The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-963 GR/IR/FMLine: A3W 7 PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING a LAND SURVEYING February 15, 2013 City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn Engineering: PLSA 1452 RE: MONUMENT BOND RELEASE FOR SUBDIVISION MAP 15827 (TM 06- 005) To Whom It Mat Concern, Please be advised that the monuments for the above referenced maps 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, Joseph Yuhas, PLS 5211 Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc. 535 N Coast Highway 103 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fx 858.756.4231 1 plsaengineering.com W0.1 o eo(s P ea cntr7 7 Todd Baumbach From: Todd Baumbach Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:10 AM To: Chuck Isbell (Chuck @warmingtongroup.com) Subject: Final Chuck, Now that the paving is done, I am hoping you will be aggressive in getting the project finaled once and for all. Here is a list of what I will be looking for: L1't Install survey monuments. Submit a monumentation letter from the Engineer stating all property corners and monuments have been set and that he has been paid. 13 3. Patch nicks and chips in the curbs, gutters, etc. and especially the holes in the sidewalk at the models. ' 163 Fix the ped ramp panel on Blue Jack road. 'b: Raise utilities to grade. I want the sewer manhole on Scarlet Way raised to grade, it is down about 1 %: in. All utility lids must be clean and free of asphalt. NIP�B! Install blue raised pavement markers at fire hydrants if they were removed by recent paving. Once sewer lids are raised to grade and clean, wainball sewer system one last time. 3 i3 Clean out brow ditch along Easterly subdivision boundary one last time. 121�i3 j)! Remove at least %: of all plants in the bio- retention systems. 3,L f? y9�Remove tack oil from cross gutters on each road and remove tack over spay on curb face in front of lot 18 on 3,((' Y Scarlet Way. ,(,t3 Install decorative concrete on each road. 2 Z Call if you have any questions or want to meet. Regards, Todd Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy Lo—r TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter 9 a FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. _ -- * ScF�IVAIIJC Name of Project .52&5-1,0 9(&HC 4W0S Name of Developer [�ll /J I have inspected the site at *SEC fi]3c crC address...number street name suffix R3/ S/L(ejackP4 913 ,Blu yacL ,-d and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. — Signature o Engineering Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate ./ Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. G -L Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled "Final Inspection" . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed- Thank you. Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No.// -- 999 Name of Project -5 4511e Mbig LeW,05- Name of Developer WOM 1,&167-DAI f Lo/r7 5 I have inspected the site at 927 &ae address._ number street name suffix 8 , and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.7 (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. Signature of Engineering Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriates Dale Reference: Engineering Permit No. 9&3 Gz Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled "Final Inspection" . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you. Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. � -- 9,14 Name of Project -5 AS/6C ¢ 1614 0ttJ135 Name of Developer W f}/L/hiA1 bw UMd HOMES I have inspected the site at 93y p we JACK P—D-, address... number street name suffix and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. 1A, S_14 -12 Signatuille of Engineering Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate! Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. 3GS Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verity field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled "Final Inspection" . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you. Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No Name of Projectr�E /lL� Nll1 Name of Developer Vil-A IIAJ67TGA �- 6M 2�5 mo Sca; l�-� LoT /4) // - Joel I have inspected the site atyDt� 10402_ address n —un ber street name I suffix I , and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. s — ZZ /Z— Signature of ngineering Inspector Date Signature or Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. V&3 C u Special Note. Please do not sign the "blue card` that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled "Final Inspection" . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork. if completed. Thank you. City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Tel 760-633 -2600 • Fax 760 -943 -2226 TDD 760-633 -2700. xv,vxi.encinitasxa.us Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy Fire Building Planning Engineering TO: Subdivision Engineering Lar2 - 935 8[crETr�[JC,Zd. - //- 393 Public Service Counter 939 /1-391 [.vr3 Lorq - - 9Na x 1r -39r FROM: Field Operations LOTS - 9 3to Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. SEE __A1601JE Name of Project S—EA S/n E �l / 16 F I tt ; d6 S Name of Developer )11Ak rffArG7Dd1 WyMtF5 *iftJcJoe- I have Inspected the slte at , address... number street name suffix and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. cw%fJ — /r - _Signature of gnbineering Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. (03 GZ Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card' that is issued by Building inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled 'Final Inspection . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork. if completed. Thank you. Cily of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan .lxenue Encinitas. CaWmia 92024 -3633 Tel 760 -633 -2600 • Fax 760 -943 -2226 TDD 760- 633 -2700 • vuvxi.encinihas.c .us Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter 12-29 IZ-30 FROM: Field Operations 11-31 Private Contract Inspection 12,-32- i Z -33 RE: Building Permit No. _ -- 4- Name of Project SEAG IDC AW4LMy05 Name of Developer kRNntNU —rpl.1 +-Lees Fire Building Planning Engineering loll Scar�Ci (rt�q� 1013 1 I0Iq " 10 t7 loZr ^ I have inspected the site at 5eE Pt-66\j �- address... number street name suffix and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no .) (bldg_ no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occup cy is merited. 70 - IZ Signature or ng /neenrig Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only it appropriate Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. _3C7.i Special Note: Please do not sign the 'blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled 'Final Inspection". Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you. City of Encinitas 505 South Vulran .avenue Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 Tel 760- 633 -2600 •fax 760- 943 -2226 TDD 760 - 633 -2700. www.mcncinitasxa.us Fire Building Planning Engineering Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter LoT 17 — /006 L oT ib /0i0 fit tr — /l- 976 FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. — -- / / Name of Project S6 A-St 4E 914YZ A7V/�� Name of Developer-6/4 /Llhi ,(�/J J��o✓V►E� I have inspected the site at _)e address _number street name suffix and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. &�_ 9 -1-/-mil Signature of Engineering Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate te2 Date Reference: Engineering Permit No. L GJ, Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled 'Final Inspection' . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you. PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING + LAND SURVEYING September 20, 2011 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR LOTS 16, 17, & 18 GRADING PERMIT NO, 963 -G. LOCATED AT 1002, 1006, & 1010 SCARLET WAY The grading for lots 16, 17, & 18 of Grading Plan permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the required m ' ce covenant(s). Q�pFS:SSr��, Q Z�'1 Engineer of Record Brian Ardolino RCE 71651AEt 4p�c ^y�te I No. 71651 iz Exp./Z- 9 1 -I I Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is dorf Spector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibil' Engineering Inspector Date Zl 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Reach, California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fx 858.756.4231 1 pisaeogineeringxom PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING November 28, 2011 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR LOTS 2, 3, 4, & 5 GRADING PERMIT NO. 963-G. LOCATED AT 935, 939, 940, & 936 BLUEJACK RD The grading for lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 of Grading Plan permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of l% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11 were constructed and are operational, together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Engineer of Brian Ardolino RICE 71651 i� ms -ul2 7�tti 1 T1 � No. 7165; ° `= Ze / Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done byy ei ctor's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibil' Engineering Inspector. �t� Date 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaeogineering.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -30 at 1013 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, Engineer of Record L W Dated :r with the required maintenance covenant(s). RICE 68964 3 C 68964 �I * EXP Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated I O I q III ❑ Final Certification 19 Partial Certification for 1013 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaenginetring.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING r LAND PLANNING +LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -29 at 1011 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, ktothorwith the required maintenance covenant(s). �oQaotESSio, Engineer of Record A h�� IUSTIti S�Fy / W. Justin iter, RICE 68964 c; Zfr Z� 3 C 6896 Dated Ex� �•S1•t3 t At Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated 10 ❑ Final Certification ® Partial Certification for 1011 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaeogineering.com F.NCTTNFFR Job #10 -283 -F 2450 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 -1229 June I, 2011 Phone(760)743 -1214 Fax (760) 739 -0343 Warmington Residential California, Inc. Mr. James W. Skinner Vice President/Director of Engineering 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 AS- GRADED COMPACTION REPORT FOR THE REMEDIAL GRADING CONDUCTED ON LOTS #17 AND #18, PROPOSED 18-LOT SUBDIVISION, SEASIDE HIGHLANDS, BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, CITY OF ENCINITAS DRAWING #963 -G As of this date, the remedial grading required by our previously issued "As- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations" report, dated April 25, 2011 have been completed. The "holding ponds" on these lots have been scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture levels, placed in thin uniform lifts and re- compacted using heavy construction equipment. The results of our field density tests and laboratory testing indicate that the re- compacted fill was compacted to at least 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density at the tested locations. Foundation construction may now proceed as recommended in our April 25, 2011 As- Graded Report, and the project plans. If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact this office at your convenience. Reference to our Job #10 -283 -F will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 5. Mehdi S. 5 yO ^r3 Steven J. Melzer ` AL #2885 a�' rs i -; CEG #2362 w No 55�� 1AY S to SMSS /SJM/mprExp. 72/37!}2 `iGt >\ No.2362 / a- to CERTIFIED HN'ir`�..t�ir Distribution: Addr ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Mr. Chuc EXP4L&-,L_ 9J, Mr. Brian Ardolino (Pasco, Laret, Suiter & Associates(]) FOF r it t XE mpr\myfiles\gmdingdeparD mtprojecls \10- 283 -f -w ingtonresidentialcalifomia 18- lotsuhencinitaAss- graded compaction report remedial grading lots 417 & #18 PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING a LAND PLANNING ♦ LAND SURVEYING May 14, 2012 t�pl L PLSA 1452 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963-G AT 931 BLUEJACK ROAD The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of l% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are opera ional, together with the required mainte venant(s). 05,,; fES ^I Engineer of Record r Brian Ardolino RICE 71651 "'1;.51 � Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibili {_ Engineering Inspector a—, Date ✓ %5 ��— ❑ Final Certification �4,Kartial Certification for: 931 Bluejack Road. LOT- J- 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Reach, California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fa 858.756.4231 1 plaaengincering.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PIANNING . LAND SURVEYING May 14, 2012 PLSA 1452 S City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963-G AT 932 BLUEJACK ROAD The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are opelational, together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Engineer of Brian Ardolino RCE 71651 U T OF �. Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the a Igne nd stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibiliRy j , Engineering Inspector Date 5 / /L D Final Certification /Partial Certification for: 932 Bluejack Road. L.oT (p 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Reach, California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fc 858.756.4231 1 plsae ngineering.com Wei PASCO LARET SUITER Illinois & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING LAND SHRVi YINf: May 14, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963 -G AT 927 BLUEJACK ROAD The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of l% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, togetheLwith the required maintenance covenant(s). Engineer of r Brian Ardolino RICE 71651 Qx��ls; rj.j •l2 f NO. 71Cibl G1 1 \\Exp 1�31 • 13 l rM Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility Engineering Inspector RI L� Date ❑ Final Certification ",�artial Certification for: 927 Bluejack Road. LoT 8 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fa 658.756.4231 1 plsaengineering.cotn PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING May 14, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 n L� to \: PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. %3-G AT 923 BLUEJACK ROAD The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Engineer of Brian Ardolino RCE 71651 to B�J`�`S %iJli� �.- ...�_� �Q1 .. z> \. "F Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibill Engineering Inspector Date t' � ❑ Final Certification /artial Certification for: 923 Bluejack Road. L,0r 9 535 N Coast Highway 101 Sic A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fx 858.756.4231 1 plsaengineering.com off PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVF /IN„ May 14, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 MM' 2 2 2011 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963 -G AT 1003 SCARLET WAY The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of l% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are Engineer of Record with the RICE 71651 c `g f f ;. a covenant(s). iS iZ Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibili L — Engineering Inspector �l/— Date ❑ Final Certification ?Partial Certification for: 1003 Scarlet Way. LOT /'-f 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 is 858.756.4231 1 plsaengineering.com am., PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING , LAND SURVEYING May 14, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 MAY 22 2012 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963-G AT 1007 SCARLET WAY The grading under permit number 963-6 has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11 were constructed and are operat, oval, together with the requireed jam t_ _seq&ce covenant(s). Engineer of Brian RCE 71651 �/ti ++I y iLU No. 71651 j Efo.a. I L13 / Wk 3 16-10 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibil' ) �J Engineering Inspector / A Date 5 f Z� �I Z ❑ Final Certification /rtial Certification for: 1007 Scarlet Way. LoT l5 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. California 92075 1 ph 858.756.9374 1 fx 858.756.4231 1 plsaengineering.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING + LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -31 at 1014 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, ogether with the required maintenance cove t(s). �t6FESS�p F,y Engineer of Record c h W. Justin uiter, RICE 68964 �' r m Dated �I +Z ` ��58' * Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate EQWnsibi Engineering n�Inspectoc 1 O Dated I 1 i I ft� ❑ Final Certification ® Partial Certification for 1014 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fz 858.259.4812 1 plaaengineering . com am., PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -32 at 1017 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached 'As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, yogether with the required maintenance coXoaant(s). Engineer of Record � W. Justin Dated ' 12 , RCE 68964 C 63964 ';b EXP 13 IZ•31. Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate r�nsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated 1 i q I lZ ❑ Final Certification ❑x Partial Certification for 1017 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 pisaengineering.cont PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -33 at 1021 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial confonnance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operationa together with the required maintenance covenant(s). V%OFESS/pA juSTIiyS, rr� Engineer of Record �f l W. Justin uiter, RICE 68964 3 C 68964' Dated `& // (Z- ,r Exa12-'3ili Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering InsJpector: i Dated �b lQ+ tz" ❑ Final Certification ® Partial Certification for 1021 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaengineering.com W1, F.N(;T NIP FR 2450 Auto Park Way Job #10 -283 -F Escondido. California 92029 -1229 Phone (760) 743 -1214 Fax (760) 739 -0343 April 25, 2011 Warmington Residential California, Inc. Mr. James W. Skinner Vice President/Director of Engineering 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 AS- GRADED COMPACTION REPORT AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSED 18 -LOT SUBDIVISION, SEASIDE HIGHLANDS, BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, CITY OF ENCINITAS DRAWING #963 -G In accordance with the Grading Ordinance for the City ofEncinitas, this as- graded compaction report has been prepared for the above referenced project. We have completed engineering observation and testing services in conjunction with the grading and retaining wall backfill operations. This report summarizes the results of our tests and observations of the compacted fills. The compacted fills for the building pads and retaining wall backfills were placed periodically from January 19, 2011 through April 18, 2011. Actual dates are shown on the enclosed compaction test result sheets. I. REFERENCES The following listed grading plan and documents were used by this office as part of this project: A. "Geotechnical Update and Grading Plan Review Report", prepared by this office, dated December 1, 2010, which includes as Appendix A the "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report", prepared by this office, dated April 21, 2006, Job #06- 181 -P. B. "Western Property Line Segmental Keystone Walls ", letter prepared by this office, dated January 11, 2011, Job #10 -283 -F C. "Geotechnical Post - Tensioned Foundation Recommendations ", letter prepared by this office, dated February 9, 2011, Job #10- 283 -F. H. GRADING INFORMATION /GROUND PREPARATION Prior to grading operations, the site within the limits of the grading operations for the construction of a building pad was cleared of vegetation and hazardous material. All questionable loose and compressible soils were also removed to underlying bedrock prior to fill placement. AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 2 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 The entire site was removed to underlying bedrock providing a minimum of 3 -foot compacted fill, decreasing the potential for concrete cracking of the foundations along the daylight (cut/fill) line. Lots #17 and #18 were used as holding ponds over the winter months after completion of the pad grading operations. Prior to construction, site inspection and testing should be conducted to determine the depth of removal and re- compact that may be required. Lot #4 has an existing oak tree where no grading was allowed, see attached grading plan for limits. If proposed foundations extend into the un- graded area, further engineering and recommendations will be required. Site segmented retaining walls with Geo -Grid textile reinforcement, and backfill were inspected during construction and found to be in conformance with the project plans regarding the wall foundation, drain installation, placement and length of the geogrid. Site preparation and grading were conducted in substantial conformance with Appendix Chapter 33, latest edition of the California Building Code, and the Grading Ordinance for the City of Encinitas. The soils engineering and geologic aspects of the grading are in compliance with the above listed approved geotechnical report and the provided grading plans (Drawing #963 -G). All inspections and testing were conducted under the observation of this office. In our opin ion, all embankments and excavations were constructed in substantial conformance with the provided grading plan, and are acceptable for their intended use. III. FILL PLACEMENT Fill was placed in 6 to 8 -inch lifts and compacted by means of heavy construction equipment. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Method D -1556 sand cone method and ASTM D -2922 nuclear densometer as the fill was placed. The moisture content for each density sample was also determined. The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on the attached drawing. The locations of the tests were placed to provide the best possible coverage. Areas of low compaction, as indicated by the field density tests, were brought to the attention of the contractor. These areas were reworked by the contractor and retested. The test locations and final test results are summarized on the compaction test result table. Elevations and locations of field density tests were determined by hand level and pacing/tape measure relative to field staking done by others. The results of our field density tests and laboratory testing indicate that the fills at the site were compacted to at least 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density at the tested locations. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 3 City of Encinitas Drawing 0963 -G April 25, 2011 If the building pads should undergo any seasonal wetting and drying periods prior to construction, remedial grading could be required depending on the site soil characteristics. Depths of removal and re- compact can best be determined just prior to construction by appropriate inspection and testing. IV. APPROPRIATE LABORATORY TESTS A. Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents ofthe different soil types used as compacted fill were determined in accordance with ASTM Method D -1557 during the preliminary investigative phase ofthe project, and during the current grading operations. B. Expansion Tests: Expansion tests were conducted per ASTM D -4829 on representative samples of the on site soils during the preliminary investigative phase of the project in order to determine the expansion potential and to provide appropriate foundation recommendations. As no new soils were encountered during the grading operations, no additional testing was conducted. C. Direct Shear Tests: A direct shear tests was conducted on a representative sample of the predominate on site soil used as fill soils during the preliminary investigative phase of the project in order to determine the allowable bearing capacity and to provide retaining wall design parameters. As no new soils were encountered during the grading operations, no additional testing was conducted. D. Corrosion Testing: pH- Resistivity, sulfate, and chloride testing were determined in accordance with California Test Method 643, 417, and 422 respectively on a representative sample of the foundation soils during the preliminary investigative phase of the project in order to determine the corrosiveness of the soil. As no new soils were encountered during the grading operations, no additional testing was conducted. V. RECOMMENDATIONS THIS REPORT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE PROJECT FOUNDATION PLANS AND MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE PROJECT ARCHITECT /STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO ENSURE THE FOLLOWING FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THOSE PLANS The lab test results indicate that the/The following minimum foundation recommendations for very low expansive (Expansion Index less than 21) bearing soils, classified using the "Unified Soil Classification System" or "USCS" as SM/SP, with maximum indicated fill differential depth of 9-feet should be adhered to, and incorporated into the foundation plans. Foundation plans and details may be submitted to our office for review, to insure conformance with our recommendations. Please note the following recommendations for post - tensioned VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 4 City of Encinitas Drawing 0963 -G April 25, 2011 foundations supercede the previous recommendations put in ourreferenced "Update and Grading Plan Review" report. A. Geotechnical Post- Tensioned Foundations Post - tensioned slab -on- ground foundation designs should be completed by the project design -build contractor and/or structural engineer based on the parameters provided in the following sections, unless otherwise approved. All designs shall conform to the latest addition of California Building Code (CBC), specifications of the Post - Tensioning Institute (PTI), local standards, and the specifications given in this report. 2. Foundation bearing soils should be inspected and tested as necessary prior to trenching and actual construction by the project geotechnical consultant. The specified foundation bearing soils minimum (90% unless otherwise specified) compaction levels and as- graded moisture contents should be confirmed prior to the foundation pour. 3. A well- performing vapor barrier /moisture retardant (minimum 15 -mil plastic) should be placed over the sandy fetish subgrade soils. The vapor barrier /moisture retardant should then be overlaid by 2- inches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater). 4. At the completion of foundation bearing and subgrade soils preparations as specified herein and approved in the field by the project soil engineer, the post- tensioned slab -on- ground foundations should be constructed as detailed on the project structural/construction drawings. 5. Based on our experience on similar projects, available laboratory testing and analysis of the test results, the following soil design parameters are considered appropriate. For post - tensioned slab -on- ground foundations supported on very low expansive foundation soils, slab spanability design method may also be considered. * Maximum slab spanability ......... ............................... 30 inches. * Design predominant clay mineral type .......................... Montmorillonite. * Design percent of clay in soil ......... ............................... 60 %. * Design effective plasticity index ......... ............................... 45. * Design depth to constant soil suction ... ............................... 7 feet. * Design constant soil suction .......... ............................... Pf 3.6. * Design velocity of moisture flow ............................. 0.70 inch/month. • Design edge moisture variation distance for edge lift (em) ................. 3.0 feet. • Design edge moisture variation distance for center lift (em) ................ 6.0 feet. • Design differential swell occurring at the perimeter of slab for edge lift condition (Ym) .. ............................... 1.095 inches. • Design differential swell occurring at the perimeter of slab ViNIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Au[o Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 5 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 for center lift condition (Ym) . ............................... 5.677 inches. ' Design soil subgrade modulus (k) .... ............................... 100 pci. Design net allowable bearing pressure for Post - tensioned foundations ..... ............................... 1000 psf. Notes: - The allowable foundation pressures provided herein applies to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one -third for wind and seismic loading. Provide a minimum of 15 -inch wide by 18 -inch deep perimeter edge beam. Perimeter edge beam should enclose the entire building circumference and reinforced with at least 1 - 45 continuous bar near the bottom. Provide adequately spaced interior stiffening ribs as necessary, or uniform slab thickness foundation which satisfies ribbed design may be considered. - Project earth materials are potentially corrosive (see project soil reports). A qualified corrosion engineer may be consulted for proper design considerations ofpost - tension slab foundations. Portland cement Type II (minimum 17 c = 4000 psi, maximum water cement ratio = 0.50) is recommended for consideration. Actual concrete strength and mix design per project design/build consultant. - Post - tension slabs should be a minimum of 6- inches thick, unless otherwise specified or approved. A minimum 5 -inch thick post- tensioned slab foundation is also considered acceptable from a geotechnical point of view provided appropriate corrosion mitigation and protection measures are incorporated into the designs and implemented during the construction phase. - We recommend that pre - tensioning be considered in order to preclude early concrete shrinkage cracking. 6. Open or backfilled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a plane having a downward slope of 1 unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50 %) from a line 9- inches above the bottom edge of the footing, and not closer than 18- inches from the face of such footing. 7. Where pipes cross under footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1 -inch all around the pipe. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 6 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 8. The project architect should review the moisture requirements of the proposed flooring system and incorporate an appropriate level of moisture protection as part of the floor covering design. C. Seismic Ground Motion Values For design purposes, site specific seismic ground motion values were determined in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC). The following parameters are consistent with the indicated project seismic environment and our experience with similar earth deposits in the vicinity of the project site, and may be utilized for project design work. Site Class Ss SI Fa >t SMs SMI SDs SDI D 1.302 0.488 1 1.0 1 1.512 1 1.302 0.737 0.868 0.491 According to Chapter 16. Section 1613 of the 2007 California Buildin Code. Explanation: • Ss: Mapped MCE, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods. • S 1: Mapped MCE, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of 1- second. • Fa: Site coefficient for mapped spectral response acceleration at short periods. • Fv: Site coefficient for mapped spectral response acceleration at l- second period. • SMs: The MCE, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration at short periods adjusted for site class effects (SMS = FaSs). • SMI: The MCE, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration at a period of 1- second adjusted for site class effects (SMI = FvSI). • SDs: Design, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods (SDs = %SMs). • SDI: Design, 5% damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of I - second (SDI = 'lsSMl). Site peak ground accelerations (PGA) based on 2 percent probability ofexceedance in 50- years defined as Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with a statistical return period of 2,475 -years is also evaluated herein in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) Section 1613 and ASCE Standard 7 -05. Based on our analysis, the site PGAmce was estimated to be 0.558 using the web -based Unites States Geological Survey (USGS) ground motion calculator. The design PGA determined as two - thirds oftbe Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) was estimated to be 0.37g. Liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not be factors in the development of the proposed structures and improvements. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 7 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 D. Site Corrosion Assessment, and Sulfate Exposure Site Corrosion: A site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements, walls and drainage structures if one or more of the following conditions exists: • pH is less than 5.5. • Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). • Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm (0.05% by weight). 2. For structural elements, the minimum resistivity of soil (or water) indicates the relative quantity of soluble salts present in the soil (or water). In general, a minimum resistivity value for soil (or water) less than 1000 ohm -cm indicates the presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Laboratory test results indicate that the minimum resistivity is greater than 1000 ohm -cm suggesting the presence of low quantities of soluble salts. Test Results 4. As indicated above, test results show that the chloride concentration is greater than 500 ppm (0.05% by weight), the pH is greater than 5.5, and sulfate concentration is less than 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). Based on the results of the available corrosion analyses, the project site is considered corrosive. Corrosion mitigation should be implemented and incorporated into the design of new structures and associated concrete improvements. A corrosion engineer may be consulted in this regard. It is recommended, that Portland cement Type II (minimum f c = 4,000 psi, maximum water cement ratio = 0.50) as determined and specified by the project corrosion /structural engineer, may be considered for all structures and concrete improvements. 6. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts (chloride or sulfate), pH levels and the desired service life of the structure. V INIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Minimum Sulfate Chloride Resisdiin I I Location Ohm -Cm _pH Wei t Wei ht Comments Near Finish Grade 1,400 1 6.6 1 0.008 0.084 Corrosive 4. As indicated above, test results show that the chloride concentration is greater than 500 ppm (0.05% by weight), the pH is greater than 5.5, and sulfate concentration is less than 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). Based on the results of the available corrosion analyses, the project site is considered corrosive. Corrosion mitigation should be implemented and incorporated into the design of new structures and associated concrete improvements. A corrosion engineer may be consulted in this regard. It is recommended, that Portland cement Type II (minimum f c = 4,000 psi, maximum water cement ratio = 0.50) as determined and specified by the project corrosion /structural engineer, may be considered for all structures and concrete improvements. 6. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts (chloride or sulfate), pH levels and the desired service life of the structure. V INIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 8 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 Sulfate Exposure: Based upon the result of the sulfate test, the amount of water soluble sulfate (SO4) was found to be 0.008 percent by weight which is considered negligible (0.00 -0.10) according to ACI 318, Table 4.3. 1. However due to the high concentration of chloride, use Portland cement Type II (minimum f = 4,000 psi, maximum water cement ratio = 0.50). The project site is not located within 1000 -feet of salt or brackish water. E. Concrete and Paving Improvements Not Within The Public or Private Street Right of Way Concrete Improvements: Exterior flatwork (walkways, and patios) must be a minimum of 4- inches in thickness reinforced with 6x6 / l OxIO welded wire mesh carefully placed 2- inches below the top of the slab. Provide "tool joint' or "soft cut' contraction/control joints spaced 10 -teet on center (not to exceed 12 -feet maximum) each way within 24 -hours of concrete pour. Slab reinforcements should extend through the construction (cold) joints. In construction practices where the reinforcement is cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied with minimum 18 -inch long #3 dowels (dowel baskets) at 18- inches on center maximum, placed mid - height in the slab (9- inches on either side of the joint). The slabs should also be tied to the adjacent curbs where they occur, with #3 dowels at 18- inches on center. The concrete should be placed over 6- inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D -1557. The construction procedures for tool joint or soft cut contraction/control joints are described in Item #A -8 above. 2. Concrete driveways and parking areas may consist of 4.5 -inch thick concrete provided construction tolerances less than 4.5- inches nominal thickness are not allowed. Very good quality workmanship and construction quality assurance regarding setting the slab thickness and steel reinforcement will be required. The slabs should be reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars spaced 18- inches on center each way placed 2- inches below the top of the slab. The concrete should be placed over 6- inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D -1557. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -I229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 9 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 Provide "soft -cut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 -feet on center maximum each way for all interior slabs. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish, which is normally within 2 -hours after final finish at each control joint location, or when the compressive strength reaches 150 to 800 psi. The "soft -cut" must be a minimum of 1 -inch in depth and must not exceed I V4 -inch in depth or the reinforcing may be damaged. Anti -ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipment across cuts for at least 24- hours. In construction practices where the reinforcement is cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied with minimum 18 -inch long #3 dowels (dowel baskets) at 18- inches on center maximum, placed mid - height in the slab (9- inches on either side of the joint). The slabs should also be tied to the adjacent curbs where they occur, with #3 dowels at 18- inches on center. Joints shall intersect free -edges at 90° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of P/2-feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 80 °. Align joints of adjacent panels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods (curing compound maximum coverage rate = 200 sq. ft. /gal.). Paving Improvements: 1. Asphalt concrete (AC) driveways and parking areas should consist of 4- inches AC over 4- inches Cahrans Class 2 aggregate base compacted to a minimum of 95% over 6- inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D -1557. 2. Sub and basegrade soils should not be allowed to dry out or become saturated prior to placement of concrete or asphalt. Subgrade and basegrade soils shall be tested for proper moisture and compaction levels just prior to placement of the improvements. 3. Proper drainage must be maintained at all times so that no water from any source is allowed to infiltrate the sub or basegrade soils, or deterioration of the improvements may occur. F. GeotechnicalObservation /Documentation This office is to be notified no later than 2 p.m. on the day before any of the following operations begin to schedule appropriate testing and /or observation /documentation: VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Au[o Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 10 City of Encinitas Drawing 0963 -G April 25, 2011 1. Foundations and Utility Trenches Beneath Building Slabs: If required by the governing agency, this office should be notified to document or test the following prior to foundation concrete pours: a) Observe the plumbing trenches beneath slabs after the pipes are laid and prior to backfilling. b) Test the plumbing trenches beneath slabs for minimum compaction requirements prior to sand and moisture barrier placement. c) Observe the bottom of the footing trenches for proper embedment into firm compacted or formational soils, and Observe for proper footing width prior to placement of reinforcing steel. d) Document the footing reinforcement size and placement. Document the slabs for proper thickness, reinforcing placement and size, document the sand thickness and moisture barrier placement and thickness, after the initial footing embedment and width documentation, and prior to concrete pour. 2. Grading - Improvements - Utility Trenches, Etc. a) Fill placed under any conditions 12- inches or more in depth, to include: • Building pads. • Street improvements, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. • Utility trench backfills. • Retaining wall backfills. • The spreading or placement of soil obtained from any excavation (spoils from footings, underground utilities, swimming pools, etc.). b) Observation and testing of subgrade and basegrade beneath driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc., prior to placement of pavement or concrete. c) Moisture testing. d) Any operation not included herein which requires our testing, observation, or documentation for submittal to the appropriate agencies. G. Setbacks i. Footings located on or adjacent to the top of slopes should be extended to a sufficient depth to provide a minimum horizontal distance of 7 -feet or one -third of the slope height, VINiE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -12I4 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 11 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 whichever is greater (need not exceed 40 -feet maximum) between the bottom edge o f the footing and face of slope. Reinforcement for deepened footings should be provided by the project structural engineer and detailed on the approved foundation plans. 2. This requirement applies to all improvements and structures including fences, posts, pools, spas, etc. Concrete and AC Improvements should be provided with a thickened edge to satisfy this requirement. H. Slopes All slopes should be landscaped soon after completion of the slope construction and should consist of light weight broad leafed species with deep roots that are capable of surviving with little or no added irrigation. The use of synthetic turf reinforcement mat such as Landlok TRM or similar product which will retain and nourish the plant seed, and aid in its establishment on the slope face, may also be considered. Excess watering of slopes should be avoided. Slopes left unplanted will be subject to erosion and should not be permitted. The irrigation system should be installed in accordance with the appropriate governing agency. 2. Water should not be allowed to flow over the slopes in an uncontrolled manner. Until landscaping is fully established, plastic sheeting should be kept accessible to protect the slopes from periods of prolonged and/or heavy rainfall. In no case should water be allowed to pond on the flat surface of the building pad(s) or flow over the slopes. Berms should be constructed along the top edges of all fill slopes sufficient to guide runoff away from the flat surface of the building pad(s) in accordance with the appropriate governing agency, prior to the project being completed, and or signed off. 4. Brow ditches should be constructed along the top of all cut slopes sufficient to guide runoff away from the building site and adjacent fill slopes in accordance with the appropriate governing agency, prior to the project being completed, and or signed off. I. Drainaee The owner /developer is responsible to ensure adequate measures are taken to properly finish grade the building pad after the structures and other improvements are in place so that the drainage waters from the improved site and adjacent properties are directed away from proposed structures in accordance with the designed drainage patterns shown on the approved plans. 2. A minimum of 2% gradient should be maintained away from all foundations. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the building, all discharge from VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 12 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 downspouts should be led away from the foundations and slab to a suitable location. Installation of area drains in the yards should also be considered. 3. Planter areas adjacent to foundations should be provided with damp /water proofing, using an impermeable liner against the footings, and a subdrainage system within the planter area. 4. It should be noted that shallow groundwater conditions may still develop in areas where no such conditions existed prior to site development. This can be contributed to by substantial increases of surface water infiltration resulting from landscape irrigation which was not present before the development of the site. It is almost impossible to absolutely prevent the possibility of shallow groundwater on the entire site. Therefore, we recommend that shallow groundwater conditions be remedied if and when they develop. 5. The property owner should be made aware that altering drainage patterns, landscaping, the addition of patios, planters, and other improvements, as well as over irrigation and variations in seasonal rainfall, all affect subsurface moisture conditions, which in turn affect structural performance. VI. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. The minimum steel reinforcement provided herein is based on soil characteristics only, and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. B. The concrete reinforcement recommendations provided herein should not be considered to preclude the development of shrinkage related cracks, etc.; rather, these recommendations are intended to minimize this potential. If shrinkage cracks do develop, as is expected from concrete, reinforcements tend to limit the propagation of these features. These recommendations are believed to be reasonable and in keeping with the local standards of construction practice. Special attention should be given to any "re- entrant' comers ( ±270 degree comers) and curing practices during and after concrete pour in order to further minimize shrinkage cracks. C. It should be noted that the characteristics of as- compacted fill may change due to post - construction changes from cycles of drying and wetting, water infiltration, applied loads, environmental changes, etc. These changes can cause detrimental changes in the fill characteristics such as in strength behavior, compressibility behavior, volume change behavior, permeability, etc. D. The property owner(s) should be aware of the development of cracks in all concrete surfaces such as floor slabs and exterior stucco associated with normal concrete shrinkage during the VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 13 City of Encinitas Drawing 0963 -G April 25, 2011 curing process. The features depend chiefly upon the condition of concrete and weather conditions at the tome of construction and do not reflect detrimental ground movement. Hairline stucco cracks will often develop at windows/door corners, and floor surface cracks up to t/e -inch wide in 20 lineal feet may develop as a result of normal concrete shrinkage (according to the American Concrete Institute). E The amount of shrinkage related cracks that occur in concrete slab -on- grades, flatwork and driveways depend on many factors, the most important of which is the amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpose of the slab reinforcement is to keep normal concrete shrinkage cracks closed tightly. The amount of concrete shrinkage can be minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum, the following should be considered: 1. Use the stiffest mix that can be handled and consolidated satisfactorily. 2. Use the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practical, for example concrete made with 3/e -inch maximum size aggregate usually requires about 40- pounds (nearly 5 gallons) more water per cubic yard than concrete with 1 -inch aggregate. 3. Cure the concrete as long as practical. F. The amount of slab reinforcement provided for conventional slab -on -grade construction considers that good quality concrete materials, proportioning, craftsmanship, and control tests where appropriate and applicable are provided. G. Where present, clayey deposits are subjected to continued swelling and shrinkage upon wetting and drying. Maintaining a uniform moisture during the post construction periods is essential in the future performance of the site structures and improvements. H. All retaining walls should be provided with a drain along the backside recommended by the gravity /segmental wall manufacturer. The planting of large trees behind any retaining wall will adversely affect their performance and should be avoided. 1. All underground utility trenches beneath interior and exterior slabs 12- inches or more in depth shall be compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density of the soil, unless otherwise specified. Flooding or jetting of the backfill is not allowed. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the compaction of the trench backfill. Trench backfill materials and compaction shall also conform to the requirements of governing agencies and authorities, as applicable. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido. California 920294229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 14 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 J. Recommendations for a swimming pool/spa and associated decking are not within the scope of this report. If a swimming pool/spa and associated structures are to be constructed, this office should be contacted in order to provide site specific recommendations prior to beginning any excavations. VII. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. will be the geotechnical engineer of record (GER) for providing a specific scope of work or professional service under a contractual agreement, unless it is terminated or canceled by either the client or our firm. In the event a new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm is hired to provide added or supplemental engineering services, professional consultations, monitoring services and slope inclinometer readings, construction inspections or engineering observations and compaction testing, Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. will no longer be the geotechnical engineer of record. Project transfer should be completed in accordance with the California Geotechnical Engineering Association (CGEA) Recommended Practice for Transfer of Jobs Between Consultants. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should review all previous geotechnical documents, conduct an independent study, and provide appropriate confirmations, revisions or design modifications to his own satisfaction. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should also notify in writing Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. and submit proper notification for the assumption of responsibility in accordance with the applicable codes and standards (1997 UBC Section 3317.8). VIII. LIMITATIONS Our description of grading operations, as well as observations and testing services herein, have been limited to those grading operations performed periodically from January 19, 2011 through April 18, 2011. The conclusions contained herein have been based upon our observations and testing as noted. No representations are made as to the quality or extent of materials not observed and tested. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or his representative is responsible to ensure that the information and recommendations are provided to the project architect/structural engineer so that they can be incorporated into the plans. Necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the project general contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The project soil engineer should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the projects final design plans and specifications in order to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report are properly interpreted and implemented. The project soils engineer should also be provided the opportunity to field verify the foundations prior to placing concrete. If the project soil engineer is VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 AS- Graded Compaction Report and Foundation Recommendations Page 15 City of Encinitas Drawing #963 -G April 25, 2011 not provided the opportunity of making these reviews, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations. The attached drawing details the approximate locations of cuts, fills, and approximate locations of the density tests taken, and is applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. This report should be considered valid for permit purposes for a period of six months and is subject to review by our firm following that time. IF ANY CHANGES ARE MADE, PAD SIZE, BUILDING LOCATION, ELEVATIONS, ETC., THIS REPORT WILL BECOME INVALID AND FURTHER ENGINEERING AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BECOME NECESSARY. If you have any questions or need clarification, please contact this office at your convenience. Reference to our Job #10 -283 -F will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 0 Sidi S. Shariat / lsy F.':. even J. Melzerv,��J�N �{i T1° x1112 O Na.2362 GE #2885 d � ExP. ,.. G #2362 ¢ ,� )'^ � y CERTIFIED * Chi `� * ENGINEERING SMSS /SJM/mpr sTp U, GEOLOGIST Distribution: Addressee (2) Mr. Chuck Isbell Site Superintendent (Chuck -1, City of Encinitas -2) Mr. Brian Ardolino (Pasco, Laret, Suiter & Associates(1) mplmy files\grading depermient project¢ \10.283 -f- wannington residential califomia 18 -lot sub encinitas\as- graded compaction report & foundation rec 's VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auro Park Way • Escondido. California 92029 -I229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G TEST RESULTS: Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content, ASTM 1557: Soil Type 1: Brown Silty to Clayey Sand (Fill/Topsoil) ** Maximum Dry Density: 130.6 pcf Optimum Moisture: 9.8% Soil Type 2: Brown Fine to Medium Sand (FUYFopsoil/Terrace Deposit) ** Maximum Dry Density: 127.6 pcf Optimum Moisture: 11.3% Soil Type 3: Tan Silty Sandstone (Confirm Soil Type #2 Above) Maximum Dry Density: 128.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 11.0% Soil Type 4: Brown Silty Sand Mixed With Yellow Tan Silty Sand (On Site Mixture) Maximum Dry Density: 132.5 pcf Optimum Moisture: 9.7% * *From our "Geotechnical Update and Grading Plan Review Report", prepared by this office, dated December 1, 2010, Job #10 -283 -F mpr\my files\grading depar n l projecu \I0- 283 -f- warmington residential mlifomia 18 -lot sub encinims as- graded compaction report proctor list JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed I8 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing 4963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pef Max Dry Density Pct % Relatbe Comp. Comments 01/19 1 Lot #4 354.0 8.1 124.2 130.6 95.1 Bedrock at E1. 352.7 01/19 2 Lot #5 354.0 7.7 123.0 130.6 94.2 Bedrock at El. 352.7 01/19 3 Lot #6 355.0 8.4 120.5 130.6 92.2 Bedrock at EL 354.0 01/19 4 Lot #6 357.0 9.7 117.7 130.6 90.1 01/19 5 Lot 95 356.0 8.3 125.7 130.6 96.2 01 /19 6 Lot #4 356.0 8.0 124.2 130.6 95.1 01/20 7 Lot 44 358.0 7.8 124.2 130.6 95.1 01/20 8 Lot #5 358.0 8.9 121.3 130.6 92.9 01/20 9 Lot # 5 360.0 8.0 124.6 130.6 95.4 01/20 10 Lot 9 6 359.0 7.9 123.6 130.6 94.6 01/20 11 Lot # 6 361.0 9.4 120.0 130.6 91.9 01/20 12 Lot # 5 361.0 9.0 120.2 130.6 92.1 01/20 13 Lot # 71 355.0 8.0 118.8 130.6 91.0 Bedrock at EL 353.5 01/20 14 Lot # 7 357.0 7.5 1 18.5 130.6 90.8 01/21 15 Lot # 7 358.0 7.8 122.4 130.6 93.7 01/21 16 Lot 9 7 360.0 9.6 123.9 130.6 94.9 01/21 17 Lot # 7 362.0 9.7 116.8 128.0 91.3 01;21 18 Lot # 6 363.0 9.0 1221.5 130.6 93.1 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dr Densitv Pcf Max Dn Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 01/21 19 Lot #7 361.0 9.1 123.1 130.6 94.2 01/25 20 Lot #16 339.0 9.2 121.8 130.6 93.3 Bedrock at El. 337.0 01/25 21 Lot #16 341.0 9.8 120.2 130.6 92.0 01/25 22 Lot #16 342.0 10.9 115.8 128.0 90.5 01/25 23 Lot #14 340.0 10.0 115.9 128.0 90.5 Bedrock at El. 339.0 01/25 24 Lot #15 340.0 10.2 118.0 128.0 92.2 Bedrock at El. 338.0 01/25 25 Lot #16 343.0 8.7 121.3 128.0 94.8 01/25 26 Lot #17, Bottom of Removal 344.0 8.7 116.8 128.0 91.2 Bedrock at El. 343.3 01/25 27 Lot #17 345.0 7.8 116.9 128.0 91.3 01/27 28 Lot #14 341.0 8.7 120.3 130.6 92.2 01/27 29 Lot #15 341.0 9.0 123.2 130.6 94.4 01/27 30 Lot #15 342.0 8.9 121.2 130.6 92.8 01/27 31 Lot #14 342.0 9.7 121.3 130.6 92.9 01/27 32 Lot #14 343.0 8.9 125.0 130.6 95.7 01/27 33 Lot #15 343.0 9.2 122.5 130.6 93.8 01/27 34 Lot #6, North End Wall #3 356.0 8.4 121.3 127.6 95.1 Bottom at El. 354.0 01/27 35 Lot #6, North End Wall #3 358.0 8.5 122.2 127.6 95.8 01/28 36 Lot 46, North End Wall 93 360.0 8.0 124.9 130.6 95.6 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -6 Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet Field Moisture Ficld Dr' Densitv PCf Mai Dn- Densitc Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 01/28 37 Lot #6, North End Wall #3 362.0 8.3 124.6 132.5 94.0 01/28 38 Lot #13 344.0 10.1 120.6 130.6 92.4 Bedrock at El. 342.8 01/28 39 Lot #13 345.0 10.0 121.5 130.6 93.1 01/28 40 Lot #13 346.0 9.4 127.5 132.5 96.2 01/31 41 Lot #12 347.0 8.4 118.6 130.6 90.8 Bedrock at El. 346.0 01/31 42 Lot #12 348.0 9.0 120.0 132.5 90.6 01 /31 43 Lot #12 349.0 11.7 116.0 132.5 87.5 Test Failed 01/31 44 Lot #12 349.0 10.4 119.7 132.5 90.3 Retest #43 01/31 45 Lot #6, North End Wall 93 364.0 9.2 124.8 130.6 1 95.6 02/01 46 Lot #12 350.0 7.1 115.3 128.0 90.1 02/01 47 Lot #12 351.0 7.7 119.4 130.6 91.4 02/01 48 Lot #4 358.0 7.8 124.8 130.6 95.6 02/01 49 Lot #11 350.0 8.3 121.7 130.6 93.2 Bedrock at El. 349. 02/01 50 Lot #11 352.0 10? 1 18.4 128.0 92.5 02 /01 51 Lot #11 353.0 8.9 115.6 128.0 90.3 02/01 52 Lot #11 354.0 10.2 118.0 128.0 92.2 02/01 53 Lot 45 361.0 9.3 120.8 130.6 92.5 02/02 54 Lot #11 1 355.0 10.2 120.0 128.0 93.8 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 21111 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf Relative Cona . Comments 02/02 55 Lot #11 356.0 8.8 120.4 128.0 94.1 02/02 56 Lot #4 358.0 10.7 120.0 132.5 90.6 Test Failed, 95% Recommended 02/02 57 Lot #4 358.0 9.5 126.8 132.5 95.7 Retest #56 02/03 58 Lot #5 361.0 10.2 126.8 132.5 95.7 02/03 59 Scarlet Way, Station 1 +50 334.0 9.2 117.5 128.0 91.8 Bottom at El. 332.0 02/03 60 Scarlet Way, Station 2 +00 336.0 9.8 119.9 128.0 93.7 Station 2 +00 02/03 61 Scarlet Way, Station 3 +00 338.0 8.5 117.8 128.0 92.0 Bedrock at EL 336.0 02/03 62 Lots #17 and #18, Slope Buttress, North Side, Lot #18 351.0 7.7 115.2 128.0 90.0 Bedrock at EL 349.0 02/03 63 Lots #17 and #18, Slope Buttress, North Side, Lot #17 348.0 8.2 116.5 128.0 91.0 Bedrock at El. 346.0 02/03 64 Lots #17 and 418, Slope Buttress, North Side, Lot #17 350.0 9.9 118.6 128.0 92.7 02/03 65 Lots #17 and #18. Slope Buttress, North Side, Lot #18 353.0 9.3 116.8 128.0 91.3 At Top of Slope 02/03 66 Scarlet Way, Station 1+75 338.0 9.4 115.8 128.0 90.5 Station 1 +75 02/04 67 Lots #17 and #18, Slope Buttress, North Side, Lot #18 355.0 9.2 118.6 128.0 92.7 02/04 68 Lots #17 and #18, Slope Buttress, North Side, Lot #18 357.0 8.8 117.6 128.0 91.9 At Top of Slope 02/04 69 Scarlet Way, Station 4 +20 350.0 11.8 118.2 130.6 90.5 Bedrock at EL 348.0 02/04 70 Scarlet Way, Station 4 +80 352.0 11.1 118.8 128.0 92.8 02/04 71 Lot #17 346.0 11.0 1222 132.5 92.2 02/04 72 Lot #17 347.0 11.1 119.4 132.5 90.1 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing 4963 -6 Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf Relative Comp. Comments 02/07 73 Scarlet Way, Station 3 +50 340.0 7.6 117.6 130.6 90.0 02/07 74 Scarlet Way, Station 1 +90 339.0 8.0 123.3 130.6 94.4 02/07 75 Lot 9I8 348.0 8.4 119.7 130.6 91.7 Bedrock at E1. 346.5 02/07 76 Lot #I8 350.0 9.4 119.7 130.6 91.7 02/07 77 Scarlet Way, Station 4 +40 354.0 8.5 112.8 130.6 94.0 02/07 78 Scarlet Way, Station 4 +25 356.0 8.2 116.9 128.0 91.3 02/07 79 Scarlet Way, Station 2 +75 342.0 7.3 121.6 130.6 93.1 02/08 80 Lot #18 351.0 8.1 117.1 128.0 91.5 02/08 81 Lot #18 352.0 8.7 117.8 128.0 92.0 02x08 82 Lot #10 354.0 14.4 110.0 128.0 85.9 Bedrock at El. 352.0, Test Failed 02/08 83 Lot #18 353.0 9.3 116.5 128.0 91.0 02/08 84 Lot #10 354.0 8.7 117.6 128.0 91.9 Retest #82 02/08 85 Lot #10 356.0 8.2 125.5 132.5 94.7 02/08 86 Lot 910 358.0 9.4 119.7 130.6 91.7 02/08 87 Lot #10 360.0 8.4 119.5 130.6 91.5 02109 88 Lot #10 361.0 7.3 122.0 130.6 93.4 02/09 89 Lot #7, North Side 358.0 8.5 121.9 130.6 93.4 Bedrock at El 356.0 02/09 90 Lot #7, North Side 1 360.0 9.8 119.2 130.6 91.3 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No Location El. Of Fill In Feet '% Field Moisture Field Dt1 Density Pcf Mac Dry Densih PM % Relative Comp. Comments 02/09 91 Lot #7, North Side 362.0 85 126.7 132.5 95.6 02/09 92 Lot #6 363.0 9.9 120.9 132.5 91.3 02/09 93 Lot #7, North Side 363.0 11.2 117.9 130.6 90.3 02/09 94 Lot #6 364.0 9.2 126.4 132.5 95.4 02/09 95 Lot #7 363.0 9.8 120.3 132.5 90.8 02/09 96 Lot #10 362.0 8.6 120.5 130.6 92.3 02/10 97 Lot #10 363.0 9.5 120.7 130.6 92.4 02/10 98 Lots #8 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #8 367.0 9.5 122.3 132.5 92.3 Keyway. 365.0 02/10 99 Lot #3 357.0 11.8 118.5 130.6 90.8 Bedrock at El. 356.0 02/10 100 Lot #9 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #9 366.0 7.8 123.4 132.5 93.1 Keyway. 364.0, In Fill 02/10 101 Lot #9 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #9 368.0 9.4 119.0 130.6 91.1 02/10 102 Lot #8 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #8 369.0 8.3 124.9 132.5 94.3 02/10 103 Lot #3 358.0 8.5 118.1 130.6 90.5 02/10 104 Lot #8 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #8 371.0 10.0 122.2 132.5 92.2 02/10 105 Lot #8 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #9 370.0 9.4 124.5 132.5 94.0 02/11 106 Lot #8 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #8 372.0 9.1 125.5 132.5 94.7 02/11 107 Lot 89 and #9, West Side Slope, Lot #9 372.0 9.4 121.0 130.6 92.6 02/11 108 Lot 8 and #9, West Side Slope. Lot 49 -,74.0_L 9.6 121.9 132.5 92.0 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing 9963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill 6t Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Mai Dry Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 02.11 109 Lot #3 359.0 8.2 117.0 128.0 91.4 02i 11 110 Lot #2 360.0 8.6 125.8 132.5 94.9 Bedrock at El. 359.0 02/11 111 Lot #2 361.0 9.2 122.6 132.5 92.5 02/11 112 Lot #1 363.0 8.5 120.8 132.5 91.1 Bedrock at El. 362.0 02/11 113 Lot #2 362.0 8.8 122.5 132.5 92.5 02/11 114 Lot #2 363.0 8.8 118.6 128.0 92.7 02/11 1 15 Lot #2 364.0 10.1 117.7 128.0 92.0 02/11 116 Lot #1 364.0 10.2 120.1 128.0 93.8 02/14 117 Lot #1 365.0 10.8 115.7 128.0 90.4 02/14 118 Lot #1 366.0 10.0 120.3 130.6 92.1 02/15 119 Lot #8 370.0 10.2 117.7 128.0 92.0 Bedrock at El. 368.5 02/15 120 Lot 98 371.0 9.6 118.7 128.0 92.9 02/15 121 Bluejack Road, Station 1 +80 351.0 9.8 117.9 128.0 92.1 Bottom at El. 349.0 021]5 122 Bluejack Road, Station 1 +40 353.0 10.8 117.4 128.0 91.8 02/15 123 Bluejack Road, Station 1 +60 355.0 8.0 116.5 128.0 91.0 02/15 124 Lot 918 354.0 8.5 119.9 128.0 93.7 Finish Grade 02/18 125 Lot #17 348.0 9.7 122.5 130.6 93.8 Finish Grade 02/18 126 Lot 414 342.0 9.8 118.9 130.6 91.0 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dr v Density Pcf Mas Dr Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 02,22 127 Lot #16, Ramp, Removal and Re- Compact 343.0 1 I . I 121.1 132.5 914.0 Bedrock at El. 341.0 02/22 128 Scarlet Way, Station 2 +75 344.0 9.3 120.8 130.6 92.5 02/22 129 Lot #16 344.0 10.0 117.9 130.6 90.3 Finish Grade 02/23 130 Lot #15 344.0 7.3 128.1 132.5 96.7 Finish Grade 02/23 131 Lot #14 344.0 9.3 1 129.2 132.5 1 97.5 Finish Grade 02/24 132 Lot #9 371.0 10.6 116.6 128.0 91.1 Bedrock at E1. 370.0 02/24 133 Lot #9 372.0 10.5 120.0 128.0 93.8 02/24 134 Lot #9 373.0 8.2 117.0 128.0 91.4 02/24 135 Lot #l3 347.0 8.6 127.7 132.5 96.4 Finish Grade 03/02 136 Bluejack Road, Station 2 +50 349.0 10.2 122.1 132.5 92.2 Bottom at E1. 347.0 03/02 137 Bluejack Road, Station 3 +00 351.0 11.0 119.3 132.5 90.1 03/02 138 Bluejack Road, Station 3 +50 354.0 9.2 124.6 132.0 94.0 Bottom at El. 352.0 03/02 139 Bluejack Road, Station 3 +75 356.0 9.5 124.6 132.5 94.0 03/03 140 Scarlet Way, Station 4 +50 358.0 10.0 116.6 128.0 91.1 03/03 141 Bluejack Road 3533.0 8.1 129.1 132.5 97.4 03/03 142 Lot #11 357.0 9.2 118.1 128.0 92.2 Finish Grade 03/03 143 Lot #12 3510 10.6 117.9 128.0 92.1 Finish Grade 03/04 144 Bluejack Road, Station 2 +25 355.0 6.4 116.7 128.0 91.2 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dr Densitv Pcf Max Dn Densitv Pcf % Relative Com . Comments 03/04 145 Bluejack Road, From Station 3 +90 357.0 10.5 1 16 2 128.0 90.8 03/04 146 Bluejack Road, From Station 3 +00 355.0 9.5 119.7 128.0 93.5 03/04 147 Bluejack Road, From Station 2 +75 356.0 9.2 118.6 128.0 92.7 03/04 148 Bluejack Road, From Station 3 +60 358.0 7.5 116.3 128.0 90.9 03/04 149 Bluejack Road, From Station 1 +50 356.0 10.2 116.6 128.0 91.1 03/04 150 Bluejack Road, From Station 2 +40 355.0 8.5 117.6 128.0 91.9 03/07 151 Bluejack Road, From Station 4 +25 355.0 10.0 122.2 128.0 95.4 Bottom at El. 360.5 03/07 152 Bluejack Road, From Station 5 +00 357.0 9.5 118.6 128.0 92.7 03/07 153 Bluejack Road, From Station 4 +35 357.0 10.4 119.1 128.0 93.0 03/07 154 Bluejack Road, From Station 5 +10 359.0 9.4 117.6 128.0 91.9 03/08 155 Lot #10, East Side 361.0 10.3 121.3 130.6 92.9 Bedrock at E1. 360.5 03/08 156 Lot #10, East Side 362.0 10.6 121.4 130.6 93.0 03/08 157 Lot #10, East Side 363.0 8.3 118.0 128.0 92.2 03/10 158 Bluejack Road, Station 4 +75 358.0 9.0 123.4 132.5 93.1 S 03/10 159 Lot #10 364.0 9.6 124.1 132.5 93.7 Finish Grade 03/10 160 Lot #10, East Side 364.0 9.4 126.3 132.5 95.3 Finish Grade 03/10 161 Lot #7 364.0 8.2 125.5 132.5 94.7 Finish Grade 03/10 162 Lot 96 365.0 9.2 126.4 132.5 95.4 Finish Grade JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Residential Pad Grading Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pef Relative Comp. Comments 03/10 163 Lot #5 362.0 8.5 128.8 132.5 97.2 Finish Grade 0310 164 Bluejack Road, Station 5 +00 360.0 9.2 123.3 132.5 93.1 -3/11 165 Bluejack Road, Station 4 +55 362.0 8.3 119.9 130.6 91.8 03/11 j 166 Bluejack Road, Station 5 +10 364.0 8.9 121.9 130.6 93.3 03/15 167 Lot #3 360.0 8.3 116.8 128.0 91.3 Finish Grade 03/15 168 Lot #2 365.0 7.9 117.9 128.0 92.1 Finish Grade 03/15 169 Lot #1 367.0 8.9 128.0 132.5 96.6 Finish Grade 03/15 170 Bluejack Road, Cul de Sac, Far East Side 366.0 8.9 122.7 132.5 92.6 Station 5 +40 03/23 171 Lot #9 Buttress Slope, North Side 376.0 11.2 118.7 130.6 90.9 Bottom Keyway Invert at El. 374.0 03/23 172 Lot #9 Buttress Slope, North Side 378.0 9.9 128.2 130.6 98.2 03/31 173 Lot #9 Buttress Slope, North Side 380.0 7.0 116.0 128.0 90.6 04/14 174 Lot 48 372.0 6.3 116.0 128.0 90.6 Finish Grade 04/14 175 Lot #9 374.0 7.3 117.0 128.0 91.4 Finish Grade 04 18 176 Lot #4 1 357.5 8.2 _L12.9_J 132.5 98.1 Finish Grade mpr \ny lileslgrading department projects110- 283 -f- warmington residential california I8 -lot sub cncuutaslas- graded density test results JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location EL Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Mal Dry Density Pef % Relative comp. Comments 01/25 1 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru 96, Station 3 +50 +1.0 6.4 119.6 130.6 91.6 01/25 2 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +75 +1.0 6.8 124.1 130.6 95.0 01/25 3 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +00 +1.0 8.3 118.9 130.6 91.1 01/25 4 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 3 +75 +1.0 7.8 119.8 130.6 91.7 01/26 5 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +50 +3.0 7.0 125.2 130.6 95.9 01/26 6 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 3 +25 +3.0 7.2 122.7 130.6 93.8 01/26 7 Wall #3, Lots 94 Thru #6, Station 1 +75 +3.0 8.0 121.1 130.6 92.6 01/26 8 Wall #3, Lots 94 Thru #6, Station 1 +00 +2.0 8.9 121.1 130.6 92.6 01/27 9 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 3 +15 +4.0 9.4 120.7 130.6 92.4 01/28 10 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +60 +4.0 1 7.6 121.7 130.6 93.2 01/28 11 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +35 +5.0 8.4 124.1 130.6 95.0 01/28 12 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +05 +5.0 8.5 122.3 130.6 93.7 01/28 13 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +80 +5.0 8.4 128.4 130.6 98.3 01/28 14 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 3 +2 +5.0 8.0 125.1 130.6 95.8 01/28 15 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0+25 +2.0 9.1 123.1 130.6 94.2 01/28 16 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +60 +5.0 8.6 122.0 130.6 93.5 01/31 17 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +60 +6.0 10.0 125.6 130.6 %.2 01/31 1 18 Wall 43, Lots #4 Thru 46, Station 0 +20 +4.0 7.7 119.0 130.6 91.4 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of FiB In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dn Density Pcf Max Dn' Density Pcf '%" Relative Camp. Comments 01/31 19 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +95 +7.0 8.3 121.8 130.6 93.2 01/31 20 Wall #3, Lots 94 Thru #6, Station 1 +70 +7.0 10.0 124.0 130.6 95.0 01/31 21 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +30 +7.0 8.7 123.8 130.6 94.8 01 /31 22 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +70 +7.0 13.2 112.1 130.6 85.8 rest failed 01/31 23 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +10 +8.0 9.1 120.2 132.5 90.7 01/31 24 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +60 +8.0 8.6 1 17.5 130.6 90.0 01/31 25 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru 96, Station 1 +10 +8.0 9.8 120.6 132.5 91.0 01/31 26 Wall #3, Lots 94 Thru #6, Station 0 +60 +8,0 9.3 124.2 132.5 93.7 01/31 27 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +15 +5.0 10.4 131.2 132.5 91.5 02/01 28 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +25 +6.0 7.7 124.3 130.6 95.2 02/01 29 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +65 +9.0 9.1 121.4 130.6 93.0 02/01 30 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +15 +9.0 7.1 1 19.4 130.6 91.4 02/01 31 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +10 +7,0 8.6 121.0 130.6 92.7 02./01 32 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0+50 +10.0 8.0 120.7 130.6 92.4 02/01 33 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +20 +8.0 8.4 122.0 130.6 93.4 02/01 34 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +10 +9.0 8.0 122.2 130.6 93.6 02/02 35 Wall #3, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +05 +10.0 8.8 121.7 130.6 93.2 02/03 36 Wall #4, Lots 1:4 Thru 46, Station 2 -40 -1.5.0 8.1 114.0 130.6 87.3 Test Failed JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NANIE: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill in Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Mal Dry Densitv Pef % Relative Como. Comments 02/03 37 Wall #4, Lots 94 Thru #6, Station 2 +40 +1.5 8.4 119.5 130.6 91.5 Retest 436 02/03 38 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 2 +00 +1.5 9.0 119.9 130.6 91.8 02/03 39 Wall #4, Lou #4 Theo #6, Station 2 +25 +3.0 8.2 120.5 130.6 92.2 02/03 40 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +80 +3.0 7.3 125.7 130.6 96.3 02/03 41 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +30 +1.5 8.0 120.2 132.5 92.1 02/03 42 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +90 +1.5 9.2 119.5 130.6 91.5 02/07 43 Wall #4, Lots 44 Thru #6, Station 0 +30 +2.5 9.4 123.0 132.5 94.2 02/07 44 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +75 +3.0 8.0 120.5 132.5 92.3 02/07 45 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 1 +40 +3.0 7.5 119.0 132.5 91.1 02/07 46 Wall #4, Lots 44 Thru #6, Station 2 +10 +4.5 8.8 121.1 130.6 92.7 02/07 47 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +20 +4.0 8.3 123.7 130.6 94.7 02/07 48 Wall #4, Lots 94 Thru #6, Station 0 +60 +4.0 8.5 122.5 130.6 93.8 02/07 49 Wall #4, Lots #4 Thru #6, Station 0 +40 +5.0 8.2 120.2 130.6 92.0 02/08 50 Wall #6, Lots #14 & #15, Station 0 +25 +1.5 8.1 120.7 130.6 92.4 02108 51 Wall #6, Lots #14 & #15, Station 0 +75 +1.5 7.7 122.3 130.6 93.7 02/10 52 Wall #6, Lots #14 & #15, Station 0 +40 +3.5 7.6 119.9 130.6 91.8 02/10 53 Wall #6, Lots #14 & #15, Station 0 +90 +3.5 8.7 120.7 130.6 92.5 1102/10 54 Wall 97, Lot 415, Station 04 10 1 +2.0 7.7 116.0 128.0 90.6 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Fl. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dn Densit} Pct % Relative Comp. Comments 02/11 55 Wall 46, Lots #14 & # 15, Station 1 +10 +5.0 8.6 124.7 130.6 95.5 02/11 56 Wall #6, Lots #14 & #15, Station 0 +50 +5.0 8.1 119.9 130.6 91.8 02/11 57 Wall #7, Lot #15, Station 0 +15 +3.5 8.9 121.3 130.6 92.9 02/11 58 Wall 96, Lots #14 & #15, Station 0 +60 +7.0 7.5 122.9 132.5 92.8 02!11 59 Wall 96, Lots #14 & #15, Station 1 +20 +7.0 7.8 124.8 132.5 94.2 02/11 60 Wall #7, Lot #15, Station 0 +05 +5.5 7.3 123.5 132.5 93.2 02/14 61 Wall #7, Lot #15, Station 0 +40 +2.0 9.1 120.7 128.0 94.3 02/14 62 Wall #7, Lot #15, Station 0 +60 +2.0 8.0 115.9 128.0 90.6 02/14 63 Wall 47, Lot #15, Station 0 +50 +3.0 9.5 121.5 130.6 93.1 02/15 64 Wall #7, Lot #15, Station 0 +35 +5.0 9.2 121.0 130.6 92.6 02/15 65 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 0 +25 +1.0 8.1 118.9 130.6 91.0 02/15 66 Wall 45, Lot #13, Station 0 +70 +1.0 7.8 117.7 130.6 90.1 02/15 67 Wall #7, Lot #15, Station 0 +80 +LO 7.0 118.0 128.0 92.2 02/17 68 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 0 +40 +2.0 9.0 119.2 130.6 91.3 02/17 69 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 0 +90 +2.0 8.8 120.4 130.6 92.2 02/17 70 Wall #7, Lot 415, Station 1 +00 +2.0 9.0 125.9 130.6 96.4 02/17 71 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 0 +05 +2.0 9.2 120.8 130.6 92.5 02/18 72 Wall #5, Lot #13. Station 0. 10 +4.0 8.8 126.4 132.5 95.4 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 21111 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pef Max Dry Densitv Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 02/18 73 Wall #5, Lot 413, Station 0 +70 +4.0 9.3 123.2 132.5 93.0 02/18 74 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 1 +10 +4.0 8.9 118.3 130.6 90.6 02/18 75 Wall #7, Lot #13, Station 0 +85 +4.0 8.6 118.0 130.6 90.3 02/18 76 Wall #7, Lot #13, Station 1 +25 +2.0 8.2 120.8 130.6 92.5 02/18 77 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 0 +45 +5.5 8.8 120.9 130.6 92.6 02/18 78 Wall #5, Lot #13, Station 0 +80 +5.5 8.9 118.9 130.6 91.0 02/18 79 Wall #7, Lot #13, Station 1 +50 +4.0 9.8 120.9 130.6 92.6 02/18 80 Wall #7, Lot #13, Station I +10 +5.5 9.2 120.0 130.6 91.9 02/22 81 Wall #7, Lot #12, Station 1 +75 +2.0 8.2 127.3 132.5 96.1 02/23 82 Wall #7, Lot #12, Station 1 +80 +4.0 8.7 121.0 132.5 91.4 02/23 83 Wail #7, Lot #12, Station 2 +00 +2.0 9.3 123.3 132.5 93.1 02/23 84 Wall 47, Lot #12, Station 1 +90 +5.0 8.2 119.3 130.6 91.4 02/23 85 Wall #7, Lot #12, Station 2 +10 +3.0 10.1 118.9 130.6 91.0 02/23 86 Wall #7, Lot 412, Station 2 +40 +2.0 8.3 120.2 130.6 92.0 02/24 87 Wall #7, Lot #12, Station 1 +95 +5.0 9.7 117.9 130.6 90.3 02/24 88 Wall #7, Lot #12, Station 2 +35 +4.0 8.5 119.9 130.6 91.8 02/24 89 Wall #7, Lot #11, Station 2 +58 +1.0 9.8 120.0 130.6 92.2 02/24 1 90 1 Wall #7, Lot 411, Station 2 +70 +3.0 8.3 118.9 130.6 91.1 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -6 Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dn Density Pcf Max Dn Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 02/24 91 Wall #7, Lot 411, Station 2 +90 +2.0 9.3 120.8 130.6 92.5 02/25 92 Wall #7, Lot #11, Station 2 +80 +4.0 9.4 118.6 128.0 92.6 02/25 93 Wall #7, Lot #11, Station 3 +00 +3.0 7.6 116.7 128.0 91.2 02/25 94 Wall #7, Lot #11, Station 2 +65 +6.0 8.9 121.5 130.6 93.0 02/25 95 Wall 47, Lot #11, Station 3 +05 +5.0 8.0 122.9 132.5 92.8 03/03 96 Wall #l, Lot 43, Station 5 +25 +1.0 9.7 120.2 132.5 90.7 03/03 97 Wall #l, Lot #3, Station 5 +75 +1.0 9.5 121.1 132.5 91.4 03/03 98 Wall #1, Lot #3, Station 5 +50 +2,0 9.1 120.7 132.5 91.1 03/04 99 Wall 41, Lot #3, Station 5 +40 +3.0 9.2 116.0 128.0 90.7 03.!04 100 Wall #l, Lot #3, Station 5 +80 +3.0 9.3 118.6 128.0 92.6 03/07 101 Wall #l, Lot #3, Station 5 +90 +5.0 9.0 118.7 130.6 90.9 03/07 102 Walt 41, Lot #3, Station 5 +50 +5.0 10.7 115.2 128.0 90.0 03/07 103 Wall #1, Lot #3, Station 5 +10 +5.0 10.2 118.0 128.0 92.2 03/08 104 Wall #I, Lot #3, Station 5 +65 +6.0 10.2 119.3 130.6 91.3 03/08 105 Wall #1, Lot #3, Station 5 +25 +7.0 9.2 116.0 128.0 90.7 03/08 106 Wall #1, Lot #3, Station 5 +75 +7.0 10.2 118.0 128.0 92.2 03/08 107 Wall #1, Lot #2, Station 4 +75 +2.0 9.4 115.9 128.0 90.5 03/08 108 Wall #1. Lot #2, Station 4 +25 +2.0 8.5 1 1 7.4 128.0 91.7 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing 4963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet 'Zo Field Moisture Field Dn Density Pcf Max Dry Densitv Pef % Relater Comp. Comments 03/09 109 Wall #1, Lot #3, Station 5 +10 +8.0 8.3 116.3 128.0 90.9 03/09 110 Wall #1, Lot #3, Station 5 +70 +7.0 7.8 115.6 128.0 90.3 03/10 III Wall #I, Lot #2, Station 4 +15 +4.0 10.0 115.2 128.0 90.0 03/10 112 Wall #l, Lot #2, Station 4 +55 +4.0 8.3 116.3 128.0 90.9 03/10 113 Wall #I, Lot #1, Station 3 +75 +2.0 10.2 120.5 128.0 94.1 03/10 114 Wall #1, Lot #1, Station 3 +25 +2.0 8.7 121.1 130.6 92.7 03 /11 115 Wall #1, Lot #1, Station 3 +00 +4.0 11.0 123.5 130.6 94.6 03111 116 Wall #1, Lot #l, Station 3 +50 -4.0 10.3 119.8 130.6 91.7 03111 117 Wall #1, Lot #2, Station 4 +00 +6.0 11.0 120.2 130.6 92.1 03/11 118 Wall #1, Lot 42, Station 4 +50 +6.0 10.2 123.6 130.6 94.6 03/14 119 Wall #1, Lot #2, Station 4 +30 +8.0 9.9 120.6 130.6 92.3 03/14 120 Wall #1, Lot #1, Station 3 +80 +6.0 9.2 115.4 128.0 90.2 03/14 121 Wall #1, Lot 41, Station 3 +30 +6.0 8.7 119.2 130.6 91.3 03/14 122 Wall #1, Lot #1, Station 2 +80 +4.0 10.5 117.6 130.6 90.0 03/14 123 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 2 +30 +2.0 10.5 117.5 128.0 91.8 03/15 124 Wall #l, Lot 48, Station 1 +80 +2.0 10.2 121.3 132.5 91.6 03115 125 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 1 +30 +2.0 9.1 123.2 130.6 94.3 03/15 1 126 Wall 03, Lots 94 Thru 06. Station 2 +70 +7.0 7.5 118.5 130.6 90.7 Retest #22 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NANIE: W armington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -C Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location EL Of Fill [a Feet % Field Moisture Field Dn Density Pcf MAX Dr Density Pcf % Relatne comp. Comments 03/15 127 Wall #l, Lot #1, Station 3 +20 +7.0 8.4 120.5 130.6 92.3 03/17 128 Wall #1, Lot #1, Station 2 +75 +6.0 9.4 116.8 128.0 91.2 03/17 129 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 2 +25 +4.0 8.4 116.7 128.0 91.2 03/17 130 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 1 +75 +4.0 8.9 120.7 130.6 92.4 03/17 131 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 1 +25 +4.0 9.5 115.6 128.0 90.3 03/17 132 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 0+75 +2.0 9.2 116.3 128.0 91.0 03/17 133 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 0 +25 +2.0 8.8 118.3 130.6 90.8 03/22 134 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 0 +50 +4.0 10.5 119.9 130.6 91.8 03/22 135 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 1 +00 +4.0 10.8 118.2 130.6 90.5 03/22 136 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 1 +50 +6.0 11.1 118.1 130.6 90.4 03/22 137 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 2+00 +6.0 9.9 119.1 130.6 91.2 03/23 138 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 0 +25 +2.0 9.8 118.9 130.6 91.9 03/23 139 Wall 41, Lot #9, Station 0 +75 +6.0 10.0 119.3 130.6 91.3 03/23 140 Wall #1, Lot #8, Station 1 +25 +6.0 10.8 117.2 128.0 91.6 03/24 141 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 0 +35 +4.0 9.8 117.9 130.6 90.3 03/24 142 Wall #1, Lot #9, Station 0+65 +8.0 9.6 120.9 130.6 92.6 03/25 143 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 2 +25 +2.0 10.5 116.2 128.0 90.8 03/25 144 Wall #2, Between Lots 91 and #8, Station 2 +75 +2.0 10.8 116.5 1 128.0 91.0 '_.0 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pef % Relative Comp. Comments 03128 145 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 1 +50 +2.0 7.6 116.1 128.0 90.7 03/28 146 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 2 +00 +3.5 9.0 117.0 128.0 91.4 03/28 147 Wall #2, Between Lots #1 and #8, Station 2 +50 +3.5 8.7 120.3 128.0 92.1 03/29 148 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 1 +30 +2.0 8.3 122.8 130.6 94.0 03/29 149 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 1 +80 +4.0 8.8 120.0 130.6 91.9 03/29 150 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 2 +30 +5.0 8.7 116.9 128.0 91.3 03/29 151 Wall #2, Lot #9, Station 0 +50 +1.0 8.7 117.8 128.0 92.0 03/29 152 Wall #2, Lot #9, Station 1 +00 +2.0 8.0 123.7 130.6 94.7 03/29 153 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 1 +50 +3.0 7.3 116.9 128.0 91.3 03/30 154 Wall #2, Lot #8, Station 1 +40 +4.0 9.2 119.0 130.6 91.1 03/30 155 Wall #2, Lot #9, Station 0 +90 +3.0 8.4 118.0 128.0 92.2 03/30 156 Wall #2, Lot #9, Station 0 +40 +2.0 9.3 115.9 128.0 90.5 03/30 157 Wall #2, Lot #0, Station 0 +25 +3.0 9.3 118.2 130.6 90.5 03/30 158 Wall #2, Lot #9, Station 0 +75 +4.0 9.1 119.4 130.6 91.4 03/33 159 Wall #2, Lot #9, Station 0 +15 +5.0 8.8 119.4 130.6 91.4 03/33 160 Wall #2 Extension, 15' North of Station 0 +00 +2.0 7.8 120.0 130.6 91.9 03/33 161 Wall #2, Extension, 15' North of Station 0 +00 +4.0 9.2 120.5 130.6 92.3 04/01 162 Wall #l, Sloe Replacement Above Wall +2.0 9.2 120.4 130.6 92.2 Station 5 +50 � • 1 . JOB NO: 10-283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands. Drawing 4963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Retaining Wall Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location EL Of FillIn Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Drr' Density Pcf Relatn'e Comp, Comments 04/01 163 Wall #I. Slope Replacement Above Wall +2.0 8.8 1 19.1 130.6 91.2 Station 4 +25 04/01 164 Wall #I, Slope Replacement Above Wall +2.0 9.6 118.4 130.6 90.7 Station 3 +00 04/01 165 Wall V. Extension 15' East of Station 3 +27 +2.0 9.5 119.0 128.0 93.0 04/04 166 Wall #2, Slope Replacement Above Wall +2.0 8.7 119.1 128.0 93.0 Station 1 +30 04/04 167 Wall #2, Slope Replacement Above Wall +4.0 8.0 117.5 128.0 91.8 Station 1 +50 04/06 168 Wall #3, Lot #4, Station 3 +55 +2.0 8.8 118.6 130.6 90.8 04/07 169 Wall 0, Lot #4, Station 3 +60 +3.0 8.5 112.5 132.5 92.5 07107 170 Wall #3, Lot 04, Station 3 +80 +4.0 9.0 123.5 132.5 93.2 04/11 171 Wall #8, Lot #16, Station 0 +25 +2.0 9.1 123.1 130.6 94.2 04/11 172 Wall #8, Lot 416, Station 0 +75 +2.0 8.9 119.0 130.6 91.1 04/12 173 Wall #8, Lot 416, Station 0 +40 +4.0 7.4 117.5 130.6 90.0 04/12 174 Wall #8, Lot #16, Station 1 +00 +4.0 8.4 119.1 130.6 91.2 04/13 175 Wall #8, Lot #16, Station 0 +50 +6.0 8.0 121.0 130.6 92.6 04115 176 Wall #3, Lot #4, Station 4 +25 +3.0 7.2 121.3 130.6 92.8 04/18 177 Wall 0 Lot #4 Station 4 +40 +2,0 1 8.2 123.5 132.5 93.2 mpr\my files \grading department projectsM 0- 283- f- wamrington residential calibmia 18 -lot sub encinitas4etaining wall backfill density test results Job #10 -283 -F April 14, 2011 Warmington Residential California, Inc. Mr. James Skinner 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 F.Nt ;TNT = FR TNTC- 2450 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 -1229 Phone (760) 743 -1214 Fax (760) 739 -0343 R -VALUE TEST RESULT, PAVEMENT/BASE THICKNESS AND SUBBASEGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS, DRAWING #963-G, AND OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS DRAWING #963 -I, SEASIDE HIGHLANDS, ENCINITAS In accordance with your request and guidelines put forth by the City of Encinitas, a representative R -Value sample was obtained from the subgrade soils to determine the thickness of base material required for your improvements. The test result and recommendations are as follows: I. DATA A. On Site, Scarlet Way and Blue Jack Road: 1. R -Value result is 20, from our "Geotechnical Update" report dated December 1, 2010. 2. Traffic Index (T.I.) per the City Encinitas is. 5.0 3. Minimum section for a T.I. of 5.0 per the City of Encinitas is 4- inches A.C. over a minimum of 6-inches Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base for an R -Value greater than 12 and Traffic Index of 5.0. B. Off Site, Balour Drive and Melba Road: 1. R -Value result is 20, from our "Geotechnical Update" report dated December 1, 2010. 2. Traffic Index (T.I.) per the Cit of Encinitas is 7.0. 3. Minimum section for a T.I. of 7.0 per City of Encinitas is 4- inches A.C. over a minimum of 6- inches Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base for an R -Value greater than 40 and a Traffic Index of 7.0. Pavement -Base Thickness, Subgrade - Basegrade Recommendations Page 2 Seaside Highlands, Encinitas April 14, 2011 11. PAVEMENT /BASE THICKNESS RECOMMENDATIONS A. On Site, Scarlet Way and Blue Jack Road: 1. AC and Base Thickness: Our calculations indicate that 4- inches A.C. over 6- inches Class 2 aggregate base be used. 2. Curb, Gutters, and Sidewalks: No Class 2 aggregate base is required beneath these improvements. B. Off Site, Balour Drive and Melba Road 1. AC and Base Thickness: Our calculations indicate that 4- inches A.C. over 12- inches Class 2 aggregate base be used. 2. Curb, Gutters, and Sidewalks: With the approval of the City of Encinitas, Class 2 aggregate base may be omitted. However the City has asked that 4- inches Class 2 be placed beneath the sidewalks adjacent to the Bio Swales along Balour Drive (Lots 414 and #15, and Melba Road (Lot #4). 3. The edge of existing asphalt along the new pavement section should be neatly saw cut and removed. All base and subgrade preparations including removals and over - excavations of very loose and soft soils, moisture conditioning and processing of generated materials, placement, backfilling and compaction requirements within the proposed offsite road improvements remain the same and should be completed as specified and directed in the field. Existing upper soft soils in the new improvement areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 18 inches or approved firm native ground, whichever is less, and placed back as properly compacted fills as specified herein. Subgrade soils under the new asphalt paving surfaces should be compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels below the upper 12 inches, unless otherwise specified, and 95% within the upper 12 inches. 4. Removed asphalt may be ground to minus 1' /z- inch particles and reused as compacted subbase layer below the base section under the new asphalt paving surfaces as directed in the field. Alternatively , removed asphalt may be exported from the site. 5. An overlay of existing asphalt surfaces are also planned mostly in conjunction with transition paving from existing pavements to remain and new pavements. Generally, a minimum overlay thickness of 1% inches should be considered. However, a thinner overlay section on the order of 1 -inch minimum may be used near the edge of transition areas unless otherwise specified or approved in the field. Pavement fabric (petromat or similar) may also be considered at the saw cut or transition lines. The pavement fabric VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auro Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Pavement -Base Thickness, Subgrade - Basegrade Recommendations Page 3 Seaside Highlands, Encinitas April 14, 2011 should be placed per the manufacturer's recommendations, prior to surfacing with the new overlay. The surface of the existing pavement should be prepared to the satisfaction of the project geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of the tack coat and/or pavement fabric. The existing pavement surfaces and the installed fabric should then be covered with the new overlay of asphalt. All materials and construction procedures should comply with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and the City of Encinitas requirements and approval. The materials encountered during excavations along the proposed street improvements, and utilized in laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area. However earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. Of necessity we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations. It is necessary therefore, that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified during the grading operations. In the event discrepancies are noted, we should be notified immediately so that appropriate inspections and additional laboratory testing can be conducted in order to provide additional recommendations as needed. III. SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Travel Lanes: The top 12- inches of the subgrade soils are to be ripped, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, reworked and re- compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D -1557 in accordance with the most current Green Book Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and Regional Supplement Amendments, Section 301 -1.3. The subgrade should be inspected by the project geotechnical engineer during preparation. B. Concrete Approaches, and Ribbon (Cross) Gutters: If used, they should be in conformance with the City of Encinitas recommendations and Standards. 12- inches of the subgrade soils are to he ripped, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, reworked and re- compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D -1557 in accordance with the most current Green Book Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and Regional Supplement Amendments, Section 301 -1.3. The subgrade should be inspected by the project geotechnical engineer during preparation. C. Sidewalks Where Used: The top 6- inches of the subgrade soils are to be ripped, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, reworked and re- compacted to a minimum of 90% ASTM D -1557, and inspected by the project geotechnical engineer during preparation. D. The subgrade soils are to be proof rolled with a heavy rubber tired vehicle (loaded dump truck or water truck etc.) under the observation of the project geotechnical engineer VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Pavement -Base Thickness, Subgrade - Basegrade Recommendations Page 4 Seaside Highlands, Encinitas April 14, 2011 prior to compaction testing. Areas that show any signs of movement will automatically be failed and will need to be reworked prior to compaction testing. E. Compaction tests will betaken on the subgrade soils prior to placement of base materials to confirm minimum compaction requirements. F. Proper drainage must be maintained at all times so that no water from any source is allowed to infiltrate the subgrade soils, or deterioration of the improvements may occur. IV. BASEGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Travel Lanes: The Class 2 aggregate base is to be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, reworked and compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D -1557, and inspected by the project geotechnical engineer during preparation. B. Concrete Approaches, and Ribbon (Cross) Gutters: The Class 2 aggregate base is to be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, reworked and compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D -1557, and inspected by the project geotechnical engineer during preparation. C. Sidewalks Where Used: The Class 2 aggregate base is to be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, reworked and re- compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D- 1557, except for under sidewalks where a minimum of 90% relative compaction is required. The placement of the base materials shall be inspected by the project geotechnical engineer during preparation. D. The basegrade soils are to be proof rolled with a heavy rubber tired vehicle (loaded dump truck or water truck etc.) under the observation ofthe project geotechnical engineer prior to compaction testing. Areas that show any signs of movement will automatically be failed and will need to be reworked prior to compaction testing. E. Compaction tests will be taken on the basegrade soils prior to placement of asphalt or concrete to confirm minimum compaction requirements. F. The Class 2 aggregate base should be laid down over the previously prepared subgrade soils as soon as possible so that the subgrade soils are not allowed to dry out. If the subgrade soils are allowed to dry out, further reworking of the subgrade soils will be required. During times of inclement weather, additional inspection of the subgrade soils will be required prior to base placement. If the subgrade soils have become saturated, basegrade soils may not be placed until the subgrade soils have been allowed to dry and are reworked and re- compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D -1557. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Pavement -Base Thickness, Subgrade - Basegrade Recommendations Page 5 Seaside Highlands, Encinitas April 14, 2011 G. Proper drainage must be maintained at all times so that no water from any source is allowed to infiltrate the basegrade soils, or deterioration of the pavement may occur. H. The Class 2 aggregate base shall meet or exceed the current Caltrans Standard Specifications. V. PAVEMENT /CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS A. The pavement/concrete must be laid down over the previously prepared basegrade soils as soon as possible so that the basegrade soils are not allowed to dry out. Ifthe basegrade soils are allowed to dry out, further reworking of the basegrade soils will be required. During times of inclement weather, additional inspection ofthe basegrade soils will be required prior to placement of pavement. Ifthe basegrade soils have become saturated, pavement /concrete may not be placed until the basegrade soils have been allowed to dry and are reworked and re- compacted to a minimum of 95% ASTM D -1557. B. The A.C. pavement materials shall meet or exceed the current Green Book Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. As of this date, this report may be used for cost estimating purposes only. Copies of this report must be submitted to the City of Encinitas for their review and approval. After approval, copies of this report should be provided to the project Civil Engineer and or Architect, and appropriate contractors. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job 410- 283 -F will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. fehdi S. Shariat #2885 SMSS /mpr No. 2885 Exp. 12J3 U12 Distribution: Addressee (2) Mr. Brian Ardolino, Pasco, Laret, Suiter and Associates (3) mpr\ny files1gadingdepammentprojects \10.283- f- wamvngtouresidentialmlifomia 184 otsubenciniW\ r-v eluetestresuh +�bgrsde- basegrade thickcess +subgrade- basegrade rec's #2 VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 CALCULATIONS Job #10 -283 -F Job Name: Warmington Residential, Seaside Highlands Project: 18 -Lot Subdivision, Encinitas On Site Roads, Scarlet Way and Blue Jack Road 1. Data: R = 20; TI = 5.0; Minimum Section = 4" A.C. over 6" Class 2 Aggregate Base. 2. Calculations: GE (Tow) =.0032 x TI x (100 - R) =.0032 x 5.0 x (100 - 20) = 1.28 GF (AC) From Cal Trans Highway Design Manual, Table #633.1 = 2.54 GE (Ac) = [(AC + 12)(GF (ACS)] = [(4 + 12)(2.54)] = 0.84 GE (AB) = GE (•rota) - GE (Ac) = 1.28 - 0.84 = 0.44 AB (Tow) = GE (AB) + GF (AB) x 12 = (0.44 + 1.1) = 0.40 x 12 = 5", which is less than the required minimum of 6" Class 2 AB Therefore: Use 4- inches AC over 6- inches Class 2 Aggregate Base compacted to 95% over properly compacted subgrade. Off Site Roads, Balour Drive and Melba Road 1. Data: R = 20; TI = 7.0; Minimum Section = 4" A.C. over 6" Class 2 Aggregate Base. 2. CaWations: GE (Tm o =.0032 x TI x (100 - R) =.0032 x 7.0 x (100 - 20) =1.79 GF (AC) From Cal Trans Highway Design Manual, Table #633.1 = 2.14 GE (AC) = [(AC _ 12XGF (Ac))] = [(4 + 12)(2.14)] = 0.71 GE (AB) = GE (row) - GE (Ac) = 1.79 - 0.71 = 1.08 AB ( row ) = GE (AB) + GF (AB) x 12 = (1.08 - 1.1) = 0.98 x 12 = 11.8 ", use 12" Therefore: Use 4- inches AC over 12- inches Class 2 Aggregate Base compacted to 95% over properly compacted subgrade. mprVnry files* ading depaMrent pmjecls\IO- 2934- warmmgtou residential calilimnie 1 8-lot sub encinimstr -value calculations on and off site VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way -Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 FNC�TNFFR Job #10 -283 -F 24sa Auto Parkway Escondido. California 92029 -I229 Phone (760) 743 -I214 September 21, 2011 Fax (760) 739 -0343 Warmington Residential California, Inc. Mr. James W. Skinner Vice President/Director of Engineering 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS, UNDERGROUND UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILLS, PROPOSED 1 8-LOT SUBDIVISION, SEASIDE HIGHLANDS, BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, CITY OF ENCINITAS DRAWING #963 -G In accordance with the requirements of City of Encinitas Grading Ordinances, please find the following compaction report for utility trench backfills, prepared for the above - referenced development. We have completed engineering observation pd testing services in conjunction with the backfill operations. The purpose of this report was to summarize the results of our tests and observations of the compacted backfills conducted periodically from March 15, 2011 through June 22, 2011. Actual dates are shown on the enclosed Compaction Test Result Table. Laboratory compaction tests for each soil type was performed to determine the corresponding maximum dry density and optimum moisture content in accordance with the ASTM D -1557. The backfill was placed in 6 to 8 -inch lifts and compacted by means ofheavy construction equipment, (an excavator with compaction wheel, a backhoe with compaction wheel and whackers). Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1556 sand cone method, and ASTM D- 2922 nuclear method as the backfill placement progressed. The moisture content for each density sample was also determined. The locations of the tests were placed to provide the best possible coverage. Areas of low compaction, as indicated by the field density tests, were brought to the attention of the contractor. These areas were reworked by the contractor and retested. The test locations and final test results are summarized on the Compaction Test Result Table. Test locations were determined by using stationing from the approved Grading Plans, (Drawing #963 -G) and the approved Improvement Plans, (Drawing #963 -1). Elevations and locations of field density tests were determined by hand level and pacing/tape measure relative to field staking done by others. Compaction Test Results, Underground Utility Trench Backfills Page 2 Seaside Highlands, City of Encinitas GP #963 -G Sept. 21, 2011 The results of our field density tests and laboratory testing indicate that the trench backfills at the project development were compacted to at least 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density at the tested locations. Upper 12- inches of subgrade soils and aggregate base layer under the project roadways within the trench backfill areas were compacted to at least 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density at the tested locations. Our description of the backfill operations, as well as observations and testing services herein, have been limited to those backfill operations performed periodically from March 15, 2011 through June, 2011. The conclusions contained herein have been based upon our observations and testing as noted. No representations are made as to the quality or extent of materials not observed and tested. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #10 -283 -F will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. No. 23a5 #2885 EV.12131l12 Distribution: Addressee (2) Mr. Chuck Isbell (3) Mr. Brian Ardolino, Pasco, I.aret, Suiter & Associates (1) fwrAmy filestgrading depanmem projects \I0 -2834 - wannington residential calilfomia 18 -loat sub encinitas \undaground utility trench backfill compaction report VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warminaton Residential California, Inc. LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Hielilands. Encinitas TEST RESULTS: Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content, ASTM 1557: Soil Type : 1 Brown Sil ty Clavev Sand Maximum Dry Density: 130.6 pcf Optimum Moisture: 9_8 % Soil Type: 3 Tan Silty Sandstone Maximum Dry Density: 128.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 11.0 % Soil Type : 4 Brown Silty Sand and Yellow -Tan Clayey Silt Mix Maximum Dry Density: 132.5 pcf Optimum Moisture: 9_7 % Soil Type : 6 Grey Medium Coarse Sand Maximum Dry Density: 134.5 pcf Optimum Moisture: 8_2 % Soil Type: 7 Light Brown- Tan Silty Sand Maximum Dry Density: 124.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 12.3 % Soil Type: 8 Grey Class II Base Maximum Dry Density: 142.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 6_3 % Soil Type: 9 Tan Sandy Class II base Maximum Dry Density: 133.8 pcf Optimum Moisture: 7_5 % JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location HL Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf Relative Co Comments 03/19 1 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +70 -3 10.0 119.0 128.0 92.9 Station 2 +50 to 3 +60, 5' to Top of Rock 03/18 2 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +00 -4 8.5 120.9 130.6 92.6 Station 2 +50 to 3 +60, 5' to Top of Rock 03/18 3 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +30 -3 9.4 120.7 130.6 92.4 Station 2 +50 to 3 +60, 5' to Top of Rock 03/18 4 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +50 -1 9.8 115.4 128.0 90.2 Station 2 +50 to 3 +60, 5' to Top of Rock 03/18 5 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +90 -4 10.9 117.0 128.0 91.4 Station 3 +60 to 4 +65, 6' to Top of Rock 03/18 6 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 4 +20 -2 10.4 1 19.1 130.6 91.2 Station 3 +60 to 4 +65, 6' to Top of Rock 03/18 7 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 4+40 0 10.6 119.9 130.6 91.8 Station 3 +60 to 4 +65, 61 to Top of Rock 03/18 8 Sewer Lateral, Lot #12, Scarlet Way, Station 3+20 -2 8.9 117.5 128.0 91.8 03/18 j 9 Sewer Lateral, Lot #18, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +60 -1.5 10.8 116.4 128.0 90.9 03/18 1 10 Sewer Lateral, L.ot #11, Scarlet Way, Station 4+06 -1.5 9.8 120.2 130.6 92.0 03/17 11 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +50 -2 7.9 120.5 130.6 92.3 Station 1 +30 to 1 +90, 4'to Top of Rock 03/17 12 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +75 -2 9.4 117.6 128.0 91.9 Station 1 +30 to 1 +90, 4' to Top of Rock 03/18 13 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +00 -2 9.0 117.8 128.0 92.0 Station 1 +30 to 1 +90, 4' to Top of Rock 03/18 14 Sewer Main, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +25 -1 9.8 116.8 128.0 91.3 Station 1 +30 to 1 +90, 4' to Top of Rock 03/18 15 SMH Tie In, Scarlet Wy@ Balour Dr., Sta.1 +00 -3 9.2 123.3 128.0 96.3 03/18 16 Sewer Line, Scarlet Way in Balour Dr., Sta. 1 +15 -2 10.1 123.8 130.6 94.8 Station 1 +00 to 1 +30, 4' to Top of Rock 03/18 17 SMH Tie In, @ Scarlet Wy& Balour Dr., Sta. 1 +00 -2 10.2 123.9 130.6 94.9 03 /18 18 Sewer Manhole, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +50 1 -4 1 9.5 1 121.1 1 128.0 1 94.6 6' to Top of Rock JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lat Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Dra%ing #963 -(: Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf % Relative Conw. Comments 03/18 19 Sewer Manhole, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +50 -2 7.8 121.1 130.6 92.7 6' to Top of Rock 03/18 20 Sewer Lateral, Lot #13, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +58 -1.5 9.0 120.2 130.6 92.0 3.5' to Top of Rock 03/18 21 Sewer Lateral, Lot #7, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +60 -1.5 9.9 118.9 130.6 91.0 3.5' to Top of Rock 03/18 22 Sewer Lateral, Lot #16, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +92 -1.5 10.4 118.8 128.0 92.8 3.5' to Top of Rock 03/18 23 Sewer Lateral, Lot # 14, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +90 -1.5 9.8 118.8 128.0 92.8 3.5' to Top of Rock 03/18 24 Sewer Lateral, Lot #15, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +10 -1.5 10.9 117.7 128.0 92.0 3.5'to Top of Rock 03/23 25 Sewer Lateral, Lot #10. Scarlet Way, Station 4 +61 -3 14.0 116.5 130.6 89.2 5' to Top of Rock Test Failed 03/23 26 Sewer Lateral, Lot #10, Scarlet Way, Station 4 +61 -2 11.8 116.8 130.6 89.4 5' to Top of Rock, North Side, Failed 03/23 27 Sewer Manhole, Scarlet Way, Station 4 +65 -5 12.5 116.2 130.6 88.8 T to Top of Rock West Side, Failed 03/23 28 Sewer Manhole, Scarlet Way, Station 4 +65 -3 9.0 115.1 128.0 89.9 T to Top of Rock, South Side, Failed 03/30 29 Fire Hydrant, Scarlet Way, Station 3+09 -2 6.0 127.9 134.5 95.1 Shading Sand 03/31 30 Water Main, Scarlet Way, Station 3+50 -2 7.0 128.0 134.5 95.2 Sta. 3 +30 to 3 +60, Shading Sand 03/31 31 Water Main, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +65 -2 7.3 127.9 134.5 95.1 Sta. 1 +50 to 1 +90, Shading Sand 03/3) 32 Water Main, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +75 -1 12.1 123.6 132.5 93.3 Sta. 1 +50 to 1 +90 03/31 33 Water Lateral, Lots 14/15, Scarlet Way -2 7.2 128.5 134.5 95.5 Sta. 1 +96 to 1 +98, Shading Sand 03/31 34 Water Lateral, Lot #16, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +00 -2 7.3 128.1 134.5 95.2 Top of Shading Sand 03/31 35 Water Lateral, Lot #13, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +68 -2 6.8 128.2 134.5 95.3 Top of Shading Sand 03/31 36 Water Lateral, Lot #12, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +30 -2 7.0 _122.6___L 134.5 97.1 1 Top of Shading Sand JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, DraAag #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf Relative Comp. Comments 03/31 37 Water lateral, lot #11, Scarlet Way, Station 4+14 -2 7.6 127.9 134.5 95.1 Top of Shading Sand 04/01 38 Water Maim Scarlet Way, Station 2+25 -? 7.6 127.9 134.5 95.1 Sta. 1 +90 to 2 +50, Shading Sand 04/01 39 Water Maim Scarlet Way, Station 2 +35 -1 7.2 125.2 130.6 95.9 04/01 40 Water Maim Scarlet Way, Station 2+60 -2 8.8 132.9 134.5 98.8 04/01 41 Water Main, Scarlet Way, Station 2+80 -1 9.4 120.3 128.0 94.0 04/01 42 Water Maim Scarlet Way, Station 3 +10 7.1 129.9 134.5 95.8 04/01 43 Water Lateral, Lot #17, Station 2 +70 7.1 128.1 134.5 95.3 Top of Shading Sand 04/01 44 Water Main, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +40 1 8.8 124.4 128.0 97.2 Station 3 +30 to 3 +60 04/01 45 Water Main Scarlet Way, Station 3 +80 - 7.0 129.9 134.5 96.0 Sta. 3 +60 to 4 +45, Shading Sand 04/01 46 Water Lateral, Lots #14 -15, Scarlet Way -1 8.2 117.2 128.0 91.5 Station 1 +96 to 1 +98 04/01 47 Water Lateral, Lot #16, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +00 -1 9.1 118.6 128.0 92.7 04/01 48 Water Lateral, Lot #13, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +68 -1 8.2 120.1 128.0 93.8 04/01 49 Water Lateral, Lot #17, Scarlet Way, Station 2 +70 -1 9.0 122.7 130.6 95.8 04/01 50 Fire Hydrant Lateral, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +09 -1 8.4 122.3 128.0 95.5 04/01 51 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #12, Station 3 +30 -1 8.6 123.2 128.0 96.3 04/01 52 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #I8, Station 3+70 -2 7.2 130.1 134.5 96.7 04/01 53 Water Maim Scarlet Way, Station 4+25 -2 6.9 128.1 135.5 95.2 04/01 54 Water Maim Scarlet Wa ,Station 3 +75 l 8.6 122.5 128.0 95.7 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Dra ming #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Back-rills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pef Max Dry Density Pd % Relative Comm Comments 04/01 55 Water Main, Scarlet Way, Station 4+30 -1 6.7 124.6 130.6 95.4 04/01 56 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #18, Station3 +70 -1 8.1 122.8 128.0 95.9 04/01 57 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #I1, Station4 +14 -1 7.0 120.7 128.0 94.2 04/01 58 Water Lateral, Scarlet Wax Lot #7, Station 4 +48 -2 7.3 128.1 134.5 95.2 04/01 59 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #10, Station 4 +50 -2 7.8 128.9 134.5 95.8 04/01 60 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #7, Station 4+48 -1 8.7 120.1 128.0 93.8 04/04 61 Water Lateral, Scarlet Way, Lot #10, Station 4+50 -1 6.2 116.3 128.0 90.9 04/05 62 Sewer Lateral, Scarlet Wax Extension Lot #16 -1.5 10.4 116.3 128.0 90.9 Station 1 +92 04/05 63 Sewer Lateral, Scarlet Way, Extension Lot #17 -1.5 10.5 119.0 128.0 93.0 Station 2 +60 04/05 64 Sewer Lateral, Scarlet Way, Extension Lot #18 -1.5 9.8 117.0 128.0 1 91.4 Station 3 +60 04/05 65 Sewer Lateral, Scarlet Way, Extension Lot #10 -1.5 9.1 116.1 128.0 90.7 Station 4 +61 04/07 66 STI, Scarlet Wy & Balour Dr., 10' No. Sta. 1 +00 -2 6.1 128.4 134.5 95.2 Top of Shading Sand 04/07 67 STI, Scarlet Wy& Balour Dr., 10' So. Sta. 1 +00 -2 5.8 128.7 134.5 95.7 Top of Shading Sand 04/08 68 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +50 -3 8.7 117.2 128.0 91.5 5 -Foot Deep Trench 04/08 69 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +80 -1 9.5 118.2 128.0 92.3 Sta. 2 +40 to 2 +90, 5' Deep Trench 04/08 70 Sewer Lateral, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +70 -2 9.0 116.4 128.0 91.0 Sta. 2 +40 to 2 +90, 4' Deep Trench 04/11 71 Watennain, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +25 -3 7.1 128.1 134.5 95.2 4 -Foot Deep Trench 04/11 72 Watemtain, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +50 -2 6.9 127.9 134.5 95 .1 4 -Foot Deep Trench JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-L4)t Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, DraNing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench BackfBs Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Molstm Field Dry Density Pd Max Dry Density XW % Relative Comp. Comments 04/11 73 Watermain, Scarlet Way. Station 1-50 -I 8.2 117.0 128.0 91.4 4 -Foot Deep Trench 04/13 74 Dry Utility Trench, No. Side, Station 2 +00 -3.5 8.5 112.1 124.0 90.4 5 -Foot Deep Trench 04/13 75 Dry Utility Trench, No. Side, Station 3 +00 -3.5 13.0 112.1 124.0 90.4 5 -Foot Deep Trench 04/13 76 Dry Utility Trench, No. Side, Station 4+00 -3.5 9.2 113.0 124.0 91.1 5 -Foot Deep Trench 04/13 77 Dry Utility Trench, Cul de Sac, Station4 +75 -3.5 8.2 111.5 124.0 90.0 5 -Foot Deep Trench 04/13 78 Water Lateral, Balotr Dr. & Scarlet Way, Air Vac -3 8.0 127.8 134.5 95.0 Top of Shading Sand, Station 1 +00 04/13 79 Water Main Tie In, Balotr Dr. /Scarlet Way -1 11.1 124.5 130.6 95.3 Starionl +00, 15' South 04/13 80 Water Main Tie hL Balo r Dr. /Scarlet Way -1 10.8 124.9 130.6 95.6 Starionl +00, 5' North 04/13 81 Water Lateral, Balotr Dr. /Scarlet Way, Top of Sand -3 7.0 129.7 134.5 96.4 From Main to NW Side Scarlet Way 04/13 82 Water Lateral, Balotr Dr. /Scarlet Way -1 8.5 122.0 128.0 95.3 From Main to NW Side Scarlet Way 04/14 83 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +00 -3.5 14.0 111.8 124.0 90.2 Over Electric 04/14 84 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +00 -2.5 13.8 111.8 124.0 90.1 Over Common 04/14 85 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +00 -1.5 12.4 112.0 124.0 90.3 5' Deep, Over Gas 04/14 86 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +70 -3.5 14.0 112.1 124.0 90.4 5' Deep, Over Electric 04/14 87 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +70 -2.5 13.8 112.0 124.0 90.3 5' Deep, Over Common 04/14 88 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Station 3 +70 - I 8.2 117.6 128.0 91.9 5' Deep, Over Gas 04/14 89 Water Main, Scarlet Way'Balour Dr., Station 1 +00 -3 5.2 1 127.8 134.5 95.0 1 Top of Sand, 4' Deep, Valve Cans 04/14 1 90 1 Water Main, Scarlet WayBalcur Dr.. Station 1 +00 -I 8.6 1214 128.0 95.6 1 4' Deep, Valve Cans JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential CaBfornia LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Draming #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pd Max Dry Density PgL., Relative Cam Comments 04/14 91 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Cul de Sac -3 12.8 112.9 124.0 91.0 4' 7 rench, Station 4772 04/14 92 Dry Utility Crossing, Scarlet Way, Cul de Sac -2 13.9 111.6 124.0 90.0 4' Trench, Station4 +72 04/14 93 Blow Off+ Air Vac, Scarlet WayBalour Drive -2 9.2 120.4 128.0 94.1 Beneath Sidewalk, Around Risers 04/15 94 Dry Utility Main, Scarlet Way, E. Side Call de Sac -1.5 13.6 112.3 124.0 90.5 Station 4 +80 04/15 95 Sewer Main, Blue Jack Road, Station 2 +25 -1 6.6 120.8 128.0 94.4 Sta. 1 +50 to 3 +00, 5' Deep Trench 04/15 96 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +75 -1 8.8 118.7 130.6 90.9 Sta. 1 +50 to 3 +00, 5' Deep Trench 04/15 97 Sewer Manhole, Balour Drive, Station 1 +00 -2 8.5 118.0 128.0 90.3 4' Deep 04/15 98 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2+00 -3 8.8 115.1 128.0 90.0 4' Deep Trench 04/15 99 Sewer Manhole, Balour Drive, Station 1 +00 -2 8.6 124.3 130.6 95.2 4' Deep 04/15 100 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +25 -3 9.7 115.6 128.0 90.3 Sta. 1 +50 to 3 +00, 5' Deep Trench 04/15 101 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +40 -1 7.3 122.9 130.6 94.2 Sta. 1 +50 to 3 +00, 5' Deep Trench 04/15 102 Sewer lateral to Lot #4, Bluejack Road, -2 9.0 119.4 130.6 91.5 4' Deep Trench 04/15 103 Sewer Manhole, Balour Drive, Station 1 +00 SG 6.9 125.9 130.6 96.4 4' Deep 04/15 104 Sewer Manhole, Balour Drive, Station 1 +00 BG 5.8 138.9 142.0 97.8 04/15 105 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +50 -3 7.8 120.2 130.6 92.0 04/15 106 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Station 4+50 -2.5 6.6 112.5 128.0 87.9 Test Failed 04/15 107 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Station 3 +50 .2.5 7.0 112.3 128.0 87.7 Test Failed 04/15 108 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Wa , Station 2+50 -2.5 6.0 113.5 128.0 88.7 Test Failed JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Back811s Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pct Relative Comp. Comments 04/15 109 Water Main Tie In, Balour Drive SG 8.2 124.0 128.0 96.9 10' South Station 1 +00 04/18 110 Water Main Tie 4 Balour Drive SG 9.0 123.9 128.0 96.8 10' North Station 1 +00 04/18 111 Water Main Tie In, Balour Drive /Scarlet Way SG 8.8 123.6 128.0 96.6 Station 1 +15 04/18 112 Water Service, 3- Laterals Balour Dr., NE of Main SG 8.1 123.9 128.0 96.8 04/18 113 Sewer Main, Balour Drive For Scarlet Way, Sta. 1 +15 SG 8.0 123.1 128.0 96.2 04/18 114 Sewer Main, Balour Drive For Scarlet Way, Sta. 1 +15 BG 6.0 136.8 145.0 96.3 04/18 115 Water Main Tie In Trenches, Balour Drive BG 5.2 139.8 145.0 98.5 15' South Station 1+00 04/18 116 Water Main Tie In Trenches, Balour Drive BG 5.8 136.2 145.0 95.9 5' North Station 1 +00 04/18 117 Water Main, Balour Drive For Scarlet Way, Sta.1 +10 BG 5.1 136.2 145.0 95.9 04/18 118 Water Services, Balour Drive, 3- Laterals, NE ofMain BG 5.2 135.7 145.0 95.6 04/18 119 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Station 4+50 -2.5 7.3 117.9 128.0 92.1 Retest #106 04/18 120 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Station 3+50 -2.5 7.0 118.1 128.0 92.3 Retest #107 04/18 121 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Station 2+50 -2.5 7.1 116.7 128.0 91.2 Retest #108 04/18 122 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road Station 3 +75 -3 8.2 120.6 128.0 94.2 04/18 123 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 4+00 -1 9.4 121.5 130.6 93.0 04/18 124 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 4+65 -3 9.6 123.2 130.6 94.3 04/18 125 Sewer Main, Bluejack Road, Station 4+90 -1 8.5 121.5 130.6 93.0 04/18 126 Sewer Lateral to Lot #6, Station 4+00 -2 8.9 123.2 130.6 94.3 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Draving #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht Of Back Fillln Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Relative Comments 04/11) Fl 27 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way -3.5 14.0 111.6 124.0 90.0 Station 1 +75 04/19 128 Dry Utility Lateral, Scarlet Wag Station 2 +05 -3.5 14.5 111.8 124.0 90.2 04/19 129 Dry Utility Lateral, Scarlet Wax Station 2 +05 -2.5 14.1 113.9 124.0 91.9 04/19 130 Dry Utility Lateral, Scarlet Wax Station 2+05 -1.5 14.5 112.6 124.0 90.8 04/19 131 Sewer Manhole, Bluejack Road, Station 4+43 -3.5 9.3 1 115.3 128.0 1 90.1 5.5' Deep 04/19 132 Sewer Manhole, Bluejack Road, Station4 +43 -1.5 8.1 120.6 128.0 94.2 5.5' Deep 04/19 133 Sewer Manhole, Bluejack Road, Station 5+13 -5 7.7 122.4 130.6 93.7 6.5' Deep 04/19 134 Sewer Manhole, Bluejack Road, Station 5 +13 -3 9.3 121.2 130.6 92.8 04/19 135 Sewer Manhole, Bluejack Road, Station 5+13 -1 8.4 116.0 128.0 90.7 04/19 136 Sewer Lateral to Lot #8, Bluejack Road, Sta. 4 +85 -2 7.9 120.4 128.0 1 94.0 4' Deep 04/20 137 Sewer Lateral to Lot #2, Bluejack Road, Sta. 2 +68 -2 8.6 120.3 128.0 94.0 4' Deep 04/20 138 Sewer Lateral to Lot #3, Bluejack Road, Sta. 1 +88 -2 8.3 118.6 128.0 92.6 4' Deep 04/20 139 Sewer Lateral to Lot #1, Bluejack Road, Sta. 3 +98 -2 8.6 117.5 128.0 91.8 4' Deep 04/20 140 Sewer Lateral to Lot #9, Bluejack Road, Sta. 5+09 -2 9.0 120.7 128.0 94.2 4' Deep 04/20 141 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Wax Sta. 4 +10 -1.5 13.8 112.5 124.0 90.7 04/20 142 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Wax Sta. 3 +10 -1.5 12.2 1 113.1 124.0 91.2 04/20 143 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Sta. 2 +10 1 -1.5 12.4 112.9 124.0 91.0 1104/20 1 144 1 Dry Utility Main, Cul de Sac, Scarlet Way, Sta. 4 +79 1 -1.5 12.3 113.6 124.0 91.6 1 11 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -C Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location HL Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pef Max Dry Density Pet % Relative C Comments 04/21 145 Dry Utility Main, Cal de Sac. Scarlet Way, Sta. 4 +60 -1 8.5 121.1 130.6 92.8 04/22 146 Dry Utility Main, Cal de Sac, Scarlet Way, Sta. 4 +00 -1 7.8 123.2 130.6 94.4 04/22 147 Dry Utility Main, Cal de Sac, Scarlet Way, Sta. 3 +40 -1 8.6 121.1 130.6 92.7 04/25 148 Dry Utility Main, Ctrl de Sac, Scarlet Way, Sta. 2 +80 -1 8.0 118.5 128.0 92.6 04/25 149 Dry Utility Main, Cal de Sac, Scarlet Wax Sta. 2 +00 -1 8.1 116.6 128.0 91.1 04/25 150 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +40, Sand -2.5 9.5 131.4 134.5 97.7 From Sta. 2 +00 to 2 +70, 3.5' Deep 04/25 151 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +00, Sand -2.5 7.8 130.9 134.5 97.4 From Sta. 2 +90 to 3 +90, 3.5' Deep 04/25 152 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +66, Sand -2.5 6.7 128.6 134.5 95.6 From Sta. 2 +90 to 3 +90, 3.5' Deep 04/25 153 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Sta. 1 +50 4 12.2 114.9 124.0 92.7 5' Deep 04/25 154 Dry Utility Main, No. Side Scarlet Way, Sta. 1 +60 -3 13.6 115.4 124.0 93.1 5' Deep 04/26 155 Water Service To Lot 99, Bluejack Rd., Station 5 +05 -2 8.4 127.8 134.5 95.0 Sand 04/26 156 Water Service To Lot 48, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +91 -2 6.8 127.9 134.5 95.1 Sand 04/26 157 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 4 +50 -2 8.0 128.1 134.5 95.2 From Sta. 3 +90 to 5 +00, Sand 04/26 158 Water Service To Lot 4, Bluejack Rd., Station 2 +00 -2 7.6 128.1 134.5 95.2 Sand 04/26 159 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +75 -2 8.8 127.8 134.5 95.0 From Station 1 +50 to 2 +00, Sand 04/26 160 Water Service to Lot #5, Bluejack Rd., Station 2 +80 -2 7.1 129.3 134.5 96.1 Sand 04/26 161 Water Service to Lot #6, Bluejack Rd., Station4 +10 -2 7.8 129.5 134.5 96.3 Sand 04/26 162 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +70 -1 9.6 116.9 128.0 91.4 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, DraWng #963 -C Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench BackTills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 04/26 163 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +60 1 9.6 127.3 130.6 97.5 04/26 164 Water Service To Lot 4, Bluejack Rd., Station 2 +00 1 7.0 123.2 130.6 94.3 04/26 165 Water Service To Lot 5, Bluejack Rd., Station 2 +80 1 8.8 121.0 128.0 94.5 04/26 166 Water Maim Bluejack Road, Station 3 +50 1 9.0 124.1 130.6 95.0 04/27 167 Water Main, Bluejack Road, Station4 +40 1 8.1 118.2 128.0 92.3 04/27 168 Water Service To Lot 8, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +91 1 8.6 119.5 128.0 93.4 04/27 169 Water Service To Lot #9, Bluejack Rd., Station 5 +05 -1 7.8 120.1 128.0 93.9 04/29 170 Sewer Main, Melba Road, Station 1 +45 -4 10.2 118.0 128.0 92.2 From Station 1+05 to 1 +50, 6'to Rock 04/29 171 Sewer Main, Melba Road, Station 1 +25 -2 10.4 120.6 128.0 94.2 04/29 172 Sewer Main, Melba Road, Station 1 +15 -1 9.9 119.8 128.0 93.6 05/02 173 Dry Utility Main, Cul de Sac, Bluejack Rd. Sta. 4 +50 4 14.3 112.9 124.0 91.0 Station 4 +00 to End Cu] de Sac, 5' Deep 05/02 174 Dry Utility Lat. to Lot #9, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +75 4 13.5 113.4 124.0 91.5 At End of Cul de Sac, 5' Deep, Sand 05/02 175 Dry Utility Lat. to Lot #8, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +75 -4 14.1 112.6 124.0 90.8 At End of Cul de Sac, 5' Deep, Sand 05111 176 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +50 4 13.3 111.7 124.0 90.1 From Station 2 +00 to 4 +00, Sand 05111 177 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +50 4 14.0 111.8 124.0 90.2 From Station 2+00 to 4+00, Sand 05105 178 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +50 -5 13.2 112.0 124.0 90.3 From Station 2 +00 to 4 +00, Sari 05/05 179 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +50 -3 13.8 112.3 124.0 90.6 From Station 2 +00 to 4 +00, Sand 05105 180 Dry Utility Main. Bluejack Road, Station 4 +50 -3 12.4 113.0 124.0 91.1 From Station 2 +00 to 4 +00, Sand JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed I8-Lot Subdivision, Seaside highlands, Drawing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 12011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill in Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pef Max Dry Density Pef % Relative comp. Comments 05/05 181 Dry Utility Lat. to Lot #8, Bluejack Rd., Station 3 -7i -3 13.9 113.7 124.0 91.7 05/05 182 Dry Utility Lat. to Lot #9, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +75 -3 13.7 112.9 124.0 91.0 05/05 183 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station4 +45 -4 12.8 112.9 124.0 91.0 05/05 184 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station 3+90 4 13.5 112.9 124.0 91.0 05105 185 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 4+60 -2 13.2 112.1 124.0 90.4 05/05 186 Dry Utility Lat. to Lot #8, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +75 -2 13.1 112.6 124.0 90.8 05/05 187 Dry Utility Trench Between Lots 5 & 6, East %2 -2 14.0 1 12.7 124.0 90.9 4' Deep 05/05 188 Dry Utility Main, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +45 -1 10.4 118.7 128.0 92.7 05/05 189 Dry Utility Scv. Trench, Scarlet Wy. Irrigation Meter -1 9.8 118.9 128.0 92.9 Station 1 +50 05/05 190 WMTI, Bluejack Rd. @ Melba Rd., Station 1 +10 -2.5 6.5 129.6 134.5 96.4 From Station I +00 to 1 +50, Sand 05105 191 WMTI, Bluejack Rd. @ Melba Rd., Station 1 +30 -2.5 6.2 129.1 134.5 96.0 From Station 1 +00 to 1 +50, Sand 05/06 192 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +25 -2 14.2 112.9 124.0 91.0 From Station 2 +00 to 4 +45 05/06 193 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +25 -2 13.4 112.6 124.0 90.8 From Station 2 +00 to 4 +45 05/06 194 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station4 +25 -2 13.2 113.3 124.0 91.4 05/06 195 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +85 -2 14.5 114.0 124.0 92.9 05/06 196 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +55 -2 13.8 113.8 124.0 91.8 05/06 197 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 4 +40 1 -1 8.8 120.2 130.6 92.0 From Station 3 +90 to 4 +75 05/06 1 198 Dry Utility Lat. to Lot #8, Bluejack Rd., Station 4 +75 1 -1 9.2 118.6 128.0 92.7 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Draviing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench BackTills Date 2011 I est No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density I'd Max Dry Density I'd % Relative COMD. Comments 05/06 199 1 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station 3 90 -1 10.4 117.8 128.0 92.0 05/06 200 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station 4+45 -1 8.0 118.1 128.0 92.3 05/06 201 Fire Hydrant Lat. Xng, Melba Rd., So. ' /x, Sta. 5 +87 -2.5 6.4 129.4 134.5 96.2 Sand 05/06 202 Fire Hydrant Lat. Xng, Melba Rd., No. %, Sta. 5 +87 -2.5 5.8 128.3 134.5 95.4 Sand 05/06 203 Fire Hydrant Lat. Xng, Melba Rd., So. ''/2, Sta. 5 +87 -1 8.4 1 119.2 130.6 91.3 05/09 204 Dry Utility Main,BluejackRoad,Station2 +25 -1 8.2 119.7 128.0 93.5 05/09 205 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 3 +25 -1 8.4 1 19.4 128.0 93.3 05/09 206 Dry Utility Crossing, Bluejack Road, Station 2 +55 -1 9.2 119.5 128.0 93.4 05/09 207 Dry Utility Trench Between Lots 5 & 6, West % -2 14.0 111.8 124.0 90.2 05110 208 Water Lat. Melba Rd, 2 -130's + 1 -Air Vac, Sta. 4 +65 -3 7.5 133.1 130.6 99.0 From Station 4 +60 to 4 +90, Sand 05/10 209 Water Lat. Melba Rd, 2 -130's + I -Air Vac, Sta. 4 +75 -2 6.0 132.5 134.5 98.5 From Station 4 +60 to 4 +90, Sand 05/10 210 Water Lat. Melba Rd, 2 -130's + 1 -Air Vac, Sta. 4 +70 -1 8.4 121.6 134.5 93.1 From Station 4 +60 to 4 +90 05110 211 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +60 +4 12.9 111.9 124.0 90.2 From Sta. 1 +30 to Sta. 2 +00, 5'Deep 05110 212 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +40 -3 12.4 113.8 124.0 91.8 05110 213 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +30, X'ng -2 9.2 119.5 128.0 93.4 05110 214 Water Lat. Melba Rd, 2 -130's + 1 -Air Vac, Sta. 4 +90 -2.5 6.2 132.6 134.5 98.6 From Sta. 4 +60.4 +90, Tie In, Sand 05111 215 Fire Hydrant Lateral, Bluejack Rd. Station 4+15 -1 8.0 117.8 128.0 92.0 05111 216 Fire Hydrant Lateral, Melba Rd., X'n , Station 5 +87 -1 10.6 1 19.4 128.0 93.0 North %:, JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Dravting #963 -G Field Density Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pdf Max Dry Density Pd Relative Comp, Comments 05 /11 217 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 70 -2 12.8 112.2 124.0 90.5 From Station 1 +30 to 2 +90 05/11 218 Dry Utility Main, Bluejack Road, Station 1 +50 -1 9.8 117.0 128.0 91.4 From Station 1 +30 to 2 +90 05/12 219 Dry Utility Main, No. %2 Melba Rd. Sta. 1 +15, Tie In -1.5 12.8 118.0 124.0 95.2 Tie In Bluejack Road 05/12 220 Dry Utility Main, No. %2 Melba Rd. Sta. I +10, Tie In BG 8.0 127.9 133.8 95.6 Bluejack Road, From Sta. 1 +00 to 1 +30 05/23 221 Water Crossing, Balour Dr., Station 13 +76 -2.5 8.6 131.5 134.5 97.8 05/23 222 Water Crossing, Balour Dr., Station 13 +76 -1.5 8.6 124.2 128.0 97.0 05/23 223 Water Crossing, Balour Dr., Station 13 +76 BG 6.7 137.0 142.0 96.5 05/24 224 Water Test Plate hole, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +00 -2.5 9.2 123.8 134.5 92.0 Sand 05/24 225 Water Test Plate hole, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +00 -1.5 8.0 129.2 134.5 96.1 05/24 226 Water Test Plate hole, Scarlet Way, Station 1 +00 BG 5.0 136.9 142.0 96.4 05/25 227 Abandoned Water Service, Melba Rd., Station 4 +22 BG 5.6 137.2 142.0 96.6 05/25 228 Sewer Manhole, Scarlet Way, Station 4+65 -5.0 10.5 118.6 130.6 90.8 Retest # 27 05/25 229 Sewer Manhole, Scarlet Way, Station 4 +65 -3.0 9.8 118.3 130.6 90.6 Retest # 28 05/25 230 Sewer Lateral, Lot #10, Scarlet Way, Station 4+61 -1.0 10.4 118.5 130.6 90.7 Retest # 26 05/25 231 Sewer Lateral, Lot #10, Scarlet Way, Station4 +61 -3.0 11.1 119.0 130.6 91.1 Retest # 25 05/26 232 Water Tie -In, Melba Rd., Station 1 +00 BG 6.0 135.8 142.0 95.6 05/26 233 Sewer Man Hale, Melba Rd., Station 1 +00 BG 7.1 135.6 142.0 95.5 05/26 234 D Util. Crossing, Balour Dr., Fast %2, Station 15 +35 -2.5 7.1 120.4 124.0 97.1 Sand JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -C Field Density Tests Results: Underground Utility Trench Backfills Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Feet % Field Moisture Field Dn Density Pcf Max Dn Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 05/26 235 Dry Util. Crossing, Balour Dr., East Y2, Station 15 +35 BG 6.2 129.8 133.8 97.0 05/27 236 FH Crossing, Melba Rd., South %2, Station 5 +87 BG 5.8 138.1 142.0 97.3 05/27 237 Water Test Plate hole, Melba Rd., Station 1 +00 BG 4.2 138.1 142.0 97.3 05/27 238 Dry Utility Trench in Church Parking Lot -1.0 8.8 119.9 130.6 91.8 Off Melba Rd. 05/31 239 FH Crossing, Melba Rd., North 'h, Station 5 +87 -1.0 9.4 126.0 130.6 96.5 05/31 240 Water Trench Around Valve Cans, Melba Rd. -1.0 8.8 125.2 130.6 95.9 Sta: 4 +85 - 4 +95 05131 241 Water Trench Around Valve Cans, Melba Rd. BG 6.0 137.5 142.0 96.8 Sta: 4 +85 - 4 +95 05/31 242 FH Crossing, Melba Rd., North V2, Station 5 +87 BG 6.6 138.4 142.0 97.5 06/08 243 Dry Utility Tie -In, Balour Dr., Station 15 +35 -1.5 8.8 117.8 124.0 95.0 06/08 244 Dry Utility Tie -In, Balour Dr., Station 15 +35 BG 4.5 132.3 133.8 98.9 06/08 245 Dry Utility Tie -In, Melba Rd., Station 5 +77 -1.5 8.8 119.3 124.0 96.3 06/08 246 Dry Utility Tie -In, Melba Rd.., Station 5 +77 BG 4.3 131.8 133.8 98.5 06/09 247 Dry Utility Crossing, Melba Rd., South edge 2.0 7.7 119.3 124.0 96.2 Sta: 5 +77 06/09 248 Dry Utility Crossing, Melba Rd., South edge BG 5.8 130.9 133.8 97.8 Sta: 5 +77 061/22 249 Dry Utility Crossing. Melba Rd., Landsca e .Area -1.5 1 9.2 119.0 130.6 91.1 Sta: 5 +77 FH =Fire Hydrant Sta. = Station SMH = Manhole STI = Sewer Tie In WMTI = Water Main Tie In BO = Blow Off SG = Subgrade/ BG = Basegrade COMPACTION TEST RESULT TABLE JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warminglon Residential California LOCATION: Proposed I8 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -G TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Density /Optimum Moisture Content, ASTM D -1557: Soil Type :1 Brown SIlty Clavev Sand Maximum Dry Density: 130.6 pcf Optimum Moisture: 9.8% Soil Type :3 Tan Silty Sandstone Maximum Dry Density: 128.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 11.0% Soil Type: 10 Grey Class II Base Maximum Dry Density: 138.0 pcf Optimum Moisture: 7.0 % Field Density Test Results: Subgrade /Basegrade Date 21111 Test No. Location Ht. Of Fill In Eley. 7o Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dri Density Pcf Relatne Comp. Comments 5,24 1 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway. Sta: 1 +50 SG 8.1 118.1 128.0 92.3 Failed 5/24 2 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 2+ 50 SG 14.2 112.2 130.6 85.9 Failed 5/24 3 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 3 +50 SG 8.6 118.2 130.6 90.5 Failed 5/24 4 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Cul -De -Sac SG 9.0 121.7 130.6 93.2 Failed. Sta: 4 +50 5/25 5 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 1 +50 SG 1 7.2 1 120.5 1 130.6 1 92.2 Failed 5 /25 6 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 2 +50 SG 7.5 112.3 130.6 86.0 Failed 5126 7 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta:2 +50 SG 9.3 127.6 1 130.6 1 97.7 Retest # 2 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Draving #963 -C Field Density Tests Results: SubgradeBasegrade Date 2011 Test No. Location EL Of FBI In Elev. % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pef Max Dry Density Pef % Relative Comp. Comments 5/26 8 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 3 +50 SG 9.5 124.1 130.6 95.0 Retest #3 5/27 9 Balour Drive, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 14 +50 BG 6.5 135.4 138.0 98.1 East Side Widening 5/27 10 Balour Drive, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 15 +25 BG 6.6 134.0 138.0 97.1 East Side Widening 5/27 11 Balour Drive, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 16+00 BG 6.2 134.2 138.0 97.2 East Side Widening 5/27 12 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 1 +50 SG 10.2 125.3 130.6 95.9 Retest #5 5/27 13 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 2 +50 SG 10.4 124.6 130.6 95.4 Retest #6 5/27 14 Bluejack Road, Club /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 3 +50 SG 9.2 125.0 130.6 95.7 5/27 15 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 4 +50 SG 10.1 122.4 128.0 95.6 5/27 16 Bluejack Road, Curb/Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 5 +25 SG 10.5 124.9 130.6 1 95.6 Cul-de-sac 5 /31 17 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 4 +50 SG 9.8 125.1 130.6 95.8 Cul-de-sac, Retest #4 5/31 18 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter & Roadway, Sta: 1 +50 SG 10.2 122.6 128.0 95.8 Retest #1 6/1 19 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 1 +75 BG 6.2 135.6 138.0 98.3 6/1 20 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 2 +75 BG 4.8 135.0 138.0 97.8 6/1 21 Scarlet Way, Club /Gutter, Sta: 3 +75 BG 5.5 135.1 138.0 97.8 6/1 22 Scarlet Way, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 4 +50 BG 6.0 136.9 138.0 99.2 Cul -de -sac 61 23 Scarlet Way, Cross - Gutter, Sta: 1 +25 BG 6.2 135.5 138.0 98.2 6/ I 24 Bluejack Road, Cross - Gutter, Sta: 1 +25 BG 5.9 134.2 138.0 97.2 6/1 25 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 2 +00 BG 7.1 137.3 138.0 99.5 West Side JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, Drawing #963 -(: Field Density Tests Results: Subgrade/Basegrade Date 2011 Test No. Location Ht. Of Back Fill In Elev. % Field Mois Field Dry Density - Max Dry Density % Relative Comp. Comments 611 26 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter . Sta: 4 +00 BG 6.5 136.0 138.0 98.6 West Side 6/2 27 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 3 +00 BG 6.1 135.2 138.0 98.0 East Side 6/2 28 Bluejack Road, Curb /Gutter, , Sta: 5 +00 BG 6.5 135.2 138.0 98.0 East Side 6/2 29 Melba Road, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 4 +00 BG 6.0 133.5 138.0 96.7 North Side Widening 6/2 30 Melba Road, Curb /Gutter, , Sta: 5 +25 BG 6.4 134.1 138.0 97.2 North Side Widening 6/2 31 Melba Road, Curb /Gutter, Sta: 6+00 BG 6.1 135.2 138.0 98.0 North Side Widening 6/7 32 Scarlet Way, Roadway, Sta: 2 +25 BG 5.8 134.1 138.0 97.2 6/7 33 Scarlet Way, Roadway, Sta: 3 +25 BG 6.8 133.8 138.0 97.0 6/7 34 Scarlet Way, Roadway, Sta: 4 +25 BG 5.7 1 134.2 138.0 97.2 6/7 35 Bluejack Road, Roadway, Sta: 2 +25 BG 6.5 136.3 138.0 98.8 6/7 36 Bluejack Road, Roadway, Sta: 3 +25 BG 6.8 132.5 138.0 96.0 6/7 37 Bluejack Road, Roadway, Sta: 4 +25 BG 6.5 133.5 138.0 96.7 6/9 38 Balour Drive, East Side Sidewalk, Sta: 15 +90 SG 8.0 120.2 130.6 92.0 6/9 39 Balour Drive, East Side Sidewalk, Sta: 14 +25 BG 7.0 130.8 138.0 94.8 6/9 40 Melba Road, North Side Sidewalk, Sta: 5 +75 SG 8.5 120.3 128.0 94.0 6/9 41 Melba Road, North Side Sidewalk, Sta: 4 +25 BG 6.8 132.1 138.0 95.7 6/10 42 Melba Road, Existing Street @ Bluejack Road SG 9.1 123.2 128.0 96.3 Sta: 5 +00 6/10 43 Melba Road, Existin Street Blue ack Road BG 6.0 134.0 138.0 97.1 Sta: 5 00 JOB NO: 10 -283 -F NAME: Warmington Residential California LOCATION: Proposed 18 -Lot Subdivision, Seaside Highlands, DraNing #963 -G Field Density Tests Results: SubgradeBasegrade Date 2011 Test No. Location El. Of Fill In Elev. % Field Moisture Field Dry Density Pcf Max Dry Density Pcf % Relative Comp. Comments 8/12 44 Scarlet Way, North Side Sidewalk, Sta: 1 +80 SG 4.5 115.2 130.6 88.2 Failed 8/15 45 Scarlet Way, North Side Sidewalk, Sta: 1 +80 SG 8.0 119.3 130.6 91.3 Retest #44 8/15 46 Scarlet Way, North Side Sidewalk, Sta: 2 +80 SG 8.8 117.8 130.6 90.2 8/15 47 Scarlet Way, North Side Sidewalk, Sta: 3 +80 SG 8.0 119.0 130.6 1 91.1 9/8 48 Scarlet Way, North Side Sidewalk Sta 4 +40 SG 7.5 119.0 130.6 91.1 Sta: = Station SG = Subgrade BG = Basegrade ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City f capital Improvement Projects District support services Field Operations Erzch � subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering TO: FROM: RE: Name of Proi Name of Devn Site Location Lo-r5 1(o, /7, £ 18 .(address. :. ..number ...srreet name. -- - - - - ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter Field operations Private Contrail inspection Grading Permit No. 962.3 G -T 17 •- 1 °J /LYJ(ri ... uf oa aot) .(bldg) .I have inspected the gra mg.-abthesubjectsite antl.h�Sre�- venfied certificatiGh- f the pad by - - the:Englneer of Work, �ASco wREr $�t�F,f3latetl 5_ -{� —�, and certification of soil compaction by the Soil Engineer, / ni a nr.tldl dated -25 —� ]'am hereby satisfied that the rough grading has been completed, ir:acco dar-ce'.witrk the : approved - plans:.and specifieatiorts, Chapter 2374-of the Municipal Code, and '.anV other-npplicable': engineering standards and-specific project requirements Based on my observation and the certifications, -f take ❑o.exceptlon to the issaanoe.oYa . building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase tj) If any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other.engineenng concerns, Including public rood, eras publiealmpro weer, park, deferred trail Improvements, and their availability, monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Peflnit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and Irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. (D te) - - (Signature of Senior Ovil Engineer, only rf appropia[el (Date) Reference: Building Permit No. Special Note Submit this form, if completed to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians' in- boxes- please remembcr to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperworL. when completed Office staff will handle the appropiate mductians in security, of any, and coordination with Building inspection Thank you. ]SGlfield1docl -rc+ -r<rsfaiunn /FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Franins. CalifomiJ 9202¢3633 TDD 760�i33 -2700 e yded paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT _ capital Improvement Projects city Of District Support Services Feld Operations Encin= Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL Con Z - 935 &41/ 10Ck TO: Subdivision Engineering 3 - 939 Public Service Counter Y — qy0 FROM: Field Operations S 936 Private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. 1P3 /G /I Name of Project SESfDE 1`` ��Uf KLAA46 Name of Developer i C�A�rk /ill[ 7Dh! A/mE,- Site Location %rs Z13 `f ri�1G� � .: . faddress - ...street name - ...suffix) Wt) (bltlgl ...number " I have inspected the g dingratthesubjectsite and ha rcerifted certificatian>of the pad by the .Engineer of Work dated /f�- and certification of soil compaction by the Soil Engineer, ril 'e �' dated = —. Tam ,hereby satisfit?>jthat the rough grading has been completed itF:acco dance.wiVr the approved,.x - plans, rid- specifications, Chapter -13:24-of the ;Municipal Code; and .any'other applicable engineering standards and specific project requirements: Based-on my observation and the certifications ,._'I/take no exception to the issuance ".ofa . building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase �r�, if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permitlsl and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and irriaation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. (Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) Reference: Building Permit No. 1 6 (Da [el (Dare) Spedal Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering techoidans• in- boxes. please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, when completed office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection. Thank you. JSG /bcld3.doc] 2 recycled paper Tr++ v<nLaxa6nn f FAX 760 - 633 -2637 505 S. Vulcan Av<nuc, Flydniac, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -G33 -_700 Qd. 1111593 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city Capital Improvement Projects �t..11 JJ District Support Services Endn� Feld Operations Subdivision Engineering 7roffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. 9ra3 Gz Name of Project I -/s ASIDE K1 le klLt1A.(6 Name of Developer 1�(( �Q eM iN �T� /v r OME-5 Site I.ocation LoT5 / 1 ' /5 L" 5 �(b .laddress.., .number ...street.name. ;. :• +.. ...suffixl:0ot .I have.-Inspected the gran Ing;at- thesnbject'si e and. ve ecerlfled certificationsof the patl bt .-. :—: .:• �1 +� (: ;._v. the:Englneer of Work, <u 4 etl r / and certification of soll'`- compadI&I by the Soli Engineer, dated ^ 111 1:am hereby satisfied that the.rough- ,gr- -ading has een completerliirr:acco ance;.w -wl =the:approveti plans;. 2nd -specifications, Chapter . a3:74 -of -the ; Municipal' Code; an`d' :any'0t:her applicable'" engineeringstandardsand specific project requirements— :..c::r.r..: s , Based.on:my observation and the certifications,- i�take no exception to theassuanaetdf building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase , If any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trall improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permits) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and Irrigation) has been completed In accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 1, l % — 'Z�-- // !Date) — isignature ofSenlorCivil Engineer, only it approprate) !Date) Reference: Building Permit No. Special Note. Submit this form, if completed, to counter Staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, When completed. Office Staff will handle the appropiate reductions in Security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection. Thank you. ISG /field3.docl TEL 76011332600 f FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 920243633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 4� recycled paper PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING April 26, 2011 PLSA1452WG City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit No. 963 -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 the above referenced project, as the Surveyor 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: 23.24.3 10(13) 1 Construction of line and grade for retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, d Z6-11 Joseph as, PLS 5211 Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc. 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaenginecring.com Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. Per Plan Per Field Measurement 1 360.0' 360.0'avg. 2 365.0' 365.0'avg. 3 367.0' 367.0'avg. 8 372.0' 372.0' avg. 9 374.0' 374.0' avg. 23.24.3 10(13) 1 Construction of line and grade for retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, d Z6-11 Joseph as, PLS 5211 Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc. 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plsaenginecring.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING • LAND SURbE°.N', May 16, 2011 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 19MYNIUYAW61 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit No. 963 -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 the above referenced project, as the Surveyor 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: Indicates pad elevation change per construction change currently in process. 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Peach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaengineering.cona Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. Per Plan Per Field Measurement 4 357.5'* 357.5'avg. 5 362.0'* 362.0'avg. 6 365.0' 365.0'avg. 7 364.0' 364.0' avg. 10 364.0' 364.0' avg. 11 357.0' 357.0' avg. 12 352.0' 352.0' avg. 13 347.0' 347.0' avg. 14 344.0' 344.0' avg. 15 344.0' 344.0' avg. 16 344.0' 344.0' avg. 17 348.0' 348.0' avg. 18 354.0' 354.0' avg. Indicates pad elevation change per construction change currently in process. 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Peach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaengineering.cona 23.24.310(B)l Construction of line and grade for retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. k as, PLS 5211 Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc. -TestAmerica THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING Prepared For: 17461 Damn Avenue. Suite 100. Irvine l'A 92614 (949) 261 -1022 Fa (949) 260 -3297 LABORATORY REPORT Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc Project: 10- 283 -F.2 2450 Auto Park Way. #102 Escondido, CA 92029 Attention: Brad Crawshaw Sampled: 02/02/11 Received: 02/02/11 Issued: 02/03/11 14:14 NELAP #01108CA California ELAP #2706 CSDLAC #10256 AZ #AZO671 NV #CA01531 The mnift listed within this laboratory Report pertain only to the samples rested in the laboratory . The analyses contained in this report were performed in accordance with the applicable certificatiomr as noted. All soil samples are reported on a wet weight bans unless otherwise noted in the report. This Laboratory Report is corfrdenital and u intended for the sole use of TestAmerica and its client. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permtmimt from TestAnienca. The Chain of Custody, l page, is included and is an integral part ofthis report. This entire report was reviewed emd approved for release. LABORATORVID IUB0240 -01 IUB0240 -02 IUB0240 -03 IUB0240 -04 IUB0240-05 Re /viewed By: TestAmerica Irvine Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE CLIENT 1D BL -I BL -2 BL -3 BL-4 Method Blank MATRIX Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil IUB0240 <Page I of 5> TestAmerica THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 19461 Denim Avenue. Suite 100. Irvmr. CA 9261419491261 -1022 F.:(949) 2600297 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc Project ID. 10- 283 -F.2 2450 Auto Park Way. #102 Sampled: 02/02/11 Escondido, CA 92029 Report Number: IUB0240 Received: 02102/11 Attention: Brad Crawshaw ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (EPA 8081A) Reporting Sample Dilution Date Date Data Analyte Method Batch Limit Result Factor Extracted Analyzed Qualifiers Sample ID: IUB0240-01 (BL -1 - Sail) Reporting Unite: ug]kg Dieldrin EPA SOS 1A I1 B0301 5.0 ND 0.997 2/2/2011 2/212011 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl (45- 120.0) 82% Surrogate: Tetrachloro- m- xylene (35 -115 %) 84% Sample ID: IU80240-02 (BI4 - Soil) Reporting Unity ugtkg Dieldrin EPA 9091A IIB0301 5.0 ND 0.998 2/2/2011 2/2!2011 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl (45-120%) 83% Surrogate: Tetrachloro -m- xylene (35 -1151a) 83% Sample ID: IUB0240-03 (BI-3. Soil) Reporting Units: ulift Dieldrin EPA 8081A IIB0301 5.0 ND 0.996 2/2 /2011 2/2/2011 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl (45- 1200/) 77% Surrogate: Tetrachloro -m- xylene (35- 115 %) 73% Sample ID: 1 UB0240 -04 (BL4 -Sail) Reporting Units: ug/kg Dieldrin EPA 8081A I IB0301 5.0 ND 0.994 2/2 /2011 2/2 /2011 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl (45 -1201) 77% Surrogate: Tetrachloro- m- xylene (35 -11516) 82% Sample ID: IUB0240 -05 (Method Blank - Soil) Reporting Units: ug/kg Dieldrin EPA 8081A I IB0301 5.0 ND 1 2/22011 2/2/2011 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl (45 -120 %) 83% Surrogate: Tetrachloro- m- xylene (35 -115 %) 83% TestAmerica Irvine Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager TM1e reavlu pnam adr m the sang /er �rrrrd in ihr /u..noery. TM1ir rep�n ehu!l mu he n/Inuluc W. rsrery m /vllMirlN�unrnl¢nlrermranun /rvrm TceUmrnra !UB 0240 <Pagel of 3> -TestAmerica THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 17461 Dint. AVmue. SUUe 100, Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 261-1022 Fax:(919) 260.3297 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc ProjectlD: 10- 283 -f.2 2450 Auto Park Way. #102 Sampled: 02/02/11 Escondido, CA 92029 Report Number: IUB0240 Received: 02/02/11 Attention: Brad Crawshaw METHOD BLANK/QC DATA ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (EPA 8081A) Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Data Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Quali(en Batch: 1160301 Extracted:02102111 Blank Analyzed: 02/02/2011 (1IB0301 -BLKI) Dieldrin ND 5.0 ug/kg Surrogate: Decachlorobipheml 33.5 ug/kg 333 100 45 -110 Surrogate.' Tetrachloro-m- xylem: 28.0 ug/kg 33.3 84 35 -115 LCS Analyzed: 02/0212011 (1160301 -BSI) Dieldrin 32.5 5.0 ug/kg 33.3 97 65 -115 Surrogate: Dewchlombiphenyl 30.9 ug /kg 33.3 93 45 -120 Surrogate: Terrachloro-m- xylene 27.9 ug /kg 33.3 84 35 -115 Matrix Spike Analyzed: 02/0212011 (t l B030I -MSI) Source: 11160240.01 Dieldrin 32.9 5.0 ug/kg 33.2 ND 99 40-125 Surrogate: Decachlorobipheml 29.4 ug /kg 33.2 89 45 -120 Surrogate: Terrachoro-m-,ylene 17.6 ug/kg 33.2 83 35 -115 Matrix Spike Dup Analyzed: 02/02/2011 (1180301 -MSDI) Source: 11160240-01 Dieldrin 31.4 5.0 ug/kg 33.3 ND 94 40.125 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 17.1 ug/kg 33.3 82 45 -120 Surragate.: Terrachloro-m- xylene 25.5 11949 33.3 77 35 -115 TestAmerica Irvine Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager 77n• n.rvlr. prmmi ,noh m rhr .rnnrpler renal rn rhr Inh,rm,'ry Thu rcpm Shull nm hr reprvxruaeJ ercepr in p14 uatlxrur unaen prrmr.cv mlmnr Trsrdmrnro. 5 30 l U80240 <page 3 oj5> TestAmerica THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 17461 Dnrim Avmw. Suite IN, Irvin, CA 92614 (949) 261-1022 rn:(%9) 260-3297 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc Project ID: 10- 283 -F.2 2450 Auto Park Way. #102 Sampled: 02/02111 Escondido, CA 92029 Report Number: IUB0240 Received: 02/02/11 Attention: Brad Crawshaw DATA QUALIFIERS AND DEFINITIONS ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit or MDL, if MDL is specified. RPD Relative Percent Difference TestAmerica Irvine Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager Jhr rrxulu 7xmm� ud3. er the samples lrxreJ m Ihr laharmnry. 7h. repon xiu.0 ma be reprw/ured.. exceptmfu4 urnumt urimnpermminn7rom 7eslAmenra. IUB0240 <Page 4of.f> TestAmerica THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc 2450 Auto Park Way. #102 Escondido, CA 92029 Attention: Brad Crawshaw TestAmerica Irvine Method Matric Nelac EPA 8081A Soil 17461 Derim Avenue. Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 261 -1022 Fm:(949) 760 -3297 Project ID: 10- 283 -F.2 Report Number. ILTBO240 Certification Summary California Sampled: 02/02/11 Received: 02/02/11 Nevada and NELAPprovide awlyte specific accreditation. Ana yle specific information jar TesUmerica maybe obtained by contacting the laboratory or visiting our website at www.testamertcainc.conr TestAmerica Irvine Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager The nrulex prnarn oMy rn the xainpler rened rn rhr laMrorrry Ihlx nporl ehd! nor hr retvrxhe'ed. errepr mJirll. wnhonr wraun )rermromn�ivm )blAnrrneu. I U80240 <Page 5 of 5> TestAmerica THE LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING 17461 Dedan Ave.. #100, Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 261.1022 FAX (949) 260.3297 1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A. Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370 -4667 FAX (909) 370.1046 9630 32520 still St., r. Sunset Rd. #3, Les Vegas, NV 69120 (702) 796 -3620 FAX (02) 79 &3621 (480) 7115-0851 CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORM fJ rJ 0 7-4t 0 Page 1 of —L- Client Name /Address: V - e f M.4y le_ 7 x4so 4-tr h 1 :;n I e-, � E,d. eA szo zs Project/ PO Number: �� -�8 3 - F, Z Analysis Required Qe 0 Special 9tstructsins Project Manager: 8 r.ws �raA.� Sample�: ^�i #S LI Sample Description Sample Container Matrix Type Phone Number: (?Lo) 743 • I Uf- Fax NU bar: �0 73.9-to-54,3 a of Sampling Sampling Preservatives Cum. Date Time L - s�,i U�. r al u 13o-z -Z 1 13U� V2,w X 6L -4 i3l.1 Nqcrpyt &Wit< 1+E Liz 10 Re nqui e y Date/ IT, me: '1.,11jZ1436 Received By: Date /Time: Turnaround Time: (Check) same day 72 hours 24 hours 111s._ 5 days 48 hours normal )Relinquished By: Da a /Time: Received By: Date /Time: Relinquished By: Dale /Time: Reeslve In ab 8y: Dale /Time: ( {S�� -2, /1/ 11 r ti 3 6 Sample Integrity: (Check) intact t on ice _< # Note: By relinquishing samples to TestAmerica, client agrees to pay for the services requested on this chain of custody form and any additional analyses performed on this project. ! e C Payment for services is due within 30 days from the date of Invoice. Sample(s) will be disposed of after 30 days. 7 - O Z �S z, C�9 Z CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT SCANNED DATE: PROTECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: / � /O r?E -E.o [ 30�in • $E� itnt0 Gr,T FnL /7Anr Cmn,7)4yyr/N/J7Ep .So /L MRt[ 456/N /�jNG MOVBj Mo/42oW . / / ?1Q p 5-0 c c pt-k is c,..,romC7ML� n/ C. A-IJ ti /7)47n 'IV 4'1t7J I3r»w�1c Luhat T 6stld a•( ef co�1 1 p ou • 114,- zo - Mucics .s7,oiurd u crF t 4v [ /hul-ctatrl nP, ti w fA 4yuclCS ;.�j c>l Ett�lY.a uFp 71) 6"iek- O-,e- � �4127bU jL torn_ 77y S IS Alcrr f1C t . L6- 10AI l,'Zpin iT "0 bD ,vo? L&7- / /o r, ., a/�E)2M7oN5 rZ(,,NN,NG Smpo� �(q-uL /L� g�7,� /L j, If Ir /f 111-3111 Asr o- ,4Jor< �y J20fznvc, OF on/7)tan,Ns�7LL77 ML!'liwafy 7ao/M c Fvwt -w fix/0 /)114, 45 �R/7J2T�y jZi L,cL r 77mF• . �� /t,or.r Lnrt(.E �7[uct.,v (� `l /PL/I /PL/I it V e 'U Tl' n A une o<- ye-"-O,NLS. ri [ � .uLy Lif,L�CE RC'r►Ica.,c�p Tu��'�/ %b SET R ,d G e i Con,Ty)» ,A, p Sor L QG{,t l fiL� L A i op K /J L rDul , 7D -n4f C��►n -a6 yNt ! (7 _ ///1&7/1 ov x ,¢o1eL7- y65re7r[4Ax/ G2AOiwJ C/IELdS y -(o oPf- G1G MELQA- Qo,4A . I�9� /! C- n.4aiti�r,/ oyE� Jl' �0..;7n+uL3 /a Tier of Loss U -� /�Zo /A L� y —to ccnhiu,r•/ �/7a+� /hp/o/zovEt�_ Fv[2 K�c/a��E IuML /►-tow+b IKA7Ert�a1 L /N6 ,gwcfc 6&D-6A46• m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: 17,7'1-1711 cte uv5 Tho 151 `i ZNo czase 6F erne- L07S Wet,rt wE37- s � AW,V 4U4+/N' -his u,HS -M aic_ Fxf7WMA, -h -m 7, .,n aF 40T 10 fCIAICE CotdLW/T AJA5 L- o"IL -7 / 6 6pn/v '7bLD ch/u4L A ev v57". A 100 c ors 7-10 7NE rwm [E mWMX +r1,[, -ID rhou' Sw4c.G10.[oT� �cr� g1,avv r rD R� %3,t.,Alwd,c ..4) .2 Q�10/3 t� s,Ylc�T ov 771E lvc'3T 5,oX- 11 NCIIHIAJ& NO7E • 4-075 q A7'02 E)t- AlU151•r&FQ E2Ag-/IiTMA.I LdS S 1 /o 67?u- Z -3 1 t9eovrl f�'--fAL- "014-047-' F7u t,cwo/Lt cd,v77nk/CS M Lv7s / a�Z/ /S ztgif ,p.,Sr,L� p[�r�m P.ra.+uCL 7v hJA ,a 2,U•(.J. cW Lo ,7aloo /S• 7A &I -6&p -fb «e o.d move- Aut 5Rvuo rn7 /Ze►: w.ru. AA) i-oT5 S d -d &7 ,I' FILL goat ccrlfrrwPS ,=, 10,e Lor /v,ll.)4,yj /g cr10la . I f .SELv,�a/hRc f /1 =- w,4tr - 5Q%A-r?=Q oAJ LaT crnal Curs Fitts I CoA rnn,u6- 7, 10101 /, oo 2- 7 i LeTS cl - b . a.,d //-/g AT 61ZAOE e-uo Ac.nfmu y tr cq j n a '7-10 Rae' 51742nN[., 77) 4c- IJ,Noortcr- . wgus cvmpL-ETt -V Lars N -(, wAuL 5naa[n b,frK UP � 1,07-5 1/-/s. m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES ACTIVITY REPORT PROTECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: 2 v 11 LOTS - aid i-aa -r � LOTS 1-3 orf id 5- 9 have lx4 1=&6223. F/�_ 1-145 64eVi4 J 2//0/1( CA.)ALi COA,nwjug Ar" Lors 1441 ELL cotin,u"65 A- Ny , ALL az. P09- pt.Ws a spQS . DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: �IL� . Lco7s AAt57 A ca7/Z.&' G -rD GEr w IMIAJ o ->o .7x n trd >lO be Lender&, t as O OF'C 6r- / Lf and /5 / m14429 2 ly Il GugLL h"16b 4 O /Fr tors ILI a el / a o f A/0ut /I 7Z�l1NE�J �/E CoonoEv- A&1,0 N L +A2C/1j Njb 774 Sd 71/ /a a la 15. c u 7- t OM - $ �fra w inp oo Z- werx -s oh 2- 6AZ co - Z n_ " is FtN:ECr1S7tn S7)lt=v! G� EO- ' ) Qa,A. wo ,4cr/t rn,, Upe-,P►r� j3nrlY5 w ,� pctc - o21t/iv(i - Z 1,71fl L, AZ4- ConpCt-7L-J O.J so�T'H OG L.O% l5 . r. AU j6C7N6 Bu#r.T onl Wt37- sjoe ANo 50,71-f Sim 7b L071 13. LUR'LL Co r)A"fA , �7g5r4~tgo 7D L,07-/( . �u-02L o rT-f '' •7v f3E JeL.4Dcv 7D F- ^j t.. i' C7& -olm -v 7H� D -Id 21 22t if LOri OF %AA_ OI/L7L WEa -evap . �R , t COA+i7a1/efm &EW,Ako LOTS II -l3. 510ew '5AwCr,- FoR D-ZS'S, ln� F O o LOJx- L z3� lvtrm IN rlTi'u R -Fr R Q, ti, T2MJ 5 FeRAtb 7h A p 143 w rrr /- 6,A-P/ i V1t(4W Oil, ID J-IVUO iN . V.Ale V IN OdWbA wton� ewl�00d � S <f 112 KIlLL �-tv AC !1►Z e-,tAoty Co !4 ftb auLt' Wpfb S 5,jo • CRELOS web� Dry /-LL ,0E 'L LCTr 1 ensa- l' o - �J Lt -"nyrl l of f to -Tb 4-A-C dr- LOTS 1— 3, Ord $ . L 2S 11 WkALL. 6msweo #1 L� l Lj%r OF c�2*O ou r_rss 1--3 , 94,A a-9. w Thu._ c ae is w l NOW MME ir./EjQC- m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: WAIL CREWS vNioVL-Do -rc KAT-E 510E o sr- o Lb'r-,3. 2 So, +k or 3- I -314111 - MoSr� W� L ORAL 4-&OAJ(o cA-5T S,p&F 7a Lw� /Li97 AOC, - FD A- bv1"zL S-Woet7- �I (.uAIL copynNU6 Le-( 1 -3, PACCQAl- J46LD iv2 seurc�. sra�rn+L, 7Ut3 13 3(3(11 WAu,t.xp4L(JewrjrjulpS loiS 1 -L SU,.� rx�n>v� cs.2vtq,n�� e- VA-a4 WS l._9::;CAm -)&f7A., 9,5 OZ "g- -41Z u -6,cr(L- Irv. , rnt - QI A- In sP� rte Su rnt A&sLpLs. \ i5, -sorz . ►, ✓r� AL- Tivity t�ETD �N, e tiu uc- wa- S i - � r jo w 9 Arn n N st4g!3A - OF �2ovJ N+A- IL=it- rub7W h2oM Lb"T C4 O,.,TO G1-4u P &ox., n, L� L or i AfV7 o,,) (olio HLT • Louxrt 14F• Lr*6�T CIO �L--7C A-e..c�Nl, eA$T�� q Z OC- LoT- 8 qF,p L- S Ti 1.1,1 70 60, t W tu- 6 Q1Z C ON SL i�f C k. A127L- -S E PMA- boJ • oni r 5c 0-m- t.t-Tt w,ty NTL --%t ma,d w'Lc- BC )ZO-759Mn To q%zow m i en . C Lin LL. c• 17'*4 f!s Tm rm-r- 7)r�� PAdL Pluk L-c7 - lk4 I.jAs 021biv4-u�i •i A y" CcA4 L4rL -a,4t- w )4-s 14 rr• Ivb one keww / rr- L.As H,T• THE orOAJ ENO -50.W cC of pht}r it .STDIt/n jAalpv-xLlN oiF 70 THC" TAt L-�ur- PL-Aw - 7t�ljdu /NL= Srr�c.V Act, el pelifUC- C A POLO T141S SL-+ti LyL oFF .A � TvtE 46h,sJ. !LN (. Pf- +r- SL -ZP If- 8" 1/ P M/hrJ W,'i% rZefRl,/eV W4l�p Lotil.'R�4C_ *irA4 -NL� rWPL1Nb5 IMro Qt-pu4kL-" o wk7� 8,1 Ekrc USUD AT +.4• CEO• ( Pr aF `ZJ,X wwS PL,4 -o A*w TWou - "'RL'! i-H vum. 6AtLr?,.An K 1'w5h 4v roaA Su cC bey) w1L- ac- buV —, (oti m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT Elz f 5 ,� Sti„ o,,i 64ux,Z- c r ¢s P2o oA,l) Lo (417oJ G-L57ti-4) AZ,hL- &-L(Nkw�- st Lb u k 6Aj -s&-tv.vloi4 -a W,4t4- 40t- 177NC,LkI A-c.o, -oe, ��45tL�2L� fe %L7z rr�/tovEYnC trS o'AMA UL�-a e / yiA,OE72 Spc„.O /AiJ2�Z77LW - lukrftP- Wo21L cou1, u.1 `f'1 F -rIJ A-i UY Bu i L.,0t�2S af-. vv kU - ArTT- "ST s , DC' o(--- &. 0tij W &TL-?-- (A .av2 .�C� (L301i h �✓VL INC-� -u -11 WAW5 CAIOP610 T DV0K4 A-+vo oW Wd l n f Yl�u� wA�- 5 K,.r �cx�+J `T1 E , N sc Hcax� 7� -{uPS • `i 7 -5-11 Ti�ura� 6F� a st-c�;� =►z- tt�E �Ack ,�- / II " Rock- of e,4. o AA vJ lo- g'r (�uG mRrnl eomPc& � of BLUE TRL/� 2D. 6 el+loE AAid AL i(.oNm0Lt7- 'ge-61 Al FT-, of �206k- puEW- Thp A-A/o BtZb.r,J r�l4�b /NV LH-r�-Ci4is of S,[ .5 y &12zlA l, nsrs feu "� Cd r�¢,a, lac S�Anr�O �rw,rH/v PrPC feu FT /Aj l��ah'1 C o &iv e-7 po o.cJ M A- W D O,J I D N 1 nrO (o 45 7rmi -) RAJ Cdi�Ws vL yt 3700 A-trfi U WA yn/ gLOU/L n,7lotaNG TC t-4 e77-)n/b Ej2AL f 7vo oaa -L,44 . 7` m14429 DATE: PROTECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: v'(-l-uw C. z .o Loc.v,loal Coo �Tb &-Lu o�a� I hR r Noy E t l !r �L rDr4D DE7r-ZT EV A jic- /A/ A f L T(Jrn+) Dv� 72> RmhlL��r /s� /i5 7}J GbiTrlrt/ 83L 7d ��/ i u N 5 76 d /Z£SGNC C1�7� -lb mino214xs 7MEw( l� /�CSO '1970 -t u C�o�an /"�Tt Z So 0C X 7AL, /hJ[TZ�tlL17 n� L�CLL�6 WMdaCo4... 3 -Zo -(T r.SE-Cc ..jo.4ny 2eF77411wAV cv,Kc- Aton/L LAS, -E-Tz i Elz f 5 ,� Sti„ o,,i 64ux,Z- c r ¢s P2o oA,l) Lo (417oJ G-L57ti-4) AZ,hL- &-L(Nkw�- st Lb u k 6Aj -s&-tv.vloi4 -a W,4t4- 40t- 177NC,LkI A-c.o, -oe, ��45tL�2L� fe %L7z rr�/tovEYnC trS o'AMA UL�-a e / yiA,OE72 Spc„.O /AiJ2�Z77LW - lukrftP- Wo21L cou1, u.1 `f'1 F -rIJ A-i UY Bu i L.,0t�2S af-. vv kU - ArTT- "ST s , DC' o(--- &. 0tij W &TL-?-- (A .av2 .�C� (L301i h �✓VL INC-� -u -11 WAW5 CAIOP610 T DV0K4 A-+vo oW Wd l n f Yl�u� wA�- 5 K,.r �cx�+J `T1 E , N sc Hcax� 7� -{uPS • `i 7 -5-11 Ti�ura� 6F� a st-c�;� =►z- tt�E �Ack ,�- / II " Rock- of e,4. o AA vJ lo- g'r (�uG mRrnl eomPc& � of BLUE TRL/� 2D. 6 el+loE AAid AL i(.oNm0Lt7- 'ge-61 Al FT-, of �206k- puEW- Thp A-A/o BtZb.r,J r�l4�b /NV LH-r�-Ci4is of S,[ .5 y &12zlA l, nsrs feu "� Cd r�¢,a, lac S�Anr�O �rw,rH/v PrPC feu FT /Aj l��ah'1 C o &iv e-7 po o.cJ M A- W D O,J I D N 1 nrO (o 45 7rmi -) RAJ Cdi�Ws vL yt 3700 A-trfi U WA yn/ gLOU/L n,7lotaNG TC t-4 e77-)n/b Ej2AL f 7vo oaa -L,44 . 7` m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: LI17LE S c3L tl0XK nN BLuI< Jl+c/C. .4 L.r- FL�c&W� o:u 6d Lo L,2 2 A15/n !=� I,rpl(, /rta -IN o�t� stL<.:�. $OWD c12eos sru� A/ htvp 16 4 -', l� L%-lz -ir L.o +LL_ k� Ldr /L- . / O,NT , /AJ(, n.l c 2G11S S-n LL 1 rNTt�$tZT1VN 64Lowt SL W ld5rALL4w 41A-P- rFrIA P o;3,o saw nu . FpL1OW "N(, TJ-1E PAUL- 2a u U D uAg 3 F124A sr it 1V QA j S h4E-�_+ 5Wjege7`i oN s ,TLcr A-u A l 3- I w a w Re—� u/k &v AT 1-07- Z /FST- vu 4-v- c s 019Wb 4>ftW, 1Ali- Plow a,rz BE 41A,/,J tti�r � PRCrhL P-PCLIArt CLYnIDLCTE0 BA6V4GL dv 6 T4>t4c ,n-A/0 lef! n r c O� ill. i4 R AN/J .O • f v?t S c�IN - 11 � 4 L_30 �i20w t>r TZ q FD2!- 6o N" � Tim- 1- r 3 and F3 � '7. IMV L:vA/Nrj"E IbAklaAOL.J . (ntLA-L1a:L, pT INSrAL"w ja #bio SL�4L.E 4 T ChOw vp (be7t,b L 4 r iL 1 O ' x 114' QE • A^f'7 P oL rc Fi LL-L-p w / r}i &A,4A-Le1 -1 W4Lk- AT- Lc5T . e%-1l6-II -1D,nLT TUO+Xl4 6N 5fq{iLL'r- IN�y l uL3 r��a> J PLgcca cL. T 64Tc A Ll o C (-LU5" wi A-L ooc- r)-4L--)e- 7 al-Lwes oAl ,gALotLl Vj 64 c 11-h 11 Lv. tf � M /tl A #. D i-vYT� /lLs o� WC`51 SrDe yN of t ✓}LIL P-d LA -TtZ- 6 E,gST S pE S11l.Lf-vL -o 7D BE rNSi)411-0 -jAti—L L to lL M-r iY4nt l Con fi n ueS on 5ca� 1,-+ InJac l I N F7tc i $A L.w K SRwL4 of Fxt no N uF D R7 U L4 n _ZQ�(I ir21J S t W er "� p � i N S N-uw s ew oL 1.+ ► s o U Bc ut �itc ti-LI -11 ltiE7,rCX -)3 131E;�6AJ o>, Slut 14ct . Fo..r - rr2uaif Lf W✓LanO.n 1, „P tnl <t A&-Lt---r LuAf. Aqun moJINv ou-ID m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: -ZL -I( VfJ S ITEE W A'(L-Q- NrNlJIR:) d Ltae-SAct ,25-I I W M'la:f- (put)NUQ7 oti1 &Luff- 3#-t( C�RA,o1�- � a441n; 16010 jAAA -AC fat. b-ZS S nN Ml3tBT RC(, 6t4-6IB wuAi7e - CorrPL -ymo c1J &Luc- Ti4cY R„ rm/N s tp r l D -Z5' lint f A on M{ l b,4 led ,&T- Woatc 45&- 76:+n) ON PEA Louit 'baWe . -Z7 -ll t�t�l 32,gYJ r-�rekw 5t-3L-X- (WA7AJ rrzo,%x (.0I- enE- 7'N 5 , M I igL •IC -5 ► ,L Rd.) L rh2✓I 6(e C^ P0646-- 94 • 7�&4AZ L6,,rY2oL 0-1(-. F ox Nor LA"LEb IN ZEUT- Q� AT- M E 11>WF o,c- r3- -,— -b EIE vK 114 13 FT &AC k- fyz fix6 1 -raps -h (Z -,D-Z5'5 poured . -zs S �.. YIAA*1 OtrE �l(o L eIJ Ll.� CIS u LA-f?'r LSA s� nb r rrl -10 /N 4jr +l d-c �r Z� $ ardurJS I j9(aASl d -reCS• `ll�w�d . 2 Asi 00= 6ACXFLL ptRc» ND SA u�2 /k+4N LIOI L A $ Pol"6o ~ N V " :7 • 7u" 044E 564 -4000' t3 t_ � . , 444, 2 b IN • T OAl BLUJ T $u a S p & IMA p pal qLmi,L *r>R(ve AIL GlZC • 6+J O---'�r 5 -C)E OF $MOUE- -587n J& btd S lTr- N1' Otlu t'I -5 CoN77Nuen &P SWIF �A2k J L b(Lc la; S eown& E4 (1 Woa-E- fvn- WATe(L TITS - 1NS OU �u v Ow. M fir: 1 I KCs coxSmhool 0•. &u k . 6-5- /R-4„J 521c�vsrer.► M/tOss fncL40rfi 11xn Q,z�itLF cats g.c Fiz,� uNO , Cn/2ou n 2 -,0&y c.TO6xMpoN. Ip6 4%1 ,0 -tvinoL•2a m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE: 5rnmt= . d Al S /rC .Tc /r,T 77E&-ALCj4 "Ol r A% 477untPS) o �1 &:v 61w !i/'l Lt - J L w �37L�z/J cUC -4t-r o,J /fl-L Ar /. 7"1) Z- .P52119-YO MTh/ L'a `� 5Le�s.5w1uG 16 . C tIlL6 Lr N o M EL r--Vr / ��-i u�-�N C u¢w L- - T iZA Ll A, C Tu T7v E Pt T - g - ll bN Si7,6 _-Tbilu —. LfTjL,ry 7%CNL-4-qC3 (Z N(; K o nl n &0 22�0 A-Ako D co-) F�-Lu c- -710�Ce `.cle3 t�1 PA-t-ihL lNSmueD B•v. e+ ,-c> t .,E R , ou me-L8}} 4b /I Ear s , D� o� Pr1oJ t'zT rNL�r Lv ACZ6A 241 ' 5-rv- If ALL ywQ.X oN AALZ,�,4 — L- ()141 W�c.Kl�:lu• tKL�A C, At Tl2Pui.W tt n1 n itZti UnL,n" 'buL o,; ✓k aIFIA I -Top of -F, S 11 - 11 w/i rE�z lrn{p /lv,EanttE�TS 6AcCFtu� Corrp.•r= ruin a Mp aa bfz4 ur7j,fli CcM�i'RCfar cry in d9llb,4 FDL -b-2-5 a-- w E-yj- cl,,,O L4- M OA,4 /Leyr vJt:� DRy LIl,I,+� Go.li�act� bec." ,nl Tn�c-{ -/ D>J fFcr�t uST 1 004- 1 oOp (emu nu& DN L) EST Sf� oG j2oA�0. C- lTaawfr WET /4 -*,,o �rA.,L_, /A1 wer fir % f n,-, L, PNl Canlj -clime / V,n�firier,elln JN L, eL# o� '4 "Ac 7 Ac k2 u Ct 17 4W rug �>t- CrlwS S \„rry -4 1"(5 V) e-c. da� ez cd b1at- a�1 ZrP hwrs P o . -Fh L . 5-1 L - r i -&7rL •+n -r0 >- 5 re po.ir PO/ ,'n ne w cA , e;frµ4em lf�- a c l R�er . tTi1� �b uT TIZCN ANa tlt 5'W N- a,J r3A-Lw e- -raeNc -} wL)0 -- Ami94 I or no-we!6 tits,;. ,q-ck. pt-X- -f�p !�.l PL n-0 , JLAfFic Coai-aoU fnOOLdUAiM 5 16 11 7o1 N•T D¢ 4pt'T1LL// T-REKI-1 cvNn,ku� a,v e4tpwc. u- t t6iL 5' 17 I I RA, a - Tb,,j rx DuLa 604,tv fiAruaz 5 ta-A4+ta, oN M6t9io, a -l'b ll Q/krJ — ti �cilv�M . 1 m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT 13 11I90l D Lei l l! J to ;, i * STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: M-E/ol-/p vc Cc,'1-0-e,7- /Y7 t- L 6 n• /ZC: ,j vrN T vNr?r u &-o vn rrL«. l - SD ' 4-1- /nS+a/le-c/ may- -eAc/5 Slurr, rd --orlush . lAj&:-,7 --72M /Of( t o K DIL7 772t_" Ft/f— Lt.ITr�- L VILA O.0 L-cu2 �✓ . 774plic" Lt, oXr- CoA n,-( -i6 l 6ti SNoCa / - 6G Alo/tr1 ,s,oG oG rh�Z.B4- R-r-f S-2-3-11 tlqsl Jb /w L bt/77 &Aj �fILO L!/L F .4c 7CO 7rEF0 /9-2vO C'oc 0 MI xtE T �E7�1 �-1 C 2os5/ ti L o .v /1't EZ-�r Lvr9-5 -t-lc Fi LLW , 5- 2LI -(l i /`'q/A)& O6rfZ6b %%04 /. C d/.fc /1 / autEY7 f1 t. r, a / ✓C SLU_C,/Zrhjt L6)nrC, t77&0 L- a7v sc.ga�7 (,44 j w /rJt 9 lU�rJ/J/�` IZY� LJ677 -L- C7vcao Jv6 oyn,n/4c -nuAi. SF- lYi(AVJZI�1JT dr CLIr'- X70 - SAc- f-(AS 3ko' M AjTt-x t/tz_ 6.,j THc -TOP z ,ecF / �iar- IS -*66 WT- 5-25-o 50no of /[em.*tWA/c CdC,/ u,/ !� 16EL�,?L flr/o AW,)If fi,uIs/-WEb eJ 6/+LOu2 D2• 74-uD IWL�an PC(, ,T&/N7- 7II67v64/ au �ftLtJUL ALr(� PLn je.9 Lon -m!Y/L Co�77n 4�YJ W iTi l Sc /S R - oN SATE /A�J L up Bb -42 9; S /[,9>r � 44- /., it Mr-g(dte -/U, nL?AG �fhPM r o / GT /1T p ZL - 1 f - SuBC,tLroE ConyJ/ic� C v.- ci o _ aN 6Lu E SfiCL sg fi L S one �esr.?t s+ppRo..� F;S L✓e v AT fyAly e� �,✓ir f� rklOOtt -T /ri�ptc�/�5 44,-p1*t7)uv,, Z>k- TU (�C� i►SB, gncou/t S /i76Za4 tAor6Fu/ti!. .Snu A�a.s L�uF LUp/LL t u /5,7N 6 Bu!l1Lr r1 D6+�-77� N N/Cr(./ R LlNtlC1L 21--oLnzag y /,r,¢DUN� O7P� r0 s► nle�7 b/tir,N vMfn ey- -ry r- m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: 5 -�31- 1/ 2�4664vloG comiol9P7on) (--' 5% on 7) I uu vn Et aA , r QLrtss r rev S /Z an.J a Cc'/L6 6ZAao d5er7Nf. -->ti 3tZti 1"1 Sr -rnNr� r L.a.cs -71L;rno2ncx. -. v, 77L 67vcy c�n�n n u�� 3e u7}/6�,9� o c U Br9Lau/L 0.4sew (nl/ CL Z)eP o,,4-e, ov efWC MQ/br? 1-,14- oE7✓:l[i,,Nc iG Lclad 66M ? ,P '7V/n JL" f S PALOM" (-'DU&i20 AIU CUXP-'6 4 Cua$d &QtWU r>N �ialp�l lu�Al bloc T+rr 4 ,Scar ci WA4. PLn,�JS 4 yccs (r1)eWed. �r,sirt� -5 T1= 3 -TD 8-).Y!5uAe, (z u PL Cu N n2A- , 1u 3 -1 &-C'� -11 t CL.a 646E 0RAnU-'A4A -0-- f1+ore, hao t--�nLk ecl T w, 7J, b -1 -11 Sr>rnE vvtSc Lsh1(" wI)rF -tZXrk4. 1-1-NCE (aj3 -AJ5 1N57') itiv(o enlcC7 ST t ,%l-I > ,C ,pAVi✓JU pAc o.� �L Se eve G t `V Uf) hies , t � . si (ff— ;� C� a6, Al"O ("o Pr+de7 O (0' Z)ta�v . stoa.,A-LA E ov A nc oue m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROTECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: (0-10-(t AwI 7XJ-- � 10 AeuaA nK PEAL -0 ,4- W Eye P!f k7 A(. /6A WLIj oL.J L/t"tEt f t CLrr Orr �--CP t—�un. 6ALw.� wrll+S� c b Q E a.�d P CentPT ,-rle Gk(o e +fry (p-13-11 �S� �r�foi/�C L�CLCC US, 3 &k, 01 SCar�C� UL cz3 L� . � ( � M L-Lr-�A Vi CtLE outer A- `l12,ftL. AL- Wo2t- rZ py�ArJ q �cecS. vtc,trao .5,1N7 3 9 qT5 V"✓ t.n{rL�• -l({- if �6, rjT T(L0,\CN aeSQ1✓lL-D C'!J %�LGU K RLO,urt -k Y-IA-» Z mI)-.1 c/U- 01', SIM L✓- � n1 OA-L4, M004 P1 L-0 5LI1,NH -y wv r-� -So 4� ry,ec7- code_ BALL c,-P Cu /LJS hl2Llll4 Ciam2 !C% a,-- Locltpw-S � 5• ih< vj-mtrd -t-L> 12atcl Nrn(_r< uF (oL�- 6s.le (rj -IS-r) cr ',MS o 5 pdrl rtAS .► Curh (c�� ' wK IfCIn,),I rr/ y..s.r- h, a frsu1+' off' rAA4 C,rr<�fivn oh%r �S(nn LE LL S `00e% L r 1r�clud, g L] pt Yan.�s� tNfrC u /!r r pn RALo�lt �,C'VE rg-,jo o+i Ml�� F' ce tu' . Uts, y� 'SIlC DU 3 OCAS ;4'o MS_ Fvt 0-ko L, l�l C`u'v I- OL- !p- llo-ll FvonN(6S `( FvQ"0/tnuA% 15Z,.tN AAOAjDA�l 01'3 6N LdT% (b m dC( ! loin Z -S- m (tOc't 4ixG on So. yp S,AE of ✓1l t "Z� Rcl. A,-J M A-rL a -Ae/ p eo ALL L % pJ , OF l u CrU::fL w , -(-�l or Wl k . (2e, tr"n -j-D S car 1t¢ W on c and 5! W p- a,Y- (plu cN+�IL� v +Lwaf(r�w- Wa,dFi vtAfa2F3{ �cnb -a 5TILl . U li1't5 rats-rd graK an -gtuE Tircv Tej. 2l - 0 , con . -t be vc- i %or on lc?>G-AtE 7A L ln,MT ttkl,d,. L crL o, A)cy n" 5e0mr- l/cku!-i (o -Z2 -ll HIRTE;r Gl�j SewtnL 10AS7- ors F�u� Trtc( t--c+. r=►vt - WLt16LGS rF nl P 1 rHL� S9 F i�FF 6-z -11 t s J"J N oa / to L-140SS ram eiebA-N 6ONb t�3 PoILr Tb�M, ME wtl�orL ilA f (,fib �t 4ua�K m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: 7-//-// 1)rZF� 77tY) /NTp f ' odic r4% St 600N04 7D L c !� GY r� � ' - S77f�pbtz7 / CaNC Re7F 7v Sewn/ !vim �bwN- rncr>f7�27 /1P!//4p� S9rnE /7�rn WHO of rr,tz bA c/zL�cr "7 - /Z -!/ Cuzgll /N Fncr"+T ArrQ S,Dew4l� /NO C -/ c,raB /ruc&-r aLfiAED D 7 -2s -ii 6.ey S4�nn� i- r 17� i cit! 09 &,47 N�r AC 6&- irl &,-J WET nccp I �e-r- Elk - SrlYr //J pRt�j/rR#77o'u (.?G vi4� /iN'L-7, 7 -Zb-l/ Gv.+�N/3�tct��N9it.ia2�[t� SC6z� 47,+0 Tr-s3 /1r95Sm. aay [Fn�m� -nenrcl..� aU 6.4 -c.w� nc� �L ua op,. /ho.� cOLd pLn,,.�,tic� v��• /�A-i. �-� Q pvr Nv 77)irt ��o�u , 7-Z7- 7-,ZN 7Z 04V. /h-L p,44 pQL 0&,rN 5 �,4 V ZS at.�c UNC 7-29'11 YOZ l0, -QeA 6(-1 - %37LL HAVE •"fC SrOEt,*TLK. p,t"lzh(ES 7) 4D A-1N✓J AAGPI 7D t4 (/IOSS C, L, M&-'^ U4 L22 8'Z-(I l3RtoufL - moss u�i C�utc��n�n� & o — S LAI�LC 6U �l a�W ni fYNO�1-1= 9 3 X- (a u n X "cJ/} ( 5 i Dar M-L /Filkl4S Se-znuAlc. AyLe NJW !K/Pnt l E0 F'oe- 2t A &-T ck4uc(L -,o cLe-nyj,f urJ i 1t otJ Al LuS4 7rl ex/T �^ /rT E ,PEE) Nb u(- ov m14429 Mh,4�f/t�.�a S��tLaNta �o bN • uL --s;tio .fiLtYYI�• PO4.( /N �a 7DMu1l1cW i ur �5 /kL�S`r CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: SEZnonl lLoss4. /tt7c o ,r2 /S DR (fir Conk . 17i)o S/%E 710 /'n4,A.,7 -W C 0L 19ar ALA /5 0 /c . A4aahvEy L/yE �C - � A-- 7- 7)&- -)+r/n 6,4\/E 7).,E QQt 7u Uk L/gcE /Z" oG 3 y' 1.rzE 12 Z-lk4 31(f" pU -, ^,vp o C - "" . /)10 -.6f/ Sw/tLF 8�7 /rr C42� /ezmo�r� AA) Ir?ta�i Of � Dki A--7- /h-oas fU,Eirt /rl(L � /L✓ r5 � �it7CW/K1C on {yf oN ,o S4� . ,t 16 f/ TryP12a,-Id Fo %v.2ms 7p SrOda. ', it-wr0 /C2 i /tr�t�n.}ys C.,P a. r 4 kZ= /�CZ. /ter% Ql /Q POC�iry . < < /Z i nrt� 7v 5� L ire Q.� s th( specs. 8 2z ;crrI.13 area on eir s,oc'uF /or9�( /A' S�Nmu�y� 'Tb.•nG 2E /.,rv!ur��./T inFYr,i;/'.4n/C Dc RC—/� p rr A hrpf dq/4Kc/ ezf eRit mrsC. fe.-hcyc!/ ejiP4s Cr) /o --544 /nL/el- rnLj.$ e o er L !! 9 Vc-nr r�Cn .jOcP rx 00' VO4 r-- 3 y` K Lr, 3/5 Qoc.K iN $ro - Sw�iE� L-&1— Kam. 7Lt E D � 110, rP�Y Pad Soi l Lri� 5fY Q�rv,NI � QiLU,.W 4 �Of Ex fir, cl ci 4 - mET 4,/ /C (tom /tti (4) 5ikeZT uLr+T GoLatt7��[s. Al W �ZdA Nt��S F2 .gE ✓h k/07 L)DIA'L Fva -enS 7D S,OEIA.fiLK I? W'& oa/ E TncC );j�(• IA/ F�.oA/T OG Lo7S L./ alv, 5 v yc . All . P-E774/A4E0 c It-'ZjW- rrv/t &-Uq,� CVA1772oL. /Ai r,CZTen fVWY 4` � A 20 &0 rc.G /fa./t)a,.! 25"JAJ lzr Ld% 3 ply /Sr- G� , M1414 �� ,, oG ` io- A,45 „•L Lo% 3 ////,�, /Ai � ¢,71EW 3/y r' L4ycE7L oN r plq - /A� [ren 36 It e- 4.yc'Z fii plate CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION• CONTRACTOR: 11120111 LwT 3 9, 70-,, !i crcuolwc y eji2/tp.l it5g 7vz iJc� O w J �av c rs t" `i /b lL /lE$r o� SrOELun�K. � _T �• fv/4n pc�wL .St DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: A16 AG B/ o - AE-7i9W77 D/ Al 42 Lc:;f on R LuE Inc t k6*0 r5 Ylzol,z OK& T1'talme1i4= L7451as m 0 gl23 1Z 4-mkrd a -3/0 V,4UEZ- / LoT a 4v �Ub G/L9oE fdL �� c�tL ,45 n o W f/1 Sfoba r2�. 7wt7 �.r4 -D G fS�.�drr� . Zy 2 a.o 4n ao /E!' �Gt�n,s s,D�t.nt l� 4 / � 7p F3 �,�/ 9 ALOmAat AAA /.Jto S C)a torwt. Dcwed 520 9/txn - T . piQ�� v !ioecs ne.-t- __./ ALSD o2ooeV 1n /hc/h /S o-� 316" Q a_Ve/ rn &p Cre&5 Lo 7, s/ Q. d 9 v fFY dL4, PISICP rn9nee►rcJ o ' Lo-r & re %asp 6ceu &nc . wLn,jG � u(s� P Sco/ AC ►v/t.L 6&7- /JAW &Je> Tb rngv- . -5161 Z c71-5 /, A avdeI , e Qcy occ��a'. S z a Ad.av%ED GcrTS Al OWJ 15 k aoh r chs. ,43- 6daQ09 CAS h Vl e pv /4Y crejC(, -1, $, /1 r`ffI neW L,,J �Ga Axl L Cr A-, -,Bust r- A 2AO�p &vy in star o &r 7d rt7i Ck rs� . r7 t C 6L /-) SW Cutw ez /n[sTLyV. RaWe5W f2 8r'a -St4AtC- .0r"77(6 /rC�T _CknitFiL Jr'o� 1 -A 4o 4t L A v otyr. !� `-ly Secm/ ps A{ e- , 5 Zy �L GaauN t4yo?.� /lJ /m,0 5"4t6 [c-, = /5 , ,ter ' n 6eW aorteel (. YWV LW As (,up sL.,, ,qct So Dbw _ r .Mc . qu4 and m14429 FA CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE: B12-171Z A -0^4,9 /�72FR� 73 42A� 7-,LfA�r "40 Iv ec R ,Z'd, 5 1,0 Q.0 -rtk m"o ,;. - - , .z/W's !4 Sotcs eu6 26p• App/10vev CUAPrrc./-�otj of CIE, qu4(if(( Conl. Au• L.wc7' 12 bfq SwALg Dula `7D �R� _ �Ep1h5 A7 LOT-5 '7/ X0,1 // /L/ -1 6A& 7wt 0.f. * flact 3(y" rocf(- 8 Z8 Iv AlVetrA, /4)va P- Ppruw&2) tbo '%he S/9 " rock Qnd `th -3/6 il eyavt Cr 13112/ 0/ 7, !O due- c d tb 0161 3a i z e1JJ16. 501 L IrT LOTS- I U - I', A440 -4- ��2o'IZ V -et-tO EV A-LA- LOTS 91J SCAT k"r , i3vnPs pWnW, and rv7.e� •M, lace. - crC-x/ic C-e eLe;meY bu+ ((tups+r1 nea ofe.5 AA cJ l0 9 IL 10.30+- W4 Lk-C-0 pV77116 sITI= w, 7)4 4&W L . L+ Cc- "S wt' s S�Or3�ZkS, Cl-( rVe- gt -noutt � 1CPL SGT- F:61c- 7o 71 72- AVAz-os cca�s{. C �rnd S��KNU �,4DcF /n Ccsp s/130w4L G D Lvu !L vqk4ele 1141, Work Was dcrrG alooc-i' l y!a/ 090. *F- t Fv(L /b1 . - ,-1 4r.C4 et eiveua�s cf,mattr4, OufiA fno(t COO ILA Q„ Mufrow. 11( c( /I- (-,45T- oh I!- 1; r-- a c-p h /Ls moat 7nuuy . m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: f-tj r <lo W TD 7� ADD 12, E o Lur4 RU E� ccc.v f a fiAr /n1G nAJ /-lorne5 6.etl,4 .0, 'n `i he ell r'add /e 0 4 e a c v Can t4r -i1„s s re - cross �r` rua -✓�ru 4 Curb opell /'++�r7� IM Ck- OF W , 70 '7716 e0nS/MC,621n !Z Iii rZ -3°ttn - /Ytt"T w �rboi»,at.. ,avi.JL�. s ahlielu scr-�r k -in he ,'o'J'la 7 rr PALorn 4u,{Nb RElu,&4ED TD SITE A,up 6gotouo /JAS , X r-x4 6nzzy S, -7v AcuiEVC L°% crn.Sfa // /n a o � Ett,9c,f SG-/en u tip 7DM o4[q,cl , / / -.5 X47AO5 e3u/t / cE 7;t4/5 �ME 7D tvVeC . 2 /cl i3 ,Wt7' esv-r rtwc"r � Y14 SM�T5 E Caritf W au -&- the decorit,Vt Co-,ccc K ben d 4"�60 - eniru�le-�� . L�11vE co.lr wi td led o //txj, 2 / 9 /3 DE[- te+17VE PCC pou2t3j F.,e o r L Snrt r5 c,.prn CI�7 4wAj L�c.o5EV- il'is,7 S/rlE •TD s� nAllst4 Da�oucr [4 �7go 'AjoTHIIJG UNl( Uq'L 7b Aloes , Svl" gnrh 8E{p(F Pouf. S e-VNJ F+ ej a - -,7,c A7sgl It UTIF� EkAOrc Dn' T}E �/L 2 2S l3 PRcoe"A2 Paui.,G of E4- Ion. rb t E ✓ o cR "7E C/47S3i.v(i. Pt At&- -mrrrr SCNeonutw 7D/?j,)Aa4p4) , ,ni6to onf Sev &7cAC, oCA!s51:wl$ I 4701( .5moo owels 4k ; I/ C. 4Z113 140 Rcnv j. )Vvtl- /C5( -H4VD 7v 7a/W4"kj. 13 677fe& .r L dF pI ACW o,#J 6 u4i CPry S . Ae{ y H 13 At( /Toms, o,1 ,JuncylG�1 Downle/m/. p -fv 1. M14429 C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 963GI PARCEL NO. : 259 -180 -1900 PLAN NO.: 963 -G JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1150 MELBA ROAD CASE NO.: 06005 / TM APPLICANT NAME WARMINGTON ENCINITAS 41 LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 3090 PULLMAN PHONE NO.: 714 -557 -5511 CITY: COSTA MESA STATE: CA ZIP: 92626 - CONTRACTOR : BURTECH PIPELINE PHONE NO.: 760 - 634 -2822 LICENSE NO.: 718202 LICENSE TYPE: A ENGINEER : PLSA PHONE NO.: 858 -259 -8212 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 12/22/10 PERMIT EXP, DATE: 9/03/11 PERMIT ISSUED BY: - INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH --- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. GIS MAP FEE 3.75.00 3. INSPECTION FEE 23,935.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. NPDES INSPT FEE 4,787.00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT 731,195.00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FE 840.00 8. TRAFFIC FEE .00 9. IN -LIEU UNDERGRN 203,600.00 10.IN -LIEU IMPROVMT 14,000.00 11.PLAN CHECK FEE .00 12.PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN 963 -G. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 30,2009 (REV.DEC. 1,2010) APPLIES. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION 12,"2%-/6) COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED q -z -/) ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED -/ -/ ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION -2&- FINAL FINAL INSPECTION y_ y_ ,3 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING ANY PERMIT SUED PURSUANT SIGNA I HAVE READ THE APPLI, AGREE TO COMPLY WITH AND GRADING, AND THE TO THIS APPLICATION. 7 INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- :ATION AND STATE THAT THE ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF 124 2_// 0 DATE SIGNED ( Lim 7Q- MV-/302- PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING r LAND SURVEYING February 15, 2013 City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Attn Engineering: PLSA 1452 RE: MONUMENT BOND RELEASE FOR SUBDIVISION MAP 15827 (TM 06- 005) To Whom It Mat Concern, Please be advised that the monuments for the above referenced maps 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, Joseph uhY S 5211 Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc. 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.758,9374 I Fx 858.756.4231 I plsaenginecring.cont am., p� �11Yi HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For 1150 MELBA ROAD —18 LOT SUBDIVISION W: APN: 359 - 180 -19 CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For LAWRENCE HOLLAND 871 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 (760) 579 -1093 PE 1452F PREPARED BY: JUN 4 2V . - PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A y s� SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 3 CE �9 (858)259 -8212 * EXP V '�4A DATE: 5-8-08 c'mi. z REVISED: OFC,F,t . 14 RCE 68964 DATE HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION............................................... ............................... A CONCLUSION ............................................... ..............................B 100 YEAR PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ......... C 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .......D HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS ........................ ..............................E APPENDIX................................................... ..............................F Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve Runoff Coefficients Hydrology Node Map HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 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 conditions of the Melba Road project site. The subject property is physically located at 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California and geographically located at 33 002'30" N, 117 015'58" W. Pre - Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of several greenhouses covering most of the property at 1150 Melba Road. The northern portion of the property drains east to west and discharges onto Balour Drive. The southern portion of the property drains from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of the property and discharges onto Melba Road. The difference in elevation between the highpoint and low point is approximately 42', with the highpoint of the property at an elevation of 384 in the northeast comer of the property and the low point at an elevation of 338 in the west side of the property. For pre - developed conditions, the property lies within two hydrologic sub - basins. Drainage sub -basin 1 discharges onto Balour Drive and runoff is conveyed to an existing 18" drainage pipe at Guadalajara and consequently discharges into a canyon with a peak flow of 32.34 cfs. Drainage sub -basin 2 discharges onto Melba Road and runoff is conveyed to an existing inlet at Evergreen and consequently discharges into a canyon with a peak flow of 23.60 cfs. Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the construction of eighteen single family residences. All proposed drainage from lots 7, 10 -15, 17, & 18 will be directed to a treatment swale along Balour Drive. This runoff will ultimately discharge onto Balour Drive and continue its natural course to the canyon. Approximately 1 acre of developed site will divert water to Melba Road that currently discharges onto Balour. The total post - development runoff discharging via Balour Drive at the 18" pipe on Guadalajara is 28.55 cfs. All proposed drainage from lots 1, 2, 4 -6, 8, & 9 will be directed to a treatment Swale along Melba Road. This runoff will ultimately discharge onto Melba Road along with the runoff from lot 3. The total post - development runoff that discharges onto Melba Road including offsite drainage at Evergreen is 24.83 cfs. HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 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 -0 .64' 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: l W�OMM Q =CIA 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 Q100 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 - development runoff coefficient was determined by using a weighted "C" average. HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 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 pre - development condition the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic analysis of the project site was conservatively calculated to be 0.35, based on an impervious percentage of 0 %. For the post- developed condition the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic analysis of the project site was 0.52, taken from the June 2003 edition of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual for medium density residential areas having a density of 4.3 DU /A or less. 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 Qloo to the appropriate points of discharge with the exception of the existing type B -1 catch basin on the south side of Melba Road at Evergreen Drive, which will be upsized accordingly — see Section E for curb inlet capacity calculations. HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 77i[iZiMIn. a : il5[' l�11C1T�u1ai`►Yli'.Vd17:is)1181 94FIlI[41f1W.V40111&1 T f7SOZZ425f' /-1V44 5575 v"eEAb 'SET.. . lDf GG %.0 lvao7 GG' �/ZOCEx ' .L��Jr":.:. lane 6a9ro v — �- 07 o yo '% 1, -I9 /,VfT+AL loo •yG GZaa o c I ANN 7�Zo h,yo —f. Z. 4o ADD!TorV — '.IM SS' V / 1.77 dc - -- - - - -- _ -sy o +.z 8117 S7'Z6-£T -51a • Cl - — f —' _, �! —_��— c 3'' 6 /Jp rTra�► _.> _�._. pp __.�a_..... -- - -- - -�!a3 � -L .... _• 0,�7 AG a'_I —I Z•� - -- �ih ItJirIRL /o0 3`i ti5 °o p,Z Ac - -- -- —..... —�-^� -- . —L�— �3 b fGD D r't ne+�1 • 35 + 54; 7_ / �/ �.5°+ R � -- - • �� 3JV CO/VFLUEnICL '•• l,Z� . ,x,52 -.• -s.l � l�ii� 1��+ .87_ (o�oe.�, a.L"S flc. . ?�6 I•� ?'mss /}QDi 1 - 8Z to 4. no Z.47 RG _. - -0.j0 fir - 1 �.2T by 32$ cc fj R Q e exl criM3 -7,z -r( sL -a a- 2.04 ni con�FLULk — — _ cZ� --2,9 S 3Z3 STS cC'I `1 _ -7 z � L o EIL .rA t — — — 'r :. n, apP, a — , y6 3l BN y . a r- 0 r • �" /7- 'YU.�LY�aY fa�/RG y�'I5 �.eERd 'SET,. lave- Lcrgrov iC/- — O*IM6.1125 0 L loo cr /Y61 �Y: b• Z 3G2 STR cE-I Z 3L7 - h 7 % C.Z CaU FLUINC£ - - - _ zS Z SM- 0,0T ne ------ ---• yoZ,s — � ?/oz— -I -@,Z._ _-a�z c NetJrJtz. �s l , y G _ -_ - •------ - -..._ _.. -eg.7 ow - /G / X30 G-') f14�= - - -_- -...- 114 7-5 119 3 5 y tr} 3 -;,5 L( R-ODI7-1 sr, - si sx' 0.11 Ik X54 h 3 354 coNrLbEt)Cc' - - 2 STR f,1 MS 11 .... _ �lo�i R•, O t /01 •$ YV/Tih t_ '!00 .tl4 34!/ 0•A 6 (1•. yob • .: �, 7,2ro CI /ANNE'L Z /p -�'60 Y? 52 /109 A-e -2;`do G .3 ?S`/ cl /dAUt)FI 40DIrloN - IBS I•�ti7 /lr 5 ^�•4 �,N 3r� Sr c� /030 1 — �_ �I ilia RD ITIOn) — '1 51ZO 8 1,1Z RG 3Ib h.0 3/L 0 - -- T117$ /0.0 ?'8•(� /rhTx4L_ 1104C> 0, 0t( tic _.. o 70(� 10-1 ? k� • e- 6 s 1 3/( (01/ V.4 ADOIitaJ - . q yxr9z 1.1/ - •1 _ 3/(n o. 3/1, ftOOT76A) .•'.c AY,7 y :.i - / 7.1(1 10.1 r,rc- fo^))AU(NCC - _ - _ Ii7.Qc!Aiv$ 6 � o SUo (, %3C� Nlrl/ft- /00 .52- 0.33 H� 10, -31 C6 CAM 0CL- 1050 5 -1- - 7 to. 1 1/16 O!r on) r .5 Z 530 —� -�- L_ 3/6 o 3/ G Lo 7 /r.� /O•�/ rl5 7 101PC sq ols - z� HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 sssrsrssrsrmarssssrnsssrrsssrssss• rsrssssssssrrsrssssrsrass rsrsssrssrsrs• 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 (acs) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/012002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering 535 N. Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, Ca 92075 ssssrsrssssssrrssurrsrrs• DESCRIPTION OF STUDY rsrsssssrrsrrrunrrssarrr • PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT • PE 1452 FOR WALID ROMAYA • PASCO ENGINEERING r sssrs• rssssrrnssssrssrrssrrr• srrsrssrsrrs •rrssrssr••rr•sasr•srrrrrsrsa• FILE NAME: 1452PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:53 01222007 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 lvffN UM PIPE SIZE(INCH) — 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD 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. (FI) (FT) SIDE/ SIDE/ WAY (FT) (F) (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.* ssssssss+ rrsrrrrsrusssssrrrr•• rrrrrssrssnssrsrrs •sssrssssssrrs•rr•••srrsw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21 » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC B) = 0 INITIAL. SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 403.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 394.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 9.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.539 *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) - 0.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 rsrrrrrrssassassrsssssssrrrnrs• rsss• assssrr sssssss +sssssusssssrsrrrrrrrsr• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE - 52 » »>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW ««< » » >TRAVELTMiE THRU SUBAREA « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 394.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 340.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 720.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0750 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 4.11 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.92 Tc(MIN.)= 8.92 LONGEST FLO WPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.20 = 820.00 FEET. •+rrrssrrssssrssssss cuss* nrrssnrrsusrrasrs +s+ +r+sssssrnsssrssssussars 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) = 4.534 *USER SPECIFBED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.27 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.41 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)- 3.03 TC(MIN) - 8.92 nssusrsrrsr •ssssssrsr ++rss+ss +sssss cars* srrssrrsurrsssrssssrrsnrrswsrss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE - 61 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET)= 340.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET)- 338.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 310.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES)=6.0 STREET HALF WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb- tocurb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.03 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.30 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET)- 8.85 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 1.68 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FTFFT /SEC.) - 0.51 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 3.08 Tc(MIN.) - 12.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.745 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.03 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.85 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)- 1.68 DEPTHFVELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.)= 0.51 LONGEST FLO WPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.30= 1130.00 FEET. •titttYttliltttttti lift #ttiitttttrRR #RRRtr RRRtRRRttr Rrtttaa Rraa#tittFRiRlara FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.301S CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.745 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.72 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.45 TC(MIN) - 12.00 lsattrtst RRRSSRrist Rrwarratiirwssuutssss »swrstsstttrttrsislrt ► ttttttt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(NIIN.) = 12.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.75 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 113 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.45 ae rtasasprpt# rtrgttpit» nsitttrsrrtsrrrrrarptttssnttrssttttstrrrarrst FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE - 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) - 0 INTT AL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH - 0.35 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 384.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 376.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 8.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 0.061 *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) = 0.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS)- 0.41 tRlllil Rtarllttirtttttttttl RtitlttlttitRrt RRrr RttrtttstttltlFtttFliFltlitttt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 52 » »>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW « «< HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 >>> >>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 376.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 338.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 669.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0568 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.41 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.57 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MAIJ= 3.12 Tc(MIN.) = 9.12 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.30= 669.35 FEET. . R. ss# rsritsr .#rslllsrlrlttttrtrtraw•t•t !!sari' »s!•waltsaswrsarlttsla!! FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.301S CODE= 8I » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 4.470 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 3.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.62 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.79 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 6.03 TC(MM- 9.12 • uus••!• su•• tlt/# ss• st/ lrtsps• sttrpq ;pt «•tt••tsrsanut!••s•p «•tgtt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE - 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT. STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.12 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCHIER) = 4.47 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.79 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 6.03 • ulnslsr! lsrsssrr#. R• ss. lslr•!• ai• sas!• tsa !laswsattrtrurttrtsts•sarslus FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 352.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 349.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 3.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.495 !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) = 1.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10 •...• Yit••! r• ltlrtttt/ ttttl/!!••• tlRr#; r!•/ tlasiat !lttatrttt<at1latti••ti # ;! FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« «< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 349.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 338.00 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 415.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0265 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR - 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR- 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)=500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSIIY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.762 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) - 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED, USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.10 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.05 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MN.) = 2.27 Tc(MIN.) - 8.27 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 1.10 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH( FEET)= 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)= 3.05 LONGEST FLO WPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.30 = 515.00 FEET. •sueesrrenerrerrrrrrssererres• sees* ee• erseesen •seesrreeseesssesreererssr• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE - 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.762 *USER SPECIFB D(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 9.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.66 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.59 TC(MIN) = 8.27 * rrr«• eresreess•• rnrr« r• errwrrse• se•e eeessseeeeessesereeaeeeesereee• *seas• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< »» >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES < «« TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.27 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.76 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.59 ** CONFLUEN STREAM RUNOFF Tc NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) 1 5.45 12.00 2 6.03 9.12 3 10.59 8.27 �E DATA ** INTENSITY AREA (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 3.745 2.13 4.470 3.79 4.762 2.66 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 20.54 8.27 4.762 2 20.54 9.12 4.470 3 18.83 12.00 3.745 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.54 Tc(MIN.) = 9.12 TOTALAREA(ACRES)= 8.58 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.30 - 1130.00 FEET. •• irsrrstssssssstssstrrirsrrrststsssssnssrrirrrrirrurrsssrsrsttrrrrrsttsrs FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE - 6l » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 338.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 328.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 356.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALF WIDTH(FEET) = 17.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section= 0.0200 ''TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 20.54 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET)- 0.42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 14.44 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 4.66 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FTIFT /SEC.) = 1.93 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 1.27 TWON.) = 10.39 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.109 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.58 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 20.54 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WB)TH(FEET) = 14.44 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.66 DEPTHIVELOCITY(FTIFT /SEC.)= 1.93 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.40 = 1486.00 FEET. tttlilR! lttttttittitittittittittitttttitttitttitit •litttittttittittitlittrt♦ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.109 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 1.11 TOTALAREA(ACRES)= 8.88 TOTALRUNOFF(CFS)= 21.65 TC(MIN) = 10.39 ttttittittrttrtttttrtirttrtittitriitttititt!• ltitittltttltitlttrtttir!!!liti FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE - I » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.39 RAINFALL INTENSPFY(1NCH/HR) = 4.11 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 8.88 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 21.65 rsrrrr. rss rasnrs r• rswa• r. rr« rrrsrrrrssss ssrsssrsr «s►srrsaarrssrrsrssrsrss• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC I) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 339.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION- 336.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 3.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.495 *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) = 1.01 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.01 sss: srssssraraaasaaasssaussarsssassarsrssrrssssssarasrasssssrrsssssasssrrsr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE I.401S CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW ««< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET)= 336.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)= 328.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 458.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0175 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR- 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.510 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.01 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.55 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.99 To(MIN.)= 8.99 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.01 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)- 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 2.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 1.40 = 558.00 FEET. s«rr.rassrssrsrrss•• sus• a• ssrrrrrsr• ssrsrsrrrrrarrssarssrrs •ssasrsar.aarss• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.401S CODE = 81 » >>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.510 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.04 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.55 TC(MIN) = 8.99 •s rr•• ssss sssrwr«•s rsssusrsrasrs« rrsrs srrsrsasrswsrssrrrs srsrrr »ar«ws• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE = 1 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES « «< TOTAL N NIBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.99 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.51 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.25 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.55 rr CONFLUENCE DATA r• STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH(HOUR) (ACRE) 1 21.65 10.39 4.109 8.88 2 8.55 8.99 4.510 2.25 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. rr PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE rr STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 28.28 8.99 4.510 2 29.44 10.39 4.109 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 29.44 Tc(MIN.) - 10.39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.13 LONGEST FLO WPATH FROM NODE 1 AO TO NODE 1.40= 1486.00 FEET. •• sssssssssssssssssssssssasssssss»• assssssssssssssssrsnssssssn »rrssrrsss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.501S CODE = 61 » »> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)« «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 328.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 323.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 173.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALF WIDTH(FEET) = 17.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) - 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECAMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECRAAL) = 0.020 Mennines FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Mannines FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of- -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 29.44 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEFT-H(FEET) - 0.46 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.59 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.13 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FTrFT /SEC.)= 2.35 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.56 Tc(MIN.) = 10.95 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.972 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTALAREA(ACRES)= I1.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)- 29.44 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 DEPTH(FEET) - 0.46 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.59 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.13 DEPTH•VELOCITY(FT•FT /SEC.) = 2.35 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.50 = 1659.00 FEET. ssss rr• rrnrrrss rras rrrrrrrrs rrrrnrrrrrrrrrrrrr sssrrrrrrrrsssrssssrrrrssaw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.972 *USER SPECEFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 11.35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 30.23 TC(MIN) = 10.95 rrss rrass arss rrrarrrrrrrrs rrs rss rrrrsss rrs rr srrrasrssrrrsrsrssnssrsrrrr•ar FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE= 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM I ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(bIIN.) - 10.95 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCHW) = 3.97 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 11.35 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 30.23 srrrrsrrss rss• rsssss••••s aurarrarrrr• rs srrrrsrr ssrrr•srrussraassssssssrn FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC H) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 324.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 323.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 0.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.536 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)- 0.90 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90 •• sss rrrs• rrrs rrrsrrrrrrsss srurs rrrrs rssrrr •rprrsssrssrssrsrrnsrssssrrrrr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 1.501S CODE = 61 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TAME THRU SUBAREA« «< » »>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)« «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 323.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 323.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 161.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) =17.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streettlow Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) - 0.90 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET)- 5.83 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 0.98 PRODUCT OF DEFM&VELOCfFY(FTsFT /SEC.)= 0.24 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.75 Tc(MIN.) = 8.75 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.593 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.90 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.83 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC .) - 0.98 DEPTH•VELOCITY(FT'FT /SEC.)= 0.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 1.50- 261.00 FEET. urraaatraararrrrrrarrrrsssssssssrrasr. r. aaaarrrs.rrssssssraraasrgaswaar FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW <<<c< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.593 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC B)= 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.73 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.44 TC(MIN) = 8.75 nassasusasarasasrrsrrsns•• assarrurrr• rxssnasssraar • »urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.5015 CODE = I » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(bIIN.) = 8.75 RAINFALL WTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.44 sa CONFLUENCE DATA sa STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 30.23 10.95 3.972 11.35 2 2.44 8.75 4.593 0.90 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. as PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE sa STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 28.58 8.75 4.593 2 32.34 10.95 3.972 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 32.34 TgMIN.) = 10.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.25 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.50= 1659.00 FEET. rasrrrarr••rrsas asssarsassrsasarsrsrsrra• rrrrssrrrsssssnssssssssrsarsrrssss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.10IS CODE= 2I » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< -USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 INITIAL. SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 388.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 386.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 2.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 2.857 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.16 rsrrrsrss rsasyssesssaraarssaa• rrrrarrrsssssssaaaaaaaaaswasarsaaasruaa »ssr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 6.20IS CODE = 61 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)< «« UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 386.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 362.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 417.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.16 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.52 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FfrFT /SEC .) = 0.71 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 1.54 Tc(MIN.)= 7.54 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.055 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.16 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)=0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 4.52 DEPTN•VELOCITY(FF•FT /SEC.)= 0.71 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.20 = 517.00 FEET. rrrssanrrrrrrrras<rsss••ss • rrr.••s<r<r<rrrssrrrs<r <rrrrrrrrrrrrrrsrsr<s<rra FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE - 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCWHOUR) = 5.055 "USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)- 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11 TC(MIN) = 7.54 r< rnrssrnrprs. r•• s. r.••s< rs urs< rrtrrr♦s <rpssss<r<sss•ssaststs•<rs »ssrr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.54 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR)= 5.06 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 0.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.11 s<• r• r♦••. rr••s••• rss• rs< rs•< rrrrsrw< rs <rsr••gr•a•ansssssaausss•s<ssr• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< "USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 403.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 402.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 0.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) - 14.514 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.313 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 s♦ rrrrr+ rr• rrrrrtratrrrr• rrrrrrts< rrasrrrrrarrrrr <ttrsr<rrrsrrrrrrrr<tssr<tt• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 6.201S CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« «< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 402.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 362.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 651.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0622 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.363 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC H) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLO W(CFS) = 0.12 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.09 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 9.98 Tc(MIN.)= 24.50 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.12 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.09 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.20= 751.00 FEET. #trssttrtr+r+trrtrr attar'' aasrt# asr++ r;+ ss#+ r ++ # #Y #ts #asttsr #rrttrrttrsrratt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.363 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 3.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.11 TC(MIN) = 24.50 rsrtrtrrrttrrtutststu• t;• rsarsrrssrrt• astrrssarstnstrrnsssss;sssrns;s FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 1 » »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««( TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 24.50 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 2.36 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.11 tr CONFLUENCE DATA •s STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.11 7.54 5.055 0.24 2 4.11 24.50 2.363 3.75 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ra PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE is STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 3.04 7.54 5.055 2 4.63 24.50 2.363 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.63 Tc(MrN.) = 24.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.20= 751.00 FEET. t#; t!!# Rqt;# tltgtrt #rttaat #ai•rr ;• ;t ;t#rrirtNa N # #!# #1 #iNttiit YYat larNt#N FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.301S CODE = 61 » »> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<«« UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 362.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 354.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 233.00 CURB HE!GHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALF W IDTH(FEET) = 12.00 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STPEET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)= 4.63 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.33 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.54 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT*FT /SEC.) = 0.96 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)- 1.10 Tc(MIN.) =25.59 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCWHOUR) = 2.298 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 3.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)- 4.63 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.33 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.54 DEPTH*VELOCITY(F'T #FT /SEC.)= 0.96 LONGEST FLO WPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.30 = 984.00 FEET. rrtqiY rYtii ir« rr# rtirti!•♦ rYit•Y SSSSSSSSSriirt lsssfsasssirsissirssisf•is••« FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 [S CODE = 81 » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.298 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC H) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.90 TC(MIN) - 25.59 ss•«s YSSSSSirrsrsrrirrtrirrrr• rtrtimrtstt• lrrrrlrrsslslsssnrsfssii • f•rf•• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE = I » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM I ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 25.59 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.30 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.12 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.90 • #t «r itYNYHNYiN •!ilHHlrt Nff iiisq!litf!!f•#•ii Yrl tYi UrrilN ii Niiri! FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH= 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 403.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 402.50 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 0.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOWaAINUTES) = 14.514 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCHMOUR) = 3.313 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 l tipttrsttttti+ pisi«+«« s« rrasstatttss+ p +tnr +sssrrrrrsrsstuawa•tsastass FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.10 IS CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW ««< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 402.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 240.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0938 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.890 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TAME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.12 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.17 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVELTAME(MIN.)= 3.42 Tc(M[N.) = 17.94 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.12 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 8.10= 340.00 FEET. i • iiirri Httititt ttiaH ataMN tpaNpit+t ttf It+iait qt Iasi'' NH qti HliNt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.1015 CODE = 81 » » >ADDFIION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL LNTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.890 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.45 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.57 TC(MK = 17.94 sptq a as ittHHliNNr r aHHitt+i rtr ap ss aat +ta ssrstti tai tikt isi +H+N t tii a FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 6.30IS CODE = 51 »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW « «< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 354.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 578.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0450 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNAIG'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.562 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.57 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.62 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.68 Tc(MIN.) = 21.62 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.57 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.14 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 2.62 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.30= 918.00 FEET. •• xsitsttsttsrttutrstiesuss rr• rrrrrrttssssstrs ••••u••tsia••ahsistssttsitt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE = 81 - --- ------- ---------- - --- ----- - -- -- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.562 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 2.87 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.10 TC(MIN) = 21.62 rr« r«t ttsrssxxxxxp•• rxxxx• rrrtsutrrsrtrrrrrritttr tsss••ts•x•• :••. •.stt•tst FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.301S CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 2J.62 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.56 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.87 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.10 tt CONFLUENCE DATA tx STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 4.90 25.59 2.298 4.12 2 3.10 21.62 2.562 2.87 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. tr PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE th STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 7.49 21.62 2.562 2 7.68 25.59 2.298 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.68 Tc(MIN.) = 25.59 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.99 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.30= 984.00 FEET. « tttitttrrrrrtiitt• x♦• ttitittrrrtttittit!•• t• •hhh•i•..•rttrttittitrtt «tttt•x FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 61 »»> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< » »>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 354.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 316.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 1030.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.68 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 9.03 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.11 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT•FT /SEC.) = 1.26 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.18 Tc(MIN.) = 29.77 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.084 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.68 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 9.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.11 DEPTHiVELOCITY(FT /FT /SEC.) - 1.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.40 = 2014.00 FEET. •ttttttitttttttiitttl Rill!! tr!l ttttt!• tttttrfittttttttittttttttirtttitttit !• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.4015 CODE = 81 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.084 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT -.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 1.18 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.89 TC(MIN) = 29.77 t N g t q t i i! Y1 r t H• is t N t t t N t tt N p t s H f i # #! g q r t b t q H t H r t i N i H• it t N! FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.401S CODE = 10 » » >MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 « «< ttlHUtHtttlHHliTtttttHti tttittiiit it iltittt Httittltt tttitltit tit tl it• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION= 388.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 386.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 2.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MR TES) = 2.857 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)= 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES)- 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 rrrs«ssussssssssssss sssssrsssa« arsssassssrrrrrsrs •rassssssssrssrsssssrrsss• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 61 » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) « «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 386.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 316.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1695.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Mannines FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section. 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.21 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.83 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT "FT /SEC.) - 0.60 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 7.37 Tc(MIN.) = 13.37 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 3.493 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.21 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) =0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET)= 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 3.83 DEPTH "VELOCITY(FT +FT /SEC.)= 0.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 10.10= 1795.00 FEET. • aar« ssrssaas• rr««« a•• sas• ssrrasrarssssrsrs s•sssssrr+asussssrrarrrssrsssss FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.1015 CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.493 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREAAREA(ACRES)= 1.11 SUBAREARUNOFF(CFS)= 3.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.70 TC(MIN) = 13.37 s+aasp «a• «a sasassssssr«« spssrasasarsssassssrssss +rrrssssssrsssassaraassaas FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.1015 CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.493 "USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.72 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.85 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 10.42 TC(MIN) = 13.37 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 ..... ............................r.f strfff .•..ts...nrrf,s.Y.af...r „!s•t.• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.37 RAINFALL INTENSTTY(INCH/HR)= 3.49 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.42 r.. srstsss.. ts.•. ft .ttr•.. »s »r.rrsr.rrrlsrlrrrlsa s.,sssrrsssslssss »saws FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.10IS CODE = 21 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< -USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =. 5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH= 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 340.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 336.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE= 4.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.577 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.519 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.33 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95 wwwwrwrwwww, lwwwswrwiwwrwwwswww .wwww.wwwaw•.w FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 51 » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)« «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 336.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 316.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 650.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0308 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.752 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.95 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.01 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)= 5.39 Tc(MIN.) - 11.97 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.33 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.95 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.11 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.)= 2.01 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.10= 750.00 FEET. . Y. itt... f. t. lt!! Y.•. tt•.... i,.. F... tttM.. tt. i..ttttt.•t.,l.t..tY.tttt,.ttlr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.752 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II)= 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 3.83 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.77 TC(MIN) - 11.97 •«. a.•, a••,s,ss,••,s, rs u,, rr,sss rns p s,•♦♦rs••ss.rssra•s„u„q«usatrr• FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10IS CODE = 51 » »> COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » » >TRAVELTBvIE THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<«« ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 316.00 DO WNSTREAM(FEET) = 315.99 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 0.01 CHANNEL SLOPE = 1.0010 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET)=500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.752 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT =.5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) a 7.77 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 16.75 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET)- 0.29 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.00 TC(MIN.)= I1.97 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.77 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET)= 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 16.75 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.10= 750.01 FEET. qrsssssss ass sq••♦ w,•,ss,sr rtrs r, r• ss •,••,srns «srw,,,r•,,,,n„ru »satr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE - 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES« «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.97 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 3.75 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.77 s• CONFLUENCE DATA •• STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (iNCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 10.42 13.37 3.493 4.85 2 7.77 11.97 3.752 3.83 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. „ PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE s, STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 17.48 11.97 3.752 2 17.66 13.37 3.493 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 17.66 Tc(MIN.) = 13.37 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 10.10= 1795.00 FEET. sssssrssrtrrs• sssswtrtsrsssrrttrtttstsssssssasrsstrstttttrsssrs •srrssaaaaar FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 6.401S CODE = 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 315.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 315.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 54.00 MANNINUS N = 0.013 ASSUME FULL- FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.62 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY = (TOTAL FLOW)I(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = I PIPE- FLOW(CFS) - 17.66 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 13.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.40= 1849.00 FEET. qtN Ht MSSta ar• sstt ttr• tto• N•t tstHgtt•gt•giiaasataa•HrqttHttt N•rt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.401S CODE = 11 » »> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY « «< r* MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 17.66 13.53 3.466 8.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.40 = 1849.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 9.89 29.77 2.084 8.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.40 = 2014.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCHIHOUR) 1 23.60 13.53 3.466 2 20.51 29.77 2.084 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.60 Tc(MIN.) = 13.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 16.85 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 16.85 TC(MIN.) = 13.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 23.60 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 D. 100 YEAR POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS .�.� i i ry 1�Cr�r H uAC y5i5 CEi�o t v FT •(/ao� � �,u /�/•p � -'f �/1•oc� • . ��r•J:.,... lam+ vr�oN A/ - — /t/- Coc /7 L%I �o.�M�irs 1•I 71cl INIr1Ar_ (00 YG 67�i - -o lYIle- -2.'91 L( — 1 3`{n chAnJUC `16 - f•Z 340 1.7 �Lln J�0t710N "•L16 SS, /Y /— -� 1,2� 1? C. 1 2 �y� _ l•3 33Sf S Q�FT -,�I o .9 - -- OP - -- —3L4 -- �•p -I 1 3cs /a /nr+� too �S/f�.s2 IZ,2�y D• "LF dc - - - -- - 4. I _3� _ _�_� . 3115 srCcc-r szz_ 9 — -- 13 �J3 -- 338 A-o'PITioto �!z •ri2 1093,1-e 7.57 Ac - 1 (z\ 1NIn,;.� too 82 /o _e 6G t�.13 46 l/AN 1.3' X32 f•; iad� Sap /} orrroJ COS)FLV ENCt — f 3 3 r•y rz� sT2FEr ! y -Sz — / -�/ 3Zx APP IT10AJ — i /Z 70S * >o A-c -_ /, L ? T •I( /, CL_ i Z p G0 AJTL r/FNC L — !10 ��J�I y/ Zi?i �O /A)/Tt A.L ,00 Z ♦).D iaL -- - - - -.. y. 7 41Z 1. �2g I.5 X23 STRC- t3 - ! flnDl i)orJ • 9 9 2 %2 A"c I• S �) -3 /. S '�7..3 GoN?-LN,-Ak, -.p ��1.`( 5• f Z3.5 /tv17-)o-L roo /f/O� � /N f vo.D � ' �/IOCf.�S ' .- ��31"_ _ — k/- //filc •. C.c lI A.P�/I �o�i�1E�c/l5 "o fo•/ n (v.2 �fcTfo 3LZ laIT141- "To E. too Li 14 .9 '�1 /YG/ _ -- _ o,o3. Ac- ----- - -- -- -- - -- -- - - - -.. 4.7 !G+ -:G,Z A'7DDrTlor) - '9 oSS -- 0.2( Ac. 6.7- _ 3� L _G 2 3(vZ GcNF��GNC - - - - - - -. 5T2Ert�n Z i� -- /'O yO ' 9'0 goz•S 1Nrr744__ _too__— !i(o- - ZS b. 01 - -- - -- - - -- 3+kz cNnyNcc G.z _p.•- 3[°•2 _I —tTZ �,(i;7 IlnDrr,otj SON FLLfiJct - - •rig !S 930 �,ho N"� --- _- - - - - -- -_ -- Z� -._ f'o — O7 if o _ �/n7.S /lvrri4 loo yb 3r,s/ �r3t (1c -- S.o Yo A, Ttu,J 7 3e yG y l.oLnr _ sr, r 'SG 0' z 3C_ 7- -P,-r etl -990 — •4b — (o % 7 _- (0.3 3�L( 6.3 'GH Ayr>ITrorJ qc- o� z, o t`/ �• f : / INlTrat� /oo -- L. s�3 z.z srex [ Zoo yb .52 - Z.z ash z.Z :68 tin rlo� — ,1/� .57, /$ Z'•% - L_3 35Y 6.3 AVbi *-) {rG . L _9 958 x .75 h.S ?5�f 4.3 3 3-L( (o. 31f. STREET to 5- - N - b _ G,. V jro ADnrtroJ - •� S /t2o7r /, /h /1r b•y 3 (a L•`/ 21to Go A£ fo - - 6.0 0. to, l 3r b /o . / ? r 6 AQ> ITIV11 _ tq 116 I-rz /• // ere 'a.l �� p __ �• 1 -a6 coN T[vFN(`• - - - - G i,R.trArn', L� —• _- n — /VIDE T�N 440 f�/�oCE,�S . f✓l°':.:_ . C'ac%f L�.t'E9 C OYIMF.I/T c - /N,nEFL GNANNE loo b e 57. .52- JH /Xa - - -- _ COA FLVCNaE _ /n.l 31:5, 6— —!2_y lI5,3 PIPE. - - _ - -_—_ HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 w +tw # } ## * # ##wf rraat♦t!l :rrlrf rf rrl f+ t+ at## w}} t } }!!r }rf #!f }frw *r#trt }}t : *wtrt* 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 535 N. Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, Ca 92075 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY !lr raaffaf +f +t + + +lt+w # # #rf • POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT ' • PE1452 FOR WALID ROMAYA ' • PASCO ENGINEERING - REVISED 7 -9 -07 ' FILE NAME: 1452POST.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:27 07/09/2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) - 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCE14T OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE - 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER - DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL' HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER- GEOFETRIES: 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.* rr#+ tl aatww#+ f+## # ##w+t *w #fltfrt+t # # # + # ## # # # # #aa aww* + +rrrf arara ++t+twt+ #a + +w FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE - 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 403.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 394.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 9.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.539 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.14 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.38 +ixrr +rr +rrr : + +r if araaaar +a +t +rxwr tii rrrrar ietir• +a +aaa + + + + + +arr trtrrr ra aria 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) 394.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 340.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) 720.00 CHANNEL SLOPE - 0.0750 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) - 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) - 4.11 (PER LACFCD /RCFC4WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 2.92 Tc(MIN.) - 8.92 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.20 = 820.00 FEET. rrwxxwwxxxi+ rat +traaaaaarit t + + +wwx:xxwxrar +ir +a aaraaaar +iwi+r + +wrerrx we ra ita 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) - 4.534 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.27 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.41 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.03 TC(MIN) = 8.92 + +r +aaaa aa+• a++ rr+++ rta+++++++ aaaarrr++ t++++ arixrr +ri +aaaaa + +atrrt ♦ + + + + + +rwr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 61 »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< --- _ ---------- _�______________ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 340.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 338.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 310.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Hack -of -walk Flow Section - 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.03 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 8.85 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.68 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FTa FT /SEC.) - 0.51 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 3.08 Tc(MIN.) = 12.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.745 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 1.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.03 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.85 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 1.68 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.30 = 1130.00 FEET. fRhf #flf tf i*i*# # #f# Rif *f*! # # +lflffiffaai* #fff lf#fllf ltlftiif t #t #a *!##f +YhRlf FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE - 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< ------ =_=____ ----------- =___===== ------ ___ _�________________________��___ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.745 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.72 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.43 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 2.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 5.45 TC(MIN) - 12.00 •!l ff++ ra+++++ f+ hfrl ee!!l lf: fftlfa++#+++ 1fi# f l +f♦ *ti +iitiaaaaalaff +• : + + +k+ft FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< _______ _________ ________________y TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT. STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.00 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 3.75 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 2.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 5.45 * ikfl* hl fl ik#* ii# t# f#* 1** hi*#* iffklfaiif* !#!h!i#fftt*iit4 *iiii #fi +1**#lf lff! FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NOSE 7.10 IS CODE = 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSTS««< *USER = SPECIFIED (SUBAREA) USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 364.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 363.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 1.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) 10.440 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.097 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.28 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.60 ai* Yh##* e* f*** fff* f* f***# 11h *** **f*t*t * *ii #a * * # * ** * * #!lf liii *ti ##1fi4klkhthh FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 61 _____________________________________________ ___________________ ____________ »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 363.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 338.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 522.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 16.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) - 0.020 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section (curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -o£ -Walk Flow Section - 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.60 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.13 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 0.64 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 2.11 Tc(MIN.) = 12.55 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.639 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 0.60 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 4.13 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 0.64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 1.30 - 622.00 FEET. +++ rr. w... rw.+. rr. r+ rtrrrrarxaxrxwxxxx+.+.+++ + + +..rrrx.ww...w.w..wr +wrr.+ +rw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 81 _____________________________________________ ______________ _____ ____________ »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.639 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 2.52 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.80 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 5.36 TC(MIN) = 12.55 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 1 --_______<____ __________ ________ _____________ ______________________ » »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN.) - 12.55 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 3.64 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.80 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 5.36 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE 21 ______ _______________ _______________ _- _______________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< ==== ---- ______ -------- __ ---------- ________ -------- __________________ :______ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 352.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 349.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 3.495 *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) = 1.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.10 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 51 _____________________________________________ ____ __________ _____ _____ _______ »»> COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 349.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 338.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 415.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0265 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.762 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.10 TRAVEL TIME TRRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.05 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.27 Tc(MIN.) = 8.27 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.10 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.30 = 515.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.762 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.66 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.59 TC(MIN) = 8.27 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.30 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »» >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.27 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.76 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.59 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 5.45 12.00 3.745 2.13 2 5.36 12.55 3.639 2.80 3 10.59 8.27 4.762 2.66 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 18.98 8.27 4.762 2 19.00 12.00 3.745 3 18.76 12.55 3.639 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 19.00 Tc(MIN.) 12.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.59 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.30 = 1130.00 FEET. ata +a+ff *fefR + * }ffraf raaf} a+ aat+++++*++ a« aa+ a +aa + + +aa*f+afffffa + +aattf *+ +fa} FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE - 61 _____________________________________________ ______ ___ ______________________ » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) « «< 'UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = -- -338 00 DOWNSTREAM= ELEVATION(FEET) - 328.00 = STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 356.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 17.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSS£ALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 -- TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) - 19.00 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.41 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.99 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.58 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.86 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.30 Tc(MIN.) - 13.29 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.505 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 7.59 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 19.00 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.41 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 13.99 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 4.58 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 1.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.40 = 1486.00 FEET. f aff+ arff fa} rf* tt}f aaf wawaaarffffff rrl fafaaaf } *}rrfa + }atafffffeffff rr+rfffrf FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE - 81 _____________________________________________ ________________ __ _______ _ _ ____ »» >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.505 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 7.89 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 19.94 TC(MIN) - 13.29 }f lta+f*fff!***} ialff}f aff ff llff af***} ffff l+f ffafll *f+* }* *ik }f }f}f}ff }ffaa }R FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE = 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 13.29 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 3.51 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 7.89 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE . 19.94 i! wl+ a+ a+ aa• at+ waiia* x* x#+ iaaa+ aawaii+ ia+ iiwawa +fatfa + # + # # # #awiitiiitlfa•1f# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.10 IS CODE - 21 ----- - - ---- ----------- --- » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION (APPENDIX X -A) WITH 10- MINUTES ADDED - 11.04(MINUTES) INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 339.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 336.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 3.00 NATURAL WATERSHED TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 11.04 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.951 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) . 0.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.23 taawaa +a +iaf ii #1f *atf of # # #a # #af aiwaittf wiiwlt # #aeaatatat# #af ifa#taf a#tit #iai FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE - 51 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« «< » »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ' ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 336.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 328.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUSAREA(FEET) 458.00 CHANNEL SLOPE - 0.0175 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR - 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.126 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) 0.23 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.58 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.83 Tc(MIN.) - 15.88 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 0.23 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 1.40 558.00 FEET. !*tf itii +aktiif a# #*Ri + +f +i tati!#laala+iw+ai+* +atilt *tilt+ #tltkRa #f *ltflf affi FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE = 81 » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) _ 3.126 -USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .8200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 2.04 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 2.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 5.46 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 TC(MIN) - 15.88 # fi#f*##### if #iiffffltttiti * ** #R #!ff *f*itfif RiRRiifiiRiff Rfftiff itffflf fRRR* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.40 IS CODE - 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 15.88 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.13 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 2.11 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 5.46 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 19.94 13.29 3.505 7.89 2 5.46 15.88 3.126 2.11 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 26.06 13.29 3.505 2 23.24 15.88 3.126 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.06 TC(MIN.) - 13.29 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 10.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.40 - 1486.00 FEET. •lf fff f#ff* ifif tfi*ff #R#*!R *f #RRfff }iRf!! }! *ff Rfffft *#lffftfff # #!ff #i # *i * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.40 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE - 61 »»> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA« «< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< - UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 328.00= DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - -- 323.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 173.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 17.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section - 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 26.06 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.60 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 4.98 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 2.20 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 0.58 Tc(MIN.) - 13.87 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.410 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 10.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 26.06 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 15.80 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 4.98 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 2.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.50 - 1659.00 FEET. iiwtrwttwiwrr• arm :aa•aaaaaaa+afa :+1#f+aaaaaa uaaa +a tar +f +rrrrr •aaas at araar FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE - 81 »» >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< =___ ---- _°°__________ ____'_ °____------------------- _ ------------------ - - -- -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.410 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 10.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 26.74 TC(MIN) - 13.87 aaaaraaawta# cart#+ a++ r++ a+ rf+ r+++++# wxf# rtwww }wwwwRf+ ++ +fr• ++f + + +fr+a♦aa++fa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE - 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 13.87 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 3.41 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 10.22 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 26.74 }#aif +attttrrf artrtr +x + #axrh * #hxir +wt trllr+ +ef lrf aar •aiaa ti ttawtwtwttwttattx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.10 IS CODE - 21 »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 324.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 323.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 0.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) - 4.536 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.90 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.90 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.10 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 61 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< >>> >>( STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< ----------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 323.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 323.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 161.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 17.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF RALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -Curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section - 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.90 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 5.83 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 0.98 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 0.24 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 2.75 Tc(MIN.) - 8.75 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.593 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.90 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 5.83 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 0.98 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 1.50 - 261.00 FEET. #*#* h4lf## Yf #fffRfflfll44hf###f* #*#R!!!##h# #ffff ifl4fflf if hf hfh###t!ll4ih!!! FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE - 81 _____________________________________________ ___________________ ___ _________ »» >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.593 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.73 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.44 TC(MIN) - 8.75 h# ff*###* hi lliiilh#f#4!#ififlh# # #flhh#h #if ##ffff! *!ff #hflfi4f h *#* *Rh #!! #!!h# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.50 TO NODE 1.50 IS CODE = 1 _____________________________________________ __ __ _____ _______ _________ ______ » »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< > »»AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 8.75 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 4.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.44 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (C£S) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 26.74 13.87 3.410 10.22 2 2.44 8.75 4.593 0.90 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 22.29 8.75 4.593 2 28.55 13.87 3.410 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 28.55 Tc(MIN.) - TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 11.12 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE +__ ____ ____ _______ ___ __________ I I 13.87 1.50 = 1659.00 FEET. - ------------ ------------- - - - - -+ I ----------- ---------- ----- - -- --+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.10 IS CODE - 21 ____________________________________________________________________________ »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 388.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 386.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) - 2.857 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.16 aaiiiatf iflf if of * *wrfeff lftataaif irwii# a*# tfif *a #iw # # * + *ia * *waf rr *rw # * *w#f of FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE - 61 » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 386.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 362.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 417.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.16 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 1.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.52 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.71 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.54 Tc(MIN.) = 7.54 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 5.055 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.03 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.16 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 4.52 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.20 = 517.00 FEET. HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 i# ikaa# aa+ff f## ff# aflf++ f# t# fflfffaaaa ++ +i +ata #a #aaaiaffiaa#f #f #ai#wffwwwRi♦ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 I5 CODE = 81 ____________________________________________________________________________ » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.055 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.11 TC(MIN) = 7.54 + a+ f• if# faa: a+ as +aa ++ ++ + + +a # +fa +aafafaaxxawx+w wf #f iiaffii # #fa #ff aaaaa +aiaaa# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 1 _____________________________________________ _________________________ ______ » »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< ----- ____=__=__== m====_---___________ _____ ------------------ _______________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 7.54 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.06 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 0.24 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE #ii #a+ #aaaf+r + + +af affaaf xkx#a + +w +f+if lf•## ### # # +aaaa +ak+ +aaf +friirrerrw re• ♦a FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 21 _ _____________ __ ________________ ___________-- ___ -__ __ » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 403.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 402.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 0.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 14.514 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.313 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ 0.12 ++ kr* aaa♦ kaaaaaakaaaffafafkaka ++aaa+axax+f +affaaa :aaaf of 111ffffeffffaafaaffr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE - 51 _____________________________________________ _____ __ ________________________ »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 402.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 362.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 651.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0622 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 4.00 "Z" FACTOR - 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.363 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.12 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.09 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 9.98 Tc(MIN.) - 24.50 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 0.12 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 1.09 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.20 = 751.00 FEET. + +ww +atxxtwr rr wwwrrrttaattatatatatataata+ tattatttaa aarataaaawwa #aw+wa +arr+ae 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) - 2.363 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 3.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 3.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 4.11 TC(MIN) - 24.50 t +aa +t +aaaaw #exr #ww #i# #era rt tr ttata+ ttrt +seaatttaaaaaaraaaaxwrrtrr #r rrwrrrrw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE - 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 24.50 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.36 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 3.75 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 4.11 aww + + +r rr rata +•tat• tat +t# + + +trwa #aww #awaa +aawrr #rra rt at ttta +aa+ +aawtaaarrt +. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE - 21 » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< s*USER SPECIFIED( SUBAREA)-=---~----- �- �---- __- _____________________ USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 403.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 402.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 0.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) 14.514 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.313 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.12 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.08 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.12 awata +xxwrrrrrtrr tt♦attttaaa +aaaa+awar +a + +awww +aawrrrrrr as •fettttttaatttaaar FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.10 IS CODE - 51 _____________________________________________ _________________________ _ _____ »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 402.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 380.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 230.00 CHANNEL SLOPE - 0.0978 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 4.00 "2" FACTOR - 2.000 MANNING'S FA.CTOR - 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 2.905 "USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.12 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 1.17 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.03 Tc(MIN.) - 17.79 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.08 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.28 0.00 0.12 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY (FEET /SEC.) = 1.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 8.10 330.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.10 IS CODE - 81 _____________________________________________ _______________________________ » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ------ ====== ---------------- --= -------- ___ ________________-- _____________ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.905 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.09 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 1.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 1.58 TC(MIN) - 17.79 ****. r*******+********************** f******+* * *r * ** * *.. ** * *i ** **+ **+ * *+* * *** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE - 51 »»> COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THAD SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ---==---= ----- =- ----- = --- - ----- ________-- _-- __- --- _________----------- _______ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 380.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 362.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) - 490.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0367 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 3.00 "Z" FACTOR - 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR - 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.715 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.58 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY (FEET/ SEC.) - 4.16 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.12 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.96 Tc(MIN.) - 19.76 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 1.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.58 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.12 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 4.16 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.20 = 820.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.20 IS CODE = 1 ______________ _______________________________ >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN.) = 19.76 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.71 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 1.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 1.58 ** CONFLUENCE DATA f* STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 1 1.11 7.54 5.055 0.24 2 4.11 24.50 2.363 3.75 3 1.58 19.76 2.715 1.17 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE t* STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 3.88 7.54 5.055 2 5.76 19.76 2.715 3 6.01 24.50 2.363 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 6.01 Tc(MIN.) = 24.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 5.16 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.20 = 820.00 FEET. #If Y11i* 141* 11f* i* i*l if if* i!# i*f * #f *f #t #fR* # * #fii*41tit111 *f tflifff f #*I**tf* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE = 61 _____________________________________________ __________ _____ _______ ___ ______ >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< =- UPSTREAM= ELEVATION(FEET) -- 362`00 -- DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - == 354.00= STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 233.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section (curb-to-curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section - 0.0200 "TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) 6.01 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 8.22 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.79 PRODUCT OF DEPTHSVELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 1.10 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 1.03 Tc(MIN.) = 25.52 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.302 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.16 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 6.01 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.29 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 8.22 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.79 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.30 = 1053.00 FEET. * * * * *fitf * lift** k** kltf if*ff* tlf 4if if t* /* * * * *ff*ilitflff *i # **f Yff*lflfiff * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE = 81 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH /P.OUR) = 2.302 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 5.29 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 6.28 TC(MIN) - 25.52 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 25.52 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 2.30 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 5.29 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE 6.28 44i#*4fti *4#*fff kf* fR* **f }RtiR #f #ffff # * # * * ** #f * * # ** *f ff #lf tfff #!f!*hf *tff4 *i FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE 21 _____________________________________________ _______________________________ »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 374.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 373.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) - 10.440 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.097 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 kt} wtt++ t++ t+}}++ f}} r} t} ht }r }} } +wt}t } } } }tw } }}f +}} } }f ++t }f tt tft}f itttttt}f }t♦ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.20 IS CODE = 51 ____________________________________________________________________________ » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 373.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 368.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 200.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0250 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 4.00 "Z" FACTOR - 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR - 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.554 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) 0.38 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 1.29 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 2.58 Tc(MIN.) - 13.02 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.18 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 0.38 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) 1.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.20 300.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.20 IS CODE = 81 » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.554 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.48 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.94 TC(MIN) - 13.02 rtt+ aa+ a+ a+++++ a ++ + + +t +t +attr + ++:e+++ +aa+aaa+re wa+a++ +aattwtwatatttrrwr++w ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE - 61 _____________________________________________ ______ ____________________ _____ »»> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 368.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 354.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 498.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section - 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) - 0.94 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 4.69 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 2.77 PRODUCT OF DEPTHSVELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.61 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 2.99 Tc(MIN.) = 16.01 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.110 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.48 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 0.94 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 4.69 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 2.77 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.61 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 6.30 - 798.00 FEET. aaaa+ar +a + +ta + ++arwar rr+eaeaa + +a++aa +t taawttwwrtrrr rr +a+ +aaaaa+ta +ttrrt+wttrw FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 I5 CODE - 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW « «< =------- ------------- - ------------------ _____�______________________ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.110 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.25 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 3.64 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.73 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 4.58 TC(MIN) = 16.01 +rra +a +ar +atr +ra++a +a+aat +wwt +r rrt+ w+ ttaa+ r++ ++wrt + +rrrrrrr♦ + : +a ++ + ++aaaa + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.30 IS CODE - 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< » »>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES ««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 16.01 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) - 3.11 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.73 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 4.58 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 6.28 25.52 2.302 5.29 2 4.58 16.01 3.110 2.73 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 9.22 16.01 3.110 2 9.66 25.52 2.302 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.66 Tc(MIN.) 25.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.02 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.30 - 1053.00 FEET. ff aaaf ofwf# aaarafaf aaaiai +fafe +teaafi }fffffaffwwaiaraf affaaaaar+ +} }}f :ffiaff FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.30 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 61 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----- ------ - - - - -- » » >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< -- - UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) 354.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION (FEET) == 316.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 1030.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow, Section(curb -to -curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section - 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) 9.66 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 10.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.32 PRODUCT OF DEPTHSVELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.41 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 3.97 Tc(MIN.) = 29.49 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 2.097 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.02 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 9.66 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.33 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.32 DEPTH *VELC.ITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.4C - 2063.00 FEET. itff fif 4ff if iif i# i # ##4Yifiifliff#ifY1i # # ##ffifff ifitaf if if }ffit #italff 11 *iif FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 81 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 2.097 *USER SPECIFIED (SUBAREA) : USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 2.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 9.18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 11.85 TC(MIN) - 29.49 r +1f + +rlrr•rffaa +faaf rf lff RrRf wa serif aaaaaaaaa •aaaaaa aar # + + +arfarafffa +lf :Rr FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK $ 1 ««< ** f** 1f***** Rf*#* ta# Yfttt+ rifaiiai #i #a # + * +a++# +at+f** *4tf aattYr #tfrrf ififaia FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< --- ------------- _ ____ ------ _____________________ *USER SPECIFIED (SUBAREA) : USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH - 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 388.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION - 386.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE - 2.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) - 2.857 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.21 aaaaf# ata## aii+* taaaf{ a+ R #R1+rriafaaaa #aaiaf+a+rarra#Rt *irif Rl+Rf rfiratltaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 386.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 316.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 1695.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section (curb-to-curb) - 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 -*TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) 0.21 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLAW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.16 HAL£STREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.83 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT *Fr /SEC.) - 0.60 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 7.37 Tc(MIN.) - 13.37 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) - 3.493 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.04 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.21 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY (FEET/ SEC.) = 3.83 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) - 0.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 10.10 = 1795.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.493 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .9000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.11 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.70 TC(MIN) = 13.37 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10..10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 81 ____________________________________________________________________________ » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.493 = *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.72 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.85 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.42 TC(MIN) = 13.37 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 1 _____________________________________________ ______________________ __ _______ » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN.) = 13.37 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.49 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.85 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 10.42 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 340.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 336.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.577 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.519 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.33 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.95 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 f# aaa# a+ aaaw+ xw+*+ hhaafa+ awaa+ xwt# tfafaawaaaaaaaaa +aa+a #+ta *+tattatiaaf•eflx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE 51 _____________________________________________ __ _______ ___ __ __ ____ ____ _ ______ » »> COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 336.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 316.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREWEET) ° 650.00 CHANNEL SLOPE - 0.0308 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) ° 4.00 "Z" FACTOR ° 2.000 MANNING'$ FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.752 -USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) - 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.95 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) ° 2.01 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) ° 0.11 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.39 Tc(MIN.) - 11.97 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) ° 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.33 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) ° 0.95 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - 0.11 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.01 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.10 750.00 FEET. #+ ref# fa # +a #• ++a *awxtaw # # #ifaaaaaatlf if wlffaaf afa +•aaaaaaa +aaw# ++*wf aefa #aa+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE - 81 _____________________________________________ ________ ________________ _ _ _____ »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----- __-=_- __ -------- __°___== --------- _ __- = = ----------- -- -------- __ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.752 'USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT ° .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.83 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 7.77 TC(MIN) = 11.97 ##+ i# a# ai+ ai+ kw**### aYaala+ tt## 1f#+ iaaiaiai# i + # *+k #k * *h#h #h4 #*aaaaa#I*#111fa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< » » >AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 11.97 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.75 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 3.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.77 as CONFLUENCE DATA of STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 10.42 13.37 3.493 4.85 2 7.77 11.97 3.752 3.83 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ai PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE a+ STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 17.48 11.97 3.752 2 17.66 13.37 3.493 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 17.66 Tc(MIN.) 13.37 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 8.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 10.10 = 1795.00 FEET. aaaa+ aaaaa++ a+ r+++ aw+ a+ w+ a+ a++a a++ aaaaaa+++++ + +a +sa +rw +srrrwr++ + + + +aaa + + ++ ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 41 _____________________________________________ _________ ______________________ » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >USING USER- SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 315.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 315.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 54.00 MANNING'S N - 0.013 ASSUME FULL - FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) 5.62 PIPE FLOW VELOCITY - (TOTAL FLOW) /(PIPE CROSS SECTION AREA) GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) - 17.66 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.16 Tc(MIN.) = 13.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.40 = 1849.00 FEET. ra +a + +a + + ++srsr +a +rsrraa+aa as +a + + + + + + + + +aw +wrrr rrr +awaa + + +a + + +a +s +sawa :awawa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 11 >'» »CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY««< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 17.66 13.53 3.466 8.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.40 = 1849.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUEI STREAM RUNOFF Tc NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) 1 11.85 29.49 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) 1 24.83 13.53 2 22.53 29.49 4CE DATA ** INTENSITY AREA (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 2.097 9.18 1.00 TO NODE 6.40 = 2083.00 FEET. INTENSITY (INCH /HOUR) 3.466 2.097 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.83 Tc(MIN.) = 13.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 17.86 END OF STUDY SUMMARY TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 17.86 TC(MIN.) = 13.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.83 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 E. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 Existing 24" "Smooth Flow CMP" at Melba Dr. & Evergreen Dr. ++++ a++ r+++ a+ aa++++ a++ a++++++ aa+ aa+ a+ aa++ a+ as + + ++ +r+r + + + +ra + + + +e + + ++ + + ++a +++ PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 8.0 Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering 535 N. Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, Ca 92075 + ++ + + + ++ + + + + + + + + ++ + ++ + + +a+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY " + +' * *•'• *•' * +'• * + + + + + " +• • HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS FOR STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT MELBA AND EVERGREEN • PE1452 FOR WALID ROMAYA ' • PASCO ENGINEERING - REVISED 7 -11 -07 FILE NAME: 1452PIPE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:05 07/11/2007 --- = =-- ----------- _________ NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER - 6.50 FLOWLINE ELEVATION 314.00 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 24.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 24.83 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL 316.000 L.A. THOMPSON'S EQUATION IS USED FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS = =NODE a 6.50 : HGL = =< = 316 000> EGL = =< =316.970>;FLOWLINE- < 314.000> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE = 6.50 TO NODE = = == 6.40 =IS CODE =�1= UPSTREAM NODE 6.40 ELEVATION - 315.30 ______________________________________________ ______________________ ________ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) : PIPE FLOW - 24.83 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH - 250.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.01100 SF =(Q /K) *•2 - (( 24.83)/( 267.355)) * *2 = 0.0086253 HF -L *SF = ( 250.00) *( 0.0086253) - 2.156 NODE 6.40 : HGL= < 318.156>;EGL= < 319.126>;FLOWLINE= < 315.300> ___========__° ___ °____ = ======== ___ === === = =___ _-- _____ °____�___�__ PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 6.40 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 6.40 ELEVATION - 315.30 _____________________________________________ _________ __________ ____________ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 17.7 24.00 3.142 5.621 45.000 0.491 2 24.8 24.00 3.142 7.904 -- 0.970 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.7 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 5 7.2 = = -Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = =- LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY-(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N - 0.01100 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01100 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00436 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00863 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00649 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) - 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.032 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.194 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 1.246+ 0.491- 0.970 +( 0.032) +( 0.194) = 0.993 NODE 6.40 : HGL= < 319.629>;EGL= < 320.120 > ;FLOWLINE = < 315.300> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.40 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 10.10 ELEVATION = 315.60 _____________________________________________ _______________ ________________ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW - 17.66 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 55.00 FEET MANNINGS N - 0.01100 SF =(Q /K) * *2 = (( 17.66)/( 267.355)) * *2 = 0.0043632 HF -L *SF - ( 55.00) *( 0.0043632) = 0.240 NODE 10.10 HGL= < 319.869>;EGL= < 320.360>;FLOWLINE= < 315.600> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE - = -= = - 10.10 TO NODE 10.10 IS CODE 5 - : -= UPSTREAM NODE 10.10 ELEVATION - 315.60 _____________________________________________ _______________________________ CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 17.7 18.00 1.767 9.993 45.000 1.551 2 17.7 24.00 3.142 5.621 -- 0.491 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.0 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = -- LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY-(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-03*V3*COS(DELTA3)- 04 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((AI +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N - 0.01355 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N - 0.01100 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.03071 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE - 0.00436 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.01754 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) - 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.088 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.000 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1- HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = - 0.323+ 1.551- 0.491 +( 0.088) +( 0.000) = 0.825 NODE 10.10 : HGL= < 319.634> ;EGL= < 321.184> ;FLOWLINE- < 315.600> ------------ === ------- ________________________ ________ ________________ :_____ PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.10 TO NODE 10.01 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 10.01 ELEVATION = 316.50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): 24" SMOOTH FLOW CMP AT MELBA ROAD Cross Section for Circular Pipe - 1 Project Description Flow Element. Circular Pipe Friction Method. Manning Formula Solve For Full Flow Capacity Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.011 Channel Slope: 0.00500 It/ft Normal Depth: 2.00 It Diameter: 2.00 ft Discharge: 18.90 W/s 00 it 2A0 It t — V. t H 1 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 PIPE FLOW = 17.66 C£S PIPE DIAMETER - 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH - 18.50 FEET MANNINGS N - 0.01355 SF- (Q/K) * *2 = (( 17.66)/( 100.779)) * *2 - 0.0307070 HF -L *SF = ( 18.50) *( 0.0307070) - 0.568 NODE 10.01 HGL= < 320.202 > ;EGL - < 321.753 > ;FLOWLINE = < 316.500> ----- ______ ------ ---- ---- __°___°_°____-_----°-------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.01 TO NODE 10.01 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 10.01 ELEVATION - 316.50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.0 18.00 1.767 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 17.7 18.00 1.767 9.993 -- 1.551 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 17.7 -- -Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT -Q LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY-(02*V2-01*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- 04 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.01355 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N - 0.01355 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE - 0.00000 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE - 0.03071 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.01535 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) - 5.00 FRICTION LOSS - 0.077 ENTRANCE LOSSES - 0.310 JUNCTION LOSSES - DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES - 3.102+ 0.000- 1.551 +( 0.077) +( 0.310) = 1.939 NODE 10.01 : HGL= < 323.690 >;EGL = < 323.690>;FLOWLINE= < 316.500> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 Existing 24" Type B -1 Catch Basin at Melba Dr. & Evergreen Dr. rtwrrtss• rs rsss s: rrr++ wsrs<s s+++ t+ tttrrrrrrtrrrtr + + + +rsrrrrrsrsrrwrrttwrrtsssrs » »SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION«« Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins. BASIN INFLOW(CFS) = 17.66 BASIN OPENING(FEET) = 0.50 DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) = 0.50 » »CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 16.18 HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 Proposed Treatment Swale Calculations 85TH PERCENTILE PEAK FLOW AND VOLUME DETERMINATION Modified Rational Method - Effective for Watersheds < 1.0 mil 1 Note: Only Enter Values in Boxes - Spreadsheet Will Calculate Remaining Values BMP Location lNorthern Treatment Swale 85th Percentile Rainfall = 0.60 inches (from County Isopluvial Map) Developed Drainage Area 1 2.8 jacres Natural Drainage Area = 1 0.0 jacres Total Drainage Area to BMP = 2.8 acres Dev. Area Percent Impervious = 11 % Overall Percent Impervious = 11 % Dev. Area Runoff Coefficient = 0 52 Nat. Area Runoff Coefficient ro .00 Runoff Coefficient = 0.52 Time of Concentration = 1 TF-1 minutes (from Drainage Study) RATIONAL METHOD RESULTS Q = CIA where Q = C= 1= A= V = CPA where V = C= P= A= Using the Total Drainage Area C= 1= P= A= Q= V= 85th Percentile Peak Flow (cfs) Runoff Coefficient Rainfall Intensity (0.2 inch /hour per RWQCB mandate) Drainage Area (acres) 85th Percentile Runoff Volume (acre -feet) Runoff Coefficient 85th Percentile Rainfall (inches) Drainage Area (acres 0.52 0.2 inch /hour 0.60 inches 2.8 acres 0.29 cfs 0.07 acre -feet Using Developed Area Only: C = 0.52 1 = 0.2 inch /hour P = 0.60 inches A = 2.8 acres O = 0.29 cfs V = 0.07 acre -feet Grassy Swale Design Spreadsheet Balour Drive Given Design flow 0.29 cfs Residence time (req) 9 minutes Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters. y 0.25 feet t 6 feet w 4 feet z 4 ft/ft A 1.25 sq ft Find Qmax of channel: Q= (1.49 /n)' A' RA(2 /3) * SA .5 n 0.2 s 0.01 ft/ft (long Slope) r 0.217391 ft Q= 0.336688 cfs Required Length of Channel: L =vt Therefore: L= 125.28 L= 100 � S � Height � = Peak flow rate, ds 1 `�, d Find Velcoity in channel V =Q /A Therefore: V = 0.232 fps Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet 85TH PERCENTILE PEAK FLOW AND VOLUME DETERMINATION Modified Rational Method - Effective for Watersheds < 1.0 mil 1 Note: Only Enter Values in Boxes -Spreadsheet Will Calculate Remaining Values Name uurrsalction iuiry or i,anscau i BMP Location lNorthern Treatment Swale 85th Percentile Rainfall = 0.60 inches (from County Isopluvial Map) Developed Drainage Area = 2.8 acres Natural Drainage Area = 0.0 acres Total Drainage Area to BMP = 2.8 acres Dev. Area Percent Impervious = 13 % Overall Percent Impervious = 13 % Dev. Area Runoff Coefficient= 0.52 Nat. Area Runoff Coefficient = 0.00 Runoff Coefficient = 0.52 Time of Concentration = 17.3 minutes (from Drainage Study) RATIONAL METHOD RESULTS Q = CIA where Q = 85th Percentile Peak Flow (cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient I = Rainfall Intensity (0.2 inch /hour per RWQCB mandate) A = Drainage Area (acres) V = CPA where V = 85th Percentile Runoff Volume (acre -feet) C = Runoff Coefficient P = 85th Percentile Rainfall (inches) A = Drainage Area (acres Using the Total Drainage Area C= 1= P= A= Q= V= 0.52 0.2 inch /hour 0.60 inches. 2.8 acres 0.29 cfs 0.07 acre -feet Using Developed Area Only: C = 0.52 1 = 0.2 inch /hour P = 0.60 inches A = 2.8 acres O = 0.29 cfs V = 0.07 acre -feet Grassy Swale Design Spreadsheet - Melba Road Given. Design flow 0.29 cfs Residence time (req) 9 minutes Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters: y 0.25 feet t 6 feet w 4 feet z 4 ft/ft A 1.25 sq ft Find Qmax of channel: Find Velcoity in channel V =Q /A Q= (1.49/n) ' A ' RA(2 /3) ' SA.5 Therefore: n 0.2 V = 0.232 fps S 0.01 ft/ft (long. Slope) r 0.217391 ft Q= 0.336688 cfs Required Length of Channel: L =vt Therefore: L= 125.28 L= 100 S Height = Peak flow rate, cfs r d Ssl W Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet HYDROLOGY STUDY for 1150 MELBA ROAD PE 1452 F. APPENDIX County of San Dieg Hydrology Manual Crancte 3r� County 3rw Riverside County x, % % 'A Rainjnll Isopluvials \m ........ .... 33-15 ...... ..... SYN. ........................ 100 Veer Rainfall Event -24 flours Ow V tds tp V . ....... % NAD V . ... . . ........... . im, 'A 0 3r45' W451 %* , el. .. . . S I AiG . .... ... . AIt ........ e Y c 4 SM 3 0 3 Win 4, 32'W' County of San Dieg Oranqe Hydrology Manual County 6Y 33-W Riverside County N w tip Rainfall Isopluvials IOU Year Rainfall Event -6 Hum 3TI9 Y6 N ... X 4p cn) J de e 33W 3r4T 32•45 N N m e x C 3230 3 32*x San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3 Date: June 2003 Page: 6 of 26 Table 3 -1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN ARRAS Runoff Coefficient "C" NRCS Elements County Elements I % iMPER. A B IN Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Permanent Open Space 0` 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 1.0 DU /A or less 10 0.27 0.32 0.36 0.41 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.0 DU /A or less 20 0.34 0.3R 0.42 0.46 Low Density Residentint (LDR) Residential, 2.9 DU /A or less 25 0.38 0.41 0.45 O.49 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 4.3 DU /A or less 30 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.52 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 7.3 DU /A or less 40 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 10.9 DU /A or less 45 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.60 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 14.5 DU /A or less 50 0.55 0.59 0.60 0.63 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 24.0 DU /A or less 65 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.71 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 43.0 DU /A or less 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial /Industrial (N. Com) Neighborhood Commercial 80 0.76 0.71 0.78 0.79 Commerciat/Industrial (G. Com) General Commercial 85 0.80 0.80 0.81 O.R2 Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Office Professional /Commercial 90 0.83 0.94 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial (Limited 1.) Limited Industrial 90 0.83 0.84 O.R4 0.95 Commercial /Industrial (General 1.) General Industrial 95 0.97 0.87 0.R7 0.87 *The values associated with 0% impervious may be used for direct calculation of the runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for wrens that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area is located in Cleveland National Forest). DU /A - dwelling units per acre NRCS - National Resources Conservation Service 3 -6 0 7 -6 Tlio Contractor's Representative Add tivs folloving paragraph: "The Contractor and rnglnomr (ball provide each other vith a local phone number at which they or their representattve may be connected 24 hours a day." PART 2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SECTIO14 200 - ROCK MATERIALS 200 -1.1 General Add: "Alternate Rock Materials - Type nless as do- scribed In Section 400 Special be used, unless tally prohiblted In Sp 200 -1.6 Stone for Add- The fndivldnel classes of rocks used to slope protection shell conform to the followingt PERCENTAGE LARGER THAN' F -�CLASSES Rock 1/2 1// ec 2 king Sixes 1 Ton Ton Ton Decklnq 4 Ton 1 0-5 2 Ton 50-100 95 -IOo 50- 0 -5 1 Ton 100 0-5 o-3 1/2 Ton — 50 -100 1/4 Ton 95 -100 50 -100 200 ib 95 -100 75 Ib 95 -100 25 1 5 1 I I 0-5 25 0-5 90 -100 25 -75 90-10 +The amount of materiel smeller then the smallest protectiondShall l , n te" adr the ypercentage �limit lope sire listed In the table determined on a weight basis. Compllanco vi lit the percentage Ilmit shown In the table for all ocher sixes of iln Individual plece: of any class of rock slope projection shall be de- termined by 1t" ratio of tin number of Individual, places lar ggor than ilia smnllost sire Ilsted.tn tM table for chat class. +200 -1.6.1 Selection of Rtprep and Filter 4TET1RaTARTf MWT_ — Ftljer Dlanket (3) Upper Layer(s) Opt'. I Seca 200 -(41 Opt. 2 Se S. 400• (4) Opt. 3 IS) Low Lay - (6 Val. Ft /Sac (1) Dock Class (2) Rlprmp fhl ck- mess "T" 110. J Deck - 6-7 Ing .6 3/16" C2 D.C. - No. 2 , Back- 7 Ing 1.0 1/4" O3 D.C. - Fec- ! D -9.5 Ing 1.4 3/D" — D.G. - 3/4 ", 11/2" 9.5 -11 Light 2.0 1/2" -- P.O. - 3/4 ", 1/4 1 1/2" 11-13 Ton 2.7 3/4" -- P.D. Sa 3/4 ", 1/2 1 1/2" 13 -I Ton 3.4 1" -- P.D. Se 15 -17 1 Tne 4.3 1 V2" -- Type D Se 17 -20 2 T(m 5.4 2" — Type D Se s� �� 6�� Page 1 of l State Water Resources Control Board Arnold Linda S. Adams Division of Water Quality Schwartenegger Secretoryfor 10011 ShW • Sacramento, California 95814 • (916) 341 -5538 Governor Environmental Mailing AddmssT.O. Box 1977 • Saon nento, California • 95812 -1977 Protection FAX (916) 341 -5543 • Internet Address: http: / /www.w mrboards .ca.gov /swmwtr/index.htmi Email Address: stomwaterC4 SCIb9D[AcA o0 Date Processed: 9/8/2008 Senojac LLC u' 'u APR - 2 2009 U 225 W Plaza St 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 ENC;Ir1EFRING SERVICES RECEIPT OF YOUR NOTICE OF INTENT The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has received and processed your NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. Accordingly, you are required to comply with the permit requirements. The WDID identification number: 9 37C353301. Please use this number in any future communications regarding this permit. SITE DESCRIPTION OWNER: Senojac LLC DEVELOPER: Senojac LLC COUNTY: San Diego SITE ADDRESS: 1150 Melba Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 COMMENCEMENT DATE: 11/1/2008 EST. COMPLETION DATE: 11/1/2009 When construction is complete or ownership has been transferred, dischargers are required to notify the Regional Water Board by submitting a Notice of Termination (NOT). All State and local requirements must be met in accordance with Special Provision No. 7 of the General Permit. If you do not notify the State Water Board that construction activity has been completed, you will continue to be invoiced for the annual fee each July. If you have any questions regarding permit requirements, please contact your Regional Water Board at (858) 467 -2952. Please visit the storm water web page at www. waterboards .ca.gov /stormwtr/index.html to obtain storm water related information and forms. Sincerely, Storm Water Section Division of Water Quality California Environmental Protection Agency http: / /waterl0l. waterboards .ca.gov /dwqdas/ stormwaterlsearchIConSearch.asp ?Receipt —C3... 3/17/2009 l T Y O F E N C I N I T' ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTML__ 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS•, CA 92024 IMPROVEMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 96311 PARCEL NO. : 259 -180 -1900 PLAN NO.: 963 -I JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1150 MELBA ROAD CASE NO.: 06005 / TM APPLICANT NAME WARMINGTON ENCINITAS 41 LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 3090 PULLMAN PHONE NO.: 714 -557 -5511 CITY: COSTA MESA STATE: CA ZIP: 92626- CONTRACTOR : BURTECH PIPELINE LICENSE NO.: 718202 INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: CONTINENTIAL CASUALTY POLICY NO. : AlCG49031005 ENGINEER : PLSA PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 12/22/10 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 9/03/11 PERMIT ISSUED INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH PHONE NO.: 760- 634 -2822 LICENSE TYPE: A COMPANY POLICY EXP. DATE: 9/03/11 PHONE 858 2z 59 -8212 BY: - -- --- ------------- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. GIS MAP FEE .00 3. INSPECTION FEE 1,831.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. NPDES INSPT FEE 366.00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT 36,633.00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FE .00 8. TRAFFIC FEE .00 9_ IN -LIEU UNDERGRN .00 10.IN -LIEU IMPROVMNT .00 ll.PLAN CHECK FEE .00 12.PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ---------- --------------- - - - --- PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH THE PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN 963 -I. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 30,2009 (REVISED DEC.1, 2010) APPLIES. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION 4alk `=0k' fta DI" *to)k) I AS- BUILTS AND ONE YEAR WARRANTY RETENTION REQUIRED. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENAIJ04,& PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. 12 Zz SIGN DATE SIGNED PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING ♦ LAND SURVEYING May 14, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 MA 22 2012 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963-G AT 1003 SCARLET WAY The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the requir ice covenant(s). Engineer of Ardolino RICE 71651 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector. 0 Final Certification ❑ Partial Certification for: 1003 Scarlet Way. 535 N Coast Highway 101 tilt A Solana Reach. California 92075 1 ph x58.756.9374 I fc 858.756.4231 1 pLsaenginerring. cum PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING + LAND SURVEYING May 14, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 M4. 22 2012 PLSA 1452 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR PERMIT NO. 963-G AT 1007 SCARLET WAY The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part Il were constructed and are operat nal, together with the require ce covenant(s). o�pf ESS /0 I Engineer of Record i wV • „yiA.E �� r ate Brian Ardolino RCE 71651 =r L I y, 7� JF cal_I�A Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector ❑ Final Certification ❑ Partial Certification for: 1007 Scarlet Way. Date 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. Cal,hu a 92075 1 ph A-,8 - ,6.9371 1 Ix N:n.- ::6.4_'31 I phaengineering.com WAYNE A PASCO PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PC. E. 29577 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A JOSEPH YUHAS SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 P.L.S. 5211 (858)259 -8212 FAX (858) 2594812 W. JUSTIN SURER RC.E. 68964 4 p S 621-1/ 19MEN919 May 30, 2008 City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Ave Encinitas, Ca. 92024 -3633 Attn: Engineering Department RE: MONUMENTATION ESTIMATE FOR TM 06 -005 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that we anticipate the cost of setting final monuments for the above Referenced project at $8000.00 Please use this amount for the necessary security documents. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very Truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. Joseph Yuhas, L.S. 5211 Director of Land Surveying C. LS 5211 {� Exp.08f30109 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 18 -Lot Residential Subdivision Balour Drive And Melba Road Encinitas, California Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed 18 -Lot Residential Subdivision Balour Drive And Melba Road Encinitas, California April 21, 2006 Prepared For: CESN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Mr. Walid Romaya 5422 Napa Street San Diego, California 92110 Prepared By: VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 Escondido, California 92029 Job #06 -181 -P FNTC;TNFFR TNt ; 2450 Vineyard Avenue Job #06 -181 -P Escondido. California 92029 -1229 Phone (760) 74,1-1214 April 21, 2006 Eaa (760) 739 -0343 CSEN Construction, Inc. Attention: Mr. Walid Romaya 5422 Napa Street San Diego, California 92110 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED 18 -LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS (A.P.N. 129 - 180 -19) Pursuant to your request, Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc. has completed the enclosed Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for the above - referenced project site. The following report summarizes the results of our field investigation, including laboratory analyses and conclusions, and provides recommendations for the proposed development as understood. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the planned 18 -lot residential subdivision and associated paving and underground improvements provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this study are consistent with the indicated site geotechnical conditions and are intended to aid in preparation of final development plans and allow more accurate estimates of development costs. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #06 -181 -P will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. \51EAED GFp< �\G MIDDY OQ Dennis Middleton o� CEG 9w 0 CEG #980 * CERTIFIED ENGINEERING DM /jt N9r �3�o ae �GF CAOFo TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION .................. ............................... 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ............... ............................... 1 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........ ............................... 1 IV. SITE INVESTIGATION .............. ............................... 2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ...... ............................... 2 A. Earth Materials .............. ............................... 2 B. Groundwater and Surface Drainage ............................ 3 C. Slope Stability ............... ............................... 3 D. Faults / Seismicity ............ ............................... 3 E. Geologic Hazards ............ ............................... 6 F. Laboratory Testing / Results ... ............................... 6 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT .... ............................... 9 VII. CONCLUSIONS .................. ............................... 10 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS ............ ............................... 12 A. Remedial Grading and Earthworks ............................ 12 B. Footings and Slab -on -Grade Foundations 18 C. Exterior Concrete Slabs / Flatworks ........................... 19 D. Soil Design Parameters ...... ............................... 20 E. Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design ........................... 21 F. General Recommendations ... ............................... 22 IV. LIMITATIONS .................... ............................... 24 TABLE NO. FaultZone ........................... ............................... 1 Site Specific Seismic Parameters ........ ............................... 2 SoilType ............................ ............................... 3 Grain Size Analysis ................... ............................... 4 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content ..................... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Moisture - Density Test (Undisturbed Ring Samples) ........................ 6 Expansion Index Test .................. ............................... 7 Direct Shear Test ..................... ............................... 8 pH and Resistivity Test ................ ............................... 9 SulfateTest ......................... ............................... 10 ChlorideTest ........................ ............................... 11 R -value Test ........................ ............................... 12 Years to Perforation of Steel Culverts ... ............................... 13 Removals and Over - excavation ......... ............................... 14 Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design ..... ............................... 15 PLATE NO. Regional Index Map ................... ............................... 1 TentativeMap ........................ ............................... 2 Boring Logs (with key) ................ ............................... 3-8 Geologic Cross - Sections ............... ............................... 9 Fault - Epicenter Map ................. ............................... 10 Key and Benching Details ................ ..........................11 -12 Isolation Joints and Re- entrant Corner Reinforcement .................... 13 Retaining Wall Drain Detail ............ ............................... 14 REFERENCES PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 18 -LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA (A.P.N. 259 - 180 -19) INTRODUCTION The property investigated in this work includes a 5' /z -acre plant nursery facility located within the City of Encinitas. The site location is shown on a Regional Index Map enclosed to this report as Plate 1. We understand that the property is planned for an 18 -lot residential subdivision with associated interior roadways and underground improvements. Consequently, the purpose of this investigation was to determine soil and geotechnical conditions at the property and to ascertain their influence upon the planned development as understood. Geologic mapping, test borings, and soil /rock sampling and testing were among the activities conducted in conjunction with this effort which resulted in the planning and foundation recommendations presented herein. IL SITE DESCRIPTION The study property consists of an L- shaped parcel that circumvents the intersection of Balour Drive and Melba Road within the City of Encinitas. A Site Plan showing existing site conditions and the planned development is included with this report as a Tentative Map, Plate 2. The site presently supports a working nursery with associated structures, storage containers, and improvements. Topographically, the site consists of gently sloping terrain that ascends eastward from Balour Drive. Site gradients generally approach 10:1 (horizontal to vertical) maximum with approximately 30 feet of vertical relief across the property. Site drainage is locally developed adjacent to the nursery structures and flows along shallow ditches to Balour Drive. Elsewhere, site drainage sheetflows downslope to Balour Drive and Melba Road. Excessive scouring or erosion is not in evidence at the property. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The existing nursery is planned for demolition to allow for development of an 18 -lot residential subdivision with associated interior roadways and underground improvements as shown on Plate 2. Minor cuts and fills on the order of 10 feet maximum are planned for the creation of level building pads which will support future single - family dwellings. Associated graded slopes are programmed for 2:1 gradients. Small retaining walls, approximately 4 -5 feet high, are also planned to accommodate ground transitions along the east and west property lines. Access to the individual lots will be provided by two interior cul -de -sac streets that will VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 2 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 connect to Balour Drive to the west and Melba Road to the south. Construction plans are not available. However, the use of conventional wood -frame with exterior stucco buildings supported on shallow foundations with stem walls and slab -on- grade floors, or slab -on- ground with turned -down footings is anticipated. IV. SITE INVESTIGATION Because of the on -going nursery operation, much of the site was inaccessible to our subsurface investigations. Site soil conditions were chiefly determined by the excavation of 6 test borings drilled largely in perimeter areas with a truck - mounted drill. All borings were logged by our project geologist who also retained representative soil and rock samples at selected locations and intervals for laboratory testing. Boring locations are shown on Plate 2. Logs of the Test Borings are included with this report as Plates 3 -8. Laboratory test results are summarized in following sections. V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The study property is underlain directly, or at shallow depths by natural Terrace deposits. Instability is not indicated at the property and no adverse geologic structure was noted within site Terrace deposits. A. Earth Materials Natural sandstone Terrace deposits underlie the site directly at or near shallow depths. As encountered, the sandstone typically ranges from fine to medium - grained sands which grades locally silty to clayey. In the southern portions of the site adjacent to Melba Road, the sandstone was generally found in cemented and hard conditions. Elsewhere at the site, Terrace deposits were found friable and loose near the surface grading more uniformly dense at depth. Below the upper weathered sections, project Terrace deposits are competent units that will adequately support planned new fills, structures, and improvements. Site Terrace deposits are generally mantled by a shallow cover of surfcial soils that include undifferentiated fill and topsoil. Surficial earth materials range from sandy deposits to some clay bearing soils and were found typically in moist and loose to soft conditions overall. Details of project earth materials are given on the enclosed Boring Logs, Plates 3- 8. A Geologic Cross - Section depicting subsurface conditions based on our exploratory borings is included with this report as Plate 9. Engineering properties are further defined in a following section. V IN]E &MIDDLE YON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 3 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 B. Groundwater and Surface Drainage Minor perched water was encountered in Boring 1 (B -1) at a depth of 12- inches below existing ground surfaces. The noted water is thought to reflect nursery irrigation that is percolating through upper loose granular surficial soils atop more dense sandy to stiff clayey soils. Elsewhere, groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored. Shallow static groundwater table is not present and will not impact the planned grading activities and proposed development. However, drying locally wet soils prior to their use in compacted fills should be anticipated. The proper control of storm waters and site surface drainage is a critical component to overall stability of the graded building pads. Surface water should not pond upon graded surfaces, and irrigation water should not be excessive. Over - watering of site vegetation may also create perched water and the creation of excessively moist areas at finished lot surfaces. Development of the property should include improved site drainage and construction of engineered surface drainage and storm run -off control facilities. C. Slope Stabili Existing graded slopes adjacent the east property line are minor embankments that are constructed at 2:1 gradients and range to vertical heights of approximately 10 feet maximum. No indication of slope instability is presently indicated within these slopes. Planned graded cut embankments are also minor slopes and expected to be grossly stable with regard to surficial and deep- seated failures to design heights provided our slope construction recommendations are followed. D. Faults/ Seismicity Faults or significant shear zones are not indicated on or near proximity to the project site. As with most areas of California, the San Diego region lies within a seismically active zone; however, coastal areas of the county are characterized by low levels of seismic activity relative to inland areas to the east. During a 40 -year period (1934- 1974), 37 earthquakes were recorded in San Diego coastal areas by the California Institute of Technology. None of the recorded events exceeded a Richter magnitude of 3.7, nor did any of the earthquakes generate more than modest V INJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 4 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 ground shaking or significant damages. Most of the recorded events occurred along various offshore faults which characteristically generate modest earthquakes. Historically, the most significant earthquake events which affect local areas originate along well known, distant fault zones to the east and the Coronado Bank Fault to the west. Based upon available seismic data, compiled from California Earthquake Catalogs, the most significant historical event in the area of the study site occurred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 3.3 miles from the project area. This event, which is thought to have occurred along an off -shore fault, reached an estimated magnitude of 6.5 with estimated bedrock acceleration values of 0.238g at the project site. The following list represents the most significant faults which commonly impact the region. Estimated ground acceleration data compiled from Digitized California Faults (Computer Program EQFAULT VERSION 3.00 updated) typically associated with the fault is also tabulated: TABLE 1 Fault Zone Distance from Site Maximum Probable Acceleration R.H. Rose Canyon 3.6 miles 0.2868 Coronado Bank 18.4 miles 0.205g Newport- Inglewood 122 miles 0.138g Elsinore - Julian 27.5 miles 0.129 The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to the study site are depicted on a Fault - Epicenter Map and included with this report as Plate 10. More recently, the number of seismic events which affect the region appears to have heightened somewhat. Nearly 40 earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or higher have been recorded in coastal regions between January 1984 and August 1986. Most of the earthquakes are thought to have been generated along offshore faults. For the most part, the recorded events remain moderate shocks which typically resulted in low levels of ground shaking to local areas. A notable exception to this pattern was recorded on July 13, 1986. An earthquake of magnitude 5.3 shook County coastal areas with moderate to locally heavy ground shaking resulting in $700,000 in damages, one death, and injuries to 30 people. The quake occurred along an offshore fault located nearly 30 miles southwest of Oceanside. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 5 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 A series of notable events shook County areas with a (maximum) magnitude 7.4 shock in the early morning of June 28, 1992. These quakes originated along related segments of the San Andreas Fault approximately 90 miles to the north. Locally high levels of ground shaking over an extended period of time resulted: however, significant damages to local structures were not reported. The increase in earthquake frequency in the region remains a subject of speculation among geologists: however, based upon empirical information and the recorded seismic history of County areas, the 1986 and 1992 events are thought to represent the highest levels of ground shaking which can be expected at the study site as a result of seismic activity. In recent years, the Rose Canyon Fault has received added attention from geologists. The fault is a significant structural feature in metropolitan San Diego which includes a series of parallel breaks trending southward from La Jolla Cove through San Diego Bay toward the Mexican border. Test trenching along the fault in Rose Canyon indicated that at that location the fault was last active 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. More recent work suggests that segments of the fault are younger having been last active 1000 - 2000 years ago. Consequently, the fault has been classified as active and included within an Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone established by the State of California. Fault zones tabulated in the preceding table are considered most likely to impact the region of the study site during the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically active and capable of generating moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking at the site. Ground separation as a result of seismic activity is not expected at the property. For design purposes, site specific seismic parameters were determined as part of this investigation in accordance with the California Building Code, he following parameters are consistent with the indicated project seismic environment based on site specific study and our experience with similar earth deposits in the vicinity of the project site, and may be utilized for project design work: TABLE 2 Site Soil Profile Type Seismic Zone Seismic Zone Factor Seismic Source Type Seismic Response Coefficients Na Nv Ca Cv Ts To SD 4 0.4 B 1.0 1.2 0.44 035 0.680 0.136 Accord n to Chapter 16, Divisions IV & V of the 2001 California Building Code VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -I229 • Phone (760) 743 -I214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 6 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 A site specific probabilistic estimation of peak ground acceleration was also performed using the FRISKSP (T. Blake, 2000) computer program. Based upon Boore et al (1997) attenuation relationship, a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years was estimated to produce a site specific peak ground acceleration of 0.37g (Design -Basis Earthquake, DBE). The results were obtained from the corresponding probability of exceedance versus acceleration curve. E. Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards are not presently indicated at the project site. Minor exposed slopes do not indicate gross geologic instability. The most significant geologic hazards at the property will be those associated with ground shaking in the event of a major seismic event. Liquefaction or related ground rupture failures are not anticipated. F. Laboratory Testing / Results Earth deposits encountered in our exploratory test borings were closely examined and sampled for laboratory testing. Based upon our exposures, site earth materials have been grouped into the following soil types: TABLE 3 Soil Type I Description 1 brown silty to clayey sand (Fill/Topsoil) 2 brown fine to medium sand with local trace of clay (Fill/Topsoil/Terrace De osit) The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation: 1. Standard Penetration Test: Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at the time of borehole drilling in accordance with the ASTM standard procedure D -1586, using Rope and Cathead. The procedure consisted of a standard 51 MM outside diameter sampler, 457 MM in length and 35 MM in inside diameter driven with a 140 pounds hammer drop 30 inches using 5 -foot long AW drill rods. The bore hole was 200 MM (8 inches) in diameter and water was not required to aid drilling. The test results are indicated at the corresponding locations on the Boring Logs. 2. Grain Size Analysis: Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples of Soil Types 1 and 2. The test results are presented in Table 4. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS TABLE 4 PAGE 7 APRIL 21, 2006 Sieve Size ' /z' #4 #10 1 #20 #40 #200 Location Soil Type Percent Passing B-4 @ T 1 100 100 100 98 86 33 B -2 @ 5' 2 99 92 87 83 CL 64 27 3. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Soil Types 1 and 2 were determined in accordance with ASTM D -1557. The test results are presented in Table 5. TABLE 5 Location Soil Type Maximum Dry Density Ym- cf Optimum Moisture Content woPt B-4 @ 7' 1 130.6 9.8 B -2 @ 5' 2 127.6 11.3 4. Moisture - Density Test (Undisturbed Ring Samples): In -place dry density and moisture content of representative soil deposits beneath the site were determined from relatively undisturbed ring samples using the weights and measurements test method. The test results are presented in Table 6 and tabulated on the enclosed Boring Logs (Plates 3 -8). TABLES VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, 1Nc. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Field Ratio Of In -Place Dry Moisture Field Dry Max. Dry Density To Max. Dry Sample Soil Content Density Density Density' Location Type (W-%) (Yd -pcf) (Ym -pcf) (YdfYm x 100) B -1 @ 3' 1 17.3 112.0 130.6 85.8 B -2 @ 5' 2 9.5 127.6 sample disturbed B-4 @ T 1 11.9 118.7 130.6 90.9 "Designated as relative compaction for structural fills. Minimum required relative compaction for structural fill is 90% unless otherwise s ecified. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, 1Nc. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 8 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 5. Expansion Index Test: Two expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of Soil Types 1 and 2 in accordance with the California Building Code Standard 18 -2. The test results are presented in Table 7. Itlf_t ]1114Vi Sample Location Soil Type Remolded w % Saturation % Saturated w % Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Potential B-4 @ 7' 1 9.2 50.9 16.7 13 very low B -2 @ 5' 2 9.4 50.1 159 2 very low w = moisture content in percent. 6. Direct Shear Test: One direct shear test was performed on a representative samples of Soil Type 2. The prepared specimen was soaked overnight, loaded with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The test result is presented in Table 8. TABLE 8 7. pH and Resistivity Test: pH and resistivity of a representative sample of Soil Type 1 was determined using " Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts," in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 643. The test result is presented in Table 9, 1110a111W Sample Location I Soil Type Minimum Resistivity OHM -CM We Angle of Apparent Sample Soil Sample Density lnt. Fric. Cohesion Location T e Condition Yw- c m -De c- s B -2 @ 5' 2 remolded to 90% of Yrn 9 % wo t 127.7 30 1 81 7. pH and Resistivity Test: pH and resistivity of a representative sample of Soil Type 1 was determined using " Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts," in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 643. The test result is presented in Table 9, 1110a111W Sample Location I Soil Type Minimum Resistivity OHM -CM H B -3 2' 1 1400 F 6.6 8. Sulfate Test: One sulfate test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 417. The test result is presented in Table 10. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 9 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 TABLE 10 Sample Location Soil Type Amount of Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4) In Soil % by Weight) B -3 @ 2' 1 0.008 9. Chloride Test: A chloride test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 422. The test result is presented in Table 11. TABLE 11 Sample Location Soil Type Amount of Water Soluble Chloride (CI) In Soil % by Weight) B -3 @ 2' 1 0.084 10. R -value Test: One R -value test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 2 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 301. The test result is presented in Table 12. TABLE 12 Location Soil Type Description R -value B -2 @ 5' 2 red -brown clayey fine sand 20 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT A site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements, walls and drainage structures if one or more of the following conditions exists: • Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). • Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm (0.05 % by weight). • pH is less than 5.5. For structural elements, the minimum resistivity of soil (or water) indicates the relative quantity of soluble salts present in the soil (or water). In general, a minimum resistivity value for soil (or water) less than 1000 ohm -cm indicates a potential for presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts (chloride or sulfate), pH levels and the desired service life of the structure. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 10 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Limited laboratory test results performed on selected representative site samples indicated that the minimum resistivity is greater than 1000 ohm -cm, the pH is greater than 5.5, and sulfate concentration less than 2000 ppm. However, further testing indicated chloride concentration greater than 500 ppm. Based on the results of the available limited corrosion analyses performed on selected samples, the project site is considered corrosive. Corrosion mitigation should be implemented and incorporated into the design of new structures and associated improvements. A corrosion engineer may be consulted in this regard and additional corrosion conformation testing may be considered during the remedial grading and earthworks operations. The project site is not located within 1000 feet of salt or brackish water. Based upon the results of the tested soil sample, the amount of water soluble sulfate (SO4) in the soil was found to be 0.008 percent by weight which is considered negligible according to the California Building Code Table No. 19 -A-4. Portland cement Type II may be used. However, due to the site corrosion potential. Portland cement Type V with pozzolan (minimum fc = 4500 psi, maximum water cement ratio = 0.45) and steel reinforcement cover greater than 3 inches may be appropriate as determined by the project corrosion /structural engineer. Table 13 is based on the pH resistivity test result: TABLE 13 Design Soil Type Gage 18 16 14 12 10 8 1 1 Years to Perforation of Steel Culverts 1 14 18 22 1 30 1 39 1 47 VII. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing investigation, development of the study site into an 18 -lot residential subdivision with the associated internal roadways and underground improvements is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The property is underlain by dense, stable Terrace deposits at relatively shallow depths. Adverse geologic conditions which could preclude site development were not indicated at the property. The following factors are unique to the property and will most impact project development and associated costs from a geotechnical viewpoint: The project property is underlain by a relatively shallow to modest cover of loose fills and topsoil deposits. Removals and recompaction of these deposits and upper exposures of the underlying weathered Terrace deposits are recommended in the following section in order to construct safe and stable building surfaces. Deeper removals may also be necessary in unexplored areas of the lot presently obscured by the existing nursery structures and improvements as determined in the field. VINE & MIDDLETON ENGINFERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 11 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 * Underlying Terrace deposits below the upper weathered zones are suitably dense units and will provide good support for the proposed new graded fills, structures and improvements. Added removals of cut ground will also be necessary in the case of cut -fill pads which expose natural Terrace deposits so that uniform bearing soil conditions are constructed throughout the buildings and improvement surfaces. * Soils generated from the site removals and over - excavations will predominantly consist of sandy very low expansive deposits which typically work well as new compacted fills. However, locally some clay- bearing soils may also be encountered which should be considered for selective deep burial or through mixing with an abundance of available sandy soils generated from the site excavations to manufacture a very low expansive mixture. Some wet soils requiring aerating and drying may also be encountered and should be anticipated. * Construction debris generated from the demolition of existing on -site structures, irrigation facilities, underground tanks and improvements, along with organic and deleterious materials should be properly removed and disposed of from the site * Based on the available laboratory testing of selected samples and remedial grading recommendations provided herein, final bearing soils are anticipated to consist of silty sand (SM /SP) deposits with very low expansion potential (expansion index less than 21) according to the California Building Code classification (Table 18A -1 -B). Actual classification and expansion characteristics of the finish grade soil mix can only be provided in the as- graded compaction report based upon proper testing of final bearing soils when rough finish grades are achieved. * Project graded slopes should be programmed for 2:1 gradients maximum. The overall stability of graded building surfaces developed over sloping terrain is most dependent upon adequate keying and benching of fills into the competent undisturbed formational units during the grading operations. At the project site, added care should be given to the proper construction of fill slope keyways and benching excavations. * Locally, some near surface water seeps were noted in test boring B -1 which reflects irrigation water due to the existing nursery activities. The noted water seeps will not be a factor in site development and natural groundwater is not expected to impact project grading or the long term stability of the graded building sites. However, adequate site surface drainage control should be considered in the design and construction of the project development. Surface drainage and storm water control facilities should be installed as shown on the approved grading or drainage improvement plans. Over - watering of site vegetation may also create perched water and the creation of excessively moist areas at finished surfaces and should be avoided. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -I214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 12 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Site grading and earthwork constructions will not impact the adjacent properties provided our recommendations are incorporated into the final designs and implemented during the construction phase. Added field recommendations, however, may also be necessary and should be given by the project geotechnical consultant for the protection of adjacent properties and should be anticipated. Liquefaction, seismically induced settlements, soil collapse and post construction settlements will not be factors in the development of the project property provided our remedial grading and foundation recommendations are followed. VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are consistent with the project geotechnical conditions and the preliminary scheme of site development as understood. Additional specific recommendations may be necessary and should be given at the time of the plan review phase when project grading and construction plans are available: A. Remedial Grading and Earthworks Remedial grading techniques may be used in order to achieve final design grades and construct a safe and stable surface beneath the new structures and improvements. All grading and earthworks should be completed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the California Building Code, City of Encinitas Grading Ordinances, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the requirements of the following sections wherever applicable: 1. Cleaning and Grubbing: Surface vegetation, trash, deleterious materials, and construction debris generated from the demolition of the existing structures and other unsuitable materials over the entire site should be removed and properly disposed of. Trash, vegetation and construction debris shall not be allowed to occur in construction areas or contaminate new site fills. Existing underground structures, pipes and utilities should be pot - holed, identified and marked prior to the actual remedial grading work. In the event of a conflict between the specified removal depths and existing underground utility lines to remain, additional recommendations should be given by the project geotechnical engineer in the field based on actual conditions. All irrigation lines, tanks, structures and underground improvements should be properly removed from the construction areas. Abandoned irrigation lines should be properly capped and sealed off to prevent any future water infiltrations into the foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Voids created by VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 13 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS APRIL 21. 2006 the removals of the abandoned underground pipes and structures should be properly backfilled with compacted fills in accordance with the requirements of this report. The prepared ground should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical engineer or his designated field representative prior to the actual remedial grading works. 2. Removals and Over - excavation: The most effective method to mitigate upper loose and weathered deposits, will utilize removal and recompaction remedial grading techniques. Upper loose fills /topsoils and weathered exposures of Terrace deposits in the areas of the property planned for the support of new fills, structures, and improvements plus 10 feet outside the perimeter (unless otherwise directed in the field), should be removed to the underlying dense and competent Terrace deposits as approved in the field by the project geotechnical engineer, and placed back as properly compacted fills. The approximate removal depths in the vicinity of individual exploratory test trenches are shown in Table 14. Locally deeper removals may be necessary based upon actual field exposures and should be anticipated. TABLE 14 Notes: 1 All depths are measured from the existing ground levels. 2. Actual depths may vary at the time of construction based on final subsurface exposures. 3. Bottom of all removals should be additionally prepared, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches prior to fill placement as directed in the field. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Total Estimated Estimated Depth of Depth of Over- Depth of Boring Boring excavation Groundwater Comments Location (ft) Ift) (ft) Perched water Lot 16. Perched water due to active B -1 7' 6' at 12- inches nursery irrigation. Not a groundwater condition. Soils are locally wet. B -2 11,12' 3 Lot 14 encountered B -3 5'/:' 2Y:' not Lot 12 encountered B -4 11'/: 2%: not Lot 8 - Depth of cut / undercut may encountered govern. B -5 5'/:' 2/, not Lot 2 - Depth of cut / undercut may encountered govern. B -6 5' /z' 1' not Lot 4 - Depth of cut/ undercut may encountered govern. Notes: 1 All depths are measured from the existing ground levels. 2. Actual depths may vary at the time of construction based on final subsurface exposures. 3. Bottom of all removals should be additionally prepared, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches prior to fill placement as directed in the field. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 14 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 4 All grounds steeper than 5 1 receiving fills /backfills should be properly benched and keyed as directed in the field. 3. Excavations Characteristics -Hard cemented beds or difficult excavations are not expected at the site. Unusual grading problems are not expected. 4. Cut -Fill Transitions and Undercuts - Ground transition from undisturbed native ground to compacted fills should not be permitted underneath the proposed structures and improvements. Transition areas will require special treatment. The native /undisturbed portion of transition bearing and subgrade soils plus 10 feet outside the perimeter, where possible and as directed in the field, should be undercut to a sufficient depth to provide for a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill mat below rough finish pad grade or 12 inches beneath the deepest footing, whichever is more. In the roadways, driveway, parking and on- grade slabs /improvement transition areas, there should be a minimum of 12 inches of compacted soils below rough finish subgrade. 5. Temporary Excavation Slopes: Undermining existing nearby improvements, structures and adjacent properties by the excavations and removal operations should not be allowed. For this purpose, adequate excavation set -backs shall be maintained and excavation slopes laid back at safe gradients as specified herein, and as directed in the field. Temporary embankments less than 3 feet high maximum may be constructed at near vertical gradients if approved in the field. Trench and excavation slopes greater than 3 feet maximum should be laid back at 1:1 gradients with the remaining wedge of soil properly benched and new fill /backfill tightly keyed -in as the fill placement progresses. Some shoring or trench shield support may be appropriate based on site conditions and should be anticipated. 6. Fill Materials, Shrinkage, Import Soils and Compaction: Soils generated from the on -site excavations will predominantly consist of sandy deposits suitable for reuse as new compacted fills. Some clayey soils may also be encountered which should be selectively placed in deeper fills a minimum of 3 feet below rough finish grades or mixed with an abundant of sandy soils to manufacture a very low expansive mixture. Locally, some wet soils should also be anticipated requiring added aerating, drying and moisture conditioning efforts. All trash, demolition debris, irrigation pipes, deleterious matter, roots, stumps and organic materials should be thoroughly removed and properly disposed of to the satisfaction of the project geotechnical engineer. Vegetation, trash and debris shall not be allowed to contaminate new site fills. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 15 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Site upper loose fills /topsoils and highly weathered exposures of Terrace deposits may be expected to shrink nearly 5% to 15% on volume basis when compacted to at least 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density. Dense Terrace deposits may be expected to bulk the same amount. Import soils, if required to complete grading and achieve final design grades, should be sandy granular non - corrosive deposits (SM /SW) with very low expansion potential (100% passing' /. -inch sieve, more than 50% passing #4 sieve and less than 20% passing #200 sieve with expansion index less than 21). Import soils should be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site. Import soils should also meet or exceed engineering characteristic, and soil design parameters as specified in the following sections. Project fills and backfills shall be clean deposits free of vegetation, trash, debris, organic materials, deleterious matter, and larger than 6 inches rock sizes, as approved in the field by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative. Uniform bearing soil conditions should be constructed at the site by the remedial grading operations. Site fills and backfills should be adequately processed, moisture conditioned to slightly (2 %) above optimum levels, thoroughly mixed, placed in thin (8 inches maximum unless otherwise approved) uniform horizontal lifts, and mechanically compacted to a minimum 90% of the corresponding laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557), unless otherwise specified. 7. Permanent Graded Slopes: Major graded embankments are not anticipated in connection with the site development. Planned graded slopes are expected to be minor, on the order of 10 feet high maximum, and will include fill over -cut slopes. All graded slopes should be programmed for 2:1 gradients maximum. Graded slopes constructed as recommended herein, will be grossly stable with respect to deep seated and surficial failures for the indicated maximum design heights and gradients. All fill slopes should be provided with a lower Keyway. The Keyway should maintain a minimum depth of 2 feet into competent Terrace deposits with a minimum width of 10 feet as approved by the project geotechnical engineer or his designated field representative. The Keyway should expose dense Terrace deposits throughout with the bottom heeled back a minimum of 2% into the natural hillside. Added attention should be given for keyways constructed in connection with fill over cut slopes to ensure proper keyway location Additional level benches should be constructed into the natural hillside as the fill slope construction progresses. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -IZI4 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 16 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Fill slopes should also be compacted to 90% (minimum) of the laboratory standard out to the slope face. Over - building and cutting back to the compacted core, or backrolling at a maximum of 4 -foot vertical increments and "track- walking" at the completion of grading is recommended for site fill slope construction. Geotechnical engineering inspections and testing will be necessary to confirm adequate compaction levels within the fill slope face. Graded cut embankments should be inspected by the project engineering geologist. Track - walking of cut and fill- over -cut slope faces will also most likely be necessary as directed in the field. Slope constructions should be performed in accordance with the enclosed Key and Benching Details, Plates 11 and 12. 8. Surface Drainage and Erosion Control: A critical element to the continued stability of the building pads is an adequate surface drainage system. Surface and storm water shall not be allowed to impact the developed construction and improvement sites. This can most effectively be achieved by the installation of appropriate drainage facilities, slope face vegetation cover and the installation of the following systems: Building pad surface run -off should be collected and directed away from the planned buildings and improvements to a selected location in a controlled manner. Area drains should be installed. The finished slopes should be planted soon after completion of grading. Unprotected slope faces will be subject to severe erosion and should not be allowed. Over - watering of the slope faces should also not be allowed. Only the amount of water to sustain vegetation should be provided. Temporary erosion control facilities and silt fences should be installed during the construction phase periods and until landscaping is fully established as indicated and specified on the approved project grading /erosion plans. 9. Engineering Inspections: All grading operations including removals, suitability of earth deposits used as compacted fill, and compaction procedures should be continuously inspected and tested by the project geotechnical consultant and presented in the final as- graded compaction report. The nature of finished subgrade soils should also be confirmed in the final compaction report at the completion of grading. VINIE & MLDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 920294229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 17 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Geotechnical engineering inspections shall include but not limited to the following: * Initial Inspection - After the grading /brushing limits have been staked but before grading /brushing starts. * Keyway /bottom of over - excavation inspection - After the bottom of keyway or competent Terrace deposits is exposed and prepared to receive fill but before fill is placed. * Excavation inspection - After the excavation is started but before the vertical depth of excavation is more than 3 feet. Local and Cal -OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. * Fill /backfill Inspection - After the fill /backfill placement is started but before the vertical height of fill exceeds 2 feet. A minimum of one test shall be required for each 100 lineal feet in every 2 feet vertical gain maximum with the exception of wall backfills where a minimum of one test shall be required for each 25 lineal feet maximum. Wall backfills shall also be mechanically compacted to a minimum 90% compaction levels unless otherwise specified. Finished rough grades and final pad grade tests shall be required regardless of fill thickness. Foundation trench inspection - After the foundation trench excavations but before steel placement. * Foundation bearing /slab subgrade soils inspection - Prior to the placement of concrete for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. * Geotechnical foundation /slab steel inspection - After steel placement is completed but before the scheduled concrete pour. * Wall /subdrain inspection - After the trench excavations but during the actual placement. All material shall conform to the project material specifications and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. * Underground /utility trench inspection - After the trench excavations but before placement of pipe bedding or installation of the underground facilities. Local and Cal -OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. Inspection of the pipe bedding may also be required by the project geotechnical engineer. VINJE R MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 18 APRIL 21. 2006 • Underground utility /plumbing trench backfill inspection - After the backfill placement is started above the pipe zone but before the vertical height of backfill exceeds 2 feet. Testing of the backfill within the pipe zone may also be required by the governing agencies. Pipe bedding and backfill materials shall conform to the governing agencies' requirements and project soils report if applicable. All trench backfills shall be mechanically compacted to a minimum 90% compaction levels unless otherwise specified. Plumbing trenches over 12 inches deep maximum under the interior floor slabs should be mechanically compacted and tested for a minimum 90% compaction levels. Flooding or jetting techniques as a means of compaction method shall not be allowed. • Pavement/improvements base and subgrade inspections - Prior to the placement of concrete or asphalt for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. B. Footings and Slab -on -Grade Foundations The following recommendations are consistent with very low expansive (expansion index less than 21) silty sand (SM /SP) foundation bearing soils and site specific geotechnical conditions. Additional recommendations may also be required and should be given at the plan review phase. All design recommendations should be further confirmed and /or revised as necessary at the completion of rough grading based on the expansion characteristics of the foundation bearing soils and as- graded site geotechnical conditions. Individual lots may also require specific recommendations as presented in the final as- graded compaction report: 1. Continuous strip stem wall and turned -down footings should be sized at least 12 inches wide and a minimum of 12 inches deep for single -story and at least 15 inches wide and a minimum of 18 inches deep for two -story buildings. Isolated pad footings should be at least 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. Footing depths are measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface, not including the sand /gravel beneath floor slabs. Exterior continuous stem wall foundations and turned -down footings should enclose the entire building perimeter. Continuous interior and exterior stem wall foundations should be reinforced by at least four #4 reinforcing bars. Place a minimum of two #4 bars 3 inches above the bottom of the footing and a minimum of two #4 bars 3 inches below the top of the stem wall. Turned -down footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom. Reinforcement details for spread pad footings should be provided by the project architect/structural engineer. VIN1E & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -I229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 19 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 2. All interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center each way placed mid - height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater) which is provided with a well - performing moisture barrier /vapor retardant (minimum 10 -mil plastic) placed mid - height in the sand. Provide "softcut" contraction /control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on centers each way for all interior slabs. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The sawcuts should be a minimum of 1 -inch in depth but should not exceed 1'/4- inches deep maximum. Anti -ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Provide re- entrant corner reinforcement for all interior slabs. Re- entrant corners will depend on slab geometry and /or interior column locations. The enclosed Plate 13 may be used as a general guideline. 3. Foundation trenches and slab subgrade soils should be inspected and tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. C. Exterior Concrete Slabs / Flatworks 1. All exterior slabs (walkways, and patios) should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, reinforced with 6x6 /10x10 welded wire mesh carefully placed mid - height in the slab. 2. Provide "tool joint' or "softcut" contraction /control joints spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 12 feet maximum) each way. Tool or cut as soon as the slab will support weight and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of 1 -inch but should not exceed 1'/.- inches deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti -ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. 3. All exterior slab designs should be confirmed in the final as- graded compaction report. 4. Subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 20 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21. 2006 D. Soil Design Parameters The following soil design parameters are based upon tested representative samples of on -site earth deposits. All parameters should be re- evaluated when the characteristics of the final as- graded soils have been specifically determined: Design wet density of soil = 130 pcf. Design angle of internal friction of soil = 30 degrees. Design active soil pressure for retaining structures = 43 pcf (EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walls. ' Design at -rest soil pressure for retaining structures = 65 pcf (EFP), non - yielding, restrained walls. Design passive soil pressure for retaining structures = 390 pcf (EFP), level surface at the toe. Design coefficient of friction for concrete on soils = 0.36. Net allowable foundation pressure for compacted fill soil (minimum 12 inches wide footings extended a minimum of 12 inches into compacted fill) = 1500 psf. ' Allowable lateral bearing pressure (all structures except retaining walls) = 150 psf /ft . Notes: Use a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall over - turning and sliding stability. However, because large movements must take place before maximum passive resistance can be developed, a minimum safety factor of 2 may be considered for sliding stability particularly where sensitive structures and improvements are planned near or on top of retaining /basement walls. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance the passive component should be reduced by one - third. The indicated net allowable foundation pressures provided herein were determined based on a minimum 12 inches wide by 12 inches deep footings and may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 20% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of 4500 psf. The allowable foundation pressures provided herein also apply to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one -third for wind and seismic loading. The lateral bearing earth pressures may be increased by the amount of designated value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -I214 . PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 21 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS APRIL 21. 2006 E. Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design 1. Asphalt Paving: The following asphalt pavement structural sections are based on a tested R -value of 20, performed on selected on -site earth materials and the indicated assumed traffic Index (TI), and may be considered for initial planning phase cost estimating purposes for on -site asphalt paving surfaces not within the public right -of -way. A minimum section of 4 inches asphalt (AC) over 6 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base (AB), or the minimum structural section required by the City of Encinitas, whichever is more, will be required and shall govern when a lesser pavement section is indicated by design calculations as shown in Table 15: TABLE 15 Design Traffic Index TI Design R -value 4.5 1 5.0 1 6.0 6.5 20 4" AC over 6" AB 1 4" AC over 6" A8 1 4" AC over 9" AB 4" AC over 11" AB Final pavement sections will depend on the actual R -value test results performed on finish subgrade soils, design TI, and approval of the City of Encinitas. All design sections should be confirmed and/or revised as necessary at the completion of rough pavement subgrade preparations. Base materials should be compacted to a minimum 95% of the maximum dry density. Subgrade soils beneath the pavement base layer should also be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 12 inches. Base materials and subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and minimum 95% compaction levels, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of the base or asphalt layers. 2. PCC Paving: Residential PCC driveways and parking supported on very low (expansion index less than 21) subgrade soils should be a minimum 5 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on centers each way placed mid - height in the slab. Subgrade soils beneath the PCC driveways and parking should also be compacted to a minimum 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 6 inches Provide "tool joint' or "softcut contraction /control joints spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 15 feet maximum) each way. Tool or cut as soon as the slab will support the weight and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Acenuc • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 22 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of 1 -inch in depth but should not exceed 1'/4- inches deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti -ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. 3. General Paving: Base section and subgrade preparations per structural section design will be required for all surfaces subject to traffic including roadways, travelways, drive lanes, driveway approaches and ribbon (cross) gutters. Driveway approaches within the public right -of -way should have 12 inches subgrade compacted to a minimum 95% compaction levels and provided with a 95% compacted Class 2 base section per the structural section design. Base layer under curb and gutters should be compacted to a minimum 95 %, while subgrade soils under curb and gutters, and base and subgrade under sidewalks should be compacted to a minimum 90% compaction levels. Base section may not be required under curb and gutters, and sidewalks in the case of very low to non - expansive subgrade soils (expansion index less than 21). Appropriate recommendations should be given in the final as- graded compaction report. F. General Recommendations 1. The minimum foundation design and steel reinforcement provided herein are based on soil characteristics and are not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. 2. Adequate staking and grading control is a critical factor in properly completing the recommended remedial and site grading operations. Grading control and staking should be provided by the project grading contractor or surveyor /civil engineer, and is beyond the geotechnical engineering services. Inadequate staking and /or lack of grading control may result in unnecessary additional grading which will increase construction costs. 3. Footings located on or adjacent to the top of slopes should be extended to a sufficient depth to provide a minimum horizontal distance of 7 feet or one -third of the slope height, whichever is greater (need not exceed 40 feet maximum) between the bottom edge of the footing and face of slope. This requirement applies to all improvements and structures including fences, posts, pools, spas, etc. Concrete and AC improvements should be provided with a thickened edge to satisfy this requirement. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. - 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -I229 • Phone (760) 743 -I2I4 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 23 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 4. Open or backfilled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a projected plane having a downward slope of 1 -unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50 %) from a line 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing, and not closer than 18 inches form the face of such footing. 5. Where pipes cross under - footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls, and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1 -inch all around the pipe. 6. Foundations where the surface of the ground slopes more than 1 -unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10% slope) shall be level or shall be stepped so that both top and bottom of such foundations are level. Individual steps in continuous footings shall not exceed 18 inches in height, and the slope of a series of such steps shall not exceed 1 -unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50 %) unless otherwise specified. The steps shall be detailed on the structural drawings. The local effects due to the discontinuity of the steps shall also be considered in the design of foundations as appropriate and applicable. 7. Expansive clayey soils should not be used for backfilling of any retaining structure. All retaining walls should be provided with a 1:1 wedge of granular, compacted backfill measured from the base of the wall footing to the finished surface. Retaining walls should be provided with a back drainage in general accordance with the enclosed Plate 14. 8. All underground utility and plumbing trenches should be mechanically compacted to a minimum 90% of the maximum dry density of the soil unless otherwise specified. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the compaction of the soil. Non - expansive, granular backfill soils should be used. Trench backfill materials and compaction beneath pavements within the public right -of -way shall conform to the City of Encinitas requirements. 9. Site drainage over the finished pad surfaces should flow away from structures onto the street in a positive manner. Care should be taken during the construction, improvements, and fine grading phases not to disrupt the designed drainage patterns. Roof lines of the buildings should be provided with roof gutters. Roof water should be collected and directed away from the buildings and structures to a suitable location. 10. Final plans should reflect preliminary recommendations given in this report. Final foundations and grading plans may also be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant for conformance with the requirements of the VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 24 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 geotechnical investigation report outlined herein. More specific recommendations may be necessary and should be given when final grading and architectural /structural drawings are available. 11. All foundation trenches should be inspected to ensure adequate footing embedment and confirm competent bearing soils. Foundation and slab reinforcements should also be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. 12. The amount of shrinkage and related cracks that occurs in the concrete slab - on- grades, flatworks and driveways depend on many factors the most important of which is the amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpose of the slab reinforcement is to keep normal concrete shrinkage cracks closed tightly. The amount of concrete shrinkage can be minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum the following should be considered: Use the stiffest mix that can be handled and consolidated satisfactorily. Use the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practical. For example, concrete made with 3/B -inch maximum size aggregate usually requires about 40 -lbs. more (nearly 5 -gal.) water per cubic yard than concrete with 1 -inch aggregate. Cure the concrete as long as practical. The amount of slab reinforcement provided for conventional slab -on -grade construction considers that good quality concrete materials, proportioning, craftsmanship, and control tests where appropriate and applicable are provided. 13. A preconstruction meeting between representatives of this office, the property owner or planner, city inspector, as well as the grading contractor /builder is recommended in order to discuss grading /construction details associated with site development. IV. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been based on available data obtained from the review of pertinent reports and plans, subsurface exploratory excavations as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in the general area. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 25 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Of necessity we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is necessary, therefore, that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified during the grading operation. In the event discrepancies are noted, we should be contacted immediately so that an inspection can be made and additional recommendations issued if required. The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. It is the responsibility of the owner /developer to ensure that these recommendations are carried out in the field. It is almost impossible to predict with certainty the future performance of a property. The future behavior of the site is also dependent on numerous unpredictable variables, such as earthquakes, rainfall, and on -site drainage patterns. The firm of VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC., shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such as addition of fill soils, added cut slopes, or changing drainage patterns which occur without our inspection or control. The property owner(s) should be aware that the development of cracks in all concrete surfaces such as floor slabs and exterior stucco are associated with normal concrete shrinkage during the curing process. These features depend chiefly upon the condition of concrete and weather conditions at the time of construction and do not reflect detrimental ground movement. Hairline stucco cracks will often develop at window /door corners, and floor surface cracks up to '/e -inch wide in 20 feet may develop as a result of normal concrete shrinkage (according to the American Concrete Institute). This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to your tentative development plan, especially with respect to the height and location of cut and fill slopes, this report must be presented to us for review and possible revision. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or his representative is responsible to ensure that the information and recommendations are provided to the project arch itect/structural engineer so that they can be incorporated into the plans. Necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the project general contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The project soils engineer should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the project final design plans and specifications in order to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report are property interpreted and implemented. The project soils engineer should also be provided the opportunity to verify the foundations prior the placing of concrete. If the project soils engineer is not provided the opportunity of making these reviews, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, Califomia 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -I214 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 26 BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS APRIL 21, 2006 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., warrants that this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #06 -181 -P will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. \5�E4E0 GFOe MIOO� ennis Middleton o CEG 9g0 O a CEG #980 * CC TIFIED * ENGINFFRw:- NT ppFESS /pN� yr -- .k• N�.S 41s lF FGF : y �O ti9 yc 9 2 w 4 D m S. ehdi S. Shariat Exp. 12 -31 -06 #46174 sr CIVIL 3 �TF OF C AOI '3 Steven J. Melzer JAY CEG #2362 tip, No. 2362�� 0- CERTIFIED DM /SMSS /SJM /-t ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Nib Exp. 531 -07 Distribution: Addressee (5) OF C c c:(Umyf Ieslprekrns.06 /06 -181 -P V INIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Vineyard Avenue • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 PLATE 1, Sy S,pONIAST REGIONAL INDE?X MAP, Y8M JOB #06- 181 P °--I� x G�MAii00BM 4,kN NF'ct Hrawtx L IAI�MIigOA r N , COR0. //6Qr�E GLEN U 1 j1 -. J VANFSSO fIR a Jxr, t bb lo Azuay. SLPCPFSt AA J •I HCrNRq ��b pS� ��w E my � O b. P. � e�_ �{li$ p2 e x�a tE .Gad p 1 � E wra�rviEW �.�i �Fh-� m [ Ft SI IM KlL -' IDEgS 1 �O V >` aP r1N1TY#1i� i _�� NO CST I I q 9 p 'I�IT b1=Vi N y .. Ca SITE NF1lAf,n E1�� LOCATION l< .W YeL' T 1A I y�sTnp' S n PKf JOB " �9HON�v i Syf 'P 4._i'� M�S� P V Mti NIMYJNff � � .rT r �pl<M � f f c 11N \ CgaEfra`Pa ' p W WIC nVl 'NIX96VSF N -01' � I ' I I I.fENNp CI IIB pH 1 / Lt. < sNaF��A� WA. 1 Ij i1 C F 91Pb('SH Rf A � f i �YVN I e aF a� "Ir" N AOA� \ CmtlAfby <IfeSe6 �� f Fit i ��J C. �,p6 -;4 N •, F F.Yrne f P 1 Bulgy 1 : 26,000 . a 2080 h f ® 2002 Tepe USA ®. Dafa coq/IpM o1 owMR OwMO. ® m _ o TM 1 r a www.CNermaeem w m m �/ rBGMvD S.D.R.S, D. • SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS GRAPHIC SCALE LOT LINE f' -GO' *qpr L10713 PROPOSED CDNR PROPOSED STREET LIGHT �� EXISTING Q3v DAS 40 BLAA317 LOT N.NGER WT4 -� -- -- EXISTING EASEMENT 11,231 of 11,221 PROPOSED EASEMENT 1 B B -1 EXISTING EDGE IF PALEIENT I CENNTER.INE - Z, DIT aOPE ,wx. y y y I PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 71, LOT 16 21 FILL 301E NAx. �T I EL-a" 13,689d EXISTING WATER WIN B -3 PROPOSED SEER SERVICE I PRKR47D WATER SERVICE n ca IN 001c cao5s -sec rrav LUZIG OF G DIAL PROPOSED DIIZUSIONARY UNIT EXISTING GRAN DITCH PROPOSED GaGN DSTCH mm►0-►AN-0. FRaROSED RIP RAP ENERGY 01591PATCR ® iROPfZ9EO TYPE B-I DEB INLET E FRUVSED TYPE F CATCH BASIN PROPOSED WwER ANNGLE e PRpBI] FIFE INU ANT PFOggD RETAINING NALL - 1 13 LOT 14 I 1914 'I blV 'l Al 1 %/h MAF PLATE 2 �F III .,A VIII IrW ,N W III F VIII IIIIII I .. II oa,nuff SNALEABEDTTUV GRAPHIC SCALE f' -GO' *qpr L10713 LOT 11 PROPOSED STREET LIGHT �� 0 40 BLAA317 EL-352 11,231 of 11,221 PmmgD AC PAVEMENT O 1 PROPOSED CDC S➢ENALX I PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 71, I O -2 e PR1$D PACS B -3 It 5 F BORING I PROPOSED DENSITYBONUS UNIT ca IN 001c cao5s -sec rrav PROPOSED DIIZUSIONARY UNIT P�EIfIE - OCNAi MELBA RO SANTA FE VIM= MAP 419 LOT 11 EL-357 11,155d FiIGN¢D I RETAINING mild AN. LOT6 BLtMT 14,9'75 d I r LADTI EE�w c I 9,836 Af LOTS ffi.a361 13,000 d I 8 B -5 e 1.07'2 I ffirc36s � I r 9,6MIaf I LOT4 LOT ELtw &r<360 13X00 of 9,661 d B -6 t➢ ' I MELBA ROAD V &M JOB #06 -181 -P GRAPHIC SCALE f' -GO' 0 40 BD 120 P�EIfIE - OCNAi MELBA RO SANTA FE VIM= MAP 419 LOT 11 EL-357 11,155d FiIGN¢D I RETAINING mild AN. LOT6 BLtMT 14,9'75 d I r LADTI EE�w c I 9,836 Af LOTS ffi.a361 13,000 d I 8 B -5 e 1.07'2 I ffirc36s � I r 9,6MIaf I LOT4 LOT ELtw &r<360 13X00 of 9,661 d B -6 t➢ ' I MELBA ROAD V &M JOB #06 -181 -P PRIMARY DIVISIONS BLOWS /FOOT VERY LOOSE GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS 4- 10 SYMBOL 10-30 r GRAVELS CLEAN GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. W N MORE THAN HALF GRAVELS I THAN 2 - 4 16-32 GP Poorly OVER 32 OF COARSE graded gravels or gravel -send mixtures, little or no fines. � < 5% 5% F FINEST GRAVEL GM Silty gravels, gravel- send -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. i O LL FRACTION IS w O Z N LARGER THAN WITH Q= W NO. 4 SIEVE FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. ac Q F > Lu SANDS CLEAN SAN SW Well graded sands, ravel) sands, little or no fines. p y < ¢ to MOOF (LESS TDHAN $P Q) COARSE�F 5% FINES) Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. O W g O FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. cc SMALLER THAN WITH i N0. 4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. uj W N ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine U. 00 O w 0 SILTS AND CLAYS rands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy O Q > uj LIQUID LIMIT IS y < 2 W p = -rn LESS THAN 50% clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. w Q y oo Z < = G a Uj MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty — 0 CC SILTS AND CLAYS soils, elastic silts. Uj z p G Z LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, let clays. LL M g = GREATER THAN 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. t- HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. GRAIN'SIZES US STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 12" I SAND GRAVEL SILTS AND CLAYS COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY ANDS, GRAVELS AND NON - PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS /FOOT VERY LOOSE 0 -4 LOOSE 4- 10 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 DENSE 30 -50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS STRENGTH BLOWS /FOOT VERY SOFT 0--A 0 - 2 SOFT %_14 2 - 4 FIRM yv -1 4 -8 STIFF 1 - 2 B-16 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16-32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 1. Blow count, 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on 2 inch 0. D. split spoon sampler (ASTM D -1586) 2. Unconfined compressive strength per SOILTEST pocket penetrometer CL -700 Sand Cone Test Bulk Sample I 246 = Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM D -1586) with blow counts per 6 inches ❑ Chunk Sample O Driven Rings I 1 246 = California Sampler with blow counts per 6 inches VINJE & MIDDLETON KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS ENGINEERING, INC. Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D -2487) 2450 Vineyard Ave., #102 Escondido, CA 92029 -1229 — PROJECT NO. KEY BORING LOG Description DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE USGS MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION FT SYMBOL I%) (PCF) (%) 0 - FILL / TOPSOIL: Silty to clayey sand. Dark brown color with SC grey - colored staining. Very moist to wet. Local water seeps, soft near surface. Stiff to dense at Q ■ 3'. ST -1 173 1120 85.8 - 11,23 5 TERRACE DEPOSIT: SP /SC J34,5Dis Fine to medium sandstone. Clayey to trace of clay Red -brown color. Weathered. Friable. Dense. ST -2 10- End Boring at $. No caving. Perched water at 1'. 15- 20- -25- Bulk Sample ■ Project: CESN 875 BALOUR DRIVE, ENCINITAS Ring Sample O SPT Sample Project No: 06 -181 -P Date Drilled: 03 -24 -06 Logged By: SJM Sand Cone Test V Truck - mounted Rotory Drill. 8" Hollow -Stem Auger. 1401b. Hammer, Drill, Sample Method: 30" drop. Rope & Cathead. TAW rods. PLATE 3 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. BORING LOG Description DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE p USGS MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION FT SYMBOL 1 %) (PCF) ( %) 0 - FILL / TOPSOIL: Medium sand. Dark brown color. Moist. SP Loose. ST -2 sots Sc Silty to clayey sand. Red -brown color. Very 5 - O 0 moist. Soft to firm. sample _ 50,4W' ST -1 9.5 disturbed TERRACE DEPOSIT: SP /SC Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Red- - brown color. Weathered. Friable. Dense. No 10 - structure. - - 29,45.50/5" Becomes moderately cemented at 5'. _ ST -2 15- - End Boring at 11'/'. No caving. No groundwater. -20- 25- Bulk Sample ■ Project: CESN 875 BALOUR DRIVE, ENCINITAS Ring Sample 3 SPT Sample Project No: 06 -181 -P Date Drilled: 03 -24 -06 Logged By: SJM Sand Cone Test V Truck - mounted Rotory Drill. 8" Hollow -Stem Auger. 1401b. Hammer, Drill, Sample Method: 30" drop. Rope & Cathead. 5' AW Rods. PLATE 4 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. BORING LOG DEPTH SAMPLE Description USGS MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION FT SYMBOL (%) )PCF) (%) 0 - FILL / TOPSOIL: Medium sand Dark brown color. Moist. SP Loose. ST -2 - I50/3�• Clayey sand. Red -brown color. Moist. Plastic. SC 5 - Firm. ST -1 TERRACE DEPOSIT: SP Fine to medium sandstone. Red -brown color. Moderately cemented. Friable. Dense. - ST -2 10- - End Boring at 5' /z. No caving. No groundwater. -15- -20- -25- Project: CESN 875 BALOUR DRIVE, ENCINITAS Bulk Sample ■ Ring Sample 0 Project No: 06 -181 -P Date Drilled: 03 -24 -06 Logged By: SJM SPT Sample l Truck - mounted Rotory Drill. 8" Hollow -Stem Auger. 1401b. Hammer, Sand Cone Test Drill, Sample Method: 30" drop. Rope & Cathead. 5' AW Rods. PLATE 5 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. BORING LOG Description DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE P USGS MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION FT SYMBOL ( %) (PCF) ( %) 0 _ TERRACE DEPOSIT: Sandstone. Fine grained. Red -brown color. SP Moderately cemented. Medium dense. Massive ST -2 - - ■ 9,9,11 Grades clayey below 5'. SP /SC Dense below 5'. 11 9 118.7 90.9 O■ - - 26,50/5" ST -1 10- 1117,24,32 End Boring at 11'/2'. No caving. No groundwater. 15- -20- -25- Project: CESN 875 BALOUR DRIVE, ENCINITAS Bulk Sample ■ Ring Sample ) Project No: 06 -181 -P Date Drilled: 03 -24 -06 Logged By: SJM SPT Sample Truck - mounted Rotory Drill. 8" Hollow-Stem Auger. 1401b. Hammer, Sand Cone Test V Drill, Sample Method: 30" drop. Rope & Cathead. 5' AW Rods. PLATE 6 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. BORING LOG Description DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE USGS MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION FT SYMBOL ( ° /,) (PCF) I %) 0 TOPSOIL: Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Loose. ST -2 SM TERRACE DEPOSIT: 050r3° Sandstone. Fine grained. Silty yelllow -brown SP 5 - color Well cemented. Slow drilling. Friable. 50/4%- No sample recovery at 3'. ST -2 10 - End Boring at 51/2' . No caving. No groundwater. 15- -20- 1-25- Project: CESN 875 BALOUR DRIVE, ENCINITAS Bulk Sample ■ Ring Sample O Project No: 06 -181 -P Date Drilled: 03 -24 -06 Logged By: SJM SPT Sample I Truck - mounted Rotory Drill. 8" Hollow -Stem Auger. 1401b. Hammer, Sand Cone Test Drill, Sample Method: 30" drop. Rope & Cathead. 5' AW Rods. PLATE 7 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. BORING LOG DEPTH SAMPLE Description USGS MOISTURE DRY DENSITY RELATIVE COMPACTION FT SYMBOL ( %) (PCF) ( %) 0 _ TERRACE DEPOSIT: Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Silty. Red -brown to yellow -brown color. Cemented SM /SP at 1'. Friable. Slow drilling. Unable to get SPT sample at 3'. The sampler was bouncing on the hard sandstone with no penetration. 5 ST -2 1 1150/4- End Boring at 51/2' . No caving. No groundwater. 10- 15- 20- 25- Project: CESN 875 BALOUR DRIVE, ENCINITAS Bulk Sample ■ Ring Sample O Project No: 06 -181 -P Date Drilled: 03 -24 -06 Logged By: SJM SPT Sample II Truck - mounted Rotory Drill. 8" Hollow -Stem Auger. 1401b. Hammer, Sand Cone Test Drill, Sample Method: 30" drop. Rope & Cathead. 5' AW Rods. PLATE 8 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. LOT -12 LOT -15 LOT -14 LOT -13 { PAOfO.tED GRADE �. TERRACE DEPOW T ON LOT -11 SCALE: 1'-V LOT -8 LOT -7 TERF' A �'� Qt=1 MirM,S1 T VIM JOB 006--181 -P $40 No 000 a A e Son 04Q a` 9 J N`i .5 1i r; 30 20 10 0 30 MILES FAULT - EPICENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION INDICATED EARTHQUAKE EVENTS THROUGH 75 YEAR PERIOD (1900 -1974) Map data is compiled from various sources including California Division of Mines and Geology, California Institude of Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Map is reproduced from California Division of Mines and Geology, "Earthquake Epicenter Map of California; Map Sheet 39." Earthquake Magnitude e ............. 4,0 TO 4.9 O ............ 5.0 TO 5.9 PROJECT: Job #06 -181 -P ............ 6.0 TO 6.9 O.......... 70 TO 7.9 BALOUR DRIVE. ENCINITAS - - - - -- Fault PLATE: 10 (project 1:1 line from top of slope to outside edge of key KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS (Typical - no scale) existing ground surface finish slope / / / finish icut pad unsuitably- 2% min. materials— 1 /compacted fill one equ'pment width min. 1 bench Al lil pad overexcavation and recompaction per project geotechnical engineer r` 5' min? 2' min. key width Vkey depth competent bedrock or fir native ground per project geotechnical engineer existing ground � surface 11! Side Hill Stability Fill Slope finish pad finish slope 1 compacted fill �- project 1:1 line r- from toe of slope to competent materials one equipment' 1)11 width minimum remove unsuitable 2% m� bench materials i 1 min. competent bedrock or firm 2' min. key width native ground per project key depth geotechnical engineer Fill Slope Note: Key and benching details shown herein are subject to revisions by the project geotechnical engineer based upon actual site conditions. Back drains may also be necessary as determined by the project geotechnical consultant. PLATE 11 existing ground surface KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS (Typical - No Scale) finish slope finish pad remove unsuitable compacted fil ;/ materials 11II11 equi menr _ widt min. bench 2' mn. io min. / ey dept i h key width cut slope I�)� (to be excavated prior to fill placement) ill- Over -Cut Slone existing ground surface remove unsuitable materials project 1:1 line from toe of slope to competent materials competent bedrock or firm native ground per project geotechnical consultant finish pad owl cut slope (to be excavated prior to fill placement) bench per project C pacte geotechnical engineer in fil the field — also, see ll geotechnical report T f competent bedrock or firm / — f min. /�— native ground per project geotechnical consultant 2' mina ` 15' min. key depth key width Cut - Over -Fill Slope Note: Key and benching details shown herein are subject to revision by the project geotechnical engineer based upon actual site conditions. Back drains may also be necessary as determined by the project geotechnical consultant. PLATE 12 ISOLATION JOINTS AND RE- ENTRANT CORNER REINFORCEMENT (a) Typical - no scale 4TION JOINTS 3ACTION JOINTS (C) (b) FE RE— ENTRANT Cc REINFORCEMENT NO. 4 BARS PL BELOW TOP OF NOTES: ENTRANT NER CRACK 1. Isolation joints around the columns should be either circular as shown in (a) or diamond shaped as shown in (b). If no isolation joints are used around columns, or if the corners of the isolation joints do not meet the contraction joints, radial cracking as shown in (c)may occur (reference ACI). 2. In order to control cracking at the re- entrant corners ( ±270° corners), provide reinforcement as shown in (c). 3. Re- entrant comer reinforcement shown herein is provided as a general guideline only and is subject to verification and changes by the project architect and/or structural engineer based upon slab geometry, location, and other engineering and construction factors. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. PLATE 13 RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Typical - no scale Granular, non - expansive backfill. Compacted/ Waterproofing . •: .,� .1 Filter Material. Crushed rock (wrapped in .' filter fabric) or Class 2 Permeable Material Perforated drain pipe } •w ly 2 (see specifications below) foot in X1,1 Competent, approved soils or bedrock CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (6a- 1.025) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE %PASSING 100 3i4 90.100 3/8 40 -100 No,4 25 -40 No.8 18 -33 No 30 5 -15 No. 50 0 -7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent > 75 1. Provide granular, non-expansive backfill soil in 1:1 gradient wedge behind wall. Compact backfill to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. 2. Provide back drainage for wall to prevent build -up of hydrostatic pressures. Use drainage openings along base of wall or back drain system as outlined below. 3. Backdrain should consist of 4" diameter PVC pipe (Schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations down. Drain to suitable outlet at minimum 1 %. Provide 'W - 11f.' crushed gravel fitter wrapped in fitter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Delete fitter fabric wrap if Cattrans Class 2 permeable material is used Compact Class 2 material to minimum 90% of laboratory standard 4. Seal back of wall with waterproofing in accordance with architects specifications. 5. Provide positive drainage to disallow ponding of water above wall. Lined drainage ditch to minimum 2% flow away from wall is recommended. Use 11/4 cubic foot per foot with granular backfill soil and 4 cubic foot per foot d expansive backfill soil is used. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. PLATE 14 REFERENCES Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 - Construction, Volume 04.08: Soil And Rock (1); D 420 - D 5611, 2005. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 - Construction, Volume 04.09: Soil And Rock (II); D 5714 - Latest, 2005. Highway Design Manual, Caltrans. Fifth Edition. Corrosion Guidelines, Caltrans, Version 1.0, September 2003. California Building Code, Volumes 1 & 2, International Conference of Building Officials, 2001. "Green Book" Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction, Public Works Standards, Inc., BNi Building News, 2003 Edition. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, DMG Special Publication 117, 71p. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports: DMG Note 44. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines to Geologic and Seismic Reports: DMG Note 42. EQFAULT, Ver. 3.00, 1997, Deterministic Estimation of Peak Acceleration from Digitized Faults, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services And Software. EQSEARCH, Ver 3.00, 1997, Estimation of Peak Acceleration from California Earthquake Catalogs, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services And Software. Tan S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Plate(s) 1 and 2, Open File- Report 96 -02, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. UBCSEIS, Ver. 1.03, 1997, Computation of 1997 Uniform Building Code Seismic Design Parameters, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services And Software. "Proceeding of The NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance Soils," Edited by T. Leslie Youd And Izzat M. Idriss, Technical Report NCEER -97 -0022, Dated December 31, 1997. - "Recommended Procedures For Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines For Analyzing And Mitigation Liquefaction In California," Southern California Earthquake center; USC, March 1999. "Soil Mechanics," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.01. "Foundations & Earth Structures," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.02. "Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Robert D. Holtz, William D. Kovacs. "Introductory Soil Mechanics And Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering," George F. Sowers, Fourth Edition. "Foundation Analysis And Design," Joseph E. Bowels. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 29, 1998. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, Special Report 131, California Division of Mines and Geology, Plate 1 (East/West), 12p. - Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56p. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan. S.S., 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 24, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Chapman, R.H., and Chase, G.W., 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Areas, California: Special Report 123, 33p. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 29, 1998. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, Special Report 131, California Division of Mines and Geology, Plate 1 (East/West), 12p. Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56p. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 24, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Chapman, R.H., and Chase, G.W., 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Areas, California: Special Report 123, 33p. CLTA Preliminary Report Form (Rev, 1]/06) Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 1 Updated 11 -30 -2010 'V 5 cay' First American Title Insurance Company 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Tom Hildebrandt Warmington Homes 3090 Pullman Street, Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -5901 Customer Reference: Encinitas 18 Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Title Officer: Dianne Livingston Phone: (858)509-2113 Fax No.: (866)559 -1843 E -Mail: dslivingston@flrstam.com Buyer: Warmington Encinitas 41 LLC Owner: Property: 1150 Melba Road Encinitas, CA PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, this company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditrons and Stipulations of said Policy fors. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is Jess than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbib-able matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. first American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 2 This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of faalitating the issuance of a policy of tide insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. First American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 3 Dated as of November 24, 2010 at 7:30 A.M. The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: To Be Determined ALTA Ext Owner Policy 1402.06 (2006) A specific request should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Warmington Encinitas 41 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: A fee. The Land referred to herein is described as follows: (See attached Legal Description) At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2010 -2011. First Installment: Penalty: Second Installment: Penalty: Tax Rate Area: A. P. No.: Intentionally Deleted Intentionally Deleted Intentionally Deleted $23,340.29, PAID $0.00 $23,340.29, PAYABLE $0.00 19106 259- 180 -19 -00 The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. 6. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not shown by the public records. First American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 4 An easement for public highway and incidental purposes, recorded October 6, 1961 as 174557 of Official Records. In Favor of: County of San Diego Affects: Portions of the herein described property as set forth in said instrument. B. An easement for public utilities, ingress, egress and incidental purposes, recorded December 30, 1947 as Instrument No. 135536, in Book 2597, Page 113 of Official Records. In Favor of: San Diego Consolidated Gas and Electric Company, a Corporation Affects: Adjacent to the north property line of the subject property with no width specified. 9. Intentionally Deleted 10. Intentionally Deleted 11. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement (Inclusionary) recorded June 2, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009- 0295950 of Official Records. 12. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement (Density Bonus) recorded June 2, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009 -0295951 of Official Records. 13. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions For Affordable Housing Units (Inclusionary and Density Bonus) recorded June 2, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009- 0295999 of Official Records. 14. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Lien Covenant Regarding Real Property: Improvements Required As Condition On Final Approval of Subdivision of Real Property recorded June 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009 - 0343873 of Official Records. 15. The terns and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant Regarding Real Property: Future Park, Traffic, and Flood Control Fees recorded June 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009- 0344154 of Official Records. 16. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant Regarding Real Property: Single-Story Lots recorded June 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009 -0344155 of Official Records. 17. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant Regarding Real Property: Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Coastal Development Permit and Environmental Initial Assessment recorded June 23, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009- 0344156 of Official Records. 18. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant Regarding Real Property: Public Improvements Required As Condition On Final Approval of Subdivision of Real Property recorded September 15, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009 -0515429 of Official Records. First Amencan Title Order Number: OSA-3515740 (06) Page Number: 5 19. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Storm Drain, Best Management Practices, Private Improvements In Public Streets, Maintenance Agreement recorded September 15, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009- 0515430 of Official Records. 20. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Private Road and Drainage Facilities Maintenance Agreement For TM 06 -005 recorded September 15, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009- 0515431 of Official Records. 21. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Covenant Regarding Real Property: Private Improvements Required As Condition On Final Approval of Subdivision of Real Property recorded September 15, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009 - 0515432 of Official Records. 22. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled Memorandum of Profit Participation Agreement executed by and between Senojac LLC, a California limited liability company and Warmington Encinitas 41 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company recorded November 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 2010 - 0646138 of Official Records. Prior to the issuance of any policy of title insurance, the Company will require: 23. With respect to Warmington Encinitas 41 LLC, a California limited liability company: a. A copy of its operating agreement and any amendments thereto; b. If it is a California limited liability company, that a certified copy of its articles of organization (LLC -1) and any certificate of correction (LLC -11), certificate of amendment (LLC -2), or restatement of articles of organization (LLC -10) be recorded in the public records; c. If it is a foreign limited liability company, that a certified copy of its application for registration (LLC -5) be recorded in the public records; d. With respect to any deed, deed of trust, lease, subordination agreement or other document or Instrument executed by such limited liability company and presented for recordation by the Company or upon which the Company is asked to rely, that such document or instrument be executed in accordance with one of the following, as appropriate: (1) If the limited liability company properly operates through officers appointed or elected pursuant to the terms of a written operating agreement, such document must be executed by at least two duly elected or appointed officers, as follows: the chairman of the board, the president or any vice president, and any secretary, assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer; (ii) If the limited liability company properly operates through a manager or managers identified in the articles of organization and /or duly elected pursuant to the terms of a written operating agreement, such document must be executed by at least two such managers or by one manager If the limited liability company properly operates with the existence of only one manager. e. Other requirements which the Company may impose following Its review of the material required herein and other information which the Company may require. First Amencan Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 6 INFORMATIONAL NOTES Note: The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than the certain dollar amount set forth in any applicable arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. If you desire to review the terms of the polity, including any arbitration clause that may be included, contact the office that issued this Commitment or Report to obtain a sample of the policy jacket for the policy that is to be issued in connection with your transaction. The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. First American expressly disdaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached. First American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: THE SOUTH ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, APPROVED APRIL 19, 1881. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89 °34' WEST 708.82 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, BEING ALSO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CLYDE R. BEAMER, ET UX, RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1962 AS DOCUMENT NO. 207901, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 0 037' EAST 649.93 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTH ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14. ALSO EXCEPTING THE SOUTHERLY 370.24 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THE WESTERLY 385.40 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE) OF SAID LAND. APN: 259 - 180 -19 -00 FirstAmertcan Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: B RfstAmencan Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 9 NOTICE Section 12413.1 of the California Insurance Code, effective January 1, 1990, requires that any title insurance company, underwritten title company, or controlled escrow company handling funds in an escrow or sub - escrow capacity, wait a specified number of days after depositing funds, before recording any documents in connection with the transaction or disbursing funds. This statute allows for funds deposited by wire transfer to be disbursed the same day as deposit. In the case of cashier's checks or certified checks, funds may be disbursed the next day after deposit. In order to avoid unnecessary delays of three to seven days, or more, please use wire transfer, cashier's checks, or certified checks whenever possible. If you have any questions about the effect of this new law, please contact your local First American Office for more details. First American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 10 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS (BY POLICY TYPE) 1. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: I . Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing hens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notice of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an Inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, dalms or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the public records. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. ? Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in kris or damage which would not have been sustained H the Insured claimant had paid value for the Insured mortgage or for the estate or interest Insured by this policy. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the Inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable "doing business" laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the Insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in larding law. 6. Any daim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by their policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws. 2. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY FORM B - 1970 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions of area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law, ordinance or governmental regulation. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police paver unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company pnor to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or First Amencan Tt/e Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 11 created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest Insured by this policy. 3. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY FORM B - 1970 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 2 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear In the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the matters shown in parts one and two following: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an Inspection of said land or by making Inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts In boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other fads which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining daims; reservations or exceptions in patents or In Ads authorizing the Issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, Imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 4. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 1970 WITH A.LT.A. ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE I. Any law, ordinance or govemmental regulation (Inducting but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or en)oyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now cr hereafter erected on the land, or pronlbitng a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such law ordinance or governmental regulation. 2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse dairns, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy or acquired the insured mortgage and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder, (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to any statutory lien for labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed at Date of Policy). 41 Unenforceability of the Gen of the insured mortgage because of failure of the insured at Date of Policy or of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness to comply with applicable 'doing business" laws of the state in which the land is situated. S. AMERICAN LAND TIRE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 1970 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association Lenders Policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy, the exdusions set forth in paragraph 4 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the matters shown in parts one and two following: I Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. ?. Any fads, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said [arid or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disdose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Ads authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. First Amencan Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 12 6. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY • 1992 WITH &I -T.A. ENDORSEMENT FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (1) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (II) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (N) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy; (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 7. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but mated, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material or the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under construction or completed at date of policy); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable "doing business' laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or daim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the daim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. 7. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 1992 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 6 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULEB This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that leves taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage In area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 8. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY - 1992 First American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 13 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: I. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (lv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim, which anses out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this Policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors rights lam, that is based on: (1) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. 9. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY - 1992 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Ttle Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 8 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage (arid the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which apse by reason of: I. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, daims of easement w encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, mri icts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other fads which a correct survey would dtsr, , and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Ads authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter fumished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 10. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY - 1987 EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, you are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: • land use * land division • Improvements on the land • environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage descrlbed in items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks. 2. The right to take the land by condemning it, unless: FIrstAmencen Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 14 • a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records on the Policy Date • the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking. 3. Title Risks: ' that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Date - unless they appeared in the public records x that result in no loss to you ' that first affect your title after the Policy Date - this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Trde Risks 4. Failure to pay value for your title. 5. Lack of a right: * to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A, or in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks. 11. EAGLE PROTECTION OWNER'S POLICY CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE - 2008 ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE - 2008 Covered Risks 16 (Subdivision Law Violation). 18 (Building Permit). 19 (Zoning) and 21 (Encroachment of boundary walls or fences) are subject to Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule 6, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: a. building b. zoning c. land use d. improvements on the land e. land division f. environmental protection This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27. 2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17. 4. Risks: a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the policy Date; c that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and In. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land. This Exdusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21 LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owne /s Coverage Statement as follows: Covered Risk 16, 18, 19 and 21, Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows: Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amount or $5,000.00 (whichever is less) $10,000.00 Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount or $5,000.00 (whichever is less) $25,000.00 Covered Risk 19: 1% of Policy Amount or $5,000.00 (whichever is less) $25,000.00 Covered Risk 21: 1% of Policy Amount or $2,500.00 (whichever is less) $5,000.00 12. THIRD GENERATION EAGLE LOAN POLICY AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (1101/08) First Amencan Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 15 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or(iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b)Any governmental police power. This Exclusion I(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded In the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disdosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained If the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceabilrty of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing business Laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth -in- lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Rock 26. 6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11. 7. Any lien on the Tide for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25. 8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6. 13. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 2006 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, w relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limn the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disdosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the sate the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14); or (e) resulting In loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4, Unenforceabllity of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing - business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability In whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth -in- lending law. 6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state Insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is First American Title Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Page Number: 16 (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy. Any lien on the Tide for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b). 14. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY - 2006 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS When the American Land Title Association policy Is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 13 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEDULE B This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the TRIe that would be dsclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. S. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water tights, claims or the to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 15. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY - 2006 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, cr governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the wbdivision of land; or (tv) environmental protection;or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in ro loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 9 and 10); or (e) resulting In loss or damage that would not have been sustained R the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Tide. 4. Any daim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors? rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, Is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Tide as shown in Schedule A, 16. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY - 2006 WITH REGIONAL EXCEPTIONS FtrstAmerlcan Title When the American Land Title Association policy is used as a Standard Coverage Policy and not as an Extended Coverage Policy the exclusions set forth in paragraph 15 above are used and the following exceptions to coverage appear in the policy. SCHEOULEB This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result In taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions In patents or In Acts authoring the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. First American Title PRIVACY POLICY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information — particularly any personal or financial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fairinfannation Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; . Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and . Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own I& Therefore, we will not release your information to service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitl period after which any customer relationship has c control efforts or customer analysis. We may also more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated e casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisc companies, home warranty companies, and escrow described above, to companies that perform mark financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated Former Customers mate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. mafhliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or byy law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the ,ed. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality wide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or panies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal mpanies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as ig services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other mpanies have joint marketing agreements. Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fairinfomwtion Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. �D 2001 The First American Corporation . All Rights Reserved First American Title Insurance Company 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 December 01, 2010 Tom Hildebrandt Warmington Homes 3090 Pullman Street, Suite A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -5901 Phone: (714)434-4479 Fax: (714)641 -9337 Customer Reference: Encinitas 18 Title Officer: Dianne Livingston Phone: (858)509 -2113 Order Number: OSA- 3515740 (06) Escrow Officer: Jeanne Gould Og) Phone: (714)250-5381 Fax: (714)913 -6372 Escrow Number: OSA- 3515740 Property: 1150 Melba Road Encinitas, CA Attached please find the following item(s): Guarantee Thank You for your confidence and support. We at First American Title Insurance Company maintain the fundamental principle: Customer First. First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 14 CLTA subdivision Guarantee (4- 10 -75) Order Number: OSA- 3515740 Page Number: 1 SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE Fee: $250.D0 No.: Subdivision: City of Encinitas Tract No. 06-005 First American Title Insurance Company a corporation GUARANTEES The County of San Diego and any City within which said subdivision is located in a sum not exceeding $1,000.00. That, according to those public records which, under the recording laws, impart constructive notice of matters affecting the title to the land included within the exterior boundary shown on the map of the above referenced subdivision, the only parties having any record title interest in said land whose signatures are necessary, under the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, on the certificates consenting to the recordation of said map and offering for dedication any streets, roads, avenues and other easements offered for dedication by said map are: Warmington Encinitas 41 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner The signature of the following has been omitted under the provision of Section 66436, Subsection (a) (3) (i) of the Subdivision Map Act. Their interest is such that it cannot ripen into fee title and said signature is not required by the Governing body: San Diego Consolidated Gas and Electric Company, a corporation , as holder of an easement recorded December 30, 1947, in Book 2597 page 113, of Official Records. County of San Diego , as holder of an easement recorded October 6, 1961, as Instrument No. 174557, of Official Records. The map hereinbefore referred to is a subdivision of: THE SOUTH ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, APPROVED APRIL 19, 1881. EXCEPTING THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 89 °34' WEST 708.82 FEET FROM THE First American Title Insurance Company Fonn No. 14 CLTA Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Order Number: OSA- 3515740 Page Number: 2 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, BEING ALSO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO CLYDE R. BEAMER, ET UX, RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1962 AS DOCUMENT NO. 207901, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 0 037' EAST 649.93 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE SOUTH ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14. ALSO EXCEPTING THE SOUTHERLY 370.24 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE) OF THE WESTERLY 385.40 FEET (MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE) OF SAID LAND, Dated: 11/24/2010 First American Title Insurance Company Py /a/A� Vli(G$IQCNf ATT[.^,T �� G V �^ SECRETNiY First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 14 CLTA Subdivision Guarantee (4- 10-75) SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE Order Number: OSA- 3515740 Page Number: 3 1. Except to the extern that specific assurance are provided in Schedule A of this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters against the title, whether or not shown by the public records. (b) (I) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded under (1) or (2) are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the public records. (c) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records. 2. Notwithstanding any specific assurances which are provided in Schedule A of this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters affecting the title to any property beyond the lines of the land expressly described in the description set forth in Schedule (A), (C) or in Part 2 of this Guarantee, or title to streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways to which such land abuts, or the night to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, ramps, or any structure or improvements; or any rights or easements therein, unless such property, rights or easements are expressly and specifically set forth in said description. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, whether or not shown by the public records; (1) which are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; (2) which result in no loss to the Assured; or (3) which do not result in the invalidity or potential invalidity of any judicial or non - judicial proceeding which is within the scope and purpose of the assurances provided. (c) The identity of any party shown or referred to in Schedule A. (d) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to in this Guarantee. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: (a) the "Assured ": the party or parties named as the Assured in this Guarantee, or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company. (b) "land ": the land described or referred to in Schedule (A) (C) or in Part 2, and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. The term "land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule (A) (C) or in Part 2, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. (c) "mortgage ": mortgage, deed of trust, bust deed, or other security instrument. (d) "public records" : records established under state statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. (e) "date ": the effective date. 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured Clainni An Assured shall notify the Company promptly in writing in case knowledge shall come to an Assured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title to the estate or Interest, as stated herein, and which might cause kiss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the manner or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of any Assured under this Guarantee unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice . 3. No Duty to Defend or prosecute. The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured Claimant to Cooperate. Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: (a) The Company shall have the right, at Its sole option and cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in (b), or to do any other act which In Its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as stated herein, or to establish the lien rights of the Assured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Guarantee, whether or not R shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. (b) If the Company elects to exercise Its options as stated in Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of such Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured In the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, an Assured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of such Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, an Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid In any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate of interest as stated herein, or to establish the lien rights of the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. First American Title Insurance Company Form No. 14 Order Number: OSA- 3515740 CLTA Subdivision Guarantee (4- 10 -75) Page Number: 4 S. Proof of Loss Damage. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 2 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been provided to the Company, a proof of loss or damage signed and swom to by the Assured shall be furnished to the Company within ninety (90) days after the Assured shall ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage. The proof of loss or damage shall describe the matters covered by this Guarantee which constitute the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss w damage. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligation to such Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, If requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third parry, which reasonably pertain to the loss damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided to the Company, pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information of grant permission to secure reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in the above paragraph, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Liability or to Purchase the Indebtedness. The Company shall have the option to pay or settle or compromise for or in the name of the Assured any claim which could result in loss to the Assured within the coverage of this Guarantee, or to pay the full amount of this Guarantee or, if this Guarantee Is issued for the benefit of a holder of a mortgage or a lienhoder, the Company shall have the option to purchase the indebtedness secured by said mortgage or said lien for the amount owing thereon, together with any costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Assured daimant which were authorized try the Company up to the time of purchase. Such purchase, payment or tender of payment of the full amount of the Guarantee shall terminate all liability of the Cornpany hereunder. In the event after notice of claim has been given to the Company by the Assured the Company offers to purchase said indebtedness, the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and assign said indebtedness, together with any collateral security, to the Company upon payment of the purchase price. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (a) the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, including any obligation to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation for which the Company has exercised its options under Paragraph 4, and the Guarantee shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. (b) To Pay Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Assured or With the Assured Oaimant. To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an Assured claimant any claim Assured against under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Assured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (b) the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, including any obligation to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation for which the Company has exercised its options under Paragraph 4. 7. Determination and Extent of liability. This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in this Guarantee and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of This Guarantee. The Liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured shall not exceed the least of: (a) the amount of liability stated in Schedule A or in Part 2; (b) the amount of the unpaid principal indebtedness seared by the mortgage of an Assured mortgagee, as limited or provided under Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations or as reduced under Section 9 of these Conditions and Stipulations, at the time the loss or damage Assured against by this Guarantee occurs, together with interest thereon; or (c) the difference between the value of the estate or interest covered hereby as stated herein and the value of the Mate or interest subject to any defect, lien or encumbrance Assured against by this Guarantee. S. Limitation of Liability. (a) If the Company establishes the tile, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures any other matter Assured against by this Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, It shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (b) In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the tile, as stated herein. (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any Assured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 9. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the amount of liability pro Canto. 10. Payment of Loss. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company. (b) when liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured claimant. FirstAmencan Title InsuranCLO Company Form No. 14 Order Number: OSA- 3515740 CLTA Subdivision Guarantee (4-10 -75) Page Number: 5 The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer to me Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the Assured and to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the Company shall be submgated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. 12. Arbitration. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the Assured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a Guarantee provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Liability rs $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Assured. The Rules in effect at Date of Guarantee shall be binding upon the parties. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permits a court to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing parry. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having )urisdichon thereof. The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Tide Insurance Arbitration Rules. A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. 13. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. (a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of thus Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any daim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon a attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice Resident, the Secretary, and Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 14. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at 2 First American Way, Bldg 2, Santa Ana, California, 92707. First American Title Insurance Company 02/23/2009 12:35 7607390343 VINJE & MIDDLETON Q'aunty of "'T§ttn piego GARY K ERSECK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION P.O. BOX 129261, SAN DIEGO, CA 92112.9261 619.336.22221PAX 919. 339 - 231611.900- 293.9933 http ;ltwww.xdcdah.org January 13, 2009 - -- Mr. Lawrence Holland Senojac, LLC L,� APR - 2 M9 225 Plaza Street, Suite 101 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Dear Mr. Holland: VOLUNTARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM — DEH CASE NO. H39694 -001 RESPONSE LETTER FORMER ADES & GISH NURSERY 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PAGE 01 JACK ELLER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Staff of the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) reviewed the report titled Workplan for Remedial Action, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated December 3, 2008. The report proposes excavation and offsite disposal of pesticide - Impacted soil at an approved disposal facility. Based on a review of the Workplan, DEH approves the excavation and offsits disposal of dieldrin impacted soil with the following conditions: 1) The proposed confirmation sampling plan, which includes 5 soil samples, is not adequate. A minimum of 12 confirmation soil samples, collected and evaluated in accordance with EPA SW -846 guidelines, are necessary to statistically determine if dieldrin- impacted soil has been removed from the site. 2) The temporary "haul road" has the ability to generate a significant amount of dust and airborne particulates. Therefore, dust suppression techniques must be utilized when truck traffic is present. 3) If stockpiles of dieldrin- impacted soil are generated, they must be covered and secured each evening. 4) The public notification must be submitted to DEH for approval prior to posting (via email) and include a 24 -hour emergency number. The final remedlation report should be submitted to DEH within 90 days of the completion of remedial activities. "Environmental and public health through leadership, partnership and sctence" e+ 02/23/2009 12:35 7607390343 VINJE & MIDDLETON PAGE 02 Mr. Lawrence Holland - 2 - January 13, 2009 If you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to call me at(619)338-2908. Sincerely, KEITH E. KEZER, Project Manager Site Assessment and Mitigation Program KEK:kd cc: Bradley W. Crawshaw, Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. e» WP /H39694 -001- 109VAPRESP WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 DEH Case #H39694 -001 L APR - 2 2�9 December 3, 2008 Prepared For: Senojac, LLC Attention: Mr. Lawrence Holland 225 Plaza Street, Suite 101 Solana Beach, California 92075 Prepared By: Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. 2450 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 Job # 08 -256 -H TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................. ............................... 1 1.1 Authorization ............................................ 1.2 Site Identification ......... ............................... .. 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF SITE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ........................ 1 2.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern ............................. 2 2.2 Surrounding Land Use ....... ............................... 8 2.3 Geology ................... ............................... 9 2.4 Hydrogeologic Setting ........ ............................... 9 2.5 Contaminant Characteristics .. ............................... 10 2.6 Proposed Cleanup Levels .... ............................... 10 3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION ............. ............................... 11 3.1 Off -Site Disposal ........... ............................... 11 3.2 Verification Sampling ........ ............................... 11 3.3 Documentation ............ ............................... 11 4.0 COMMUNITY HEALTH & SAFETY .. ............................... 11 4.1 Potential Public Exposure To Hazards ......................... 12 4.2 Monitoring Equipment ....... ............................... 12 4.3 Control Methods ........... ............................... 13 4.3.1 Site Security ............ ............................... 13 4.3.2 Dust .................. ............................... 13 4.3.3 Noise ................. ............................... 13 4.3.4 Open Excavations ....... ............................... 13 4.3.5 Stockpiled Soil .......... ............................... 14 4.3.6 Non - Operating Site ...... ............................... 14 5.0 TRANSPORTATION ............. ............................... 15 5.1 Construction Site Entrance ... ............................... 15 5.2 Construction Site Exit ....... ............................... 15 6.0 SITE MANAGEMENT ............. ............................... 15 6.1 Site Safety Manager ........ ............................... 15 6.2 Emergency Planning ........ ............................... 15 6.3 Public Notification .......... ............................... 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE NO. 7.0 REMEDIATION SUMMARY REPORT ..................... . ......... 16 Tables: 1. Summary of Analytical Results ..... ... ............................... 3 2. Mean Dieldrin Concentrations .......... ............................... 7 Figures: 1. Regional Index Map 2. Site Plan Map with Analytical Soil Results 3. Site Plan Map with Cross - Section Locations 4. Cross - Section A -A' 5. Cross - Section B -B' 6. Cross - Section C -C' 7. Cross - Section D -D' 8. Land Use Map 1.0 INTRODUCTION The responsible party (RP),Senojac, LLC, intends to convert 5.53 acres of agricultural greenhouse property into an 18 lot residential sub - division. The site with a street address of 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California has been characterized for chlorinated pesticides. 1.1 Authorization Mr. Lawrence Holland of Senojac, Inc. verbally authorized Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. (VME) to prepare a workplan and community health and safety plan for off -site disposal of dieldrin impacted soil. This document contains both the Workplan and Community Health and Safety Plan. 1.2 Site Identification 1. Site Location: 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, CA 92024 2. Type of Business: Former Greenhouse Truck Crops (Ades & Gish Nursery) 3. Assessors Parcel Number: 259 - 180 -19 4. Property Owners Name & Address: Senojac, LLC, 225 Plaza Street, Suite 101, Solana Beach, CA 92075 5. RP's Name: Same as Property Owner Contact: Mr. Lawrence Holland; (858) 350 -9996 6. Consultants Name: Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., 2450 Auto Park Way, Escondido, CA 92029 Contact: Brad Crawshaw, (760) 743 -1214 7. DEH Case Number: H39694 -001 Regionally located in North San Diego County coastal community of Encinitas, the site is located 1.25 miles east of Interstate Highway 5, 0.3 miles south of the intersection of Encinitas Boulevard on Balour Drive, Figure 1 illustrates the sites regional location. 2.0 SUMMARY OF SITE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS The study site is situated on a west sloping flank of a north /south trending ridge. Site elevations range from a low of 325 feet above sea level (asl) along Balour Drive to a high elevation of 375 feet asl along the east property line. Minor cut/fill grading has occurred on the sites northeast corner of the property. Approximately three (3) acres of the property were occupied by greenhouses, offices, and miscellaneous storage situated in the northern half of the property. The remaining 2.53 acres supported covered hoop houses, a 400 square foot dry chemical storage shed, tractor trailers, trucks and open space for storage of outdoor potted plants. Access roads are unpaved on natural terrain. WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS PAGE 2 2.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern Chlorinated pesticides were legally applied to soils at the subject property over an undisclosed period. The method of chemical application was not reported. The reported concentrations of chlorinated pesticides appears to be the result of legal application and not the result of a point source release (spill or leak). A total of eighty -four (84) soil samples have been collected from thirty -four (34) locations. Residual pesticides were identified as: 4,4' -DDD; 4,4' -DDE; 4,4' -DDT, Dieldrin; and Endosulfan (total). The findings area compilation reported in the following documents: • Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.(VME), December 1, 2005, Modified Phase I ESA Report Ades and Gish Nurseries 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Road Encinitas, California 92024 • VME, January 23, 2006, Phase Il Environmental Site Assessment Ades & Gish Nurseries 875 Balour Drive & 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California 92024 • Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Science Consultants, February 13, 2006, Third Party Report Review and Human Health Screening Evaluation Ades & Gish Nurseries 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California • VME, April 21, 2006, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 18 -Lot Residential Subdivision, Balour Drive and Melba Road, Encinitas, California • VME, May 26,2006, Addendum: Environmental Site Assessment 875 Balour Drive & 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California 92024 • VME, June 13, 2006, Response To Ninyo & Moore Third Party Review Comments on Phase 1 and Il ESA Reports At: Ades & Gish Nurseries 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California VME, August 7, 2006, Workplan For Remedial Action @ Ades & Gish Nursery; 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California 92024; DEH CASE # H39694 -001 • VME, August 7, 2006, Health & Safety Plan Ades and Gish Nurseries, 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California 92024; APN: 259 - 180 -19 Table 1 below is a comprehensive list of analytical results. The table identifies sample ID, depth below the surface, and the identified concentrations of the contaminants of potential concern (COPC). VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park VVap • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS Table 1 Summary of Analytical Results Former Ades & Gish Nurseries 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, CA DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 3 Sample I.D. Depth (Ft.) Pesticides (ug /Kg) 4,4 DOD 4,4 DDE 4,4 DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan T SS -1' 0.5 ND ND ND 6.2 44.1 SS -2` 1.0 ND ND ND ND ND SS -3' 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND SS -4• 1.0 ND ND ND 5.6 31.4 ss -5' 0.5 ND ND ND ND ND SS -6' 1.0 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 ND 190 85 ND ND SS -7- 2.0 ND 30 13 ND ND 3.0 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 ND 11 25 ND 21.6 SS -8s 2.0 ND 6.2 5.5 ND 307 10 ND 6.0 5.1 ND ND 1.0 ND 22 ND 17 ND SS-9 -- 2.0 ND 8.0 ND 7.2 ND 3.0 ND ND ND ND ND 0.5 ND 75 ND ND ND SS -10. 2.0 ND ND ND ND ND 3.5 ND ND ND ND ND 1.0 ND 52 19 11 ND SS -11 2.0 ND ND ND ND ND 3.0 ND 6.7 ND ND ND 0.5 ND 60 22 28 ND SS -12a 1.5 ND 65 17 ND ND 2.5 ND ND ND ND ND VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING„ INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS Table 1 (continued) DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 4 Sample LD. Depth (Ft.) Pesticides (ug /Kg) 4,4 DDD 4,4 DOE 4,4 DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan 0.5 NO 58 23 59 NO SS -13 1.5 NO 6.9 NO 5.3 NO 2.5 NO 8.5 NO 6.0 ND 0.5 NO 43 NO NO 280 SS -14 1.5 NO 66 NO 25 160 2.5 6.0 37 6.7 11 52 1.0 NO 330 130 '520 NO SS -15. 2.0 NO 16 NO 17 ND 3.0 ND 16 NO 16 16 0.5 NO 500 200 680 ND SS -16 1,5 NO NO NO NO NO 2.5 NO NO NO NO ND 1 NO 39 37 79 NO SS-17+ 2 NO NO ND NO NO 3 NO NO NO NO ND 0.5 NO 760 600 470 NO SS -184 1.5 NO NO NO NO NO 2.5 NO NO NO NO ND 1 NO 72 NO 160 NO SS-19+ 2 NO NO NO 7.5 NO 3 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO 190 79 160 NO SS -20* 2 NO NO NO NO NO 3 NO NO NO NO ND 0.5 150 950 790 290 NO SS -21 1.5 NO NO ND NO NO 2.5 ND 7.9 NO ND NO VINE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phonc (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 5 Table 1 (continued) long Pesticides (ug /Kg) r,4 'X. Immill 0.5 NO 170 99 �r ,. NO SS -224 1.5 NO 15 7.7 10 29 2.5 NO 15 8.8 12 8.6 0.5 NO 77 19 NO SS -234 1.5 NO 22 10 19 NO 2.5 NO NO NO NO NO SS -24t• 1 ND 110 150 NO 2 NO 37 66 .., NO 3 NO NO ND NO NO 1 NO 230 190 NO SS-25# 2 NO 12 9.3 NO NO 3 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO 70 200 NO NO SS -264 2 NO 9.9 14 NO 71 3 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO NO SS-27. 2 NO NO NO NO NO 3 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO NO SS -28. 2 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO NO SS -29+ 2 NO NO NO NO NO SS -30+ 0.5 NO 110 24 NO NO 1.5 NO 40 6.1 ND NO SS-24+ 1 NO 110 150 99 NO 2 NO 37 66 32 NO 3 NO NO NO ND ND VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phonc (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS Table 1 (continued) DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 6 Sample I.D. Depth (Ft.) Pesticides (ug /Kg) 4,4 DDD 4,4 DOE 4,4 DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan 1 ND 230 190 160 NO SS -25# 2 NO 12 93 NO NO 3 NO NO NO ND NO 1 NO 70 200 NO NO SS-26# 2 NO 9.9 14 NO 71 3 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO NO SS -27• 2 NO NO NO NO NO 3 ND NO NO ND NO 1 NO NO NO NO ND SS -28+ 2 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO NO SS -29. 2 NO NO NO NO NO 0.5 NO 110 24 NO NO SS -30+ 1.5 NO 40 6.1 ND NO 0.5 ND NO NO NO NO SS -31. 1.5 NO NO NO NO NO 2.5 NO NO NO NO NO 1 NO NO NO NO NO SS -32+ 2 NO ND ND ND NO 3 NO NO NO NO NO 0.5 NO NO NO NO NO SS -33. 1.5 NO NO NO NO NO SS -34+ 1 NO NO NO NO NO RE_ ZAEKm VOO 1700 1 000 V INIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -I229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 7 NOTES: = Samples collected and analyzed 11/10/2005, VME Report - Modified Phase I ESA Report, Ades 8 Gish Nurseries, 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Road, Encinitas, California 92024, dated December 1, 2005. c - Samples collected and analyzed 1/3 8 1/4/2006; VME Report - Phase II Environmental Site Assessment @ 875 Balour Drive and 1150 Melba Rd, Encinitas, CA 92024. dated January 23, 2006. ♦ - Samples collected and analyzed 3/14/2006. + - Samples collected and analyzed 4/21 and 4/24/2006. Shaded concentrations exceed Cal /EPA Region IX PRG. NO = Not Detected at Laboratory Reporting Limit Endosulfan m = Combined results for Endosulfan I, Endosulfan Il, and Endosulfan Sulfate ug /kg = micrograms contaminant per kilogram of soil or parts per billion The above laboratory results with soil sample locations are posted on Figure 2. The aerial extent of the dieldrin impacted soil which exceeds the Region IV PRG (30 vg/kg), is illustrated on Figure 3 with locations of Cross - Sections A -D. The Cross - sections show the vertical extent of impacted soil and are provided as Figures 4 -7. The aerial extent of elevated dieldrin which exceeds the Region IX PRG encompasses an area estimated at 82,883 square feet. Sample concentrations which exceed the PRG for residential developments are highlighted in the above table. Dieldrin impacted soil to a depth of 1.0 feet bsg equate to approximately 3,070 cubic yards of impacted material. Mean dieldrin concentrations per sampling horizon are tabulated below. For sample values reported as non - detect a value of one -half the laboratory reporting limit was used. Table 2 Mean Dieldrin Concentrations Sample Depth (Ft.) No. of Samples Mean Dieldrin Concentrations u /k 0.5 15 121 1.0 19 65 1.5 11 8 2.0 16 7 2.5 9 6 3.0 13 4 3.5 1 3 VINIE & MIDDLFTON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 8 Mean concentrations per sampling horizon show contaminate concentrations uniformly decrease with depth below the surface. The mean concentration by depth horizon was used as a guide in determining average impacted depth of dieldrin impacted soil exceeding the PRG and volume estimation. An eight -times reduction in mean dieldrin concentration occurs between 1 - 1.5 feet bsg. The boundary limits of contaminants of potential concern (COPC) shown on Figure 3 are explained by review of the findings provided in the referenced Geotechnical Report (VME 4/21/06). The geotechnical report includes six (6) soil borings, four (4) of which were advanced in /around the greenhouse area. All but one boring (B -4) identified fill /topsoil from 1 -3 feet thick. Only soil boring B -4, located in the eastern portion of the greenhouse, had no topsoil /fill at the surface. The boring identified Terrace Deposits whereby the upper several feet of topsoil had been removed. The geotechnical cross - section shows existing conditions and proposed grades for future development. Soil from the eastern portion the greenhouse area has been removed. Thereby, no detectable chlorinated pesticides in this area of the greenhouse. We must assume that the entire area would have received similar quantities of chemical amendments over the period of time the contaminants of potential concern (COPC) were legally applied. The fact that the eastern portion of the greenhouse was subject to minor grading with the removal of up to 3 feet of soil explains the reduction /elimination of organochlorine pesticides in this area of the property. Summarizing thefindings of the Human Health Screening Evaluation by Ninyo & Moore Consultants, the risk assessment failed human exposure by ingestion (greater than 1 additional cancer in population of 1,000,000 persons). Concentrations found at the site do not represent a human exposure concern to dermal contact or inhalation of ambient air containing soil particles from the site. It is VME's judgement that adult male heavy equipment operators will not be exposed to ingestion of soil at harmful concentrations over the several days it will require to excavate and load trucks for off -site disposal. However, engineering controls will be implemented to reduce potential exposure concerns. 2.2 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land use is mixed with single family residential adjacent on the north, south, and east sides. Two churches, St Andrews Episcopal Church is located west and opposite of Balour Drive and Bethlehem Lutheran Church and Pre - School on the Northeast corner of Balour Dr. and Melba Road, adjacent the subject property. Figure 8 identifies the adjacent land uses. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Wal • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -12I4 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 9 2.3 Geology Geologically, the site is mantled by the Pleistocene marine Clairemont Terrace Deposit. Described as fine to medium grained reddish -brown silty sand (SM). The upper 3 feet of soil is moist to wet and poorly consolidated in the greenhouse area. The majority of site improvements are situated on unaltered west sloping gentle hillside terrain. 2.4 Hydrogeologic Setting Surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site are identified within the Batiquitos Hydrologic Sub -Area (4.51) of the San Marcos Hydrologic Area (4.50) of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (904.00). Coastal waters of the Batiquitos Lagoon (4.51) have beneficial use designation for Recreation 1 & 2, Biological, Estuarine Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species, Marine Habitat, and Migrational of Aquatic Organisms. Surface water drains into Moonlight Creek and groundwater in the area of the subject property is excepted from the sources of drinking water policy (Non - beneficial Use Designation). Groundwater was not encountered within the limits of this investigation. Research did not locate any municipal wells within a one -mile radius of the property. The State Water Resources Control Board publishes the on -line GeoTracker database and shows depth to groundwater at sites with unauthorized fuel hydrocarbon releases and municipal water wells. As previously stated no municipal wells are located within a one -mile radius of the study property. GeoTracker did identify groundwater monitoring wells at the Encinitas Exxon located at 325 Encinitas Boulevard. Groundwater was observed at depths ranging between 21 - 29 feet below the surface at this location in 2005. However, the Exxon site is 1.0 mile northwest of the study property at an elevation of 105 feet asl. The study site is located at approximately 350 feet asl. Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. records show that a percolation test for a vertical seepage pit was conducted on Prince House Lane some 3,000 feet northwest from the study property. Records show the drill depth was 46 feet bsg at an elevation of 300 feet asl. Groundwater was not encountered. The percolation testing and seepage pit system was approved by DEH on assessors parcel no. 359 - 130 -37 on January 24, 2000. VIN IE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -12I4 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 10 Based on the above information, it is VME's judgement that groundwater below the study site is similarly located at significant depth below the surface as that found on Prince House Lane. Therefore, based on the COPC low water solubility, relatively shallow occurrence in the upper 1.0 foot of soil, and strong soil absorption potential, groundwater concerns are not warranted. 2.5 Contaminant Characteristics Only Dieldrin was found in concentrations above Federal (PRG's) and State (CHHSL's) screening levels. All other chlorinated compounds were orders of magnitude below levels which are thought to pose a human exposure concern. The focus in this study is limited to the characteristics and occurrence of Dieldrin in soil. Chemical Formula Molecular Wt.: Solubility: Vapor Pressure: Specific Gravity: IDLH: C12He` [5O 381 0.02% 8x 10-1 mm Hg 1.75 50,000 ug /m' Dieldrin is non - combustible, highly toxic, and has a strong bond to soil grains. Dieldrin is not water soluble and therefore, does not migrate nor represent a concern for groundwater contamination. Dieldrin does not diffuse in air. Identified chlorinated pesticide compounds are persistent organic pollutants that persist in the environment for many years and have been identified by the United Nations Environmental Programme for global elimination under an international treaty signed in May 2001 (Persistent Organic Pollutants, United Nations Programme. 6/26/2002). With the exception of Endosulfan (T), all are Proposition 65 compounds, determined by the State of California to be carcinogens. All chlorinated compounds are immobile in most soils. Evidence has shown photolysis and volatilization have degraded chlorinated compounds in desert soils with low organic carbon content. Degradation processes are generally slow ((WHO, 1989. Augustijn- Beckers, et al.. 1994). 2.6 Proposed Cleanup Levels The California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSL's) for soil in a residential setting posts a dieldrin concentration of 35 ug /kg. The Federal EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goal for dieldrin is 30 ug /kg. VME proposes remedial efforts to excavate and dispose of dieldrin impacted soil greater than 30 ug /kg. VINIE A' MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 11 In 2006, VME produced a workplan for the former RP (CESN Construction) who received approval by DEH -VAP for on -site burial of dieldrin impacted soil. At that time off -site disposal was explored as an alternative option. A subsequent City of Encinitas Planning Commission Hearing on the mitigation measure received opposition to on -site placement of dieldrin impacted soil. Therefore, the present RP (Senojac, LLC) plans to remediate the site by off -site disposal of dieldrin impacted soil exceeding the PRG (30 ug /kg). 3.1 Off -Site Disposal Benefits to off -site disposal include: 1) site free from Prop. 65 warning; 2) Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) concerns; and 3) full removal of COPC. Allied Waste who operates the Otay Landfill reviewed the laboratory data results and characterized the waste as Non - Hazardous and will accept the dieldrin impacted soil. It is estimated that 4,600 tons of soil, originating in the upper one (1) foot of soil in the area depicted on Figures 2 and 3, would require 145 truck loads from the site and an additional 145 truck loads of clean 'fill' dirt to balance grading requirements. 3.2 Verification Sampling Upon completion of soil removal, verification samples will be collected and analyzed by a local laboratory in expedited fashion. It is proposed that five (5) soil samples collected from random locations be analyzed using EPA Method 8081A. Off -site disposal will cease when the upper one foot of soil within the impacted area are removed and confirmation sample results post levels below the dieldrin PRG screening level (30 ug /kg). Communication of all laboratory results will be provided to the DEH case worker for review and concurrence of findings. 3.3 Documentation Upon full removal of dieldrin impacted soil, DEH will be provided copies of laboratory verification sample results, all bills of laden, truck count, tonnage reports, and manifests from the treatment, storage, disposal facility. 4.0 COMMUNITY HEALTH 8t SAFETY DEH -SAM provides oversight through the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) for the review of proposed work associated with investigation, remediation, and protection of community health and safety. In evaluation of best management practices (BMPs) at sites where off -site disposal of contaminated soil is planned, the following sections address human exposure concerns and controls to be implemented to protect the community and the environment (Storm Water BMPs). V INIE a' MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 12 4.1 Potential Public Exposure To Hazards Soil excavation and truck loading of dieldrin impacted soils will pose the greatest public exposure concern. Exposure concerns include: inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion of airborne dust particles. The posted soil screening levels (both CHHSL and PRGs) were established using exposure and toxicity default values. OSHA recommended a maximum average amount of dieldrin in air in the workplace to protect workers. This amount is 250 micrograms in a cubic meter of air (ug /m -) for an 8 -hour workday over a 40 -hour workweek. NIOSH recommended the same limit (250 ug /m') for up to a 10 -hour workday over a 40 -hour workweek. The main effects from short-term exposure to high levels or doses of dieldrin are headache, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite, nausea, muscle twitching, convulsions, and loss of consciousness; death may occur at extremely high exposures or doses (Eco -USA). There is inconclusive evidence in humans, but more evidence in animals, that exposure of a pregnant female to dieldrin may be associated with harm to the fetus. In exposure risk calculations for a residential setting the default duration for exposure is 70 years. Downwind neighbors to the project will experience the highest potential for exposure to dieldrin impacted dirt and dust for a duration of approximately one week during excavation and loading of trucks. Excavation and off -site disposal of impacted soil will take less than one (1) week to perform. Control methods outlined below will reduce /eliminate acute exposure concerns. Additional physical concerns presented by excavation and truck transport will be noise and hazards associated with truck traffic in the neighborhood setting. 4.2 Monitoring Equipment As of this writing VME is not aware of any commercially available air monitoring tools to detect Dieldrin concentrations in real time. OSHA has established a PEL TWA values of 0.25 mg /m' (skin). Air samples can be collected using glass fiber filter collection, iso- octane extraction, with analysis by gas chromatography using Method S283 (Documentation of NIOSH Validation Tests, NIOSH Contract No. CDC- 99 -74- 45). The useful range of this method is 0.25 mg /m' - 0.75 mg /m' for 170 -liter samples. Samples would require submittal to a fix based laboratory and be of little to no benefit of actual field exposures. Therefore, VME will not perform air monitoring or sampling. V INIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Wav • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION DECEMBER 3, 2008 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS PAGE 13 4.3 Control Methods Prior to removing all existing structures it is recommended that the dieldrin impacted area identified on Figure 2 be surveyed and staked. Reduction of community health hazards associated with potential exposure to dieldrin impacted soil during excavation, truck loading, and off -site disposal will be accomplished using the following controls. 4.3.1 Site Security A perimeter fence shall be installed with two gates, one for entrance to the site off Balour Drive and one gate at Melba Road for trucks exiting the property. Gravel bags or straw wattles will be placed at base of the perimeter fence to divert potential storm water runoff. Neighbors to the project and non - authorized on- lookers are prohibited access to the site during this period of work. 4.3.2 Dust During soil excavation and truck loading, water is to be applied to soil for dust suppression. No removals of dieldrin impacted soil are to occur if winds visibly transport dust/dirt. To reduce worker exposure to contaminated dust, all heavy equipment (dosers, loaders, receiving trucks) will have closed cabs with positive air pressure. Water is not to be applied at a rate which could result in ponding or create surface runoff. 4.3.3 Noise Noise associated with operation of heavy construction equipment may represent a community concern. Grading permits issued by the local municipality (City of Encinitas) will enforce hours of operation. Typical hours of operation are 7:30am - 3:30pm. 4.3.4 Open Excavation Dieldrin impacted soil exceeding the PRG level of 30 ug /kg occupies an area of approximately 82,880 square feet in the north central portion of the inverted `L' shaped parcel. Excavation of impacted soil within this area will be to an approximate depth of one foot below surface grade. Typical concerns associated with open excavations are not anticipated due to the shallow depth of earth removal. However, the project will follow storm water best management practices as required by San Diego Regional Water Quality Control ViNIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 14 Board (RWQCB) Order No. 2001 -01 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit Number CAS 0109758 by enacting requirements to protect water quality throughout San Diego County. Excavations should take place during a period of time when no rain event is forecast. Attempts to avoid this work during the rainy season (October 1 to April 30) should be considered. In the event work is performed within this period, additional precautions will be implemented as outlined below. Stormwater BMPs which are appropriate for control of sediment and soil runoff from excavation sites are: silt fences, straw wattles or gravel bag barriers placed around excavation perimeter. Additionally, gravel bag barriers should be placed around all stormwater inlet structures before initiation of earth work. 4.3.5 Stockpiled Soil Provided the dieldrin impacted soil can be excavated and loaded onto waiting trucks entering from Balour Drive and exit via Melba Road, stockpiling is not anticipated. In the event stockpiling is required, water via sprinkler or irrigation piping will be applied to control dust before soil is moved and stockpiled. Stockpiled soil will be placed on plastic and covered. Stockpile shall be located away from concentrated flows of stormwater, and storm drain inlets. Stockpile perimeter will be bermed with gravel bags to eliminate migration of stockpiled soil by stormwater runoff. 4.3.6 Non - Operating Site The former business (Ades & Gish Nurseries) no longer occupy the site. No active retail business activities are being conducted at the site. Majority of the site is not covered by concrete or asphalt and is subject to erosion. VME recommends that the dieldrin impacted area be covered with plastic sheeting, anchored, and bermed to reduce runoff of impacted soil into the municipal stormwater system. It is further recommended that the site perimeter by bermed and straw wattles be placed across the site to divert/channel potential surface runoff to silt detention basins created in low topographic areas. These efforts should be implemented prior to initiation of proposed remedial work to control site erosion. VIN 1E & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING. INC, • 2450 Auro Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD. ENCINITAS 5.0 TRANSPORTATION 5.1 Construction Site Entrance DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 15 Loading an estimated 3,100 cubic yards of dieldrin impacted soil is estimated to require 145 trucks. Trucks will enter the site from Balour Drive on a dirt road. Trucks will remain on haul road while dieldrin impacted soil is loaded. Once loaded, trucks will be covered with tarps and follow haul road south toward exit gate at Melba Road. 5.2 Construction Site Exit Covered trucks will be subject to crossing a steel shaker grate upon which truck under- carriage and tires will be washed. Rinsate is conveyed via plastic lined ditch to a plastic lined detention basin. Basin dimensions of 14 -ft. wide x 14 -ft. long x 2 -ft. deep will be capable to contain 2,932 gallons of liquid or approximately 20 gallons per truck wash. Trucks will cross a gravel bed to the site exit. This will reducing off -site transport of sediment onto public streets. The RP is to acquire either a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit, WDR waiver, or site specific permit issued by RWQCB for discharge of water from tire wash detention basin. Otherwise the water will require characterization prior to transport to a TDSF for proper disposal. Additionally, street sweeping of Melba Road should periodically be performed to remove fugitive dust. 6.0 SITE MANAGEMENT 6.1 Site Safety Officer The site safety officer will be the designated project superintendent chosen by Senojac, LLC. VME will assist the chosen individual in areas of unfamiliarity with site safety. Particular importance will be dust control and site access by only authorized personnel. The site safety officer will have the authority and knowledge to shut down site activities in the event of an emergency. He /She will be responsible for notifying appropriate emergency responders as well as DEH. 6.2 Emergency Planning The contaminants of concern are not flammable and do not represent a fire or explosion concern which would jeopardize the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the Encinitas Fire Department will not be notified of remedial activities. VINE & MIDDLE TON ENGINEERING. INC. • 2450 Auto Park War • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 WORKPLAN FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS DECEMBER 3, 2008 PAGE 16 In the event of an emergency, Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas is located 1.1 miles west of the site with a street address of 354 Santa Fe Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024, phone number: (760)- 633 -6501. Accessed from Melba Road head west, turn left on Bonita Drive and right on Santa Fe Drive. 6.3 Public Notification Public notices of proposed work will be delivered either by mail or in person to surrounding residences to the project. Notices will identify the proposed work, days and hours of operation, and estimated schedule for project completion. Details will include: Site Safety Officer's phone number; the Consultants phone number; identify the potential concerns including dust, and noise; a brief description of planned activities; and Proposition 65 Warning of the potential exposure to chemicals known or suspected by the State of California to cause cancer. Notices will also be posted on the fence surrounding the perimeter of the project. 7.0 REMEDIATION SUMMARY REPORT A Remediation Summary Report will be submitted to DEH and the City of Encinitas Planning and Building, and Engineering Departments. The report will include: the verification sample results, all bills of laden, and manifest receipts from the TSDF. Upon review of the Remediation Summary Report, VME will request DEH provide a 'Closure Letter' for this project. If additional information or clarification is required please contact the undersigned at (760) 743 -1214. VME looks forward to working with DEH and the City of Encinitas staff on this project. VINJE & MIDDLUQl�4 NGIN,E[RIpfG, INC. RalpblVF Vinjr`?l Principal Engineer. GE #863 Distribution: Addressee (2) Keith Kezer (1) Ai08 -258-H WORKPIAN WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH &SAFETY PLAN.wpd Bradley W. Crawshaw Jr. Project Manager PG #7888 7888 31. VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -I214 FIGURE: 1 REGIONAL INDEX MAP q VME JOB # 08 =256 -H v µ 91 N8Y yv, A. p -- I 8 .� x _ 0 g wnNl+r<' Y a R y ._ 6J p 0 ...F' ' MAY -T GwErtA 1 l w' iGt AVE NDtgEYg� I �:FOHJ TFlINB G. DR y E M a a E�DA� YLN I. �s�MRE LE fr. :mmmmI a.. 8 ..1. 1 : 26, o ' t". 30R0 h m 2"2 001om10. r0 UM ®. 0...pvM,4 v.ww.a.lwmwoan .�� r xre VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. z4sa aura 4azK wav, 2scnrvmuu, ca vzme9 Geotechnlcol InvestlBatlons - Grotling s vlslon Rerc Testlrl4 - Envlronmentnl ]nveztlyo tions vhonc —0) 743 1214 Fox: (7- 739 -0343 I L _ Li N �r e eo of w -- SITE PLAN MAP WITH ANALYTICAL SOIL RESULTS ADES & GISH NURSERIES 1150 MELBA ROAD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 VME JOB HB- 256 --I -I F I G R E P Alk VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. X450 AUTO PAKK —Y, — ONDIDO, CA 92029 6eatechT icul [n stlgatlOnS Grnding Supervision Parr estlnp Ve EnNrOnnental InvesCiynclons Phu —0> 743 -1214 FC. —0> X39 -0343 N �I w Q i i SITE PLAN MAP WITH CROSS - SECTION LOCATIONS ADES & GISH NURSERIES 1150 MELBA ROAD VME JOB #08 -256 -H r. T `' R [ fan Abeiln fir. REVAILING The Episcopal Church of St. Andrews Gundnla ara Dr, W r� 0 Residential b T Park SITE Residential Island View Ln, 0 z Ln W1ITS OF DiELDRDI s /DrACTED SU 6 h I P EMTRANCE Q° S brt Crr<r n Bethlehem Lutheran Church & Pre - School MELBA ROAD :� esidential Tk- W >dlhD sfttl 1 Residential i I , 0 i N d U M VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 8 Job >t 08 -256 -H Date: 11/26/2008 Figure: 2450 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 -1229 LAND USE MAP Phone: (760) 743 -1214 Fax: (760) 739 -0343 1150 Melba Road Encinitas, California 92024 e -mail: vinje.miciciteton@sbcgtobo.t.net VINE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. Elev. T t.) 360 350 340 yb CND LIMITS OF DIELDRIN IMPACTED SOIL A' Existing 370 5y 11 ND ND y1 16 ND ND \Vertical Limit of Contominatlon 350 {-160 �h 59 360 5.3 6 340 Existing Surface q yy 520 In y`Ly�i yry �? -N6&ND y1 16 ND ND \Vertical Limit of Contominatlon 350 {-160 `-ND ND 340 JOB No. 08 -256 —H APN 259 - 180 -19 SCALE: HORIZONTAL I" = 100' ND - Not Detected wlthln Laboratory Reporting Limit FIGURE: 4 VERTICAL 1" = 10' Unit of Measure Is microgram of contaminant per kilogram of soil Cug /kg). I'ielnM lr Biullry W l'mW rmab VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. B Elev. (Ft.) I 355 LIMITS OF DIELDRIN IMPACTED SOIL M� yy a ti y y 130 345 10 99 12 343, 32 ND LIMITS OF DIELDRIN IMPACTED SOIL ND ND ND ND JOB No. 05 -466 -H APN 259 - 180 -19 B' 1.365 ti°j y5 yy 355 345 SCALE: HORIZONTAL I" = 100' ND - Not Detected within Laboratory Reporting Llmlt FIGURE: 5 VERTICAL 1° = 5' Unit of Measure Is microgram of contaminant per laograr of soil (ug /kg). F,. l ua.l lw IX V11sY W ' ,mH,iv h M� by ND ND CheNcal Storage She ND Mry h y h ND tib yy A - 5 ND ND 4- ND 680 CO 5 ND 0 ti y 79 � ND yy II 470 \\ ND 1 '. ND ND 160 \ ND ND Vertical Limit of Contaminatlon ND ND ND ND ND JOB No. 05 -466 -H APN 259 - 180 -19 B' 1.365 ti°j y5 yy 355 345 SCALE: HORIZONTAL I" = 100' ND - Not Detected within Laboratory Reporting Llmlt FIGURE: 5 VERTICAL 1° = 5' Unit of Measure Is microgram of contaminant per laograr of soil (ug /kg). F,. l ua.l lw IX V11sY W ' ,mH,iv h a VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. C E(ev. T t.) 37 375 370 365 355 LIMITS OF DIELDRIN IMPACTED SOIL Property Line ti ZZ/ 6.2 ` y`' ,0 a o -ND_._ 4' r� ZS Zq N ND TN D5.6 ND� 17 uD ND 7,2 ND- ND ,Existing Surface Ste' ND ND� b yZ ND JOB No. 05 -466 —H APN 259 - 180 -19 C' 375 365 Property Line 355 2q ND Z� 350 ND ND 348.5 ND SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1" = 100' ND - Not Detected within Laboratory Reporting Llmlt FIGURE: 6 VERTICAL 1" = 10' Unit of Measure Is microgram of contaminant per kilogram of soil cugikg). VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. LIMITS OF DIELDRIN IMPACTED SOIL D D' Existing Surface` h \\ by 520 17 'o y 16 y ti �i y 470 ND 42 160 ND yc yy95 ND _ ND 160 19 NU ND ND n h H ti ND ND y 6.2 ND yy 0 28 ND ti ND j ND 25 11 -380 -370 -360 -350 -340 JOB No. 05 -466 -H APN 259- 180 -19 SCALE: FIGURE: 7 HORIZONTAL I" = 100' ND - Not Detected within Laboratory Reporting Limit VERTICAL 1" = 10' Unit of Measure is microgram of contaminant per kilogran of soil Cug /kg >. m ws o� -6as s1e, 3 -c% VINIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. Job #10 -283 -F January 11, 2011 Warmington Residential California, Inc. Mr. James W. Skinner Vice President/Director of Engineering 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 24SO Auto Park Way Fuondido. California 92029 -1229 X! 1 8 2011 " ,�. :.5 SFR1 �ncit�iT Phone (760) 743 -I214 Fax (760) 739 -0343 WESTERN PROPERTY LINE SEGMENTAL KEYSTONE WALLS, PROPOSED 18 -LOT SUBDIVISION, 1150 MELBA ROAD, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA In accordance with your request, the undersigned visited the site on January 10, 2011 and met with the project design and construction team members regarding the keystone segmental gravity (MSE) walls planned along the western property margins behind Lots 4, 5 and 6. Single wall constructions on the order of 5 feet high are proposed along the southern end with a D -75 drainage ditch on the backside. Double wall conditions will occur along the northern portions with a lower wall less than 6 feet in maximum height and upper wall on the order of 3 feet high with the same drainage ditch continuing behind the backside of the lower wall (and at the base of upper walls). The D -75 drainage ditch will flow southward onto a catch basin at the southwest corner of Lot 4. The wall on the south end and lower wall the north end will be constructed at western the property line. Improvements and structures occur on the west side of the property line which is mostly lower in elevations. In order to evaluate subsurface conditions along the planned wall profile, 2 exploratory excavations were completed near the western property line. An additional exploration trench was dug further to east. Based on our observations, discussions with the project wall design consultant and further review of project plans, the following comments are appropriate and may be considered the project wall designs and constructions: All recommendations provided in our previous reports, plan reviews and updates remain valid and should be incorporated inti the designs and implemented during the construction except where specifically superseded or amended below. 2. We recommend, in our opinion, the pre- construction conditions of all offsite nearby existing walls, structures and improvements on the western adjacent property should be well documented and recorded prior to any excavations, soil removals or grading along the property line. Mr. James W. Skinner Warmington Residential California, Inc. January 11, 2011 Page 2 3. Exploration trenches indicated that very dense and cemented sandstone occurs at relatively shallow depths on the order of 3 to 4 feet. However, depth variations to competent sandstone along the wall profile should be anticipated. Two options are available for wall foundation supports: - Wall foundations may be uniformly supported directly on very dense and competent undisturbed sandstone units as approved in the field. In this case, a minimum 2- coarse embedment into the approved sandstone bearing deposits are considered adequate. A minimum of 5 feet horizontal setback from the bottom outside edge of the base coarse to daylight is also considered adequate for foundations embedded into competent undisturbed sandstone units, unless otherwise directed on the field. - Alternatively, wall foundation zone areas, at least one equipment width (12 feet minimum) wide, may be over - excavated to competent sandstone units, as approved in the field, and reconstructed with minimum 95% compacted fills. In this case, a minimum 2- coarse embedment into the minimum 95% compacted fills bearing deposits may also be considered. However, a minimum of 7 feet horizontal setback from the bottom outside edge of the base coarse to daylight should be considered for foundations embedded into 95% compacted bearing soils, unless otherwise directed on the field. Foundation soils compactive efforts should also be carried out with an attempt to somewhat densifywestern property line in -place soils at the toe side without damaging existing offsite nearby walls, structures and improvements. Wall foundations horizontal setback requirements to daylight, as specified herein, may govern actual foundation embedment depths along the profile. 4. An existing nearby block wall occurs partially below the proposed new keystone walls on the adjacent western property. The new keystone walls should not surcharge adjacent nearby walls, structures and improvements. For this purpose, the new upper wall foundations within the subject areas should be adequately deepened to provide a projected 1:1 downward plane from the bottom edge of the new foundations below the stem of the existing lower wall, unless otherwise noted or approved by the project wall design /build consultant. We also recommend completing new wall constructions within that area in sections. 5. Vertical wall foundations excavations within the underlying cemented sandstone may be considered, as directed and approved in the field. However, upper soils and loose and very wet to saturated subject to sloughing during wall foundation trenching and removals adjacent to the western property line. Consequently, some VINE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Anro Park Way • Escondido. California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 Mr. James W. Skinner Warmington Residential California, Inc. January 11, 2011 Page 3 prior surface densification or tracking with construction equipment may help to somewhat stabilize upper soils exposures in the foundation tenches. Added care should be taken, and appropriate measures and methods considered for avoiding any impact to the adjacent property by the soils removal and trench excavations. 6. Provided a well- constructed subsurface wall back drain behind the all new site retaining and MSE gravity walls as specified in the project soils reports. This opportunity to be of service again is sincerely appreciated. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENjWNFERI Mehdi S. 3hariat 1 #2885 Distribution: Addressee (3, e-mail) Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Attn: Justin Suiter (1, e-mail) Earnest Grabbe (1, e-mail) V INIR & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. - 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214 I( 2236 S Sane re Ave Visla CA 92084 1760) 941 -3992 CA License 591236 76U- 941 -3902 I C 76U.727.3R 13 Sutton Tree and Landcare 'i May 7, 2008 Lawrence Holland 1150 Melba Rd. Encinitas, CA 92024 Dear Mr. Lawrence, At your request, 1 inspected the Oak tree in the front closer to the fence and road at 1 150 Melba Rd., Encinitas. In my opinion, in order to properly transplant and box this tree, you would need to start 12 -24 months prior to construction. However, Live Oaks are very sensitive to environmental changes and in my professional opinion, if you did transplant this tree, it would slowly decline. A better option would be to replace with a box Quercus (Oak) specimen and install post construction. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call our office or my mobile at 760- 801 -4624. Sincerely. Dean L. Sutton Tree Certified Arborist 9820 NO .. r ............................ PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PUNNING + LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -33 at 1021 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operationa together with the required maintenance covenant(s). �pR0 j Isis Engineer of Record W. Justin uiter, RICE 68964 3` C 68984 Dated 1/z I /(z * EXP 12-3i'll Is Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated 0 Final Certification © Partial Certification for 1021 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Reach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fa 858.259.4812 1 pitaeogineering.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -31 at 1014 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of l% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, ogether with the required maintenance coven ti(s). OQpt)FESSfQ1! )UST/y F Engineer of Record y „ SG sc W. Justin uiter, RICE 68964 LU 3 m Dated C 68964 �IZ:iI.13 , Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated ❑ Final Certification I@ Partial Certification for 1014 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaengineering.cont PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -32 at 1017 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, yogether with the required maintenance oovqULant(s). Engineer of Record W. Justin uiter, RICE 68964 Dated I I2 ((9* _ exv Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated ❑ Final Certification ® Partial Certification for 1017 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 pisaengineering.com PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -29 at 1011 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, to ther with the required maintenance covenant(s). �oQppitSS!()� J' S Fy Engineer of Record ti� `sG W. Justin iter, RICE 68964 '� m / i 3 C 66964 Dated 7ifr Z *t 097 r nl Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated ❑ Final Certification ❑O Partial Certification for 1011 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 is 858.259.4812 1 plaaengleeering.com am., PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING September 13, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1452 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 12 -30 at 1013 Scarlet Way The grading under permit number 963 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, Engineer of Record L W Dated with the required maintenance RICE 68964 %aG:L , 3 C68964 �ro4t txa 12 3111 , i] �OFr>SI IFf�� Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated ❑ Final Certification O Partial Certification for 1013 Scarlet Way 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 plaaenglneering.com FTAT(= TTATl7ER TTAT 2450 Auto Park Way Job #10 -283 -F Fsoondido, California 92029 -1229 Phone(760)743 -1214 .September 21, 2011 F. (760) 739 -0343 Warmington Residential California, Inc. Mr. James W. Skinner Vice President/Director of Engineering 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FOR BASE AND SUBGRADE BENEATH IMPROVEMENTS, PROPOSED 18-LOT SUBDIVISION, SEASIDE HIGHLANDS, BALOUR DRIVE AND MELBA ROAD, CITY OF ENCINITAS DRAWING #963 -G In accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinances, please find the following compaction report for subgrade preparations and crushed aggregate base placement beneath the project roadway improvements for the above - referenced development. We have completed engineering observation and testing services in conjunction with the project subgrade preparations and aggregate base placement and compaction. The purpose of this report was to summarize the results of our tests and observations of compacted subgrade and base layer conducted periodically from May 24, 2011 through September 8, 2011. Actual dates are shown on the enclosed Compaction Test Result Table. Laboratory compaction tests for each sod type were performed to determine the corresponding maximum dry density and optimum moisture content in accordance with the ASTM D -1557. The subgrade and crushed aggregate base layer were compacted by means of heavy construction equipment (a blade, skip - loader, water truck, and a 2 -ton and a 5 -ton smooth drum roller). Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D-1556 sand cone method, and ASTM D- 2922 nuclear methods. The moisture content for each density sample was also determined. The locations of the tests were placed to provide the best possible coverage. Areas of low compaction, as indicated by the field density tests, were brought to the attention of the contractor. These areas were reworked by the contractor and retested. The test locations and final test results are summarized on the Compaction Test Result Table. Test locations were determined by using stationing from the approved Grading Plans, (Drawing #963 -G) and the approved Improvement Plans, (Drawing #963 -I). Elevations and locations of field density tests were determined by hand level and pacing/tape measure relative to field staking done by others. The results of our field density tests and laboratory testing indicate that the subgrade and crushed aggregate base layer within the project improvement areas were compacted to at least the following listed minimum specifications at the tested locations: Compaction Test Results, Underground Utility Trench Backfills Page 2 Seaside Highlands, City of Encinitas GP 11963 -G Sept. 21, 2011 A. Upper 12- inches of subgrade and crushed aggregate base layer under roadways and driveways: 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density. B. Subgrade under curb and gutters, sub and base layer under sidewalks: 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density. C. Aggregate Base layer under curb and gutters: 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density. Our description of the grading operations, as well as observations and testing services herein, have been limited to those grading operations performed periodically from May 24, 2011 through September 8, 2011. The conclusions contained herein have been based upon our observations and testing as noted. No representations are made as to the quality or extent of materials not observed and tested. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job 11 10 -283 -F will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. S. Shariat No. 2365 Exp. 12li1112 SMSS /fwr Distribution: Addressee fwr\my files \grading department projects\ V INIE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. • 2450 Auto Park Way • Escondido, California 92029 -1229 • Phone (760) 743 -1214