HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 15-25; 4394 YUKI LANE; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP); 2016-07-07CITY OF CARLSBAD
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)
STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
YUKI FAMILY RESIDENCE
CDP 15-25 & CDP 15-26
DWG 493-1A
SWQMP NO. 16-10
ENGINEER OF WORK: ,~;z
BRUC ~EXf'12-31-2016 DATE
PREPARED FOR:
PACIFIC BEACH 2014, LTD
C/O SAN DIEGUITO DEVELOPMENT
1106 SECOND STREET PMB 255
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
760-635-7633
PREPARED BY:
bl-iA, Inc
lan d planning, civil engineerin g, surveying
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
DATE:
AUGUST 27, 2015
REVISED FEBRUARY 1, 2016
REVISED APRIL 11 , 2016
REVISED JUNE 13, 2016
REVISED JULY 7, 2016
RECE.,/ED
JUL 21 2016
If)
•
u
:z
LAND DEVELC~"'.'vE::NT J
ENGlNEERl1'JG IQ-,,., W.O. 1010-1365-600
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certification Page
Project Vicinity Map
FORM E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire
Site Information
FORM E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs
Attachment 1 a: OMA Exhibit
Attachment 1 b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations
Attachment 1 c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable)
Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable)
Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations
Attachment 2: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions
Attachment 3: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit
Attachment 4: Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations
Attachment 5: Geotechnical Reference
2
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: Yuki Family Residence
Project ID: CDP 15-25 & CDP 15-26
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for
this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined
in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the
requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB
Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order.
I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for
managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in
the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability
and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site
design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land
development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review
of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the
Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my
responsibilities for project design.
,~ ~ R.C.E. 60676 Ex~. 12/31/2016
ngineerof Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date
Bruce Rice
Print Name
bliA, Inc
land planning, civil engineering, surveying
Date
3
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
vu:, t.N
4
( Cilyof
Carlsbad
I INSTRUCTIONS:
STORM WATER STANDARDS
QUESTIONNAIRE
E-34
Development Services
Land Development Engineering
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-2750
www .ca rlsbadca .gov
To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that new
development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management
Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual}. To view the BMP Manual,
refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5).
This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application
(subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of
storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the
outcome, your project will either be subject to 'STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements.
Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City
staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff
determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than
initially assessed by you , this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please
make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city.
If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the
questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff.
A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one
completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are
submitted concurrently.
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME: Yuki Family Residence PROJECT ID: CDP 15-25 & CDP 15-26
ADDRESS: 4390 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, CA APN : 207-360-54 and 207-360-53
The project is (check one): ~ New Development D Redevelopment
The total proposed disturbed area is: 28,492 ft2 ( 0.66 ) acres *See Note below
The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: _6,863_ ft2 ( 0.16 _) acres
If your project is covered by an approved SWQMP as part of a larger development project, provide the project ID and the
SWQMP # of the larger development project:
Project ID CDP 15-25 & CDP 15-26 SWQMP#:
Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your
application to the city.
*Note: The total project site includes 3 Lots. Although the total proposed impervious area for Lot 1 and Lot 2 is
6,863 square feet, the total impervious area for the project site, which includes 3 Lots, is greater than 10,000 square
feet. See Step 3 on page 3.
E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16
STEP1
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS
To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question:
YES NO
Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building □ IZl or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)?
If you answered "yes" to the above question, provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating "my
project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant
information.
Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building):
If you answered "no" to the above question, the project is a 'development project', go to Step 2.
STEP2
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer
the following questions:
Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following:
YES NO
1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria:
a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-
erodible permeable areas; □ ~ b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads;
c) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA
Green Streets guidance?
2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in □ IX] accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance?
3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? □ IX]
If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then go to Step 5, mark
the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP ... " and complete applicant information.
Discussion to justify exemption ( e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with
the USEPA Green Street guidance):
If you answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, ao to Step 3.
E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 02/16
STEP3
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1 )):
YES NO
1. Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces
collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, IX] □
and public development projects on public or private land.
2. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of
impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or □ [Zl more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public
development projects on public or private land.
3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more
of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is
a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption , including stationary lunch counters and □ IRl
refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code 5812).
4. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious
surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside □ !Kl
development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater.
5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more
of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot? A parking lot is □ IX] a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for
business or for commerce.
6. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more
of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway □ IX] freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface
used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcvcles, and other vehicles.
7. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more
of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of □ IZI
200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an
isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).*
8. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square
feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair □ [Zl shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes: 5013, 5014, 5541 , 7532-7534, or 7536-7539.
9. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square
feet or more of impervious area that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category includes □ !Kl RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily
Traffic ( AD T) of 100 or more vehicles per da v.
10. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land □ IZ] and are expected to generate pollutants post construction?
11 . Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of
impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMG □ [Z]
21 .203.040)
If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment
project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... "
and complete applicant information.
If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the
second box stating "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' ... " and complete aoolicant information.
E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV 02/16
!."!:]i~,
Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)):
Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount
of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent
impervious calculation below:
Existing impervious area (A) = ____________ sq. ft.
Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = ___________ sq. ft.
Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)*100 = _____ %
YES NO
□ □
If you answered ·yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious
surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... • and complete
applicant information.
If you answered "no,• the structural BM P's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the
check the first box statin "M ro·ect is a PDP ... • and com lete a licant information.
Ill My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual.
prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application.
0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT'
stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project
Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project.
Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold , staff may require detailed impervious area calculations
and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply.
0 My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual.
Applicant Information and Signature Box
Applicant Name: ---00~~.....,..,_,rL,;;;....:\...r...;;;....7?;.......,..,:-_-__ ---
Applicant Signature:_~ _ _)_~(..::=::::::::::::~~~~::;....::::=::2~=::::.:::a---=c:::::::=:::::=-
Applicant Title: ___ An(il_._-=---"l __ tff:-=----A-----_____ _
Date: _______ +_/ ..... 11<+-/......,1 ¥?---------
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas indude but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special
Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies
designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and
amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat
Management Plan; end any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the City.
This Box for City Use Only
YES NO
City Concurrence: □ □
By:
Date:
Project ID:
E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV 02/16
SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Project Summary lnfonnatlon
Project Name Yuki Family Residence
Project ID CDP 15-25 & CDP 15-26
Project Address 4390 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, CA
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 207-360-54 and 207-360-53
Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) ~ Carlsbad 904
Project Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic Area Select One:
D Loma Alta 904.1
D Buena Vista Creek 904.2
~ Agua Hedionda 904.3
□ Encinas 904.4
□ San Marcos 904.5
I □ Escondido Creek 904.6
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) 1.08 Acres ( 47,240 Square Feet)
associated with the project)
Area to be disturbed by the project
(Project Area) 0.66 Acres ( 28,492 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area) 0.12 Acres ( 5,112 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area) 0.54 Acres ( 23,380 Square Feet)
Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the
Project.
This may be less than the Parcel Area.
6
Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):
D Existing development
[8J Previously graded but not built out
D Agricultural or other non-impervious use
[8J Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Description/ Additional Information:
The existing site is approximately 1.08 acres and has been previously graded per plan MS
05-02. The site currently contains graded pads. The remaining site is vacant and bounded
by existing residential development.
Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply):
D Vegetative Cover
[8J Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas
[8J Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:
Property has an existing residential house, driveway, and detached garage in the eastern and
southern portions of the site. The remaining site is undeveloped.
Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
□ NRCS Type A
□ NRCS Type B
□ NRCS Type C
[8J NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
□ GW Depth < 5 feet
D 5 feet < GW Depth < 1 0 feet
D 1 0 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet
[8J GW Depth > 20 feet
7
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
□ Watercourses
□ Seeps
□ Springs
□ Wetlands
IZI None
Description/ Additional Information:
There are no existing natural hydrologic features.
8
Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed
from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage
conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance
systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if so, describe]:
The existing site is approximately 1.08 acres and contains existing graded pads. Storm flows
affecting the site are limited to the rainfall that lands directly on this property. Potential run-on
from adjacent properties is mitigated by an existing brow ditch which captures and bypasses flow.
The majority of stormwater runoff drains directly to Yuki Lane but it appears some runoff drains
offsite to the south . This cross-lot drainage appears to be minor. Runoff that drains to Yuki Lane
will be conveyed via existing curb and gutter to the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. The existing
impervious area of the project parcel is 22%.
The on-site soil classification is Type-D from USGS Web Soil Survey.
9
Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:
The project proposes the development of 3 residential lots and related drainage features. Note
that Lots 1 and 2 will be developed, whereas Lot 3 will remain undeveloped. Lot 3 encompasses
an existing graded pad.
List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking
lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):
The proposed impervious features of the project include the 2 proposed single-family
residences.
List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):
The proposed pervious features of the project include landscape areas surrounding the
proposed residences, the proposed driveways, and the proposed biofiltration basins on Lots 1
and 2. The proposed driveways are to be made up of pervious concrete.
Does the project include grading and changes to site topography?
1:8] Yes
□ No
Description / Additional Information:
Project grading will occur on approximately 0.66 acres of the project. Grading on the site has
been minimized to the maximum extent possible. Lot 3, located east of Lot 2, will remain
undeveloped and will not be a part of this project. The designated area is labeled "OMA 3 To
Remain Undeveloped Under This Project" on the OMA Exhibit. Storm water flows from
impervious roof areas will be conveyed via surface flow to the proposed biofiltration basins on
each lot. The biofiltration basin on Lot 1, BF-1.1, will outlet to a proposed storm drain system
underneath the proposed lot, which will discharge at an existing curb outlet on Yuki Lane. The
storm drain system will require excavation and installation of an underground storm drain. The
biofiltration basin on Lot 1, BF-1.2, will outlet to a proposed brow ditch along the southern lot line
of Lot 2, which will discharge at an existing curb outlet on Yuki Lane. Post-development site flow
will mimic existing drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow
rates (City of Carlsbad MS 05-02). See Attachment 4: Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations and
Proposed Hydrology Exhibit for post-development drainage calculations. Impervious surfaces
have been minimized where feasible.
10
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water
conveyance systems)?
1:8] Yes
□ No
Description/ Additional Information:
The proposed drainage pattern will be similar to the existing drainage pattern with some
modifications to incorporate the Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design to
mimic the impacts on storm water runoff and quality. The proposed runoff from the project site is
divided into five (5) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs): (2) Areas Draining to Biofiltration I MPs,
(2) Self-Retaining DMAs and (1) Area Not Feasible to Treat, or to remain undeveloped.
OMA 1A encompasses runoff from the proposed driveway and adjacent landscape area of Lot 1.
The driveway is proposed to be designed with pervious concrete material. Runoff from OMA 1A
will sheet flows southwest towards Yuki Lane.
OMA 1 B encompasses runoff from the proposed pad and adjacent landscape area of Lot 1. The
proposed runoff will be directed towards a proposed biofiltration basin, BF-1 .1, for stormwater
treatment. Treated water will then outlet via storm drain pipe to an existing curb outlet on Yuki
Lane.
OMA 2A encompasses runoff from the proposed driveway and adjacent landscape area of Lot 2.
The driveway is also proposed to be designed with pervious concrete material. Runoff from OMA
2A will sheet flows southwest towards Yuki Lane.
OMA 28 encompasses runoff from the proposed pad and adjacent landscape area of Lot 2. The
proposed runoff will be directed towards a proposed biofiltration basin, BF-1.2, for stormwater
treatment. Treated water will then outlet via storm drain pipe to an existing curb outlet on Yuki
Lane.
OMA 3 encompasses all of Lot 3 which will remain undeveloped . Proposed BMPs for Lot 3 will
be determined and sized under a separate SWQMP at the time of development.
The proposed drainage patterns will not alter the existing flow pattern and will discharge from
the site at the historic discharge points.
11
Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be
present (select all that apply):
~ On-site storm drain inlets
D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
D Interior parking garages
~ Need for future indoor & structural pest control
~ Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features
D Food service
D Refuse areas
D Industrial processes
D Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
D Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
D Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
D Fuel Dispensing Areas
D Loading Docks
D Fire Sprinkler Test Water
D Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
D Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
12
Identification of Receiving Wat.er Pollutants of Concern
Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or
reservoir, as applicable):
From the project site, runoff flows to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and to the Pacific Ocean.
List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the
Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the
pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water
bodies:
303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs
Indicator bacteria
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Sedimentation/siltation
Identification of Project Site Pollutants
Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see
BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):
Not Applicable to the Expected from the Also a Receiving
Project Site Project Site Water Pollutant of
Pollutant Concern
Sediment □ ~ ~
Nutrients □ ~ □
Heavy Metals ~ □ □
Organic Compounds ~ □ □
Trash & Debris ~ □ □
Oxygen Demanding
Substances □ ~ □
Oil & Grease □ ~ □
Bacteria & Viruses □ ~ ~
Pesticides □ ~ □
13
Hydromodification Management Requirements
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design
Manual)?
D Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required .
D No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains
discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the
Pacific Ocean.
~ No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank
are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs,
lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean.
D No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an
exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.
Description/ Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above):
Storm water runoff from the project site flows south along Yuki Lane, enters a storm drain on
Whitney Drive, and ultimately discharges to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Based on Section 1.6 of
the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, the City has the discretion to exempt a PDP from
hydromodification management requirements if discharge is conveyed via a concrete lined
system to an encased embayment (i.e. lagoon). Pursuant to the study approved by the City of
Carlsbad titled "Hydromodification Exemption Analyses for Select Carlsbad Watersheds" dated
September 17, 2015 prepared by Chang Consultants, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed showed that the hardened system downstream of the project draining to the lagoon
conveys the 10-year storm event, the discharge point has proper energy dissipation and the
outlet is within the 100-year flood limits.
Crltlcal Coarse Sediment Yleld Areas•
--rhla Section only required If hydromodlflcatlon management requirements apply
Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield
areas exist within the project drainage boundaries?
□Yes
~ No , No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps
If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual
been performed?
D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite
D 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment
D 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite
D No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas
identified based on WMAA maps
If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result?
D No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs
onsite
14
D Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that
protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP.
D Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement
management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas
are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.
Discussion / Additional Information:
Hydromodification requirements are not required for this project.
15
Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff"'
~his Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply
List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification
management (see
Section 6.3.1 ). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the
project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the
project's HMP Exhibit.
Hydromodification requirements are not required for this project.
Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)?
D No, the low flow threshold is 0.102 (default low flow threshold)
D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.102
D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.302
D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.502
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:
Discussion/ Additional Information: (optional)
16
Other Site Requirements and Constraints
When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water
management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or
local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement
types, and drainage requirements.
The Type-D soil, though generally rated for low infiltration capacity, provides some opportunity
for infiltration of storm water runoff into the native soils. The biofiltration area BF-1-1 is proposed
at the top of the graded slope between Lot 1 and Lot 2. Based on the geotechnical letter dated
January 29, 2016, the building on the lower building pad (Lot 2) is proposing to encroach into
the slope and saturation of storm water from BF-1 .1 can result in shallow slope failure. The
geotechnical report recommends the biofiltration area be lined or moved away from the top of
slope a minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope. Since the minimum
horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope cannot be met without compromising
basin footprint area, the biofiltration basin BF-1 .1 will be lined.
The said geotechnical letter also recommends that biofiltration areas be lined if located within 8
horizontal feet of proposed structures (buildings, walls, etc.). Since the biofiltration basin BF-
1.2 on Lot 2 is located within 8 horizontal feet of the proposed residence, the biofiltration area
will also be lined. Based on Form 1-8, the feasibility screening category for the biofiltration
basins is No Infiltration. Both basins are able to biofilter the full DCV within the storage layers.
Optional Additional lnfonnatlon or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed
17
f' City of
Carlsbad
Project Name: Yuki Family Residence
Project ID: CDP 15-25 & CDP 15-26
STANDARD PROJECT
REQUIREMENT
CHECKLIST
E-36
Project lnfonnatlon
DWG No. or Building Permit No.: 493-1A
Source Control BMPs
Development Services
Land Development Engineering
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-2750
www.carlsbadca.gov
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See
Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this
checklist.
Answer each category below pursuant to the following .
• "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the
Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required.
• "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be
provided . Please add attachments if more space is needed .
• "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is
addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be
provided.
Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 0Yes 0 No ON/A
Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented:
Irrigation water and vehicle and wash water will be directed away from impervious surfaces.
SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage IZ'.!Yes □ No □ N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented:
Catch basins will be stenciled with anti-dumping signage.
SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall , Run-On, Runoff, and Wind □Yes 0 No 0 N/A Dispersal
Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented:
No outdoor material storage areas proposed .
E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 03/16
Source Control Requirement (continued) Applied?
SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On , Runoff, and □Yes □ No 0 N/A Wind Dispersal
Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented:
No ou tdoor work areas proposed.
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On , Runoff, and Wind Dispersal □ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented:
No trash storage areas proposed .
SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and
identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Aooendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance).
□ On-site storm drain inlets 121 Yes □ No 0 N/A
□ Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps □Yes □ No 0 N/A
□ Interior parking garages □Yes □ No 0 N/A
□ Need for future indoor & structural pest control 0Yes 0 No 0 N/A
□ Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use 0Yes □ No □ N/A
□ Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features □Yes □ No 0 N/A
□Foodservice □Yes 0 No 0 N/A
□ Refuse areas □Yes □ No 0 NIA
□ Industrial processes □Yes 0 No 0 N/A
□ Outdoor storage of equipment or materials □Yes □ No 0 N/A
□ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning □Yes □ No 0 NIA
□ Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance □Yes 0 No 0 N/A
D Fuel Dispensing Areas □Yes 0 No 0 N/A
D Loading Docks □Yes 0 No ~ N/A
□ Fire Sprinkler Test Water □Yes 0 No ~ N/A
□ Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water □Yes D No 0 N/A
□ Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots □Yes 0 No 0 N/A
For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1 . Provide justification for "No" answers.
E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 03/16
Site Design BMPs
All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See
Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in
this checklist.
Answer each category below pursuant to the following .
• "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of
the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required .
• "No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be
provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed.
• "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is
addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be
provided.
Source Control Requirement I Applled?
SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features I □Yes I □ No I~ NIA
Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented:
Site previously graded. The overall drainage patterns will be maintained.
SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I □Yes I □ No I 0 N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented:
Natural areas will exist in the northwestern and southeastern portion of the project . Project grading has been minimized
where feasible.
SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I ~Yes I □ No I □ N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented:
Pervious concrete material will be used for proposed driveways to minimize impervious area.
SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I □ Yes I □ No I~ N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented:
Site previously graded .
SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I ~Yes I □ No I □ N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented:
Landscape will effectively receive and infiltrate, and treat runoff from imprervious areas as much as possible. Roof drains
will be directed to landscape areas prior to discharging to storm water conveyance system.
E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 03/16
Source Control Reaulrement (continued) I ADDlled?
SD-6 Runoff Collection I IZl Yes I D No I □ N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented:
Brow ditches will convey runoff safely from tops of slopes. Energy dissipaters will be installed at storm drain outlets to
red uce flow velocities.
SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I IZl Yes I D No ID N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented:
Slope so ils will be amended, aerated , and planted with native or drought tolerant non-native plants . Other landscape or
pervious areas will incorporate native or drought tolerant landscape design.
SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation I □Yes I D No I IZl N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented:
Harvest and use is considered to be potentially feasible for the project site, however it has be decided as infeasible for the
scope of the project Project site will utilize other LID strategies such as min imizing impervious area to reduce the overall
DCV of the site . See Form 1-7 in Attachment 1c.
E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 03/16
SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the
BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must
be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification
management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for
hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water
pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the
same structural BMP(s).
PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the local jurisdiction at the completion of construction.
This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify
construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP
structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the local jurisdiction must confirm the
maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual).
Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP
implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP
summary information sheet (page 3 of this form) for each structural BMP within the project (copy
the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information
for each individual structural BMP).
Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information
must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs
presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of
BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether
pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated or separate.
For the purpose of this SWQMP, the proposed site condition has been divided into (5) Drainage
Management Areas (DMAs): (2) Areas Draining to Biofiltration IMPs, (2) Self-Retaining DMAs
and (1) Area Not Feasible to Treat, or to remain undeveloped. The DMAs have been delineated
based on onsite drainage patters and BMP locations. Biofiltration basins were chosen as the
structural BMP for DMAs draining to IMPs. The biofiltration basins have been sized based on
Worksheet 8.5-1: Simple Sizing Methods for Biofiltration BMPs (see Attachment 1e). The
biofiltration basins also meet the minimum BMP footprint using the minimum BMP sizing factor of
3% for storm water pollutant control. The DCV for each OMA has been calculated based on the
proposed impervious roof and landscape areas draining to each BMP. Worksheet B.5-1 in
Attachment 1 e further demonstrates that the full DCV can be biofiltered within the biofiltration
BMPs.
Biofiltration basins (BF-1) will be used for pollutant control and peak flow control for the project
stormwater runoff. The biofiltration basins will be configured with a 10-inch ponding layer above
the surface for storage volume, an 18-inch layer of amended soil below the surface, and a 12-inch
gravel storage layer below the amended soil layer. A riser structure will be constructed within the
19
BMPs with an emergency overflow set 10-inches above the bottom of the basin, such that peak
flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system.
Based on the geotechnical letter dated January 29, 2016, the building on the lower building pad
(Lot 2) is proposing to encroach into the slope and saturation of storm water from BF-1.1 can result
in shallow slope failure. The geotechnical report recommends the biofiltration area be lined or
moved away from the top of slope a minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the
slope. Since the minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope cannot be met
without compromising basin footprint area, the biofiltration basin BF-1 .1 will be lined.
The said geotechnical letter also recommends that biofiltration areas be lined if located within 8
horizontal feet of proposed structures (buildings, walls, etc.). Since the biofiltration basin BF-1.2
on Lot 2 is located within 8 horizontal feet of the proposed residence, the biofiltration area will also
be lined.
The biofiltration basins will include an underdrain pipe below the gravel storage layer to carry
filtered runoff to the storm drain outlet. Based on Form 1-8 in Attachment 1, the feasibility screening
category for the biofiltration basins is "No Infiltration". Therefor the basins will not include an
infiltration storage layer below the underdrain pipe. Worksheet B.5-1 of Attachment 1e shows that
the full DCV can be biofiltered within the storage layers above the underdrain invert. Since there
is no infiltration storage area below the aggregate storage layer, the basins are not proposing to
reliably retain any portion of the DCV onsite. Attachment 1 e also shows that the surface ponding
layer can drain within 24 hours, and the drawdown time for the total biofiltration depth is less than
96 hours.
The pervious concrete driveways will include perforated underdrain pipes underneath the
aggregate subbase. The underdrain pipes will be set at 10-foot intervals and run parallel to Yuki
Lane. Concrete cutoff walls located downstream will direct runoff into the perforated pipes. The
pervious concrete driveways will not include an impermeable liner below the aggregate subbase.
The detained flow rates for BF-1.1 and BF-1.2 have been modeled using the Hydraulic Elements
II module within AES and are shown in Attachment 4-Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations. The
biofiltration module can model the underground gravel storage layer, underdrain, amended soil
layer, and a surface storage pond up to the elevation of the invert of the lowest surface discharge
opening in the basin riser structure. Ponding above the invert of the lowest surface discharge
opening in the basin riser structure is modeled as a detention basin: area vs. elevation and
discharge vs. elevation tables are needed by AES for Depth vs. Storage and Discharge
Information. It should be noted that detailed outlet structure locations and elevations will be shown
on the construction plans based on the recommendations of this study. See the Basin Storage
and Outflow Calculations in Attachment 4b for this project for detention values to be used for the
100-year peak flow rate in the post-development detained condition .
20
Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural
BMP)
Structural BMP ID No. BF-1 .1
DWG 493-1A Sheet No. 2
Type of structural BMP:
D Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
D Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
D Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
[8J Biofiltration (BF-1)
D Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements
(provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
D Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
D Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in
discussion section below)
D Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
D Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
[8J Pollutant control only
D Hydromodification control only
D Combined pollutant control and
hydromodification control
D Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural
BMP D Other (describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
21
Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural
BMP)
Structural BMP ID No. BF-1 .2
DWG 493-1A Sheet No. 3
Type of structural BMP:
D Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
D Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
D Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
cgj Biofiltration (BF-1) D Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements
(provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
D Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or
biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
D Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in
discussion section below)
D Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
D Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
cgj Pollutant control only
D Hydromodification control only
D Combined pollutant control and
hydromodification control
D Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural
BMP
D Other ( describe in discussion section below)
Discussion (as needed):
22
ATTACHMENT 1
BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1.
Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment Contents Checklist
Sequence
Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit (Required) 1:8] Included
Attachment 1 b
See OMA Exhibit Checklist on the
back of this Attachment cover sheet.
(24"x36" Exhibit typically required)
Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing
OMA ID matching OMA Exhibit, OMA
Area, and OMA Type (Required)*
*Provide table in this Attachment OR
on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a
LJ Included on OMA Exhibit in
Attachment 1 a
1:8] Included as Attachment 1 b,
separate from OMA Exhibit
Attachment 1c Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility IX! Included
Attachment 1 d
Screening Checklist (Required unless D Not included because the entire
the entire project will use infiltration project will use infiltration BMPs
BMPs)
Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form 1-7.
Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration
Feasibility Condition (Required
unless the project will use harvest and
use BMPs)
Refer to Appendices C and D of the
BMP Design Manual to complete
Form 1-8.
1:8] Included D Not included because the entire
project will use harvest and use
BMPs
Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design 1:8] Included
Worksheets/ Calculations (Required)
Refer to Appendices B and E of the
BMP Design Manual for structural
pollutant control BMP design
guidelines
23
Attachment 1 a
OMA Exhibit
24
FOR \./ELL
DEEP ROOTED, DENSE, DROUGHT
TOLERANT PLANTING SUITABLE
.DRAINED SOIL PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
18' ENGINEERED SOIL MIX SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM SUSTAINED INFILTRATION RATE OF
5' /HR MIX SHALL BE SANDY LOAM TOP SOIL
CONSISTING OF 501/. SAND, 301/. PLANTING
SOIL, 201/. COMMON MIX
3' PEA GRAVEL
12' AGGREGATE STORAGE LAYER
CLEANOUT
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA EXHIBIT
YUKI FAMILY RESIDENCE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
OVERFLO\./ STRUCTURE
TYPE SINGLE G-1 CATCH
4' X 2-11'
EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS
BASIN PER D-08
BOTTOM AND SIDES OF BASIN \./ITH IMPERMEABLE LINER
20' 1 o· o· 20' 40'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL, TYP.
NOT TO SCALE
K:\Civil 3D\1365\DWG\SWMP\20151015_1010-1365-Hydro_SWMP revised.dwg, 7/21/201612:38:54 PM
60'
LEGEND
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (OMA)
BOUNDARY
FLOW ARROW
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA (L) ,,v ,,v
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA (R) 7 \J 'y \J \J
IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE AREA (PCC) • • • • • • 4 • • .
BROW DITCH c::::::::>
PERVIOUS CONCRETE (PC)
,. ~.'./.::-\~)::~:(/:.\~;~~X~/~:)•:~ .. -
BIOFIL TRi\ TION AREA + + + +
RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATER l~~~~gl
ROOF DOWNSPOUTS •
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT AREA 1.08 ACRES
DISWRBED AREA 0.66 ACRES
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.16 ACRES
PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 0.50 ACRES
SOIL TYPE D
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER > 20 FEET
SOURCE CONTROL BMPS:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT AN ILLJCIT DISCHARGE IS ANY DISCHARGE TO THE MS4 THAT IS NOT COMPOSED
ENTIRELY OF WASH WATER.
WHERE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE WASHING IS PROPOSED, REQUIRE MINIMIZED WATER USE, MINIMIZED
USE OF WASH PRODUCTS, AND DISPERSION OF WASH WATER TO A NUMERICALLY SIZED SELF RETAINING
LANDSCAPE AREAS.
PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS TO PREVENT ILLICIT DISCHARGES AS A COMPONENT OF THE OPERATION
AND MAINTENACE (O&M) PLAN.
PLANT PEST-RESISTANT OR WELL-ADAPTED PLANT VARIETIES SUCH AS DROUGHT TOLERANT AND/OR
NEGATIVE PLANTS.
DESIGN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS FOR THE SPECIFIC WATER REQUIREMENTS OF EACH LANDSCAPE AREA.
LID AND SITE DESIGN:
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCT LANDSCAPE OR OTHER IMPERVIOUS AREAS TO EFFECTIVELY RECEIVE AND
INFILTRATE, RETAIN AND/OR TREAT RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS AREAS.
DIRECT ROOF DRAINS/DOWN SPOUTS TO LANDSCAPE OR PERVIOUS AREAS PRIOR TO DISCHARGING TO
STORM WATER CONVEYANCE.
CONVEY RUNOFF SAFELY FROM TOPS OF SLOPES.
DESIGN RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS WITH PERVIOUS CONCRETE MATERIAL
VEGETATE SLOPES WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE
INSTALL ENERGY DISSIPATERS.
bl-lA,lnc. •
land plannlng, cMI 81,gl: .aerlng, surveying
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
I SH1T I CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DRAINAGE MANAGEMEN'l' AREA EXHIBIT:
YUKI LANE
APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT
CITY ENGINEER RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 30 16 DA TE
DWN BY: __ _ PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO.
CHKD BY: __ _
RVWD SY: CDP 15-25 & 26
Attachment 1 b
Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations
'llha•H ac~ , .. :·;-. , , , . ~.i':'!-'"!?"7".?,'.; t'.•,'~• ijt;,~~,··{1•~~ ••• ·,.;: • .,. ~-... ~ t ,, r~w1: ., r_i.J
DMA Impervious Area Tabulation
Surface Name Surface Type
Rl Conventional Roof Driveway and Patio 2,597
PCCl Concrete Driveway 1,385
Total Impervious Area (ft2) 3,982
DMA Pervious Area Tabulation
Surface Name Surface Type
L1 Landscape 4,638
Total Pervious Area (ft2) 4,638
Total DMA (A) 8,620
Total Impervious Area (ft2) /Total OMA (ft2) = Percent Impervious 46%
Soil Type D
DMA Runoff Coefficient "C") 0.58
85th Percentile Rainfall (I) 0.6
Desi!!'tl Capture Volume (DVC) = (C)(l)(A) / 12 249
25
i'rnti.\""" --1'iir. .... ..A ...... ----...... --.. ---... ~r.,..,-.h.>IU~ ,.,... . 1 "" lll)IL' I lhl!.l!J!.l.!ll.lHfl'i'Inu"' •111iU'i'J ■•~ -, I • ,.,j\lffl11T'iiT1:1 --... -..... ra,r-.••Jl· ,,. IWII 11': I I ,. ~
DMA Impervious Area Tabulation
Surface Name Surface Type Area (ft2)
R2 Conventional Roof Driveway and Patio 2,610
PCC2 Conventional Concrete 271
Total Impervious Area (ft2) 2,881
DMA Pervious Area Tabulation
Surface Name Surface Type 2 Area (ft)
L2 Landscape 1,992
Total Pervious Area (ft2) 1,992
Total DMA (A) 4,873
Total Impervious Area (ft2) /Total DMA (ft2) = Percent Impervious 59%
Soil Type D
DMA Runoff Coefficient "C" 0.65
85th Percentile Rainfall (I) 0.6
Desi~ Capture Volume (DVC) = (C)(l)(A) / 12 160
26
Runoff Factor
Surface Name Area ft2
L3 Landsca e 5,983 0.1
PC1
Ration
Total Area of DMA
Area x Runoff
Factor
598.3
109.1
707.4
1.5:1
0.0 in
7,074
-. ~ r ~~" . . ¥i---• • ~ •• , • " -• 5-• • I ....... ·r "!""'"""~• .. --~~ .~ .. ~--.••• , • .....,. .. ..,....__rt<t -~------r:•·....,.._ ___ __.. ·~-~--..... -
... .., . ♦'Tabltlation''tr S~lf-Rbtaini DMAs ' , .. '.' : ~ DMA Name -'OMA 2A1
,, •
.., r • , • • ..... ..,--'•• --~ ~ • ~ • \ •, • •,I.A.,........ • -•· •• • .,,.--.. •• ••~ ~ --~ ,,.,_• -~D-tt,i•i· 1t·;~~'I• -;y." 'l,.,:•--t•. 'Ii -~, 1•1·"1..,, ·, r·, ,., •• ·," """""1 ~~1 i ·, • .. , • · · ··• , , ,,,,.~,.<11 • ·• -. • , , r -1 'W •' • • ,.._, • • t • ~ , •I ~ ....... ••" .-11). ,l ~ , I ~ \ ~ , ,
Runoff Factor Area x Runoff
Surface Name Surface Type Area (ft2) (Table X-X) Factor
L4 Landscape 6,678 0.1 667.8
PC2 Pervious Concrete 1,192 0.1 119.2
Adjusted Surface Draining to Self-Retainiru! Area -(A' 787 .
Receiving Self-Retainiru! Surface Area -(B' 1,192
Self-Retaining Area Surface Type Pervious Concrete
Ration of (A) to (B) 1.5:1
Pond Depth within Self-Retainiru! Area 0.0 in
Total Area of DMA 7,870
The locations and limits of all Surfaces Draining to Self-Retaining DMAs are delineated on the
DMA Exhibit.
According to Section B.2.1.3 of the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, permeable pavement, or
pervious concrete, is assigned a runoff factor of 0.10 when it is implemented in accordance with the
SD-6B factsheet and it does not have an impermeable liner.
27
.... ,..,mu~_,~\:r: ,:-. --; ---... II ,tS .. ;i!.._jiir. :•I Lfll....L--..
DMA Classification Quantity Subtotal DMA (fr2) Subtotal D MA (acres)
Self-Mitigating DMAs 2 0 0
Self-Retaining DMAs 2 14,944 0.34
Surfaces Draining to Self-Retaining DMAs 0 0 0
Bioretention IMPs 2 13,493 0.31
F1ow Tb.rough Planter IMPs 2 0 0.0
Infiltration IMP 0 0 0
Conventional Vegetated Swale 0 0 0
Extended (Dry) Detention Basins 0 0 0
Media (Sand) Filter 0 0 0
Wet Pond 0 0 0
Constructed Wetland 0 0 0
Proprietary Vault/Tree Well 0 0 0
Proprietary Inlet Filter 0 0 0
Areas Not Feasible to Treat 1 33,619 0.77
Total Project DMA 47,112 1.42
Total Parcel Area 47,112 1.08
Comment:
28
Attachment 1 c
Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist
Harvest_and Use Feasibility Checklist Form 1•7 I
1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the
wet season?
[8J Toilet and urinal flushing
[8J Landscape irrigation
D Other:
2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance
for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section
B.3.2.
Modified ETWU = ETow.,x [[I(PF x HA)/IE] + SLA] x 0.015
Using an average value for HA over the 14 lots and Moderate Plant Water Use (per Table B.3-2);
Modified ETWU = 2.7 x [[(0.5 x 4,316)/0.9] + O] x 0.015
Modified ETWU= 97
3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.
DCV = --'1'-"8=0 ___ ( cubic feet)
3a. Is the 36 hour demand greater
than or equal to the DCV?
D Yes I [8J No
~ ~
Harvest and use appears to be
feasible. Conduct more detailed
evaluation and sizing calculations to
confirm that DCV can be used at an
adequate rate to meet drawdown
criteria.
3b. Is the 36 hour demand greater than
0.25DCV but less than the full D CV?
[8J Yes I 0 No
~ ~
Harvest and use may be feasible.
Conduct more detailed evaluation and
sizing calculations to determine
feasibility. Harvest and use may only
be able to be used for a portion of the
site, or (optionally) the storage may
need to be upsized to meet long term
capture targets while draining in longer
than 36 hours.
29
3c. Is the 36 hour demand
less than 0.25DCV?
D Yes
~
Harvest and use is considered
to be infeasible.
Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation?
D Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs.
rg) No, select alternate BMPs
Project has decided not to use harvest and use BMPs. Project will implement other LID strategies such as
minimizing impervious area and impervious area dispersion.
30
Attachment 1d
Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition
Fonn 1-8 '
Part 1-Full Infiltration Feasibilif¥ Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any
undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria
1
Screening Question
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed
facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The
response to this Screening Question shall be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix
C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Yes No
No
The underlying soil type in the location of the BMPs is Type-D according to NRCS Soil Survey Maps (see
References). Type-D soil has an assumed infiltration rate of 0.024 in/hr according to the BMP Sizing
Spreadsheet from Project Clean Water. According to Section D.3.1.1 of the City of Carlsbad BMP Design
Manual dated February 16, 2016, "The presence of D soils, if confirmed by available data, provides a
reasonable basis to determine that full infiltration is not feasible for a given DMA." Therefore a reliable
infiltration rate greater than 0.5 inches per hour cannot be achieved.
2
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors)
that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response
to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
No
Type D soils have very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. They consist chiefly of clays that
have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer
at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very
slow rate of water transmission. Bioretention areas at the top of graded slopes can result in shallow slope
failure. Based on recommendations from the Geotechnical report, infiltration from the biofiltration basins
will be allowed if certain conditions are met as explained in the soils letter dated January 29, 2016. The
soils engineer has indicated that geologic stability will be maintained with open basin bottoms as long as
setbacks from slopes/ structures are maintained as recommended. However, since the minimum horizontal
distance equivalent to the height of the slope cannot be met without compromising basin BF-1.1 footprint
area, the biofiltration basin will be lined. The said geotechnical letter also recommends that biofiltration
areas be lined if located within 8 horizontal feet of proposed structures (buildings, walls, etc.). Since the
biofiltration basin BF-1.2 on Lot 2 is located within 8 horizontal feet of the proposed residence, the
biofiltration area will also be lined.
31
, . • . Form 1-8 Page 2 of 4 . , j
Criteria
3
Screening Question
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be
allowed without increasing risk of groundwater
contamination (shallow water table, storm water
pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to
an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the
factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Yes No
No
Although groundwater was not encountered within the geotechnical report, an infiltration rate greater
than 0.5 inches per hour cannot be achieved.
4
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be
allowed without causing potential water balance issues
such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or
increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to
surface waters? The response to this Screening Question
shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
No
Although there are no potential water balance issues or contaminated groundwater, an infiltration rate
greater than 0.5 inches per hour cannot be achieved.
Part 1
Result
*
If all answers to rows 1 -4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially
feasible. The
feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration
If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some
extent but
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration"
design.
Proceed to Part 2
32
No
Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria
5
Screening Question
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in
any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and
Appendix D .
Provide basis:
Yes No
No
Per the geotechnical report titled Updated Geotechnical Report by Engineering Design Group, biofiltration
areas should be lined or moved away from the top of slopes a minimum horizontal distance equivalent to
the height of the slopes. Since the minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope
cannot be met without compromising basin footprint area, the biofiltration basins will be lined.
6
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other
factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level?
The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in
Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
No
Based on the geotechnical letter dated January 29, 2016, the building on the lower building pad (Lot 2) is
proposing to encroach into the slope and saturation of storm water from BF-1.1 can result in shallow slope
failure. The geotechnical report recommends the biofiltration area be lined or moved away from the top
of slope a minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope. The geotechnical report also
states that infiltration from the biofiltration basins will be allowed if the basins are located certain distances
from the proposed residences. However, as stated above, the minimum horizontal distance equivalent to
the height of the slope cannot be met without compromising basin BF-1.1 footprint area. The said
geotechnical letter also recommends that biofiltration areas be lined if located within 8 horizontal feet of
proposed structures (buildings, walls, etc.). Since the biofiltration basin BF-1.2 on Lot 2 is located within
8 horizontal feet of the proposed residence, the biofiltration area will also be lined.
33
Criteria
7
Screening Question
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed
without posing significant risk for groundwater related
concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or
other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall
be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Yes No
Yes
Per the geotechnical report, no groundwater related concerns were not encountered in the site
investigation.
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream
water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall
be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Yes
The project will mimic existing drainage conditions. There are no downstream water rights applicable.
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially
Part 2 feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
Result If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered
* to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is
No Infiltration.
Partial
Infiltration
Partial Infiltration is potentially feasible for the project BMPs. However an assumed infiltration rate of 0.024
inches/hour is very low. The BMPs have sufficient storage volume to biofilter the full DCV, as shown in
Worksheets B.5-1 in Attachment le. Therefore, the basins will not include an infiltration storage layer below
the underdrain pipe needed for volume retention. Instead the biofiltration basins will be designed with No
Infiltration (BF-1). The Biofiltration BMPs meet the minimum BMP footprint using the minimum 3% sizing
factor.
Based on the geotechnical letter dated January 29, 2016, the building on the lower building pad (Lot 2) is
proposing to encroach into the slope and saturation of storm water from BF-1.1 can result in shallow slope
failure. The geotechnical report recommends the biofiltration area be lined or moved away from the top of
slope a minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope. Since the minimum horizontal
distance equivalent to the height of the slope cannot be met without compromising basin footprint area, the
biofiltration basin BF-1.1 will be lined. The said geotechnical letter also recommends that biofiltration areas be
lined if located within 8 horizontal feet of proposed structures (buildings, walls, etc.). Since the biofiltration
basin BF-1.2 on Lot 2 is located within 8 horizontal feet of the proposed residence, the biofiltration area will
also be lined.
34
Attachment 1 e
Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations
35
BF-1.1
----" --..... 1~--__, ~)ILUtll1:ih,llfA ,1•:·n•,r.1iiTiTi • ,,:fl'i11l1o..-.,, • I 1J:n•,1~ \\'#rm~ ~1ffiafl
1 Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs 249 cubic-feet
Partial Retention
2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D .5-1 if partial infltration is feasible in/hr.
3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain hours
4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] inches
5 Aggregate pore space in/in
6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4 / Line 5] inches
7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP sq-ft
8 Media retained pore space in/in
9 Volume retained by BMP [[Line 4 + (Line 12 x Line 8))/12] x Line 7 cubic-feet
10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 -Line 9] 249 cubic-feet
BMP Parameters
11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 in maximum] 10 inches
12 Media Thickness f18 inches minimuml 18 inches
13 Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical -use O inches for 12 inches sizing if aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
14 Media available pore space 0.2 in/in
15 Media filtration rate to be used for sizing 5 in/hr.
Baseline Calculation
16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 hours
17 Depth filtered during storm !Line 15 x Line 161 30 inches
18 Depth of Detention Storage 13.6 inches !Line 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14) + (Line 13 x Line 5)1
19 Total Depth Treated !Line 17 + Line 181 43.6 inches
Option 1-Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
20 Required biofiltered volume f1 .5 x Line 1 Ol 373 cubic-feet
21 Required Footprint [Line 20 / Line19l x 12 103 sq-ft
Option 2 -Store 0.75 ofremaininn-DCV in pores and pondine
22 Required Storage (surface+ pores) Volume ro.75 x Line 101 187 cubic-feet
23 Required Footprint [Line 22 / Line 181 x 12 165 sq-ft
Footi:,rint of the BMP
24 Area draining to the BMP 8,620 sq-ft
25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.58
26 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.031 149 sq-ft
27 Footprint of the BMP = Maximwn(Line 21, Line 23, Line 26) 165 sq-ft
Used BMP Footprint 165 sq-ft
36
BF-1.2
--"-1em--.... l,."nuTT]_A~11rA ,, -~h~F-fiiTiTil I ll:fli'lil1,.,.,. t ... i:-tl~l:.l:'1 -·--,.,.... 1ffiJML l 'IiTJ ,;r-i ~ ii •
1 Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs 160 cubic-feet
Partial Retention
2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D.5-1 if partial infltration is feasible in/hr.
3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain hours
4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] inches
5 Aggregate pore space in/in
6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4 / Line 5] inches
7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP sq-ft
8 Media retained pore space in/in
9 Volume retained b y BMP [[Line 4 + (Line 12 x Line 8)]/12] x Line 7 cubic-feet
10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 -Line 9] 160 cubic-feet
BMP Parameters
11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 in maximum] 10 inches
12 Media Tbickness r18 inches minimuml 18 inches
13 Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical -use 0 inches for 12 inches sizing if aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area
14 Media available pore space 0.2 in/in
15 Media filtration rate to be used for sizing 5 in/hr.
Baseline Calculation
16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 hours
17 Depth filtered during storm !Line 15 x Line 161 30 inches
18 D epth of Detention Storage 13.6 inches [Line 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14) + (Line 13 x Line 5)1
19 Total Depth Treated !Line 17 + Line 181 43.6 inches
Option 1 -Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
20 Required biofiltered volume ri .5 x Line 101 239 cubic-feet
21 Required Footprint [Line 20 / Line19l x 12 66 sq-ft
Option 2 -Store 0.75 ofrem .. :-:..,0 DCV in pores and pondina'
22 Required Storage (surface+ pores) Volume ro.75 x Line 101 120 cubic-feet
23 Required Footprint [Line 22 / Line 18] x 12 106 sq-ft
Footi>rint of the BMP
24 Area draining to the BMP 4,873 sq-ft
25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B. l and B.2) 0.65
26 Minimum BMP Footprint !Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.031 96 sq-ft
27 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Line 21, Line 23, Line 26) 106 sq-ft
Used BMP Footprint 150 sq-ft
37
ATTACHMENT 2
Structural BMP Maintenance Information
38
Attachment 2a
Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions
39
PRIVATE TREATMENT CONTROL BMP
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE VERIFICATION FORM
BIORETENTION FACILITIES, VEGETATED SWALES & HIGHER RATE
BIOFILTERS
1. Transcribe the following information from your notification letter and make corrections as necessary:
Permit No.:
BMP Location:
Responsible Party:
Phone Number: Email:
Responsible Party Address:
Number Street Name & Suffix City/Zip D Check here for Address or phone number change
2. Using the Table below, please describe the inspections and maintenance activities that have been conducted during
the fiscal year (July 1 -June 30), and date(s) maintenance was performed. Under "Results of Inspection," indicate
whether maintenance was required based on each inspection, and if so, what type of maintenance. If maintenance
was required, provide the date maintenance was conducted and a description of the maintenance. REFER TO
THE BACK OF THIS SHEET FOR MORE INFORMATION DESCRIBING TYPICAL
MAINTENANCE INDICATORS AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. If no maintenance was required
based on the inspection results, state "no maintenance required."
Results of
Inspection: Date Maintenance Completed and
Date Work needed? Description of Maintenance Conducted
What To Look For? Inspected (Yes/No)
Accumulation of
Sediment, Litter,
Grease
Standing Water
Erosion
Overgrown
Vegetation
Poor Vegetation
Establishment
Structural Damage
3. Attach copies of available supporting documents (photographs, copies of maintenance contracts, and/or
maintenance records).
4. Sign the bottom of the form and return to:
Signature of Responsible Party
County of San Diego Watershed Protection Program
Treatment Control BMP Tracking
5201 Ruffin Road, Suite P, MS 0326
San Diego, CA 92123 OR
Email: Watersheds@sdcounty.ca.gov
Print Name Date
PRIVATE TREATMENT CONTROL BMP
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE VERIFICATION FORM
BIORETENTION FACILITIES, VEGETATED SWALES & HIGHER RATE
BIOFIL TERS-SIDE 2
This guide sheet provides general indicators for maintenance only and for a wide array of treatment
control BMPs. Your developer prepared maintenance plans specifically for your treatment control
BMP as an appendix to the Stormwater Management Plan. Also, if you have a manufactured
structure, please refer to the manufacturer's maintenance instructions.
Biofilters include the following :
□ Vegetated Filter Strip/Swale □ Bioswale □ Bioretention Facility □ Planter Boxes
□ Manufactered Higher-Flow-Rate Biofilters, such as Tree-Pit-Style Units.
Routine maintenance is needed to ensure that flow is unobstructed, that erosion is prevented, and that soils are held
together by plant roots and are biologically active. Typical maintenance consists of the following:
Bioretention BMPs Inspection and Maintenance Checklist
Typical Maintenance Indicators Typical Maintenance Actions
Accumulation of sediment (over 2 inches deep or Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials,
covers vegetation}, litter, or debris without damage to the vegetation. Confirm that soil is not
clogging and that the area drains after a storm event. Till
or replace soil as necessarv.
Poor vegetation establishment Ensure vegetation is healthy and dense enough to provide
filtering and to protect soils from erosion. Replenish mulch
as necessary (if less than 3 inches deep}, remove fallen
leaves and debris, prune large shrubs or trees, and mow
turf areas.
Overgrown vegetation-woody vegetation not part Mow or trim as appropriate, but not less than the design
of design is present and grass excessively tall height of the vegetation (typically 4-6 inches for grass).
(greater than 10 inches) Confirm that irrigation is adequate and not excessive and
that sprays do not directly enter overflow grates. Replace
dead plants and remove noxious and invasive weeds.
Erosion due to concentrated irrigation flow Repair/re-seed eroded areas and adiust the irriciation.
Erosion due to concentrated stormwater runoff flow Repair/re-seed eroded areas and make appropriate
corrective measures such as adding erosion control
blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or re-grading
where necessary.Remove obstructions and sediment
accumulations so water disperses.
Standing water (BMP not draining) . If mosquito Where there is an underdrain, such as in planter boxes
larvae are present and persistent, contact the San and manufactured biofilters, check the underdrain piping
Diego County Vector Control Program at (858) 694-to make sure it is intact and unobstructed. Abate any
2888. Mosquito larvicides should be applied only potential vectors by filling holes in the ground in and
when absolutely necessary and then only by a around the biofilter facility and by insuring that there are
licensed individual or contractor. no areas where water stands longer than 96 hours
followinq a storm .
Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear obstructions.
Damage to structural components such as weirs, Repair or replace as applicable.
inlet, or outlet structures
Before the wet season and after rain events: remove Where cisterns are part of the system
sediment and debris from screens and overflow
drains and downspouts; ensure pumps are
functioning, where applicable; check integrity of
mosquito screens; and; check that covers are
properlv seated and locked.
For manufactured high-flow-rate biofilters, see
manufacturer's maintenance guidelines
Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Fact Sheet
► BIORETENTION FACILITIES
These facilities remove pollutants primarily by filtering runoff slowly through aerobic, biologically
active soil. Routine maintenance is needed to ensure that flow is unobstructed, that erosion is
prevented, and that soils are held together by plant roots and are biologically active. Typical
maintenance consists of the following:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Inspect inlets for channels, exposure of soils, or other evidence of erosion. Clear any
obstructions and remove any accumulation of sediment. Examine rock or other material
used as a splash pad and replenish if necessary.
Inspect outlets for erosion or plugging.
Inspect side slopes for evidence of instability or erosion and correct as necessary.
Observe the surface of bioretention facility soil for uniform percolation throughout. If
portions of the bioretention facility do not drain within 24 hours after the end of a storm,
the soil should be tilled and replanted. Remove any debris or accumulations of sediment.
Confirm that check dams and flow spreaders are in place and level and that rivulets and
channelization are effectively prevented.
Examine the vegetation to ensure that it is healthy and dense enough to provide filtering
and to protect soils from erosion. Replenish mulch as necessary, remove fallen leaves and
debris, prune large shrubs or trees, and mow turf areas. When mowing, remove no more
than 1/3height of grasses. Confirm that irrigation is adequate and not excessive and that
sprays do not directly enter overflow grates. Replace dead plants and remove noxious and
invasive vegetation.
Abate any potential vectors by filling holes in the ground in and around the bioretention
facility and by insuring that there are no areas where water stands longer than 48 hours
following a storm. If mosquito larvae are present and persistent, contact the San Diego
County Vector Control Program for information and advice. Mosquito larvicides should
be applied only when absolutely necessary and then only by a licensed individual or
contractor.
Attachment 2b
Draft Maintenance Agreement
I. Purpose and Scope
This section was prepared based on the Chapter 7 of City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual The
goal is to insure that the Project proponent accepts responsibility for all facilities maintenance,
repair, and replacement from the time they are constructed until the ownership and maintenance
responsibilities is formally transferred to the new owner. Facilities shall be maintained in perpetuity
and comply with the City's self-inspection, reporting , and verification requirements.
II. Inspection, Maintenance Log and Self-Verification Forms
Fill the forms on the following pages for each BMP using the maintenance schedule here and the
inspection-maintenance checklists in Section VII. These forms shall be signed by the responsible
party and retained for at least (5) years. Use the OMA Exhibit for the location of BMPs. (Make
duplicate copies of these forms and fill out those, not the original ones.)
Ill. Updates, Revisions and Errata
This maintenance plan is a living document and based on the changes made by maintenance
personnel, such as replacement of mechanical equipments, addition maintenance procedure
shall be added and maintenance plan shall be kept up to date.
Please add the revisions and updates to the maintenance plan to this section if any, these
revisions maybe transmitted to the City at any time. However, at a minimum, updates to the
maintenance plan must accompany the annual inspection report.
IV. Introduction
The Yuki Family Residence Project is located at 4390 Yuki Lane, City of Carlsbad. The site has
been previously graded per plan MS 05-02 . There are currently three vacant lots. The site is
currently bounded by existing residential development.
The project proposes the development of three (3) residential lots and related drainage features.
Note that Lots 1 and 2 will be developed, whereas Lot 3 will remain undeveloped.
The project also proposes (2) biofiltration basins for storm water treatment and detention. The
biofiltration basins will discharge into a proposed storm drain system and proposed brow ditch,
which will outlet via existing curb outlets on Yuki Lane.
40
V. Responsibility for Maintenance
A. General
Pacific Beach 2014, LTD will enter into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement
(SWFMA) with the City of Carlsbad to maintain designated facilities herein this section for the
Yuki Family Residence.
The SWFMA will serve as the mechanism to ensure that proper inspection and maintenance
is done in an efficient and timely manner.
Responsible Party
Pacific Beach 2014, LTD
c/o San Dieguito Development
1106 Second Street PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
Pacific Beach 2014, LTD will have the direct responsibility for maintenance of Stormwater
controls. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be formed, or establish another
mechanism to the satisfaction of the City. Funding for the maintenance activities shall be
provided by Pacific Beach 2014, LTD, the HOA, or other mechanism to the satisfaction of the
City.
Whenever the property is sold and whenever designated individual change, immediately the
updated contact information must be provided to the City of Carlsbad.
B. Staff Training Program
Staff training and education program shall be carried out twice a year, once prior to the rainy
season (October 1st) and once during the early dry season (April 30th).
The inspection and maintenance training program consists of the operation and function of
the biofiltration basins. Please refer to the sections VI and VII for fact sheets and checklists.
It is the responsibility of Pacific Beach 2014, LTD to convey the maintenance and inspection
information to the employees. Maintenance personnel must be qualified to properly maintain
stormwater management facilities. Inadequately trained personnel can cause additional
problems resulting in additional maintenance costs.
C. Records
Pacific Beach 2014, LTD shall retain education, inspection, and maintenance forms and
documents for at least five (5) years.
41
D. Safety
Keep safety considerations at the forefront of inspection procedures at all times. Likely
hazards should be anticipated and avoided. Never enter a confined space (outlet structure,
manhole, etc) without proper training or equipment. A confined space should never be
entered without at least one additional person present.
If a toxic or flammable substance is discovered, leave the immediate area and contact the
local Sheriff at 911 .
Potentially dangerous (e.g., fuel, chemicals, hazardous materials) substances found in the
areas must be referred to the local Sheriff's Office immediately for response by the Hazardous
Materials Unit. The emergency contact number is 911.
Vertical drops may be encountered in areas located within and around the facility. Avoid
walking on top of retaining walls or other structures that have a significant vertical drop. If a
vertical drop is identified within the pond that is greater than 48" in height, make the
appropriate note/comment on the maintenance inspection form.
VI. Summary of Drainage Areas and Stormwater Facilities
A. Drainage Areas
The proposed development consists of three residential home pads, driveways, retaining
walls, brow ditch, storm drain pipes, and two (2) biofiltration basins. The proposed
improvements will disturb 0.65 acres.
The proposed drainage pattern will be similar to the existing drainage pattern with some
modifications to incorporate the Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design
to mimic the impacts on storm water runoff and quality. The proposed runoff from the project
site is divided into five (5) drainage management areas (OMAs).
OMA 1A encompasses runoff from the proposed driveway and adjacent landscape area of
Lot 1. The driveway is proposed to be designed with pervious concrete material. Runoff from
DMA 1A will sheet flows southwest towards Yuki Lane.
OMA 1 B encompasses runoff from the proposed pad and adjacent landscape area of Lot 1.
The proposed runoff will be directed towards a proposed biofiltration basin, BF-1.1 , for
stormwater treatment. Treated water will then outlet via storm drain pipe to an existing curb
outlet on Yuki Lane.
OMA 2A encompasses runoff from the proposed driveway and adjacent landscape area of
Lot 2. The driveway is also proposed to be designed with pervious concrete material. Runoff
from OMA 2A will sheet flows southwest towards Yuki Lane.
42
OMA 2B encompasses runoff from the proposed pad and adjacent landscape area of Lot 2.
The proposed runoff will be directed towards a proposed biofiltration basin, BF-1 .2, for
stormwater treatment. Treated water will then outlet via storm drain pipe to an existing curb
outlet on Yuki Lane.
OMA 3 encompasses all of Lot 3 which will remain undeveloped. Proposed BMPs for Lot 3
will be determined and sized under a separate SWQMP at the time of development.
The proposed drainage patterns will not alter the existing flow pattern and will discharge from
the site at the historic discharge points.
B. Treatment and Flow-Control Facilities
All stormwater runoff will be treated by the biofiltration basins. The treated runoff will percolate
into the existing ground as much as possible, with an overflow and under-drain outlet
connecting to the proposed storm drain system or proposed brow ditch. The proposed storm
drain system and brow ditch will outlet to existing curb outlets on Yuki Lane.
See the OMA Exhibit for the location of BMPs.
The biofiltration basins are designed to treat and detain runoff and allow percolation into the
underlying soil. Pollutants are removed as the runoff passes through the soil layer and the
underlying layer of gravel or drain rock. There will be an overflow outlet, which will convey
flows that exceed the capacity of the basins. The basins for this Project are sized for pollutant
control only, based on the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual.
VII. Facility Documentation
Please see the following pages regarding the BMPs details and maintenance fact sheets.
VIII. Maintenance Schedule and Checklist
Fill out the Checklists in the following pages for each BMP. The Required Maintenance activities
are at the end of this section. At the discretion of the Project proponent, a qualified Stormwater
company may be hired to perform the required inspection and maintenance and provide
necessary reports.
43
Bio Retention Basin Inspection & Maintenance Checklist
IProperty:YukiLane
Property Owner: Pacific Beach
2014, LTD lnspector(s) Name:
Date of Inspection: Address:
Basin Location: OMA# __ Phone:
Type of Inspection □Monthly D pre-wet season OAtter heavy runoff
( 1" or greater) D End of wet season Oother:
Y=Yes N=No MR=Maintenance Required NA= Not Applicable
Vegetation & Irrigation:
§Vegetation is dead or diseased
Vegetation & Irrigation systems in good condition
Overgrown D Neat and orderly in appearance
Required Maintenance:
Soil:
OToo deep or too shallow
(the distance from the top of mulch to the top of riser pipe shall be 4")
Required Maintenance:
Page1of 3
Mulch:
§ Missing or Patchy in Appearance
Depth of mulch layer less than 3-in
Areas of Bare earth
Required Maintenance: ----------------------
Sediment, Trash & Debris:
□Accumulated sediment, trash,and debris present D Drain time exceeds 4 hours
Required Maintenance:
Clogs:
-----------------------
§Soil too deep or too shallow
accumulated sediment, trash and debris
Drain time more than 5 days after rainfall
Required Maintenance:
Structural Components:
-----------------------
Flow to basin is impeded
inflow pipes or downspouts are cloged/damaged
damaged splash/rock blocks
Over flow pipe in damaged or cloged
Underdrain pipes cloged or damaged
Planter is cracked, leaking or falling apart
Pa e 2 of 3
Required Maintenance: -----------------------
Inspector Signature: _________ _ Date: _______ _
Inspector Signature: _________ _ Date: _______ _
The basin shall be drained within 5 days after each storm event, standing water
for more than 5 days will cause mosquito breeding, contact County of San Diego Vector Control
Program at (858) 694-2888.
** The Responsible Party shall retail the maintenance/inspection records for a minimum of 5 years
from the date of maintenance.The records shall be made available to the County of San Diego for
ins ection u on re uest at an time. Pa e 3of 3
ATTACHMENT 3
City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit
44
FOR \,/ELL
DEEP ROOTED, DENSE, DROUGHT
TOLERANT PLANTING SUITABLE
DRAINED SOIL PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
CLEANOUT
--------
A~ ,:,;~,,,."1"--,;,,/i~,,,
.,,~(,._ 1//,-/
18' ENGINEERED SOIL MIX SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM SUSTAINED INFILTRATION RATE OF
5' /HR. MIX SHALL BE SANDY LOAM TOP SOIL
CONSISTING OF 501/. SAND, 301/. PLANTING
SOIL, 201/. COMMON MIX
3' PEA GRAVEL
12' AGGREGATE STORAGE LAYER
. '-• /-4,1//,%
SINGLE SHEET BMP EXHIBIT
YUKI FAMILY RESIDENCE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
OVERFLOI,/ STRUCTURE r TYPE SINGLE G-1 CATCH
4' X 2-11'
BASIN PER D-08
BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL. TYP.
NOT TO SCALE
K:\Civil 3D\1365\DWG\SWMP\20151015_1010-1365-Hydro_SWMP revised.dwg, 7/21/201612:37:04 PM
LEGEND
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA)
BOUNDARY
FLOW ARROW
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA (L)
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA (R)
IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE AREA
BROW DITCH
PERVIOUS CONCRETE (PUP)
BIOFIL TRA TION AREA
RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATER
ROOF DOWNSPOUTS
SWQMP NO. _1,.,,6'--'-1=0 __ _
PARlY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE:
NAME_~P~A~C~IF~IC~B=E~AC=H~2=0~14=·=LTD~-
ADDRESS 1106 SECOND STREET PMB 255 CONTACT TED MONTAG
ENCINITAS CA 92024 --'-'="-"'""-'-'=--
PHONE NO. mm 635-7£33
PLAN PREPARED BY:
NAME_ ........ B,,.,R,.,,Uo,,C~E~R~IC~E ___ _
-~-~ , ¼,,a-~///
;,;.,--S!GNATI1RE
COMPANY ---B=H~A~, !~NC ___ _
ADDRESS 5115 A VE NIDA ENCINAS. SUITE L
CARLSBAD CA 92008
PHONE NO. (J'.60) 931-8700
BMPNOTES: CERTIFICATION --",fo_-v_7t~t, __
1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS.
2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR
APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. .
3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR 1YPES OR PLANTING 1YPES
l'\~THOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER.
4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF
HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION
AND INSTALLATION.
5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT.
6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
BMP TABLE
•
c:::::::>
+ + + +
•
GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=20'
0 20 40 60
BMPID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * MAINTENANCE *
TREATMENT CONTROL
[J BIOFILTRATION ~••• ··:;i 150 SF. ••• TG-32 BASIN + • + +
0 BIOFILTRATION ~ ... :~ TC-32 150 SF. ••• BASIN + + + +
LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.l.D.)
3}19 ROOF DRAIN TO • SD-11 4EA. LANDSCAPING
SOURCE CONTROL
1oH11 STENCILS NO DUMPING ZEA. DRAINS TO OCEAN S0-13
§}€ PERVIOUS r·:•; ··:-1 SD-6 2,473 SF. CONCRETE =·~,:~~•;"!"~ .. ~
* CHOOSE FROM THE LIST BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE FIELDS
IN THE INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE FRENQUENCY COLUMNS:
ANNUAL
SEMI-ANNUALLY
QUARTERLY
BIMONTHLY
MONTHLY
AS NEEDED
NONE
WEEKLY
1 TIME PER YEAR
2 TIMES PER YEAR
3 TIMES PER YEAR
4 TIMES PER YEAR
bl-tA,lnc.
laid plonnlng, cMI er.gl: 1oerlng, surveying
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "'L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
FREQUENCY FREQUENCY
NIA NIA SEMI-ANNUALLY ANNUALLY (DISCRETIONARY) ;DISCRETIONARY
NIA NIA SEMI-ANNUALLY ANNUALLY DISCRETIONAR~ (DISCRETIONARY)
NIA NIA ANNUALLY ANNUALLY (DISCRETIONARY) DISCRETIONARY
NIA NIA
(DISCRETIONARY) DISCRETIONARY
NIA NIA
(DISCRETIONARY) DISCRETIONARY
I SHIET I CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SINGLE SHEET BMP EXHIBIT FOR:
YUKI LANE
APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT
Cl1Y ENGINEER RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 30 16 DATE
OWN BY: ____ , PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO.
CHKD BY: __ _
RVWD BY: CDP 15-25 & 26
.. ..
--.. ..
--
..
--...
-... -... -.. -------
-----
--
ATTACHMENT 4
Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations
45
.. .. -... -.. ..
-
---... ---.. -
-...
---
----------..
Attachment 4a
Proposed Hydrology Exhibit
46
PROPOSED HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT
YUKI FAMILY RESIDENCE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FOR \,/ELL
DEEP ROOTED, DENSE, DROUGHT
TOLERANT PLANTING SUITABLE
DRAINED SOIL PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
CLEANOUT
--------
"-< LO' ~~ ";;.g.;c;; ~~;,,~'~"''"?;/"~:?!,~-
18' ENGINEERED SOIL MIX SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM SUSTAINED INFILTRATION RATE OF
5' /HR. MIX SHALL BE SANDY LOAM TOP SOIL
CONSISTING OF 501/. SAND, 301/. PLANTING
SOIL, 201/. COMMON MIX
3' PEA GRAVEL
r
□VERFLO\,/ STRUCTURE
TYPE SINGLE G-1 CATCH
4' X 2-11'
----
BASIN PER D-08
~-, •• JJ •;l===t;•!·~~7-·-?:-'!>":¾~ ~¼
-~ 3'MULCH
1/.<? ~ ¥w~~w
MIN. 3' AGGREGATE BEL□V UNDERDRAIN
6' DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN
EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS 12' AGGREGATE STORAGE LAYER
BOTTOM AND SIDES OF BASIN VITH IMPERMEABLE LINER
BIOFILTRATION BASIN DETAIL, TYP.
NOT TO SCALE
K:\Civil 3D\1365\DWG\SWMP\20151015_1010-1365-Hydro_SWMP revised.dwg, 7/21/201612:33:18 PM
20'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
40'
I
60'
I
\ \ \ .
LEGEND
SURFACE NODE
SURFACE Fl.OW, 100 li:AR
BASIN AREA @
WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFRCIENT
BASIN UMIT
SUB-BASIN LIMIT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
Fl.OW PATH
fLOW DIRECTION
BROW DITCH
C=0.54
-----
····-···-
c:::> c:::> c::>
RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATERS (D-40)
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
PROJECT AREA 1.08 ACRES
DISTURBED AREA 0.66 ACRES
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.16 ACRES
PROPOSED PERV!OUS AREA 0.50 ACRES
SOIL TYPE D
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER > 20 FEET
WEIGHTED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT TABLE
UP DOWN TOTAL A1 A2 Ccomp NODE NODE ACREAGE C1 (ACRES) C2 (ACRES)
1 3 0.2 0.35 0. 1 0.87 0.06 0.59
10 11 0.11 0.35 0.05 0.87 0.06 0.63
16 18 0.43 0.35 0.28 0.87 0.15 0.53
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
AREA (ACRES) Q100 (CFS)
EXISTING 1. 1 2
PROPOSED UNDETAINED 1.2 2.69
PROPOSED DETAINED 1.2 0.65
DIFFERENCE 0.1 -1.35
I SHlET I CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED HYDROLOGY EXHIBIT FOR:
YUKI LANE
I SH1ETS I
b~A,lnc. APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT land plamlng, cMI engineering, uveylng
5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
CITY ENGINEER
OWN BY:
CHKD BY; __ _
RVWD BY:
RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 30 16 DATE
PROJECT NO.
CDP 15-25 & 26
Attachment 4b
Proposed Undetained Condition 100-Year Hydrology Calculations
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference : SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003 ,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2013 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 20.0 Release Date : 06/01/2013 License ID 1459
Analysis prepared by:
BHA , Inc
5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY**************************
* Proposed Undetained Hydrology Analysis
* 100 Year Storm
* Yuki Lane, Carlsbad CA
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: 1365P100.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09 :46 06/10/2016
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATI ON :
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2 .600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE= 0.95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE : USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
*
*
*
HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL :
WIDTH CROSS FALL IN-I OUT-/PARK-
CURB
HEIGHT
GUTTER-GEOMETRIES :
WIDTH LIP HIKE
MANNING
FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE I SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT)
--------------------------====== ======
1 30.0 20.0 0 .018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2 .00 0 .0313
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 .*
(FT) (n)
0 .167 0.0150
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1 .00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE= 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .5900
S.C .S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00
47
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 111 .45
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) 110.70
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) 0.75
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 7.506
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 5.271
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2 .00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE= 41
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 159.00 MANNING 'S N = 0 .011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 1 .7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 2 .66
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) =
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.12
6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
108 .10
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc(MIN .) =
1.00 TO NODE
8 .50
3 .00 229.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3 .00 TO NODE 3 .00 IS CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4 .864
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .5900
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.5900
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC (MIN .) = 8.50
0 .46
0.57
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 41
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 12 .00 MANNING 'S N = 0.011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2 .2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
GI VEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) =
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0 .57
8 .67
6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
104.50
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0 .02
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc(MIN .) =
1 .00 TO NODE
8.52
4 .00 241 .00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 10
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK# 1 <<<<<
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE= 21
48
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C .S . CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 66 .00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 130.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 110 .00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 20.00
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN .) = 5 .091
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE,
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) =
10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
6 .771
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6 .00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 36 .00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 0 .00 "Z" FACTOR= 1 .000
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0 .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1 .00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6 .682
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ES TIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 5.20
0 .17
5 .67
0 .11
105 .00
0.1389
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0 .04 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0 .350
0 .09
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0 .21
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS :
DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5 .00 TO NODE
6.09
7 .00 = 102 .00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 41
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138.00 MANNING 'S N = 0 .011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3 .2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 2.00
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6 .00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0 .21
1.15
104.50
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc (MIN .) =
5.00 TO NODE
6.35
4 .00 240.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 11
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK# 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
49
** MAIN
STREAM
NUMBER
1
STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA**
RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
(CFS) (MIN .) (INCH/HOUR)
0.21 6.35 5 .873
AREA
(ACRE)
0 .09
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 240.00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK# 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN .) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 0.57 8.52 4 .856 0.20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1 .00 TO NODE 4.00 241.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) ( INCH/HOUR)
1 0.64 6 .35 5.873
2 0.75 8 .52 4 .856
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0.75 Tc(MIN.) = 8 .52
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .3
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE= 31
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138.00 MANNING 'S N = 0 .011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2 .8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 8 .23
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6 .00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.75
NUMBER OF PIPES 1
95 .00
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN .) = 0 .28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc (MIN .) =
1.00 TO NODE
8.80
8 .00 379 .00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8 .00 IS CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4 .756
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.4591
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 8.80
0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0 .4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
0 .25
0 .96
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8 .00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 85 .00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 71 .00 CHANNEL SLOPE= 0 .1408
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 12.00 "Z" FACTOR= 2 .000
50
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0 .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET ) = 1.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.96
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) = 3 .10 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .03
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0 .38 Tc(MIN.) = 9.19
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 450.00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14 .00 IS CODE= 10
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK# 2 <<<<<
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10 .00 TO NODE 11 .00 IS CODE= 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .6300
S.C .S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65 .00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 95 .50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 95.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.40
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7.350
WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN
THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 54 .62
(Reference: Table 3-18 of Hydrology Manual)
THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGT H IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION !
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.343
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.13
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .13
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11 . 00 TO NODE 12 .00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 47.00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 10 .00 "Z" FACTOR= 15.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) =
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.950
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .6300
S.C .S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
1.00
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN .) = 8.27
0 .24
0 .85
0 .92
93 .30
0 .0383
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.07 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0 .630
0 .22
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE
0 .98
12 .00 =
0.34
112 . 00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12 .00 TO NODE 13 .00 IS CODE= 31
51
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRO SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESI ZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
==============================================------------------------------
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 90.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 463 .00 MANNING 'S N = 0.011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6 .0 INCH PIPE IS 4 .3 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 2 .28
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6 .00
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.34
3 .38
NUMBER OF PIPES
89 .00
1
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc (MIN .) =
10.00 TO NODE
11. 66
13.00 575.00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13 .00 TO NODE 14 .00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRO SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 89.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRO SUBAREA(FEET) = 148.00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) 0.00 "Z" FACTOR= 1.000
MANNING'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) =
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3 .832
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S . CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
1.00
TRAVEL TIME THRO SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.32 TRAVEL TIME(MIN .)
0.38
3.80
0.65
85 .00
0 .0270
Tc(MIN .) = 12.31
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0 .06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0.531
0.08
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0.35
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS :
DEPTH(FEET) = 0.31 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE
3 .65
14 .00 = 723 . 00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3 .832
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II ) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.4380
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0 .18 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN .) = 12.31
0 .24
0 .59
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14 .00 TO NODE 14 .00 IS CODE= 11
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK# 2 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
**MAINSTREAM CONFLUENCE DATA**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
52
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN .) (INCH/HOUR ) (ACRE)
1 0 .59 12 .31 3 .832 0.35
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10 .00 TO NODE 14 .00 723 . 00 FEET .
** MEMORY BANK# 2 CONFLUENCE DATA**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN .) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 0 .96 9.19 4 .627 0 .44
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 14.00 450.00 FEET .
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 1. 40 9.19 4 .627
2 1. 38 12.31 3 .832
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS :
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 1 .40 Tc(MIN .) = 9.19
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.8
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 15 .00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 85 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 20 .00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0 .00 "Z" FACTOR= 2.000
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1 .40
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.47 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .27
TRAVEL TIME(MIN .) = 0 .04 Tc(MIN .) = 9.22
82 .00
0 .1500
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10 .00 TO NODE 15.00 743 .00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15 .00 TO NODE 15 .00 IS CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.616
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFIC IENT = .5300
S.C .S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.4780
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0 .43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 1.05
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN .) = 9 .22
END OF STUDY SUMMARY :
TOTAL AREA(ACRES)
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
1. 2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
1. 2 TC (MIN.) =
2 .69
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
53
2 .69
9.22
Proposed Detained Condition 100-Year Hydrology Calculations
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-2013 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 20 .0 Release Date: 06/01/2013 License ID 1459
Analysis prepared by:
BHA, Inc
5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
' ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY**************************
* Proposed Detained Hydrology Analysis
* 100 Year Storm
* Yuki Lane, Carlsbad CA
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: 1365P100 .DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 10 :26 06/10/2016
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR} = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3 .00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL} TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0 .95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD
NOTE : USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS
*USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL*
*
*
*
HALF-CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL : CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES : MANNING
WIDTH CROSSFALL IN-/ OUT-/PARK-HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR
NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT} (FT) (FT} (n}
1 30 .0 20.0 0 .018/0.018/0 .020 0 .67 2 .00 0 .0312 0.167 0 .0150
GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS:
1 . Relative Flow-Depth= 0 .00 FEET
as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) -(Top-of-Curb)
2 . (Depth)*(Velocity} Constraint= 6.0 (FT*FT/S}
*SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.*
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2 .00 IS CODE= 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA}:
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5900
S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II} = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 111.45
54
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 110.70
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.75
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7 .506
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) 5 .271
SUBAREA RUNOFF(C FS) 0 .12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2 .00 TO NODE 3 .00 IS CODE= 41
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRO SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110 .00 DOWNSTREAM (FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 159.00 MANNING 'S N = 0.011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6 .0 INCH PIPE IS 1 .7 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOC ITY (FEET/SEC.) 2 .66
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.12
108 .10
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN .) = 1.00
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc(MIN .) =
1 .00 TO NODE
8 .50
3 .00 229 .00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.864
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .5900
S .C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 0.5900
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS )
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC(MIN .) = 8.50
0 .46
0 .57
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE= 7
>>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN) = 240.40 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 0.56
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0 .32
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3 .00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 41
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRO SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 12.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 1 .6 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 7 .41
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.32
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
0.03 Tc(MIN.) =
1 .00 TO NODE
240 .43
4 .00
1
104 .50
241 .00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
55
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4 .00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 10
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK# 1 <<<<<
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5 .00 TO NODE 6 .00 IS CODE= 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) =
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 130.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 110.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET ) = 20.00
66 .00
5 . 091 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) =
WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE ,
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) =
10 .%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
6 . 771
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.12
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7 .00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 36 .00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE (FEET) 0 . 00 "Z" FACTOR = 1. 000
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0 .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.682
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C .S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0 .17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.)
Tc(MIN.) = 5 .20
0.17
5 .67
0 .11
105 .00
0 .1389
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0 .04 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0.350
0.09
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE
6 .09
7 .00 =
0 .21
102.00 FEET .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7 .00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE= 41
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 105.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138 .00 MANNING 'S N = 0 .011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6 .0 INCH PIPE IS 3.2 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 2.00
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PI PE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.21
56
104 .50
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.15 Tc(MIN .) =
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5 .00 TO NODE
6.35
4 .00 240 .00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4 .00 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 0.21 6.35 5.873 0 .09
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4 .00 240 .00 FEET .
** MEMORY BANK# 1 CONFLUENCE DATA **
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN .) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 0.32 240 .43 0.563 0 .20
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 241 .00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) ( INCH/HOUR)
1 0.22 6.35 5 .873
2 0 .34 240.43 0 .563
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS :
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0 .34 Tc(MIN .) = 240.4 3
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .3
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 8 .00 IS CODE= 31
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 104 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 95 .00
FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 138 .00 MANNING'S N = 0 .011
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6 .0 INCH PIPE IS 1.8 INCHES
PIPE-FLOW VELOCI TY(FEET/SEC.) 6.62
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6 .00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1
PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.34
PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.35
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE
Tc (MIN.) =
1.00 TO NODE
240 .77
8 .00 379.00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8 .00 TO NODE 8 .00 I S CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 0 .563
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= 1 .4817
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
TC (MIN.) = 240.77
0 .03
0 .37
****************************************************************************
57
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8 .00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
--------======================-=========------------------------------------
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 71 .00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 12 .00 "Z" FACTOR= 2 .000
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0 .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1 .00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.37
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) = 2.46 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .01
TRAVEL TIME(MIN .) = 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 241 .25
85 .00
0.1408
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1 .00 TO NODE 9 .00 450 .00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE= 10
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK# 2 <<<<<
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11 .00 IS CODE= 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .6300
S.C.S . CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 65 .00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 95.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 95 .10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0 .40
SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7.350
WARNING : INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN
THE MAXI MUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH= 54 .62
(Reference: Table 3-lB of Hydrology Manual)
THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION!
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.343
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0 .13
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 0.13
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11 . 00 TO NODE 12 .00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA : UPSTREAM(FEET) = 95 .10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET)
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 47.00 CHANNEL SLOPE
CHANNEL BASE ( FEET) 10 . 0 0 "Z" FACTOR = 15 . 0 0 0
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0 .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.950
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .6300
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS)
TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN .)
Tc(MIN .) = 8.27
0 .24
0 .85
0 .92
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 0 .07
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0.630
58
93.30
0 .0383
0.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .1 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0.34
END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS :
DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE
0 .98
12.00 = 112 . 00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE= 7
>>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<<
USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN) = 264 .20 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 0 .53
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0 .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0 .03
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12 .00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE= 31
** WARNING: Computed Flowrate is less than 0.1 cfs,
Routing Algorithm is UNAVAILABLE.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13 . 00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE= 51
** WARNING: Computed Flowrate is less than 0.1 cfs,
Routing Algorithm is UNAVAILABLE .
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14 .00 TO NODE 14 .00 IS CODE = 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 0 .530
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .3500
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN .) = 264 .20
COEFFICIENT= 0.4271
0.18 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
0.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
0 .03
0 .06
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE= 11
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK# 2 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN .) ( INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 0 .06 264'.20 0 .530 0.28
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 14.00 112. 00 FEET.
** MEMORY BANK# 2 CONFLUENCE DATA**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 0 .37 241.25 0 . 562 0.44
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1 .00 TO NODE 14.00 450.00 FEET.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE**
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
59
NUMBER
1
2
(CFS)
0.42
0.41
(MIN.)
241 .25
264 .20
(INCH/HOUR)
0 .562
0 .530
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 0 .42 Tc(MIN .) = 241 .25
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14 .00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE= 51
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<<
ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 85.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 82.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 20 .00 CHANNEL SLOPE 0.1500
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0 .00 "Z " FACTOR= 2.000
MANNING 'S FACTOR= 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0 .42
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) = 7.13 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .17
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0 .05 Tc(MIN.) = 241.30
LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1 .00 TO NODE 15 .00 470 .00 FEET.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15 .00 IS CODE= 81
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 0.562
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT= .5300
S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0
COEFFICIENT= 0 .8691 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
TC(MIN.) = 241.30
0.43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS)
1 .2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
TOTAL AREA(ACRES)
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
1. 2 TC ( MIN . ) =
0 .56
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
60
241. 30
0 .13
0.56
DETENTION AND STORAGE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
The detained flow rates for BF-1.1 and BF-1.2 have been modeled using the Hydraulic Elements II module
within AES. The biofiltration module can model the underground gravel storage layer, underdrain with
an orifice plate, amended soil layer, and a surface storage pond up to the elevation of the invert of the
lowest surface discharge opening in the basin riser structure. Ponding above the invert of the lowest
surface discharge opening in the basin riser structure is modeled as a detention basin: area vs. elevation
and discharge vs. elevation tables are needed by AES for Depth vs. Storage and Discharge Information. It
should be noted that detailed outlet structure locations and elevations will be shown on the construction
plans based on the recommendations of this study. See the Basin Storage and Outflow Calculations for
this project for detention values to be used for the 100-year peak flow rate in the post-development
detained condition.
Rick RatHydro was used to perform the 100-year inflow hydrographs.
61
Detention Flow Results Summary
6Q Max Height
Basin 0.N(ds) Oour(ds) {ft)
BF-1.1 0.57 0.32 0.25 0.92
BF-1.2 0.36 0.03 0.33 0.69
Table 1.A, Overflow Capacity of 4' X 2-11" G-1 Catch Basin per D-08
'lEXISTING
QpROPOSED
CloETAINED
Total Site (cfs)
2
2.25
1.67
Using Broad Crested Weir Formula equation (6-10) Q=CLH1.s where Coefficient C is 3.3.
Basin Elev Coefficient Weir Length H (ft) Q(ds) (ft)
0.9 3.3 8 0.067 0.46
1.0 3.3 8 0.167 1.80
Table 1.8-Flowrate ThrouRh 18" EnRineered Soil Media to Native Soils Q=KIA ,
ABASIN= l 150 I ..
Basin K (in/hr) I, Hydraulic Q(ds) +
Depth (ft) Gradient
0.0 5 1.000 0.017 -----0.1 5 1.067 0.019 ..
0.2 5 1.133 0.020
0.3 5 1.200 0.021 -+-
0.4 5 1.267 0.022 .. -
0.5 5 1.333 0.023 --______.._
0.6 5 1.400 0.024 -4-
0.7 5 1.467 0.025 ----
0.8 5 1.533 0.027 --1--
0.9 5 1.600 0.028 -
1.0 5 1.667 0.029 ~ -
62
-+--
l
I t
I
__.,__ __ --
Table 1.C-Basin Depth vs. Storage and Discharge Information
Bottom Basin Area (sf)= 150
Elev Volume CF Depth Vlume acre-ft Outflow
0.0 116.25 0.0 0.0027 0.0174 Total Storage in Soil Media*
0.1 131.82 0.1 0.0030 0.0185
0.2 148.53 0.2 0.0034 0.0197
0.3 166.38 0.3 0.0038 0.0208
0.4 185.37 0.4 0.0043 0.0220
0.5 205.50 0.5 0.0047 0.0231
0.6 226.77 0.6 0.0052 0.0243
0.7 249.18 0.7 0.0057 0.0255
0.8 272.73 0.8 0.0063 0.0266
0.9 297.42 0.9 0.0068 0.4856
1.0 323.25 1.0 0.0074 1.8306
*assuming 40°/o Void Ratio in Gravel Layer and 25% Void Ratio in Engi ~red Soil Layer (typical value)
Drawdown cal culator: r -r 1---
Using Darcy's Law to calculate time required to drai ~" of pond depth:
L L
150 Basin Bottom Ar ea (sf):
125 Basin Volume @ 10" Depth (cf):
1.5 Depth of Engine ered Soil above Outlet Point (ft):
5 Assumed Soil Hy draulic Conductivity in Engineered Soil (in/hr):
l_
Q= KIA; where I= Hydraulic Gradient above outlet point --r --~ t
0.03 Q at outlet point (cfs) J
---<f-----
1.29 Drawdown Time (hrs)< 72 hrs ✓
63
BF-1.1 BASIN STORAGE AND OUTFLOW CALCULATIONS
****************************************************************************
HYDRAULICS ELEMENTS -II PROGRAM PACKAGE
STORAGE BASIN HYDROGRAPH ROUTING MODEL
****************************************************************************
(c) Copyright 1983-2013 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 20 .0 Release Date: 06/01/2013 License ID 1459
FILE NAME: 1365BF11.DAT
Analysis prepared by:
BHA, Inc.
5115 Avenida Encinas , Suite L
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:18 06/10/2016
ENTERED INFORMATION:
TOTAL NUMBER OF INFLOW HYDROGRAPH INTERVALS= 42
CONSTANT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNIT(MINUTES) = 8 .000
ASSUMED INITIAL DEPTH(FEET) IN STORAGE BASIN= 0 .00
ENTERED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES(C FS):
*INTERVAL FLOW *INTERVAL FLOW *INTERVAL FLOW *
* NUMBER (CFS) * NUMBER (CFS) * NUMBER (CFS) *
* 1 : 0 .00* 2 : 0.00* 3: 0 .00*
* 4 : 0 .00* 5 : 0 .00* 6: 0 .00*
* 7 : 0 .00* 8 : 0.00* 9: 0 .00*
* 10: 0 .00* 11 : 0 .00* 12: 0 .00*
* 13: 0 .00* 14 : 0.00* 15: 0 .00*
* 16: 0 .00* 17 : 0 .00* 18: 0 .00*
* 19: 0.00* 20 : 0 .00* 21 : 0.00*
* 22: 0 .00* 23 : 0.00* 24 : 0 .10*
* 25 : 0 .10* 26 : 0 .10* 27 : 0 .10*
* 28 : 0 .10* 29 : 0.57* 30: 0 .10*
* 31: 0 .1 0* 32 : 0 .00* 33: 0 .00*
* 34 : 0 .00* 35: 0 .00* 36: 0 .00*
* 37: 0.00* 38 : 0 .00* 39: 0.00*
* 40 : 0.00* 41 : 0 .00* 42: 0 .00*
DEPTH-VS.-STORAGE AND DEPTH-VS.-DISCHARGE INFORMATION :
TOTAL NUMBER OF BASIN DEPTH INFORMATION ENTRIES= 11
*BASIN-DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW **BASIN-DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW *
* (FEET) (ACRE-FEET) (CFS) ** (FEET) (ACRE-FEET) (CFS) *
* 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000** 0 .100 0 .003 0 .019*
* 0 .200 0 .003 0.020** 0.300 0 .004 0 .021*
* 0. 400 0.004 0 .022** 0.500 0 .005 0.023*
* 0 .600 0 .005 0.024** 0.700 0 .006 0 .025*
* 0 .800 0 .006 0 .027** 0 .900 0.007 0.486*
* 1. 000 0 .007 1.831**
****************************************************************************
INITIAL BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00
INITIAL BASIN STORAGE(ACRE-FEET)· = 0 .00
64
INITIAL BASIN OUTFLOW(CFS) = 0 .00
BASIN STORAGE , OUTFLOW AND DEPTH ROUTING VALUES :
INTERVAL {S-O*DT/2) {S+O*DT/2)
NUMBER (ACRE-FEET) (ACRE-FEET)
1 0.00000 0 .00000
2 0.00290 0 .00310
3 0 .00329 0 .00351
4 0.00369 0 .00391
5 0.00418 0.00442
6 0 .00457 0 .00483
7 0 .00507 0 .00533
8 0.00556 0 .00584
9 0 .00615 0.00645
10 0 .00412 0 .00948
11 -0.00269 0 .01749
WHERE S=STORAGE(AF) ;O=OUTFLOW(AF/MIN.);DT=UNIT(MIN .)
*UNIT-HYDROGRAPH STORAGE-BASIN ROUTING*
NOTE : COMPUTED BASIN DEPTH, OUTFLOW , AND STORAGE QUANTITIES
OCCUR AT THE GIVEN TIME. BASIN INFLOW VALUES REPRESENT THE
AVERAGE INFLOW DURING THE RECENT HYDROGRAPH UNIT INTERVAL.
GRAPH NOTATION: "!"=MEAN UNIT INFLOW ; "O"=OUTFLOW AT GIVEN TIME
TIME INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
(HOURS) (CFS) (CFS) (ACRE-FT) 0 . 0 . 0 . 0.
0 .13 0.00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH ( FEET) = 0.00]
0.27 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
0 .40 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0.00]
0 .53 0.00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
0 .67 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 . 00]
0 .80 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 . 00]
0.93 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00 )
1.07 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 20 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 33 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00 ]
1. 47 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 60 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 73 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 87 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
65
1.
2.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00)
2 .13 0 .00 0 .00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00)
2 .27 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00)
2 .40 0.00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0.00)
2.53 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0.00)
2.67 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00)
2 .80 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00)
2.93 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00)
3 .07 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00)
3.20 0 .10 0 .01 0.001 0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04)
3 .33 0.10 0.01 0 .002 0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .07)
3 .47 0 .10 0 .02 0 .003 .0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .10)
3 .60 0 .10 0 .02 0.004 .0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32)
3 .73 0 .10 0.02 0 .005 .0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0. 51)
3.87 0.57 0.32 0.007 I
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) -0. 92]
4 .00 0.10 0 .02 0 .004 .0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.32)
4 .13 0 .10 0 .02 0.005 .0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .51)
4 .27 0 .00 0.02 0 .005 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 . 45)
4 .40 0 .00 0 .02 0 .004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0. 39)
4.53 0.00 0 .02 0.004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.35)
4 .67 0 .00 0.02 0 .004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .30)
4 .80 0 .00 0.02 0 .004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .24)
4.93 0.00 0 .02 0 .003 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .19)
5.07 0 .00 0 .02 0.003 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = o .14 J
5 .20 0 .00 0.02 0.003 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .10)
5.33 0.00 0.02 0 .003 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .09)
5 .47 0 .00 0.02 0.003 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0. 09)
5.60 0.00 0.01 0.002 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .08)
66
BF-1.1 100-YEAR INFLOW HYDROGRAPH
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM
COPYRIGHT 1992, 2001 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
RUN DATE 6/10/2016
HYDROGRAPH FILE NAME Text1
TIME OF CONCENTRATION 9 MIN .
6 HOUR RAINFALL 2.6 INCHES
BASIN AREA 0.2 ACRES
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.59
PEAK DISCHARGE 0.57 CFS
TIME (MIN)= 0
TIME (MIN)= 9
TIME (MIN)= 18
TIME (MIN)= 27
TIME (MIN)= 36
TIME (MIN)= 45
TIME (MIN)= 54
TIME (MIN)= 63
TIME (MIN)= 72
TIME (MIN)= 81
TIME (MIN)= 90
TIME (MIN)= 99
TIME (MIN)= 108
TIME (MIN)= 117
TIME (MIN)= 126
TIME (MIN)= 135
TIME (MIN)= 144
TIME (MIN)= 153
TIME (MIN)= 162
TIME (MIN)= 171
TIME (MIN)= 180
TIME (MIN)= 189
TIME (MIN)= 198
TIME (MIN)= 207
TIME (MIN)= 216
TIME (MIN)= 225
TIME (MIN)= 234
TIME (MIN)= 243
TIME (MIN)= 252
TIME (MIN)= 261
TIME (MIN)= 270
TIME (MIN)= 279
TIME (MIN)= 288
TIME (MIN)= 297
TIME (MIN)= 306
TIME (MIN)= 315
TIME (MIN)= 324
TIME (MIN)= 333
TIME (MIN)= 342
TIME (MIN)= 351
TIME (MIN)= 360
TIME (MIN)= 369
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.57
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
67
BF-1.2 BASIN STORAGE AND OUTFLOW CALCULATIONS
****************************************************************************
HYDRAULICS ELEMENTS -II PROGRAM PACKAGE
STORAGE BASIN HYDROGRAPH ROUTING MODEL
****************************************************************************
(c) Copyright 1983-2013 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver . 20 .0 Release Date : 06/01 /2013 License ID 1459
FILE NAME: 1365BF11.DAT
Analysis prepared by:
BHA, Inc.
5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387
(760) 931-8700
TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 15 :31 04/11/2016
ENTERED INFORMATION:
TOTAL NUMBER OF INFLOW HYDROGRAPH INTERVALS= 47
CONSTANT HYDROGRAPH TIME UNI T (MINUTES) = 8 .000
ASSUMED INITIAL DEPTH(FEET) IN STORAGE BASIN= 0 .00
ENTERED INFLOW HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (C FS):
*INTERVAL FLOW *INTERVAL FLOW *INTERVAL FLOW *
* NUMBER (CFS) * NUMBER (CFS) * NUMBER (CFS) *
* 1 : 0.00* 2: 0 .00* 3: 0.00*
* 4 : 0 .00* 5 : 0 .00* 6 : 0.00*
* 7 : 0.00* 8 : 0.00* 9: 0 .00*
* 10 : 0 .00* 11 : 0 .00* 12: 0 .00*
* 13 : 0 .00* 14: 0.00* 15 : 0 .00*
* 16: 0 .00* 17 : 0 .00* 18: 0 .00*
* 19 : 0 .00* 20 : 0 .00* 21 : 0 .00*
* 22 : 0 .00* 23: 0 .00* 24 : 0 .00*
* 25 : 0.00* 26: 0 .00* 27 : 0 .00*
* 28 : 0.00* 29: 0 .00* 30: 0.10*
* 31 : 0.00* 32: 0 .36* 33: 0.10*
* 34 : 0.00* 35: 0 .00* 36: 0 .00*
* 37: 0.00* 38 : 0 .00* 39: 0 .00*
* 40 : 0 .00* 41: 0 .00* 42 : 0.00*
* 43: 0 .00* 4 4 : 0 .00* 45 : 0 .00*
* 46 : 0 .00* 4 7 : 0 .00*
-------------------------------=============================================
DEPTH-VS.-STORAGE AND DEPTH-VS .-DISCHARGE INFORMATION :
TOTAL NUMBER OF BASIN DEPTH INFORMATION ENTRIES= 11
*BASIN-DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW **BASIN-DEPTH STORAGE OUTFLOW *
* (FEET) (ACRE-FEET) (CFS) ** (FEET) (ACRE-FEET) (CFS) *
* 0.000 0 .000 0 .000** 0 .100 0 .003 0 .019*
* 0 .200 0 .003 0.020** 0.300 0.004 0 .021*
* 0 .400 0 .004 0 .022** 0 .500 0 .005 0.023*
* 0 .600 0 .005 0.024** 0.700 0.006 0 .025*
* 0 .800 0 .006 0 .027** 0.900 0 .007 0 .486*
* 1. 000 0 .007 1.831**
****************************************************************************
68
INITIAL BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00
INITIAL BASIN STORAGE(ACRE-FEET) = 0.00
INITIAL BASIN OUTFLOW(CFS) = 0 .00
BASIN STORAGE , OUTFLOW AND DEPTH ROUTING VALUES :
INTERVAL {S-O*DT/2) {S+O*DT/2)
NUMBER (ACRE-FEET) (ACRE-FEET)
1 0.00000 0.00000
2 0 .00290 0.00310
3 0 .00329 0.00351
4 0.00369 0 .00391
5 0 .00418 0 .00442
6 0 .00457 0 .00483
7 0 .00507 0.00533
8 0 .00556 0 .00584
9 0 .00615 0 .00645
10 0.00412 0.00948
11 -0 .00269 0 .01749
WHERE S=STORAGE(AF);O=OUTFLOW(AF/MIN .) ;DT=UNIT(MIN .)
*UNIT-HYDROGRAPH STORAGE-BASIN ROUTING*
NOTE : COMPUTED BASIN DEPTH, OUTFLOW , AND STORAGE QUANTITIES
OCCUR AT THE GIVEN TIME . BASIN INFLOW VALUES REPRESENT THE
AVERAGE INFLOW DURING THE RECENT HYDROGRAPH UNIT INTERVAL.
GRAPH NOTATION : "I "=MEAN UNIT INFLOW ; "O"=OUTFLOW AT GIVEN TIME
TIME INFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE
(HOURS) (CFS) (CFS) (ACRE -FT ) 0. 0 . 0. 0.
0.13 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
0 .27 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
0 .40 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
0.53 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
0. 67 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0. 00]
0 .80 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00)
0 .93 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
1.07 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 20 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
1. 33 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
1. 4 7 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
1. 60 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPT H(FEET) = 0 .00]
1. 73 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
69
0.
1. 87 0 .00 0 .00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0.00]
2 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0. 00]
2.13 0.00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
2 .27 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
2 .40 0 .00 0.00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.00]
2.53 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
2.67 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
2.80 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
2.93 0 .00 0 .00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 . 00]
3 .07 0 .00 0 .00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
3.20 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
3 .33 0 .00 0 .00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0.00]
3 .47 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
3.60 0 .00 0 .00 0 .000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
3.73 0 .00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0 .00]
3 .87 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .00]
4.00 0.10 0.01 0 .001 0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .04]
4 .13 0 .00 0 .01 0 .001 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .03]
:t.27 0.36 0.02 0 .005 0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .52]
4.40 0.10 0.03 0. 006 . 0 I
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) -0.69)
4 .53 0 .00 0.02 0 .005 I 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .63 ]
4. 67 0.00 0 .02 0 .005 I 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .58]
4 .80 0 .00 0.02 0 .005 I 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .53]
4 .93 0 .00 0.02 0.005 I 0
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.47]
5.07 0.00 0.02 0 .004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .41]
5 .20 0 .00 0.02 0.004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0. 36]
5 .33 0 .00 0 .02 0.004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH (FEET) = 0.31]
5 . 47 0 .00 0 .02 0.004 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0 . 26]
5.60 0 .00 0.02 0.003 IO
[BASIN DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20]
70
BF-1.2 100-YEAR INFLOW HYDROGRAPH
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH PROGRAM
COPYRIGHT 1992, 2001 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
RUN DATE 4/11!2016
HYDROGRAPH FILE NAME Text1
TIME OF CONCENTRATION 8 MIN.
6 HOUR RAINFALL 2.6 INCHES
BASIN AREA 0.1 ACRES
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.63
PEAK DISCHARGE 0.36 CFS
TIME (MIN)= 0
TIME (MIN)= 8
TIME (MIN)= 16
TIME (MIN)= 24
TIME (MIN)= 32
TIME (MIN)= 40
TIME (MIN)= 48
TIME (MIN)= 56
TIME (MIN)= 64
TIME (MIN)= 72
TIME (MIN)= 80
TIME (MIN)= 88
TIME (MIN)= 96
TIME (MIN)= 104
TIME (MIN)= 112
TIME (MIN)= 120
TIME (MIN)= 128
TIME (MIN)= 136
TIME (MIN)= 144
TIME (MIN)= 152
TIME (MIN)= 160
TIME (MIN)= 168
TIME (MIN)= 176
TIME (MIN)= 184
TIME (MIN)= 192
TIME (MIN)= 200
TIME (MIN)= 208
TIME (MIN)= 216
TIME (MIN)= 224
TIME (MIN)= 232
TIME (MIN)= 240
TIME (MIN)= 248
TIME (MIN)= 256
TIME (MIN)= 264
TIME (MIN)= 272
TIME (MIN)= 280
TIME (MIN)= 288
TIME (MIN)= 296
TIME (MIN)= 304
TIME (MIN)= 312
TIME (MIN)= 320
TIME (MIN)= 328
TIME (MIN)= 336
TIME (MIN)= 344
TIME (MIN)= 352
TIME (MIN)= 360
TIME (MIN)= 368
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.36
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0.1
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
DISCHARGE (CFS)= 0
71
PIPE CALCULATIONS
****************************************************************************
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS -I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982-2013 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver . 20.0 Release Date: 06/01/2013 License ID 1459
Analysis prepared by:
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:52 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions:
Node 8-Pipe Diameter Calculations
****************************************************************************
>>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = 0.0652
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 0 .75
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0 .011000
>>>>>SOFFIT-FLOW PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) 0.368 < 6" Pipe (Node 4 -Node 8)
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12 :07 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions:
Node 8-Pipe Depth and Velocity Calculations
****************************************************************************
>>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 0 .500
PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = 0.0652
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 0.75
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0.011000
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0.181
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0 .339
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) =
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) = 4 .145
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET)
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET )
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23
72
0.27
0.53
0.70
6.02
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0.09
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0.499
FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
12 .70
FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .18
FROUDE NUMBER= 3 .476
SPEC IFIC ENERGY(FEET) =
TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 12 :22 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions :
Node 8-Curb Outlet Calculations
Depth and Velocity
8.363
1.086
1.32
****************************************************************************
>>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
CHANNEL Zl(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL)
Z2(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) =
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 3.00
0.00
0 .00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET) 0.020000
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 0 .75
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0.0150
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) 0.09
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 3 .00
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0 .27
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .09
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) 2.79
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER= 1 .641
PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 4.81
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0 .121
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0 .210
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION :
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 3 .00
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET)
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13
0 .38
0.13
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0.187
TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 12 :06 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions:
Node 13-Pipe Diameter Calculations
2 .00
4 .37
0 .062
****************************************************************************
>>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
73
PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = 0.0050
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 0 .36
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0.011000
>>>>>SOFFIT-FLOW PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) 0 .453 < 6" Pipe (Node 12 -Node 13)
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12:09 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions :
Node 13-Pipe Depth and Velocity Calculations
****************************************************************************
>>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 0.500
PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = 0 .0050
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 0 .36
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0 .011000
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION :
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .30
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) =
0 .125
0.488
PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = CRITICAL FLOW
CRITICAL FLOW
CRITICAL FLOW
CRITICAL FLOW
CRITICAL FLOW
VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) = 2.875
VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET)
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET)
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATI ON:
NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .33
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 0 .14
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0.475
FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .29
FROUDE NUMBER= 0.865
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) =
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12 :10 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions:
Node 13 -Node 14-"V" Channel Flow
Depth and Velocity Calculations
2.633
0.108
0 .44
0.13
0.26
0 .43
1. 84
2.01
****************************************************************************
>>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
CHANNEL Zl(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL)
Z2(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) =
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 0.00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET)
1.00
1.00
0.027000
74
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) =
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR
0 .36
0 .0150
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION :
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET)
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) =
0.31
0 .62
0 .10 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER= 1.664
3 .72
PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 3.22
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0.215
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0 .526
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 0.76
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET)
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .38
0 .14
0 .19
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS)
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0.476
TIME/DATE OF STUDY : 12:24 04/11/2016
Problem Descriptions :
Node 14-Curb Outlet Calculations
Depth and Velocity
2 .49
2 .88
0.096
****************************************************************************
>>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
CHANNEL Zl(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL)
Z2(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) =
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 3.00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET)
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 0.36
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR= 0.0150
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET)
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) =
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =
0.06
3.00
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 0 .06
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .)
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER= 1.471
PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) =
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0 .123
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION :
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH (FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET )
0.00
0.00
0 .020000
0.18
2.03
1.74
0.064
75
3.00
0 .23
0 .08
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC .) 1.55
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.08
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE+ MOMENTUM(POUNDS) 1.64
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 0 .037
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 0.115
76
Attachment 5
Geotechnical Study
77
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
,f(lf,·I', .r... r, :J--1:· .. :, ,,:.~ ·r" ~.:. ·, !'(
•o,.;;;i,. ,u,·,.1, &CG\"J·i:~1.r._cr.,~ l~J._1.,• ---2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TO BE LOCATED AT
LOT 1, YUKI LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No. 155513-1
September 3, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd .
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMS 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
1,I If,. •• l ~ ,, : • •• ._. 'l •'t
' • \ I.I"•~ I " ., ._ ---2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760 ) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
\'""'-'I...,...,...,, vv~ , u ". \' vv1 ""Tvv ,..,., , • """"1n.v c:;.:,1~••~•uut,-1ua,vv1 11
Date: September 3, 2015
To: Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd.
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
e: tedmontag3@msn.com
Re:
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 1 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Updated Geotechnical Report
We have provided the following updated limited geotechnical report for the proposed new
residence at the above referenced address. Earthwork recommendations and foundation design
parameters are presented in this report. In general it is our opinion that the proposed construction,
as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of
this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed.
If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE#2590
Erin E. Rist
California RCE #65122
Table of Contents
1.0 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 1
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................. 1
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 1
5.0 GROUND WATER .......................................................................................................... 1
6.0 LIQUEFACTION .............................................................................................................. 2
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 3
7. 1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 3
7. 2 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................. 3
7.3 FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 4
7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ................................................................................ 6
7.5 RETAINING WALLS .................................................................................................... 9
8.0 SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................... 11
9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ....................................................... 12
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS ......................................................................................................... 13
APPENDICES
References ................................................................................................................. Appendix A
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ........................................................... Appendix B
Retaining Wall Drainage Detail .................................................................................. Appendix C
1.0 SCOPE
This report gives our recommendations for the proposed new residence to be constructed on Lot
1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad , California. The scope of our work conducted onsite to date has included
a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas, review of past reports , and
preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of a graded building pad bordered to the north and east be single
family dwellings, to the south by a vacant un-developed lot and to the west by Yuki Lane. The
general topography of the site area consists of coastal foothill terrain. The site consists of a
relatively flat building pad flanked to the north by ascending slopes to the lot above, portions of
which are oversteepened slopes, to the east, south and west by graded descending slopes. At
the time of this report the property is generally undeveloped. The building pad was graded in and
around summer-fall 2014. We understand the proposed new development will consist of a new
two story single family residence.
3.0 FIELD INVEST/GA T/ON
No additional subsurface investigation was conducted as part of the proposed scope of work.
Grading of the subject site occurred in 2014. Engineering Design Group provided limited
observation and testing during the grading of the building pads.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based upon our limited earthwork observation and testing conducted at the time of site grading
fills on the order of 3-7 feet should be anticipated in the area of the proposed building pad. Fill
materials general classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System , and
based on visual observation, are considered to possess low potential for expansion.
5.0 GROUND WATER
Groundwater was not encountered in during the grading of the subject property. Groundwater is
not anticipated to pose a significant constraint to construction, however based upon our
experience, perched groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 1
Job No. 155513-1
existed. Perched groundwater conditions can develop over time and can have a significant
impact, especially at basements. Waterproofing membrane shall be specifically detailed by
waterproofing consultant. If groundwater conditions are encountered during site excavations, a
slab underdrain system may be required.
Any proposed bioretention facilities within close proximity of the residence shall be lined with an
impervious waterproof barrier. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a
significant role in the future performance of the project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on
Grade" section of this report for specific recommendations regarding water to cement ratio for
moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or waterproofing
consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details.
6.0 LIQUEFACTION
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event
of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region . However, the
seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area.
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface
ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty sands and
clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil
materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for
liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The
effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform
Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of
California.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DFSIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 155513-1
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 GENERAL
In general it is our opinion that the proposed new residence, as discussed and described herein ,
is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and all
applicable codes are followed.
We understand the new residence is proposed approximately 5 feet horizontal from the
oversteepened slope along the north property line. A new retaining wall is proposed along the
toe of the slope to a design height of 6 feet, to include a maximum retained height of 4.5 feet and
an additional 1.5 feet freeboard beyond the anticipated retained height. See specific
recommendations for the design of the retaining wall in Section 7.5 of this report.
7.2 EARTHWORK
We anticipate site grading will be limited to a shallow rip and recompact of the upper 8 inches in
the area of the proposed building pad and backfill behind proposed new retaining walls and utilitiy
trenches. All grading should be done in accordance with the recommendations below as well as
the standards of county and state agencies, as applicable.
7.2.a. Site Preparation
Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvements should be cleared of surface and
subsurface debris (including organic topsoil, vegetative and construction debris). Removed debris
should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes
resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend
below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted.
7.2.b. Removals
The area of the proposed new building and settlement sensitive improvements shall be scarified
with a shallow rip, approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned and the recompacted to 90
percent minimum relative compaction in areas.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 3
Job No. 155513-1
7.2.c. Transitions
All settlement sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform building pad . The
building pad area was undercut during original grading to an approximate depth of 3 feet. Where
new footing excavations extend beyond the area of undercut footings may require overexcavation
and recompaction to a minimum of one foot below the bottom of the footing , as determined by the
geotechnical engineer at the time of construction .
7.2.d. Fills
All new fill and backfill should be brought to approximately +2% of optimum moisture content and
re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Compacted
fills should be cleaned of loose debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted as described above.
Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 6-8 inches in thickness. Import of soil
material is not anticipated, however if import material is required, soils should have a very low
potential for expansion (El<20), free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing soils, they
should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability
as fill.
7.2.e. Slopes
Where new slopes are constructed permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2: 1 (horizontal
to vertical). Permanent fill slopes shall be placed at a maximum 2: 1 slope face ratio. All temporary
cut slopes shall be excavated in accordance with OSHA requirements and shall not undermine
adjacent property or structures without proper shoring of excavation and/or structures.
Subsequent to grading, planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the
stability of slopes, especially during the rainy season (October thru April). Contractor shall take all
necessary precautions to protect improvements at the street during anticipated excavations.
7.3 FOUNDATIONS
The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded on competent
material.
7.3.a. Footings bearing into competent sandstone or recompacted fill material may be designed
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 4
Job No. 155513-1
utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf.
7.3.b. Seismic Design Parameters 2013 CBC
Site Class D
Spectral Response Coefficients
SMs (g) 1.183
SM1 (g) 0.679
Sos (g) 0.789
So1 (g) 0.453
7.3.c. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short
duration loadings.
7.3.d. The parameters in the table below should be used as a minimum for designing new footing
width and depth below lowest adjacent grade into recompacted fill material. Footing
depths are to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group
prior to the placement of form boards, steel and removal of excavation equipment.
No. of Floors Supported Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Below Lowest
Adjacent Grade
1 15inches 18inches
2 15inches 18 inches
3 18inches 24 inches
7.3.e. All footings founded into competent material should be reinforced with a minimum of two
#4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings
over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 5
Job No. 155513-1
necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction.
7.3.f. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values
and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each
direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum
width and depth of 24 inches.
7.3.g. For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum of 10 feet (competent, compacted material)
and horizontal setback in competent material or properly compacted fill should be
maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the
bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition cannot be met it should be
brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review.
7.3.h. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this
report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county
standards.
7.3.i. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a
minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
We recommend the following as the minimum design parameters for new concrete slabs on
grade.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 6
Job No. 155513-1
7.4.a. Concrete slab on grade of the proposed building and driveway should have a minimum
thickness of 5 inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the
midpoint of the slab.
7.4.a.i Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum
7.4.a.ii Aggregate Size: 3/4 -1 inch
7.4.a.iii Moisture Sensitive Areas: At concrete slab on grade floors in moisture
sensitive area (i.e. floors, below grade walls) we recommend a maximum
water to cement Ratio -0.45 maximum Compressive Strength "'4,500 psi
minimum (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes,
unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer). This recommendation
is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete.
7.4.a.iv Moisture retarding additive: in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors
and moisture sensitive area
7.4.a.v Corrosion Potential: Based upon laboratory testing conducted as part of
the field investigation onsite soils meet ACI exposure categories SO, C1 . The
project structural engineer to note increased concrete protection
requirements for corrosive environments, as applicable. EOG is not an
expert in corrosion or corrosion prevention. All corrosion recommendations
shall be provided by the corrosion consultant.
7.4.a.vi Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength= 2,500 psi
minimum.
7.4.b. In areas of level slab on grade floors we recommend a one inch layer of coarse sand
material, Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean of fine materials,
should be placed beneath the slab in moisture sensitive areas, above the vapor barrier.
There shall be not greater than an ½ inch difference across the sand layer.
7.4.c. In moisture sensitive areas, a vapor barrier layer (15 mil) should be placed below the
upper one inch of sand. The vapor barrier shall meet the following minimum requirements:
• Permeance of less than 0.01 perm [grains/(ft2 hr in/Hg)] as tested in accordance with
ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1.
• Strength per ASTM 17 45 Class A.
• The vapor barrier should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a
minimum of 6 inches. The vapor barrier should lap a minimum of 8 inches, sealed
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DF$IGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 7
Job No. 155513-1
along all laps with the manufacturer's recommended adhesive. Beneath the vapor
barrier a uniform layer of 3 inches of pea gravel is recommended under the slab in
order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the
slab, and act as a capillary break.
7.4 .d. The project waterproofing consultant should provide all slab underdrain , slab sealers and
various other details, specifications and recommendations (i.e Moiststop and Linkseal) at
areas of potential moisture intrusion (i.e. slab penetrations). Engineering Design Group
accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of the
building .
7.4.e. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete
that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing . The control joints
should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by
the designer.
7.4.f. Any additional fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading
section of this report, Section 7.1 , and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density,
ASTM D-1557, and as described in the Earthwork section of this report.
7.4.g. All subgrade soils to receive concrete slabs and flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent
over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.
7.4.h. Exterior concrete flatwork, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil
movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected
concrete cracking, the following may be implemented:
• Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent to top
of a slope should be constructed with an outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet
distance to daylight.
• Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches.
• Concrete should be poured during "cool " (40 -65 degrees) weather if possible. If
concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the
mix, and the slump kept to a minimum.
• Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level
of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18
inches.
• Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints creating concrete sections no larger
than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not
exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 8
Job No. 155513-1
generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft . wide). Joints should be cut at
expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal
reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards.
• Isolation joints should be installed at exterior concrete where exterior concrete is
poured adjacent to existing foundations.
• Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the
improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective
drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork.
• The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance
cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality
and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these
recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of
concrete.
7.5 RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls up to 6 feet are anticipated as part of site development. We anticipate retaining
walls at the bottom of the oversteepened slope along the north side of the property. Retaining
walls may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and
minimum design parameters.
7.5.a. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing
criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum
footing depths outlined in the "Foundations", Section 7.3, of this report. It is anticipated
that all retaining wall footings will be placed on recompacted material or competent
sandstone.
7.5.b. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid
pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with very low
potential for expansion (E.I. <20) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will
be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is not low (E. I. >50) a new active fluid
pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be
considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We
anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the
parameters provided in the table below may be utilized.
Backfill Sloping
Condition
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
1:5:1 or Steeper
Page No. 9
Job No. 155513-1
I Active Fluid
Pressure
50 pcf 65 pcf 80 pcf
Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values.
7.5.c. We anticipate much of the retaining wall proposed will be designed for backfill that is 1 :5 or
steeper. The upper 1.5: 1 feet of freeboard shall be included in the overall retained height
for design purposes.
7.5.d. We recommend a debris fence extend a minimum of 24 inches above the wall to limit
damage due to sloughing that will occur along the slope face.
7.5.e. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an
uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf.
7.5.f. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where vapor emission is a concern), in
our experience poured in place concrete provides a surface with higher
performance-repairability of below grade waterproofing systems. The owner should
consider the cost-benefit of utilizing cast in place building retaining walls in lieu of masonry
as part of the overall construction of the residence. Waterproofing at any basement floors
is recommended in areas of moisture sensitive floor finishes.
7.5.g. Retaining walls shall be designed for additional lateral forces due to earthquake, where
required by code, utilizing the following design parameters.
• Yielding Walls = PE= (3/8) kAE (y) H2 -applied at a distance of 0.6 times the
height (H) of the wall above the base
• Horizontal ground acceleration value kH = 0.25g .
• Where non-yielding retaining walls are proposed, the specific conditions
should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group for alternative
design values.
• The unit weight of 120 pcf for the onsite soils may be utilized.
• The above design parameters assume unsaturated conditions. Retaining
wall designs for sites with a hydrostatic pressure influence (i.e groundwater
within depth of retaining wall or waterfront conditions) will require special
design considerations and should be brought to the attention of Engineering
Design Group.
7.5.h. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 10
Job No. 155513-1
This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures extends
horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the
horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the
height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in
available horizontal length.
7.5.i. A coefficient of friction of 0.33 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to
resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above.
7.5.j. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure,
and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the "Retaining
Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix C. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are
minimums, and are intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or
architect. The recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of proposed
finishes and usage, especially at basement levels, performance expectations and budget.
If deemed necessary by the project owner, based on the above analysis, and
waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under drains and enhanced
waterproofing elements.
7.5.k. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
"Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion
potential , granular, free draining material.
7.5.1. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction . If this cannot be
accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when
designing the wall.
8.0 SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future
performance of the proposed improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to
pond against or adjacent to tops of slopes and/or foundation walls .
The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in
nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for
a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be
provided in low spots to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Any trench drains,
backdrains and/or slab underdrains shall not be tied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters
and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 11
Job No. 155513-1
drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts.
Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage.
Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater
cond itions . Irrigation should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow
irrigation devices as well as automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over
watering . Irrigation practices and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an
important component to the performance of onsite improvements.
During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected.
Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from
sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition , irrigation of
planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work
improvements should be strictly controlled or avoided.
9.0 CONSTRUCT/ON OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by
the investigation and our general experience in the project area. Interpolated subsurface
conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be
conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to
verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein,
as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as
deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s).
9.1 Review of final approved grading and structural plans prior to the start of work for
compliance with geotechnical recommendations.
9.2 Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work.
9.3 Observation of subgrade and excavation bottoms.
9.4 Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches.
9.5 Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation
equipment.
9.6 Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils.
9. 7 Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval.
The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional
steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 12
Job No. 155513-1
Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in
writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm , and the
design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol
specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have
exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building . Engineering
Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this
protocol.
Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract
for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48
hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing.
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS
It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and
minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to
respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the
swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce
movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or
interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes.
Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local
conditions , and a review of reports and plans prepared by others. The recommendations in this
report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and
neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for
anticipating the behavior of the proposed improvement; however, our recommendations are
professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or
adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations,
beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the
investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein.
If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change.
Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In
addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation are rapidly
occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes.
Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a
period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 13
Job No. 155513-1
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report
be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable
that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and
seismic conditions be retained to build the structure.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not
hesitate to contact us . We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue
with the development of the project.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING D.ESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 14
Job No. 155513-1
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page.
2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in
California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990.
3. Day, Robert W. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction." 1999.
McGraw Hill.
4. Engineering Design Group, Rough Grading As-Graded Report, dated January 23, 2015.
5. Engineering Design Group, Updated Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation
Recommendation, Proposed Subdivision Located at 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California. EDG
Project No. 135229-1, dated October 30, 2013.
6. Engineering Design Group, Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated October 23, 2004.
7. Engineering Design Group, Response to Comments and Addendum 3, dated October 18, 2005.
8. Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data.
9. Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K. 1977, "Permanent displacements of Earth embankments by
Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71-17, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi."
10. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
11. Kennedy, Michael P. & Tan, Siang S., Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San
Marcos 7.5' Quadrangle, Sand Diego County, Californie, dated 1996.
12. Lin, Dan, Preliminary Site Plan, dated 5-26-15.
13. Lee, L.J ., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in
Abbott, P.L. and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and
Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
14. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes:
California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199
15. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975.
16. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977.
17. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee,
Macroseminar Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006.
18. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline
Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December
19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal
Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June.
20. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott,
P.L. and Elliott, W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip
guidebook.
21. Various Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX B
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1.0 General Intent
2.0
3.0
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and
earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork
and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report
and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict.
Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the
geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these
specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility
of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at
least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading
operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The
contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
accomplish the work in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances,
recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding the
testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant If, in the opinion of the consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction,
adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical
report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend
that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction shouls be performed in
general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test
method ASTM D1557.
Preparations of Areas to be Filled
3.1
3.2
Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material
should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design
engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant.
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending
on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material
should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed .
Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of
large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free
of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction .
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable
ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the
condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated,
a licensed land surveyor/ civil engineer should be utilized.
Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried back,
blended and/ or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum .
Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed,
screened of deleterious material and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the
geotechnical consultant.
Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a
minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5: 1 should be benched
or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas
and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill
placement.
4.0 Fill Material
5.0
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed
as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve
satisfactory fill material.
4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension of greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the
location, materials and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical
consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material
does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted
or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish
grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet
horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail.
4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet
the requirements of Section 4.1 . Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical
consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials.
Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to
receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and
moisture throughout.
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended and/or mixed, as
necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and
mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to no less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve
the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished in addition to normal
compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3
to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the
completion of grading, the relative compaction of fill out to the slope face would be at least
90 percent.
Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the
fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on file dconditions
encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition to, on slope faces,
as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for every 5,000 square feet of slope
face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope.
6.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability
by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the
plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless
recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant however, may recommend changes
in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed
by a licensed land surveyor/ civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall
be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains.
7 .0 Excavation
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant
(as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e. stability fills or
slope buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining
the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/ civil engineer should be utilized.
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
OVERIUADEN OR
UNSUITA ■LE
MATERIAL
I •
EXISTING GROUND .---
SURFACE~ ----------.,,,,,,. .,,,.,-
/ / / ...-/ ...-.,,,,,,,... /
/ .,,,.,...,,.
// / / FINISHED CUT PAO
/ /
--------~P-icj_i_o-.= --==-::-::-::-::f • -------------------------------PAO OVEAEXCAVATION DEPTH
AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTICHNICAL CONSUL TANT
BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
CONDIT-IONS--ENCOUNTERED.
(
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MATERIAL AS EVALU~TED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdraln details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLIT PIPES
.a• II NONPER,ORATED PIPE.
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON 4RAOING
15' MIN.
31.-•-1-112·
CLEAN GRAVEL
(~ft?lft. MIN.)
,_. II
NON-PERFORATED ,
PIPE . • • ~------FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
UON OR APPROVED
EQUIV ALE NT)*
SEE T-CONNECTION
DETAIL
5~ MINT
... ~
PERFORATED
PIPE
.-• MIN.
BEDOING
SUB0RAIN TRENCH DETAIL
NOTES:
SEE SUBORAIN TRENCt-
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOULO
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
,---...._ 1 0' MIN.
PERFORATED I t · I EACH SIDE
PIPE~'
CAP NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE
T-CO.NNECTION DETAIL
* IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
31.-•-1-112• GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sie•,e Size
l"
J/4"
3/8"
No. 4
No. 8
No . JO
No . SO
No. 200
% Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Sand Equivalent>7S
For buttre•• dlmen•lon•, ••• geoteehnieal report/plans. Actual dimen•ions of buttress and aubdrain
ma~ be changed by th• geoteehnlcal consultant baaed on field conditions.
SUBDAAIN INSTALLATION-Subdraln pipe should be installed with perforations down aa depleted.
At location• recommended by th• geotechnical conaultant. nonperforated pipe ahould b• lnatalled
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type ahould be Acrylon trlle Butadlene Styrene (A.8.S.). Polyvinyl Chlorlde
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Cl••• 125,SOA 32.5 ahould be u••d for maximum fill deptha of 35 feet.
Claaa 200, SOR 21 ahould be uaed for maximum flll depth• of 100 feet.
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE PROJICT 1 TO 1 LINE
fl'AOM TOE OF SLOPE ~
TO COMPIT!NT MAT!RI -
EXISTING
GROUND SURFAC
2' MIN. 15' MIN.
KEY LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
(KEY)
L--15! -MIN;---1 2' I -LOWEST I
MIN. BENCH
o~JJH (KEY)
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
---=--REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
PLACEMENT) /_,,,~
EXISTING / /
GROUND /
SURFACE~0 Z'
/ / ~'"? CUT SLOPe
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE /
/ L, \\',, (TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
PROJECT 1 TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
'MIN.~
2' MIN. LOWEST I
KEY DEPTH BENCH • (KEY)
~-:::::,.;;;;-REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
"MATERIAL
NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnlcal consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered baaed on field conditions encountered.
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
P'INUIH GRADE
OVERSIZE WINOROW
DETAIL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than e inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever Is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by th1
geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above detail:
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
v ertlcally (as depicted).
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equa
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
APPENDIX C
IJll ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
2121 MONTIEL ROAD PHONE: {760) 839-7302
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 FAX: {760) 480-74n
CONC OR 01.J-----,,<..-,,L--,"--,IOI
RET tU4LL PER
PLAN , DETAILS
I-IYDROTITE UJ4 TER-
S TOP5 AT COLD-
JOINTS PER t"FR
INSTALLATION
INS~TIONS
SL.AS, VAPOR
SARR/ER PER
PLAN,
DETAILS
MIN/Mll1 WATERPRQa=ING
SPECIFICATIONS CNOT TO 5CALEJ
CD
0
®
®
0
®
FOAM W PROTECTION SOARD PER
MANLFACTURER'S SPECIF/CATION
GRACE PROCOR FLUID-APPLIED
UJ4TERPROOFINCi INSTALLED PER
MANLFACTURER'S SPECIF/CATIONS
, EXTEND eEI-IIND CEMENT/Ta.JS
SACKER SOARD.
GRACE I-IYDRODUCT 22~
INSTALLED PER MAN.FACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS OVER
FLUID-APPLIED UJ4TERPROOFINCi
TE~INA TION E3AR PER
MANI.FACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS ______ __.
FILTER FABRIC UII 6" MIN LAP
314" GRAVEL (I SF I FT)
4" DIA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE(~~ OR
EQUIV J PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOUN ~
MIN/M.t1 GRADIENT TO SUIT ABLE OUTLET -
EXACT PIPE LOCATION TO E3E DETE~INED
SY SITE CONSTRAINTS
4" TALL CONCRETE CANT • FTG I tU4LL
CQINECTION (1.1./DER UJ4TERPROCJFINCi).
SLOPE TO SACK ED<.iE OF FOOTING.
ca-tPACTED eACKFILL ~ MIN RELATIVE
ca-tPACTION IN ALL OTI-IER AREAS U.O.N.
6" MAX LIFTS. ONLY LkiUTUE/GI-IT
I-IAND-OPERA TED EQUIFHENT 5#-IALL BE USED
UIITI-IIN 3 FEET OF Tl-IE E3ACK FACE OF tU4LL.
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
c1.mc.-::-.u ct, ·,1su.::.r;.. 1.1· ~ :ii:t_•.i. ,~-.. -,1 ·.:.hJ:, Hi'!'f!:.J:•,·ut H U~-"!llrl!.l C lil:. l•:•1
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
Date: January 29, 2016
To:
Re:
Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd.
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMS 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
e: tedmontaq3@msn.com
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 1 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Addendum No. 1 -Updated Geotechnical Report
CDP 15-26 -4390 Yuki Lane
Ref:
1. "Updated Geotechnica Recommendations , Proposed New Single Family Residence to be
located at Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
September 3, 2015.
2. City Comment, CDP 15-26 -4930 Yuki Lane, dated September 30, 2015.
3. Redline comments on BMP plan, Yuki Lane Lot 1.
We have provided the following addendum in response to the City of Carlsbad Comments.
1. In the area along the north side of the house where the paved walkway provides a 2.5 feet
horizontal distance to the localized low spot for drainage we recommend the area maintain
sufficient distance below finish floors, minimize pervious surfaces and provide for sufficient
drainage devices to not allow runoff to pond adjacent to new foundations and improvements.
2. We conducted slope stability analysis of the ascending slope along the north property line that
extends approximately 20 feet above the proposed building pad. Our analysis indicates that
global slope stability for the slope modeled with the wall along the toe has a factor of safety of
greater than 1.1 for the pseudo static condition and greater than 1.5 for the static condition. As
part of our analysis we also conducted a surficial slope analysis utilizing the infinite slope
equation. Based upon our experience with similar type steep slopes a cohesion value of 300 psf
was utilized for surficial slope analysis and factor of safety greater than 1.5. Surficial weathering,
rilling and block failures are anticipated and a freeboard of 7 feet above the top of wall should be
constructed. We anticipate additional wall height extending 2 feet above the proposed 3 feet
retained height with a fence that extends an additional 5 feet (7 feet total), designed for a
NEW RESIDENCE
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No.1
Job No.155513-1
temporary impact load. The retaining wall shall be detailed with sufficient drainage facilities to not
allow water to pond behind the wall.
3. Regarding redlined comments on the BMP plan, we recommend the following:
a. Our original report recommends lined BMPs in the proximity of the residence. Where the
BMP is to be located within 8 horizontal feet or the uppermost elevation of water within
the bioretention area is less than 12 inches of the residence finish floor, the BMP shall be
lined or the slab shall be waterproofed.
b. On Lot 1 it appears the bioretention area is proposed approximately at the top of the
graded slope between Lots 1 &2. As the building on the lower building pad is proposing to
encroach into the slope and saturation can result in shallow slope failure. We
recommend the bioretention area be lined or moved away from the top of slope a
minimum horizontal distance equivalent to the height of the slope.
If you have any questions with respect to this letter please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE #2590
NEW RESIDENCE
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CML. STRUCTURAi. CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 155513-1
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
C.lOlt::.NIICAL CNL s111u..:· ,.AA. A ,l,ll"H.JfC~IJf,/,j CO'&.ll 11\HI!,
FOR QfSllr.Hlt-'l -& COMJ.l!S!Ct.t.. COffSUtJCT v~ -
2121 Montiel Road , San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
Date: April 14, 2016
To:
Re:
Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd .
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635. 7633
e: tedmontag3@msn.com
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 1 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad , California
Addendum No. 2
CDP 15-26 -4390 Yuki Lane
Ref:
1. Addendum No. 1 -Updated Geotechnical Report, prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
January 30, 2015.
2. "Updated Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed New Single Family Residence to be
located at Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
September 3, 2015.
We have provided the following addendum with regard to City comments.
1. Specific constraints and details of pavers in driveway area should be per the specific
manufacturer minimum recommendations, including edge restraints, minimum bedding
specifications, base and subgrade requirements, installation tolerances, drainage, etc.
2. As pavers relate to the geotechnical aspects of the project we provide the following
recommendations:
NEW RESIDENCE
a. We recommend intermediate restraints shall be installed horizontally a maximum of every
10 linear feet. Intermediate restraints shall be concrete, at least 12 inches wide and
extend at least 6 inches below base/subbase material, reinforced with two No. 4 bars top
and bottom.
b. We recommend subgrade be compacted to 95% minimum compaction in the area of new
pavers.
c. Where runoff and stormwater is directed over permeable pavements and water is
anticipated to flow through pavers into an aggregate base, sub-drains/drainage mats
shall be detailed to allow runoff to outlet.
d. The specific recommendations of the concrete block manufacturer or the ICPI may
supersede the recommendations herein. Specific manufacturer recommendations shall
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Page No.1
Job No. 155513-1
ENGINEER/NG DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
be included in any paver detailing.
3. The 2 foot of additional debris wall above the retained height shall be designed as an equivalent
fluid pressure of 125 pcf applied as an inverted triangle at a distance of (2/3)H from the base of
the wall debris portion of the wall.
4. Debris fences shall be designed for minimum lateral loads as determined by building code, and at
a minimum include galvanized 3 inch diameter steel posts at 5 feet on center, filled with mortar
and embedded a minimum of 3 feet into minimum 12 inch wide wall/foundation. Fencing fabric,
per architect, should allow for a drained condition with a minimum of 2 inch mesh, 9 gage wire,
placed on the slope side of the posts.
If you have any questions with respect to this addendum please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE #2590
NEW RESIDENCE
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 155513-1
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
GlOlfC'ltllCAL CM. s111u:· H., l,A~~ti!Jf~·,,u.i C~ll~IJS
HJ! RtSIO:NflAI ,& COhll.'{'ICIA. COMHl,,d Jti
, 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
Date: June 13, 2016
To:
Re:
Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd.
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn : Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
e: tedmontag3@msn.com
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 1 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Addendum No. 3
CDP 15-26 -4390 Yuki Lane
Ref:
1. Addendum No. 2 -dated 4-14-16, prepared by Engineering Design Group.
2. Addendum No. 1 -Updated Geotechnical Report, prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
January 30, 2015.
3. "Updated Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed New Single Family Residence to be
located at Lot 1, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
September 3, 2015.
At the request of the City of Carlsbad we provide the following recommendations with respect to the
installation of pervious concrete driveways at the above referenced site.
1. Specific constraints and details of pervious concrete in driveway area should be per the specific
manufacturer and pervious pavement industry standards and recommendations, including edge
restraints, minimum bedding specifications, base and subgrade requirements, installation
tolerances, drainage, etc.
2. As pervious concrete relates to the geotechnical aspects of the project we provide the following
recommendations:
NEW RESIDENCE
a. We recommend subgrade be compacted to 95% minimum compaction in the area of new
pervious concrete driveways.
b. Where runoff and stormwater is directed over permeable pavement and water is
anticipated to flow through into an aggregate base, sub-drains and/or underdrains to be
installed. Construction detailing to be reviewed prior to installation.
c. The specific recommendations of the pervious pavement manufacturer may supersede
the recommendations herein. Specific manufacturer recommendations shall be included
in any pervious concrete detailing.
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 1
Job No. 155513-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
d. All other recommendations regarding biofiltration, per References 2 & 3 above, shall be
adhered.
If you have any questions with respect to this addendum, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE #2590
Erin Rist
Calfironia RCE 65122
NEW RESIDENCE
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 155513-1
ENGINEERING
~ ~~J gu,i~f ?.:rcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fa,"'!760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
UPDATED GEO TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TO BE LOCATED AT
LOT 2, YUKI LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No. 155513-1
September 3, 2015
PREPARED FOR:
Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd.
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
ENGINEERING
DES IGN GROUP
,I •• -\ • ,. · ,. • ~ 'I -ti
'. • I,! \ ..,, •• ~
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760 ) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
\, """"'I ..,,...,..., , ""'""~ , U I"\, \ • vv1 -,uv 1 -r, , -.,, ,, ,v.v c:;.:,1~1 '!d' vu,..,va.vu111
Date: September 3, 2015
To: Pacific Beach 2014 , Ltd .
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635. 7633
e: tedmontag3@msn.com
Re:
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 2 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Updated Geotechnical Report
We have provided the following updated limited geotechnical report for the proposed new
residence at the above referenced address. Earthwork recommendations and foundation design
parameters are presented in this report. In general it is our opinion that the proposed construction,
as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of
this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed.
If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE#2590
Erin E. Rist
California RCE #65122
Table of Contents
1.0 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 1
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................. 1
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 1
5.0 GROUND WATER .......................................................................................................... 1
6.0 LIQUEFACTION .............................................................................................................. 2
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 3
7. 1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................... 3
7. 2 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................. 3
7.3 FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 4
7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ................................................................................ 6
7.5 RETAINING WALLS .................................................................................................... 8
8.0 SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................... 11
9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ....................................................... 11
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS ......................................................................................................... 12
APPENDICES
References ................................................................................................................. Appendix A
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ........................................................... Appendix B
Retaining Wall Drainage Detail .................................................................................. Appendix C
1.0 SCOPE
This report gives our recommendations for the proposed new residence to be constructed on Lot
2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California. The scope of our work conducted onsite to date has included
a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas, review of past reports, and
preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of a graded building pad bordered to the south by single family
dwellings, to the north and east by a vacant un-developed lots and to the west by Yuki Lane. The
general topography of the site area consists of coastal foothill terrain. The site consists of a
relatively flat building pad flanked to the north by ascending 2: 1 graded slope to the lot above, to
the south and west by graded descending slopes. At the time of this report the property is
generally undeveloped. The building pad was graded in and around summer-fall 2014. We
understand the proposed new development will consist of a new two story single family residence.
3.0 FIELD INVEST/GA TION
No additional subsurface investig~tion was conducted as part of the proposed scope of work.
Grading of the subject site occurred in 2014. Engineering Design Group provided limited
observation and testing during the grading of the building pads.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based upon our limited earthwork observation and testing conducted at the time of site grading
fills on the order of 3-11 feet should be anticipated in the area of the proposed building pad. Fill
materials general classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and
based on visual observation, are considered to possess low potential for expansion.
5.0 GROUND WATER
Groundwater was not encountered in during the grading of the subject property. Groundwater is
not anticipated to pose a significant constraint to construction, however based upon our
experience, perched groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously
existed. Perched groundwater conditions can develop over time and can have a significant
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 1
Job No. 155513-1
impact, especially at basements. Waterproofing membrane shall be specifically detailed by
waterproofing consultant. If groundwater conditions are encountered during site excavations, a
slab underdrain system may be required.
Any proposed bioretention facilities within close proximity of the residence shall be lined with an
impervious waterproof barrier. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a
significant role in the future performance of the project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on
Grade" section of this report for specific recommendations regarding water to cement ratio for
moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or waterproofing
consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details.
6.0 LIQUEFACTION
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event
of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the
seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area.
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface
ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty sands and
clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil
materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for
liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The
effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform
Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of
California.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 155513-1
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA T/ONS
7.1 GENERAL
In general it is our opinion that the proposed new residence, as discussed and described herein,
is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and all
applicable codes are followed.
7.2 EARTHWORK
We anticipate site grading will be limited to a shallow rip and recompact of the upper 8 inches in
the area of the proposed building pad and backfill behind proposed new retaining walls and utility
trenches. All grading should be done in accordance with the recommendations below as well as
the standards of county and state agencies, as applicable.
7.2.a. Site Preparation
Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvements should be cleared of surface and
subsurface debris (including organic topsoil, vegetative and construction debris). Removed debris
should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes
resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend
below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted.
7.2.b. Removals
The area of the proposed new building and settlement sensitive improvements shall be scarified
with a shallow rip, approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned and the recompacted to 90
percent minimum relative compaction.
7.2.c. Transitions
All settlement sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform building pad. The
building pad area was undercut during original grading to an approximate depth of 3-4 feet.
Where new footing excavations extend beyond the area of undercut footings may require
overexcavation and recompaction to a minimum of one foot below the bottom of the footing, as
determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 3
Job No. 155513-1
7.2.d. Fills
All new fill and backfill should be brought to approximately +2% of optimum moisture content and
re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Compacted
fills should be cleaned of loose debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted as described above.
Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 6-8 inches in thickness. Import of soil
material is not anticipated, however if import material is required, soils should have a very low
potential for expansion (El<20), free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing soils, they
should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability
as fill.
7.2.e. Slopes
Where new slopes are constructed permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2: 1 (horizontal
to vertical). Permanent fill slopes shall be placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary
cut slopes shall be excavated in accordance with OSHA requirements and shall not undermine
adjacent property or structures without proper shoring of excavation and/or structures.
Subsequent to grading, planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the
stability of slopes, especially during the rainy season (October thru April). Contractor shall take all
necessary precautions to protect improvements at the street during anticipated excavations.
7.3 FOUNDATIONS
The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded on competent
material.
7.3.a. Footings bearing into competent sandstone or recompacted fill material may be designed
utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf.
7.3.b. Seismic Design Parameters 2013 CBC
Site Class D
Spectral Response Coefficients
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 4
Job No. 155513-1
SMs (g) 1.183
SM1 (g) 0.679
Sos (g) 0.789
S01 (g) 0.453
7.3.c. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short
duration loadings.
7.3.d. The parameters in the table below should be used as a minimum for designing new footing
width and depth below lowest adjacent grade into recompacted fill material. Footing
depths are to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group
prior to the placement of form boards, steel and removal of excavation equipment.
No. of Floors Supported Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Below Lowest
Adjacent Grade
1 15inches 18inches
2 15inches 18inches
3 18inches 24 inches
7.3.e. All footings founded into competent material should be reinforced with a minimum of two
#4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings
over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement; and possibly a stemwall system will be
necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction.
7.3.f. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values
and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each
direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum
width and depth of 24 inches.
7.3.g. For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum of 10 feet (competent, compacted material)
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 5
Job No. 155513-1
and horizontal setback in competent material or properly compacted fill should be
maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the
bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition cannot be met it should be
brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review.
7.3.h. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this
report, applicable codes , OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county
standards.
7.3.i. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a
minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
We recommend the following as the minimum design parameters for new concrete slabs on
grade.
7.4.a. Concrete slab on grade of the proposed building and driveway should have a minimum
thickness of 5 inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the
midpoint of the slab.
7.4.a.i Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum
7.4.a.ii Aggregate Size: 3/4 -1 inch
7.4.a.iii Moisture Sensitive Areas: At concrete slab on grade floors in moisture
sensitive area (i.e. floors, below grade walls) we recommend a maximum
water to cement Ratio -0.45 maximum Compressive Strength "'4,500 psi
minimum (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes,
unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer). This recommendation
is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete.
7.4.a.iv Moisture retarding additive: in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors
and moisture sensitive area
7.4.a.v Corrosion Potential: Based upon laboratory testing conducted as part of
the field investigation onsite soils meet ACI exposure categories SO, C1 . The
project structural engineer to note increased concrete protection
requirements for corrosive environments, as applicable. EDG is not an
expert in corrosion or corrosion prevention. All corrosion recommendations
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 6
Job No. 155513-1
shall be provided by the corrosion consultant.
7.4.a.vi Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength= 2,500 psi
minimum.
7.4.b. In areas of level slab on grade floors we recommend a one inch layer of coarse sand
material, Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean of fine materials,
should be placed beneath the slab in moisture sensitive areas, above the vapor barrier.
There shall be not greater than an ½ inch difference across the sand layer.
7.4.c. In moisture sensitive areas, a vapor barrier layer (15 mil) should be placed below the
upper one inch of sand. The vapor barrier shall meet the following minimum requirements:
• Permeance of less than 0.01 perm [grains/(ft2 hr in/Hg)] as tested in accordance with
ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1 .
• Strength per ASTM 17 45 Class A.
• The vapor barrier should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a
minimum of 6 inches. The vapor barrier should lap a minimum of 8 inches, sealed
along all laps with the manufacturer's recommended adhesive. Beneath the vapor
barrier a uniform layer of 3 inches of pea gravel is recommended under the slab in
order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the
slab, and act as a capillary break.
7.4.d. The project waterproofing consultant should provide all slab underdrain, slab sealers and
various other details, specifications and recommendations (i.e Moiststop and Linkseal) at
areas of potential moisture intrusion (i.e. slab penetrations). Engineering Design Group
accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of the
building.
7.4.e. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete
that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints
should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by
the designer.
7.4.f. Any additional fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading
section of this report, Section 7.1, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density,
ASTM D-1557, and as described in the Earthwork section of this report.
7.4.g. All subgrade soils to receive concrete slabs and flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent
over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 7
Job No. 155513-1
7.4.h. Exterior concrete flatwork, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil
movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected
concrete cracking, the following may be implemented:
• Concrete may be poured with a 1 0 inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent to top
of a slope should be constructed with an outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet
distance to daylight.
• Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches.
• Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 -65 degrees) weather if possible. If
concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the
mix, and the slump kept to a minimum.
• Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level
of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18
inches.
• Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints creating concrete sections no larger
than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not
exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should
generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at
expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal
reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards.
• Isolation joints should be installed at exterior concrete where exterior concrete is
poured adjacent to existing foundations.
• Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the
improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective
drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork.
• The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance
cracking . The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality
and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these
recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of
concrete.
7.5 RETAINING WALLS
Reta ining walls up to 6 feet are anticipated as part of site development. We anticipate retaining
walls at the bottom of the graded slope along the north side of the property. We understand the
new retaining wall is proposed to a design height of 6 feet, to include a maximum retained height
of 4.5 feet and an additional 1.5 feet freeboard beyond the anticipated retained height.
Retaining walls may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DFSIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSUL TANT$
Page No. 8
Job No. 155513-1
recommendations and minimum design parameters.
7.5.a. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing
criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum
footing depths outlined in the "Foundations", Section 7.3, of this report. It is anticipated
that all retaining wall footings will be placed on recompacted material or competent
sandstone.
7.5 .b. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid
pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with very low
potential for expansion (E.I. <20) will be used for backfill , and that the backfill surface will
be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is not low (E.I. >50) a new active fluid
pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be
considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We
anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the
parameters provided in the table below may be utilized.
Backfill Sloping 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope 1 :5:1 or Steeper
Condition
Active Fluid 50 pcf 65 pcf 80 pcf
Pressure
Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values.
7.5.c. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an
uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf.
7.5.d. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e . interior living space where vapor emission is a concern), in
our experience poured in place concrete provides a surface with higher
performance-repairability of below grade waterproofing systems. The owner should
consider the cost-benefit of utilizing cast in place building retaining walls in lieu of masonry
as part of the overall construction of the residence . Waterproofing at any basement floors
is recommended in areas of moisture sensitive floor finishes.
7.5.e. Retaining walls shall be designed for additional lateral forces due to earthquake, where
required by code, utilizing the following design parameters.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING D~IGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 9
Job No. 155513-1
• Yielding Walls = PE= (3/8) kAE (y) H2 -applied at a distance of 0.6 times the
height (H) of the wall above the base
• Horizontal ground acceleration value kH = 0.25g.
• Where non-yielding retaining walls are proposed , the specific conditions
should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group for alternative
design values.
• The unit weight of 120 pcf for the onsite soils may be utilized.
• The above design parameters assume unsaturated conditions. Retaining
wall designs for sites with a hydrostatic pressure influence (i.e groundwater
within depth of retaining wall or waterfront conditions) will require special
design considerations and should be brought to the attention of Engineering
Design Group.
7.5.f. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf.
This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures extends
horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the
horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the
height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in
available horizontal length.
7.5.g. A coefficient of friction of 0.33 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to
resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above.
7.5.h. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure,
and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the "Retaining
Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix C. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are
minimums, and are intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or
architect. The recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of proposed
finishes and usage, especially at basement levels, performance expectations and budget.
If deemed necessary by the project owner, based on the above analysis, and
waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under drains and enhanced
waterproofing elements.
7.5.i. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
"Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion
potential, granular, free draining material.
7.5.j. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be
accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when
designing the wall.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 10
Job No. 155513-1
8.0 SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future
performance of the proposed improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to
pond against or adjacent to tops of slopes and/or foundation walls.
The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in
nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for
a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be
provided in low spots to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Any trench drains,
backdrains and/or slab underdrains shall not be tied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters
and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area
drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts.
Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage.
Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater
conditions. Irrigation should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow
irrigation devices as well as automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over
watering . Irrigation practices and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an
important component to the performance of onsite improvements.
During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected.
Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from
sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of
planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work
improvements should be strictly controlled or avoided.
9.0 CONSTRUCT/ON OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by
the investigation and our general experience in the project area. Interpolated subsurface
conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be
conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to
verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein,
as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 11
Job No. 155513-1
deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s).
9.1 Review of final approved grading and structural plans prior to the start of work for
compliance with geotechnical recommendations.
9.2 Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work.
9.3 Observation of subgrade and excavation bottoms.
9.4 Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches.
9.5 Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation
equipment.
9.6 Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils.
9.7 Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval.
The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional
steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations.
Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in
writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the
design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol
specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have
exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering
Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this
protocol.
Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract
for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48
hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing.
10.0 MISCELLANEOUS
It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and
minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to
respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the
swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce
movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or
interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes.
Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local
conditions, and a review of reports and plans prepared by others. The recommendations in this
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 12
Job No. 155513-1
report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and
neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for
anticipating the behavior of the proposed improvement; however, our recommendations are
professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or
adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations ,
beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the
investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein.
If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change.
Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In
addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation are rapidly
occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes.
Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a
period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered.
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report
be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable
that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and
seismic conditions be retained to build the structure.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not
hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue
with the development of the project.
Yuki Lane Development
Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 13
Job No. 155513-1
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page.
2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in
California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990.
3. Day, Robert W. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction." 1999.
McGraw Hill.
4. Engineering Design Group, Rough Grading As-Graded Report, dated January 23, 2015.
5. Engineering Design Group, Updated Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation
Recommendation, Proposed Subdivision Located at 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California. EDG
Project No. 135229-1, dated October 30, 2013.
6. Engineering Design Group, Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated October 23, 2004.
7. Engineering Design Group, Response to Comments and Addendum 3, dated October 18, 2005.
8. Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data.
9. Franklin, A.G. and Chang, F.K. 1977, "Permanent displacements of Earth embankments by
Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71-17, U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi."
10. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
11. Kennedy, Michael P. & Tan, Siang S., Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San
Marcos 7.5' Quadrangle, Sand Diego County, Californie, dated 1996.
12. Lin, Dan, Preliminary Site Plan, 4394 Yuki Lane, dated 5-26-15.
13. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in
Abbott, P.L. and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and
Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
14. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes:
California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199
15. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975.
16. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977.
17. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee,
Macroseminar Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006.
18. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline
Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December
19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal
Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June.
20. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott,
P.L. and Elliott, W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip
guidebook.
21. Various Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX B
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1.0 General Intent
2.0
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and
earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork
and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report
and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict.
Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the
geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these
specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility
of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at
least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading
operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The
contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
accomplish the work in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances,
recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding the
testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant If, in the opinion of the consultant,
unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil , poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction,
adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical
report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend
that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction shouls be performed in
general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test
method ASTM D1557.
3.0 Preparations of Areas to be Filled
3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material
should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design
engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant.
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending
on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material
should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of
large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free
of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable
ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the
condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated,
a licensed land surveyor I civil engineer should be utilized.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried back,
blended and/ or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed,
screened of deleterious material and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the
geotechnical consultant.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a
minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5: 1 should be benched
or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas
and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill
placement.
4.0 Fill Material
5.0
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed
as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve
satisfactory fill material.
4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension of greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the
location, materials and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical
consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material
does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted
or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish
grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet
horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail.
4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet
the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical
consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials.
Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to
receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and
moisture throughout.
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended and/or mixed, as
necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and
mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to no less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve
the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished in addition to normal
compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3
to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the
completion of grading, the relative compaction of fill out to the slope face would be at least
90 percent.
Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the
fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on file dconditions
encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition to, on slope faces,
as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for every 5,000 square feet of slope
face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope.
6.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability
by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the
plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless
recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant however, may recommend changes
in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed
by a licensed land surveyor/ civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall
be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains.
7.0 Excavation
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant
(as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e. stability fills or
slope buttresses) may be recommended .
8.0 Quantity Determination
For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining
the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/ civil engineer should be utilized.
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
OVEAIURDEN OR
UNSUITAILE
MATERIAL
EXISTING GROUND ---
SURFACE~ ----------.,,,,,. ..,.,,,
/ / / .,,,.-/ .,,,.-
/ -.,,,.-
/ --/ / / / FINISHED CUT PAO
/ /
-------_ ,;iPAc~1i►.==-_-:::-:-:::-::-:::.f • --------:.::IC": -: ::-::-:::-------PAO OVEAEXCAVATION DEPTH
AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTl!CHNICAL CONSUL TANT
BASl!D ON ACTUAL FIELD
CONDITIONS--ENCOUNTEAED. ·-
----------
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR ~ MATl!RIAL AS EVALU~TED
{ BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
KEY
DEPTH
2 !\I'
MIN.
f
OUTLET PIPES
,4• II NONPERFOAATED PIPE.
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
----£~j_~;;;~:::
--_ -c::f 't=t=t==:,'.~-2~N. _tC:f i.:~J ------
KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON -GRADING
15' MIN.
31.-•-1-112•
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3tt?lft. MIN.
e• MIN.
OVERLAP
SEE T-CONNECTION
DETAIL
,4• ~
PERFORATED
PIPE
SUB0RAIN TRENCH DETAIL
NOTES:
BACK CUT
FLATTER
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCI-
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDAAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
r---._ 10' MIN.
PERFORATED I f · I EACH SIDE
PIPE~• CAP
NON-PERFOAA
OUTLET PIP
T-CO.NNECTION DETAIL
* IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4"-1·1/2• GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sie'le Size : Passing
l" 100
J/4" 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>7S
For buttresa dlmenalon•, ••• geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimanaions of buttress and 1ubdrain
may be changed by the geotechnlcal consultant based on tleld conditions.
SUBDAAIH INSTALLATION-Subdraln pipe should be lnatalled with perforation• down aa depicted.
At locatlone recommended by th• geotechnical conaultant, nonperforated pipe ahould be Jnatalled
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type ehould be Acrylon trile Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Cl••• 125.SOR 32.5 ahould be uaed for maximum flll depth• of 35 feet.
Clau 200. SOR 21 ahould be ueed for maximum flll depth• of 100 feet.
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
FILL SLOPE PAOJeCT 1 TO 1 LINE
,ROM TOE OF SLOPE ~
EXISTING
GROUND SURFAC
TO COMPeT!NT MAT!AI
2' MIN. 15' MIN.
KEY LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
l---1 S! -MIN:--J 2' I -LOWEST I
MIN. BENCH
o~J~H (KEY)
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT) /,,,,-'
EXISTING / / GROUND //
SURFACE~// ~
/ / ~1117 CUT SLOPE
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE /
/ L. ~\, .... (TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
PROJECT 1 TO 1
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
-------=-=-=-=-=-.: ________ ,.
-4 MIN~~:j: ., ~·--
5' MIN.--1
2' MIN. LOWEST I
KEY OEPTM BENCH • (KEY)
~~~~~~-~------~--REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
.MATERIAL
NOTE: Sack drain may be recommended by the geotechnlcal consultant based on
actual fleld conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered baaed on field conditions encountered.
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
PIN&aH ~ADE
DETAIL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than e inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever Is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by th1
geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above detail:
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or aqua
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
APPENDIX C
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
2121 MONTIEL ROAD PHONE: (760) 839-7302
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 FAX: (760) 480-74n
CONC OR CHU--.&'---.,,____,,'-----,!Oi
RETUW.L FER
PL.AN , DETAILS
I-IYOROTITE IU4 TER-
STOFS AT COLO-
JOINTS FER r-FR
INST ALLA Tia.I
INS Tf;lJCTIONS
SLAB, VAPOR
BARRIER FER
PL.AN' DETAILS
MINIMIJ1 WATERPROOFING
5PECIFICATION5 (NOT TO SCALE)
CD
0
®
®
FOAM UV PROTECTla.l BOARD FER
MANI.FACTURER'S SFEC/FICATla.l
GRACE PROCOR FLUIO-APPLIEO
IU4 TERPROC'f=ING, INST ALLEO FER
MANI.FACTURER'S SFEC/FICATla.lS
'EXTEND BEI-IINO CEMENTITOUS
BACKER BOARD.
GRACE I-IYOROOUCT 22~
INST ALLEO FER MAMFACTURER'S
SFEC/FICATla.lS OVER
FLUIO-APPLIEO IU4TERPROC'f=ING,
TERHINA Tia.I BAR FER
MANIFACTURER'S
SPEC/FICA Tia.IS ------~
FILTER FABRIC UJ/ 6" MIN LAP
314" GRAVEL (I SF I FT)
4" OIA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE (SCI-I~ OR
EQUIV J FERFORA Tia.IS ORIENTED oou.N 1$
MINIH.J'1 arRAOIENT TO SUIT ABLE OUTLET -
EXACT PIPE LOCA Tia.I TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE Ca.lSTRAINTS
4" TALL CONCRETE CANT • FTG I UW.L
CONNECTla.l (1.1.JOER IU4 TERPROC'f=INGJ.
SLOPE TO BACK E06E ~ FOOTING.
ca-tPACTEO BACKFILL 912'$ MIN RELATIVE
ca-tPACTla.l IN ALL OTI-IER AREAS U.O.N.
6" MAX LIFTS. a.lL Y LIGI-ITIJEl(i,I-IT
I-IANO-OFERA TEO EQUIPMENT 51-/ALL BE USED
UIITI-IIN 3 FEET ~ Tl-IE BACK FACE ~ UW.L.
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
-------------------------' 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
Date: January 29, 2016
To: Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd.
Re:
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn: Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
e: tedmontag3@msn.com
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 2 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Addendum No. 1 -Updated Geotechnical Report
CDP 15-25 -4394 Yuki lane
Ref:
1. "Updated Geotechnica Recommendations , Proposed New Single Family Residence to be
located at Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
September 3, 2015.
2. City Comment, CDP 15-25 -4934 Yuki Lane, dated September 30, 2015.
We have provided the following addendum in response to the City of Carlsbad Comments.
1. In the area along the north side of the house where the paved walkway provides a 2.5 feet
horizontal distance to the localized low spot for drainage we recommend the area maintain
sufficient distance below finish floors, limit pervious surfaces and provide for sufficient drainage
devices to not allow runoff to pond adjacent to new foundations and improvements.
2. Erosional rilling, surficial weathering are anticipated and the 18 inch debris fence should be
constructed atop the proposed retaining wall at the toe of the 2:1 graded slope. The retaining wall
shall be detailed with sufficient drainage facilities to not allow water to pond behind the wall.
3. As noted in Section 7.3.g, footings adjacent to slopes shall maintain a minimum horizontal
setback of 10 feet in competent compacted material. We-anticipate footings will be deepened in
areas where the proposed structure is located near the top of the slope. Deepening is anticipated
to extend to approximately 4 -5 feet deep, depending on actual conditions in the field. Foundation
excavations shall be inspected by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the
placement of steel, form boards and removal of excavation equipment.
NEW RESIDENCE
4934 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No.1
Job No. 1S5S 13-1
4. Regarding general redlined comments on the BMP plan, we recommend the following:
a. The bioretention area on Lot 2 is located near the existing retaining wall. We recommend
for walls over three feet an unlined bioretention area be located a minimum of 5
horizontal feet from the top of the wall or the height of the wall, whichever is greater.
Prior to the installation of an unlined bioretention area the functionality of backdrain
system of a downstream wall shall be verified.
If you have any questions with respect to this letter please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE #2590
NEW RESIDENCE
4934 Yuki Lane, carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CML. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 155513·1
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
GlOH: . .imcAJ.. CIVk. Slffu~· ... FA.. !.AA'."H!lf:"JF-'i co~11-~,w
F11! '1£SJ!'FNH"1 & COMJJ(ACU. Cl)l,IS''IJ(;I :o,
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760 ) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com
Date: June 13, 2016
To:
Re:
Pacific Beach 2014, Ltd.
c/o San Dieguito Development
Attn : Ted Montag
1106 Second St PMB 255
Encinitas, CA 92024
p: 760.635.7633
e: tedmontag3@msn.com
Subject:
Proposed new residence to be located at Lot 2 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Addendum No. 2
CDP 15-25 -4394 Yuki Lane
Ref:
1. Addendum No. 1 -Updated Geotechnical Report, prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
January 29, 2015.
2. "Updated Geotechnical Recommendations, Proposed New Single Family Residence to be
located at Lot 2, Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated
September 3, 2015.
At the request of the City of Carlsbad we provide the following recommendations with respect to the
installation of pervious concrete driveways at the above referenced site.
1. Specific constraints and details of pervious concrete in driveway area should be per the specific
manufacturer and pervious pavement industry standards and recommendations, including edge
restraints, minimum bedding specifications, base and subgrade requirements, installation
tolerances, drainage, etc.
2. As pervious concrete relates to the geotechnical aspects of the project we provide the following
recommendations:
NEW RESIDENCE
a. We recommend subgrade be compacted to 95% minimum compaction in the area of new
pervious concrete driveways.
b. Where runoff and stormwater is directed over permeable pavement and water is
anticipated to flow through into an aggregate base, sub-drains and/or underdrains to be
installed. Construction detailing to be reviewed prior to installation.
c. The specific recommendations of the pervious pavement manufacturer may supersede
the recommendations herein. Specific manufacturer recommendations shall be included
in any pervious concrete detailing.
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
Page No. 1
Job No. 155513-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
d. All other recommendations regarding biofiltration, per References 1 & 2 above, shall be
adhered.
If you have any questions with respect to this addendum, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
Steven Norris
California GE #2590
Erin Rist
California RCE 65122
NEW RESIDENCE
4930 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
Page No. 2
Job No. 1S5513-1