58 0.27 4.54 0.07 5.6 11 139.25 1.42 0.59 0.35 6.83 0.15 18.8 26 139.33 1.50 0.61 0.43 9.41 0.23 36.5 46 139.42 1.58 0.63 0.52 12.26 0.32 58 71 139.50 1.67 0.64 0.60 15.34 0.40 82 98 139.58 1.75 0.66 0.68 18.64 0.48 109 128 139.67 1.83 0.68 0.77 22.15 0.57 138 161 139.75 1.92 0.69 0.85 25.86 0.65 169 196 139.83 2.00 0.71 0.93 29.76 0.73 203 234 139.92 2.08 0.72 1.02 33.83 0.82 239 273 140.00 2.17 0.73 1.10 38.07 0.90 276 315 stage-disdwge2 2/9/2004 HEC-HMS Project: Summit Basin Model: Summit - E EXISIM6 __ C�UDIrldN t= $ S a �` ' F t d � x r t w yes 4 � a s m 3sre. ski x' !AY1 z ,i ��tifR f" ,�,,"I'. x^f.s.{�3 Yom` a>*,y�,dy `�'.t mom E. w� - Y nS x EhL;h vt {yt. f v u^ low i t ^ <.. a ' CS .rs syn,�tx„. x�a hr r d x t { a2 y I" .,ds ON {z�.�.;�i tr �r3r .. ?r s - { �" z '� +y ,�• r afa C��'` >!df tL�'t�� `�� '�,- v�'�7,w?''S�w �� ".arE`� y��" 'v,w �,� 1."a Mq' 3 viey's 3-e'y FkY rxvrti"s2 yy'; ` 'i A& , zat-'t a c x ✓y s i : t ty rn s •a .,y A� rv � y.,. z '� y "x: x' ,9 Zx¢^ ads �.> r�. ,✓ xr < � HNS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 1 Start of Run : O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit - Ex End of Run : O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model 2-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09FebO4 1755 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) SUB1-4 0.27541 01 Jan 00 1615 0.022132 0.001 Basin 3 0.19123 01 Jan 00 1611 0.012053 0.000 Junction-1 0.44247 O1 Jan 00 1613 0.034185 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results Project Summit Run Name Run 9 Start of Run O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model Summit - Ex End of Run O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model 5-yr, 24-hr - Execution Time 09FebO4 1810 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) SUB1-4 0.51620 01 Jan 00 1615 0.044150 0.001 Basin 3 0.32706 01 Jan 00 1611 0.022415 0.000 Junction-1 ' 0.80182 01 Jan 00 1613 0.066565 0.001 Kt4S * Summary of Results Project Summit Run Name Run 2 Start of Run O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model Summit - Ex End of Run O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model 10-yr, 24-hr Execution Time 09FebO4 1805 Control Specs Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) SUB1-4 0.65867 01 Jan 00 1615 0.061938 0.001 Basin 3 0.40102 01 Jan 00 1611 0.030544 0.000 Junction-1 1.0095 01 Jan 00 1613 0.092482 0.001 HITS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 10 Start of Run : OSJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit - Ex End of Run : 01Jan00 2400 Met. Model 5-y r, 24-hr Execution Time : 09FebO4 1811 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) SUB1-4 0.82181 01 Jan 00 1615 0.075964 0.001 Basin 3 0.49453 01 Jan 00 1611 0.036857 0.000 Junction-1 1.2535 01 Jan 00 1613 0.11282 0.001 HITS * Summary of Results Project Summit Run Name Run 11 Start of Run OSJan00 0000 Basin Model Summit - Ex End of Run O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model 0-yr, 24-hr Execution Time 09FebO4 1811 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) SUB1-4 1.0131 01 Jan 00 1615 0.092737 0.001 Basin 3 0.59816 01 Jan 00 1611 0.044334 0.000 Junction-1 1.5361 01 Jan 00 1613 0.13707 0.001 HNS * Summary of Results Project Summit Run Name Run 3 Start of Run O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit - Ex End of Run O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model 100-yr, 24-hr Execution Time 09FebO4 1805 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) SUB1-4 1.1176 01 Jan 00 1615 0.099505 0.001 Basin 3 0.65862 01 Jan 00 1611 0.047340 0.000 Junction-1 1.6926 01 Jan 00 1613 0.14684 0.001 HEWHMS Project: Summit Basin Model: Summit Ave POST-PRo7EC7 r, D if low ONTARIO lot 121 r rf� � $6SITt 3 � MUM— x r /n t sM 1sun; 2 As NW-W k !?y� Wit K 4 a� c ;, F i r l9 j $ .y'/ y. a� a qg "Pot d � X M1 l X 5 hb F up k :: k 3, �k r��+5 �w S � ��G a �,�a�C�<9✓:k �. � y£ar ;��'s �'�s s�Y' y� �£- g� / 3 K K ✓ r � � i `Y r 5 >b m 1IOCCI£Ufl� """;""N 1 Y h t'✓ 3F d yd _ 5�. d k P 'l',g '3w.. £ N ✓9'y�: t : '� .*x 'srr�"✓ '_ ten a7 / n;, t'✓ F r{ �` ,u✓ xr✓r'�,da�,�GY�� v r �� r �X ��« � � 4 b .F �.,r ,�s+'��'N u7+ '. S / > ba ri ✓.� h' {�5 «X F4 c x ✓ < rd: an % 5 F7.yp+.'vr,a t� '•:y e Sk a 1Y>✓A Yh: � 3� fib*r�v 2p�,.N"2 9�f�5r'� seN ✓ �. �'' y� g'F c '� r r ayt .G fug ,Sr k Jf -`� ��r� �` 5 'Kl. 'rr Y � kx t � "'ten ;r e a fir/ ,s",r .dal a „l f�' 1 e� ? z { T T O L^� A W 0 T cz C W � L w 1 N M Cz T ` I A1/ W � (Y) co C\j T CD C) O O O O (aa�a) aa�y IT M M HNS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 4 Start of Run : O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev End of Run : O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model : 2-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09FebO4 1805 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (Sq mi) Sub 1-4 0.55290 01 Jan 00 1611 0.033328 0.001 Basin 3 0.19123 01 Jan 00 1611 0.012053 0.000 Junction-1 0.74413 01 Jan 00 1611 0.045381 0.001 Detention Basin 0.26408 O1 Jan 00 1622 0.041116 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project : Summit Run Name s Run 4 Start of Run s OlJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev End of Run s 0lJan00 2400 Met. Model : 2-yr, 24-hr Execution Time s 09reb04 1805 Control Specs : Control 1 Cosaputed Results Peak Inflow s 0.74413 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : 01 Jan 00 1611 Peak Outflow s 0.26408 (cis) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : OS Jan 00 1622 Total Inflow s 0.045381 (ac-ft) Peak Storage s 0.017400(ac-ft) Total outflow s 0.041116 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation : 138.11(ft) g 145 (saaae). aay lo M GV x ` N N k t� xpp t r gas � s' y} cs : � t a t ::�5 k .€�+ is ' e x a.u.y�;, ss x r , ,z.ea, 1.a u a*N , a a c r x �a axe` , s . z to M;�, x "f• s. ax � a �. a' a. R a 1 a C as , s a HNS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 12 Start of Run : 0lJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev End of Run : O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model : 5-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09Feb04 1811 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (Sq mi) Sub 1-4 0.88403 01 Jan 00 '1611 0.058906 0.001 Basin 3 0.32706 01 Jan 00 1611 0.022415 0.000 Junction-1 1.2111 01 Jan 00 1611 0.081321 0.001 Detention Basin 0.35293 01 Jan 00 1623 0.077020 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project : Summit Run Name s Run 12 Start of Run s O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model s Summit Ave - Dev End of Run : O1Jan00 2400 Net. Model s 5-yr, 24-hr Execution Time s 09reb04 1811 Control Specs s Control 1 Computed Results Peak Inflow s 1.2111 (cfs) , Date/Time of Peak Inflow s 01 Jan 00 1611 Peak Outflow s 0.35293 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 00 1623 Total Inflow s 0.081321 (ac-ft) Peak Storage s 0.024851(ac-ft) Total Outflow s 0.077020 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation s 138.33(ft) HITS * Summary of Results Project : Sunlit Run Name : Run 5 Start of Run : 0lJan00 0000 Basin Model Summit Ave - Dev End of Run : 0lJan00 2400 Met. Model 10-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09FebO4 1807 Control Specs Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) Sub 1-4 1.0548 01 Jan 00 1611 0.078580 0.001 Basin 3 0.40102 01 Jan 00 1611 0.030544 0.000 Junction-1 1.4558 01 Jan 00 1611 0.10912 0.001 Detention Basin 0.39637 01 Jan 00 1624 0.10476 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project s Summit Rua Name : Run 5 Start of Rua s 0lJan00 0000 Basin model s Summit Ave - Dev End of Run s OlJan00 2400 met. model s 10-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09FebO4 1807 Control Specs Control 1 Computed Results Peak Tallow s 1.4558 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : OS Jan 00 1611 Peak Outflow s 0.39637 (cfs) Date/Ti of Peak Outflow : Ol Jan 00 Date/Time Total Inflow : 0.10912 (ac-ft) Psak Storage i 0.029275(ac-ft) Total Outflow : 0.10476 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation s 138.46(ft) HNS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 13 Start of Run : 0lJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev End of Run : 0lJan00 2400 Met. Model : 25-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09FebO4 1812 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) £t) (sq mi) Sub 1-4 1.2866 01 Jan 00 1611 0.093727 0.001 Basin 3 0.49453 01 Jan 00 1611 0.036857 0.000 Junction-1 1.7812 01 Jan 00 1611 0.13058 0.001 Detention Basin 0.44311 01 Jan 00 1625 0.12619 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project s summit Run Name Run 13 Start of Run : O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model Summit Ave - Dev End of Rua s O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model s 25-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09BebO4 1812 Control Specs s Control 1 Computed Results Peak Inflow s 1.7812 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Inflow s 01 Jan 00 1611 Peak Outflow : 0.44311 (cfs) Date/Ti of Peak Outflow : O1 Jan 00 1625 Date/Time Total Inflow : 0.13058 (ac-ft) Peak Storage : 0.035015(ac-ft) Total Outflow s 0.12619 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation : 138.62(ft) HNS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 14 Start of Run : 0lJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev End of Run : OSJan00 2400 Met. Model : 50-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09Feb04 1812 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (s4 mi) Sub 1-4 1.5404 01 Jan 00 1611 0.11156 0.001 Basin 3 0.59816 01 Jan 00 1611 0.044334 0.000 Junction-1 2.1385 01 Jan 00 1611 0.15590 0.001 Detention Basin 0.49457 01 Jan 00 1626 0.15150 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project s Summit Run Name s Run 14 Start of Run s OSJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev End of Run s O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model s 50-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09reb04 1812 Control Specs : Control 1 Computed Results Peak Inflow : 2.1385 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : 01 Jan 00 1611 Peak Outflow s 0.49457 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 00 1626 Total Inflow s 0.15590 (ac-ft) Peak Storage : 0.042220(ac-ft) Total Outflow : 0.15150 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation : 138.62(ft) HNS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 6 Start of Run : 0lJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - DeV End of Run : 0lJan00 2400 Met. Model 100-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 09Feb04 1808 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (s4 mi) Sub 1-4 1.6907 01 Jan 00 1611 0.11872 0.001 Basin 3 0.65862 01 Jan 00 1611 0.047340 0.000 Junction-1 2.3493 01 Jan 00 1611 0.16606 0.001 Detention Basin 0.60020 01 Jan 00 1625 0.16163 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project : Summit Run Name Run 6 Start of Run s OSJan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit Ave - Dev Bad of Run : O1Jsn00 2400 Met. Model : 100-yr, 24-hr Execution Time : 097eb04 1808 Control Specs s Control 1 Computed Results Peak Inflow : 2.3493 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : 01 Jan 00 1611 Peak Outflow s 0.60020 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 00 1625 Total Inflow : 0.16606 (ac-ft) Peak Storage : 0.045983(ac-ft) Total Outflow s 0.16163 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation : 138.92(ft) f 'F 5, t 4tR (saaaa� aay , Ef"�x r � x� ': ��S� ' :v 4�;� c`•' � e t t� a s3 4 aq �. a �t %, z �..� s?� Q>�� xx ��As 21��cry a n ✓" '��"`�@%� t v �'. m .F' e x -�'a � ka a yrTEsu� " i g a Vora ��€ � e 3 g r z ,% jpq-m p ' igm; ;z x, f. °xx A� i r' V` yy R { .11 M.. C ... ,.._ .. HmS * Summary of Results Project : Summit Run Name : Run 7 Start of Run : O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model : Summit - Ex End of Run : OSJan00 2400 Met. Model : 85th Percentile Execution Time : 09Feb04 1808 Control Specs : Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (Sq mi) SUB1-4 0.015116 01 Jan 00 0417 0.0013871 0.001 Basin 3 0.025282 01 Jan 00 0409 0.0012209 0.000 Junction-1 0.034959 OS Jan 00 0411 0.0026080 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results Project Summit Run Name Run 8 Start of Run O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model Summit Ave - Dev End of Run OSJan00 2400 Met. Model 85th Percentile Execution Time 09FebO4 1814 Control Specs Control 1 Hydrologic Discharge Time of Volume Drainage Element Peak Peak (ac Area (cfs) ft) (sq mi) Sub 1-4 0.11289 01 Jan 00 0408 0.0045541 0.001 Basin 3 0.025282 01 Jan 00 0409 0.0012209 0.000 Junction-1 0.13699 01 Jan 00 0408 0.0057750 0.001 Detention Basin 0.0 31 Dec 99 2400 0.0 0.001 HMS * Summary of Results for Detention Basin Project. : Summit Run Name : Run 8 Start of Run : O1Jan00 0000 Basin Model s Summit Ave - Dev End of Run s O1Jan00 2400 Met. Model s 85th Percentile Execution Time s 09F*bO4 1814 Control Specs s Control 1 Computed Results Peak Inflow s 0.13699 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : 01 Jan 00 0408 Peak Outflow : 0.0 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak outflow s 31 Dec 99 2400 Total Inflow : 0.0057750 (ac-ft) Peak Storage : 0.0058171(ac-ft) Total Outflow s 0.0 (ac-ft) Peak Elevation s 137.70(ft) � W i 000l.. It • � �� /.� k- .. r N u co Ott'.►✓ i ,. (� / ✓ r .� / �' 1 O a Mr mow+ •.w 11 /oo,/ .'•.... M N Ilona uj Ln ' �`• r` .Q: c� LL. `-V .�/ °-� °tom non/ M ^ �, CLC Cz M a two i ° Z L� LIJ saw Ln Ln uv oz * �W W 1" < � W j o v W u F .7 z U a 0 _ J O w 0 t w N .� M •" d a � O Q M ad w W x.0 k � w Vi 06 O < a 0 , � w 40 w V G 4.".. z A J u W a N • i X �y I ��yyy111 •'7 � r I i .O ? CD .n o �� '^� C/ '• �' 4O Iw�l 1 -� 1 ,Jam. •,. �,� .�� cjCal .�. OAR+ o C.1 1 \"' o w r" a.. �- + •� � � � "' a .� 1 •1 . ,J lam•.,-�, 'v / ow cz r, V7 C. 1 V\ 1 •O W o C .r4-- - ts^ Q N • p < U A T_ L� D Umu w _ , °- w GN o. a < u q N OC � f0 � G s o M O M O N UOt�L Zq D ' N V W • 0. n I—}- I ntens tY , nc ei. your .•. cm Im • .... • ••S.•• .•.••�••••iii• »wM'• i r •. .�•.N w•• .•w•'�• '" ..4P.0 0 •�• ^ r .•.iri ••ice« • r • O• ....•. •..• ••"• ♦• •t ••e r. .+••• M M M • Cm ! �WL A• • • i , W 01 :t•. `N j • • d ti • •••••,�_ •r .ter+..• µ w • • • • us Ln •..,--.. ti Wit--- � .~.r _ Q •�" ., ,r•• r•••.•• • •.r ••.•«•• N•) • '••�iii N�• . •• •I1 • .• at N • W•�1� in iA in , • • on cin oNO . • • .::;,• (say�u�) uo}3Q3}d��aad .tnOH-g • .p W v v � 'i7 v v 'w'.► y � t7 H Air Q wig O a Ip •P� �+. Oct w .+. O N t* N CX pwp�� N • p N „ ,0 g+le �+.+ N N , 5� A -•mss8 N a.t1f A ..• p A Qf •P•.+•r 1• gft A o gm o .. • CR J o 44;M9 •y+ six. N •yam i ta at •..• t1 - r O• to A N U RBAN A REA5 OVERLAND " •: TIME .0 F FLOW CUR V.E S , ' + r T1L•I t L • ti � i� .{T. If 30- /T I.s(I.t-C11/67 4+ ,+f; dui �_�` Use' Forrnti 0 For , r , I ' .,•.J.r "I.y 80 c,'' ;+-- Oistcnces in Excess i! i -.:"' .i `' : Of 800 Fstt. '� r �.• ' !t- H ? � • .3�y 1 � -� � r y iI � � ,r7 .. lY t- ,.:., . � ��`T� ` ; ' � ��'rtlr• ..i i i"• i * lrl.il'• ' � 7` �., � I , � I I.t....M: �l 1 Lam+ 1. ...j., i_ 7 :�' .I .,.• L i �• 60 ' I MY 400 i J :L' .I. 300 y 4} J.L. . I1 1. �` .«.7. }t.t•. t +1 �'�. �t� � .�� {.{FJiTi./�7.- 'r•.:!-„i �1:r. ,i' F.t�:�.��}1• .y l .. 7 4«•t. • +}. . :: .��• •'' .tta �+ rLG♦ •:yaa.:.l i,j 4'�� Z . 100 C ” •�« 1.L•r_ .. ii j,. t .�2{?�•L 1�� I�."}'�1- 30 � Y A. jf,jr, G• � .t itt •7 r•r•• •�• ♦ , 'ar^ ij C 10 lftg T, .; I s. y:• ..:..... .rim ..�',{ ....,.... r,. Wece Pow Tim*(:owes EXAMPLE � 1 ? • Gyt VEM..`�.i.EN•GTrI.. . of .. .FLOW 400. - 5t.op� _ (D 9'0 'COSFFit, E.NT' of 'RvNor-F e = .70 r� 1 M`'=*' RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) ' Land Use Coef f icient C Soil Type 1 ' Residential: Single Family .55 Multi-Units .70 Mobile Homes .65 w Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) •45 + Commercial (2) .85 80% Impervious Industrial (2) .95 90% Impervious NOTES: (1) Type D soil to be used for all areas. (2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may- be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual Imperviousness to the tabulated Imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil. R Actual Imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = x 0.85 = 0.53 ' 82 W J CL LUQ H ¢ ¢ P o g 2 y 0 E ° .�s -O E e m w O o Q D O � t ° C a W U. o $O,— g k y o O y 9 m O 0, co W J > .O g C M O .� G 0 y 0. A ►• a� O 'wN Op 0.5 O yo b'o m m yOC.S C•N C ton A '8 w g �'Q y b O t t� X a 3 q• a O a N C y c0 .,t„ 1t 7 w e E O N• O m J c u` N � % P m N LL y Z j JI P ►>- a M�r�i'o 2 V<y_"y"�as m s�"m o Z w � e�4 I¢•. D L y'gl = 4 HI 3 m � m � o ° w m c O o y°A° � p : ia�nLim°to LL g cE Q c LU O0 w -9 & " " Ha�J� ¢ m w U co) C•oCj o c U°c C A y zm w .0' a it E 4 p _ L 8 ¢ O a < �U .0_U _IDV E 3 O I ("f �lO1HdNdJ o ° y�o� °UjwgynZ. .: ,R 8 C: �a� o - CD Q)a C r S N U O Q cc ci $ to N V G"•.0 C d I--N 'N m:p° 0 F S1S31 a3H10 0'o H y a,{°—IM o 0 ro •F�� F 0 X01 o z a yX G J 1N3•iNpO U F m v m'3°a `0 v to Q O 3dn1SlOW u;v m o e m.c _E c J O IX C\1 �ILISN3 o m t y m m ` JJ Y O.l�lO m y a 0 (.cD b 1'1 jio m a> fM 0 prod 0 Goo a c CU m '�Ynoo Mole ^y m � ay m 0'a — CL QI 3d,V•31d WbS m a y m a M o c� `mafVy mm �s «y y ° N O N lA C C O Gsa�Htd30 m a,v a „ h ` o �►`m m U oro �' mmmm �� E U ~ l E c d¢ o• 9 m ei JS yr O C43 h L i $ W O co X 0 2 O U� > �U.4 C Y m W V a > >C o .2 iv a A m ro 3 a o O LU O o a R g go° q 3 a l^Ui CO NOR LU ° 3 m c > g'oE�mo m Nm I k ` U 08 m C LU €� _O -J Z we -' N C Q a v s x cS' U: V Q p U n ? W C/) 2 CD Ui .� 3 0» m E co a tL O U W co = o` < o Ui p E 6u,gnbab ualea�113 vuoiap oe 6ulsssv�!S 00Z oN U m cr z Q y d%6Z1 0{KS Q a: 4 m H aAals OOZ'ON 4D[i Q Z Q a ? LL. LL 7S'NIS'O*'WJ 6unsvd al uatU oiort (1) 0 a O _E U o cLL c6 ~ 8 g y� E c dS MS'dJ'MJ Bulssv aAQIS�ON tZi = U d GS uvqL ssal 2 c m soul j to v8vlua3iad to gsue � $ c UO lv�ss�, c_c � U 2 €•a o O 0 e e Q Ix a v .2 E(�{{( A q O J M CVO • m V Cu� v > m m J C0 G _O C 0 ft) w LL >, y y W 1� 0 V s 2 U p aJ Z -0 b 2 U a > V 4 DO � o 'a m h a r c7 Z �� > c LL � J L7 J ) �Q A 0 W Lr.cRy o U Z U ^ Q 3 O 0 —CO a v U UQQ y U 3 U U U 0 �'$ C N z° _ zpp•�roppyb p �D pC �� O r7 U 0 y •� O �� T V J J v Al v tO W V) �1 U U Q 0 Q v o LLI � e �•�$ PueSu¢a1y a U IDAUJE) J Q cc z O 0 Q C a CI)`W O anolS Y'oN uO pamaloy ona!S 4 O 1 o. 2 W 'ON 07 O j osieo0p a o �O XS .. W u lWVi j avaO0 lQ lana�p - o M%09 uyu aovv t; V g qO) Q es v _ Q. O n JS 0 OAO!S OOZ 'ON W po all y VL row m e a XOS ae Po W p 3 U $1105 Pau;sip-pa vrvot) Z xys ° O N o ' N ^ O N O O aneig OOZ'ON 6ulssed jue3jed •- __ i N 1"--20' 0 10 20 40 0 `1✓ �i x kxN CHAXLINK� FENCE i4 145.z Y 143. f DIRT 1 1 .5 v Q r � N n ' 1 140. ,38 x 1 BUS 5 ` x `v CHAT INk G \ENCE G a 137.8 X 153.9 RFC � n TIES 153.2 NE j 5` c- i GUY WIRE s ° �� a 000 APPROXIMATE 151 LOCATION OVERHEAD POWER LINES R BASIN jj JC 150. a9 \ ` L/ P a 4 �O p51. pL .76 LAWN' PAL a°, 9 O0 ' j c ° .. ` oLC FENCE .✓ sh' � RSA ER 9 X 9.82 LAWS( ) 150.21 X50 \\ l R WDO°D { ° DECK. E °ISTING TREE 111 { x FS° , e 1.RSIDENCE 4 o W0017 ( 0 d 0 15.0 SHE x \ f X 151.3 PINE 0.7 FF k` )ATION 150.7 PLAN 49\8 S PUNTER SSE BEL f x 4 .5 X 1440.89 °•. \ WH o 150,,, �'y � LT1YV TER � r , PLANTER y' \ ae G _ ,14 1.4 x I r C� J 144 ,r- Bust- p I\/l -1 / I !IIp I , BASIN SUMMARY BAS/N/ AREA (AC) C hm I/N/HR) I Ow ICES) 1 0.478 0.59 3.81 07 2 0.010 I 0.70 6.09 0.04 3 0.185 1 0.65 5.06 1 D.61 IUTAL U.0 /J 1. /Z i No. 44173 0 Ex .p: 6-30 -0j REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MARK SCALE DESIGN BY. VLS JDRAW BY- WM I CHECK BY: VLS APPROVALS CITY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. THE SEWER MANHOLE INVERT ELEVA71ON LOCATED IN SUMMIT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER. OF THE PANHANDLE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SAID INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF ENCINITAS SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT NO. 76 -2931, SHEET 13 OF 15. ELEVAT70N: 139.78' DATUM: PER PLANS i"=20 PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERVISION OF ME R.C.E. Na : 4417.3 VINCENT L SAMPO EXP �FL30 /0.5 ENGINEER OF WORK RECOMMENDED APPROVED Dam: DAB: EXIS71NG DRAINAGE MAP FOR. 1 320 SUMMIT AVENUE PARCEL 2, PM 912 PARCEL 260- 620 -56 SHEET 1 OF 2 =. �h U Nb z U� z O j _ Abp U w WAN Q z Wb w 0 Z Q m�o U) N0- N 1"--20' 0 10 20 40 AC n!� .3 t- No. 44173 � m ff ■ ®1 U °e Z i 'rt U d Z QO1 I-mot b Fr %U w W Q z ° ;5 W - Z y W e v 0 n U) N7 REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MARK SCALE DESIGN BY VLS 1DRAW BY WRM CHECK BY. VLS APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. THE SEWER MANHOLE INVERT ELEVATION LOCATED IN SUMMIT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE PANHANDLE OF 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SAID INFORMA77ON WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF ENCINITAS.SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR PROJECT NO. 76 -2931, SHEET 13 OF 15. ELEVATION: 139.78' DATUM: PER PLANS 1 =20' PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERNSION OF DA7E: R.C.E. NO.: 44173 VINCENT L SAMPO EXP. R &D /as ENGINEER OF WORK RECOMMENDED APPROVED DBY: DAY: PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP FOR. " 1 320 SUMMIT AVENUE PARCEL 2, PM 912 260- 620 -56 SHEET 2 OF 2 DRAWN 8 Y.• WRM - � m ff ■ ®1 U °e Z i 'rt U d Z QO1 I-mot b Fr %U w W Q z ° ;5 W - Z y W e v 0 n U) N7 NOTES 1. PRIOR T'0 CONSIRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN 7HE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY OF SUMMIT AVENUE 2. WALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON MAY VARY DURING CONSTRUCTION DUE TO EXISTING GRADES AND SOIL ENGINEER RECOMMENDATIONS 3. THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY CROSS- SECIION SHALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER, BASED ON R -VALUE PESTS THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SEC77ON SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 5" P.C.C. OVER 4' CLASS A BASE OVER 6" OF RECOMPACTED NA77VE SU86RADE SOIL UNLESS THE SOIL ENGINEER INDICATES OTHERWISE. REINFORCEMENT AND JOINTS PER S7RUC7URAL OR SOIL ENGINEER �� aRSBY BSOL EGIYR R L 0 HS71 NOD R FO GENT DENED � W E 7HININER P C IRUC . JOINTS ANNM! ER STRUCTURAL OR SOIL ENGINEER. 5. PRIVA7t STORM DRAIN PIPE 70 BE 6" OR 8' DIAMETER PVC (SDR -35 MIN.) 0 1% MINIMUM SLOPE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERMISE. SEE GRADING PLAN. 6. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOMTI HEREON IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY SAMPO ENGINEERING, INC. ON 10117102. 7. EXIS71NO EASEMENTS WERE OBTAINED FROM A 7777E REPORT PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT, PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN 717LE COMPANY, DATED AUGUST 14, 2002 AS ORDER NO DIV- 616604. 4. THE FOLLOWING EASEMENT OF RECORD HAS NO LOCA77ON SET FORTH AND 7HEREFORE CAN NOT BE PLOTTED. A. AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC U77LI77ES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED MARCH 11, 19521N BOOK 4399, PAGE 349 OF O.R. IN FAVOR OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. 18" ADS PART NO. 1200 ADS PART NO. 1242 INVERT ELEVARON + 4' HDPE - PERF. 137.50 ALTHOUGH THE ABOVE DESCRIBED EASEMENT TO SOG &E 1S NOT PLOTTABLE, STANDARD EASEMENT MOTH FOR POLES WR S CORIEJ�ACTO TYPICALLY CO© DAATE WITH sbdk PRIOR MINIMUM NS1R1 CnONIDE OF THE EXISTING POLES 8. ROOF DOWNSPOUTS TO BE CONNE07ED TO PRIVA7E STORM DRAIN SHOWN HEREON WITH 6' SOLID WALL PVC (SDR 35) D I9 SLOPE, MIN. Bf UMPED TO 7HE RV 7E STORM RAITWO YSTSM SHOW RESIDENCES LIGHT Y�SANa RES''URE STORM PIPE DESIGN BY OTHERSS, 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGNING AND IMPLEMEN77NG ANY AND ALL TYPES OF SHORING SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EXCAVATE FOR THE BASEMENT,' PRIVATE- U77LIA£S AND PRIVA7E STORM DRAIN SHOWN HEREON. THE SOIL ENGINEER SHOULD BE CONSULTED FOR SHORING AND STA61UZ4 77ON RECOMMENDA7IONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUC7ION. ( 4 1379 PCC I ITS 139.1 7W 139. 0) 3 ` (FO J38 FG 1380 f y 1 Tw 139.3 ..- 138.0 FL 1389 FL 138.9 1 ITT?. ti TG 137.90 ° .' .. 10' WEIR. 5 25' 1 lE IN 136.73 , PCC RETAINING WALL PCC RETAINING 2'� ttz WALL PER PLAN �.._ i r" yS 4 N? 137.3 ' TW 139.1 KEY 1407ES: FG 1373 S -,1 137.3: r �1 18 "X18" `BROOKS' TYPE ,; IiGHT:i CONCRETE CATCH BASIN `; 1372 r'> T 37.55 ff ?37 WIH STEEL G-RA7E AND NO <. 1 �,.- N 136.38, ✓- BOTTOM `~� STORM WATER CLEANSING AREA 't ✓X '� • 20 2 12 "X12" 'BRODXS' TYPE LFROM PL TD ELEV 137.7. NOT TO BE MODIFIED WTHOUT 771 CONCRETE CATCH t PERMISSION OF THE CITY BASIN WTH STEEL GRATE ENCINITA '% 3�8 "0 'NDS' CATCH BASIN WTH £ I37.0 l s r , 50 (i) 139.4 A7RIUM GRATE AND SPEE -D 1 DRAIN �D 8 "0 'NDS' GRATE AND SPEE -D DRAIN POC RETAINING WALL < O 18 718' 'NDS' TYPE CATCH BASIN AND GRATE 25' PVT 3' HDPE i s� PERFORATED STORM Lit. DRAIN PIPE PER �� . \ 139.4 IF DETAIL G' °ti- TO 137.30 1 \�J IF IN 136.13 r 39 �- 7W 139.1 136.5 137.3 N 66 43'30" E 1W 139.3 FG f139. 7W 139.3 END WALL FG 138.0 7W/FG 140.0 PCC RETIMING WALL AF REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE BENCH MARK SCALE THE SEWER MANHOLE INVERT ELEVA80N LOCATED IN SUMMIT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE PANHANDLE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SAID INFORMA77ON WAS OBTAINED 1 " =10' FROM 7HE CITY OF ENCINITAS SEWER IMPROVEMENT PLAN5 FOR PROJECT NO.. 76 -2931, SHEET 13 OF 15. INVERT ELEVATION: 139.78' RETAINING WALL 38.00 1/4* GAM t! SU L1HREADED ROD WTH %,WAP� P PED (22 NU75 EACH. l IS AND AT MID -SPAN. :67 NDS PART NO. 1220 NIH 4" SQUARE OPENING FOR R PCC RETAINING 7" SOLID WALL PVC PIPE PERFORA7ED 3 "0 HOPE M )ESIGN BY- VLS JORAMN BY. WRY ICHECK BY VLS PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERWRON OF N SCALE 1 " =10' s- 0 5 10 20 NS ® 3' O.C. FOR RISER ONLY -,,I RECOMMENDED APPROVALS APPROVED DATE: RG E. NO.: 4417,E BY: BY: EXP. 6&P105 DATE : DATE: PCC DRIVEWAY AND BASE. SEE NOTE J. lYll -� Vt f L.It Y{.- 3' HIGH kMAX.� 'KEYSTONE' RETAINING s WAIL PF MA UFACIURFR'_S f ^1 •1 � i"�a r•1 � �G 149.90 2 E 147.90 ( >; 5' _ 7W 1520 FG 149.8 _ s J , "i. 1 APPROXIMATE LOCA77ON EXIS77NG WATER MAIN PRIVATE STOW DRAW DATA TABLE EINE LENGTH I DEW710H Ll 7.0' 6" PVC (MR-35 MIN. L2 J. 0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L3 23 <5' 8" PVC (MR-35 MIN.) L4 29.0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L5 34.5' 60 PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L6 34.5' 6" PVC SDR 735 MIN. L7 20.0'' 8" PVC SDR -35 MtN. L8 875' 8' PVC 599-35 MIN. L9 18.0' 8" PVC (SDR-35 MIN. LID 13.5' 8' PVC Mk -M MIN. Lll 30.0' 8" PVC (MR-35 MIN. L12 10.5' 6'PVC 0R-35MIN L13 24.5' 8" PVC SOR -35 MIN. L14 11.0' 8' PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L15 12.0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L16 60.0' 8' PVC (SDR-35 MIN. ' L17 7.O' 6" PVC (MR-35 MIN L18 9.5' 6" PVC SOR -35 MIN. L19 14.5' 6' PVC (SDR-JS MIN, L20 125' 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L21 12.0' 6' PVC 21R-35 MIN. L22 60.01 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L23 25' 6' PVC MR -35 MIN Lv_ 40.0' 6' PVC (MR-35 MIN. 125 25' 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L26 40.0' 6' PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L27 ' 40.0' 6' PVC (MR-35 MIN. L2S '40.0' 66PVC OR -35 MIN. 729 92.0' 6" PVC 6E --J5 MIN. L30 4.5' 160 PVC SliR -35 MIN. L31 25' 1 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. March, 2005 ECA 02 -13 -02 Z ° - U GEOTECHNICAL MAP z g PLATE 1 {u WZN a Z W� DI TY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. z ° GRADING PLAN FOR: 0 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE ED PARCEL 2; PM 912 CD APN: 260- 620 -56 SHEET 2 OF 3 , -® i P PVT. 4" HOPE \- P PERFORATED STORM DRAIN PIPE PER z DETAIL ' s IE 5 LAW V1LANDSCAPING ----_J # #- I RETAINING WALL 38.00 1/4* GAM t! SU L1HREADED ROD WTH %,WAP� P PED (22 NU75 EACH. l IS AND AT MID -SPAN. :67 NDS PART NO. 1220 NIH 4" SQUARE OPENING FOR R PCC RETAINING 7" SOLID WALL PVC PIPE PERFORA7ED 3 "0 HOPE M )ESIGN BY- VLS JORAMN BY. WRY ICHECK BY VLS PLANS PREPARED UNDER SUPERWRON OF N SCALE 1 " =10' s- 0 5 10 20 NS ® 3' O.C. FOR RISER ONLY -,,I RECOMMENDED APPROVALS APPROVED DATE: RG E. NO.: 4417,E BY: BY: EXP. 6&P105 DATE : DATE: PCC DRIVEWAY AND BASE. SEE NOTE J. lYll -� Vt f L.It Y{.- 3' HIGH kMAX.� 'KEYSTONE' RETAINING s WAIL PF MA UFACIURFR'_S f ^1 •1 � i"�a r•1 � �G 149.90 2 E 147.90 ( >; 5' _ 7W 1520 FG 149.8 _ s J , "i. 1 APPROXIMATE LOCA77ON EXIS77NG WATER MAIN PRIVATE STOW DRAW DATA TABLE EINE LENGTH I DEW710H Ll 7.0' 6" PVC (MR-35 MIN. L2 J. 0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L3 23 <5' 8" PVC (MR-35 MIN.) L4 29.0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L5 34.5' 60 PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L6 34.5' 6" PVC SDR 735 MIN. L7 20.0'' 8" PVC SDR -35 MtN. L8 875' 8' PVC 599-35 MIN. L9 18.0' 8" PVC (SDR-35 MIN. LID 13.5' 8' PVC Mk -M MIN. Lll 30.0' 8" PVC (MR-35 MIN. L12 10.5' 6'PVC 0R-35MIN L13 24.5' 8" PVC SOR -35 MIN. L14 11.0' 8' PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L15 12.0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L16 60.0' 8' PVC (SDR-35 MIN. ' L17 7.O' 6" PVC (MR-35 MIN L18 9.5' 6" PVC SOR -35 MIN. L19 14.5' 6' PVC (SDR-JS MIN, L20 125' 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L21 12.0' 6' PVC 21R-35 MIN. L22 60.01 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L23 25' 6' PVC MR -35 MIN Lv_ 40.0' 6' PVC (MR-35 MIN. 125 25' 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L26 40.0' 6' PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L27 ' 40.0' 6' PVC (MR-35 MIN. L2S '40.0' 66PVC OR -35 MIN. 729 92.0' 6" PVC 6E --J5 MIN. L30 4.5' 160 PVC SliR -35 MIN. L31 25' 1 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. March, 2005 ECA 02 -13 -02 Z ° - U GEOTECHNICAL MAP z g PLATE 1 {u WZN a Z W� DI TY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. z ° GRADING PLAN FOR: 0 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE ED PARCEL 2; PM 912 CD APN: 260- 620 -56 SHEET 2 OF 3 , -® J , "i. 1 APPROXIMATE LOCA77ON EXIS77NG WATER MAIN PRIVATE STOW DRAW DATA TABLE EINE LENGTH I DEW710H Ll 7.0' 6" PVC (MR-35 MIN. L2 J. 0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L3 23 <5' 8" PVC (MR-35 MIN.) L4 29.0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L5 34.5' 60 PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L6 34.5' 6" PVC SDR 735 MIN. L7 20.0'' 8" PVC SDR -35 MtN. L8 875' 8' PVC 599-35 MIN. L9 18.0' 8" PVC (SDR-35 MIN. LID 13.5' 8' PVC Mk -M MIN. Lll 30.0' 8" PVC (MR-35 MIN. L12 10.5' 6'PVC 0R-35MIN L13 24.5' 8" PVC SOR -35 MIN. L14 11.0' 8' PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L15 12.0' 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. L16 60.0' 8' PVC (SDR-35 MIN. ' L17 7.O' 6" PVC (MR-35 MIN L18 9.5' 6" PVC SOR -35 MIN. L19 14.5' 6' PVC (SDR-JS MIN, L20 125' 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L21 12.0' 6' PVC 21R-35 MIN. L22 60.01 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L23 25' 6' PVC MR -35 MIN Lv_ 40.0' 6' PVC (MR-35 MIN. 125 25' 6' PVC SDR -35 MIN. L26 40.0' 6' PVC (SDR-J5 MIN. L27 ' 40.0' 6' PVC (MR-35 MIN. L2S '40.0' 66PVC OR -35 MIN. 729 92.0' 6" PVC 6E --J5 MIN. L30 4.5' 160 PVC SliR -35 MIN. L31 25' 1 6" PVC SDR -35 MIN. March, 2005 ECA 02 -13 -02 Z ° - U GEOTECHNICAL MAP z g PLATE 1 {u WZN a Z W� DI TY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. z ° GRADING PLAN FOR: 0 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE ED PARCEL 2; PM 912 CD APN: 260- 620 -56 SHEET 2 OF 3 , -® March, 2005 ECA 02 -13 -02 Z ° - U GEOTECHNICAL MAP z g PLATE 1 {u WZN a Z W� DI TY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. z ° GRADING PLAN FOR: 0 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE ED PARCEL 2; PM 912 CD APN: 260- 620 -56 SHEET 2 OF 3 , -® Z W� DI TY OF EN CI N I TAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. z ° GRADING PLAN FOR: 0 1320 SUMMIT AVENUE ED PARCEL 2; PM 912 CD APN: 260- 620 -56 SHEET 2 OF 3 , -®