The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-883 G/I/PM ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects City Of District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering October 8, 2012 Traffic Engineering Attn: INSCO-DICO Insurance Services, Inc. 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Anne and Mark Paulsen/Kovaleva 1058 and 1076 Hymettus Avenue TPM 07-071 Grading permit 883-G APN 254-262-11, 12 Final release of monumentation—security deposit Permit 883-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the installation of the monuments and the Land Surveyor of record has verified that the monuments were set per the recorded map and that they have been paid in full. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 829096S, in the amount of$2,000.00, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishdrt Le ach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Anne and Mark Paulsen Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 60-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-262- 505 S %ulcan Avenue. Encinitas. California 92024-3633 TDD - *C7 recycled paper y ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT city or Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering October 9, 2012 Traffic Engineering Attn: Bank of America, N.A. Rancho Encinitas Banking Center 1340 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Nina Kovaleva 1058 Hymettus Avenue TPM 07-071 APN 254-262-11 Grading Permit 883-GI Final release of security Permit 883-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. This lot has been finaled and the grading approved. Therefore, a full release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 11823-12530 in the amount of$ 13,333.25. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc ely, Debra Gei4 � y Lembach Engineering Technician finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Nina Kovaleva Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-262- 505 S_ Vulcan Avenue, Enciniras. California 92024-3633 TDD ?60-633-2-00 i^ recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT W. City of Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering October 8, 2012 Attn: INSCO Insurance Services, Inc 17780 Fitch Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 RE: Anne Paulsen and Mark Paulsen 1058 and 1076 Hymettus Avenue TPM 07-071 APN 254-262-11,12 Grading Permit 883-G Final release of security Permit 883-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 8290955, (in the original amount of$ 53,333.00), reduced by 75% to $ 13,333.25, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Z) -� Debra Gei art J Le ach Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering inance Manager Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Anne and Mark Paulsen Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas. California 92024-3633 1 D 760-633-2'00 ti recycled paper PASCO LARET & .,SSOCIATES C;y'I!. rtv ltdE1R €d - ltsC €'!.INNINJ + l.�tJD St.,'Rb'1Y-fd. October 3, 2012 PLSA #1537 Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: MONUMENT BOND RELEASE FOR PM 20616 (TPM 07-071) To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that the monuments for the above referenced map have been set and we have been paid for said work. If you have any questions regarding the above,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 4, Joseph C Yuhas, PLS 5211 Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter&Associates, Inc. t 0 It-AND kA C LS 5211 QF CAS-\F 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach,California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaengineering.com Cl ty OfENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT — Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering August 26, 2009 Traffic Engineering Attn: Washington Mutual 105 N. El Camino Real 1414FCCA Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Nina Kovaleva 1058 Hymettus Avenue APN 254-262-11 Grading Permit 883-GI Final release of security—undergrounding of overhead utilities Permit 883-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The undergrounding requirements have changed, so this CD is no longer needed. Therefore, a full 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# 0180-0001344030-0 in the amount of$ 79,371.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Si ely, e ra Geisha Engineering Technician y L � bach Subdivision Engineering inance Manager Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Nina Kovaleva Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 e#14 .sp recycled paper PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES N CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAD PLANNING + LAND SURVEYING �-- - -� CES July 11, 2011 PLSA 1895 Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS FOR HYMETTUS AVE , DWG 883-G The purpose of this letter is to address the hydrology associated with the proposed sin family residence located at 1058 Hymettus Ave,per DWG 883-G P g HYDROLOGY The project proposes to replace approximately of an existing residence and hard ape with approximately 14,300 sf of new i consisting surface. The proposed project consists of a new single family residence and porous ous pavers in lieu of impervious hardscape. The net result is an increase in impervious surface of 455 sf(1 l%). The proposed residence and porous pavers will be constructed in the same general location as the existing residence and improvements. Runoff from the site will be directed to flow in same general direction as in the pre-development condition and to the same ultimate discharge points. Furthermore, runoff will be directed to travel over vegetated permanent BMP's prior to leaving the site. In order to mitigate the increased Qioo generated by the increase in impervious surface, a BMP infiltration basin has been proposed in the south west portion of the site. Pre and post development Qioo calculations and basin sizing calculations have been included with this drainage letter. In summary, no drainage patterns will be significantly altered nor will there be an significant increase in the rate of runoff leaving the site as a result of the proposed y improvements. Based on the discussion in this letter it is the professional opinion of Pasco Laret Suiter& Associates that the proposed improvements shown on the corresponding grading plan will function to improve the conveyance of runoff adjacent to the subject property to the existing points of discharge. Please call if you have any questions. 4re ter C 68864 CIVIL 535 N Coast Highway WI Ste A Solana Reach, Caliiorma 93075 ph 85s.-;6.9374 Ix 858.:56.4731 plsaengineering.com � 1 PLSA 1895 PRE-DEVELOPMENT & POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Pre-Development• j -- Q = CIA A =0.36 Acres F Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, == - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surfaces Cn =0.52 Tc =5.0 Min. , Minimum per County of San Diego Hydrology Design Manual P6=2.5, P24=4.0 1= 7.44 x P6 x D-0.645 I6 = 7.44x2.5x50645z65= : 124 = 7.44x4.0x50.645� 10.5�n/h Q100,6-hour= 0.52 x 6.6 x 0.36 1.24 CFS Q100,24-hour= 0.52 x 10.5 x 0.36 1.97 CFS Post-Development: Q = CIA A =0.36 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surfaces Cn=0.53 Tc =5.0 Min. ,Minimum per County of San Diego Hydrology Design Manual P6=2.5, P24=4.0 I = 7.44 x P6 x D-0.645 I = 7.44x2.5x5.0-0.645z65_ 9_in/hr- 124 = 7.44 x 4.0 x 5-0.645 Z- 10.54in/hr Q100,6-hour = 0.53 x 6.6 x 0.36 _— 1.26 CFS Q100,24-hour= 0.53 x 10.5 x 0.36 - 2.0 CFS 8/8/2011 PLSA 1895 Detention Volume Pre-development Q = 1.24 cfs Post-development Q= 1.26 cfs J -AV= 378— 372 = 6 cf -Infiltration basin sizing, 6'x10'x1 = 60 cf -assuming 40% void spaces :z-24 cf Provided: 12' x 6' x 0.5' (depth) =36 cf 36 cf> 24 cf OK 8/8/2011 PASCO ENGINEERING WAYNEA,PASCO , INC. R.C,E,20-5n 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOL-ANA BEACH,CA 92075 JOSEPH YUHAS (858)259-8212 RLS.5211 FAX(853)259-4812 W,JUSnN SUMER A.C.E.689,34 October 10. 2oos 15-7 Citv of Encillitas 505 SOL1111 Vulcan ,.,k%-e fAlcillitas. Ca. 92024 RE: MONUMENTATION 11STJJMA-m FOR Mm 07-071 It May Collceril: Please be advised that the 111011111I)CIll'3tioll prol)oxii}later S2,200.0(). "or tilc0boVe referenced 1-.)roject �vilj co'��t sed Par -Filis estimate is based oil the 1110flullielits shown 011 the cc' N-aP and ()tlr current rate schedule as Of the date of this letter. sincerely. Joe Yt "t flas.PLS 5211 Pasco I-'11gillecrillL Vice President ()I'I_alld Ls 5211 Exp.06130109 ilr HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave APN:254-262-11 &254-262-12 CASE No.07-71 TPM/CDP 07-72-74 CDP CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Mark&Anne Paulsen and Nina Kovaleva 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 PE 1537 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 ��0?ROFESS�p� (858)259-8212 ��P4 JUST/�1,�q1�2 DATE: 2-29-08 C^. �a EXP /v W. JUSTIN SU ER, RCE 68964 � DATE WHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 TABLE OF CONTENTS SE _O1V DISCUSSION................. CONCLUSION................... 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.........C AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 3 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .......D AREA 4 AREA 5 AREA 6 APPENDIX...................... ...........................................................E Weighted Runoff Coefficient Calculations Detention Volume and Sizing Calculations Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve County of San Diego Runoff Coefficients Pre-Development Node Map Post-Development Node Map N:IHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:56 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the year storm event of the existing and post-developed condition of the Hymettus Avenue proposed project site. The subject property is located at 1058 and 1076 Hymettus Avenue, in the City of Encinitas, and more specifically the community of Leucadi a. Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of two adjoining lots located a 1076 Hymettus Ave with existing homes on each lot. The site is surrounded b t 1058 & family residences to the north, south, and west with Hymettus Ave. making y single border. The existing homes are located on a ridge g p the eastern north are situated toward the eastern property line. The existing on the south northern most and is to be demolished as part of the proposed development; the southern home is ost lot Runoff falling on the eastern portion of the ridge sheet flows east toward Hymettus remain. Once on Hymettus Ave., the runoff travels in a southerly direction in the right of Runoff on the western portion of the ridge sheet flows m a west Ave. ultimately is collected by an existing concrete brow ditch that c g way westerly direction where it southerly direction. The high point of the site occurs along the ridge at elevation 160.35'. The low point for the western portion of the site occurs along west n of line with an elevations ranging from 135.65' to 136.65'. The low point for the roperty Portion occurs in the south east corner of the site at an elevation of 154.65'. e eastern For the 100 year storm event pre-development hydrologic analysis, the site w as divided into 3 separate sub basins. Runoff from the sub basins was determined to be 1.20 cfs, and 1.0 cfs. A node map depicting the delineated sub basi 1.07 cfs, appendix of this report. ns can be seen in the Post-Development Conditions N:IHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:25 PM 3/11/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the construction of 3 new single family homes with one existing home to remain. In the future, all proposed drainage from roofs and decks shall be directed to flow over BMP area before leaving the site. After completion of the project all proposed drainage will maintain existing runoff conditions and discharge locations. Similarly to the pre-development condition, the post development analysis of the site was divided into 3 sub basins. These delineated drainage basins can be seen in the attached node map (see appendix). For the post developed condition, runoff coefficients for each of the 3 sub basins were determined to be 0.60, 0.56, and 0.51. Calculations for determining each sub basins runoff coefficient can be found in the appendix of this report. In the post-development condition, runoff in the eastern portion of the site (area 4) generally sheet flows towards Hymettus Ave. Two swales located on either side of the proposed residence of the northern lot will carry runoff through BMP area before discharging the runoff to Hymettus Ave. Runoff in the north western portion of the site (area 5) and in the south west portion area 6) will travel through a series of BMP swales and sheet flow towards the western Property line. Due to the increase in impervious surface in the post-construction condition, a net increase in runoff was generated from these sub areas. To mitigate for will be placed in the western portion of the the increase in runoff, detention structures site. The location of the infiltration basins can be seen on the grading plan and in the hydrology node map included in this report; detention calculations and sizing can be seen in the appendix of this report. Peak flows for the western basins were found to be 1.65 cfs for the north western basin and 1.39 for the south western basin. Post development analysis for the eastern basin yielded a peak flow of 1.01 cfs. The lower total flow at the eastern discharge point in the post development anal no detention structures for this portion of the property. ysis warrants WHydrology & Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 Methodology and Results Introduction The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this report utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, Q=CIA. The RM formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to: I = 7.44 x P6 x D-o.6as Where: I =Intensity(in/hr) P6 =6-hour precipitation (inches) D = duration (minutes—use Tc) Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed. The RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of now (typically in cubic feet per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons per minute (gpm)). The RM equation is as follows: Q = CIA Where: Q=flow(in cfs) C =runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff(runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc) I =average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area, in inches per hour. A= drainage area contributing to the basin in acres. The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number. The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post-development runoff coefficients, used to analyze both conditions, were determined by using weighted "C"average. WHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE* 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C= 0.90 x (% impervious) + Cp x (1_%impervious) Where: Cp = pervious surface runoff coefficient (varies depending on soil type from 0.2 to 0.35—since analysis assumes type d soils Cp =0.35) For the proposed development the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic anal sis of the project site varied based on the area of impervious surfaces. y B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Qioo to the appropriate points of discharge. WHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 1 N:1Hydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 0110112002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 --------------- ------- FILE NAME: AREA 1 ---------------------------- TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:13 02/28/2008 --------------------------- _ _ -------- --USER-SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ----------------------------- _______ 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA ----------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100. 00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 3. 00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0. 95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0. 600 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR N0. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) 1 30. 0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0. 167 0. 0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Flow Depth)*- (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THANT FT/S) OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE, * **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ------__100-TO NODE -110-IS-CODE = 21 ----- _ --»»>RATIONAL-METHOD-INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ------------------------- ___________ *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : ___________________ SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = . 6000 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 156. 50. 00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 15 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 156. 06 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF7FLOW(MINUTES) = 4 .216 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED, TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5. 856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 **************************************************************************** --FLOW-PROCESS FROM NODE 1. 10 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 52 »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<«< ------------------ »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ - 156.06 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152. 9 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) 250. 00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 4 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION 0"0125 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1. 68 (PER oACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 2. 49 Tc (MIN. ) = 8.49 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1. 00 TO NODE 1.20 = 300.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1 ------------------------------ -20 TO NODE 120 IS CODE = 81 - - _ - »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4. 683 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.84 TC(MIN) = 8.49 ( ) = 1.00 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 0.34 TC(MIN. ) = 8.49 1.00 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 2 N:1Hydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 *************************************** ************************************* RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (c) Copyright 19820 8 2002 Advanced YEngineeriing Software Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID1452aes) Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 --------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 2 ---------------- ---------- --TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:20 02/28/2008 ---------------- --------- ----- ------ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND- - - HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ----------------------- ___________ 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA -- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) _ SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.410 = 0. 95 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP NO� - (FT) --- (FT)-- SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) HIKE FACTOR (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0. 018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0. 0312 0.167 0. 0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) (Top-of-Curb) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2. 00 TO NODE --2.10-IS CODE = -- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 4100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 50. 00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 157 1566.. ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 66 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OFIFLOW(MINUTES) = 6.712 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 5. 447 0. 04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ----210-TO NODE _ **** --FLOW-P-OCE- 2.20 IS CODE ------------- __ ** WARNING: Computed Flowrate is less than 0. 1 __ 2 cfs, ------------ Routing Algorithm is UNAVAILABLE, **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ------------------------------2.20-TO NODE 2.-- 1 IS CODE _ »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< __ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.447 ------------ ____ *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ = 1.10 0.54 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) TC(MIN) = 6. 71 1.20 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ -_ 0.54 TC(MIN PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = . ) _ 1.20 6. 71 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 3 N:1Hydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 ***************** ************************************* RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT (c) Copyright 19820 8 2002 Advan ced Y cedEngineering OMANUAL Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 Software (aes) Liccee nse ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 -------- __________ FILE NAME: AREA 3 ___________ ------------- __ TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:26 02/28/2008 ------------------------ - - --------- ----- ---- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ----------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.390 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED 0.95 *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- CURB GUTTER MANNING NO. (FT) / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP MANNING --- -GEOMETRIES:--- (FT)-- SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) HIKE FACTOR - ----- ----------- (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20. 0 0.018/0.018/0.020 ===== ==_==_ ___---- 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0. 167 0.0150 _._ GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow h Depth) - (To *SIZE (PIPEWITHeAoFLOW)CAonstraiGt = 6 0HAN (FT*FT/S)p-of-Curb) OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * ******************************************************************** FLOW- - - PROCESS FROM NODE ---- 3. 10 IS CODE 3. 00 TO NODE ******** - ----- ------- ---- ---- = 21 RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 .3900 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 50.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 157 1566.. -- ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 66 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF2FLOW(MINUTES) = 6. 641 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 5. 485 0. 04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ --FLOW-PROCESS FROM NODE 3.20 TO NODE **** ----------- -----3-?�_IS CODE = 81 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.485 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 .3900 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)AR = SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TC(MIN) = 6. 64 0'50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0 98 --------------- 1. 07 END OF STUDY SUMMARY:_____________________________________ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 0.50 TC(MIN PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = . ) _ 1. 07 6. 64 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 4 N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 ******************** ******************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineerin Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 0110112002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ---------- _______ ------------ FILE NAME: AREA 4 -------- __________ ----------- __ TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:30 02/28/2008 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ------ --------1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA---- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 3. 00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0. 600 0 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED - 95 HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* : WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: N0. (FT) / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP MANNING (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) HIKE FACTOR 1 30. 0 20. 0 0.018/0.018/0. 020 0. 67 2.00 0. 0312 0. 167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0. 00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)p-of-Curb) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * -_FLOW_PROCESS- - FROM NODE ------ - - 4 10 IS CODE 21 4.00 TO NODE ******** ------- ---- ---- --- -- --------- - - = »» - - >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 . 6000 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 50.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 15 155.6. . ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF6FLOW(MINUTES) = 4 .319 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 16 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4 . 10 TO NODE ****** ------------------- _ -----------------------------4_20-IS-CODE----52- _____ »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< - -->>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 155.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 210. 00 CHANNEL SLOPE - NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. 0108 CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION 0' 0108 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.56 0.16 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 2.25 (PER LACF8.2RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE Tc(MIN. ) = 8 25 MANUAL) 4.00 TO NODE 4.20 = ************************************************************** 60*00*FEET. * FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE --FLOW-----E---FR ----4 .20-TO NODE *** ------_ - 4.-- IS CODE = gl »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4. 769 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 0.85 TC(MIN) = 8.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ 1.01 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 0.34 TC(MIN PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = . ) _ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 5 WHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD PACKAGE 2001, 1985 CONTROL DISTRICT (c) Copyright 192001, 12 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL Ver. 1.5A Advanced Engineering Release Date: 01/01/2002 g Software (aes) License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 FILE NAME: AREA 5 ---------- __TIME/DATE-OF_STUDY: 16:32 02/28/2008 ------------------------------ __USER-SPECIFIED-HYDROLOGY-AND HYDRAULIC MODEL ---'-------___ ---- 1985 SAN DIEGO --------- INFORMATION: MANUAL CRITERIA `____________________ USER SPECIFIED STORM AR) _ 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION 10) = SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE (INCHES) 2.500 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF SIZE(INCH} = GRADIENTS (DECIMAL 3. 00 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT ) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED = 0.95 0.560 *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND HALF- CROWN TO WIDTH STREET-CROSSFALL: STREETFLOW MODEL* CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: NO. (FT) /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH MANNING ) === (FT)-- SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) LIP HIKE FACTOR 1 30.0 ______ (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 20.0 0. 018/0. 018/0. 020 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH 0. 67 2. 00 0.0312 0.167 0. 0150 1• Relative Flow-Depth CONSTRAINTS: as (Maximum Allowable Street FEET De 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = pth} *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THANT*FT/S)p-°f-Curb) OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * *********************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE --------------------- 5.00 TO NODE ***************** »»> -------------- 5.10 IS CODE = 21 -------RATIONAL-METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : _--___--__- SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 5600 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 50. 00 156. DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = . ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 154.00 2. URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OFBFLOW(MINUTES) _ 3. 871 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- TES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 14 5 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE FLOW-PROCESS- 5.10 TO NODE *************** >>>> PROCESS NATURAL ---_______ 5.20 IS CODE = 52 »» RAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< __----TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< - ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ -_____---- CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 154 . 00 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ 1• CFS WAS ASSUMED OINOVELOCITYEESTI AT 134. 02 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.0999 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 4. 74 0.14 NATION TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) _ (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE Tc (MIN. ) = MANUAL) 6. 70 5. 00 TO NODE _ O*****250. 00 FEET. __FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE -------------- --------------------5.20 TO NODE *************** »»>ADDITION OF -----___- 5'20 IS CODE = gl __-_--SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««<----------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) _ *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : 5. 452 SINGLE FAMILY FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) _ SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0 .5600 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0' 49 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ --TC(MIN) = 6. 70 0.54 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51 1. 65 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0'54 TC(MIN. ) = 1. 65 = 6. 70 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 6 N:IHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 ****************** ********************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineerin Ver. 1. 5A Release Date: 0110112002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 --------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 6 -TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:34 02/28/2008 USER-SPECIFIED_HYDROLOGY-AND-HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100. 00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL3'00) SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0. USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDEREDO = 0. 95 *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: L N0. (FT) / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH MANNING --- ----) --- (FT)-- SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) LIP HIKE FACTOR (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30. 0 20.0 0. 01810.01810. 020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth 2• (Depth) * (Velocity) (TOP-of-Curb) Constraint = Depth)*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THANT*FT/S) OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE - ___________ -FROM--_-- --- - - 6. 00 TO NODE __ 6. 10 IS CODE - 21 ---- -- -------------------- --»»>RATIONAL-METHOD-INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 1I) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 158. 10 155 50. 00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 15 . ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 155.30 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OFBFLOW(MINUTES) = 4.229 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ 0.13 **************************************************************************** --FLOW-PROCESS-FROM NODE 6. 10 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 52 -------------------- »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««<----------------------------- »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ - 155.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 134 .0 _ 9 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) 212. 00 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITYEESTIMATION 0 1000 NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF . l WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 4.74 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME (MIN. ) = 0. 74 Tc (MIN. ) = 6.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6. 00 TO NODE 6.20 = 262.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6 ------------------------------ -20 TO NODE 620 IS CODE = 81 - -- _ - »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.430 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0. 46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.39 1 27 TC(MIN) = 6. 74 ND OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 0.50 TC(MIN. ) = 6.74 1.39 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ---- HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 E. APPENDIX N:IHydrology& Hydraulics11537 Paulsen11537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 Weighted Cn Value Calculations Pre-Development Ar A= 14,970 sf� 0.344 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology n - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface gy Desi g Manual Cn= 0.90x6800+ 0.35x8170 X0.60 14,970 Area 2 A=23,436 sf z-, 0.538 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Desi n M - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface g anual Cn.= 0.90x2578 + 0.35x20858 X0.41 23,436 Ar- ea 3 A =21,792 sf�0.500 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Manual Cn=0.90x 1,450 + 0.35 x 20 342 X0.39 21,792 Post-Development Area 4 A = 14,970 sf 0.344 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90x8133 + 0.35x68370.60 14,970 Area 5 A =23,436 sf;z-0.538 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0'35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Desi Manua - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface gn l Cn= 0.90x8672 + 0.35x15764 20.56 23,436 Area A =21,792 sf;z_-0.500 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn = 0.90x6439+ 0.35x 15,353 X0.51 21,792 Detention Volume Area 1 & 4 Area 1, Pre-development Q= 1.07 cfs Area 4, Post-development Q= 1.01 cfs Net decrease in runoff, no detention required Area 2 & 5 Area 2, Pre-development Q = 1.20 cfs Area 5, Post-development Q= 1.65 cfs -AV= 990— 720 = 270 cf -Infiltration basin sizing, 8'x15'x5' = 600 cf -assuming 50% void spaces Area 3 & 6 Area 3, Pre-development Q= 1.00 cfs Area 6, Post-development Q= 1.39 cfs -AV= 834 — 600 =234 cf -Infiltration basin sizing, 8'x15'x5' =600 cf -assuming 50% void spaces _ _ _ cis CIS I 0 Isla Imperial County SLqLt CV ca id- _ OW.YrI W-ow,�m!�Yaurrnn•imo•ad Ir a 5�� •�i/.� � v7u AI la wantlwA w �wa�� "w ■rri ■C-��-! � la�—C=MIEMM ME p. Mi M -.■MM. n�.r■. a. = N non .■■.�. n,s�� `—�a..� -'�.�� --��-..�-mow '�� fir! MA ,M� �� '��•EN o.r,r� MSM_ ��....-. 1 d�•►��i��•-�uiiiiia emu�"u+� Em e MA MMOMMOME-2- am am err man= Err �� `tom MIAVA No -10 r��'�r.Q t _�� Lmain MPFA n� IRA 4§2194 t i-�C! iii i � pi AN NEEM lingo I UNION Mm A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 000 o"'o 2 a 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 = c _o ° Q v U .> hkn CO W .... CO C) cko U � rn a E" a c C � C'4 W U c o ° ° °° 00 0o a 3 o ° o ° C J. co op U O O p C M 0 0 O 0 C 00 C lu h cu U C O O N e�.7 O v p Vl O h O O •O .ci O i� C C o u M W .o O U y y h N y h y C L) "V Lt, W O c y a c 4 A A A A A A A A E •" U c°`— c �✓ U p e ° en -. c ca ea U •y •_ •C .c 2 U O c c .•,cu zn U y v% N y 'D OQ U U .u M 3 cz cO 1L td v7 h U ^ C C� cz co O [ A c ti U o °� is ti O aoM c y •h �-• "-• v m 1O c U [ ID cc: D Z q .o 40 00 U U U U * u .� AZ PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING + LAND SURVEYING FEB 2720 February 20, 2009 _s PE 1537 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Plan No. 883-G To Whom it May Concern: Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for parcels 1, 2, and 4 of the above referenced plan. As the Engineer of Record for the subject property. I hereby state that the rough grading for this project has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Location Per Plan Per Field Measurement PARCEL 1 160.0(see note A) 160.0 PARCEL 3 139.32 139.3 PARCEL 4 142.24 142.2 23.24.310(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Note A The pad elevation as shown on the plan was based on a slab on grade. The building plans reflect a raised floor condition. The pad beneath the structure has been adjusted accordingly. Surrounding grades are per plan. If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Q>,_NND SUS Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. Joseph Yuhas PLS 5211 p- 6/30 p * � Exp.06130109 � �!r Principal Land Surveyor .:y,-// OF CA�-�4 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 ph 858.259.8212 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaengineering.com o7-02 MEMORANDUM GEOPACIFICA, INC. To `' i a7—di MEMORANDUM GEOPACIFICA, INC. To: City Of Encinitas Ruben Macabitas, Engineerin Fr om' James Kn owlton, Geo g Date: May 15, 2048 technical Consultant Sub e i MEMORANDUM GEODACIFICA, INC. To: City of Encinitas Ruben Macabitas, Engineering From: James Knowlton, Geotechnical Consultant Date: May 15, 2008 Subject: Review of Geotechnical Report i 1058 & 1076 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas 883GR, 07-071 Reference: "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage, Portion of Lot 13, Map No. 1776 1058 Hymetts Avenue, Leucadia, CA", by Coast Geotechnical, Dated May 15, 2008 "Grading Plan for 1058 & 1 Q76 Hymettus Avenue", by Sampo Engineering, undated ` As requested, we have completed our review of the geotechnical data/report for the subject property/project. The purpose of our review is to check to see that the geotechnical (soil/geology) aspects pertinent for the property/project have been adequately addressed. In addition, we have checked to see that geotechnical (soils/geology) aspects for the project have been addressed and presented in conformance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code and generally accepted standards of practice in the San Diego Area. Our review of the submitted document indicates that the geotechnical aspects for the property/project hkve been adequately addressed and the project geotechnical report data and information (referenced) are accepted and/or approved. However, the referenced report is only for 1058 Hymettus Avenue. The followinE needs to be performed prior to approval of the Grading Plan: 1. The geotechnical consultant will need to provide an addendum report or a new report for 1076 Hymettus Avenue. This report will address the soil conditions and provide grading recommendations for the subject lot. i NoText COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGIST'S April 5, 2005 Mark and Anne Paulsen 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage Portion of Lot 13, Map No. 1776 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Paulsen: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated February 24, 2005, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed residence and garage. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted,' COAST GEOTECHN1QAA .. 4`� l�\ Sl►vGygti CID 782 Exp.12-31-07 Mark Burwell, C.E. ��' ��^ q r� e Vi�haylinghane , P. MFG, �GP� Engineering Geologis Geotechnical Engineer �l 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOI-ANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage Portion of Lot 13, Map No. 1776 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California Prepared For: Mark and Anne Paulsen 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP 4 INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7 CONCLUSIONS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION 11 B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 12 C. FOUNDATIONS 12 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 13 E. RETAINING WALLS 14 F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 14 G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 14 H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 15 L PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTION 15 J. UTILITY TRENCH 16 K. DRAINAGE 17 L. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 17 M. PLAN REVIEW 17 LIMITATIONS 18 REFERENCES 20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGS TRANSITION LOT DETAILS, PLATE A GRADING PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Topo USA®5.0 v�D VICINITY MAP 0Q5. Cs PA. E.G AUCL.S_ST _,i,, I t 5 •9 / O +1`h \h. A h� � 5 5,, 5 G ,. _NO MANDY_.RD SUBJECT PROPEUil _' NY IA a p1PD o YP `b N - h Gm i Y i y t' s� CO S TI-1- LCyCADIA BLVD DI BIVD ;� o Leucadta Pa'k P� 7 Q W Z J` Ev OPASj ¢. C_ V; p In \ .m w' PUEBLAST d� i Data use subject to license. T" Scale 1 :6,400 �` ©2004 DeLorme.Topo USA®5.0 """r°'0'fir a w ° www.delorme com 1"=533.3 ft Data Zoom 15-0 Coast Geotechnical April 5,2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property,the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed residence and detached garage. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located north of Leucadia Boulevard, along the west side of Hymettus Avenue, in the Leucadia district, city of Encinitas. The subject property includes a flag lot situated behind a developed residential lot. The rectangular lot descends to the west at a grade of about 10.7 percent for approximately 11 vertical feet. The western property line is bounded by a concrete brow ditch and a 7.0+ descending cut slope that is part of an adjacent residential development. The site is bounded on the north and south by developed residential lots. Vegetation includes numerous trees and grass. Drainage is generally by sheet flow to the west. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Grading plans for development of the site were prepared by Sampo Engineering. Architectural plans were prepared by Adam Design Associates. The development includes the construction of a two Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 6 story residence and garage on graded pads. The residential pad includes cuts of 3.0 to 4.0 feet along the east side and daylights along the western extent. The garage pad includes a wedge-shaped fill that thickens to approximately 3.7 feet. Minor grading is proposed for drainage and the driveway development. The residence will be supported on conventional wall footings with a slab on grade floor. SITE INVESTIGATION Site exploration included three (3) exploratory trenches excavated to a maximum depth of 7.0 feet with a tractor-mounted backhoe. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination,in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. Coast Geotechnical April 5,2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 7 Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks. The terrace deposits are covered by soil deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. Artificial Fill No evidence of significant fill deposits was observed on the site. Minor grading for tree planting has generated very minor fill deposits. Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 8 Soil Approximately 6.0 to 12 inches of brown fine and medium-grained sand was encountered in the exploratory trenches. The soil is generally moist and loose. The contact with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational. Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials,poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown, fine and medium-grained sand. It was noted that the upper 1.5 to 2.0 feet of the terrace deposits were weathered and generally in a moist condition. Regionally,the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the soil deposits and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range. Groundwater No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored. However,recent rains have resulted in a very moist condition in the surficial deposits and the upper portion of the terrace deposits. It should be noted that seepage problems can develop after Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 9 completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur,it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.2 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation(Woodward-Clyde, 1979)and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank,Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Seismic Design Parameters. Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W-O. P-450035 Page 10 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the underlying Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. 2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of structural footings, concrete flatwork or proposed fills in their present condition. 3) Proposed grading in the residential pad will not entirely remove soil and weathered terrace deposits along the western portion. The cut portion of the building pad should be overexcavated and replaced with compacted fill. The intent is to provide uniform compacted fill for the support of footings and slabs on grade. Coast Geotechnical April 5,2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 11 4) Our experience with this type of lot development and geotechnical conditions suggest that varying degrees of seepage can develop after construction. Post construction seepage and/or saturated ground conditions can adversely affect foundations and concrete flatwork. Therefore, special consideration should be provided for surface and subsurface drainage during the design and construction phases. RECOMMENDATIONS Building Pad-Removals/Recompaction The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill in the building pads. Removal depths are anticipated to be on the order of 3.5 feet. All fill should be keyed and benched into competent terrace deposits. The cut portion of the building pad should be overexcavated a minimum of 3.0 feet and recompacted. Removals should include the entire building pad extending a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint. Removals should extend a minimum 10 lateral feet beyond the western building line. Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, the base of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches,moistened as required and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts,moistened to approximately 1.0-2.0 percent above optimum Coast Geotechnical April 5,2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 12 moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits in areas of proposed fills, concrete flatwork, exterior improvements and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non-expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer. Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics The soil and weathered terrace deposits are typically loose, resulting in caving in Trench No. 3. Temporary excavations greater than 3.5 feet should be trimmed to a gradient of 3/4 :1 (horizontal to vertical) or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene terrace deposits may contain hard concretion layers. However, based on our experience in the area, the sandstone is easily rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good working order. Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non-expansive approved compacted fill deposits or competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residences and garages should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lowermost adjacent subgrade for single-story and two-story structures, respectively. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one along the top of the footing and one along the Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 13 base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1700 pounds per square foot may be used for 12 inch deep footings and 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for 18 inch deep footings. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-load forces. A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill or terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket(S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on- site materials,compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 14 including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Retaining Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active- equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an"at-rest"equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system(Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and %2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be '/4 inch. Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 15 moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.2 miles west of the site is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.44g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.29g. Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - SD Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (N j - 1.2 Near source Acceleration Factor (Na) - 1.0 Seismic Coefficients Ca= 0.44 C,= 0.77 Design Response Spectrum T, = 0.696 To= 0.139 Nearest B-Type Fault= 3.2 miles Preliminary Pavement Section Previous testing suggests that the Pleistocene terrace deposits have an R-value of 43. The following pavement section is recommended for proposed driveways: Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 16 4.0 inches of asphaltic concrete or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 17 Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project designer. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations. Roof water should be collected or transferred to hardscape. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be available,however,the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 18 LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts,specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time,however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or Coast Geotechnical April 5,2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 19 the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical April 5, 2005 W.O. P-450035 Page 20 REFERENCES 1. Hays,Walter W., 1980,Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96-706. 3. Seed,H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970,A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 4. Tan, S.S.,and Giffen, D.G., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open-File Report 95-04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. Adams Design Associates, 2005, Site Plan, 1058 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California, Scale 1"=8'. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1"=750,000'. 3. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02. 4. Sampo Engineering, 2005, Tentative Parcel Map, 1058 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California, Scale 1"=10'. 5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91) Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density Moisture Content cf T-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -2 . 0 ' 126 . 8 10 . 2 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Location � Field Moisture Density Content cf 0 T-1 @ 1 . 0 ' 94 . 5 T-1 @ 2 . 0 ' 6 . 3 103 . 6 13 . 6 T-1 @ 3 . 5 ' 98 . 7 T-1 @ 5 . 0 ' 10 . 7 100 . 8 10 . 3 T-1 @ 7 . 0 ' 105 . 4 12 . 1 T-2 @ 1 . 0 ' 94 . 6 T-2 @ 2 . 0 ' 7 . 6 T-2 @ 5 . 0 ' 106 . 2 10 . 9 108 . 3 T-2 @ 6 . 5 ' 10 . 3 107 . 9 9 . 6 T-3 @ 1 . 3 ' 97 . 5 T-3 @ 2 . 5 ' 7 . 7 106 . 1 8 7 T-3 @ 5 . 0 ' 96 . 6 T-3 @ 7 . 0 ' 10 . 6 97 ' 7 12 . 4 P-450035 i LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO. 1 TF-i PROJECT NO. P-450035 [,DATE EXCAVATED: 03-16-05 x c H p ¢ H V) SURFACE ELEV.: 141' (approx) >" O w s P— z ¢U U w ¢� LOGGED BY: MB q a x u — Cn F- QV) Cn Q o 1410„ DESCRIPTION 0.00 SP SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and medium-grained sand,slightly silty 140.00 Graditional Contact 94.5 6.3 1.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand 139.00 - 103.6 13.6 2.00 Weathered in upper 1.5' D 138.00 3.00 98.7 10.7 � 137.00 I. ......: -d _ 4.00 136.00 - m 100.8 10.3 C — 5.00 - z .: : _- 135.00 ............ 6.00 : 134.00 105.4 12.1 7.00 End of Trench (a 7.5' TRENCH SKETCH Ql i s n t:r i or i COAST GEOTECHNIAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO. 2 PROJECT NO. P-450035 DATE EXCAVATED: 03-16-05 w z 0 3 0 SURFACE ELEV.: 140'(approx.)CIO U u a � LOGGED BY: MB z ¢ w a U Q ° W d Q o 140.00 DESCRIPTION 0.00 SP SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and medium-grained sand,slightly silty 139.00 Graditional Contact 94.6 7.6 _ 1 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish bm.,fine and med.-grained sand 138.00 - 106.2 10.9 Z 2.00 Weathered in upper 2.0' Cn 137.00 •'•. ........ _ 136.00 4.00ar .rr 135.00 . :. 108.3 10.3 z° 5.00 134.00 6.00 j 107.9 9.6 End of Trench n 7.0' 133.00 - 7.00 TRENCH SKETCH i i Sou t:r i OF i COAST GEOTECHNIAL i LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO. 3 FPROJECT NO. P-450035 v, DATE EXCAVATED: 03-16-05 � u H o � a ¢ SURFACE ELEV.: 146' (approx.) H O0 w > w ¢ w w U LOGGED BY: MB Q o ¢ w O DESCRIPTION 146.00 0.00 SI' SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and medium-grained sand,slightly silty 145.00 SP TER ACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish bm.,fine and med.-grained sand 1.00 97.5 7.7 144.00 2.00 Caving to 2.0' j 106.1 8.7 143.00 Q 3.00 142.00_ b 4.00 O - 141.00 96.6 10.6 - 5.00 140.00 .... . 6.00 139.00............ j 97.7 12.4 End of Trench @ 7.5' TRENCH SKETCH I l-- - --- - - - `, caving " I COAST GEOTECHNIAL TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT ........... EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 5 91 MIN. -------- H -- N - -r ----7-77 ------- ----------------------------- 1 " 36" MIN.*------- E___ -T ------5�4 -------- Oil N (OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK "I OR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL M 6 114. COMPACTED' 30 i 7 1V A I I:-:- :;-f�:Z: VEREXCAVATE' AND RECQMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK �OR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *NOTE: Deeper or laterally more extensive overe.xca* vation and recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered' and locations of proposed Improvements PLATE A ,1 \ \ PROPM WA 70? ` �SfRIGT M PARM 2 c/ 8 C\ \ cvsc wArFR � sow ro cavlw 10 BE \ USED BY PARM 1 \ 44\ 1 \ ism se�R ro SERif s IAAD2 A n0!+ COAST GEOTECHNICAL P-450035 APPENDIX B Z e L �r E',� • � a � i � � .� 7 e v ui fill !jj f 8 � z ? ; Y F IS S ti On 11 ---mss-�- _j Ill rifiv; rxi LZ /•`r I Vf, � � ,�� Y' t{; •. /yX/ /`i Yj' vJ � I __` ��I �`: � J,/r. I i,I \fl r �' � p��J. ' 'L£�'�1�" e _]'yam, /•/ �'� -�~'r �� ,r J �1 �(\�xr ��~ j � ® �. /`Y.-Nsr.W/� ,;ew�LT` C . 1- �f J�'v -o�'/t{� "•_ ®l'/ � � �� •�� '�' ill F+�� / -� '., ��, e.. � * * * U B C S E I S * * Version 1. 03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P-450035 DATE: 04-01-2005 JOB NAME: PAULSEN FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR. DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33. 0679 SITE LONGITUDE: 117 .2979 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0. 4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 43. 4 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 5. 1 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999. 0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1 . 0 Nv: 1 . 2 Ca : 0. 44 Cv: 0. 77 ;s : 0 . 696 To: 0. 139 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE -----------FAULT NAME------------ (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/Yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ROSE CANYON 5.1 1 B 1 6. 9 1 1.50 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 15.7 1 B 1 6. 9 1 1.50 I SS CORONADO BANK 1 29.6 I B 1 7.4 1 3.00 I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 43.4 I A 1 7.1 1 5.00 SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 43.4 I B 1 6.8 1 5.00 SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 64.1 I B 1 6.8 1 5.00 I SS PALOS VERDES 1 64.2 I B 1 7.1 1 3.00 SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 67.9 1 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 80.2 1 A 1 7.2 1 12.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 82.7 1 B 1 6. 9 1 12.00 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 83.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 85.4 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 86.7 I B 1 6.7 1 1.00 DS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 88.0 B 1 6.8 1 4 .00 SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 92. 9 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 103. 9 B 1 6. 6 1 4 .00 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 105. 6 I B 1 6.7 1 12.00 SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 111.7 I A 1 7.4 1 24.00 SS SAN JOSE 120.0 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 122.5 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS CUCAMONGA 1 124.2 A 1 7.0 I 5.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 124 .3 I B 1 7.0 1 3.00 DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 128.5 B 1 6. 6 1 5.00 SS BURNT MTN. 1 130.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 132.0 I B 1 7.0 1 1.00 DS CLEGHORN 134.2 I B 1 6.5 1 3.00 SS EUREKA PEAK 1 134.4 1 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 SS ELMORE RANCH I 134.6 I B 1 6.6 1 1.00 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 136.2 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 1 137.3 B 1 7.0 1 3.50 SS RAYMOND 1 138.8 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 DS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 138.9 I B 1 6.7 1 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 139.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 I DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 139.9 i A 1 7.8 1 34.00 SS VERDUGO 1 142.6 I B 1 6.7 1 0.50 DS HOLLYWOOD 1 145.6 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 DS LANDERS 1 146. 9 B 1 7.3 1 0. 60 SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 150.3 B 1 7. 1 1 0. 60 SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 151.5 B 1 6.5 1 25.00 SS SANTA MONICA 1 153.0 B 1 6. 6 1 1. 00 DS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 155.8 I B 7.3 0. 60 SS MALIBU COAST 1 157.1 1 B 6. ? 0. 30 1 DS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 159. 4 1 B 6. .' 1 0. 60 1 SS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 160.0 B 6. 'i 0. 60 1 SS IMPERIAL 162.0 1 A I 7. 0 I 20.00 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 163. 5 B 6. -7 1 2. 00 1 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. J RATE TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) i (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA-DUME I 165.3 I B 1 7.3 3.00 1 DS SAN GABRIEL 1 166.4 I B 1 7.0 1.00 1 SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 169.0 1 B 7.1 1 0. 60 1 SS CALICO - HIDALGO 1 172.9 1 B 1 7.1 I 0.60 1 SS SANTA SUSANA 1 178.8 B 1 6. 6 1 5.00 1 DS HOLSER 1 187.7 I B I 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 195.0 B 6.7 1.00 1 DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 195. 9 B I 6.9 4.00 1 DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 203.7 J B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS SAN CAYETANO 1 204 .4 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 DS BLACKWATER 219. 1 I B 1 6.9 1 0. 60 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 222. 9 J B 1 6.8 1 1.00 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 224 .1 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.00 1 SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 230. 7 J B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 233.7 I B 1 6.7 0.40 DS RED MOUNTAIN 1 236.7 B 1 6.8 I 2.00 j DS GARLOCK (West) 1 240. 9 1 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS PLEITO THRUST 1 246.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS BIG PINE 1 251. 6 1 B 1 6.7 1 0. 80 1 SS GARLOCK (East) 1 255. 6 1 A 1 7.3 1 7.00 1 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 1 265. 3 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 DS WHITE WOLF 1 266.7 1 B 7.2 1 2.00 DS SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 268. 6 1 B 6. 9 1 2.00 1 SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 280.0 I B 7.1 1 0.10 DS LITTLE LAKE 284. 6 I B 6.7 1 0.70 SS OWL LAKE 1 285.0 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 SS PANAMINT VALLEY 1 285.2 I B 7.2 1 2.50 I SS TANK CANYON 1 286.2 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (South) 1 293. 6 1 B 1 6. 9 1 4.00 J SS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 1 310. 6 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.70 I DS LIONS HEAD 1 328.2 1 B 1 6. 6 1 0.02 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 335.3 B I 6. 9 1 4.00 DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 338. 1 I B 7.0 1 0.20 DS SAN JUAN 1 339.2 B I 7.0 1 1.00 I SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 1 346. 4 B I 6.5 1 0.25 1 DS OWENS VALLEY 1 353. 1 B J 7. 6 1 1.50 1 SS LOS OSOS 368.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.50 1 DS HOSGRI 1 373. 9 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 1 379. 3 1 B 7.0 1 2.50 SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 388. 8 I A 1 7.2 1 5.00 1 SS INDEPENDENCE 1 388. 9 1 B 1 6. 9 1 0.20 DS RINCONADA 1 389. 3 1 B 1 7.3 1 1.00 1 SS BIRCH CREEK 1 445.2 1 B 1 6. 5 1 0.70 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 445. 9 B 1 5. 0 1 34 .00 SS WHITE MOUNTAINS 1 449. 8 1 B 7. 1 1 1.00 SS PEEP STRINGS 468. 3 1 B ! 6. 6 1 0.80 DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (tun) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS, DS,BT) --- -------- DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 473.3 I A 1 7.0 1 5.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns. ) 1 480.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 DS FISH SLOUGH 1 488.1 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.20 DS HILTON CREEK 1 506.4 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.50 DS ORTIGALITA 1 530.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 SS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 530.7 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.50 DS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 535.9 1 B 1 6.2 1 15.00 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 1 538.4 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 1 539.2 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 SS QUIEN SABE 1 549.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 SS MONO LAKE 1 566.7 1 B 1 6.6 1 2.50 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 1 567.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.10 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 1 572. 9 1 A 1 7. 9 1 24 .00 SS SARGENT 1 573.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 3.00 SS ROBINSON CREEK 1 598.0 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 DS SAN GREGORIO 1 613.8 A 1 7.3 1 5.00 SS GREENVILLE 1 622.9 B 1 6. 9 1 2.00 1 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 623.1 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 623.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 638.3 1 B 1 6.7 I 0.80 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) 643.0 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 643.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 SS GENOA 1 663.7 I B 1 6. 9 1 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 1 690.8 1 B 1 6. 9 1 6.00 SS RODGERS CREEK 1 729.6 1 A 1 7.0 1 9.00 SS WEST NAPA 1 730.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 SS POINT REYES 1 748.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.30 DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 753.0 1 B 1 6. 9 1 6.00 SS MAACAMA (South) 1 792.4 1 B 1 6. 9 I 9.00 SS COLLAYOMI 1 809.3 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 1 812.9 I A 1 7. 1 1 6.00 1 SS MAACAMA (Central) 1 834.0 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS MAACAMA (North) 1 893. 6 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 899.8 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 SS BATTLE CREEK 1 923.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 1 958.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 1 975.3 1 B 1 6. 9 1 9.00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1031.6 1 A 7. 4 1 35.00 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1038.3 A 7.0 1 5.00 DS MAD RIVER 1 1041.2 1 B 7. 1 1 0.70 DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1045.2 1 A 1 8.3 1 35.00 1 DS McFINLEYVILLE 1051. 6 1 B 1 7 .0 1 0. 60 1 DS TRINIDAD 1 1053.1 1 B 1 7 . 3 2. 50 DS FICELE HILL 1 1053. 5 1 B 6. 9 I 0. 60 I DS TABLE BLUFF 1 ]058. 9 B 7. 0 1 0. 60 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) I I072.3 B I 7 . 1 1 1. 00 i DS 0 o Q LO w � ri coo o o � C6 a r- 0 ^" U N O O O O 'C Lo CA LO W U � v� ° W o Q ° o n o LO 0 L 0 L o LO o U') N O I` U-) N O f� LO N O N N N r- r r r O O O O (6) uoileaajaooy lealoadg APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non- organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainage 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation,rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. (1) 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material(see report)and tilted back into the hill. As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; C) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built"at grade"using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. (2) In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed,slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete.Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's"Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket(or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should.be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. (3) 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill,unless it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) COAST GrEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS May 8, 2008 Nina Kovaleva 1076 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residences Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 1076 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California Dear Ms. Kovaleva: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated February 8, 2008, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed residences. The findings of the investigation,laboratory test results and recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTECHNIAA V P Mark Burwell C E.'G. i ' Vlthaya Snghanet, E. Engineering Geologist " Geotechnical Engineer, 779 ACADEMY DRIVE SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residences Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 1076 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California Prepared For: Nina Kovaleva 1076 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP 4 INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 7 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS g CONCLUSIONS 11 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION (PARCEL 1) 12 B. PROPOSED GRADING (PARCEL 3) 13 C. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 14 D. FOUNDATIONS 14 E. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 15 F. RETAINING WALLS 16 G. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 16 H. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 16 1. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 17 J. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTION 17 K. UTILITY TRENCH 18 L. DRAINAGE 18 M. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 19 N. PLAN REVIEW 19 LIMITATIONS 19 REFERENCES 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS GRADING PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Z M, Oh Ud G coo METT 'M' - °0' W FEN, 80.00 00 ' l b � b ' L AW CIO 1 1 `ry • li L 1 0 __ I z ►�I E-• o - 80.00, O •• O O COO CY eo o O s CW. e � i \160.00' U � � s 1 a 1111 1 111 l �e- Topo USA®5.0 EGRO�EOR VICINITY MAP PATTY LN E GLAUCUS ST m _ ; v m � O m r N •y m sQAE?Yao� o`, F A 7 N s e UCUS G1 NORMANDY RD.:_ �._ (SUBJECT PROPERTY,' ? is ucadia NYGEIAGT z z .S4AIAQ SS Z. m • 0 m LEEAKR LN,:. : 5. j •o m CROCUS CTGN m LEUCADIA BLVD r LEUCA p,'31ND m LeKa&3 Part- JACOB L� In l s� m Y� Q w O -- �r Lu Li � v n � � � 9 vm `�O Li F w O a PUEBLASI O! Data use subject to license. '" _ Scale 1 :61400 0 eo ©2004 DOLorme.TopO USA®5.0. ;-NI...'.) 1. ° '° 900 ° www.delorme.com -- b'. 8° 130 W 2.-- -- _ 1"=533.3 ft Data Zoom 15-0 Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the construction of the proposed residences. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located north of Leucadia Boulevard, along the west side of Hymettus Avenue, in the Leucadia district, city of Encinitas. The subject property is a large rectangular lot that has recently been subdivided into two(2)separate parcels. A single family residence is situated on the eastern relatively level ridge area of the site. From the rear of the residence, the property descends at a grade of about 12 percent for approximately 24 vertical feet to the property line. A swimming pool is located in the north-central portion of the rear yard area. The most western portion of the site includes a shed but is generally undeveloped. Vegetation includes numerous trees, shrubs and grass. Drainage is generally by sheet flow to the west. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Grading plans for development of the site were prepared by Pasco Engineering. Architectural plans were prepared by the Berry Group,Architecture. The grading plans include the development of the adjacent property to the south of the site. A geotechnical investigation for the development of this property was performed by this firm in 2005 and is referenced in this report. Plans suggest that a two story residence supported on stem wall footings will be constructed on the eastern parcel(Parcel 1). Approximately 3.0 feet of fill is proposed for building pad development. A two story residence supported on continuous wall footings,retaining walls and a slab on grade will be constructed along sloping terrain in the western parcel (Parcel 3). Grading will include variable height cuts, up to 9.0 feet, for building pad development. SITE INVESTIGATION Two (2) exploratory borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 18.5 feet with a track-mounted hollow-stem drill rig. Two (2) exploratory borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 12.5 feet with a portable auger drill. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the hollow-stem boring. Undisturbed,representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central Coast Geotechnical May 8,2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 7 portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination,in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 8 Shear Test Shear tests were performed in a strain-control type direct shear machine. The rate of deformation was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters,cohesion and angle of internal friction. Samples were tested in a saturated condition. The results are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks. The terrace deposits are covered by soil and isolated fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. Artificial Fill No evidence of significant fill deposits was observed on the site. However,minor grading along the rear yard area of Parcel 1 has generated localized wedge-shaped fill deposits. In the vicinity of Boring No. 2, approximately 4.0 feet of fill was encountered. Additional fill deposits are present behind site walls and stem wall footings. The fill is composed of brown silty fine and medium- grained sand and is generally in a moist and loose condition. The fill, where encountered, appears to have been placed over soil. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 9 Soil Approximately 6.0 to 12 inches of brown silty fine and medium-grained sand blankets the natural sloping terrain on the site. The contact with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational. Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials,poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown, fine and medium-grained sand. It was noted that the upper 1.5 to 2.0 feet of the terrace deposits were weathered and generally in a moist condition. Regionally,the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units. Unweathered dense terrace deposits are considered suitable for the support of foundations and fill deposits. Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the soil deposits and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range. Groundwater No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored. It should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. In the event Coast Geotechnical May 8,2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 10 that seepage or saturated ground does occur,it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.2 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation(Woodward-Clyde, 1979)and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 11 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the underlying Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. 2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of structural footings, concrete flatwork or proposed fills in their present condition. 3) Prior to placement of proposed fill on Parcel 1, the existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 12 4) It is anticipated that proposed cuts for the development of Parcel 3 will expose dense terrace deposits. However, deepened footings along the western extent of the proposed structure may be necessary. Additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading and footing excavation stages. 5) Our experience with this type of lot development, Parcel 3, and geotechnical conditions suggest that varying degrees of seepage can develop after construction. Post construction seepage and/or saturated ground conditions can adversely affect foundations and concrete flatwork. Therefore, special consideration should be provided for surface and subsurface drainage during the design and construction phases. RECOMMENDATIONS Building Pad-Removals/Recompaction (Parcel 1) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill in the building pad for Parcel 1 prior to placement of proposed fill: Removal depths are anticipated to be on the order of 3.5 to 4.0 feet below existing grade. A minimum of 2.0 feet of fill should underlie the base of proposed footings. All fill should be keyed and benched into competent terrace deposits. Removals should include the entire building pad extending a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint. Removals should extend a minimum 10 lateral feet beyond the western building line. Voids created by the removal of the existing pool and other exterior Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 13 structures should be replaced by approved compacted fill. Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse,provided they are cleared of all vegetation,debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill,the base of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches,moistened as required and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts, moistened to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits in areas of proposed fills, concrete flatwork, exterior improvements and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non-expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer. Proposed Grading_(Parcel 3) Development of Parcel 3 will include cuts up to 9.0 vertical feet. It is anticipated that the proposed grading will expose dense terrace deposits. However, where shallow cuts along the western extent of the building pad occur, deepened footing may be necessary to penetrate weathered terrace deposits. Additional recommendations may be necessary based on actual conditions revealed during grading. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 14 Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics The fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are typically loose with varying moisture contents. Temporary excavations greater than 3.5 feet should be trimmed to a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene terrace deposits may contain hard concretion layers. However, based on our experience in the area, the sandstone is easily rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good working order. Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non-expansive approved compacted fill deposits or competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residences and garages should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lowermost adjacent subgrade for single-story and two-story structures, respectively. Where proposed footings are in close proximity and/or parallel proposed drainage courses (BMP areas), footings should be deepened a minimum of 6.0 inches. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam or footing should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one along the top of the footing and one along the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes,an allowable bearing value of 1700 pounds per square foot may be used for 12 inch deep footings and 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for 18 inch deep footings. Coast Geotechnical May 8,2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 15 The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-load forces. A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill or terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 5.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket(S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on- site materials,compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 16 Retainin Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active- equivalent fluid pressure of 37 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an"at-rest"equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system(Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and '/z inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be '/4 inch. Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.2 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 17 Seismic Desizn Parameters (2005 ASCE 7 Standard) Site Class D Ss:1.351 S 1:0.508 Fa:1.0 Fv: 1.5 Sms: 1.351 SM 1: 0.762 SDs: 0.901 SDI: 0.508 Preliminary Pavement Section Previous testing suggests that the Pleistocene terrace deposits have an R-value of 43. The following pavement section is recommended for proposed driveways: 4.0 inches of asphaltic concrete or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 18 Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project engineer. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations. Roof water should be collected or transferred to hardscape. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be available,however,the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 19 Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts,specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 20 conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time,however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical May 8, 2008 W.O. P-545028 Page 21 REFERENCED REPORT 1. Coast Geotechnical,2005,Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage,Portion of Lot 13,Map No. 1776, 1058 Hymettus Avenue,Leucadia, California. REFERENCES 1. California Building Standards Commission,January 1,2008,2007 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96-706. 3. Tan, S.S., and Giffen,D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35A, Open-File Report 95--04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 4. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. 5. United States Geological Survey, 2007, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, Volume 5.0.8. MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. Berry Group, Architecture, 2008, Site Plan, 1076 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California, Scale 1 =20. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1"=750,0001 . 3. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02. 4. Pasco Engineering, 2008, Grading Plan, 1058 & 1076 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California, Scale 1"=20'. 5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91) Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density Moisture Content cf B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -4 . 0 ' 127 . 4 9 . 8 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Location Density Content cf o 0 B-1 @ 4 . 0 ' 111 . 8 9 . 3 B-1 @ 5 . 0 ' SPT 9 . 9 B-1 @ 8 . 0 ' 96 . 2 8 . 2 B-1 @ 9 . 0 ' SPT 7 . 8 B-1 @ 12 . 0 ' 101 . 3 6 . 0 B-1 @ 13 . 0 ' SPT 5 . 7 B-1 @ 16 . 0 ' 99 . 1 6 . 5 B-1 @ 17 . 0 ' SPT 7 . 8 B-2 @ 4 . 0 ' SPT 7 . 7 B-2 @ 8 . 0 ' SPT 6 . 6 B-2 @ 12 . 0 ' SPT 5 . 7 B-2 @ 16 . 0 ' SPT 5 . 2 B-3 @ 2 . 0 ' 101 . 6 9 . 2 B-3 @ 5 . 0 ' 109 . 2 7 . 6 B-3 @ 8 . 0 ' 98 . 6 8 . 5 B-4 @ 3 . 0 ' Sample Disturbed 3 . 5 B-4 @ 6 . 0 ' 102 . 5 9 . 6 B-4 @ 10 . 0 ' 99 . 6 4 . 6 (Page 1 of 2 ) TABLE III Direct Shear Test Results Sample Location Angle of Apparent Cohesion Internal Friction 0 sf B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -4 . 0 ' 30 Degrees 37 (Remolded) P-54502 (Page 2 of 2) LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE HOLLOW-STEM AUGER PROJECT NO. P-545028 BORING DIAMETER: 6.0" DATE DRILLED: 03-26-08 SURFACE ELEV.: 160' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB _T o° STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 140 POUND HAMMER, 30 INCH DROP z w z o a ¢ C!4- U U H 0 G Z W a0 Cn OU W U a 3 H a a a Q Cn Q o 160.0 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 ::¢ .: SM FILL/SOIL(af/Qs):Brn. silty,fine and medium-grained sand ' Graditional Contact "rr SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish bm.,fine and coed.-1 158.0 •• sand 2.00 V. moist and weathered in upper 2' 156.0 •-•--••-••• 111.81 9.3 4.00 : ,,�,'. SPT 9.9 21 Medium Dense .:1 154.0 a� 6.00 W O •�;xrrnrc s 152.0 gnu 96.2 8.2 8.00 3 SPT 7.8 �� 24 -- Medium Dense w 150.0 ;r ;Awccca V` 10.00 {i�r•• • 148.0 101.3 6.0 12.00 ........... SPT 5.7 31 " Dense 146.0 u000r 14.00 ":armrr'r "" 7xaui 99.1 6.5 16.144.0 00 -....``... SPT 7.8 29 Medium Dense 142.0 18.00 ; Y Emd of Boring @ 18.5' t-rx�rx:: SHEET I of I COAST GEOTECHNICAL FLOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE HOLLOW-STEM AUGER PROJECT NO. P-545028 BORING DIAMETER: 6.0" DATE DRILLED: 03-26-08 SURFACE ELEV.: 154' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB I ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 140 POUND HAMMER, 30 INCH DROP a z 3 z V) a z U w o 14 W� O w U a U Q C) CIO GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 154.0 o.00 ;:.;:{:, SM FILL/SOIL(af/Qs):Bm. silty,fine and medium-grained sand -3,2d t, 1510 2.00 ;; moist,loose o Graditional Contact 150.0 SPT 7.7 9 4.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS sand (Qt): Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-gr< Loose 148.0 6.00 :: V. moist and weathered in upper 2' -� O U 146.0 SPT 6.6 16 8.00 Medium Dense �+ w.. 144.0 xv�7r Z 10.00 142.0 SPT 5.7 23 12.00 ter.::. Medium Dense : .. .. 140.0 `!'N' 14.00 �;�'at"•r 138.0 •.ter. SPT 5.2 32 16.00 ;.;- Dense :. 7jyii,Yf'' maw Emd of Boring @ 18.5' SHEET i of I COAST GEOTECHNICAL j LOGO IG: F EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3 DRILL R PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-545028 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-24-08 SURFACE ELEV.: 149' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB CIO I 0 H U W O Q a a4 U Ca I I CS 00 149.0 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION "0' SM FILL/SOIL(af/Qs):Brn. silty,fine and medium-grained sand 148.0 1.0 o Graditional Contact SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand 147.0 '' = 101.6 9.2 2.00 yA. 3. 0 000 Yl V. moist and weathered in upper 2' b 145.0 n='• '•v > 4.00 '•rr.•'•xrr � ;xsMtva 144.0 109.2 7.6 ° 5.00 "•' .. 143.0 :y" ' C,no '(� :afriir p 142.0 Saida' Z 7.00 • i:;r- .;ux:�x naxau 141.0 98.6 8.5 8.00 .......... 140.0 ti. V;• 9.00 ';x`• r•a�arrr rw 139.0 .:::': ::• a 10.00 :°�:•x?i. ?ia?9F:. f::: 138.0Y; 11.00 - sxu�;r•r 137.0 12.00 °aa�arr N End of Boring @ 12.5' SHEET 1 of l COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-545028 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-24-08 SURFACE ELEV.: 140' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB _T_ w w o Cn 3 ¢ H ° w > � � z C10 ¢ Oa vii w a w ,�� a Q w w a c� O ¢ w Q CIO Q c7 CIO 140.0 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION o.00 SM FILL/SOIL(af/Qs):Bm. silty,fine and medium-grained sand 139.0 r�rjrl 1.00 <a: Graditional Contact 138.0 .. . SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand — 2.00 :: 137.0 ` Dry,loose --- I 3.5 3.00 ...:-- I f ?. 136.0 ,."•%" 4.00 rraa,g N 0 135.0 : 3 'C7 134.0 102.5 9.6 9 6.00 Moderately dense 0 p 133.0 vanvx'd` z 7.00 ......i "S.. 132.0 : 8.00 131.0 %""" 9.00 ..a.ra{{ �farr�xl' 130.0 mtrirvi 99.6 4.6 10.00 .='..�'.. ;•,.narri.;. 129.0rtr 11.00 r`is 128.0 :-.:.. 12.00 �r " End of Boring @ 12.5' SHEET i OF I COAST GEOTECHNICAL FRIVA PARCEL I _ Pvc T• / • /- TO BE •B / ED 'a / • FS-1393, 2 IS-07 1E-137.15 M-145.05 Lo af/Qs) 1 I cri f / / r SETBAW11 I :1• : I ' .I. MW � at FS--160115 n. \ , • • overed by, PARCEL SP GRO /� 1� 160 CK P �� ► . ., • —�:RTC .1 ■ , .,. ...,� 21 c I. / I f APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP KOVALEVA 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 '~foTDO 0 o SI -100 -200 -300 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 KOVALEVA Conterminous 48 States 2005 ASCE 7 Standard Latitude= 33.0679 Longitude = -117.2977 Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S 1 Ss and S1 =Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values Site Class B - Fa= 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0 Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.351 (Ss, Site Class B) 1.0 0.508 (S1, Site Class B) Conterminous 48 States 2005 ASCE 7 Standard Latitude=33.0679 Longitude =-117.2977 Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs =FaSs and SM1 = FvSI Site Class D - Fa= 1.0 ,Fv= 1.5 Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.351 (SMs, Site Class D) 1.0 0.762 (SM1, Site Class D) Conterminous 48 States 2005 ASCE 7 Standard Latitude= 33.0679 Longitude =-117.2977 SDs =2/3 x SMs and SDI = 2/3 x SM1 Site Class D - Fa= 1.0 ,Fv= 1.5 Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 0.901 (SDs, Site Class D) 1.0 0.508 (SDI, Site Class D) Sa () P . . w 2-All . . .�. ?»�\ co \ io\ \ I §dCD 22bo \/ \ co APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Appendix J of the California Building Code, 2007, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non- organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainage 1• During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground l. All heavy vegetation,rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1• Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. (1) 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material(see report)and tilted back into the hill. As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; C) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built"at grade"using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. (2) In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed,slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Gradine Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. (3) 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches,paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill,unless it is similar to the inplace fill,should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91) Sample Max. Dry Location Optimum Density cf Moisture Content T-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -2 . 0 ' 126 . 8 10 . 2 TABLE- II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry y Field Moisture Density Content cf a T-1 @ 1 . 0 ' 94 . 5 T-1 @ 2 . 0 ' 6 . 3 103 . 6 T-1 @ 3 . 5 ' 98 . 7 13 . 6 T-1 @ 5 . 0 ' 10 . 7 100 . 8 T-1 @ 7 . 0 ' 105 . 4 10 . 3 12 . 1 T-2 @ 1 . 0 ' 94 . 6 T-2 @ 2 . 0 ' 7 . 6 106 . 2 T-2 @ 5 . 0 ' 108 . 3 10 . 9 T-2 @ 6 . 5 ' 10 . 3 107 . 9 9 . 6 T-3 @ 1 . 3 ' 97 . 5 T-3 @ 2 . 5 ' 7 . 7 106 . 1 T-3 @ 5 . 0 ' 96 . 6 8 7 T-3 @ 7 . 01 10 . 6 97 . 7 12 . 4 P-450035 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO. 1 PROJECT NO. P-450035 DATE EXCAVATED: 03-16-05 � W o 3 ¢ c � SURFACE ELEV.: 14 1'(approx.) F" U w O z ¢ w U ¢ LOGGED BY: MB w � w a I Q .a w U O w d Q Q cI 141.00 DESCRIPTION 0.DO SP SOIL(Qs): Brown fine and medium-grained sand,slightly silty 140.00 Graditional Contact 94.5 6.3 1.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan to Reddish bm.,tine and med.-grained I 139.00 103.6 13.6 a-°i z.00 _ Weathered in upper 1.5' -0 _ 138.00 � 3.00 (U 98.7 10.7 °J j 137.00 '_amr= -�y 4.00 O 136.00-_- 100.8 10.3 5.00 z - . 135.110 ....:........ 6.00 IN 134.00 �'.�" 105.4 12.1 7.00 End of Trench (d� 7.5' TRENCH SKETCH S_ _ _ = — — . . . . Qt . . - COAST GEOTECHNIAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO. 2 PROJECT NO. P-450035 DATE EXCAVATED: 03-16-05 w z M�Z � � SUR FACE ELEV.: 140'(approx.) �U w-< w LOGGED BY: MB � w a 0 P o o w 140.00 DESCRIPTION 0.00 SP SOIL(Qs): Brown fine and medium-grained sand,slightly silty 139.00 Graditional Contact 94.6 7.6 1.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS j (Qt)..—Tan to Reddish brn., fine and med.-gl•ained C7 138.00 106.2 19.9 2.00 Weathered in upper 2.0' i ... ....... Q 137.00 -••• ••••• '.:.`:moo 3 b 136.00 4.00 0 7ii... . 135.00 108.3 10.3 z° 5.00 134.00 W 6.00 I 107.9 9.6 133.00 n End of Trench 7.0' i - _ 7.00 TRENCH SKETCH Qt i __---- st►� t , OF , — - -- ----- -- _-- - COAST GEOTECHNIAL f- LOG OF EXPLORATORY T RENCH N0. 3 PROJECT NO. P-450035 DATE EXCAVATED: 03-16-05 g ¢ H SURFACE ELEV..- 146' a rox. y, ( pP ) U U W CIO ` ¢ w u a LOGGED BY: MB w U Q a 0 Cn Cn Cn Q O 146.0° DESCRIPTION 0.00 SP SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and medium-grained sand,slightly silty 145.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): 'fan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained 97.5 7.7 1.00 b 144.00 2.00 - Caving to 2.0' 106.1 8.7 143.00 — 3.00 3 _142.00 b -— 4.00 -- 2 141 00 96.6 10.6 5 0 z .00000 I 139.00 97.7 12.4 — 7.00 ...... .... End of Trench @ 7.5' TRENCH SKETCH cw- I caving I .� . . . - W 1 1 srn �:•r i car• i ---- -- COAST GEOTECHNIAL TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 5• MIN. ---------- --------- -- --_=- ,1 ` �SMPRMED OWN T R)PARM 1 (/ 1 1 DOST.WAIER sERNCF TO k ccNwf ro BE 1`USER BYPARCR I srD StaER N SERI£ SIAAO? .A nry,'._ COAST GEOTECHNICAL P-450035 APPENDIX B b y rr. E W lit, e < fill k ri .? ' ziY? a cll •'Pill N .a tQ�lb�pb ik�� wW fSI!C[ �� C .li I• y 5 5 + 5 j t < ITV o � h1 _r' :� /R-7 J •�� y? �.i :�' I^' �'t ,`�tf/�+` J ' —��`�\� . i\\\� r-l•7x't � � �� /. '�, I � _ ` I..:,,�i(� is Jr_ /,/�n�- � .,. �� ? / /' rX•i 1 d �M i } I. ��,�/V/ � ..,. i�•- iii �- / c'_ � ,•mot V \��.�t � T-C¢¢-:...;�..�.i_ 5 t _ N �� \��( �� ...�_` r I / 2 71 i / TT j �/•i•{� ! Wit!\ � �"�•' e � i � :�� f,l{'��,- .I J�, �; z� -�e%� .^ •� f / \.�\ \.'"J � \ yr . r , \ \ // � .� b1 � ,,��•�(�\, 1 ,C' y, i �;`- �- % /rte .�?�y� 'lII ._�..:� ft�r~N�C�• .. y�/'- n!�ti� .4 of.y. of IX ,E b .'0}� �'•.�.. � _ �ham' ��,�?.5°� r y./• �/� 'oi.ti%" �, r /i Y �-i- - j *********************** * * * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1 . 03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P-450035 DATE: 09-01-2005 JOB NAME: PAULSEN FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR. DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33. 0679 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2979 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0. 4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 43. 4 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 5. 1 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999. 0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1 . 0 Nv: 1 .2 Ca: 0. 44 Cv: 0. 77 Ts: 0. 696 To: 0. 139 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 ---------- ________ APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) 1 (SS,DS,BT) ROSE CANYON NEWPORT (Offshore) I 5.1 B 1 6. 9 1 1.50 I SS CORONADO BANK I 15.7 I B 1 6. 9 1 1.50 I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN 29. 6 I B 1 7.4 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 43.4 A I 7.1 1 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 43.4 I B I 6.8 1 5.00 I SS PALOS VERDES I 64.1 I B 1 6.8 1 5.00 SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 64'2 1 B 1 7.1 1 3.00 SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 67' 9 1 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 80.2 I A 1 7.2 1 12.00 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 82 7 1 B 1 6. 9 1 12.00 I SS 1 83.5 B 1 6. 9 1 SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 4 .00 SS 1 85.4 CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I B 1 6.8 1 4.00 I SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 86.7 I B 1 6.7 I 1.00 DS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 88'0 B 6.8 1 4.00 I SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 92. 9 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 103.9 I B 1 6. 6 1 4.00 SS 1 105. SAN ANDREAS - Southern B 1 6. I 12.00 SS SAN JOSE 111.7 7 I A I 7.4 4 1 24.00 I SS PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 120.0 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 DS CUCAMONGA 1 122.5 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 SS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 124 .2 I A I 7.0 1 5.00 DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 128.5 I B 1 6.6 1 5.00 I SS BURNT MTN. NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 132.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 I SS CLEGHORN I 7.0 1 1.00 I DS EUREKA PEAK 1 134.2 I B 1 6.5 1 3.00 I SS ELMORE RANCH 1 134.4 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 136.2 B I 6. 6 4 1 6.6 I 4 .00 I SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA .00 I SS RAYMOND I 137.3 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 138. 9 1 B 1 6 .5 I 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 16 7 I 0.50 I DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 139.5 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 I DS VERDUGO 139. 9 I A 1 7.8 I 34.00 I SS HOLLYWOOD 142. 6 I B 1 6.7 1 0.50 I DS LANDERS 145. 6 B 1 6.5 I 1.00 DS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 146. 9 1 B 1 7.3 1 0. 60 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 150.3 I B 7.1 0. 60 I SS SANTA MONICA 151.5 B I 6.5 1 25.00 I SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 153. B 6. 6 1.00 DS MALIBU COAST 155. 8 8 B I 7. 3 1 0. 60 I SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 157. 1 B 1 6. 1 0.30 I DS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 159. 9 B 6. c, 0. 60 SS IMPERIAL 160.0 I B 6.7 0. 60 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 163.0 1 B I 7'C, 1 20.00 SS 6. 7 1 2.00 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ----------- _ ___ ------------ I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. 1 RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA-DUME I 165.3 I B I 73 SAN GABRIEL . I 3.00 I DS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 166.4 1 B I 7.0 1 1. 0 1 SS CALICO - HIDALGO I 169.0 I B 1 7.1 ( 0. 660 1 SS SANTA SUSANA I 172' 9 1 B I 7.1 0.60 SS HOLSER I 178'8 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 187.7 B I 6.5 I 0.40 DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 195.0 1 B 1 6.7 I 1.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 195. 9 B 1 6. 9 I 4. 0 DS SAN CAYETANO 1 203.7 B 1 6. 9 1 . 660 6 1 BLACKWATER 1 204.4 I B 1 6.8 1 6. SS 0 1 DS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 1 219. 1 l B 1 6. 9 1 0. 6 60 1 SS SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 222' 9 1 B I 6.8 1 1.00 DS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 224'1 I B I 7.0 I 2.00 SS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 230.7 B I 6.8 1 1.00 DS I 233'7 B RED MOUNTAIN I 6.7 I 0.40 1 DS GARLOCK (West) I 236'7 I B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS PLEITO THRUST 1 240. 9 A 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS BIG PINE 1 246.0 B 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS GARLOCK (East) 1 251. 6 1 B 1 6.7 I 0.80 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 255. 6 1 A 1 7.3 1 7.00 SS WHITE WOLF I 265.3 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 DS SANTA YNEZ (West) I 266.7 1 B 1 7.2 1 2.00 DS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 268. 6 1 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 I SS LITTLE LAKE 1 280'0 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.10 1 DS OWL LAKE 1 284. 6 I B 1 6.7 I 0.70 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY 285.0 I B 1 6.5 I 2.00 1 SS TANK CANYON 1 285'2 B 1 7.2 1 2.50 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (South) 1 286'2 I B 1 6.5 I 1. 00 1 DS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 293. 6 I B 1 6. 9 I 4.00 1 SS LIONS HEAD 1 310.6 1 B I 6.8 1 0.70 1 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 328.2 1 B I 6. 6 0.02 1 DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 335.3 1 B 6. 9 4.00 1 DS g SAN JUAN 1 338.1 1 B 1 7. 0 1 0.20 DS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 1 346. 4 1 7.0 1 1.00 I SS OWENS VALLEY I B 1 6.5 1 0.25 DS LOS OSOS 1 353. 1 I B 1 7. 6 1 1.50 I SS HOSGRI 1 368.2 I B 6.8 1 0.50 DS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 1 373. 9 1 B 7.3 1 2.50 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 1 379.3 1 B I 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS INDEPENDENCE 1 388' 8 1 A 1 7.2 1 5.00 1 SS RINCONADA 1 388' 9 I B 1 6. 9 1 0.20 DS BIRCH CREEK 1 389.3 1 B 1 7.3 1 1.00 SS 445.2 B 6.5 1 0.70 DS SAN ANDREAS (Creepine�) WHITE MOUNTAINS 1 445' 9 I B 1 5.0 1 34 .00 SS DEEP SPRINGS 449'8 B 1 7. 1 1 1 .00 SS 1 468. 3 B 1 6. 6 1 0.80 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 --------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) I (mm/ r DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 473.3 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns. ) 1 480.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 I FISH SLOUGH 1 488.1 1 B 1 6. 6 1 DS 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK ORTIGALITA 1 506.4 I B 1 6.7 1 2.50 I DS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 530.5 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 I SS 1 530.7 CALAVERAS (SO-of Calaveras Res) 1 535.9 I B 1 6. 6 1 0.50 I DS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 1 538 1 6.2 1 15.00 I SS PALO COLORADO - SUR .4 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 I DS QUIEN SABE 1 539.2 I B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 SS MONO LAKE 549'2 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 1 566.7 B 1 6.6 1 2.50 I IS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 1 567.7 B 1 6.8 I 0.10 SS SARGENT 1 572'9 1 A 1 7. 9 1 24.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK 1 573.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 3.00 I SS SAN GREGORIO 1 598.0 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 I DS GREENVILLE 1 613.8 I A 1 7.3 I 5.00 I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 622. 9 1 B 1 6. 9 I 2.00 1 SS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 623.1 I B 1 6.5 1 0.40 I DS ANTELOPE VALLEY 623.3 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 SS HAYWARD (Total Length) 1 638.3 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 I DS CALAVERAS (N-.-f Calaveras Res) 1 643.0 B 1 7. 1 I 9.00 SS GENOA I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 1 663.7 I B 1 6. 9 1 1.00 DS RODGERS CREEK 690.8 B 1 6. 9 1 6.00 SS WEST NAPA 729.6 I A 7. 0 9.00 SS POINT REYES 1 730.5 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 SS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 748'3 ( B 1 6.8 1 0.30 DS MAACAMA (South) 1 753.0 1 B I 6. 9 1 6.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 792.4 1 B 1 6. 9 1 9.00 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 809.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 0. 60 1 SS MAACANLA (Central) 1 812. 9 I A 1 7. 1 1 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) 1 834.0 1 A 7.1 1 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S. F.Ba ) 1 893. 6 1 A 7.1 1 9.00 I SS Y BATTLE CREEK 1 899.8 I B 1 6.8 1 6.00 I SS LAKE MOUNTAIN 1 923.5 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 I DS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 1 958.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 975.3 I B 1 6. 9 1 9.00 I SS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1031.6 A 1 7.4 1 35.00 I DS MAD RIVER 1 1038.3 1 A 1 7.0 5.00 DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1041.2 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.70 DS MCKINLEYVILLE 1 1045.2 I A 8.3 1 35.00 1 DS TRINIDAD 1 1051 . 6 1 B 1 7.0 0. 60 1 DS FICFLE 1053. 1 1 B 7.3 1 2. 50 1 DS TABLE BLOFF riLLL 1 1053. 5 B 1 6. 9 1 0. 60 1 DS TAB 1 1058. 9 1 B i 7. 0 1 0. 60 I DS LITTLE SLM ;. ON ;Offshore) 1 1072. 3 1 B 1 7. 1 1 1.00 1 DS 0 w a� ri of ri = w C �j N U O Q G 0 �L � o � � U � z � o w o Q oLOoU-) oLOoU-) oLoo LO N O f-.. U-) N O f." to N O N N N r r r r O O O O (6) uoileaaIaOOy lealoads APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non- organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainage 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. (1) 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report)and tilted back into the hill. As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; C) The distribution of1he rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core,or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built"at grade"using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the at surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. (2) In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed,slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete.Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket(or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should.be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. (3) 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches,paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill,unless it is similar to the inplace fill,should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) � R _ llr, i.11ll_ l) ;�`I ' •' _ • '• ` ' '• / � 'l l l��l iii r�� - �,, fffl"OHN) !liu, �♦ � //r�� ,,..�/��/.�/� •/ / / / �/ Am • �i/ ,,, i ll�/lllll�l �� ,/i ll�l l �iri . �\�� a !llllll�iiir/1,.. llllllllll if . � • a .. n I • U z` w � o � w7 vd F— O U h - -UN-uE ,_ m ——Y�1ppUp Nth hS S 1 o � � 1 11 r n lit CL cz 1 5� N• 815./3'30W ' ZJ �/! ��-'\, Fr u 1 N"v CV< a t ,.- 10 5'13S�w 4 \ �� .L COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS February 24, 2009 Mark and Anne Paulsen 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 Subject: ROUGH GRADING AND COMPACTION REPORT Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage _ Parcel 4 1058 Hymettus Avenue - Leucadia, California - FED - References: Please see page 10 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Paulsen: In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the sewer trench backfill phase and the rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this report. Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner _ and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However,the control of surface and subsurface water is essential to the future performance of the proposed structure. _ If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, ?' COAST GEOTECHNkCAL , Mark Burwell, C.E.G. Vithaya Singhanet, P.E. _ Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 ROUGH GRADING AND COMPACTION REPORT Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage _ Parcel 4 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia,California Prepared for: Mark and Anne Paulsen 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 Page 3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of fill,soil and weathered terrace deposits in the building pads and the placement of sewer trench backfill along the common driveway for the adjacent Lots(Parcel 1 and Parcel 3),as well as offsite sewer trench backfill. The approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan, prepared by Pasco Engineering. LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with -- ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density,for the soil types used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Maximum Dry Density Optimum Description (p c.f.) Moisture (%) Soil Tyne (Trench Tan to brown fine and 125.0 9.8 A Backfill) medium-grained sand slightly silty (Pad Tan to brown fine and 125.0 10.0 B Grading) medium-grained sand slightly silty Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 Page 4 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as Santiago Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by residual soil and fill deposits. DISCUSSION The grading contractor on this project was CNH Equipment. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) The sewer for the proposed residence and existing residence on Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4 was initiated at Hygeia Court and extended eastward to the common driveway,as shown on the enclosed grading plan. 2) A mixture of excavated materials was utilized as trench backfill. The fill was placed in approximately 8.0 inch lifts and compacted with a sheepsfoot attached to a tractor-mounted backhoe and hand operated compaction equipment(Whacker). Due to recent rains,moisture contents of soils were 1.0 to 2.0 percent above optimum. Selective testing suggests that the backfill was compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 Page 5 3) All surface deleterious material was removed in the building envelope, prior to removals. 4) The existing fill,soil and weathered terrace deposits were removed to dense terrace deposits in the building envelope and stockpiled. 5) Stockpiled soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 8.0 inches, moistened to above optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling with a Dresser Dozer and wheel rolling with a tractor-mounted backhoe. 6) The lot was overexcavated to a maximum depth of approximately 3.5 feet to 4.0 feet in the building envelope. The overexcavation was extended laterally to approximately 5.0 feet beyond the building envelope. 7) It is our understanding that a retaining wall is proposed along the eastern property line on Parcel 4. This area was overexcavated approximately 3.5 feet and replaced as compacted fill for foundation support. 8) Based on visual classification and previous laboratory testing, the fill deposits have a potential expansion in the very low range. Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 -- Page 6 -° CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing,the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. 2) However,recent prolonged rains have saturated the fill deposits on the graded lot. Corrective grading may be necessary prior to construction, in this regard. 3) Additional corrective grading should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Additional recommendations will be necessary. 4) The soil parameters recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and referenced reports for foundations and slab design remain valid. 5) Remedial grading was not conducted in all areas of exterior concrete flatwork and exterior improvements. These areas should be addressed on an individual basis during construction. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. 6) It is suggested that a subdrain be provided in front of the eastern property line retaining wall to collect potential subsurface water. Footings for the proposed wall should be deepened at least 1.0 foot below the designed depth. Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 — Page 7 7) The following pavement section is recommended for the proposed driveway/parking areas: 4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or 5.0 inches of concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. 8) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand(S.E. greater than 30)to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 Page 8 9) Footings in close proximity to side yard drainage swales should be deepened, as recommended in our Geotechnical Update Report and Grading Plan Review,dated May 20, 2008. 10) The proposed infiltration pits require continuous maintenance and are the responsibility of the owner. The future performance of the infiltration pits and their effect on site foundations, improvements, slopes, adjacent structures and properties is impossible to predict with certainty due to unpredictable factors,such as fluctuations in the level of groundwater,lateral migration of groundwater,rainfall,infiltration rates,irrigation and maintenance of drainage systems. No evaluation by the geotechnical consultant has been performed on these infiltration pits and their potential impact. Geotechnical evaluation is currently not required by city agencies for the infiltration pits.Therefore,the performance and impact of the newly required private drainage infiltration systems can only be evaluated through usage and time. However,in no respect do we guarantee or warrant the performance of the private drainage infiltration system or their impact on foundations, adjacent properties, slopes, concrete flatwork or structures. 11) Additional fill including wall backfill should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. All footings should be observed by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to placement of forms and steel. Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 Page 9 12) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation which are not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. It should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion,based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Enclosures: Table I Grading Plan Coast Geotechnical February 24,2009 W.O. G-450035 -- Page 10 REFERENCES 1) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage Portion of Lot 13, Map No. 1776 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated April 5, 2005 2) FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage Portion of Lot 13, Map No. 1776 1058 Hymettus Avenue -- Leucadia, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated August 1, 2005 3) GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT AND GRADING PLAN REVIEW Proposed Single Family Residence and Garage Portion of Lot 13, Map No. 1776 1058 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated May 20, 2008 ENCLOSURES FIELD TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Height Content Density % Soil Date No. Location Of Fill % (pcf) Compaction Tytoe Sewer Trench Backfill 10/28/08 1 See Map 2 . 0 ' 11 . 5 115 . 5 92 A 10/29/08 2 See Map 4 . 0 ' 12 . 0 119 . 5 96 A 11/14/08 3 See Map 4 . 0 ' 10 . 9 119 . 9 96 A 11/20/08 4 See Map 4 . 0 ' 11 . 2 120 . 6 96 A 11/25/08 5 See Map 6 . 0 ' 13 . 5 123 . 0 98 A 11/26/08 6 See Map 10 . 0 ' 12 . 0 120 . 9 97 A 11/26/08 7 See Map 13 . 0 ' 11 . 9 115 . 5 92 A 12/02/08 8 See Map 4 . 0 ' 10 . 3 114 . 2 91 A 12/16/08 9 See Map 10 . 0 ' 9 . 9 114 . 2 91 A 12/16/08 10 See Map 8 . 0 ' 10 . 2 114 . 3 91 A 12/19/08 11 See Map 7 . 0 ' 11 . 4 115 . 1 92 A 12/19/08 12 See Map 10 . 0 ' 10 . 2 113 .2 90 A TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Approx. Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Height Content Density % Soil Date No. Location Of Fill o (pc f) Compaction Twe Parcel 4 02/05/09 1 See Map 2 . 0 ' 9 . 9 115 . 2 92 B 02/11/09 2 See Map 2 . 0 ' 12 . 0 115 . 6 92 B 02/11/09 3 See Map 3 . 0 ' 11 . 7 115 . 6 92 B 02/12/09 4 See Map 5 . 0 ' 10 . 3 112 . 7 90 B 02/12/09 5 See Map 2 . 0 ' 11 . 0 114 . 0 91 B 02/13/09 6 See Map 3 . 0 ' 12 . 0 114 . 4 92 B 02/19/09 7 See Map 3 . 0 ' 11 . 5 112 . 0 90 B 02/19/09 8 See Map 3 . 0 ' 10 .7 119 .2 95 B 02/19/09 9 See Map 3 . 0 ' 10 . 3 120 . 3 96 B 02/19/09 10 See Map 3 . 0 ' 11 . 0 115 .2 92 B G-450035 l I 70�ros—vft 1 , kf 490 ASV 47ril� / COAS I i U I - 7 C�7 L � b! U I� 11&A pL I Al rt _A ate - I y ol 4 , L ++1 lz �; ► i LINK Fflif.1 Z g L �! r, lk i x �,�F AA at ,off i KNA LU qw: ;v �� I' `fir +> w.•—� ,'' � r�+$I�ts �Ol6, • fig- If 3&-L Ing IS log I I + I I � rw I i � - HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave APN:254-262-11 &254-262-12 CASE NO.07-71 TPM/CDP 07-72-74 CDP CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Mark& Anne Paulsen and Nina Kovaleva 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 PE 1537 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 �OQROFESS�O�� (858)259-8212 �� JUST/,y DATE: 2-29-08 �' C��+ � r;,a m �t EXP r - W. JUSTIN SU ER, RCE 68964 DATE N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 TABLE OF CONTENTS - SECTION DISCUSSION..............................................................................A CONCLUSION.............................................................................B 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.........C AREA I AREA 2 AREA 3 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .......D AREA 4 AREA 5 AREA 6 APPENDIX.................................................................................E Weighted Runoff Coefficient Calculations Detention Volume and Sizing Calculations w_ Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve County of San Diego Runoff Coefficients Pre-Development Node Map Post-Development Node Map N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 156 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post-developed condition of the Hymettus Avenue proposed project site. The subject property is located at 1058 and 1076 Hymettus Avenue, in the City of Encinitas, and more specifically the community of Leucadia. Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of two adjoining lots located at 1058 & 1076 Hymettus Ave with existing homes on each lot. The site is surrounded by single family residences to the north, south, and west with Hymettus Ave. making up the eastern border. The existing homes are located on a ridge running in a north south direction and are situated toward the eastern property line. The existing home on the northern most lot is to be demolished as part of the proposed development; the southern home is to remain. Runoff falling on the eastern portion of the ridge sheet flows east toward Hymettus Ave. Once on Hymettus Ave., the runoff travels in a southerly direction in the right of way. Runoff on the western portion of the ridge sheet flows in a westerly direction where it ultimately is collected by an existing concrete brow ditch that carries the runoff in a southerly direction. The high point of the site occurs along the ridge at an elevation of 160.35'. The low point for the western portion of the site occurs along western property line with an elevations ranging from 135.65' to 136.65'. The low point for the eastern portion occurs in the south east corner of the site at an elevation of 154.65'. For the 100 year storm event pre-development hydrologic analysis, the site was divided into 3 separate sub basins. Runoff from the sub basins was determined to be 1.07 cfs, 1.20 cfs, and 1.0 cfs. A node map depicting the delineated sub basins can be seen in the appendix of this report. Post- Development Conditions N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Pau1sen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:25 PM 3/11/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. _. PE 1537 Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the construction of 3 new single family homes with one existing home to remain. In the future, all proposed drainage from roofs and decks shall be directed to flow over BMP area before leaving the site. After completion of the project all proposed drainage will maintain existing runoff conditions and discharge locations. Similarly to the pre-development condition, the post development analysis of the site was divided into 3 sub basins. These delineated drainage basins can be seen in the attached node map (see appendix). For the post developed condition, runoff coefficients for each of the 3 sub basins were determined to be 0.60, 0.56, and 0.51. Calculations for determining each sub basins runoff coefficient can be found in the appendix of this report. In the post-development condition, runoff in the eastern portion of the site (area 4) generally sheet flows towards Hymettus Ave. Two swales located on either side of the proposed residence of the northern lot will carry runoff through BMP area before discharging the runoff to Hymettus Ave. Runoff in the north western portion of the site (area 5) and in the south west portion(area 6)will travel through a series of BMP swales and sheet flow towards the western property line. Due to the increase in impervious surface in the post-construction condition, a net increase in runoff was generated from these sub areas. To mitigate for the increase in runoff, detention structures will be placed in the western portion of the site. The location of the infiltration basins can be seen on the grading plan and in the hydrology node map included in this report; detention calculations and sizing can be seen in the appendix of this report. Peak flows for the western basins were found to be 1.65 cfs for the north western basin and 1.39 for the south western basin. Post development analysis for the eastern basin yielded a peak flow of 1.01 cfs. The lower total flow at the eastern discharge point in the post development analysis warrants no detention structures for this portion of the property. N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 Methodology and Results Introduction The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this report utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, Q=CIA. The RM formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to: I = 7.44xP6 xD"0.645 Where: I = Intensity (in/hr) P6 =6-hour precipitation(inches) D =duration(minutes—use Tc) Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed. The RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow (typically in cubic feet per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons per minute (gpm)). The RM equation is as follows: Q = CIA - Where: Q= flow (in cfs) C =runoff coefficient,ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff(runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area, in inches per hour. A= drainage area contributing to the basin in acres. The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number. The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Qloo is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post-development runoff coefficients, used to analyze both conditions, were determined by using weighted "C" average. N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C=0.90 x (% impervious) + Cp x (1-%impervious) Where: Cp = pervious surface runoff coefficient (varies depending on soil type from 0.2 to 0.35—since analysis assumes type d soils Cp =0.35) For the proposed development the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic analysis of the project site varied based on the area of impervious surfaces. B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q100 to the appropriate points of discharge. N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 1 N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 1 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:13 02/28/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0. 95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0. 600 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0. 018/0.020 0. 67 2. 00 0.0312 0. 167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 157 .78 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 156.06 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.72 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4 .216 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6—MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5. 856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 16 Wa TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 16 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1. 10 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ---------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.06 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152. 94 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 250.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0125 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1. 68 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 2.49 Tc(MIN. ) = 8. 49 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.20 = 300.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4 .683 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.84 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.00 TC(MIN) = 8. 49 — END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TC(MIN. ) = 8.49 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 1.00 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 2 N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 --------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 2 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:20 02/28/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0. 95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.410 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6. 0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 157.78 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 156. 66 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.12 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.712 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.447 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.20 IS CODE = 52 -------------------------------------------------------------- ** WARNING: Computed Flowrate is less than 0. 1 cfs, Routing Algorithm is UNAVAILABLE. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.20 IS CODE = 81 ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) = 5.447 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.49 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.20 TC(MIN) = 6.71 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 TC(MIN. ) = 6.71 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.20 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 C. 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 3 N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 -------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 3 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:26 02/28/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0. 95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.390 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 157 . 92 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 156. 66 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.26 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6. 641 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. - 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.485 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.09 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.09 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.20 TO NODE 3.20 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.485 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 98 - TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.07 TC (MIN) = 6. 64 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TC(MIN. ) = 6. 64 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1. 07 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 4 N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 --------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 4 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:30 02/28/2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0. 95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.600 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0. 167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4 .00 TO NODE 4 .10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 156.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 155.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1. 60 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4 .319 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4 .10 TO NODE 4 .20 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 155.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152. 94 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 210.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0108 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 1.56 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 2.25 Tc(MIN. ) = 8.25 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4 .00 TO NODE 4 .20 = 260.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4 .20 TO NODE 4 .20 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4 .769 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 85 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.01 TC(MIN) = 8 .25 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.34 TC(MIN. ) = 8.25 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.01 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 5 N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 5 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:32 02/28/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.560 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0. 018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50. 00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 156.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 154.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.80 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.871 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5. 856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.14 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 5.20 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 154.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 134 .02 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 200.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0999 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.14 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 4.74 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.70 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.70 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.20 = 250.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.20 TO NODE 5.20 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.452 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.49 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.65 TC(MIN) = 6.70 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 TC(MIN. ) = 6.70 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.65 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS AREA 6 N:\Hydrology& Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. HWY 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: AREA 6 TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:34 02/28/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3. 00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED CONSTANT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.510 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30. 0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6. 10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 158 . 10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 155. 30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2. 80 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4 .229 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.13 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 155.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 134 .09 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 212. 00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1000 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION NOTE: CHANNEL SLOPE OF .1 WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.13 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 4.74 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.74 Tc (MIN. ) = 6.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.20 = 262.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.430 *USER SPECIFIED(GLOBAL) : SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.46 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.39 TC(MIN) = 6.74 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TC(MIN. ) = 6.74 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 1.39 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1058-1076 Hymettus Ave. PE 1537 E. APPENDIX N:\Hydrology & Hydraulics\1537 Paulsen\1537 HYDRO REPORT.doc PE# 1537 3:51 PM 2/29/2008 Weighted Cn Value Calculations Pre-Development Area 1 A= 14,970 sf z 0.344 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90 x 6,800 + 0.35 x 8,170 z 0.60 14,970 Area 2 A=23,436 sf z 0.538 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90 x 2,578 + 0.35 x 20,858 z 0.41 23,436 Area 3 A=21,792 sf z 0.500 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90 x 1,450 + 0.35 x 20,342 z 0.39 21,792 Post-Development Area 4 A= 14,970 sf z 0.344 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90 x 8,133 + 0.35 x 6,837 0.60 14,970 Area 5 A=23,436 sf z 0.538 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90 x 8,672 + 0.35 x 15,764 z 0.56 - 23,436 Area 6 A=21,792 sf z 0.500 Acres Cn, Weighted Runoff Coefficient, - 0.35, Cn value for natural ground from the San Diego Hydrology Design Manual - 0.90, Cn value for impervious surface Cn= 0.90 x 6,439 + 0.35 x 15,353 z 0.51 21,792 Detention Volume Area 1 & 4 Area 1, Pre-development Q = 1.07 cfs Area 4, Post-development Q= 1.01 cfs -Net decrease in runoff, no detention required Area 2 & 5 Area 2, Pre-development Q = 1.20 cfs Area 5, Post-development Q= 1.65 cfs -AV= 990 — 720 = 270 cf -Infiltration basin sizing, 8'xI5'x5' =600 cf -assuming 50%void spaces Area 3 & 6 Area 3, Pre-development Q= 1.00 cfs Area 6, Post-development Q= 1.39 cfs -AV= 834 — 600 = 234 cf -Infiltration basin sizing, 8'xI5'x5' = 600 cf -assuming 50%void spaces _ — — _ _ _ _ _ _ cli b Imperial County AV CV Ed cti _ cc.�. ��.ia��r�r��—I!°��!I��r/i/�Q�..NaNIM�Na• MINE a�aa�ar.�araaa�.r�rr�aaar��aaaar...a.uay.a-.a�..a.sr M.CC Cio.�L �'C�J'IJCdTi =•.rte C:Q a7�'a...oCta�r ��rw. �r�rr�rrrrr.r�r�//YU.��rurreurr�u�a.�� rr�r�r� r��a��NUt,�rur� �mrrnn=�r�rr•oaar OM ■.�� A;risAFAIW=rte m ■ Zn=�AVMM .r MAW UWAIKAAr Ems , ��i iii i��'ii�►" • • C■t,///.///A2■1FAWzr Wlll111l�1[■�■■ ■■■ ■■�/sL//ts/■>/.MM■WAMMI ■MU®tom■ r•aa.�a.i��r��rlr�rr��a��r'rCi�. l�aa�saoaaaaava..s��r - �ar.a�rla�aaa�ar�!- tt.�tt�tWttW1•tttl/ ANIHHMIAMFA gtr/i WON H/ttHt�tt�.tt tl.tltlV..�t�i�=tf� �• it�1♦'tttt�ttttttll�ttl/tr ttt�tt.tt.tt�I 00000 tO.N.ltltlO.tl�=ttta - AIN AW C�N��-�I�iCrs'7C/C►TiCiji�C7iCCCCCC��.n�.Ci..i..sa�=i— �C C rE!-'r�r�. Ea•Ca�rtr�a� (i►.�tttttttr.tttttt�tt�ttttttNa�ttatNC ttt��ttttttt��ii.�a..�.��t��r�� IM EWrM,.WAWU'F wr my MWAff rrr�AWuu ■ire= rnrr ..m ZFA K.5AAA MEW F1 // I■! j� WIN MIME nHim JIM M ■■.■�■■■■■■■..■ RAWAF j WAM��m EMS HE man 'WM WAR C 1 .11 E R O � C R t— oo 00 W 00 y •.0 rn CN O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O V.. fj `. U � d v U > CA 6°. O %c N to 00 V' t— O cs w w � N u M M '[Y � •4f W1 N Vr %R C*: C� 00 Oo Oo Oo tR.. O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O U v1 R U 00 U R Cn 0. •U h N 00 N tf 00 T C` r O 'a r M 3 .. N fn t7 00 w DD 00 R R C - Na. .o R O C` � 00 00 N h \p �O V O M M Cl! U U . Cr Oo 00 00 co O O O O O C O C O O C C O O rc 7 00 O 4n .D .0 � O •ieS O O v1 O O %n O k1 O O N O O W) U U O N N M et v- %n %D w 00 OC C� O, O. 4: ti 0 0 � ti t M t"n VJ N N h r. r. t.. r.. R U a�i p o o p o W R G7, v°, A A a A A A A A A o °e y n? 7 0`.1 CC C! A Q o v v s o N C O c O c p w v v a es cs is cs i7 _e� 0 v U ° .r_ c cz U U U U a U d d U b 0. g4 C4 C: C; C; C; C: ix, C; z V O V cn cys Cn C � .i rd cli B -A A A A _w N cz A A A A A ° ° c U U r E i� is ayci lu CE a�Ci = r 2 6 O CA 'lu 't) of a ie is ie y u '2 b C: C: C: �M U c..u ° o > Ot)r G C y U C C 0 U R ' y U R ed N R R C ,3 E v 0 R a C O O O u U d O O O 0 0 0 O .� C. A a .� a .-S � � � � x x U U U U U � U A z