Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 15-11; YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION; STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2018-06-07CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR GRADING PLANS VADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION CT 15-11 DWG 508-3A ENGINEER OF WORK: ,-11 -1-3 PREPARED FOR: California West Communities 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110 Carlsbad, CA 92009 DATE r-ff~ • :-:--.,:.b :--< ~')\..~ 0 ~ qi:' \ No. 29271 -. I ,t;:-c,v1L t :JJ RECORD co v PREPARED BY: _ OF" Cf\\.\'r9 -~~ ~an, planohg~~~'~'~:~ngsuNeyng -------_::::::_ _ _J~, 15 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 DATE: RFCEl'TED JUNE 7, 2018 w.o. 944-1289-600 JUL 1 7 2018 LAN[) --:..::.VELC. I ;:ENT ENGINEERING ... -<( 1--t--~ co ::::> en ..J <( z -LL 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 1 d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1 e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit 2 CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: Vada Family Farm Subdivision Project ID: CT 15-1 1 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. 29271 Ex . 03/31/2019 Sig nature, PE Number & Expiration Date Ronald Holloway Print Name b~A, Inc iand planning, civil on91nommg, su1vcyinq June 7, 2018 Date 3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP CITY CITY Of VISTA PACIFIC 4 ( City of Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 _Deve /opmenL Se rvic es land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www .carlsbadca.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. I.ii, r-.s.t'", ~>t:: -.l'.' , ~~ ..... · ~l'};~,..,.,.,,..,..,.,$&'-·::j,-.. ,,,x>..~ ii:\ PROJECT NAME: Yada Family Farm Subdivision PROJECT ID: CT 15-11 ADDRESS: 1835 Buena Vista Way APN: 156-220-001 The project is (check one): GZ] New Development D Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: 165,092 ft2 ( 3-79 ) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 67,954 ft2 (,.._1_·5_6 _ __,) 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 ________________ 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. E-34 Page 1 or 4 REV 02/16 ' .... • STEP 1 TO BE COMPLETED FO~ ~LL PRO~E~TS_ . \," 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 D lZI 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 . '="'~..,..,.."'-'-'" <CX~k~' .. r.~-; W":•;· tcm ,.~,~ ""'¥'{ '7:STEft'2f "' ~~ C<' _,__,,,-.,~-~ •• ..,,,~_,.,,, •,,c0,:.,0·~---,1·"'······· --- --~-'''"~-•-:' ... ~ ..,£, ... ~ J,9 l;iE g,OMP,Ll;fEP, F.OR~i!:bJl~~LOf'M~ENT .P.Jl.C:14EC,'.t:~)1 • ,.~;;; .... ,«-, ... ,-·'I;,• ;,;y;, ,, 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; □ GZl 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 D GZl 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? D GZl 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 US EPA Green Street guidance): If you answered "no· to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 02/16 - 6Fj1. J;,:;;; ., I u~+c~1treJi,=0Ri~~:~~t~itoevfub;M,~1Jf&i~~t, '.1(7!' .. ;1;, t ..;Ji • .,~ ~ ' . -t -• ~> _f --~~ ." -;;, 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, IZl D 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 [Z] D more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public develooment oroiects on oublic 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 D lZI 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 D IZl development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or Qreater. 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 D IZl 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 IZl D freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, 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}? ·oischarging Directly to~ includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of D IZl 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 comminaled with flows from adiacent 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 D [Z] 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 D [Z] RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b} a project Average Daily Traffic (ADD of 100 or more vehicles per day. 1 O. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land D !Zl 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 D [Z] impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMG 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 "Mv oroiect is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' .. ." and comolete aoolicant information. E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV 02/16 STEP4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORIT'( OEVE,LOPMENT PROJEGTS (PQf'J ; , ,, ONLY., .. . Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO 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) = ___________ s.q. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (8/A)"100 = _____ % D 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. IZ] My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at lime 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: California West Communities-Matt Howe Applicant Title: Land Development Manager AppHcanl s;gnature. lJ6 Date: ___ --:..114/...,'?''-i/""J_71----------- • Environmentally Sensitive Areas Include 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 Conlrol 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 amendmen1s); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within lhe Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Management Plan: and any other equivalent environmentally sensttive areas which have been identified by the City. This Box for City Use Only YES NO City Concurrence: D D By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV 02/16 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Name Project ID Project Address Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Project Hydrologic Unit Hydrologic Area Parcel Area (total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated with the project) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) Yada Family Farm Subdivision 15-11 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA 167-531-45 and 167-250-06 [gJ Carlsbad 904 Select One: D Loma Alta 904.1 [gJ Buena Vista Creek 904.2 D Agua Hedionda 904.3 D Encinas 904.4 D San Marcos 904.5 D Escondido Creek 904.6 4.27 Acres 186, 198 Square Feet) 3. 77 Acres 164,183 Square Feet) 1 .53 Acres 66,566 Square Feet) 2.24 Acres 97,617 Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area+ Proposed PeNious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. 6 Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): D Existing development ~ Previously graded but not built out ~ Agricultural or other non-impervious use ~ Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description I Additional Information: The 4.27 acre property in the past has been used for agricultural purposes. Fields and remnants of several shade canopy structures associated with nursery activities remain on portions of the property. Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): D Vegetative Cover ~ Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas ~ Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Property has existing fields and remnants of several shade canopy structures associated with nursery activities remain on portions of the property. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): □ NRCS Type A □ NRCS Type B ~ NRCS Type C ~ NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): □ GW Depth < 5 fe et D 5 feet < GW Depth < 1 O feet D 1 0 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet ~ GW Depth > 20 feet 7 Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): D Watercourses D Seeps D Springs D Wetlands [g] 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]: In the existing conditions, the site continues to support bare ground with few scatted trees. Topographically, the site is generally moderate sloping westerly towards Valley Street. The overall gradient of the site is on the order of 10 percent or flatter. The on-site soil classification is Type-B from ArcGIS Web BMP Sizing Calculator Website (see References). However, based on the preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geosoils, Inc. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision, 4.14 Acres", the onsite soils are similar to Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) "C" or "D". See References for copy of Geotechnical Study. Existing land-use is 4.00 DU/Ac, proposed land-use is 2.84 DU/Ac. The existing drainage sheet flows northwesterly towards Valley Street, where runoff is intercepted by an existing Type F catch basin on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project. The catch basin connects to a 27-inch storm drain pipe underneath Valley Street, which travels northwest towards Buena Vista Way. One point of discharge has been identified at the existing catch basin. There is no run-on from upstream properties. 9 Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The project proposes the development of 12 residential lots with grading of pads and driveways, a 36-foot wide private cul-de-sac (Vada Place), and the improvement of McCauley Lane and Valley Street. The project also proposes storm drain infrastructure including storm drain pipes, curb inlets, and biofiltration basins for storm water treatment. 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 12 single-family residences with driveways, a public cul-de-sac roadway, and sidewalk areas around the perimeter of the development site. The street improvement proposes the extension of the impervious asphalt surfaces on McCauley Lane and Valley Street. 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 biofiltration basins, and landscape areas between the proposed sidewalks and adjacent streets that are designed to disconnect the impervious surfaces and retain runoff from impervious areas. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? [2J Yes □ No Description / Additional Information: Project grading will occur on approximately 3.77 acres of the project. Grading on the site has been minimized to the maximum extent possible. The existing house located east of Lot 12 will remain and will not be a part of this project. The designated area is labeled "Not a Part" on the DMA Exhibit. Storm water flows from impervious roof and driveway areas will be conveyed via the surface flow to the proposed biofiltration basins on each lot. The biofiltration basins will outlet to a proposed storm drain system underneath the proposed lots. The storm drain system will require excavation and installation of underground storm drains. Post-development site flow will mimic existing drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow rates (see Drainage Report for discussion and 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)? [8J Yes 0 No Description/ Additional Information: The project proposes the development of 12 residential lots and grading of pads and driveways, a 36-foot wide private cul-de-sac (Vada Place), and the street improvement of McCauley Lane and Valley Street. The project also proposes storm drain infrastructure including storm drain pipes, curb inlets, and biofiltration basins for storm water treatment. Project grading will occur on approximately 3. 77 acres of the project. As part of the street improvement for Valley Street, the existing Type-F catch basin on the east side of Valley Street will be modified into a curb inlet. Drainage patterns reflected on the OMA Exhibit will slightly increase the acreage draining to the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project site. Runoff from the proposed roof and driveway areas on Lots 1-8 will be conveyed via surface flow to the front of each lot and onto the proposed cul-de-sac, Vada Place. Vada Place will intersect Valley Street, and run easterly through the center of the project. Vada Place will be graded so that runoff flows towards the northern and southern curb and gutter, which will direct flow to proposed curb inlets located north of Lot 1 and south of Lot 8. The curb inlets will connect to proposed 18" RCP storm drain pipes, which will convey flow to proposed biofiltration basins, Basin 1 and Basin 2. Basin 1 will be located on the west side of Lot 1 and will receive ru noff from Lots 1-4. Basin 2 will be located on the west side of Lot 8 and will receive runoff from Lots 5-8. Runoff from the proposed roof and driveway areas on Lots 9-12 will be conveyed via surface flow to the front of each lot and into a proposed 12" HOPE storm drain system. The storm drain system will convey flow west and outlet over rip rap at Basin 2. The proposed biofiltration basins will provide storm water treatment and flow detention , and have been sized based on pollutant control sizing factors (see Attachment 1 e). Biofiltration basins will be lined with an impermeable liner on the sides and bottom to prevent infiltration into the existing ground. Storm water that enters the biofiltration basins will be filtered through the basin's soil media and directed to a perforated underdrain pipe located at the bottom of the basin. Discharge from Basin 2 will be routed via 18" RCP storm drain pipe, which will connect to the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street. The modified curb inlet will outlet at the existing 27" RCP storm drain underneath Valley Street. Discharge from Basin 1 will be routed via 18" RCP storm drain pipe, which will connect to the existing Type B curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the southern portion of the project. The existing curb inlet will also outlet at the existing 27" RCP storm drain underneath Valley Street. All storm water being routed to Basin 1 will travel through the existing storm drain underneath Valley Street and confluence at the historical point of discharge, at the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project site. 11 Storm water flow on Vada Place that falls west of the curb inlets will surface flow to Valley Street and flow via curb and gutter to the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street. Runoff from the proposed sidewalks around the perimeter of the project site will be directed towards the landscape areas between the proposed sidewalk and the existing street. These DMAs are designed with the site design BMP-Impervious Area Dispersion-to retain runoff to a level equivalent to the pervious land. See Attachment 1 a for calculations for Areas Draining to Self-Retaining DMAs. The proposed biofiltration basins will serve to detain the minor increase in runoff created by the proposed development. Post-development site flow will mimic existing drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow rates. 12 Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): [g] On-site storm drain inlets D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps D Interior parking garages [g] Need for future indoor & structural pest control [g] 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 [g] Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning [g] Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance D Fuel Dispensing Areas D Loading· Docks [g] Fire Sprinkler Test Water D Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water [g] Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots 13 Identification of Receiving Water 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 into a storm water conveyance system that discharges into Buena Vista Creek, which eventually discharges into Buena Vista Lagoon and 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 Buena Vista Lagoon 904.2 Nutrients Sedimentation/siltation cy, ,, 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 □ ~ □ 14 Hydromodificatlon 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 direqtly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. [Z] 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): Project directly discharges to a stabilized conveyance system that discharges into Buena Vista Lagoon. tn i;': . ·K -it"*--":-: -;,,: ., .. , ·t:'· :;:f~ vcrltlcal Coarse Sediment Yield Areas• •This Section only required if hydromodificatlon 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 [Z] 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 It 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 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 '"'" w· Flow,eontrolfor Posti-Project Runoff" 1iw *This 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-B soil, though generally rated for moderate infiltration capacity, provides some opportunity for infiltration of storm water runoff into the native soils. However, based on the preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geosoils, Inc. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision, 4.27 Acres", the onsite soils are similar to Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) "C" or "D". Therefore, the bottom of the biofiltration basins will be lined with an impermeable liner. The biofiltration basin will include an underdrain pipe. ;;,'optional Additional lhformation or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed N/A 17 ~ ~ City of Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Name: Yada Family Farm Subdivision Project ID: CT 15-11 DWG No. or Building Permit No.: 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 rovided. SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 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 0 Yes O No ON/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: Storm drains will be stenciled or stamped with anti-dumping message. See OMA Exhibit for location of storm drain inlets. SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: No outdoor materials storage areas proposed. E-36 Page 1 of 4 □ Yes □No 0 N/A Revised 03/16 Source Control Reauirement (continued) Aoolied? SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and D Yes D No 0 N/A Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: No materials will be stored in outdoor work areas. SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal D Yes D No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: No trash 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 Quidance). 0 On-site storm drain inlets 0 Yes □No D N/A □ Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps D Yes □No 0 N/A □ Interior parking garages D Yes □No 0 N/A 0 Need for future indoor & structural pest control 0 Yes D No D N/A 0 Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use 0 Yes D No D N/A D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features D Yes D No 0 N/A D Food service D Yes D No 0 N/A D Refuse areas D Yes D No 0 N/A D Industrial processes D Yes D No 0 N/A □ Outdoor storage of equipment or materials D Yes D No 0 N/A □ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning D Yes □No 0 N/A □ Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance D Yes □No 0 N/A D Fuel Dispensing Areas D Yes □No 0 N/A D Loading Docks D Yes □No 0 N/A 0 Fire Sprinkler Test Water 0 Yes □No D N/A □ Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water D Yes □No 0 N/A 0 Plazas, sidewalks, and parkinq lots 0 Yes □ No □ N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1 . Provide justification for "No" answers. An Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan will be provided to future occupants that will acknowledge the potential pollutant sources and provide educational materials to prevent illicit discharges to the storm drain system. The following will discuss how source control requirements will be applied to the project: • Storm drain inlets and catch basins will be labeled with "No Dumping Drains to Waterways". See DMA Exhibit for structural BMP label. • Pest-resistant or well-adapted plant varieties such as drought tolerant and/or native plants will be planted in landscape areas. Integrated Pest Management (1PM) educational materials will be distributed to future occupants as a component of the O&M Plan that address physical pest elimination techniques such as relying on natural enemies to consume pests, weeding, pruning, and etc. E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 03/16 *"' dfo ··•);tSite O,~signJ3MPs 'ft is {M 1»-i ¼ "" 1" .. % ·i/1 @·, w. 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 ii f# '+•· :+w I ., Applied? ,, SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features I D Yes I 0 No I D N/A Discussion/justification if S0-1 not implemented: Site previously graded SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I D Yes I 0 No I D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: No natural areas are present on-site. SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I 0 Yes I 0 No I D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I 0 Yes I D No I D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I 0 Yes I □No I D N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 03/16 Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: i21 No ON/A SD-7 Landscapin with Native or Drou ht Tolerant Species Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: i21Yes D No D N/A D Yes i21 No ON/A No rain-water harvesting strategies proposed. Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible for this project. See Form 6 in Attachment 1 c for Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist. E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 03/16 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS 1," ,; ··;, . \0 "r 4 PDP Structural· BMPs '.Wt ·· , " '~ 1[f . · *' 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 two (2) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) draining to Biofiltration IMPs, four (4) Areas Draining to Self-Retaining DMAs, and two (2) De Minimis DMAs not feasible to treat. The two De Minimis Areas are each less than 250 square feet in area and encompass portions of the proposed curb returns located at the intersection of Buena Vista Way and Valley Street and the intersection of McCauley Lane and Valley Street. The sum of all De Minimis areas are less than 2% of the total impervious area for the project. 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 the minimum BMP sizing factor of 3% for storm water pollutant control. See Attachment 1 e for Worksheet B.5-1: Simple Sizing Methods for Biofiltration BMPs. The DCV for each OMA has been calculated based on a proposed impervious roof and driveway area of 3,800 sf per Lot, with the remaining area as proposed landscape. Worksheet B.5-1 further demonstrates that the DCV can be achieved with biofiltration BMPs. Based on the preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geosoils, Inc. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision, 4.14 Acres", the onsite soils are 22 similar to Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) "C" or "D". Infiltration of HSG "C" and "D" soils is very severely limited. 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 ponding layer between 10-inches and 12-inches above the surface for storage volume, an 18-inch layer of amended soil below the surface, and a 10-inch gravel storage layer below the amended soil layer. Below the gravel layer, the basins are lined to prevent infiltration into the underlying soil. Flows will discharge from the basin via low flow orifice within the gravel layer to the receiving storm drain system. A riser structure will be constructed within the IMP with and an emergency overflow set between 10-inches and 12-inches above the bottom of the basin, such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system. 23 Structural BMP ID No. Basin 1 DWG Sheet No. 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) t8l Biofiltration (BF-1) D Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawfu l 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: t8J 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): Basin 1 will be used for pollutant control and peak flow control for the project stormwater runoff. See Attachment 1 for DCV calculations. 24 Structural BMP ID No. Basin 2 DWG Sheet No. Type of structural BMP: 0 Retention by harvest and use (H U-1) 0 Retention by infiltration basin (IN F-1) 0 Retention by bioretention (INF-2) 0 Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) 0 Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) cgJ Biofiltration (BF-1) 0 Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below) 0 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) 0 Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below) 0 Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management 0 Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: cgJ Pollutant control only 0 Hydromodification control only 0 Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control 0 Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP 0 Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Basin 2 will be used for pollutant control and peak flow control for the project stormwater runoff. See Attachment 1 for DCV calculations. 25 ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUPFORPDPPOLLUTANTCONTROLBMPS Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Seauence Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit (Required) C8] 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 □ Included on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a C8] Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from OMA Exhibit Attachment 1 c Form I-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility C8] 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 I-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. C8] Included D Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs Attachment 1 e Pollutant Control BMP Design C8] Included Worksheets/ Calculations (Req uired) Ref er to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines 26 Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit 27 /ff . ,, "'"! -~ ,f-,'- \ ) i K:\Civil 3D\1289\PROD\Construction Plans\SWQMP\993-1289-SWMP GRADJNG.dwg, 7/9/2018 8:32:18 AM CATCH BASIN WALL --r---";;f . LEGEND: BIOFIL TRA TION BASIN ( ) PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS DMA BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE DMA/AREA (SF) BIOFIL TRA TION BASIN ID SELF-RETAINING AREA AREA NOT FEASIBLE TO TREAT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA (L) PROPOSED CONCRETE AREA (PCC) DMA 1 55,840 SF BASIN 1 SR-1 NF-1 <~·-_·,_··_) SOIL TYPE B PROJECT AREA 4.57 ACRES DISTURBED AREA 3.77 ACRES PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.53 ACRES PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 2.24 ACRES 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. PROPOSED 6' HIGH CMU SCREEN WALL {SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) R/W 161.01 FS 2 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS 760.9 FG {760.87 TC} {759.98 FL} r = = PER ~W~ ~I > a:":~-~'""",,"' ~ \, 457-4F es ,_ es LINER PER I "' "-' t; I SOILS REPORT l e...,;1:::,1 53% !c!~f!: "RCP@ · -------j G vi 15 LF OF 18 36 ''X36" BROOKS PCC CATCH BASIN W/GRA TED INLET GRA TE=/57.53 3" MULCH 762.7 TW 156.7 FG LOT I PE = 168.D w--PROPOSED RETAINING WALL {SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) 5" OF PEA GRAVEL p.a.::i.a.:ci..:+;:~;;J,,.__]_ 70" DEPTH OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK FOR V2 STORAGE I 153.95 IE EXIST 24" RCP ---__J 152.95 IE ~=~~ . I -------(151.40 IE)~" PERFORATED PVC PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM D 3034 mi'AP WITH FILTER SOCK {PER GOETECHNICAL REPORT) PLACE PIPE WITH PE RF ORATIONS ABOVE THE INVERT {BOTTOM OF GRAVEL LA YER/ " 30 MIL LINER ON BOTTOM PER SOILS REPORT BIOFILTRATION BASIN NO. 1 CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE EXIST TYPE F CB PER DWG 457-F. REMOVE EXIST CB/CONST TYPE 8-1 CURB INLET PER D-2 R/W 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS 158.50 TC 157.67 FL 758.70 FS 2 758.6 FG -2% -----;----~ ---- (150.35 IE) ** 30 MIL VERT /HORZ LINER PER SOILS REPORT 6 5% 8" RCP @ . -:JJ7JL,t.F__:.~::...-:1=-- -1 753.95 IE 752.85 IE 153.95 IE PROPOSED 6' HIGH CMU SCREEN WALL {SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS 36"X36" BROOKS PCC CATCH BASIN W/GRA TED INLET 162.7 TW GRATE=/57.7 J" MULCH 156. 7 Fi 153. 7 SG TF ** 30 MIL LINER ON BOTTOM PER SOILS REPORT ?:·\ LOT 9 PE= 164.6 s1.. or'-,,,--~c..::............:..:c..:.::::... 1-r-PROPOSED RETAINING WALL {SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) 1 5" OF PEA GRAVEL 70" DEPTH OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK FOR V2 STORAGE 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM D 3034 mi'AP WITH FILTER SOCK {PER GOETECHNICAL REPORT) PLACE PIPE WITH PERFORATIONS ABOVE THE INVERT {BOTTOM OF GRAVEL LA YER/ BIOFILTRATION BASIN NO. 2 CROSS SECTION 2 SACK CEMENT SLURRY 6" THICK ABOVE/BELOW 6" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE 72" WIDE. 5" MIN. PEA GRAVEL --+ R 10" MIN. 3• MIN. NOT TO SCALE *ENGINEERED SOIL MIX SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM SUSTAINED INFILTRATION RA TE OF 5"/HR. MIX SHALL BE SANDY LOAM TOP SOIL CONSISTING OF 50% SAND, 30% PLANTING SOIL, 20% SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. 11 111 1/'"'=I 11 111 II= =I ll 111-11 1 Il l Il l 111-I 11 **30 MIL MIRAFI 740N LINER OR EQUIVALENT {EACH SIDEWALL/BOTTOM) "30 MIL LINER NOTE: JO-MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER FOR BIORETENTION CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIF/CATIONS: SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM 0792): 1.2 {G/CC, MIN.}; TENSILE {ASTM 0882}: 73 {LB/IN-WIDTH, MIN}; ELONGATION AT BREAK {ASTM 0882): 380 {%; MIN}; MODULUS {ASTM 0882): JO {LB/IN-WIDTH, MIN.}; AND TEAR STRENGTH {ASTM D1004}: 8 {LB/IN, MIN}; SEAM SHEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 58.4 (LB/IN, MIN}; SEAM PEEL STRENGTH {ASTM D882) 15 {LB/IN, MIN}. SEE COLORADO LINING INTERNATIONAL PVC JO HTTP· (/WWlj(COl,ORAQOLINING CQ/,/(PRQQUCTSIPVC.PQQ OR APPROVED EOUAL LI. .ill ... ill .. ill .. ill, JU , Wm I= 2 SACK CEMENT SLURRY 72" BELOW BASIN AND AROUND ALL OUTFLOW PIPES BIOFILTRATTON BASIN/CATCH BASIN CONNECTION DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 30' 15' o· BMP DIMENSIONS GRAVEL AREA GRAVEL DEPTH AMENDED SOIL UNDERDRAIN SURFACE DEPTH IMP {SO FT) {IN) DEPTH {IN) ORIFICE D {IN) {RISER, TOP) {FT) 1 1,065 10 18 N/A 0.83 2 1,870 10 18 N/A 1.00 DMAEXHIBIT Y ADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION 30' 60' 120' SCALE: 1" = 30' bliA,lnc. land planning, civil engineering, su,veylng 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE "L" CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931 -8700 Attachment 1 b Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations DMA1 DMA S~tface Tabulation to Supp<;>rt Biofiltrarion of Design Capture V:ohm1e DMAName-,, ,,, (DCV) Determination ,; DMA1 DMA Impervious Area T abulation Surface Name Surface Type 2 Area (ft ) Rl Conventional Roof Driveway and Patio 14,636 ACl Asphalt Street 7,275 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 21,91 1 DMA Pervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type 2 Area (ft) LI Landscape 35,458 Total Pervious Area (ft2) 35,458 Total DMA (Al 50,094 Total Impervious Area (ft2) /Total DMA (ft2) = Percent Impervious 44% Soil Type D DMA Runoff Coefficient "C") 0.61 85th Percentile Rainfall (I) 0.6 Design Capture Volume (DVC) = (C)(l)(A) /12 1,518 28 DMA 2 o, :_" -·\,, ,:;,:_: .:;: . • ... ;~~i . . ,:,,'. . . . .: . "'Yi'. .''< J'; ;.:c . ~ .:: , • . • ·>· , ' ·• ·•· . ,. . "'' DMASurfacc,T;ibul~ti(),n to,~up~ort Biofiltratio'i:l o:(Dcsign CaptUfC Voluine DMAName- (DGV) Deten:ninati6n fr · + · ~ -;~. '"' DMA2 OMA Impervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type 2 Area (ft) R2 Conventional Roof D riveway and Patio 30,312 AC2 Asphalt Street 7,275 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 37,587 OMA Pervious Area Tabulation Surface Name Surface Type 2 Area (ft ) L2 Landscape 70,550 Total Pervious Area (ft2) 70,550 Total OMA (A) 100,862 Total Impervious Area (fi2) /Total OMA (ft2) = Percent Impervious 37l!/4i Soil Type D OMA Runoff Coefficient "C" 0.55 85th Percentile Rainfall (I) 0.6 Oesi2"11 Capture Volume (DVC) = (C)(l)(A) /12 2,750 * Note: Area weighted runoff factor calculated per Appendix B.1.1 of the BMP DM. Runoff factors for surfaces per Table B.1-1. Sec summary of runoff factors used below: Surface Runoff Factor Roof 0.9 Concrete 0.9 ,\mended soils or Landscape 0.1 29 l'abu1;tion of Area's Drainiru! to Self-Retaininf! DMAs %; . -'. --::-;:, ,, ' :,,;;:,;\ ·""DMAName., SR-1' ,,~ ,:s Runoff Arca x Runoff Surface Name Surface Type 2 Area (ft) Factor Factor PCCl Conventional Concrete 1,956 1.0 1,956 LI Landscaping 1,751 0.0 0 Adjusted Surface Draining to Self-Retaining Area -(A) 1,956 ;,:,..: -~ ,,,.~r·· . ·,: '%'"' " ~ .~ '" Receiving Self-Retaining Surface Arca -(Bl 1,940 Self-Retaining Surface Area Type Landscape ' Ratio of (A) to (Bl 1: l Pond Depth with Self-Retaining Area 0.5 in Total Area of DMA 5,647 Tahulatio1(of t\,reas Drainin~ to Self-Retainine-DMAs 1D1Y,1A Name -SR-2 Runoff Area x Runoff Surface Name Surface Type , Area (ff) Factor Factor PCC2 Conventional Concrete 300 1.0 300 Adjusted Surface Draining to Self-Retaining Area -(A) 300 '!s v>h :-., ·"' .,,.,,_,~_:;,_,_._.;_-,:; ,,._ ;,,:-···.+·-:-C( v, . .,,,, , ,;c,c':' •.... ,.v ... '!".'=.,-., ... . ~:-. . ,,·.;;;,'. ·,··,: 7." '~-~-:,-.· . -.;·,;,;.,, Receivinl? Self-Retainine Surface Area -(B) 292 Self-Retainiru! Surface Area Type f,andscape : ~ ''❖';[·' ,,_,,,,, ' ,,., ' ;,-:--~ ,},,:,.,-~ Ratio of (A) to (B) 1:1 Pond Depth with Self-Retainine Area 0.5 in Total Area of DMA 592 Tabulation of Areas Dra.ininf! to Self-RetainiM" DMAs DMA Name -SR-3 Runoff Area x Runoff Surface Name Surface Type Area (ft2) Factor Factor PCC3 Conventional Concrete 1,080 1.0 1,080 Adjusted Surface Drainine to Self-Retaining-Area -(A) 1,080 >:'., ' . ,, .. , Receiving Self-Retaining Surface Area -(B) 951 Self-Retaining Surface Area Tvoe Landscape ,~ ~'-.• ., ,·,; .:-., ~ «,;.:;.;;, Ratio of (A) to (B) 1.1.:1 Pond Depth with Self-Retainine Area 0.5 in Total Area of DMA 2,031 30 S urfacc N ame PCC4 LI PM.AN rune-SR-4 Surface Type Runoff Factor Conventional Concrete 3,233 1.0 Landscaping 1,057 0.0 Adjusted Surface Draining to Self-Retaining Area -(A) Area x Runoff Factor 3,233 0 3,233 fef,_ ·9, ;,··; ~--.. ,, ~--' ¥< ._,., -~ .... , ._., · .,.,;, --(.«.v>:a?,, .-,,,-,; , __ Receiving Self-Retainini? Surface Area -(Bl 1,225 Self-Retaining Surface Area Type Landscape Ratio of (A) to (B) 2.6:1 Pond Deoth with Self-Retaining Area 0.5 in Total Area of DMA 4,458 T ab1.llation 0£ Areas N ot Feasible to Treat ,,, ... 3 DMA Name -NF-1 Surface Name Surface Type Area (ft2) PCCS Conventional Concrete 249 ' T ,) . ., ' ,} ' { .· ' Sub total Areas Not Feasible to Treat 249 Comment: SmalJ po rtio n of the proposed sidewalk at the northwest corner of the intersection of McCauley Lane and Valley Street as part of the street improvement will flow to the existing storm drain at the northwest corner of the p roject on Valley Street. The area of 249 sf is approximatley 0.3n10 of the tot1l project impervious area of 66,566 sf Qcss than 2% of the imperviou s surface area of the project). .. J Tabulation of Areas Not Feasible to Treat ' DMANam.e -NF-2 Surface N ame Surface Type Area (ft2) PCC6 Conventional Concrete 250 I · ' ' ' ,. Subtotot.al Areas Not Feasible to Treat 250 Com1nent: Small portion of the p roposed sidewalk at the southeast corner o f the intersection of Buena Vista Drive a.nd Valley Street as part of the street improvement ·will flow to the existing srorm d rain at the northwest corner of the project on Valley Street. The area of 250 sf is approx.imatley 0.37% of the total project impervious area of 66,566 sf (less than 2% of tl1e impervious surface area of the project). 31 Summary of DMA Treatment Practices D MA Classification Quantitv Subtotal O MA (fr2) Subtotal OMA (acres) Sclf-lvlitigating D MAs 0 0 0 Self-Retaining D.M As 0 0 0 Surfaces D raining to Self-Retaining D M /1.s 4 12,728 0.29 Biorctcntion lM Ps 2 150,956 3.47 Flow Through Planter ThtlPs 0 0 0 l nrntration Uvt P 0 0 0 Conventional Vegerated Swrue () 0 () hxtcnded (Drv) Detention Basins () 0 0 Media (Sand) Filter 0 0 0 Wet Pond 0 0 0 Constructed \Xietland 0 0 0 Proprietarv Vault/Tree Well 0 0 0 Proprietary Inlet Filter 0 0 0 Areas Nor Feasible to Treat 2 499 0.01 Total Project DMA 164,183 3.77 Total Parcel Area 199,024 4.57 Comment: 32 Attachment 1c Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist 1. ls there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? ~ Toilet and urinal flushing ~ Landscape irrigation D Other: 2. 1f there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wee season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushjng and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. Modified ETWU = ET01Xco x [[I(PF x HA)/JE] + Sl ,Al x 0.015 Using an average value for HA over the 12 residential lots and Low Plant Water Use (per Table B.3-2); i\fodified ET\~1] = 2.7 x f[(0.2 x 65,232)/0.9] + 01 x0.015 Modified ETWU= 475 (Total pcrvious area = 65,232 sf) 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. D CV = 2739 (cubic feet) .'la. Is the 36 hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? D Yes I ~ No ¢ Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct mo.re detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm chat 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 DCV? D Yes I ~ No -0, ¢ Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations tu determine feasibility. Harvest and use may only be able to be used for a portion of the site, or (optionalJy) the storage may need co be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in longer than 36 hours. 33 3c. Is the 36 hour demand less than 0.25DCV? ~ Yes -0, Harvest and use is comidered to be infeasible. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? 0 Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. IZ] No, select alternate BMPs Harvest and use B:M.Ps are considered infeasible. Drought tolerant landscape, as proposed in SD-7 in Form E -36, requires low plant water use. Project will implement other LID strategies such as impervious area dispersion. The full DCV can be treated in th e proposed biofi.ltration basins. Property owners will be encouraged ro use rain barrels after construction ro reduce runoff volumes. 34 Attachment 1 d Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition 35 GSI -Categoriwtion of Infiltration Condition W.O. 7377-A-SC City of Vista Appendix C: Gcotcchnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Workshee1 C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition ic;tegorizatio~·of.Infilt~~ti~~ c~~ditio~ Worksheet C.4-1 ~ : " ~ >.; 9 ""'-A""' WA Part 1--Full lnfiltr.Jtion FCll!libllitv Screening Criteria Wouw:infiliratlon of the fun des_lgn volume be feasible from a physical pcrspc,ctlvc witho~u,tany. tlndcslrable. eonsequc~ks t~t cannot be rcnsonably mitigated? · , •, ·•· ;-· · . Criteria Screening Question ., ' ., •.... ' .. ' . Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater thon 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on n comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: -::; ' '., Yes '· No X Yes, based on the available data. Based on our review of the United States Department of Agriculture- N at u r a I Resource Conservation Services·s soil survey website (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), the onsite soils consist of the Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand. The infiltration rate (Ksat), is reportedly high (1.98 to 5.95 In/hr), and falls into Hydrologic Soil Group "B." However, owing to shallow duripans (a type of hardpan), GSI estimates that this mapped soil unit is more similar to Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSGs) "C" or •·o. • County of San Diego (2007) indicates that infiltration in HSG "C" and "D" is severely limited. See GSI (2015 and 2017), and text herein for other related discussions and references. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, ere. Provide narrntivc discussion of study/data source applicability. 2 Can infiltrotion greater than 0.5 inches per hour he ollowcd without increasing risk of geotcchnical hazurds (slope stnbility, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptahlc level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: X No. Hardpan is at a depth of about 5 to 10 feet. Thus, here is an increased potential for the creation of perched groundwater (mounding) conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities, including shallow cut/fill contacts, and transitions between fill lifts, surficlal soils and bedrock. Utility trenches can potentially act as french drains and provide conduits for the movement of excessive moisture beneath the structure(s), further exacerbating slope Instability, as well as potentially causing settlement in onsite and offsite trench backlill, Including onsite and offsite walls. Future perched groundwater conditions may develop along fill lifts and/or bedrock, and hardpan, and should be anticipated. The low permeability of the hardpan will tend to result in the lateral migration of water and saturated conditions at, or near the surface, increasing the potential for distress to foundations, floor slabs, and slope instability, etc. USEPA (Clar, et al., 2004) indicates that infiltration into structural fills is not recommended. See GSI (2015 and 2017). text herein, and USEPA (Clar, et al., 2004), for other related discussions and references. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. C-11 February 2016 GS! -C.itcgorization oflnfiltration Condition W.O. 7377-A-SC City of Vista Appendix C: Gcotcchnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements f.,~ n,"',.,~y <''< ~<'< :::~H-HH~' ""=-;~f"'""''t~"' = C-. '>~ S,< =' ~~ ~--,-",,. «~' ,.,, 1 • • Worksheet C.4.1 Page 2 of-4 " l;,.4 _,.YN,-,.,,.:-i' ,, "''>• ,~ .;,:,>:"':,,: y;.,. ',,. ~"'"-'"'~~ <,>~0,",.,""'-ll<, ,-, -,, v ,;.'-.; " =.,._ ~ ,,vC$ 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 wntcr pollutants or other factors) that connot be mitigated to an acccptnblc level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on u comprehensible evnlun1ion of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes No X No. Site fill soils where the proposed basins are to be constructed will be partially derived from onsite soils. Further, infiltration of storm water runoff into the fill is likely to elevate the potential for a shallow water table in the fill lifts {derived from colluvium/claypan), which has a strong potential to adversely affect lower lying Improvements, both onsite and ottsite, and down topographic/groundwater gradient at depth below basin surface grades, including onsite and ottsite walls, as well as slopes. USEPA (Clar, et al., 2004) recommends against infiltration into fill soil. See GSI (2015 and 2017), text herein, and USE PA (Clar, et al., 2004), for other related discussions and references. Basins are recommended to be lined (see GSI, 2015 and 2017), and storm drain and utility lines within basins should be backfilled with slurry. Flatwork will need thickened edges. With regard to contamination, storm water pollutants do not appear to be a factor. Immediate up-gradient and onsite groundwater contamination is not known to be present. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narralive discussion of study/data source applicabilily. 4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be nllowed without causing potentinl water balance issues such as a change of scnsonnllty of cphemcrnl strcnms or Increased dlsch:irge of contaminntcd groundwater to surface waters? 111c response to lhis Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evalualion of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: X Yes. Ephemeral streams are not in the immediate site vicinity. Immediate up-gradient and onsite groundwater contamination is not known to be present. Summarize findings of sludies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, elc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 1 In the answers to rows 1-4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibili1y Result* screening category is Full lnlilln11io11 If any answer Ii-om row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infillrntion" design. Proceed to Pan 2 proceed to part 2 •Tobe completed using gathered site infonnation nnd best professional judgement considering the dcfini1ion ofMEP in 1he MS4 Pennit. Addilional testing nnd/or studies may be required by [County Engineer] to substantiate findings. C-12 February 20 I 6 GS!• Ca1cgoriza1ion oflnfillra1ion Condition W.O. 7377-A-SC City of Vista Appendix C: Gcotcchnical and Groundwater lnvcstigntion Requirements '.::'c«:,: t.""'"~;" ,<:-<:' '"" ,,v ,,,,t:"t-"':;'~~:'"':"~:-:!""""~-::;~~-:'!"<=-<-t-_._""~""ft ,,,"""",..,~'->.o »-. ~, w,,, ,~w,, ,,, .-.. ~""= ""''"''""""'«<-~, ''"',, v=~~"1' 'J ;;;--~•------_,,,¼a,:~~"'·•~~~!!,!_k,~b~!t C:!_:! ~ag~ 3 of 4 d "'"}.. • _" ·'"" _, .-J Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Jnliltr:ition Fcaslhllitv Screening Criteria Would lnflltr:ition ofwntcr in on 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 apprccioble rote or volume? The response 10 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 X Yes, based on the available data. However, site fill soils where the proposed basins are to be constructed will be partially derived from onsite soils. Further, Infiltration of storm water runoff into the fill is likely to elevate the potential for groundwater moundlng in the fill llfts (derived from colluvium/hardpan), which has a strong potential to adversely affect lower lying improvements, both onsite and offsite, and down topographic/groundwater gradient at depth below basin surface grades, including on site and offsite walls, as well as slopes. See GSI (2015 and 2017), text herein, and USEPA (Clar, et al., 2004), for other related discussions and references. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference lo studies, calculations, maps, data sources. etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 6 Can infiltration in ony npprcclnblc quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotcchnic:il hnznrds (slope stobility, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to on acccptnblc level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: X No. As indicated above, site fill soils where the proposed basins are to be constructed will be partially derived from on site soils. Further, infiltration of storm water runoff into the fill is likely to elevate the potential for groundwater mounding in the fill lifts (derived from colluviurn/claypan), which has a strong potential to adversely affect lower lying improvements, both onsite and offsite, and down topographic/groundwater gradient at depth below basin surface grades, including onsite and offsite walls, as well as slopes. USE PA (Clar, et al., 2004) recommends against Infiltration into fill soil. See GSI (2015 and 2017), text herein, and USEPA (Clar, et al., 2004), for other related discussions and references. Basins are recommended to be lined (see GSI, 2015 and 2017), and storm drain and utility lines within basins should be backfilled with slurrry. Flatwork will need thickened edges. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies. calculations, mnps, dnla sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. C-13 February 2016 GSI . Categorization oflnliltr.ilion Condition W.O. 7377-A-SC City of Vista Appendix C: Gcotcchnicnl and Groundwnter Investigation Requirements tr · ---· '""~ ~ ... ~ .. ~~ ... ~~~"-,.,-~~~-to..-·rr .. ':.<:~ = .,. --~ -----lt_·" ;=" ... : ~:.. .. : . ·-~·-~---· ...... 'Yorksbec:t C.4.t Page 4 of4 . ··-· -· .. .. . .. . .... J Criteria 7 Screening Question Can Infiltration in nny 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 n comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide bnsis: Yes No X No. As indicated above, site fill soils where the proposed basins are to be constructed will be partially derived from onsite soils. Further, infiltration of storm water runoff into the fill is likely to elevate the potential for groundwater mounding (shallow water table) In the fill lifts (derived from colluvium/claypan), which has a strong potential to adversely affect lower tying improvements, both onsite and offsite, and down topographic/groundwater gradient at depth below basin surface grades, including onslte and offsite walls, as well as slopes. US EPA (Clar, et al., 2004) recommends against infiltration into fill soil. See GSI (2015 and 2017), text herein, and US EPA (Clar, et al., 2004), for other related discussions and references. Basins are recommended to be lined (see GSI, 2015 and 2017), and storm drain and utility lines within basins should be backfilled with slurry. Flatwork will need thickened edges. With regard to contamination, storm water pollutants do not appear to be a factor. Immediate up-gradient and onsite groundwater contamination Is not known to be present. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrutive discussion of study/data source applicability. 8 Con infiltration be ollowed 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: X Downstream water rights are considered a legal matter, and typically do not fall within the purview of geotechnical engineering. However, GSI is not aware of any significant downstream water rights issues of concern on the adjoining properties. Infiltration should not significantly affect downstream water rights, from a geotechnical perspective. Drainage appears to be directed offsite and collected within the municipal system. Summarize findings of stud ies; provide reference to studies, calculations, mnps, data sources. etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 2 Jfall answers from row 5-8 arc yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The Result• feasibility screening category is Partial lnfiltrotion. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage orea. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. No Infiltration *Tobe completed using gathered site infonnation and best professional judgement considering the definition ofMEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings. C-14 February 2016 Attachment 1 e Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations 40 BMP1 ~-• I,..........,.,~, ,-.,, ... g r implementing retention BMPs 1,518 cubic-feet Partial Retention 2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D.5-1 if partial infltration is feasible 0 in/hr. 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours 4 D epth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Linc 3] 0 inches 5 Aggregate pore space 0.4 in/in 6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4 / Line 5] 0 inches 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 1,065 sq-ft 8 Media retained pore space 0.1 in/in 9 Volun1e retained by BMP f[Line 4 + (Line 12 x Line 8}1/ 12] x Line 7 186 cubic-feet 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 -Line 9] 1,331 cubic-feet BMP Parameters ;' 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 in maximum) 10 inches 12 Media Thickness [18 inches minin1wn] + 3 inches Mulch 21 inches 13 Aggregate Storage above w1<lerdrain invert (12 inches 1:)1Jical -use 0 inches for 7 inches sizing if atrnregate 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 16] 30 inches 18 D epth of D etention Storage rLine 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14) + (Line 13 x Line 5)1 17 inches 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 18] 47 inches Option 1 -Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV 20 Required bioftltered volume [1.5 x Line 101 1,997 cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20 / Line19] x 12 510 sq-ft Option 2 -Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding 22 Required Storage (surface+ pores) Volume f0.75 x Line 101 999 cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint !Line 22 / Line 18] x 12 705 sq-ft Footprint of the BMP 24 Area drainirm: to the BMP 50,094 sq-ft 25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.61 26 Minin1Um BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] 911 sq-ft 27 Footprint of the BMP = Maxirnum(Line 21, Line 23, Line 26) 911 sq-ft Used BMP Footprint 1,065 sq-ft 41 BMP2 ~ ,., , .... ,■l'i >'Ir 111• '9[ ,.:il,.,~fr.r.1--•n•~-•---- ling DCV after implementing retention BMPs 2,750 cubic-feet Partial Retention ,it ,:t % % !,:; h ff:,' · "Ht ... ·<' ·••· .. ' -~r ;. ,;,x:,:]<:. N 2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D .5-1 if partial infltration is feasible 0 in/hr. 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours 4 D epth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 0 inches 5 A2:2:regate pore space 0.4 in/in 6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4 / Line SJ 0 inches 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 1,870 sq-ft 8 Media retained pore space 0.1 in/in 9 Volume retained by BMP [[Line 4 + (Line 12 x Line 8)]/12) x Line 7 327 cubic-feet 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 -Line 9] 2,422 cubic-feet • -.:>-,,,, '.":"'' _,,_, _,., !) ... ·/? .,<y,:,/ :.; , BMJ> Parame1er~. ,,, ,x;' IL , *, '½" A,-''l A:; .. ,'•W "' ,_::;.,> <. .,:;;:i_,:-:-ii;L .. ' ,,. ' ,-~;:, 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch mininmm, 12 in maximum] 12 inches 12 Media Thickness [18 inches minimuml + 3 inches Mulch 21 inches 13 Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical -use 0 inches for 7 inches sizing if aegregate 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. . . Basel:ine Calculation •' ·<>,., . ..it. ,.,.,, ' .. N ·:•• .,. ~=- ' 16 Allowable Routine: Time for sizing 6 hours 17 Depth filtered during storm [Line 15 x Line 161 30 inches 18 Depth of Detention Storage [Line 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14) + (Line 13 x Line 5)1 19 inches 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 181 49 inches ~ Option 1 -Biofilter 1,5 tim~s the DCV ' ., "' i ,% •h ... .. y ..• • •· ·:· ; 20 Required bio filtered volume [1.5 x Line 101 3,634 cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20 / Line19] x 12 890 sq-ft ,, Option 2 ,.:. Store 0'.75 of rernainiq,g DCV in pQte$ and'ponding ,. ~ " 22 Required Storage (surface+ pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] 1,817 cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint (Line 22 / Line 18] x 12 1,147 sq-ft ':eootprinf oft];ie BMP. )., ;.# · .;:/ ;,~ " ,, .., 24 Area draining to the BMP 100,862 sq-ft 25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.55 26 Minimum BMP Footprint !Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.031 1,650 sq-ft 27 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum (Line 21, Line 23, Line 26) 1,650 sq-ft Used BMP Footprint 1,870 sq-ft 42 ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Seauence Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management D Included Exhibit (Required) See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse D Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA boundaries marked on WMAA Exhibit is required, additional Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area analyses are optional) Map (Required) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Manual. Coarse Sediment Yield Area Determination D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units 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 Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of D Not performed Receiving Channels (Optional) D Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and D Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Desian Manual 43 Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Exhibit N/A 44 Attachment 2b WMAA Exhibit N/A 45 Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations 46 • Drawdown calculator UsingDarcy's Law to calculatetime r~quired to drain 10" of pond depth: __ 18_7_0_----tBasin Bottom Area (sf): 1---3_2_6_7_--1Basin Volume@ 12" Depth (cf): __ o_.8_3_----t Depth gt Engineered Soil abov~Outlet. Point (ft): ...__ __ s _ ___,Assumed.59il Hydraulic Conductivity in Engineered Soil (in/hr): Q= KIA; where I= Hydraulic Gradient ab~ve outlet point 0.43 2.09 Q at outlet point (cfs) Drawdown !ime (hrs)< 72 hrs ·✓ TABLE I-Summary Of Developed Dual Purpose BMPs IMP DIMENSIONS Biofiltration BMPArea(1l Gravel Depth Amended Soil Surface Depth IMP (ft2) (in) (in) (in) Basin 1 1,065 12 21 10 Basin 2 1,870 12 21 12 Notes: (1): Area of amended soil equal to area of gravel. ATTACHMENT 3 STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE INFORMATION Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance ~ Included Thresholds and Actions (Required) See Structural BMP Maintenance Information Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 3b Draft Maintenance Agreement (when ~ Included applicable) □ Not Applicable 48 Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions 49 Attachment 3b 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 DMA 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 equipment, 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 project proposes the development of 12 residential lots and grading of pads and driveways, a 36-foot wide private cul-de-sac (Yada Place), and the street improvement of McCauley Lane and Valley Street. The project also proposes storm drain infrastructure including storm drain pipes, curb inlets, and biofiltration basins for storm water treatment. Project grading will occur on approximately 3.77 acres of the project. As part of the street improvement for Valley Street, the existing Type-F catch basin on the east side of Valley Street will be modified into a curb inlet. Drainage patterns reflected on the DMA Exhibit will slightly increase the acreage draining to the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project site. Runoff from the proposed roof and driveway areas on Lots 1-8 will be conveyed via surface flow to the front of each lot and onto the proposed cul-de-sac, Yada Place. Yada Place will intersect Valley Street, and run easterly through the center of the project. Yada Place will be graded so that runoff flows towards the northern and southern curb and gutter, which will direct flow to proposed curb inlets located north of Lot 1 and south of Lot 8. The curb inlets will connect to proposed 18" RCP storm drain pipes, which will convey flow to proposed biofiltration basins, 50 Basin 1 and Basin 2. Basin 1 will be located on the west side of Lot 1 and will receive runoff from Lots 1-4. Basin 2 will be located on the west side of Lot 8 and will receive runoff from Lots 5-8. Runoff from the proposed roof and driveway areas on Lots 9-12 will be conveyed via surface flow to the front of each lot and into a proposed 12" HOPE storm drain system. The storm drain system will convey flow west and outlet over rip rap at Basin 2. The proposed biofiltration basins will provide storm water treatment and flow detention, and have been sized based on pollutant control sizing factors (see Attachment 1 e). Biofiltration basins will be lined with an impermeable liner on the sides and bottom to prevent infiltration into the existing ground. Storm water that enters the biofiltration basins will be filtered through the basin's soil media and directed to a perforated underdrain pipe located at the bottom of the basin. Discharge from Basin 2 will be routed via 18" RCP storm drain pipe, which will connect to the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street. The modified curb inlet will outlet at the existing 27" RCP storm drain underneath Valley Street. Discharge from Basin 1 will be routed via 18" RCP storm drain pipe, which will connect to the existing Type B curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the southern portion of the project. The existing curb inlet will also outlet at the existing 27" RCP storm drain underneath Valley Street. All storm water being routed to Basin 1 will travel through the existing storm drain underneath Valley Street and confluence at the historical point of discharge, at the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project site. Storm water flow on Vada Place that falls west of the curb inlets will surface flow to Valley Street and flow via curb and gutter to the modified curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street. Runoff from the proposed sidewalks around the perimeter of the project site will be directed towards the landscape areas between the proposed sidewalk and the existing street. These DMAs are designed with the site design BMP-Impervious Area Dispersion-to retain runoff to a level equivalent to the pervious land. See Attachment 1 a for calculations for Areas Draining to Self-Retaining DMAs. The proposed biofiltration basins will serve to detain the minor increase in runoff created by the proposed development. Post-development site flow will mimic existing drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow rates. V. Responsibility for Maintenance A. General California West Communities will enter into a Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement (SWFMA) with the City of Carlsbad to maintain designated facilities herein this section for the Afton Way Project. The SWFMA will serve as the mechanism to ensure that proper inspection and maintenance is done in an efficient and timely manner. 51 Responsible Party California West Communities 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 11 O Carlsbad, CA 92009 California West Communities 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 California West Communities, 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 VI I for fact sheets and checklists. It is the responsibility of California West Communities 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. 52 C. Records California West Communities shall retain education, inspection, and maintenance forms and documents for at least five (5) years. 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 eight residential home pads, driveways, retaining walls, brow ditches, storm drain pipes, and two (2) biofiltration basins. The proposed improvements will disturb 3. 77 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 (DMAs): (2) DMAs Draining to two Biofiltration BMPs and (4) Self-Retaining DMAs. Two Point of Compliances have been identified for the project. POC-1 has been identified at the existing Type B-1 curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street and POC-2 has been identified at the proposed Type B-1 curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street, where runoff will be discharge to the Carlsbad MS4 system (see Attachment 1 for Drainage Management Area (OMA) Exhibit). Proposed drainage facility improvements will consist of storm drain pipes, curb inlets, and two detention-biofiltration basins. The biofiltration basins proposed are designed so that increases in the drainage discharge rate and velocity will be mitigated up to the 100-year runoff. The proposed biofiltration basins will serve to detain the very minor calculated increase in runoff 53 created by the proposed development, and to mitigate any concentration of storm water discharge that might cause erosion. B. Treatment and Flow-Control Facilities All stormwater runoff will be treated by the biofiltration basins where feasible. Flows will discharge from the biofiltration cells via an orifice outlet within the gravel layer or grate at top of the riser structure. The top of the riser will act as a spillway, such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system. A perforated under-drain pipe will be located at the bottom of the basins and will connect to the existing storm drain system in Valley Street. See the OMA Exhibit for the location of BMPs. The biofiltration basins are designed to treat and detain runoff. Pollutants are removed as the runoff passes through the soil layer and the underlying layer of gravel or drain rock. A perforated underdrain pipe will convey flow to the proposed storm drain system. Infiltration of the storm water will not be allowed, and the basins will be lined with a 30-mil HOPE impermeable liner. 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. 54 ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit 55 \ ' \ SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN YADA FAM/LY FARM SUBDIVISION, CITY OF CARLSBAD \ •~ X J ', ..... -. •.',,·-... -·r.·:,\-~·-;\~-:/.:1,. ·.·•T 'If"·~---• __ -·-1-:ii.·_ ·:'i '\f ·/ .. · .... -.. -.->/',,1\_j'.;·;,._._ .. -•f • ;· •-~; · · . ~.i. _. · . -+·:~~-... , ... •·\,4-.-;.,. ·I';:--'~.• • :· ·-·. • • •\ ~. • / J / / •• '" ! ' . --~ -~ \ '. ! ' '-. s~'="':'::'E::7'.'.i,~~TJti::":•~~j:~~:---:---r !I-V<-•--= · h ill<LF-z-:-~ ; ' ---.,;;• ~f"f'l'-4~~~,;., -' 1·· •f-1'oc'"', '"'•= _-,:~-\ "l,1-1,: ', ,,: -:----i--r --1-1 -1--T -; - 1 •• ,-T --7 -1 1~1-Y , l 1 1 I 1 / 1 ,1 / · / \, _i _l1 f I • • I I I ' I I -;-,-1-,!-:--:-I ;1-·-1-,,-,,-/I /l -/-,-7 111 I ) I / / / I / / / i I ' ' ( ' i/ I h 1'!1!:1,.,,', ~ / ! : / ' (11 / f I I J 12/ i / I / 11 ·19 ' c; ' ' , , ' ' I ' ' • ' ' ' I ' ' I _,,/ iJ O ., I j / / l,,·,f ) / I , / J f / i ! ! I I j'-._' I I i I I I ! ,i ,i Ii ! ' I ,',! ; / f I 1 J I I I Ii / 1 1 f J I / [I 20 1/ I i 21 ! 22 ' / 24 /1 /5 / I I 26 \ :I / ~,· I j / I / / , \. I rl \, / / / t : ,' ii r ! Ii ! i :1 ii i ,, i f ! : ,,ii i I!,, \ \ i 1,•_· I / { . ! \: I l ! iJ :I t \ \ ,/ Iii : /-: --lo--.-r--+/-_-,,-· -----.1-,-,. _~+--1--t~-+,+---;~~~+-, ~-~-==;-;i~--;--~,1:-;:~LLL.-/11=--,2:_.:=f-,7:J!a ~f\::;f\~§§~:t=l-711::,;;~-:;.f; :::=~;;=· =-t. :9F I /i I [ t-I i I I I , 18 , I I I ' I _,_ ' ' ' I I r ' ' I ' I ' , ' I I , , ' , I / , I , ---' +--i ' ' , ' ; , ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' , , ' , --,__ I I 511 I I 7 -;- / I I I ' I /1 I I 4 I I I I I _-1-1 _;_ I I I I I I _/_ , ' ' ,, , I , , i ' I f ~--/- ! / ;116 :' II , • ' ' I , , I , ' , ' ' --,-, -, I ' , [ ' ' I ' , , , ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' / 7 t , , ' ' I i I , , 115 / I / I , , ' ' , ' I , , I ' ' ' , ' ' , ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' I ' ' , ' ' -,-, , , ' ' ' , , I ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' , r , ' ' I , ' , , I ; I ' ' _),--I I / _I __ ; I --: 1 --f ! f : \ . ' I ' . I r -;-/ I / / 1/ / ;1 /~ I I . ' --'· ' _ .. ;..,,,-~--. .,,.,., •-.·.·->< '"· .r· ··:./: t: .• ·;< :~ -~ • ...-1 /; \/'- :·;_ ··: -; -..; ·1: ''°• . ._/ .. \. ~ .. /j,, .• ·, "i"•·. · . ;-; }{ . ' ' . .,.,/ / \ / > I ,, 30 15 0 30 60 90 SCALE: 1" = 30' \ , , ' ' ' ' -;,}-:k----) \ --"' \ ~ ~ U o ) -'--\ i --~o o -~ 7•· ( I°'~ I fl t -\-I /,:9 , n -"-.:?'"'_I l~ " ., ., : 'j) I I II I . " : i .j,1> I :.lf•U / I i / ! I : : ' j)' I : ~ ' . ! ; ~ . ' "r ~ : -r--: :1 ·. ;. 1.,,.__ __ _J ~-:, \'.;·~ • ""'I -~'---¼-, '\ ·-.1717-----,\ '( .,_.-' X 8 ~\ I \ \ . '~ .---. -... -~ .. , .... ., ~ NAME CARLSBAD BUENA VISTA 12, LP and HOA ADDRESS 5927 PRIESTLY DRIVE. #101 CARLSBAD, CA 92009 CONTACT __ MA_TT_HEW_H_O_W_E __ _ PHONE NO. __ 7~60~·9_11J.jj~7~68 __ _ PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME: RONALD L. HOLLOWAY COMPANY:~B~HA~ln=c. ____ _ ADDRESS: 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, STE L CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SIGNATURE BMP NOTES: 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 TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT 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. • : j)" ' II ~ i 7'.l. ; i OTAPART(N.. I PHONE NO.: 760-931-8700 CERTIFICATION ~29=27~1 __ _ • s/ I ! ( i ! _.J 0: 11 11 r7i ! ::t: I ! .i ' w: 7111 l --1-1-~1 / / II / . I . ,I I I / 'u g Ii / ( I I I BMP ID# BMPTYPE BMP TABLE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE * FREQUENCY / I I 'f J_~t=~±==~' ;:::==~-r'-'-----7------------------------------------------· • , 7'.l --------------------------------------------+ , • r I ' I , . ~ ' \ ,I . ., ... . . . . ., < \ I ! ·. • • .,-. .• ~--i_:::-....;_.-:-:_. ':.· -_-t---------~\ u -.. -. .;-.. \ I •·." • :• 7._./ .. ;. , .. .: p .. . ;;.. ~-~ ",r ~~~-~,· ·-,-..,;.: ,,.:, . .. ·• . . . . -· ;; bliA,lnc. ,· land planning, cMI engineering, surveying 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE "L" CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 I DA TE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK /\ I I I I V TREATMENT CONTROL 0 BIOFILTRATION AREA TC-32 508-3 4 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY BIOFILTRATION AREA TC-32 ...1.filQ_ SF 508-3 5 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D.) /o\-'25' ROOF DRAIN TO • \::Y-'51 LANDSCAPING SOURCE CONTROL ® STENCILS NO DUMPING R/<JNS TO OCEAN SD-11 24 EA. 4-5 ANNUALLY ANNUALLY SD-13 SEA. * CHOOSE FROM THE LIST BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE FIELDS IN THE INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY 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 D:t,, TE INITIAL DA TE INITIAL I sHfET 1,c_1T_Y __ o_F_c_A_R_1_s_B_A_D~ I sHE1ETs I _ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION RECORD COPY PROJECT NO. CT 15-11 DRAWING NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION DTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL INl11AL DATE K:\Civil 3D\1289\PROD\Construction Plans\RGP\1289_RGP_07 BMP EXHIBIT.dwg, 6/7/201811:40:33 AM GEOTECHNICAL STUDY 56 Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental 5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com August 3, 2015 W.O. 6927-A-SC Yada Family Trust c/o bHA Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, California 92008-4387 Attention:Mr. Rod Bradley Subject:Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 14-Lot Subdivision, 4.14 Acres, 1835 Buena Vista Way, APN 156-220-01, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Dear Mr. Bradley: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site with respect to the proposed residential subdivision. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions, and their effects on the proposed site development from a geotechnical viewpoint. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (see Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: •Based on a review of the 30-scale lot study exhibit, prepared by bHA, Inc. (2015), it is our understanding that proposed site development will consist of preparing the subject site for the construction of 12 new single-family residential structures. GSI anticipates that the proposed residences will be one- to two-stories and consist of wood-frame and/or masonry construction with concrete slab-on-grade floors. •Soils considered unsuitable for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., residential structures, underground utilities, walls, pavements, etc.) and/or engineered fill include surficial undocumented artificial fill, Quaternary-age colluvium (topsoil), and weathered Quaternary-age old paralic deposits. Unweathered Quaternary-age old paralic deposits are considered acceptable for the support of GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page Two settlement-sensitive improvements and/or engineered fill in their existing state. Based on the available subsurface data, the thickness of unsuitable soils, across the subject site, ranges between approximately 1 and 3 feet below the existing grade. However, localized areas of thicker unsuitable soils cannot be precluded and should be anticipated. •All vegetation and/or deleterious materials should be removed from the site and properly disposed of, where located within the influence of new settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fills. Undocumented artificial fill, Quaternary-age colluvium, and weathered old paralic deposits should be removed to expose suitable, unweathered old paralic deposits prior to fill placement. The removed soils may be reused as engineered fill provided that major concentrations of vegetation and/or debris have been removed prior to their placement. Overexcavation of all cut/fill and cut pads is recommended (discussed herein). •It should be noted, that the 2013 California Building Code ([2013 CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2013) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas to be graded, not just within the influence of the proposed residential structures. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration, on perimeter/confining areas. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of removals, if removals cannot be performed onsite and offsite. For this site, the width of this zone is anticipated to be approximately 1 to 3 feet, based on the available data. Any settlement-sensitive improvement (walls, brow ditches, curbs, streets, flatwork, etc.), constructed within this zone, may require deepened foundations, reinforcements, etc., or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. This will require proper disclosure to all interested/affected parties, should this condition exist at the conclusion of grading. •On a preliminary basis, temporary excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in overall height should conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type “B” soils provided that groundwater and/or running sands are not present. All temporary excavations should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry. Although not anticipated, if temporary slopes conflict with property boundaries, shoring or alternating slot excavations may be necessary. •Expansion Index (E.I.) testing, performed on representative samples, of the onsite soils indicates non-detrimentally expansive soil conditions. As such, specialized structural design to mitigate expansive soil effects is not warranted at this time. Final foundation design will be further evaluated at the conclusion of grading. •Soil pH, saturated resistivity, and soluble sulfate, and chloride testing, performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils, generally indicates that the onsite soils are neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity, are corrosive to exposed, GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page Three buried metals when saturated, possess negligible sulfate exposure to concrete(S0), and contains slightly elevated chlorides. Reinforced concrete mix design for foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavements should minimally conform to “Exposure Class C1” in Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318-11, as concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. GSI does not consult in corrosion engineering. Therefore, additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer based on the level of corrosion protection desired or required for the project, as determined by the project architect and/or structural engineer. •Regional groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration and is not expected to be a major factor during construction of the proposed improvements. Regional groundwater is anticipated to generally be coincident with Mean Sea Level (MSL) or approximately ±158 feet below the lowest existing site elevation. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site in the future, both during and subsequent to development, especially along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., clayey and sandy fill lifts, fill/old paralic deposits and old paralic deposits/Santiago Formation contacts, joints/fractures, discontinuities, etc.), and should be anticipated. Thus, more onerous slab design is considered necessary for any new slab-on-grade floor (State of California, 2015). Recommendations for reducing the amount of water and/or water vapor through slab-on-grade floors are provided in the “Soil Moisture Considerations” sections of this report. It should be noted that these recommendations should be implemented if the transmission of water or water vapor through the slab is undesirable. Should these mitigative measures not be implemented, then the potential for water or vapor to pass through the foundations and slabs and resultant distress cannot be precluded, and would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. •Our evaluation and experience with similar sites indicates that the site currently has a very low potential for liquefaction, due to the relatively dense nature of the old paralic deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation, as well as the depth to the regional water table below the lowest site elevation. The potential for seismic densification to affect the planned development is considered low, provided the recommendations in this report are properly followed. However, some seismic densification of the adjoining un-mitigated site(s) may adversely influence planned improvements at the perimeter of the site. •Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. In addition, other than moderate to strong seismic shaking produced from an earthquake on a nearby active fault, other geologic and secondary seismic hazards have a very low potential to affect the proposed site development. •The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. The adverse effects of seismic shaking on the structure(s) will likely be wall cracks, some GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page Four foundation/slab distress, and some seismic settlement. However, it is anticipated that the structure will be repairable in the event of the design seismic event. This potential should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. •Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered. •The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction considerations of the project. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Aubrey T. Smith David W. Skelly Staff Engineer Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 John P. Franklin Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 ATS/JPF/DWS/jh Distribution:(4) Addressee GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .........................1 SITE EXPLORATION .....................................................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS ..................................................5 Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Not Mapped).............................5 Quaternary-age Colluvium (Not Mapped)...............................5 Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop).................5 Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Not Mapped)..........................6 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................................................6 GROUNDWATER ........................................................6 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY.....................................7 Local and Regional Faults ...........................................7 Seismicity ........................................................7 Deterministic Maximum Credible Site Acceleration ..................7 Historical Site Acceleration .....................................8 Seismic Shaking Parameters ...................................8 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ..............................................9 Liquefaction ......................................................9 Seismic Densification ..............................................10 Summary........................................................10 Other Geologic/Secondary Seismic Hazards ...........................11 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................11 General .........................................................11 Classification.....................................................11 Moisture-Density Relations .........................................12 Expansion Potential ...............................................12 Particle - Size Analysis .............................................12 Direct Shear Tests ................................................12 Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides .............13 Corrosion Summary .........................................13 EMBANKMENT FACTORS (SHRINKAGE/BULKING)...........................13 GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Table of Contents File:wp12\6900\6927a.pge Page ii EXCAVATION FEASIBILITY ...............................................14 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................14 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................16 General .........................................................16 Demolition/Grubbing ..............................................17 Remedial Removals (Removal of Potentially Compressible Surficial Materials)17 Overexcavation ...................................................18 Temporary Slopes ................................................18 Engineered Fill Placement ..........................................19 Graded Slopes ...................................................19 Import Fill Materials ...............................................19 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................19 General .........................................................19 General Foundation Design.........................................20 Foundation Settlement .......................................21 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...........21 Conventional Foundations (Expansion Index of 20 or Less with a Plasticity Index Less Than 15)..............................................21 CORROSION ..........................................................23 SOIL MOISTURE TRANSMISSION CONSIDERATIONS ........................23 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................25 Conventional Retaining Walls .......................................25 Restrained Walls ............................................25 Cantilevered Walls...........................................25 Seismic Surcharge ................................................26 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage..................................27 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ...............................31 TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSIVE SOILS ......31 Expansive Soils and Slope Creep ....................................31 Top of Slope Walls/Fences .........................................32 EXPANSIVE SOILS, DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ......33 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................................35 New Pavements ..................................................35 New Asphaltic Concrete (AC) Pavement .........................35 GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Table of Contents File:wp12\6900\6927a.pge Page iii Pavement Grading Recommendations ................................35 General ...................................................35 Subgrade ..................................................36 Aggregate Base.............................................36 Paving ....................................................36 Drainage ..................................................37 ONSITE INFILTRATION-RUNOFF RETENTION SYSTEMS ......................37 General .........................................................37 Plan Specific .....................................................41 PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...........41 General .........................................................42 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ...............................................47 Slope Deformation ................................................47 Slope Maintenance and Planting.....................................47 Drainage ........................................................48 Erosion Control...................................................48 Landscape Maintenance ...........................................48 Gutters and Downspouts ...........................................49 Subsurface and Surface Water ......................................49 Site Improvements ................................................49 Tile Flooring .....................................................50 Additional Grading ................................................50 Footing Trench Excavation .........................................50 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts ..........................50 Utility Trench Backfill ..............................................51 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING........................................................51 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS ..........................52 PLAN REVIEW .........................................................53 LIMITATIONS ..........................................................53 GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Table of Contents File:wp12\6900\6927a.pge Page iv FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .........................................2 Figure 2 - Geologic and Test Pit Location Map ...........................4 Detail 1 - Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail ..............28 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain .......29 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill ...........30 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References ...................................Rear of Text Appendix B - Exploration Logs ..............................Rear of Text Appendix C - EQFAULT and EQSEARCH ......................Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data ...............................Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines .........Rear of Text GeoSoils, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 14-LOT SUBDIVISION, 4.14 ACRES 1835 BUENA VISTA WAY, APN 156-220-01 CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1.Review of the available geologic literature for the site (see Appendix A). 2.Geologic site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration with seven test pits (see Appendix B), sampling, and mapping. 3.General areal seismicity (see Appendix C), and geologic hazards evaluation. 4.Appropriate laboratory testing of representative soil samples (Appendix D). 5.Preparation of this summary report. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The subject site consists of a quadrilateral-shaped property located at 1835 Buena Vista Way in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The site is bounded by McCauley Lane and existing residential development and a church to the southeast, by Buena Vista Avenue and residential development to the northwest, and by Valley Street and existing residential development to the southwest, and a house, and former nursery to the northeast. According to the 30-scale lot study exhibit prepared by bHA, Inc. (bHA, 2015), site elevations range between approximately 158 to 195 feet (unknown datum) for an overall relief of about 37 feet. Topographically, the site gently slopes to the southwesterly direction. The overall gradient of the site is on the order of 8:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) or flatter. Existing onsite structures include a one-story single-family residence and single-story structures and shade canopies associated with the formerly existing nursery. Based on a review of the conceptual lotting study by bHA (2015), GSI understands that the existing residential structure will remain as one lot; however, the existing agricultural facilities will be removed and the site prepared for the construction of 14 new lots for residential development. Two of the 14 proposed lots will be bio-basins located on either side of the proposed entrance perpendicular to Valley Street, and are to be maintained by Homeowner Association. Cut and fill grading will be necessary to achieve the design grades. Maximum planned cut and fill slopes on the order of 2 to 8½ feet high, at a 2:1 (h:v) inclination, or flatter, are proposed. Maximum planned cut and fill thicknesses are on the order of 6 to 7 feet and 4 to 5 feet, respectively. Four retaining walls are proposed Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California --San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current, 1999. Las FknsChur<h e 1 0 Stratford Ln Laguna ur Gl!CJl9NCoil!LibrlfY ~ El Base Map: Google Maps, Copyright 2015 Google, Map Data Copyright 2015 Google w.o. This map Is copyrighted by Google 2015. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without pennission. All rights reserved. ~-6927-A-SC SITE LOCATION MAP N Figure 1 GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad August 3, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 3 along Lots 13 and 14, and the north and northwestern property lines. We further understand that the proposed buildings would be one- or two-story homes, with attached garages, utilizing typical foundations with slabs-on-grade. Sewage disposal is understood to be tied into the regional municipal system. Building loads are also assumed to be typical for these types of relatively light structures. The need for import soils is unknown. SITE EXPLORATION Surface observations and subsurface explorations were performed on June 24, 2015, by a representative of this office. A survey of line and grade for the subject site was not conducted by this firm at the time of our site reconnaissance. Near-surface soil and geologic conditions were explored with seven (7) test pits within the site. The approximate locations of the exploratory test pits are shown on the Geologic and Test Pit Location Map (see Figure 2) which uses bHA, Inc. (2015) as a base. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix B. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property lies within the coastal plains physiographic region of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. This region consists of dissected, mesa-like terraces that graduate inland to rolling hills. The encompassing Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is characterized as elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly (Norris and Webb, 1990). This geomorphic province extends from the base of the east-west aligned Santa Monica - San Gabriel Mountains, and continues south into Baja California. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed. During mid- to late-Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. Regional geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2005) indicates that the site is immediately underlain by Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (formerly termed terrace deposits). "-"-lb§.4 RIM //49.22 IE I "- 1 Qop TP-7 ~ 60 GS/ LEGEND QUA TERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS APPROX/MA TE LOCA 11ON OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT tvl ~ GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 1" = 60' 120 ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE TENTATIVE MAP YADAFAMILYTRUST PLAN SHEET 1835 BUENA VISTA WAY This document or efile is not a part of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an accurate depiction of design. GEOLOGIC & TEST PIT LOCATION MAP CARLSBAD, CA Fi ure 2 w.o. 993-1289-400 SHEET _1_ OF _J_ w.o. 6927-A-SC DATE: 08/15 SCALE: 1" = 60' GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 5 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered during our subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included small, localized areas of undocumented artificial fill, localized Quaternary-age colluvium (topsoil), underlain by Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (weathered and unweathered). The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. The distribution of the mappable units across the site is shown on Figure 2. Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Not Mapped) Undocumented artificial fill was not encountered in the test pits, however may not be precluded as benching was observed for the purpose of green housing. As observed, the fill generally consisted of light to dark brown silty sand. The soil fill was dry to damp and loose. The thickness of the undocumented fill was on the order of 1 to 2½ feet. Undocumented fill is considered potentially compressible in its existing state. Therefore, it is recommended that these materials be removed and reused as properly engineered fill. Quaternary-age Colluvium (Not Mapped) Quaternary-age colluvium (topsoil) was encountered at the surface in the test pits. The colluvium generally consisted of dark brownish gray and light brown sand and silty sand with organics/rootlets. The colluvium was generally damp to moist and loose. As measured in our test excavations, the thickness of the colluvium was approximately 1 to 3 feet. All colluvium is considered potentially compressible in its existing state and therefore should be removed and recompacted with deeper removals towards Valley Street. Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop) Quaternary-age old paralic deposits were encountered at a relatively shallow depth in the subsurface explorations. As observed, the upper, approximately 1 foot to 3 feet of the old paralic deposits were weathered. Where weathered, the old paralic deposits typically consisted of light yellowish brown, reddish yellow silty sand and dark yellowish reddish brown fine-grained sand with trace silt. The weathered old paralic deposits were generally dry to locally moist and loose to locally dense, with moisture and density generally increasing with depth. Owing to their non-uniformity, weathered old paralic deposits within the upper 3 feet below existing ground surface (b.e.g.s.) are considered potentially compressible in their existing state and therefore should be removed and recompacted. The unweathered old paralic deposits generally consisted of reddish brown fine- to coarse-grained sand. The unweathered old paralic deposits were typically moist to wet and medium dense to very dense/hard. Unweathered old paralic deposits are considered suitable for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fill in their existing state. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 6 Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Not Mapped) While not encountered, proprietary information in the area indicates that Tertiary-age Santiago Formation underlies the old paralic deposits at approximately depths of 43 to 45 feet below the existing grades (approximate elevations of 144 to 148 feet), and should not affect the performance of the site. Based on our understanding of the proposed development plan, GSI does not anticipate encountering the Santiago Formation during earthwork construction. However, the Santiago Formation is considered competent bearing material. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE Based on our regional experience, bedding within the old paralic deposits is generally flat-lying to thickly bedded. The elevation of the contact between the upper and lower members of the old paralic deposits encountered in test pits may infer a northerly dip on the order of 1 degree. Bedding within the Santiago Formation dips 5 to as much as 15 degrees to the northwest, on a regional scale (Kennedy and Tan, 2005). Adverse geologic structures at the site, were not encountered during our field studies nor indicated on regional geologic maps. GROUNDWATER Regional groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration and is not expected to be a major factor during construction of the proposed subdivision. Regional groundwater is anticipated to generally be coincident with MSL or approximately 158 feet below the lowest existing site elevation. Due to the nature of the site earth materials, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site in the future, both during and subsequent to development, especially along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., sandy/clayey fill lifts, fill/old paralic deposits contact, bedding, joints/fractures, discontinuities, etc.), and should be anticipated. This potential should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Due to the potential for post-development perched water to manifest near the surface, owing to as-graded permeability contrasts, more onerous slab design is necessary for any new slab-on-grade floor (State of California, 2015). Recommendations for reducing the amount of water and/or water vapor through slab-on-grade floors are provided in the “Soil Moisture Considerations” sections of this report. It should be noted that these recommendations should be implemented if the transmission of water or water vapor through the slab is undesirable. Should these mitigative measures not be implemented, then the potential for water or vapor to pass through the foundations and slabs and resultant distress cannot be precluded, and would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 7 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Local and Regional Faults Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing this site, and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). However, the site is situated in a region subject to strong earthquakes occurring along active faults. These faults include, but are not limited to: the San Jacinto fault; the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone; and the Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone (NIRCFZ). The location of these, and other major faults relative to the site, are indicated on the California Fault Map in Appendix C. According to Blake (2000a), the closest known active fault to the site is the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault which located at a distance of approximately 5.8 miles [mi] (9.4 kilometers [km]). Fault splays associated with this segment have demonstrated movement in the Holocene Epoch (i.e., rupture within the last 11,000 years) and therefore, are included in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Cao, et al. (2003) indicate that offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault is wcapable of producing a maximum magnitude (M ) 6.9 earthquake. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site, should they experience activity, are listed in Appendix C (modified from Blake, 2000a). Seismicity Deterministic Maximum Credible Site Acceleration The acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) has been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound (“maximum credible”) earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) was computed by one user-selected acceleration-attenuation relation that is contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT program, a peak horizontal ground acceleration from an upper bound event at the site may be on the order of 0.53 g. The computer printouts of pertinent portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 8 Historical Site Acceleration Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999), and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-kilometer radius, between the years 1800 through January 2015. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relationship, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have effected the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 through January 2015, was 0.23 g. A historic earthquake epicenter map and a seismic recurrence curve are also estimated/generated from the historical data. Computer printouts of the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix C. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program “U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2013) was utilized for design (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). The short spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE 2013 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE Risk Category II Table 1604.5 Site Class D Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10 (Chapter 20) sSpectral Response - (0.2 sec), S 1.126 g Figure 1613.3.1(1) 1Spectral Response - (1 sec), S 0.433 g Figure 1613.3.1(2) aSite Coefficient, F 1.049 Table 1613.3.3(1) vSite Coefficient, F 1.567 Table1613.3.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral MSResponse Acceleration (0.2 sec), S 1.182 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral M1Response Acceleration (1 sec), S 0.678 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response DSAcceleration (0.2 sec), S 0.788 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response D1Acceleration (1 sec), S 0.452 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) GeoSoils, Inc. 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE 2013 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 9 Seismic Design Category D Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10 (Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2) MPGA 0.467 g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11.8.1) GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS Distance to Design Seismic Source (Newport-Inglewood fault [offshore segment])5.8 mi (9.4 km)(1) Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-Inglewood fault [offshore segment])WM = 6.9(2) - From Blake (2000a)(1) - Cao, et al. (2003)(2) Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and regular wmaintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., M 5.5) will likely be necessary. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to vertical deformation, lateral movement, lurching, sliding, and as a result of seismic loading, volumetric strain and manifestation in surface settlement of loose sediments, sand boils and other damaging lateral deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 50 feet and is unlikely and/or will produce vertical strains well below 1 percent for depths below 60 feet GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 10 when relative densities are 40 to 60 percent and effective overburden pressures are two or more atmospheres (i.e., 4,232 psf [Seed, 2005]). The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects. One is the consolidation of loose sediments with resultant settlement of the ground surface. The other effect is lateral sliding. Significant permanent lateral movement generally occurs only when there is significant differential loading, such as fill or natural ground slopes within susceptible materials. No such loading conditions exist at the site. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following five conditions should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments must generally consist of medium- to fine-grained, relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. Only about one to perhaps two of these concurrently required conditions have the potential to affect the site. Seismic Densification Seismic densification is a phenomenon that typically occurs in low relative density granular soils (i.e., United States Soil Classification System [USCS] soil types SP, SM, and SC ) that are above the groundwater table. These unsaturated granular soils are susceptible if left in the original density (unmitigated), and are generally dry of the optimum moisture content (as defined by the ASTM D 1557). During seismic-induced ground shaking, these natural or artificial soils deform under loading and volumetrically strain, potentially resulting in ground surface settlements. Some densification of the adjoining un-mitigated properties may influence improvements at the perimeter of the site. Special setbacks and/or foundations may be utilized if significant structures/improvements are placed close to the perimeter of the site. Typically, this setback would be equal to the depth of the remedial grading excavations performed near the site boundary. Our evaluation assumed that the current offsite conditions will not be significantly modified by future grading at the time of the design earthquake, which is a reasonably conservative assumption. Summary It is the opinion of GSI that the susceptibility of the site to experience damaging deformations from seismically-induced liquefaction and densification is relatively low, owing to the dense nature of the old paralic deposits that underlie the site in the near- surface and the depth to the regional water table. In addition, the recommendations for remedial earthwork and foundations would further reduce any significant liquefaction/densification potential. Some seismic densification of the adjoining un-mitigated site(s) may adversely influence planned improvements at the perimeter of the site. However, given the recommendations provided herein, the potential for the planned GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 11 buildings to be affected by significant seismic densification or liquefaction of offsite soils may be considered low. Other Geologic/Secondary Seismic Hazards The following list includes other geologic/seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures: •Subsidence •Dynamic Settlement •Surface Fault Rupture •Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture •Tsunami •Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound or maximum credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. Following implementation of remedial earthwork and design of foundations described herein, this potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity that comply with current and adopted building standards. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System (Sowers and Sowers, 1979). The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 12 Moisture-Density Relations The field moisture contents and field dry densities of chunk soil samples were evaluated in the laboratory, in general accordance with EM 1110-2-1906, Department of the Army, Laboratory Soils Testing (1970). The results of these tests are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. Expansion Potential Expansion Index (E.I.) testing and expansion potential classification were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 4829 on representative samples of the onsite soils collected from the field exploration. The results of the expansion testing are presented in the following table. SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT)EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL* TP-7 @ 2-4 <5 Very Low Particle - Size Analysis An evaluation was performed on a representative, soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D 422-63. The grain-size distribution curve is presented in Appendix D. The testing was utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The results of the particle size analysis indicate that the tested soil is a silty sand (SM) (Appendix D). Direct Shear Tests Shear testing was performed on remolded samples of site earth materials collected from the test pits in general accordance with ASTM D 3080. The shear testing results are provided in the following table and are presented in Appendix D. SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT) PRIMARY RESIDUAL COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) TP-1 @2 123 34 67 31 GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 13 Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides GSI conducted general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides testing on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The testing included evaluation of soil pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results are presented in Appendix D and the following table: SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT)pH SATURATED RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm) SOLUBLE SULFATES (ppm) SOLUBLE CHLORIDES (ppm) TP-1 @ 0.5-2.5 6.74 530 0.054 142 TP-4 @0-3 6.02 820 0.0095 30 TP-6 @ 1-2 7.07 4,900 0.001 165 Corrosion Summary Laboratory testing indicates that the tested sample of the onsite soils is neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity, is corrosive to exposed, buried metals when saturated, presents negligible sulfate exposure to concrete (S0), and is slightly elevated with respect to chlorides. Reinforced concrete mix design for foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavements should minimally conform to “Exposure Class C1” in Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318-11, as concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. It should be noted that GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer based on the level of corrosion protection required for the project, as determined by the project architect and/or structural engineer. EMBANKMENT FACTORS (SHRINKAGE/BULKING) The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters: Undocumented Artificial Fill ..............................5% to 10% shrinkage Quaternary Colluvium ..................................10% to 15% shrinkage Weathered Old Paralic Deposits............................0% to 5% shrinkage Unweathered Old Paralic Deposits ....................2% to 3% shrinkage/bulking GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 14 It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Colluvium may achieve higher shrinkage if organics or clay content is higher than anticipated. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. EXCAVATION FEASIBILITY Based on our experience with sites underlain by similar deposits, GSI anticipates that excavations into the onsite soils will range from easy to moderately difficult, assuming the use of a Caterpillar D-9L bulldozer and a Caterpillar 235 track excavator. However, localized cemented zones may be encountered and result in difficult excavation, especially if lightweight excavation equipment (i.e., backhoe, mini-excavator, etc.) is used. Excavation equipment should be appropriately sized to complete the planned excavation tasks. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the site appears suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the currently proposed development are: •Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. •On-going expansion/corrosion potentials of site soils. •Potential for perched groundwater to occur during and after development. •Non-structural zone on un-mitigated perimeter conditions (improvements subject to distress). •Temporary and permanent slope stability. •Regional seismic activity. The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses, performed, concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report are evaluated or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 15 1.Geotechnical observation, and testing services should be provided during earthwork to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill. 2.Geologic observations should be performed during any grading to verify and/or further evaluate geologic conditions. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted. 3.All undocumented fill, colluvium, and weathered portions of the old paralic deposits are considered potentially compressible in their existing state and therefore, should not be relied upon for the support of planned settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., residential structures, underground utilities, walls, pavements, swimming pools/spas, etc.) and/or planned fills. These soils should be removed and re-used as properly compacted fill during grading. 4.In general, remedial grading excavations for the removal and re-compaction of potentially compressible, near-surface soils are anticipated to be on the order of 1 to 3 feet across a majority of the site. However, local deeper remedial grading excavations cannot be precluded and should be anticipated. Remedial grading excavations should be completed below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the bottom, outermost edge of proposed settlement-sensitive improvements and/or limits of planned fills unless constrained by property lines or existing structures to remain. 5.Laboratory testing indicates that the expansion indices of representative samples of the onsite earth materials are less than 5 which correlates to very low expansion potential. As such, these soil samples are not detrimentally expansive as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the 2013 CBC. On a preliminary basis, conventional-type foundation and slab-on-grade floor systems may be incorporated into the construction of the proposed residential structures. 6.Soil pH, saturated resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride testing indicates that a representative sample of the onsite soils is relatively neutral with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity, is corrosive to exposed, buried metals when saturated, presents negligible sulfate exposure to concrete (S0), and is slightly elevated with respect to chlorides. Reinforced concrete mix design for foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavements should minimally conform to “Exposure Class C1” in Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318-11, as concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. It should be noted that GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer based on the level of corrosion protection required for the project, as determined by the project architect and/or structural engineer. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 16 7.In general and based upon the available data to date, the regional groundwater table is not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed site improvements nor is it anticipated to adversely affect site development. However, there is potential for perched water conditions to manifest along zones of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., sandy/clayey fill lifts, fill/old paralic deposit contacts, old paralic deposit/Santiago Formation contacts, bedding, discontinuities, etc.) during and after construction. The potential for perched water to occur should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. 8.It should be noted, that the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas to be graded under the purview of a grading permit, and not just within the influence of the proposed residential structures. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration, on perimeter/confining areas. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of remedial grading excavations, if remedial grading cannot be performed onsite and offsite. For this site, the width of this zone is anticipated to be on the order of 1 to 3 feet, based on the available data. Any settlement-sensitive improvement, constructed within this zone, may require deepened foundations, reinforcements, etc., or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. This will require proper disclosure to all interested/affected parties, should this condition exist at the conclusion of grading. 9.On a preliminary basis, unsupported temporary excavation walls ranging between 4 and 20 feet in gross overall height should be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type B soils (i.e., 1:1 [h:v] slope), provided groundwater or running sands are not present. 10.The seismicity-acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design and construction of the proposed development. 11.General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided at the end of this report as Appendix E. Specific recommendations are provided below. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General Remedial earthwork will be necessary for the support of the planned settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., residential structures, walls, underground utilities, pavements, etc.). Remedial grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Section 1804 of the 2013 CBC, the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. In case of conflict, the more onerous code or recommendations should govern. Prior to grading, a GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 17 GSI representative should be present at the pre-construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act should be met. It is the onsite general contractor’s and individual subcontractors’ responsibility to provide a safe working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. GSI also recommends that the contractor(s) take precautionary measure to protect work, especially during the rainy season. Failure to do so may result in additional remedial earthwork. Demolition/Grubbing 1.Vegetation, and any miscellaneous deleterious debris generated from the demolition of existing site improvements should be removed from the areas of proposed grading/earthwork. 2.Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the geotechnical consultant. The cavities should be replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 3.Any buried septic systems encountered during grading should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. Recommendations for the removal/mitigation of septic structures will then be provided based on the conditions exposed. Remedial Removals (Removal of Potentially Compressible Surficial Materials) Where planned fills or settlement-sensitive improvements are proposed, potentially compressible undocumented artificial fill, Quaternary colluvium, and weathered old paralic deposits should be removed to expose unweathered old paralic deposits. Removed soils may be reused as properly engineered fill provided that major concentrations of organic and/or deleterious materials have been removed prior to placement. In general, the remedial grading excavations to remove potentially compressible soils are anticipated to be on the order of 1 to 3 feet across a majority of the site. However, local deeper remedial excavations cannot be precluded and should be anticipated. The removal of potentially compressible soils should be performed below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the bottom, outermost edge of proposed settlement-sensitive improvements and/or limits of GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 18 planned fills. Once the unsuitable soils have been removed, the exposed unweathered old paralic deposits should be scarified approximately 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve the soil’s optimum moisture content and then be re-compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard prior to fill placement. All remedial removal excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to scarification. Overexcavation Uniform support of foundations should be provided by overexcavating the cut portion of cut/fill transition lots or building pad areas where the planned plus remedial fill thickness does not allow for 3 feet of engineered fill below finish grade or 2 feet of engineered fill beneath the lowest foundation element. This would require that all old paralic deposits exposed within 3 feet of finish grade or 2 feet from the bottom of the lowest foundation element, following the removal of potentially compressible soils, be overexcavated to allow for the aforementioned minimum engineered fill cap. The bottom of the overexcavation should be sloped toward street areas, scarified at least 6 to 8 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary to achieve the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557) prior to fill placement. Overexcavation should be performed across the entire lot. Otherwise, there would be an increased potential for post-development perched water conditions to manifest. Overexcavation bottoms should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to scarification. The maximum to minimum fill thickness across building pads should not exceed a ratio of 3:1 (maximum:minimum). Overexcavation need not be performed in street areas. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet but less than 20 feet in overall height should conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type “B” soils. Temporary slopes, up to a maximum height of ±20 feet, may be excavated at a 1:1 (h:v) gradient, or flatter, provided groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Construction equipment, building materials, or soil stockpiles should not be placed within ‘H’ of any temporary slope where ‘H’ equals the height of the temporary slope. All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry into the excavation. Based on the exposed field conditions, inclining temporary slopes to flatter gradients or the use of shoring may be necessary if adverse conditions are observed. If temporary slopes conflict with property boundaries, shoring or alternating slot excavations may be necessary. The need for shoring or alternating slot excavations could be further evaluated during the grading plan review stage, but is considered likely near property lines. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 19 Engineered Fill Placement Engineered fill should be well blended, placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, and mixed to achieve 1.1 to 1.2 times the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then be mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Engineered fill placement should be observed and selectively tested for moisture content and compaction by the geotechnical consultant. Graded Slopes Plans (bHA, 2015) indicate graded cut and fill slopes should not exceed about 9 feet in overall height. Some fill-over-cut slopes are proposed. The fill portion of such slopes should be constructed first, so that adequate removals can be evaluated prior to cut slope construction. Graded fill slopes should be properly keyed and benched, and be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction throughout, including the slope face. All graded cut slopes should be observed by this office following construction. If adverse geologic conditions (daylighted, out-of-slope bedding and/or joints/fractures, highly weathered old paralic deposits, thick unsuitable soils, etc.) are noted in the slope face, GSI would provide recommendations for mitigation. Mitigation measures may include, but not necessarily be limited to: inclining the slope to gradients flatter than any adverse geologic structure; stabilization fills; or the use of an erosion control mat. Import Fill Materials Any import fill materials used on this project should possess an E.I. of 20 or less with a P.I. not exceeding 15. All import fill material should be tested by GSI prior to placement within the site. GSI would also request environmental documentation (e.g., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) pertaining to offsite export site, to evaluate if the proposed import could present an environmental risk to the planned residential development. At least three (3) business days of lead time will be necessary for the required laboratory testing and document review. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering evaluations of onsite earth materials by GSI. The following preliminary foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. Testing indicates that the expansion indices of representative samples of the onsite soils is <5. This correlates to very low expansion GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 20 potential. As such, the onsite soils are considered non-detrimentally expansive as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the 2013 CBC. On a preliminary basis, conventional-type foundation and slab-on-grade floor systems may be incorporated into the construction of the proposed residential structures. Final foundation design should be based on the expansion index of soils exposed near finish grade. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of foundations, concrete slab-on-grade floors, and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer. Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the geotechnical consultant’s recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. The foundation systems recommended herein may be used to support the proposed residences provided they are entirely founded into non- detrimentally expansive (i.e., expansion index < 21 and plasticity index < 15) engineered fill tested and approved by GSI. The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the 2013 CBC and indicated herein. In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supercede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as they relate to foundation design. General Foundation Design 1.The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC. 2.An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches (below the lowest adjacent grade) and are founded into properly engineered fill. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in footing depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. These values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Isolated pad footings should have a minimum dimension of at least 24 inches square and a minimum embedment of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade into properly engineered fill. Foundation embedment excludes any landscaped zone, topsoil/colluvium, weathered paralic deposits, concrete slabs-on-grade, and/or slab underlayment. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 21 3.Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf for footings founded into properly engineered fill. Lateral passive pressures for shallow foundations within 2013 CBC setback zones should be reduced following a review by the geotechnical engineer unless proper setback can be established. 4.For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 5.When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6.All footing setbacks from slopes should comply with Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 CBC. GSI recommends a minimum horizontal setback distance of 7 feet as measured from the bottom, outboard edge of the footing to the slope face. 7.Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances.. Foundation Settlement Provided the recommendations in this report are properly followed, foundation systems should be minimally designed to accommodate a differential static and seismic settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40-foot horizontal span (angular distortion= 1/480). PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering viewpoint. Conventional foundations and slab-on-grade floors may be into the construction of the planned residential structures provided the soils within the upper 7 feet of pad grade possess an expansion index of 20 or less and a plasticity index less than 15. Otherwise, specialized foundation systems would be necessary to mitigate expansive soil effects in accordance with Sections 1808.6.1 or 1808.6.2 of the 2013 CBC. Conventional Foundations (Expansion Index of 20 or Less with a Plasticity Index Less Than 15) 1.Exterior and interior footings should be founded into approved engineered fill at a minimum depth of 12 or 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for one- or two-story floor loads, respectively. For one- and two-story floor loads, footing widths should be 12 and 15 inches, respectively. Isolated, exterior column and GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 22 panel pads, or wall footings, should be at least 24 inches, square, and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches into properly compacted fill (this excludes the landscape zone [top 6 inches]). And be connected in at least one direction. All footings should be minimally reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. 2.All interior and exterior column footings, and perimeter wall footings, should be tied together via grade beams in at least one direction. The grade beam should be at least 12 inches square in cross section, and should be provided with a minimum of one No.4 reinforcing bar at the top, and one No.4 reinforcing bar at the bottom of the grade beam. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 3.A grade beam, reinforced as previously recommended and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across large (garage) entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 4.A minimum concrete slab-on-grade thickness of 5 inches is recommended. This includes the garage slabs-on-grade. 5.Concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars placed at 18-inch on centers, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long axis and short axis). 6.All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 7.Specific slab subgrade pre-soaking is not required for these soil conditions. However, moisture conditioning the upper 12 inches of the slab subgrade to at least optimum moisture should be considered. 8.Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557), whether the soils are to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. 9.Reinforced concrete mix design should minimally conform to “Exposure Class C1” in Table 4.2.1 of ACI-318-11 since concrete would likely be exposed to moisture. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 23 CORROSION Upon completion of grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) for corrosion to concrete and metals should be performed prior to the construction of utilities and foundations. SOIL MOISTURE TRANSMISSION CONSIDERATIONS GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the concrete floor slabs, in light of typical floor coverings and improvements. Please note that slab moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. The recommendations in this section are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the foundation or slabs. Foundation systems and slabs shall not allow water or water vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component or to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of California, 2015). These recommendations may be exceeded or supplemented by a water “proofing” specialist, project architect, or structural consultant. Thus, the client will need to evaluate the following in light of a cost vs. benefit analysis (owner expectations and repairs/replacement), along with disclosure to all interested/affected parties. It should also be noted that vapor transmission will occur in new slab-on-grade floors as a result of chemical reactions taking place within the curing concrete. Vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs as a result of concrete curing has the potential to adversely affect sensitive floor coverings depending on the thickness of the concrete floor slab and the duration of time between the placement of concrete, and the installation of the floor covering. It is possible that a slab moisture sealant may be needed prior to the placement of sensitive floor coverings if a thick slab-on-grade floor is used and the time frame between concrete and floor covering placement is relatively short. Considering the E.I. test results presented herein, and known soil conditions in the region, the anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates, floor coverings, and improvements (to be chosen by the Client and/or project architect) that can tolerate vapor transmission rates without significant distress, the following alternatives are provided: •Concrete slabs (including garage slabs) may be thickened. •Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 10- to 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps and penetrations (i.e., piping, ducting, reinforcing bars, etc.) sealed per the manufacturer’s recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 1745 - Class A or B criteria, and be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1R-04, ASTM E 1643, and the manufacturer’s specifications. The manufacturer shall provide instructions for lap sealing, including minimum width of GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 24 lap, method of sealing, and either supply or specify suitable products for lap sealing (ASTM E 1745), and per code. •Concrete slabs, including the garage areas, should be underlain by 2 inches of clean, washed sand (SE > 30) above a 10- or 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E-1745 - Class A or Class B, per Engineering Bulletin 119 [Kanare, 2005]). ACI 302.1R-04 (2004) states “If a cushion or sand layer is desired between the vapor retarder and the slab, care must be taken to protect the sand layer from taking on additional water from a source such as rain, curing, cutting, or cleaning. Wet cushion or sand layer has been directly linked in the past to significant lengthening of time required for a slab to reach an acceptable level of dryness for floor covering applications.” Therefore, additional observation and/or testing will be necessary for the cushion or sand layer for moisture content, and relatively uniform thicknesses, prior to the placement of concrete. •The vapor retarder shall be underlain by 2 inches of sand (SE > 30) placed directly on the properly prepared, moisture conditioned, subgrade and should be sealed to provide a continuous retarder under the entire slab, as discussed above. •Concrete should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede Table 4.2.1 of Chapter 4 of the ACI (2011) for corrosion or other corrosive requirements. Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and/or waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workablity should be addressed by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist. •Where slab water/cement ratios are as indicated herein, and/or admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and/or treated for more uniform moisture protection. •The owner(s) should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for tile flooring, vinyl flooring, or other types of water/vapor-sensitive flooring and which are not suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufactures specifications. •Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the architect/structural engineer/slab or foundation designer, or waterproofing consultant, and should be consistent with the specified floor coverings indicated by the architect. Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture/moisture vapor transmission through the slab should be anticipated. Construction crews may require special training for GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 25 installation of certain product(s), as well as concrete finishing techniques. The use of specialized product(s) should be approved by the slab designer and water-proofing consultant. A technical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the foundations or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during the initial installation. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either very low expansive soils (typically Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native onsite materials with an expansion index less than 21 and a plasticity index less than 15 are used to backfill any retaining wall. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. An increase in maximum allowable bearing value for footing width may be used, only in the case of retaining wall footings. The increase should be limited to 100 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum allowable bearing of 3,000 psf, on a preliminary basis. Planned retaining wall footings near the perimeter of the site will likely need to be deepened into unweathered old paralic deposits for adequate vertical and lateral bearing support. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 65 pcf for select and very low expansive native backfill, respectively. The design should include any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 26 of Carlsbad and/or County of San Diego standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. For preliminary planning purposes, the structural consultant should incorporate the surcharge of traffic on the back of retaining walls. The traffic surcharge may be taken as 100 psf/ft in the upper 5 feet of backfill for light truck and cars traffic within “H” feet from the back of the wall, where “H” equals the wall height. This does not include the surcharge of parked vehicles which should be evaluated at a higher surcharge to account for the effects of seismic loading. SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED MATERIAL (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (SELECT BACKFILL)(2) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (NATIVE BACKFILL)(3) Level(1) 2 to 1 35 55 45 65 Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without(1) a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall, where H is the height of the wall. SE > 30, P.I. < 15, E.I. < 21, and < 10% passing No. 200 sieve.(2) E.I. = 0 to 50, SE > 30, P.I. < 15, E.I. < 21, and < 15% passing No. 200 sieve.(3) Seismic Surcharge For engineered retaining walls, GSI recommends that the walls be evaluated for a seismic surcharge (in general accordance with 2013 CBC requirements). The site walls in this category should maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately 1.25 when the seismic surcharge (increment), is applied. For restrained walls, the seismic surcharge should be applied as a uniform surcharge load from the bottom of the footing (excluding shear keys) to the top of the backfill at the heel of the wall footing. This seismic surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken as 13H where "H" for retained walls is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill measured from the bottom of the footing to daylight above the heel of the wall footing. The resultant force should be applied at a distance 0.6 H up from the bottom of the footing. For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the bearing pressure may exceed the static value by one-third, considering the transient nature of this surcharge. For cantilevered walls the pressure should be an inverted triangular distribution using 13H. Reference for the seismic surcharge for Seismic Design Category “D” is Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 CBC. Please note this is for local wall stability only. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 27 The 12H is derived from a Mononobe-Okabe solution for both restrained cantilever walls. This accounts for the increased lateral pressure due to shakedown or movement of the sand fill soil in the zone of influence from the wall or roughly a 45/ - N/2 plane away from the back of the wall. The 13H seismic surcharge is derived from the formula: hhtP = d C a C (H hWhere:P =Seismic increment ha =Probabilistic horizontal site acceleration with a percentage of “g” t(=total unit weight (115 to 125 pcf for site soils @ 90% relative compaction). H=Height of the wall from the bottom of the footing or point of pile fixity. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the backdrainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or ¾-inch to 1½-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For select backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to E.I. = 20, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an expansion index (E.I.) potential of greater than 50 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill). Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than ±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes, only, in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.I. # 50). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. (1) Waterproofing membrane-~ CMU or reinforced-concrete wall ±12 inches Proposed grade t - sloped to drain per precise civil drawings (5) Weep hole /4~~~~~ Footing and wall design by others,.....L:....~ Structural footing or settlement-sensitive improvement Provide surface drainage via an engineered V-ditch (see civil plans for details) 2=1 (h=v) slope .... · ... · ·: . .. •.:-, .. · ·:--·._ .. ·. ·.·.$1ope(or·'re.v~r-· ·. ___ :_· -~ .·.-· ·_·: :.-. ·_:. ··: _. . . . · :· . ~ . .. . . :. . . . . . . _........... ·-· ·-.-.-.... ·.~----~ .. ~_-_:._ : .. -.'".: . . •,. • .. ·•· .. ·· .. ·. · .. . . . . .. .· ..... · ·-.: "\ Native backfill 1=1 (h=v) or flatter backcut to be properly benched (6) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane. (2) Gravel= Clean, crushed, ¾ to 1½ inch. (3) Filter fabric= Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. (4) Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient sloped to suitable, approved outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole= Minimum 2-inch diameter placed at 20-foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls. (6) Footing= If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. c. RETAINING WALL DETAIL -ALTERNATIVE A Detail 1 (1) Waterproofing membrane (optional)-~ CMU or reinforced-concrete wall l 6 inches 1- (5) Weep hole Proposed grade sloped to drain per precise civil drawings ',,)~:\\'§(\~~\'))3\\:(\\ Footing and wall design by others _____L_~ Structural footing or settlement-sensitive improvement Provide surface drainage via engineered V-ditch (see civil plan details) 2=1 (h=v) slope .. . . .. .. · ... • : . . ··•··•· ·••i ; $1~e.~·~ve1> <: ',' .... ... •.. .. . .. •.· .. ·· .. ·. ·.. ·: .. .-· '··. -:. . . . ·,.: ··.·' . ·. . . . - ... :· <:·.···>·.··--.: ::----··<.·<= .. : .. ·:.· .. ·. >··.--: .·.<·--.·· ... •: ---·· ... ··.: ,· ... · .. : .. :--.·ij>\ · .. .-> • . · ,· .. ·. :.··.· . · .. :(2)"Cor.nposite· .. ··. ·. '<. · / . : ·... : .. ··. : .. ; ·.· ·--: ··.·are.in_·.·--:·. ~· ·.· ;· :_. ... i .. ·: · .... : '-(<' '•·. \~ . . '. ·' ... -. . . . . . \ . : ... ::· .-. · .. : .·· .· . :· .(3).Filfer,:fabri. ·~ .;. :.:•.: .. ··'. .,:···,.·i.:.:.::--::-'. .'..· ·-,-:./ :.·.--.· ... ··.· .... ·.>·.: .. : :.-\\~\ Native backfill 1=1 (h=v) or flatter backcut to be properly benched ---(6) 1 cubic foot of ¾-inch crushed rock (7) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane (optional): Liquid boot or approved mastic equivalent. (2) Drain= Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls; Miradrain 6200 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (all perforations down). (3) Filter fabric: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. (4) Pipe: 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole: Minimum 2-inch diameter placed at 20-foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls. (6) Gravel= Clean, crushed, ¾ to 1½ inch. (7) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the f coting width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. c. RETAINING WALL DETAIL -ALTERNATIVE B Detail 2 .. ~ (1) Waterproofing membrane-~ CMU or reinforced-concrete wall Structural footing or settlement-sensitive improvement r---Provide surface drainage -=t ±12 inches 7- (5) Weep hole H [ Proposed grade sloped to drain per precise civil drawings <~~\\);(\ \'.<:\~ Footing and wall design by others 2=1 (h:v) slope (3) Filter fabric (2) Gravel (4) Pipe (7) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane= Liquid boot or approved masticequivalent. (2) Gravel= Clean, crushed, ¾ to 1½ inch. (3) Filter fabric= Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. 1=1 (h=v) or flatter backcut to be properly benched (4) Pipe= 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole= Minimum 2-inch diameter placed at 20-foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below-grade walls. (6) Clean sand backfill: Must have sand equivalent value (S.E.) of 35 or greater; can be densified by water jetting upon approval by geotechnical engineer. (7) Footing: If bench is created behind the f coting greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. (8) Native backfill= If E.I. (21 and S.E. ~35 then all sand requirements also may not be required and will be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. c. RETAINING WALL DETAIL -ALTERNATIVE C Detail 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 31 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: a)A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. b)Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer’s/wall designer’s recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSIVE SOILS Expansive Soils and Slope Creep Some of the soils at the site are likely to be expansive and therefore, become desiccated when allowed to dry. Such soils are susceptible to surficial slope creep, especially with seasonal changes in moisture content. Typically in southern California, during the hot and dry summer period, these soils become desiccated and shrink, thereby developing surface cracks. The extent and depth of these shrinkage cracks depend on many factors such as the nature and expansivity of the soils, temperature and humidity, and extraction of moisture from surface soils by plants and roots. When seasonal rains occur, water percolates into the cracks and fissures, causing slope surfaces to expand, with a corresponding loss in soil density and shear strength near the slope surface. With the passage of time and several moisture cycles, the outer 3 to 5 feet of slope materials experience a very slow, but progressive, outward and downward movement, known as slope creep. For slope heights greater than 10 feet, this creep related soil movement will typically impact all rear yard flatwork and other secondary improvements that are located within about 15 feet from the top of slopes, such as swimming pools, concrete flatwork, etc., and in particular top of slope fences/walls. Where removal and recompaction of potentially compressible soils below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the toe of perimeter fill slopes are constrained by property lines, improvements located within about H/3 feet GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 32 from the tops of fill slopes, where H is the height of the slope, may be adversely affected by creep. This influence is normally in the form of detrimental settlement, and tilting of the proposed improvements. The dessication/swelling and creep discussed above continues over the life of the improvements, and generally becomes progressively worse. Accordingly, the developer should provide this information to all interested/affected parties. Top of Slope Walls/Fences Due to the potential for slope creep for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To mitigate the tilting of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations. The grade beam should be at a minimum of 12 inches by 12 inches in cross section, supported by drilled caissons, 12 inches minimum in diameter, placed at a maximum spacing of 6 feet on center, and with a minimum embedment length of 7 feet below the bottom of the grade beam. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. The concrete used should be appropriate to mitigate sulfate corrosion, as warranted. The design of the grade beam and caissons should be in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer, and include the utilization of the following geotechnical parameters: Creep Zone:5-foot vertical zone below the slope face and projected upward parallel to the slope face. Creep Load:The creep load projected on the area of the grade beam should be taken as an equivalent fluid approach, having a density of 60 pcf. For the caisson, it should be taken as a uniform 900 pounds per linear foot of caisson’s depth, located above the creep zone. Point of Fixity:Located a distance of 1.5 times the caisson’s diameter, below the creep zone. Passive Resistance:Passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth per foot of caisson diameter, to a maximum value of 4,500 psf may be used to determine caisson depth and spacing, provided that they meet or exceed the minimum requirements stated above. To determine the total lateral resistance, the contribution of the creep prone zone above the point of fixity, to passive resistance, should be disregarded. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 33 Allowable Axial Capacity: Shaft capacity : 350 psf applied below the point of fixity over the surface area of the shaft. Tip capacity:4,500 psf. EXPANSIVE SOILS, DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Some of the soil materials on site are likely to be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify all interested/affected parties of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1.The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils’ optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2.Concrete slabs should be cast over a relatively non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. The layer should wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3.Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. 4.The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, ½ to d inches deep, GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 34 often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5.No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6.Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7.Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8.Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. 9.Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10.Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. 11.Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 12.Due to expansive soils, air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. 13.Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 35 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN New Pavements New asphaltic concrete pavement sections were analyzed using an assumed R-value and an assumed traffic index (T.I.) value. For preliminary planning purposes, the following AC pavement structural sections are provided in the following table. Final pavement structural sections should be based on R-value testing of soils exposed near the subgrade elevation following grading and underground utility construction. New Asphaltic Concrete (AC) Pavement NEW ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT TRAFFIC AREA T.I.(1)SUBGRADE R-VALUE A.C. THICKNESS (inches) CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE THICKNESS(2) (inches) Residential Street 5.5 30 3.0 7.5 TI values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the design(1) team during future plan development. Denotes standard Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base R >78, SE >22).(2) The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Best management construction practices should be in effect at all times. Pavement Grading Recommendations General Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should generally be 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further R-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading and underground utility trench backfill. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 36 All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. Subgrade Within street areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material generated underground utility construction should be removed or re-compacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the exposed ground should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during roadway grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. Aggregate Base Compaction tests are required for the recommended aggregate base section. The minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition. Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1.The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or sub base course. 2.Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. 3.Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4.The base is free of dirt and debris. If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 37 is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards an approved drainage facility. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. These measures may include, but not limited to, subdrainage devices, thickened curbs, or concrete cut-off walls. ONSITE INFILTRATION-RUNOFF RETENTION SYSTEMS General Should onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems (OIRRS) be planned for Best Management Practices (BMP’s) or Low Impact Development (LID) principles for the project, some guidelines should/must be followed in the planning, design, and construction of such systems. Such facilities, if improperly designed or implemented without consideration of the geotechnical aspects of site conditions, can contribute to flooding, saturation of bearing materials beneath site improvements, slope instability, and possible concentration and contribution of pollutants into the groundwater or storm drain and/or utility trench systems. A key factor in these systems is the infiltration rate (often referred to as the percolation rate) which can be ascribed to, or determined for, the earth materials within which these systems are installed. Additionally, the infiltration rate of the designed system (which may include gravel, sand, mulch/topsoil, or other amendments, etc.) will need to be considered. The project infiltration testing is very site specific, any changes to the location of the proposed OIRRS and/or estimated size of the OIRRS, may require additional infiltration testing. Locally, relatively impermeable formations include: paralic deposits, claystone, siltstone, cemented sandstone, igneous and metamorphic bedrock, as well as expansive fill soils. Some of the methods which are utilized for onsite infiltration include percolation basins, dry wells, bio-swale/bio-retention, permeable pavers/pavement, infiltration trenches, filter boxes and subsurface infiltration galleries/chambers. Some of these systems are constructed using native and import soils, perforated piping, and filter fabrics while others employ structural components such as stormwater infiltration chambers and filters/separators. Every site will have characteristics which should lend themselves to one or more of these methods; but, not every site is suitable for OIRRS. In practice, OIRRS are GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 38 usually initially designed by the project design civil engineer. Selection of methods should include (but should not be limited to) review by licensed professionals including the geotechnical engineer, hydrogeologist, engineering geologist, project civil engineer, landscape architect, environmental professional, and industrial hygienist. Applicable governing agency requirements should be reviewed and included in design considerations. The following geotechnical guidelines should be considered when designing onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems: •Based on our review of the United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Services’s soil survey website (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), the onsite soils consist of the Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand. The infiltration rate (ksat), is reportedly high (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr), and falls into Hydrologic Soil Group “B.” However, owing to shallow duripans, GSI estimates that this mapped soil unit is more similar to Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSGs) “C” or “D.” County of San Diego (2007) indicates that infiltration in HSG “C” and “D” is severely limited. •It is not good engineering practice to allow water to saturate soils, especially near slopes or improvements; however, the controlling agency/authority is now requiring this for OIRRS purposes on many projects. •If infiltration is planned, infiltration system design should be based on actual infiltration testing results/data, preferably utilizing double-ring infiltrometer testing (ASTM D 3385) to determine the infiltration rate of the earth materials being contemplated for infiltration. •Wherever possible, infiltration systems should not be installed within ±50 feet of the tops of slopes steeper than 15 percent or within H/3 from the tops of slopes (where H equals the height of slope). •Wherever possible, infiltrations systems should not be placed within a distance of H/2 from the toes of slopes (where H equals the height of slope). •Impermeable liners and subdrains should be used along the bottom of bioretention swales/basins located within the influence of slopes. •Impermeable liners and subdrains should be used along the bottom of bioretention swales/basins located within the influence of slopes. Impermeable liners used in conjunction with bioretention basins should consist of a 30-mil polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane that is covered by a minimum of 12-inches of clean soil, free from rocks and debris, with a maximum 4:1 (h:v) slope inclination (where inundated), or flatter, and meets the following minimum specifications: GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 39 Specific Gravity (ASTM D792): 1.2 (g/cc, min.); Tensile (ASTM D882): 73 (lb/in-width, min); Elongation at Break (ASTM D882): 380 (%, min); Modulus (ASTM D882): 30 (lb/in-width, min.); and Tear Strength (ASTM D1004): 8 (lb/in, min); Seam Shear Strength (ASTM D882) 58.4 (lb/in, min); Seam Peel Strength (ASTM D882) 15 (lb/in, min). •Subdrains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 or SDR 35 drain pipe with perforations oriented down. The drain pipe should be sleeved with a filter sock. •The landscape architect should be notified of the location of the proposed OIRRS. If landscaping is proposed within the OIRRS, consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon subsurface improvements (i.e., some trees/shrubs will have an effect on subsurface improvements with their extensive root systems). Over-watering landscape areas above, or adjacent to, the proposed OIRRS could adversely affect performance of the system. •Areas adjacent to, or within, the OIRRS that are subject to inundation should be properly protected against scouring, undermining, and erosion, in accordance with the recommendations of the design engineer. •Seismic shaking may result in the formation of a seiche which could potential overtop the banks of an OIRRS and result in down-gradient flooding and scour. •If subsurface infiltration galleries/chambers are proposed, the appropriate size, depth interval, and ultimate placement of the detention/infiltration system should be evaluated by the design engineer, and be of sufficient width/depth to achieve optimum performance, based on the infiltration rates provided. In addition, proper debris filter systems will need to be utilized for the infiltration galleries/chambers. Debris filter systems will need to be self cleaning and periodically and regularly maintained on a regular basis. Provisions for the regular and periodic maintenance of any debris filter system is recommended and this condition should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. •Infiltrations systems should not be installed within ±8 feet of building foundations utility trenches, and walls, or a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]) slope (down and away) from the bottom elements of these improvements. Alternatively, deepened foundations and/or pile/pier supported improvements may be used. •Infiltrations systems should not be installed adjacent to pavement and/or hardscape improvements. Alternatively, deepened/thickened edges and curbs and/or impermeable liners may be utilized in areas adjoining the OIRRS. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 40 •As with any OIRRS, localized ponding and groundwater seepage should be anticipated. The potential for seepage and/or perched groundwater to occur after site development should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. •Installation of infiltrations systems should avoid expansive soils (Expansion Index [E.I.] $51) or soils with a relatively high plasticity index (P.I. > 20). •Infiltration systems should not be installed where the vertical separation of the groundwater level is less than ±10 feet from the base of the system. •Where permeable pavements are planned as part of the system, the site Traffic Index (T.I.) should be less than 25,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT), as recommended in Allen, et al. (2011). •Infiltration systems should be designed using a suitable factor of safety (FOS) to account for uncertainties in the known infiltration rates (as generally required by the controlling authorities), and reduction in performance over time. •As with any OIRRS, proper care will need to provided. Best management practices should be followed at all times, especially during inclement weather. Provisions for the management of any siltation, debris within the OIRRS, and/or overgrown vegetation (including root systems) should be considered. An appropriate inspection schedule will need to adopted and provided to all interested/affected parties. •Any designed system will require regular and periodic maintenance, which may include rehabilitation and/or complete replacement of the filter media (e.g., sand, gravel, filter fabrics, topsoils, mulch, etc.) or other components utilized in construction, so that the design life exceeds 15 years. Due to the potential for piping and adverse seepage conditions, a burrowing rodent control program should also be implemented onsite. •All or portions of these systems may be considered attractive nuisances. Thus, consideration of the effects of, or potential for, vandalism should be addressed. •Newly established vegetation/landscaping (including phreatophytes) may have root systems that will influence the performance of the OIRRS or nearby LID systems. •The potential for surface flooding, in the case of system blockage, should be evaluated by the design engineer. •Any proposed utility backfill materials (i.e., inlet/outlet piping and/or other subsurface utilities) located within or near the proposed area of the OIRRS may become saturated. This is due to the potential for piping, water migration, and/or GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 41 seepage along the utility trench line backfill. If utility trenches cross and/or are proposed near the OIRRS, cut-off walls or other water barriers will need to be installed to mitigate the potential for piping and excess water entering the utility backfill materials. Planned or existing utilities may also be subject to piping of fines into open-graded gravel backfill layers unless separated from overlying or adjoining OIRRS by geotextiles and/or slurry backfill. •The use of OIRRS above existing utilities that might degrade/corrode with the introduction of water/seepage should be avoided. Plan Specific The plans by bHA, Inc. (2015) indicate the construction of stormwater detention basins in each lot. Stormwater detention basins are planned to be in the northeast corner of Lots 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, the northwest corner of Lots 3, 4, and 9, and the southeast corner of Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8. Bio-basins are also planned in Lots 13 and 14 parallel to Valley Street. In consideration of the long-term stability of this slope and nearby planned improvements, GSI recommends the following in addition to the above: •The sides and bottoms of these basins and trenches should be lined with an impermeable liner (as discussed previously) that does not allow for percolated water to weaken the cut slope’s soil/rock composition nor result in seepage at the cut slope face. •The foundations for the surrounding retaining walls should be below a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the bottom of the detention basins(s). •Proper maintenance and care of the basins will need to provided. Best management maintenance practices should be followed at all times, especially during inclement weather. Should regular inspection and/or required maintenance not be performed, the potential for malfunctioning of the detention systems will increase. All inlets, outlets and piping from these temporary drainage features should be properly backfilled and installed per City standards. PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including supplemental subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil potential, proximity of the proposed pool/spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per code, and geometry of the proposed improvements. Recommendations for pools/spas and/or deck flatwork GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 42 underlain by expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than ¼-inch over 40 feet horizontally, will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested/affected parties. General 1.The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be 60 pcf for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes. 2.Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). 3.An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces. 4.When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 5.Where pools/spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool/spa designer. This includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built-in barbeques, utility poles, etc. 6.All pool/spa walls should be designed as “free standing” and be capable of supporting the water in the pool/spa without soil support. The shape of pool/spa in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance with Section 1808.7.3 of the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013). Minimally, the bottoms of the pools/spas, should maintain a distance H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. 7.The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill/paralic deposits transition occurs beneath the pool/spa bottom, the paralic deposits should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum of 48 inches below the pool/spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction at over optimum moisture if the pool/spa is constructed within or near expansive soils. The potential for grading and/or GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 43 re-grading of the pool/spa bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool/spa planning, design, and construction. 8.If the pool/spa is founded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading, the deepest portion of the pool/spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot. 9.Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool/spa under-drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate outlet for discharge. 10.All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials, and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions. 11.An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 12.A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 13.In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on-center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended. Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool/spa structure. Pre-moistening and/or pre-soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches (optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil’s optimum moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of a 1- to 2-inch leveling course of sand (S.E.>30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable, improvements, deck slabs or flatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or 7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face, in order to reduce, but not eliminate, this potential. 14.Pool/spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent paralic deposits or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 44 minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete, subgrade soils below the pool/spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. 15.In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool/spa decking to be bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool/spa, should be underlain by an 8-inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge) extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate excessive infiltration of water under the pool/spa deck. These thickened edges should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom. Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. 16.Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.50. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable. 17.Joint and sawcut locations for the pool/spa deck should be determined by the design engineer and/or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6 feet on-center. 18.Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the responsibility of the pool/spa builder. 19.It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to enhance long term performance of the pool/spa and associated improvements, and reduce the likelihood of distress. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 45 20.Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool/spa builder. 21.For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the 2013 CBC setback and/or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited “cap soils” and built within 2013 CBC setbacks, or within the influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction: OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa “shell,” such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see Typical Pool/Spa Detail [Appendix E]). The pool/spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa performance under this scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project. OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the pool/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa designers recommendations, local code, and the 2013 CBC. The pool/spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool/spa “leak-free.” 22.The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted. Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and materials engineer. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 46 23.All pool/spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard, under the full-time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure on the property (typically the residence). 24.Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure’s utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.). 25.The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction. 26.The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, following pool/spa construction. 27.All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete. 28.Any changes in design or location of the pool/spa should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction. Field adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed field changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer. 29.Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any interested/affected parties, that pools/spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a slope, and/or H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some movement or tilting. While the pool/spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack, the levelness of the pool/spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other improvements in this zone. 30.Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc. 31.Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the pool/spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total functional and economic loss. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 47 32.The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested/affected parties, etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Deformation Compacted fill slopes designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial stability and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave or settlement in combination with differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep, and lateral fill extension (LFE). Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (e.g., separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, up to a maximum distance of approximately 15 feet from the top-of-slope, depending on the slope height. This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the creep zone. LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region, wet of the fill’s optimum moisture content. It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LFE. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 2013 CBC), positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements, and stiffening and deepening of foundations. Expansion joints in walls should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, and in accordance with the structural engineer’s recommendations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements. The ramifications of the above conditions, and recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to all interested/affected parties. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it adversely affects site improvements, and causes perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 48 to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to all interested/affected parties. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to mitigate ponding of water anywhere on the property, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within the property should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and tops of slopes, and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, site drainage should conform to Section 1804.3 of the 2013 CBC. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Building pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 49 structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes; etc.), that will carry the water away from the house, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to all interested/affected GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 50 parties. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to evaluate that the excavations have been made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or soil engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. The above recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, etc., that may perform such work. GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 51 Utility Trench Backfill 1.All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 2.Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to evaluate the desired results. 3.All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. 4.Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: •During grading/recertification. •During excavation. •During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. •After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. •Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., visqueen, etc.). GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 52 •During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. •During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. •During slope construction/repair. •When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. •When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. •A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate GeoSoils, Inc. Yada Family Trust W.O. 6927-A-SC 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad July 22, 2015 File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 53 potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement’s designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. Improvement plans should also be reviewed for subdrainage and piping (washing of fines) conditions, in light of the proposed sewer’s close proximity to the cut slope descending to Interstate 5. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the client, in writing. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2011, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-11), an ACI standard and commentary: reported by ACI Committee 318; dated May 24. ACI Committee 302, 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction, ACI 302.1R-04, dated June. Allen, V., Connerton, A., and Carlson, C., 2011, Introduction to Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMP), Contech Construction Products, Inc., Professional Development Series, dated December. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2003, Standard test method for infiltration rate of soils in field using double-ring infiltrometer, Designation D 3385-03, dated August. _____, 1998, Standard practice for installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005). _____, 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved 2004). American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. bHA, Inc., 2015, Conceptual Lot Study, Yada Family Trust, 1835 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008, 30-scale. Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. _____, 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Updated to January 2015, Windows 95/98 version. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion: Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications; Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, September 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49. GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix A File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 2 Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, interim revision. California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2012 International Building Code, 2013 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2013 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10. California Department of Water Resources, 1993, Division of Safety of Dams, Guidelines for the design and construction of small embankments dams, reprinted January. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003, Stormwater best management practice handbook, new development and redevelopment, dated January. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 2007, Low impact development (LID) handbook, stormwater management strategies, dated December 31. Hydrologic Solutions, StormChamber installation brochure, pgs. 1 through 8, undated.TM International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. _____, 1998, Maps of known active fault near-source zones in California and adjacent portions of Nevada. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Kanare, H.M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association. Kennedy, M.P, and Tan, S.S, 2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' quadrangle, California, United States Geological Survey. Romanoff, M., 1957, Underground corrosion, originally issued April 1. Seed, 2005, Evaluation and mitigation of soil liquefaction hazard “evaluation of field data and procedures for evaluating the risk of triggering (or inception) of liquefaction”, in Geotechnical earthquake engineering; short course, San Diego, California, April 8-9. GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix A File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 3 Sowers and Sowers, 1979, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. State of California, 2015, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering, and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch, 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, dated September. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego Metropolitan area, San Diego County, California, Landslide hazard identification map no. 35, Plate 35A, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File Report 95-04. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. United States Geological Survey, 2011, Seismic hazard curves and uniform hazard response spectra - v5.1.0, dated February 2 _____, 1999, San Luis Rey quadrangle, San Diego County, California, 7.5 minute series, 1:24,000 scale. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA Coarse-Grained SoilsMore than 50% retained on No. 200 sieveGravels 50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieveCleanGravelsGW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N Relative (blows/ft) Density 0 - 4 Very loose 4 - 10 Loose 10 - 30 Medium 30 - 50 Dense > 50 Very dense GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GravelwithGM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Sands more than 50% ofcoarse fractionpasses No. 4 sieveCleanSandsSW Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands andgravelly sands, little or no fines SandswithFinesSM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Fine-Grained Soils50% or more passes No. 200 sieveSilts and ClaysLiquid limit50% or lessML Inorganic silts, very fine sands,rock flour, silty or clayey finesands Standard Penetration Test Unconfined Penetration Compressive Resistance N Strength (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft 2) <2 Very Soft <0.25 2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050 4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00 8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00 15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00 >30 Hard >4.00 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Silts and ClaysLiquid limitgreater than 50%MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Unified Soil Classification Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay coarse fine coarse medium fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 % C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 % S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 % B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % – Groundwater Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1 W.O. 6927-A-SC Yada 1835 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Logged By: ATS June 29, 2015 PLATE B-2 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-1 182 0'-0.5'SP N/A COLLUVIUM: SAND, dark brownish gray, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 0.5'-2'SM 2'2.5 118.5 SAND with SILT, dark yellowish reddish brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, few fines, cemented. 2'-12'SW/SM 7'-12'QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, wet, medium dense; sand drains at 6', weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 TP-2 190.5 0'-0.5'SP N/A COLLUVIUM: SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 0.5'-1'SM N/A SAND with SILT, light yellow reddish brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, cemented. 1'-12'SW/SM 6'-12'4.7 113.6 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense; weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 W.O. 6927-A-SC Yada 1835 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Logged By: ATS June 29, 2015 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION PLATE B-3 TP-3 176 0'-2"SP N/A COLLUVIUM: SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 2"-1'SM 1'SAND with SILT, light yellow reddish brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, few fines, cemented. 1'-3'SW/SM 3'6.4 114.6 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, damp, medium dense; weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 TP-4 174.5 0'-0.5'SP N/A COLLUVIUM: SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 0.5'-2.5'SM 2'SAND with SILT, light yellow reddish brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, few fines, cemented. 2.5'-6'SW/SM 5'7.0 116.3 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, slightly moist, medium dense; weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 W.O. 6927-A-SC Yada 1835 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Logged By: ATS June 29, 2015 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION PLATE B-4 TP-5 161.5 0'-0.5'SP N/A COLLUVIUM: SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 0.5'-3'SM 2'SAND with SILT, light yellow reddish brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, few fines, cemented. 3'-6'SW/SM 5'8.6 116.0 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, slightly moist, medium dense; weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 TP-6 163 0'-0.5'SP N/A COLLUVIUM: SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 0.5'-1.5'SM N/A SAND with SILT, light brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, few fines, cemented. 1.5'-6'SW/SM 2'-5'7.7 122.6 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, slightly moist, medium dense; weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 W.O. 6927-A-SC Yada 1835 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Logged By: ATS June 29, 2015 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION PLATE B-5 TP-7 165 0'-2'SP 0'-1'COLLUVIUM: SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose; organics encountered. 2'-3'SM 3'SAND with SILT, light reddish brown, damp, loose; medium grained, slightly weathered, few fines, cemented. 3'-12'SW/SM 4' 5'-7' 7'-10' 4.0 115.5 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): SAND, reddish brown, wet, medium dense; weathered, cemented. Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfill 6/29/2015 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX C SEISMIC EVALUATION SITE -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP YADA FAMILY TRUST W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-1 *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * Version 3.00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 6927 DATE: 07- 24-2015 JOB NAME: YADA FAMILY TRUST CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1687 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3358 SEARCH RADIUS: 63 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.- Pleist. Soil-Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 1 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-2 --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- | |ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT | APPROXIMATE |------------------------------- ABBREVIATED | DISTANCE | MAXIMUM | PEAK |EST. SITE FAULT NAME | mi (km) |EARTHQUAKE| SITE |INTENSITY | | MAG.(Mw) | ACCEL. g |MOD.MERC. ================================|==============|==========|===== =====|========= NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) | 5.8( 9.3)| 6.9 | 0.526 | X ROSE CANYON | 5.9( 9.5)| 6.9 | 0.519 | X CORONADO BANK | 21.9( 35.2)| 7.4 | 0.231 | IX ELSINORE-TEMECULA | 23.4( 37.6)| 6.8 | 0.145 | VIII ELSINORE-JULIAN | 23.7( 38.1)| 7.1 | 0.175 | VIII ELSINORE-GLEN IVY | 32.8( 52.8)| 6.8 | 0.102 | VII PALOS VERDES | 35.8( 57.6)| 7.1 | 0.114 | VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY | 43.7( 70.3)| 6.5 | 2 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-3 0.062 | VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) | 45.5( 73.3)| 6.9 | 0.077 | VII SAN JACINTO-ANZA | 45.9( 73.9)| 7.2 | 0.095 | VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY | 46.4( 74.6)| 6.9 | 0.076 | VII CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) | 47.0( 75.6)| 6.7 | 0.092 | VII WHITTIER | 50.5( 81.3)| 6.8 | 0.065 | VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK | 51.9( 83.5)| 6.8 | 0.063 | VI COMPTON THRUST | 55.3( 89.0)| 6.8 | 0.084 | VII ELYSIAN PARK THRUST | 58.0( 93.4)| 6.7 | 0.074 | VII ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN | 58.1( 93.5)| 6.8 | 0.056 | VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO | 58.8( 94.7)| 6.7 | 0.052 | VI **************************************************************** *************** -END OF SEARCH- 18 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.8 MILES (9.3 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.5262 g 3 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-4 .001 .01 .1 1 1 10 100 STRIKE-SLIP FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. Acceleration (g)Distance [adist] (km) M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-5 .001 .01 .1 1 .1 1 10 MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES YADA FAMILY TRUST Acceleration (g)Distance (mi) W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-6 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 .1 1 10 EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDES & DISTANCES YADA FAMILY TRUST Magnitude (M)Distance (mi) W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-7 SITE LEGEND M = 4 M = 5 M = 6 M = 7 M = 8 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP Test Run W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-8 ************************* * * * E Q S E A R C H * * * * Version 3.00 * * * ************************* ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER: 0042-0000 DATE: 07- 24-2015 JOB NAME: Test Run EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1687 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3358 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 2016 SEARCH RADIUS: 63.0 mi 101.4 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.- Pleist. Soil-Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: SS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust] SCOND: 0 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 1 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-9 ------------------------- EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS ------------------------- Page 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- | | | | TIME | | | SITE |SITE| APPROX. FILE| LAT. | LONG. | DATE | (UTC) |DEPTH|QUAKE| ACC. | MM | DISTANCE CODE| NORTH | WEST | | H M Sec| (km)| MAG.| g |INT.| mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+------- +----+------------ DMG |33.0000|117.3000|11/22/1800|2130 0.0| 0.0| 6.50| 0.233 | IX | 11.8( 19.0) MGI |33.0000|117.0000|09/21/1856| 730 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.048 | VI | 22.6( 36.4) MGI |32.8000|117.1000|05/25/1803| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.038 | V | 28.9( 46.5) DMG |32.7000|117.2000|05/27/1862|20 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.90| 0.056 | VI | 33.3( 53.6) PAS |32.9710|117.8700|07/13/1986|1347 8.2| 6.0| 5.30| 0.038 | V | 33.8( 54.4) T-A |32.6700|117.1700|12/00/1856| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.030 | V | 35.7( 57.5) T-A |32.6700|117.1700|10/21/1862| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.030 | V | 35.7( 57.5) T-A |32.6700|117.1700|05/24/1865| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.030 | V | 35.7( 57.5) DMG |33.2000|116.7000|01/01/1920| 235 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.029 | V | 36.8( 59.2) DMG |33.7000|117.4000|05/13/1910| 620 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.029 | V | 36.9( 59.3) 2 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-10 DMG |33.7000|117.4000|05/15/1910|1547 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.053 | VI | 36.9( 59.3) DMG |33.7000|117.4000|04/11/1910| 757 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.029 | V | 36.9( 59.3) DMG |33.6990|117.5110|05/31/1938| 83455.4| 10.0| 5.50| 0.038 | V | 38.0( 61.1) DMG |32.8000|116.8000|10/23/1894|23 3 0.0| 0.0| 5.70| 0.040 | V | 40.1( 64.6) MGI |33.2000|116.6000|10/12/1920|1748 0.0| 0.0| 5.30| 0.030 | V | 42.6( 68.5) DMG |33.7100|116.9250|09/23/1963|144152.6| 16.5| 5.00| 0.024 | V | 44.2( 71.2) DMG |33.7500|117.0000|04/21/1918|223225.0| 0.0| 6.80| 0.074 | VII| 44.5( 71.7) DMG |33.7500|117.0000|06/06/1918|2232 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.024 | V | 44.5( 71.7) MGI |33.8000|117.6000|04/22/1918|2115 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.023 | IV | 46.2( 74.3) DMG |33.5750|117.9830|03/11/1933| 518 4.0| 0.0| 5.20| 0.026 | V | 46.7( 75.1) DMG |33.8000|117.0000|12/25/1899|1225 0.0| 0.0| 6.40| 0.053 | VI | 47.7( 76.7) DMG |33.6170|117.9670|03/11/1933| 154 7.8| 0.0| 6.30| 0.049 | VI | 47.8( 76.9) DMG |33.6170|118.0170|03/14/1933|19 150.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.023 | IV | 50.0( 80.5) GSP |33.5290|116.5720|06/12/2005|154146.5| 14.0| 5.20| 0.024 | IV | 50.6( 81.4) DMG |33.9000|117.2000|12/19/1880| 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 6.00| 0.038 | V | 51.1( 82.2) GSG |33.4200|116.4890|07/07/2010|235333.5| 14.0| 5.50| 0.027 | V | 51.9( 83.4) PAS |33.5010|116.5130|02/25/1980|104738.5| 13.6| 5.50| 0.027 | V | 52.7( 84.8) GSP |33.5080|116.5140|10/31/2001|075616.6| 15.0| 5.10| 0.021 | IV | 52.9( 85.1) DMG |33.5000|116.5000|09/30/1916| 211 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.020 | IV | 53.4( 85.9) DMG |33.0000|116.4330|06/04/1940|1035 8.3| 0.0| 5.10| 0.021 | IV | 53.5( 86.1) DMG |33.6830|118.0500|03/11/1933| 658 3.0| 0.0| 5.50| 0.026 | V | 54.4( 87.5) DMG |33.7000|118.0670|03/11/1933| 51022.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.020 | IV | 55.9( 89.9) DMG |33.7000|118.0670|03/11/1933| 85457.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.020 | IV | 55.9( 89.9) DMG |34.0000|117.2500|07/23/1923| 73026.0| 0.0| 6.25| 0.039 | V | 57.6( 92.7) MGI |34.0000|117.5000|12/16/1858|10 0 0.0| 0.0| 7.00| 0.064 | VI | 58.2( 93.6) DMG |33.3430|116.3460|04/28/1969|232042.9| 20.0| 5.80| 0.029 | V | 58.4( 94.0) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 323 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.018 | IV | 58.8( 94.7) 3 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-11 DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/13/1933|131828.0| 0.0| 5.30| 0.021 | IV | 58.8( 94.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 910 0.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.019 | IV | 58.8( 94.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 2 9 0.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.018 | IV | 58.8( 94.7) DMG |33.7500|118.0830|03/11/1933| 230 0.0| 0.0| 5.10| 0.019 | IV | 58.8( 94.7) GSG |33.9530|117.7610|07/29/2008|184215.7| 14.0| 5.30| 0.021 | IV | 59.4( 95.6) DMG |33.9500|116.8500|09/28/1946| 719 9.0| 0.0| 5.00| 0.017 | IV | 60.8( 97.8) DMG |33.4000|116.3000|02/09/1890|12 6 0.0| 0.0| 6.30| 0.037 | V | 61.9( 99.6) GSG |33.9325|117.9172|03/29/2014|040942.3| 4.8| 5.10| 0.018 | IV | 62.4(100.5) DMG |33.7830|118.1330|10/02/1933| 91017.6| 0.0| 5.40| 0.021 | IV | 62.5(100.6) **************************************************************** *************** -END OF SEARCH- 46 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2016 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 217 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 11.8 MILES (19.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.0 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.233 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION: a-value= 0.969 b-value= 0.375 beta-value= 0.864 ------------------------------------ TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: ------------------------------------ 4 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-12 Earthquake | Number of Times | Cumulative Magnitude | Exceeded | No. / Year -----------+-----------------+------------ 4.0 | 46 | 0.21296 4.5 | 46 | 0.21296 5.0 | 46 | 0.21296 5.5 | 16 | 0.07407 6.0 | 9 | 0.04167 6.5 | 3 | 0.01389 7.0 | 1 | 0.00463 5 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-13 .001 .01 .1 1 1 10 100 STRIKE-SLIP FAULTS 11) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Pleist. Soil-Cor. Acceleration (g)Distance [adist] (km) M=5 M=6 M=7 M=8 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-14 .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE Test Run Cummulative Number of Events (N)/ YearMagnitude (M) W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-15 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Number of Earthquakes (N) Above Magnitude (M) Test Run Cumulative Number of Events (N)Magnitude (M) W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE C-16 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.0010.010.1110100 2 TP-7 60 LL PL 5'-7' Depth D60D100 10 1001403 medium 1416 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND Sample 6 Sample 4.75 1.5 fine D30 203/4 1/2 coarse U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS fine 3 0.338 0.185 404 0.0 83.1 16.9 30 TP-7 200 Cu %Gravel HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 41 5.0 6 8 Silty Sand Visual Classification/USCS CLASSIFICATION SILT OR CLAYPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT5.0 coarse PI Cc D10 %Clay RangeDepth 3/8 %Sand %Silt 50 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Plate: D - 1 Project: YADA Number: 6927-A-SC Date: JULY 2015US_GRAIN_SIZE 6927.GPJ US_LAB.GDT 8/3/15 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 123 67Remolded Depth/El.Sample TypePrimary/Residual Remolded Remolded 34 31 117.4 117.4 Silty Sand DIRECT SHEAR TEST Sample Remolded2.0 2.0 Range TP-1 TP-1SHEAR STRENGTH, psfMC% NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Primary Shear c 9.5 9.5 Note: Sample Innundated Prior To Test Residual Shear Reshear Shear Classification Reshear Shear GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Plate: D - 2 Project: YADA Number: 6927-A-SC Date: JULY 2015US_DIRECT_SHEAR 6927.GPJ US_LAB.GDT 8/3/15 Cal Land Engineering, Inc. dba Quartech Consultant Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering 576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA GeoSoils, Inc. QCI Project No.: 15-029-006m 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D Date: July 13, 2015 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Summarized by: KA W.O. 6927-A-SC Project Name: Yada Client: N/A Corrosivity Test Results Sample ID Sample Depth pH CT-532 (643) Chloride CT-422 (ppm) Sulfate CT-417 % By Weight Resistivity CT-532 (643) (ohm-cm) TP-6 1-2’ 7.07 165 0.0010 4900 W.O. 6927-A-SC PLATE D-3 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GeoSoils, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor’s responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D 1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 2 accordance with test methods ASTM designation D 1556, D 2937 or D 2922, and D 3017, at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant. Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted codes or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 3 or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, 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 firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant, the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to ½ the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 4 consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching, swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer’s representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it’s physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 5 Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designation D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction, or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the geotechnical consultant. In general, per the latest adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC), fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1.An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 6 slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2.Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3.Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4.After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5.Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 7 If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor’s responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 8 In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor’s regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags:Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights:All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician’s safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor’s authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor’s authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician’s safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the GeoSoils, Inc.Yada Family Trust Appendix E File:wp12\6900\6927a.pgi Page 9 slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician’s safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor’s failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor’s representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician’s attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor’s representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or “riding down” on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor’s representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. TYPE A TYPE B Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdrains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. c. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate E-1 12-inch minimum ----6-inch minimum A-1 8-1 Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe. FILTER MATERIAL Perforated pipe: 6-inch-diameter ABS or PVC pipe or approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations <¼-inch diameter) per lineal foot in bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40). For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use a-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40). Sieve Size 1 inch ¾inch ¾ inch No.4 No. 8 No.30 No.50 No.200 Percent Passing 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 AL TERNA TE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FIL TEA MATERIAL \~ 6-inch minimum ~\ \ "'I I • ~--LI / '--~-~nch --- Filter fabric A-2 minimum Gravel Material= 9 cubic feet per lineal foot. Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1 Gravel: Clean ¾-inch rock or approved substitute. Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute. 1 6-inch minimum ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND FILTER FABRIC c. CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate E-2 Original ground surf ace to be restored with compacted fill I Back-cut varies. For deep removals, backcut should be made no steeper than 1=1 (H:V), or flatter as necessary for safety considerations. 2D r----Toe of slope as shown on grading plan /.< S..'\'. : ---,<: ·. ··._ : : .. : :. · .. -: _.Compa.ct~d. Fill -: := ·. :·. .. ~-:-.,~-:-~·.:-·:···~----'_:·:::=:·· .. '.·_:::· ... _-:-:---~ .. -:.-:-:··_: .. ~::-._· ... >·.-:_·._::._:::.'..·.·.· ... / ,##/ / \__Original ground surface a", _,,::. q,_< / D -Anticipated removal of unsuitable material ·§:'..,/ (depth per geotechnical engineer) ~~/ ~ Provide a 1=1 (H:V) minimum projection from toe of slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended removal depth. Slope height, site conditions, and/ or local conditions could dictate flatter projections. c. FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL Plate E-3 Geo~ Proposed grade~ --__ ,--------Previously placed, temporary compacted fill for drainage only ------- Proposed additional compacted fill Existing compacted fill +~;,zy: ;~@'sl~te::z; ··•··· .. •. ·. • Y · · · • ·· · · · · ·· · • · (Ip be rem · ·:::·:.: ·. . ·. · · . ·. • · . 7-· · · · . . oved) /2-\~U\\'?(V\%??~~;;,\\~V\\;(\\. J(\~;"~y\\\:;< . To be rem Bedrock or a addttional ::ed before placing native materia\'proved mpacted fill c. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL Plate E-4 Drainage per design civil engineer / Blanket fill (if recommended by the geotechnical consultant) Design finish slope -~ / / l 10-foot minimum / 25-foot maximum/ ---z<---...., I Buttress or stabilization fill I 1s 1oot I ----. . --1 minimum I I ·-·~-:-~-:-~:,~ '--------4-inch-diameter non-perforated 2-Percent Gradient Typical benching (4-foot minimum) outlet pipe and backdrain (see Bedrock or approved native material Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant detail Plate E-6). Outlets to be spaced at 100-foot maximum intervals and shall extend 2 feet beyond the face of slope at time of rough grading completion. At the completion of rough grading. the design civil engineer should provide recommendations to convey any outlet's discharge to a suitable conveyance, utilizing a non-erosive device. c:. TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate E-5 I .. 2-toot .. 1 I minimum I I 2-toot I I .. minimum., I 1 ~.::::<:::::<:::::: ---t f ~~::~ ........... . . . . . . . . . . . = ·.-.-.=:Q:_.-.-. ---J . . . . . . . . . . . ---- minimu 2-inch J 4-inch pipe minimum Filter Material= Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench. Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material= Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric. Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12 inches in all joints. Minimum 4-lnch-Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1527 Schedule 40, PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow. Notes= 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil. 2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Filter Material shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size 1 inch ¾ inch ¾ inch No.4 No. 8 No.30 No.50 No.200 Percent Passing 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 Gravel shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size 1½ inch No.4 No.200 Percent Passing 100 50 8 c. TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate E-6 Toe of slope as shown on grading plan Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill ~ Proposed grade \ / / / / Compacted fill / / .. / .• ~.: ... :•: ... •.•••·, :;~~(i,S\~: ::__5 ·~ ...• ·.··· .. ·· .... •·· .. ··. oi\c~···· ·.··.· ... ···.· .···· L 2-foot m· · · ~ (. • '. \',et{\O'I~ \~ , • · 'y_;_ ' , ~·-✓: ":::::· ~· ·.~:. ~· .,.,.....__l ,,,.)\ <(\~,, - in bedr 1n1mum ~. . . \ 1· , • . . ... "'"" . . . . . . . . . ' . : :. : ... i .. , •· ~ . . ~ r / ,y\' \, / -4-1001 nttnum Backcut varies / r ock or..-:'.:. ,. .. . . . . . ··.· . . .,, '§· .. • •: • · , . • ,_;;-. .,.--r, :.<'\,, /). y\ \ \::..<,-!\_-_ """'°""" : ·.. . ·. . '§; 'Y . . . . . ,;_--'· '" . -=-eorth materiel_· .o:..:· • ' ' ~< ' ~ . ~~~,......,-~f:~ y\ \ <\\0;>::C\ \\ I r r ----~ .; .. ,i<> ~ --\\;(\\'.:<~)/4' L Bench...., I __. '-\ \-,;;, C~\ 2-Pe,cent 0..ad-----~ _ · [ 3-foot minimum I may vary ~ ·1 ·' '\ :.c, /, y\"" ~ , ----<•-<oot -1 Bedrock 0 I , .,,\;..;\;,,: ---r 15-loot....., 'f --approved 1-----:2-•Hm•a I r native material slope height I Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be provided by the geotechnical consultant. 2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon exposed conditions. c. FILL OVER NATURAL {SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate E-7 H -height of slope Cut/fill contact as shown on grading plan Cut/fill contact as shown on as-built plan _ Original (existing) grade Proposed grade /' i--mayvary---i I (4-foot minimum) I /' / Compacted fill Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTE= The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to construction of the fill portion. c. FILL OVER CUT DETAIL Plate E-8 Natural slope ... ' \ .. . . . . • . ·•" .. A ·• •.•.. · . •·· ·• emove'Unsuitatii .• . .. · ...... •·. •·.· >• ~ . V • • :,. -~ : 1:0 ·...... .· .. ·:. .·... ..· ···-·. Proposed finish grade ___ Typical benching (4-foot minimum) -· . .. . ' .. _. ···. •. . . _. . . . . .... ·_.. . . . . . ·-· __ ._;, .. -~··•.·~ ~ ·•·. ~ ~ / Compacted stablization fill ~-Bedrock or other approved native material / / / --If recommended by the geotechnical consultant, the remaining cut portion of the slope may require removal and replacement with compacted fill. Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. Subdrains may be required as specified by the geotechnical consultant. 2 W shall be equipment width (15 feet) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. At no time, shall W be less than H/2, where H is the height of the slope. e.1 STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL Plate E-9 Proposed finish grade -~ Natural grade ------------------------.,,,,,,,,,,. a / ·.·. -~-.. ,' minimum ,/ ., .. ·7•.':·.···. /"' .. · _. ... ·· /'_.;·:~:._·:.·::,:. ... ::· .... ·· 1/ \/:: \ \ \ . \\\,--:\ /✓\Y\ ~y . . •• =· \"<--✓<<--✓---=~ s:::\ \ \:;(\0 H -height of slope ---w~-\\ ...... ~, ,,......~ 0-\' ' /\ [~\~\~ Bedrock or " u , o /-0 approved \ \::---< native material ~~\\\<(\ ); \ /,1//\ \ -----;--~--·.·:·:._.; ';/ ;-✓: ~'( ~ •,•·:·_. ',' .: . -.... ,;;,----i«?\\ Typical benching ( 4-foot minimum) ,,· .··.-. I _;..,,.... .·.:·. l"":""'e"",....,,..,...1,\X v\Y✓<;,;,-· \ \ '\ \ y, \' ::---<\::---✓:: ,;;,; •/\~, \]4i;~"7:: 2-Percent Gradient-':~\\\:;(\.,,.--: ~½v"✓\\ \\::--<-1/ \/ 2-foot minimum ' /. Y\ .,-\ \\::;-('f~:~½\ \ \ key depth I .,. 15-foot minimum key 'w1ctth½\ c/\ \{ ,\ \ or H/2 if H>30 feet .., I Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. 15-foot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to back cut. 2. The need and disposition of drains will be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. 3. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the geotechnical consultant. c. SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL Plate E-10 Natural grade Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 2=1 or flatter (may increase or decrease pad area) "• ~. •, . . . • .. "· .. :-.~·.· ... .-··.:. :-·.: .. ~ Overexcavate and recompact replacement fill ·.·.· .. :••·,:·, ··-7 . ·~\.··•:y ... · _..·:.·: .... ::· .. :::·u11~1ta~~1e· ·:~!er~f·: ... ::· .· ·.,.·. , ·:· . . ... . .. I . ., ..... ~_· .... : .. · ' Back-cut varies--. [ Proposed finish grade Avoid and/ or clean up spillage of materials on the natural slope ./ .· .. · ... : .... ~··. --- . : . -:._: ·:>" ( .. ··:: :. · .. ·::. · .. .-✓-:·. _.: . '.· _. : 3-foot minimum fill blanket ' / . ·-. . . . . . .. • ... ' . ·: . . . ,_,.,-\ \' ::.---:,\\/41/, \\ ,1/ 1/,\' \ .· ... · ... , .... /: :. · .. " .... ~~ ::--<</\\,--\ ,,..,,1/.,,YA , \,/, /\1/. ·. ' .-~1/. . .. ·.• \½~,\-. · ... : .~~(_:·. ·/2·····-· '· .. \// ,\ · .. ·· .... · ... · .. :.··· .. · .. ~<f:y: ··/ v . .-.·... ....... ., 1/, ~ ::.---:-\¼ . . . ~. . ... . y\ ,\, . . . ··,§, ..... . .. . .. : ,,. :--._. .. · .-.· .... · ... ~~ ~·.:: · ·:. · · ·_._ ........ \ .... ::,,-,-:: .. ·' Bedrock or approved 2-toot minimum /2. · ..... ·: •. \. · · .· · ·: .. ~ 1/ :· ;-· ./ \v>.\ ;(\°\ native material [ key width .. : ... '. .· ..... · ...... · / ·/ \; .,: .·· :· .. : ·:·· .·· ·:··· · .. : ... ·. ·. /·· · '( Typical benching -----. · · .~ ·.7· ~_. .. .;.. ·~•.:'"-:·.:_;_ "2-percent gradient \) (4-foot minimum) .. . .... . . . ..· ·. ~~~~~~\\ -r --~·.~ ~:·.~··.··.< .. :" .• .. :\')_,.,-\\\::.-<,/40\ 1/\\ \1/ ~< .: ·.:.; .· "_'• ' . " .. ,' . ·. \\'/ . ,\ : .... .-.... ·: .. > ..... ·.·.·: .-;.·.·: :~V "'------Subdrain as recommended by · · ... ·. · .. •·, ,~y geotechnical consultant ~>1;S(1/ NOTES= 1. Subdrain and key width requirements will be evaluated based on exposed subsurface conditions and thickness of overburden. 2. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical consultant. c:. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL Plate E-11 Natural grade Proposed pad grade _=::::a...-.,::-::-... · .... ···: ; .. / .. : .-·<: .. '·"·._;··~ ·. . ·: ... .-· .-.~··::._::,::..::,; ·--__ l_ \<~,, y\\ ;((0~t\ y\ \\''\\\~>::::-\ ,,,\ \\~\/4;✓,,,\'\ ;((0~/ y)\ <0,;;,'\ y\ \Y ~ 3-to 7-foot minimum• \' B d k overexcavate and recompact \ ~~1/\ e roe or per text of report ,,\ \ \::--<, approved native material Typical benching CUT LOT OR MATERIAL -TYPE TRANSITION Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Natural grade . _:, ..... :·.-... _.·:~ . . . . . l_ ·.· .... ~.:·-~~~" ·_ --- Bedrock or approved native material • Deeper overexcavation may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant in steep cut-fill transition areas, such that the underlying topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) c. TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate E-12 (E) Hold-down depth NOTES: VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE Proposed finish grade ~ (E)~ ~ 7 ---~ ' (E) Hold-down depth / ,-,CCD -z:co cJ:J / ~\ ~ ~ minimum cco (D) cco cco ---:=--1 (B) cJ:J d9> CCO(F) ~0~~~~~¼0~~~0~>%< \; Bedrock or approved minimum native material VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows). B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow shall be no greater than 100 feet. C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed direclty on competent material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction. D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnical engineer and/ or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended. E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools; Hold-down depth as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction or as recommended. G. After fill between windrows is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED c. OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate E-13 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS Fill lifts compacted 01/er rock after embedment ,------- 1 ----- Granular material L _ _ _ ~--~:-----:::::::-Large Rock I -_-_- I I I Compacted Fill I ------7 I Size of excavation to I be commensurate I with rock size I ROCK DISPOSAL LA YEAS Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding _. __ -{ ~ompacte~fi~ _ Layer one rock high --~C)( )C:JOt:[ I ~ Proposed finish grade ,---~~ ~-~~-~ .-_ T L -------~ -------- -:-Hold-down depth "-. PROFILE ALONG LA YER -t-" .........__ (. Hold-down - Oversize layer _t Compacted fill 3-foot " minimum rill Slope l l t •• aear zone TOP VIEW Layer one rock high • Hold-down depth or below lowest utility as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. •• Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools, as specified in text of report. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN c. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate E-14 Existing grade 5-foot-high Existing grade Existing grade impact/debris wall METHOD 1 1 Pad grade --_L__ --- 5-foot-high impact/ debris wall 5-foot-wide catchment area impact/ debris wall METHOD2 [ 5-foot-high METHOD 3 \\ ,-::<_, __ ~ Pad grad_e_ <\~'\ \ \_,.,, /~/ /, Existing grade ~\ 2=1 (h:v) slope cence -\ \\>;y \ 2=1 (h=v> slope METHOD 4 ----::::--'\ ~ ~ Pad grade \\\,__ '-----_L_ ·-- . ~ ,; NOTTO SCALE c. DEBRIS DEVICE CONTROL METHODS DETAIL Plate E-15 Rock-filled gabion basket Existing grade Proposed grade Filter fabric Drain rock Compacted fill Gabion impact or diversion wall should be constructed at the base of the ascending slope subject to rock fall. Walls need to be constructed with high segments that sustain impact and mitigate potential for overtopping, and low segment that provides channelization of sediments and debris to desired depositional area for subsequent clean-out. Additional subdrain may be recommended by geotechnical consultant. From GSA, 1987 c:. ROCK FALL MITIGATION DETAIL Plate E-16 MAP VIEW NOTTO SCALE Concrete cut-off wall SEE NOTEI __ s __________ J B I Top of elope ~ 2-inch-thick sand layer Gravity-flow, nonperforated subdrain I=== pipe (tra.,...,,-eel Toe of slope 4 A --I I 1--Sleet Pool 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (longitudinal) Coping A' 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (transverse) Pool Direction of drainage B' CROSS SECTION VIEW Coping NOTTO SCALE SEE NOTES Pool encapsulated in 5-foot thickness of sand --~ 6-inch-thick gravel layer B NOTES: r H Gravity-flow nonperforated subdrain pipe 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe I I 1 1--steet Coping B' Vapor retarder Perforated subdrain pipe 1. 6-inch-thick, clean gravel(¾ to 1½ inch) sub-base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by a 15-mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4-inch-diameter nonperforated pipe at low point and outlet or to sump pump area. 2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (titting, cracking, etc.) should be expected. 3. Design does not apply to infinity-edge pools/ spas. c. TYPICAL POOL/SPA DETAIL Plate E-17 -t- NOTES: 2-foot x 2-foot x ¼-inch steel plate Standard ¾-inch pipe nipple welded to top of plate --+--¾-inch x 5-foot galvanized pipe, standard pipe threads top and bottom; extensions threaded on both ends and added in 5-foot increments 3-inch schedule 40 PVC pipe sleeve, add in 5-foot increments with glue joints Proposed finish grade bedding of compacted sand 1. Locations of settlement plates should be clearly marked and readily visible (red flagged) to equipment operators. 2. Contractor should maintain clearance of a 5-foot radius of plate base and withiin 5 feet (vertical) for heavy equipment. Fill within clearance area should be hand compacted to project specifications or compacted by alternative approved method by the geotechnical consultant (in writing, prior to construction). 3. After 5 feet (vertical) of fill is in place, contractor should maintain a 5-foot radius equipment clearance from riser. 4. Place and mechanically hand compact initial 2 feet of fill prior to establishing the initial reading. 5. In the event of damage to the settlement plate or extension resulting from equipment operating within the specified clearance area, contractor should immediately notify the geotechnical consultant and should be responsible for restoring the settlement plates to working order. 6. An alternate design and method of installation may be provided at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. c. SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL Plate E-18 Finish grade --------- c. LI <J <J LI 3 to 6 feet <J LI L...J <J LI L'.l <J LI '- L'.l LI <1 <J LI <J --¾-inch-diameter X 6-inch-long carriage bolt or equivalent 1 ... 6-inch diameter X 3½-inch-long hole Concrete backfill _, ------------- TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT Plate E-19 SIDE VIEW Spoil pile Test pit TOP VIEW Flag Flag Spoil pile Test pit Light !--,, • .. . . ·, . . . >--~-·-'--'--... _•· -'-<.: Vehicle -----50feet----------50feet----- ------------------'l00fee,r------------ c:. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate E-20 • Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com Date : To: Attention: From: Subject: References: MEMORANDUM w.o. 6927-A1 -SC November 8, 2017 California West Construction, Inc. 927 Priestly Drive, Suite 11 O Carlsbad, California 92008 Mr. Matt Howe GeoSoils, Inc. 1. "Grading Plans For: Vada Family Farm Subdivision," sheets 1 through 6, 20-scale plans, project no. 1289, latest revision/print dated November 6, 2011, by bHA, Inc. 2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 14-Lot Subdivision, 4.14 Acres, 1835 Buena Vista Way, APN 156-220-01, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6927-A-SC, dated August 3, 2015, by GeoSoils, Inc. Based on our review of Reference No. 1, we present the following supplemental recommendations regarding the retaining walls shown on "Yada Place Inlet Detail (North/south)," "Bioretention Basin No. 1 Cross Section," sheet 4, and "Bioretention Basin No. 2 Cross Section," and "Detail "A,"' sheet 5. Our review indicates that the retaining walls are undrained, and are located in an area where they may become wet, but not fully saturated (owing to the previously recommended liner on the bottom and sides of the bioretention basins). Accordingly, a reduced bearing value of 1,500 psf appears warranted in the retaining wall design; and, the unit weight of water, 62.4 pct, should be added to the equivalent fluid pressures shown on page 26 (horizontal pressures table), since the retaining walls are undrained. An increase in maximum allowable bearing value for retaining wall footing width may also be used. The increase should be limited to 100 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum allowable bearing of 2,500 psf. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psffor footings founded into properly engineered fill or approved bedrock. The designer should specify if import or native soils will be used for backfill. In addition, a lined, but structurally unsupported vertical cut of ± 1 ½-2½ feet is indicated on the edge of the bioretention basins fronting on Valley Street and McCauley Lane. The vertical will progressively degrade over time, and migrate toward the right-of-way, affecting improvements (onsite and offsite), and liner integrity. Accordingly, a retaining wall is also warranted on unsupported sides of the bioretention basins. All other recommendations contained in Reference No. 2 remain pertinent and applicable. DRAINAGE STUDY 57 DRAINAGE STUDY CT 15-11 YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION 1835 BUENA VISTA WAY CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared for: California West Communities 5927 Priestly Drive, Suite 110 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Prepared by: bha, Inc land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 March 27, 2018 W.O. 944-1289-600 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DISCUSSION Vicinity Map…………………………………..…………... 4 Purpose and Scope………………………………….…….. 5 Project Description……………………………………….. 5 Study Method……………………………………………... 7 Conclusions……………………………………………….. 10 Declaration of Responsible Charge………………….….. 11 II. EXHIBITS Existing Hydrology Map & Proposed Hydrology Map ………………………… 12 III. CALCULATIONS A. Existing Hydrology Calculations 1. 100 Year Storm………………………………… 13 B. Proposed Hydrology Calculations 1. 100 Year Storm without Detention…………… 21 2. 100 Year Storm with Detention……………..… 35 C. Hydraulic Calculations Detention Basin Outlet Detail…........................... 50 Detention and Storage Capacity Calculations …..45 Storage Basin Routing Model Calculations……...54 Inlet Sizing Calculations…………………………...58 IV. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………….. 59 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 3 I. DISCUSSION Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 4 VICINITY MAP: Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 5 PURPOSE AND SCOPE: The purpose of this report is to publish the results of hydrology and hydraulic computer analysis for the development of the Yada Family Farm Subdivision project located at 1835 Buena Vista Way, City of Carlsbad. The proposed grading is 3.48-acres on a 4.27 acre site. The scope is to study the existing and proposed hydrology and hydraulics as it influences the surrounding properties during a 100-year frequency storm event (Q100), and make recommendations to intercept, contain and convey the Q100 to the historic point of discharge. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is located in the County of San Diego (APN 156-220-01). The site is bounded by existing nursery to the east, Valley Street to the west, McCauley Lane to the south, and Buena Vista Way to the north. The 4.27 acre property in the past has been used for agriculture purposes, with an existing residential house in the northeast corner of the site (runoff from the existing residential lot is included in the existing and proposed hydrology calculations because of the proposed frontage improvements), and fields and remnants of several shade canopy structures associated with nursery activities on the remaining portions of the property. Topographically, the site is generally moderate sloping westerly towards Valley Street. The overall gradient of the site is on the order of 10 percent or flatter. The on-site soil classification is estimated to be Type “C” or “D” per Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 14- Lot Subdivision, 4.14 Acres, 1835 Buena Vista Way, APN 156-220-01, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, prepared by Geosoils, Inc. Type “D” soils will be used for both the existing and proposed hydrology conditions. Existing land-use is 4.00 DU/Ac, proposed land-use is 2.84 DU/Ac. The existing drainage sheet flows northwesterly towards Valley Street, where runoff is intercepted by an existing Type-F catch basin on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project. The catch basin connects to a 27-inch storm drain pipe underneath Valley Street, which travels northwest towards Buena Vista Way. One point of discharge has been identified at the existing Type-F catch basin. There is no run-on from upstream properties. The project proposes the development of 12 residential lots and grading of pads and driveways, a 36-foot wide private cul-de-sac (Yada Place), and the street improvement of McCauley Lane and Valley Street. The project also proposes storm drain infrastructure including storm drain pipes, curb inlets, and biofiltration basins for storm water treatment. Project grading will occur on approximately 3.48 acres of the project. As part of the street improvement for Valley Street, the existing Type-F catch basin on the east side of Valley Street will be replaced with a curb inlet. Runoff from the proposed roof and driveway areas on Lots 1-8 will be conveyed via surface flow to the front of each lot and onto the proposed cul-de-sac, Yada Place. Yada Place will intersect Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 6 Valley Street, and run easterly through the center of the project. Yada Place will be graded so that runoff flows towards the northern and southern curb and gutter, which will direct flow to proposed curb inlets located north of Lot 1 and south of Lot 8. The remaining portion of Yada Drive will be intercepted by a curb inlet on Valley Street. The curb inlets will connect to proposed 18” RCP storm drain pipes, which will convey flow to proposed biofiltration basins, Basin 1 and Basin 2. Basin 1 will be located on the west side of Lot 1 and will receive runoff from Lots 1-4. Basin 2 will be located on the west side of Lot 8 and will receive runoff from Lots 5-8. Runoff from the proposed roof and driveway areas on Lots 9-12 will be conveyed via surface flow to the front of each lot and into a proposed 12” HDPE storm drain system. The storm drain system will convey flow west and outlet over rip rap at Basin 2. The proposed biofiltration basins will provide storm water treatment and flow detention, and have been sized based on pollutant control sizing factors in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan for this project. Storm water that enters the biofiltration basins will be filtered through the basin’s soil media and directed to a perforated underdrain pipe located at the bottom of the basin. Biofiltration basins will be lined with an impermeable liner on the sides and bottom to prevent infiltration into the existing ground. Discharge from Basin 2 will be routed via 18” RCP storm drain pipe, which will connect to the curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street. The curb inlet will outlet at the existing 27” RCP storm drain underneath Valley Street. Discharge from Basin 1 will be routed via 18” RCP storm drain pipe, which will connect to the existing Type B curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the southern portion of the project. The existing curb inlet also outlets at the existing 27” RCP storm drain underneath Valley Street. All storm water being routed to Basin 1 will travel through the existing storm drain underneath Valley Street and confluence at the historical point of discharge, at the curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street in the western corner of the project site. Storm water flow on Yada Place that falls west of the curb inlets will surface flow to Valley Street and flow via curb and gutter to the curb inlet on the east side of Valley Street. The proposed biofiltration basins will serve to detain the minor increase in runoff created by the proposed development. Post-development site flow will mimic existing drainage conditions, and will discharge from the site at below historical flow rates. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 7 STUDY METHOD: The method of analysis was based on the Rational Method according to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (SD HM). The Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis were done on HydroSoft by Advanced Engineering Software 2013. Drainage basin areas were determined from the proposed grades shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map and 30-scale existing topographic survey. The Rational Method provided the following variable coefficients: Rainfall Intensity I = 7.44x(P6)x(Tc)^- 0.645 P6 for 100 year storm = 2.6 inches Soil group “D” will be used for a composite runoff coefficient for the existing and proposed hydrology analyses. See the attached References for the Web Soil Survey report and map. Due to soil quality and proximity to the steep hillside slope, the biofiltration basin design will include a perforated pipe and an impermeable liner. Runoff Coefficient (C) values are calculated based on soil type and impervious percentage (% Impervious) using the formula taken from the 2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual : C = 0.9 x (% Impervious) + Cp x (1-%Impervious) Where Cp = Pervious Coefficient Runoff Value for the soil type (shown in Table 3-1 as undisturbed Natural Terrian/Permanent Open Space, 0% Impervious). For impervious surfaces C=0.87, and for pervious/ landscaping surfaces C=0.35. See Table 1 for weighted runoff coefficient value calculations. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 8 TABLE 1—Weighted Runoff Coefficient “C” Value Calculations for Existing and Proposed Condition Hydrology Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 9 Detention Basin Sizing: The biofiltration basins have been design for storm water treatment and detention. The project is exempt from hydromodification (refer to HMP exemption criteria in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, SWQMP). The biofiltration basins will use a “pollutant control only” sizing factor for a minimum BMP footprint of 3 percent from City of Carlsbad Model BMP Design Manual. The minimum areas for the biofiltration basins were found by summing up the contributions of each tributary DMA and multiplying by the sizing factor (see Attachment 1b of the SWQMP). Biofiltration basin BMPs are responsible for handling pollutant control requirements for each DMA. The BMPs are comprised of an 18-inch layer of amended soil (a highly sandy, organic rich compost with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 inches/hr) and a 12-inch layer of gravel for additional detention to accommodate the French drain system. Below the gravel layer, the basins are lined to prevent infiltration into the underlying soil. Flows will discharge from the basin via low flow orifice within the gravel layer to the receiving storm drain system. A riser structure will be constructed within the IMP with and an emergency overflow set 0.83-feet above the bottom of the basin for Basin 1 and 1.00-feet above the bottom of the basin for Basin 2, such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system (see dimensions in Biofiltration Basin Detail). Table 2 below summarizes the pre and post-condition drainage area and cumulative 100-year peak flow rates. TABLE 2—Summary of Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Flows While the actual developed drainage area and discharge points differ from the undeveloped existing condition, any negative impacts created by these area diversions are mitigated by the proposed biofiltration basins. The proposed detained runoff discharge is approximately the same at Node 175 (existing 27-inch RCP Valley Street) when compared to the existing conditions. Since the cumulative Q100dev (10.01cfs) is approximately the same as the cumulative Q100ex (9.97cfs), the project achieves the goal of attenuating the storm flows from the proposed development to predevelopment levels. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 10 CONCLUSION: The development of Yada Family Farm Subdivision Project will not increase the cumulative runoff during the 100-year storm event. The biofiltration basins as proposed meet the minimum sizing factor of 0.03 percent for pollutant control requirements, see SWQMP Report for this project. The hydraulic calculations show that the existing storm drain facilities can sufficiently convey the anticipated Q100 flowrate without any adverse effects. Based on this conclusion, runoff released from the proposed project site will be unlikely to cause any adverse impact to downstream water bodies or existing habitat integrity. Sediment will likely be reduced upon site development. This project is particularly effective at mitigating the potential impacts that development can have on stormwater runoff. By utilizing the proposed LID systems, this project mitigates both the quantity of runoff generated during storm, and the quality of runoff that will ultimately leave the property. It is our professional opinion that the recommendations provided in this report, and the drainage system as proposed effectively intercept, contain, convey, detain and treat the expected storm water runoff generated by this property to mimic pre-development conditions. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 11 DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, 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 current standards. I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of my responsibilities for project design. Ronald L. Holloway R.C.E. 29271 Date Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 12 II. EXHIBITS EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP & PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP i: ''/'. ; i i ' { li i· ·, ' I \ i / 0 i I I I K:\C ivil 3D\1289\PROD\Construction Plans\HYDRO\993-1289-EXHYDRO.dwg, 3/27/20181:34:15 PM I 11,--#1./4 I I I (1 , I I I I I I I I ii { I :; . / f I .. /? // ,fr .,. I ' I (l I (l / (l / i I ) I I ' ' I J ' ' I J / i, !\ ' ' 1: " :r ), !\ ! , " .~·', \ j ,, :, I /1 !, 11 /i ) I r !i I/"-·,,,•<".'..•. [•.,/ ---,-----'' ,,.,, , : ' i ' 0.10 ;i Ii ' l EXIST. TYPE F CATCH BASIN ( / / / , ,-f \ ' ' • ' .... __ _ ' / / ' ' ' ' ' F I I ' i ' ' ' \ l ' ' ' ' ' ' '"-. i 'I'\ I ! r'(.- ' ) . ' -, ' ' , ' ' ' 1 t----l --~;--------1---·---·-,/_ ' ' ' , ' ' $ ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' \ \ ---) ______ L_ __ ' ' ) . / ,.,...__, .,.c---J I . ' ' ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \ ! I I j / I I / EXISTING STRUCTURE / , / ' ,' , , , ' , ' , ' / ' ! l I I / I ./ / j / I \ \ i ,, ' ' 'I ! l /i / / , ' ' : ; ,, , I / ,I f ; 'k ! ~~~\ ' ' I f ' I I I I I ,. / I I / , \ ----,.' I ' I i ' I / I ' / I I :.-eJ ___ --C=0.63 · __ ., --. ----· . -------- r- 1 -· I : " II I' mi,' ' ' A I i I j ' I I I \ l~ I \ : i \ ,, \1 l j ., /; , ' f / ' ' \I , ,, I ' I ,, I i \: / J( / / / I ; '., ///,.,!/ r 11 , !'.:, I I ! -/-X ' I I ! ( .,. / I 'i I -__ ' ',,, -I / i : / I [I]'! ' ' . I r I f ' '--< ' ' x.-+- I I " j // j ' 1 ' J 1 t l t ' I \ C=0.40 I 1· I I i ' 10 : -I I ~-+---1-'-4+- V ( 7 I / I ' _,J .. , -----... --- / ✓ ' j ,, •·,;./ \ ' \ / \ ! --...; / --' ' \. __ ../ 0 I 30' 15' ~ PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS SOIL TYPE D PROJECT AREA 4.27 ACRES APN 156-220-01 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AREA NODE 30 (ACRES) 0100 (CFS) 4.6 9.97 LEGEND: SURFACE NODE SURFACE FLOW CFS, 100 YEAR BASIN AREA ([23) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 0.63 BASIN LIMIT SUB-BASIN LIMIT FLOWPATH ■ ---■ EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP YADAFAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION o' 30' SCALE: 1" = 30' 60' ' 120' ' bl-tA,lnc. land planning, cMI engineering, surveying 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE "L" CAR LSBAD, CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 .. ' .. ' I ( EXIST. TYPE B CURB INLET L. .. ( I ./ ✓ I ' I I I ) {$'9 I , -·<,- 1 I . I I j S I i j ', I I I , !/ 0.13 ! C=0.86 164.6 P.E.: ....--BASIN·2 156.7 BOTT ' 8 1676 R.£. ' _,.;.-_..,' I ' I ----~ ' '•, I ', I I " I .. I .J so / \ \ \, . \ ' \ .\ . i-\ •• !• j ~. • ,/ I 10 167'5 P.£. @ , 0.58 • .... / ·. I I I I I ' 1: ,, i I ,, ' j; 7 173.fZ P.£. ' i \y/ADA\ PLACE Y (PUBLIC) I/ : 1 . ' ' ' I .11-+-,+-t1BASIN 1 156.7 BOTT/ :,j 1 768.0 PE. ' ----,r ' I ., . , ·" . : j •/ . I ! ·1 • -'"' ' / ,/ / / .. v !2 I 73.5 P.£. .. ' ---;'-'-··-- ,, ' • I 11 174.1 P.£. @ '0.58 @ I I I ,/~;"" k ./ .C,=0.61" : ! ( ' ' j I ! I i l ' ' (@) 0.58 61 :18/JJ P.E. 1 3 : . ; /B0.4 /P.£. ' PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY OF DEVELOPED CONDITION SOIL TYPE D PEAK FLOWS PROJECT AREA 4.27 ACRES AREA (ACRES) UNDETAINED Q/00 DETAINED QIOO NODE (CFS) (CFS) APN 156-220-01 175 4.6 10.45 10.04 Ki\Civi l 3D\1289\PROD\Construction Plans\HYDRO\993-1289-PROPHYDRO-GRADING.dwg, 3/27/20181156:40 PM ? /' ! ' ! ' ' ' ! I @ C=,0.50 IMP 1 2 < ' ---;------~------- / --- r/ I I • LEGEND: LOT NUMBER SURFACE NODE SURFACE FLOW CFS, 100 YEAR BASIN AREA RUNOFF COEFFICIENT 1 ~ C=0.60 *ENGINEERED SOIL MIX SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM SUSTAINED INFILTRATION RA TE OF 5"/HR. MIX SHALL BE SANDY LOAM TOP SOIL CONSISTING OF 50% SAND, 30% PLANTING SOIL, 20% SHREDDED q_ HARDWOOD MULCH. R/W {760.87 TC) 161.01 FS -2 (159.98 FL) ~ '\ -2% --~ §! ~ '• 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. 160.9 FG 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS.~ -PROPOSED 6' HIGH CMU SCREEN (SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) LOT I PE = 167.0 36"XJ6" BROOKS PCC CA TCH BASIN W/GRA TED INLET 762. 7 TW GRAT[=/57.53 3" MULCH 156.7 FG w--PROPOSED RETAINING WALL {SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) ~/ /t/ ., BASIN LIMIT r-= =PER DWG I "' c.,:**30 MIL V£-R-T/I_H_O_RZ"T'__:::..,c1,,,,,kj 457-4F ~ f-.. ~ LINER P[R *18" [NGINEERED SOIL MIX 3" OF PEA GRAVEL I I I 5 / ' ! IB/.9 ;f.E. if; i (@) C=0.50 / ' / I _ _..;._ 4 183/2 Pi£. • "! {', i I ) / I i / ' ' @) IC.=0.501 j ' ' ) GRAVEL AREA {SQ FT) 1,065 1,870 I J, ----, j,I ·I I, 1 1 '' -· ,,....L...,... -----\ ', ----- SUB-BASIN LIMIT ■ • • • ■ FLOWPATH CATCH BASIN WALL 6" p\r PIP BfJTTQM 9F' BA:i/N • I ::' ':'.J t;I SOILS REPORT I ~?;~I "RCP @J,0% --------1 i';5 u, 15 LF OF 18 ---"RCP I 153.401[ [XIST _24__ ___ -,T -_J 152. 95 IE -------~ 753.60 I 1537 SG/TF / * 30 MIL LINER ON BOTTOM PER SOILS REPORT 10" DEPTH OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK FOR V2 STORAGE 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM D 3034 OE fl1i'AP WITH FILTER SOCK (PER GOETECHNICAL REPORT) PLACE PIPE WITH PERFORATIONS ABOVE THE INVERT (BOTTOM OF GRAVEL LA YER} BIOFILTRATION BASIN NO. 1 CROSS SECTION [XIST TYPE F CB P[R DWG 457-F. REMOVE EXIST CB/CONST TYPE 8-1 CURB INLET PER D-2 FROM HYDROLOGY/SWQMP REPORTS r4' TALL FENCE. 5££ LANDSCAPE PLANS R/W PROPOSED 6' HIGH CMU SCREEN (5££ SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) 4' TALL FENCE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS 36"X36" BROOKS PCC CATCH BASIN LOT 9 PE= 164.6 158.50 TC 157.67 FL 158. 70 FS 2 W/GRA TED INLET 162. 7 TW 758.6 FG GRA TE=/57. 7 , ~c::;::.12::2.%-:--'1--'<:::::---::::----:::-r ---n r ~~•-~ T-~~ 3" MULCH 1--1--PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (SEE SHEET 6 FOR DETAILS) r ~ER DWG :J!ll!iii{:=:;::jc., ~ 457-4F1 __ ~~ --- [X/ST 24" RCP ------+---~ ---- (150.35 IE) '*30 MIL V[RT/HORZ LINER PER SOILS REPORT " RCP @ 3.2% 7 LF N 18 1 153. 40 IE 152.85 I[ 156.7 FG *18" ENGINEERED SOIL MIX 153.7 SG/TF / \ "-._ 153 60 IE L30 MIL LINER ON BOTTOM PER SOILS REPORT 3" OF PEA GRAVEL 10" DEPTH OF 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK FOR V2 STORAGE 6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM D 3034 O.E WRAP WITH FILT[R SOCK {PER GOE.TECHNICAL REPORT) *ENGINEERED SOIL MIX SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM SUSTAINED INFILTRATION RA TE OF 5"/HR. MIX SHALL BE SANDY LOAM TOP SOIL CONSISTING OF 50% SAND, 30% PLAN TING SOIL, 20% SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. PLACE PIPE WITH PERFORATIONS ABOVE THE INVERT (BOTTOM OF GRAVEL LAYER} 2 SACK CEMENT SLURRY 6" THICK ABOVE/BELOW 6" PVC STORM DRAIN PIPE 12" WIDE 6" PERFORATED MIRAF/ 140N OR PVC PIPE , EQU/VAL[NT 30 MIL MIRAFI LINER (EACH SIDEWALL/BOTTOM) 2 SACK CEMENT SLURRY 12" BELOW BASIN AND AROUND ALL OUTFLOW PIPES BIOFILTRATION BASIN NO. 2 CROSS SECTION FROM HYDROLOGY/SWQMP REPORTS NO SCAL[ 30 MIL LINER NOTE: JO-MIL IMPERMEABLE LINER FOR BIORETENnON CONFORM TO THE FOLLOl!1NG SPECIFICAnONS: SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASTM 0792): 1.2 (G/CC, MIN.)1 TENSILE {ASTM D882}: 73 (LB/IN-WIDTH, MIN},-ELONGATION AT BREAK (ASTM D882}: 380 (%; MIN}; MODULUS (ASTM D882): JO (LB/IN-WIDTH, MIN.); AND TEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D1004): 8 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM SHEAR STRENGTH (ASTM D882) 58.4 (LB/IN, MIN); SEAM PEEL STRENGTH (ASTM 0882) 15 (LB/IN, MIN), SEE COLORADO LINING INTERNA noNAL PVC JO HTTP: I/WWW.COLORADOLIN/NG. COM/PRODUCTS/PVC.PD[) OR APPROVED EQUAL. BIOFILTRATION BASIN/CATCH BASIN CONNECTION DETAILS NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION BMP DIMENSIONS GRAVEL DEPTH AMENDED SOIL UNDERDRAIN SURFACE DEPTH TO TOP OF GRATE (IN) DEPTH {IN) ORIFICE D {IN) {FT) 10 18 N\A 0.83 10 18 N\A 1.00 30' 15' o· 30' 60' SCALE: 1" = 30' 120' bliA,lnc. land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE "L" CARLSBAD, CA. 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 13 III. CALCULATIONS A. EXISTING CONDITION HYDROLOGY Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 14 1. 100 YEAR STORM ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: BHA INC. 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 YEAR EXISTING HYDROLOGY * * YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION * * K:\HYDRO\1289\1-2018\1289E100.OUT * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: K:\HYDRO\1289\1-2018\1289E100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:31 01/26/2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) = 4.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 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 0.0313 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 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 15 OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 194.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 188.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.934 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.547 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.36 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.36 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 188.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 158.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 552.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0543 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.081 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.16 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.18 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.20 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.23 Tc(MIN.) = 11.16 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.67 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.64 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.505 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.8 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.90 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.44 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 652.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 16 ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.16 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.08 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.83 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.90 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 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) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 188.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 185.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.80 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.912 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 97.00 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.149 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 185.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 158.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 491.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0140 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.34 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 17 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.52 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.16 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.90 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.97 Tc(MIN.) = 7.88 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.109 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.662 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.51 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.6 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.13 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.98 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.48 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 591.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 7.88 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.11 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.63 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.13 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 7.90 11.16 4.081 3.83 2 2.13 7.88 5.109 0.63 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 7.71 7.88 5.109 2 9.60 11.16 4.081 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.60 Tc(MIN.) = 11.16 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.5 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 652.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 151.67 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.38 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 14.29 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.2 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.61 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.60 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 11.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 60.00 = 666.29 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.07 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.46 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.60 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 80.00 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) = 77.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 162.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.401 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.518 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 41 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 151.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 18.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.54 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.41 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 5.49 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 95.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 152.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.67 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 302.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.33 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.41 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.80 Tc(MIN.) = 9.28 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 60.00 = 397.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.28 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.60 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.41 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 9.60 11.19 4.075 4.46 2 0.41 9.28 4.596 0.10 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 20 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 8.92 9.28 4.596 2 9.97 11.19 4.075 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.97 Tc(MIN.) = 11.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 60.00 = 666.29 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6 TC(MIN.) = 11.19 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 9.97 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 21 B. PROPOSED CONDITION HYDROLOGY Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 22 1. 100 YEAR STORM WITHOUT DETENTION ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: BHA INC. 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 YEAR PROPOSED HYDROLOGY W/O DETENTION * * YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: K:\HYDRO\1289\1-2018\1289100P.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:28 03/27/2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 23 ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 188.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 182.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.953 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 185.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 157.70 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 470.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.78 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.51 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.22 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.86 Tc(MIN.) = 6.81 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.613 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7300 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.707 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.94 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.21 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.60 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 570.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 24 ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 175.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7.198 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 77.50 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.415 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 171.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 166.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.56 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.69 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.15 Tc(MIN.) = 7.35 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 170.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.342 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5800 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.36 TC(MIN.) = 7.35 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 25 ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 166.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 161.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.36 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 7.48 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 240.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.284 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5800 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.02 TC(MIN.) = 7.48 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 161.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 157.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 63.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.31 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.58 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 70.00 = 303.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.238 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5847 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.63 TC(MIN.) = 7.58 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 26 >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 157.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 157.30 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 44.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0091 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.63 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.43 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.18 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.51 Tc(MIN.) = 8.09 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 347.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 187.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 181.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.80 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.991 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 181.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 180.90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 70.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0043 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.292 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.69 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.47 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.47 Tc(MIN.) = 7.46 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.95 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 27 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 120.00 = 150.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 180.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 265.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.21 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.19 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.74 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.14 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.93 Tc(MIN.) = 8.39 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.905 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.577 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.40 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.71 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.19 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 415.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.93 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 27.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.55 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.40 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 8.47 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 442.00 FEET. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 28 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.47 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.87 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.40 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 165.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 110.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 159.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.633 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 66.36 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 166.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.83 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 13.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.41 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 3.70 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 166.00 = 123.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 29 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 3.70 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.77 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.40 8.47 4.875 1.20 2 0.77 3.70 6.850 0.13 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.25 3.70 6.850 2 3.94 8.47 4.875 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.94 Tc(MIN.) = 8.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 442.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 152.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0013 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.240 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.04 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.24 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.28 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.05 Tc(MIN.) = 10.52 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.582 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.94 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 1.26 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 594.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 30 ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.94 10.52 4.240 1.46 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 594.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.63 8.09 5.020 0.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 347.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 5.67 8.09 5.020 2 6.17 10.52 4.240 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.17 Tc(MIN.) = 10.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.3 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 153.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152.85 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 17.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.40 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 6.17 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 10.54 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 611.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 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 6.17 10.54 4.234 2.32 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 611.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 31 STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.94 6.81 5.613 0.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 570.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 6.92 6.81 5.613 2 8.38 10.54 4.234 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.38 Tc(MIN.) = 10.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 157.25 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.38 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 14.29 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 24.66 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.38 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 10.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 625.29 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 175.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 3 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 190.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 182.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.054 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.803 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 200.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 32 >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 182.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 181.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 135.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0096 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.851 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.72 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.65 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.48 Tc(MIN.) = 8.54 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.56 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.87 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 200.00 = 225.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 180.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 180.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 266.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.77 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.52 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.88 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.34 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.06 Tc(MIN.) = 13.60 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.592 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.563 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.78 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.43 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 33 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.94 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 210.00 = 491.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.93 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 27.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.05 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.43 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 13.69 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 518.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0043 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.504 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.48 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.71 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.85 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN.) = 14.14 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.550 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.47 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.85 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 230.00 = 564.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | OUTFLOW FROM BIOFILTRATION BASIN | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 34 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 153.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152.95 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 15.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.52 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.47 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 14.16 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 579.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.16 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.50 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.28 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 77.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 162.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.481 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.31 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 4.48 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.31 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.47 14.16 3.500 1.28 2 1.31 4.48 6.850 0.27 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 35 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.09 4.48 6.850 2 3.14 14.16 3.500 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.14 Tc(MIN.) = 14.16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 579.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 255.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 151.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 18.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.80 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 14.21 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 255.00 = 597.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 255.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 152.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.67 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 302.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.76 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.14 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.82 Tc(MIN.) = 16.03 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 899.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 175.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 3 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.14 16.03 3.231 1.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 899.00 FEET. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 36 ** MEMORY BANK # 3 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 8.38 10.55 4.232 3.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 625.29 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 10.45 10.55 4.232 2 9.54 16.03 3.231 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.45 Tc(MIN.) = 10.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6 TC(MIN.) = 10.55 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.45 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 37 1. 100 YEAR STORM WITH DETENTION ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2014 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 21.0 Release Date: 06/01/2014 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: BHA INC. 5115 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE L CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 YEAR PROPOSED HYDROLOGY W/ DETENTION * * YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION * * * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: K:\HYDRO\1289\1-2018\1289100D.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:23 03/27/2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 38 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 188.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 182.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 6.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.953 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.53 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 185.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 157.70 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 470.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.78 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 5.51 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.22 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.00 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.86 Tc(MIN.) = 6.81 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.613 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7300 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.707 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.94 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.21 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.60 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.24 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 570.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< ============================================================================ Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 39 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.20 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 175.70 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 7.198 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 77.50 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.415 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 171.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 166.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.56 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.69 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.15 Tc(MIN.) = 7.35 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 170.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.342 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5800 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.36 TC(MIN.) = 7.35 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 166.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 161.80 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.36 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.13 Tc(MIN.) = 7.48 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 50.00 = 240.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.284 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5800 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5800 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.67 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.02 TC(MIN.) = 7.48 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 161.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 157.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 63.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.31 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.58 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 70.00 = 303.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< ============================================================================ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.238 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.5847 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.63 TC(MIN.) = 7.58 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 41 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 157.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 157.30 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 44.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0091 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 10.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.63 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.43 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.18 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.51 Tc(MIN.) = 8.09 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 347.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 187.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 181.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.80 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.991 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.34 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 181.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 180.90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 70.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0043 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.292 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.69 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.47 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.47 Tc(MIN.) = 7.46 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.95 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.51 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 120.00 = 150.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 130.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 180.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 265.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.21 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.19 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.74 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.14 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.93 Tc(MIN.) = 8.39 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.905 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.577 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.40 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.71 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.19 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 1.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 130.00 = 415.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.93 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 27.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.55 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.40 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.08 Tc(MIN.) = 8.47 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 442.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 43 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.47 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.87 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.40 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 165.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 110.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 159.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 3.633 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 66.36 (Reference: Table 3-1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.77 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 165.00 TO NODE 166.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.83 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 13.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.3 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.41 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.06 Tc(MIN.) = 3.70 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 160.00 TO NODE 166.00 = 123.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 3.70 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 44 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.77 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.40 8.47 4.875 1.20 2 0.77 3.70 6.850 0.13 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.25 3.70 6.850 2 3.94 8.47 4.875 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.94 Tc(MIN.) = 8.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 140.00 = 442.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 140.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 152.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0013 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.240 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.04 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.24 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 1.28 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.05 Tc(MIN.) = 10.52 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.582 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.94 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 1.26 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 594.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 45 STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.94 10.52 4.240 1.46 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 594.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.63 8.09 5.020 0.86 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 90.00 = 347.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 5.67 8.09 5.020 2 6.17 10.52 4.240 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.17 Tc(MIN.) = 10.52 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.3 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CLEAR MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<< ============================================================================ +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | OUTFLOW FROM DETENTION BASIN | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<< ============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: TC(MIN) = 10.52 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 170.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 153.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152.85 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 17.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.18 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.80 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.02 Tc(MIN.) = 10.54 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 611.00 FEET. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 170.00 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 5.80 10.54 4.234 2.30 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 611.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.94 6.81 5.613 0.74 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 170.00 = 570.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 6.68 6.81 5.613 2 8.02 10.54 4.234 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.02 Tc(MIN.) = 10.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.0 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 170.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 157.25 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.38 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 14.29 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 24.34 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.02 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 10.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 625.29 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 175.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 3 <<<<< ============================================================================ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 190.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 47 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 190.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 182.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 7.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 5.054 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.803 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 190.00 TO NODE 200.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 182.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 181.20 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 135.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0096 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 50.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.851 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.72 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.65 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.48 Tc(MIN.) = 8.54 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.56 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.500 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.87 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.66 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 200.00 = 225.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 210.00 IS CODE = 61 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 180.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 180.60 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 266.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back-of-Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.77 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.39 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 48 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.52 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.88 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.34 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 5.06 Tc(MIN.) = 13.60 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.592 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.563 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.84 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.78 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.2 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.43 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.43 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 16.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 0.94 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) = 0.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 210.00 = 491.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 210.00 TO NODE 220.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.93 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 27.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.7 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.05 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.43 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.09 Tc(MIN.) = 13.69 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 220.00 = 518.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 220.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 156.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 156.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 46.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0043 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.504 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.48 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.71 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.85 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN.) = 14.14 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.10 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.550 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 2.47 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.85 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 230.00 = 564.00 FEET. Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 49 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | OUTFLOW FROM BIOFILTRATION BASIN | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 230.00 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE<<<<< ============================================================================ USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: TC(MIN) = 14.10 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.40 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 230.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 153.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 152.95 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 15.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.44 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 2.40 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 14.13 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 579.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.13 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.51 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.40 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 240.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ============================================================================ *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 77.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 162.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 160.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 2.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.481 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 50 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.31 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 250.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< ============================================================================ TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 4.48 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.85 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.31 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 2.40 14.13 3.506 1.30 2 1.31 4.48 6.850 0.27 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 2.07 4.48 6.850 2 3.07 14.13 3.506 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.07 Tc(MIN.) = 14.13 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.6 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 250.00 = 579.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 250.00 TO NODE 255.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 151.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 18.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.75 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.07 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.04 Tc(MIN.) = 14.17 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 255.00 = 597.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 255.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 51 ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 152.10 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 151.67 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 302.00 MANNING'S N = 0.011 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.8 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.74 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.07 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.83 Tc(MIN.) = 16.01 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 899.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 175.00 TO NODE 175.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 3 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ============================================================================ ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.07 16.01 3.234 1.57 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 180.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 899.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 3 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 8.02 10.55 4.231 3.04 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 175.00 = 625.29 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) 1 10.04 10.55 4.231 2 9.20 16.01 3.234 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.04 Tc(MIN.) = 10.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6 ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.6 TC(MIN.) = 10.55 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.04 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 52 C. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS BIOFILTRATION BASIN 1 DETAIL: Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study BIOFILTRATION BASIN 2 DETAIL: BIOFILTRATION BASIN OUTLET DETAIL: Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 56 TABLE 3—Summary of Dual Purpose BMPs: Biofiltration with Surface Ponding TABLE 4—Summary of HMP Riser Structure Discharge Structures Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 58 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 59 BASIN 1 HEC-HMS SUMMARY Project: BASIN1-83 Simulation Run: Q100 Reservoir: BMP-1 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Post_Dev End of Run: 01Jan2000, 06:05 Meteorologic Model: Met 1 Compute Time: 28Jan2018, 11:27:34 Control Specifications: Control 1 Volume Units:IN Storage (AC-FT)0.0390.0400.0410.0420.0430.044Elev (0.8360.8690.9020.9350.9671.00000:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:0001Jan2000Flow (cfs)0.00.51.01.52.02.5Reservoir "BMP-1" Results for Run "Q100"Run:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:StorageRun:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:Pool ElevationRun:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:OutflowRun:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:Combined Inflow Project: BASIN1-83 Simulation Run: Q100 Reservoir: BMP-1 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Post_Dev End of Run: 01Jan2000, 06:05 Meteorologic Model: Met 1 Compute Time:28Jan2018, 11:27:34 Control Specifications:Control 1 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 00:00 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:01 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:02 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:03 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:04 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:05 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:06 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:07 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:08 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:09 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 01Jan2000 00:10 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:11 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:12 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:13 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:14 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:15 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:16 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:17 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:18 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:19 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:20 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:21 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:22 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:23 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:24 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:25 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 Page 1 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 00:26 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:27 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:28 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:29 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:30 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:31 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:32 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:33 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:34 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:35 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:36 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:37 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:38 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:39 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:40 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:41 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:42 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:43 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:44 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:45 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:46 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:47 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:48 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:49 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:50 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:51 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:52 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:53 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:54 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:55 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:56 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 Page 2 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 00:57 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:58 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 00:59 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:00 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:01 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:02 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:03 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:04 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:05 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:06 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:07 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:08 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:09 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:10 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:11 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:12 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:13 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:14 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:15 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:16 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:17 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:18 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:19 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:20 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:21 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:22 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:23 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:24 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:25 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:26 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:27 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 Page 3 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 01:28 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:29 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:30 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:31 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:32 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:33 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:34 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:35 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:36 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:37 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:38 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:39 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:40 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:41 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:42 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:43 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:44 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:45 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:46 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:47 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:48 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:49 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:50 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:51 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:52 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:53 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:54 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 01:55 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 01:56 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 01:57 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 01:58 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 Page 4 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 01:59 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 02:00 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 02:01 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 02:02 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:03 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:04 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:05 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:06 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:07 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:08 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:09 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:10 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:11 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:12 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:13 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:14 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:15 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:16 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:17 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:18 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:19 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:20 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:21 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:22 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:23 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:24 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:25 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:26 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:27 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:28 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:29 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 Page 5 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 02:30 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:31 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:32 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:33 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:34 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:35 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:36 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:37 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:38 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:39 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:40 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:41 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:42 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:43 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:44 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:45 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:46 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:47 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:48 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:49 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:50 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:51 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:52 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:53 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:54 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:55 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:56 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:57 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:58 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 02:59 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:00 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 Page 6 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 03:01 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:02 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:03 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:04 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:05 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:06 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:07 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:08 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:09 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 03:10 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:11 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:12 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:13 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:14 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:15 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:16 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:17 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:18 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:19 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:20 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:21 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:22 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:23 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:24 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:25 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:26 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:27 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:28 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:29 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:30 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:31 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 Page 7 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 03:32 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:33 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:34 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:35 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 03:36 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:37 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:38 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:39 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:40 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:41 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:42 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:43 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 03:44 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:45 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:46 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:47 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:48 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:49 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:50 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:51 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:52 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:53 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:54 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 03:55 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 03:56 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 03:57 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 03:58 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 03:59 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 04:00 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 04:01 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 04:02 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.7 Page 8 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 04:03 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 01Jan2000 04:04 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 01Jan2000 04:05 1.2 0.0 0.9 1.1 01Jan2000 04:06 1.3 0.0 0.9 1.2 01Jan2000 04:07 1.5 0.0 0.9 1.3 01Jan2000 04:08 1.6 0.0 0.9 1.5 01Jan2000 04:09 1.7 0.0 0.9 1.6 01Jan2000 04:10 1.8 0.0 1.0 1.7 01Jan2000 04:11 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.8 01Jan2000 04:12 2.1 0.0 1.0 1.9 01Jan2000 04:13 2.2 0.0 1.0 2.1 01Jan2000 04:14 2.3 0.0 1.0 2.2 01Jan2000 04:15 2.5 0.0 1.0 2.3 01Jan2000 04:16 2.3 0.0 1.0 2.4 01Jan2000 04:17 2.2 0.0 1.0 2.3 01Jan2000 04:18 2.1 0.0 1.0 2.2 01Jan2000 04:19 1.9 0.0 1.0 2.1 01Jan2000 04:20 1.8 0.0 1.0 1.9 01Jan2000 04:21 1.6 0.0 1.0 1.8 01Jan2000 04:22 1.5 0.0 1.0 1.7 01Jan2000 04:23 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.5 01Jan2000 04:24 1.2 0.0 0.9 1.4 01Jan2000 04:25 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.3 01Jan2000 04:26 1.0 0.0 0.9 1.1 01Jan2000 04:27 0.8 0.0 0.9 1.0 01Jan2000 04:28 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.8 01Jan2000 04:29 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.7 01Jan2000 04:30 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.6 01Jan2000 04:31 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 04:32 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.5 01Jan2000 04:33 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 Page 9 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 04:34 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 04:35 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 04:36 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 04:37 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 04:38 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 04:39 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.4 01Jan2000 04:40 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:41 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:42 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:43 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:44 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:45 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:46 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:47 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:48 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:49 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:50 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:51 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:52 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:53 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:54 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.3 01Jan2000 04:55 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 04:56 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 04:57 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 04:58 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 04:59 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:00 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:01 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:02 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:03 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:04 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 Page 10 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 05:05 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:06 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:07 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:08 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:09 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:10 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:11 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:12 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:13 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:14 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:15 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:16 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:17 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 01Jan2000 05:18 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:19 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:20 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:21 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:22 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:23 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:24 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 01Jan2000 05:25 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:26 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:27 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:28 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:29 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:30 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:31 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:32 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:33 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:34 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:35 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 Page 11 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 05:36 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:37 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:38 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:39 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:40 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:41 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:42 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:43 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:44 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:45 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:46 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:47 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:48 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:49 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:50 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:51 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:52 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:53 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:54 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:55 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:56 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:57 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:58 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 05:59 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 06:00 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 06:01 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 06:02 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 06:03 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 06:04 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 01Jan2000 06:05 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 Page 12 BASIN 2 HEC-HMS SUMMARY Project: BASIN283 Simulation Run: Q100 Reservoir: BMP-1 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Post_Dev End of Run: 01Jan2000, 06:05 Meteorologic Model: Met 1 Compute Time: 27Mar2018, 11:10:59 Control Specifications: Control 1 Volume Units:IN Computed Results Peak Inflow: 6.2 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Inflow: 01Jan2000, 04:10 Peak Discharge: 5.8 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Discharge:01Jan2000, 04:11 Inflow Volume: n/a Peak Storage: 0.1 (AC-FT) Discharge Volume:n/a Peak Elevation: 1.3 (FT) Storage (AC-FT)0.0740.0760.0780.0800.0820.0840.0860.088Elev (0.9500.9941.0381.0811.1251.1691.2131.25600:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:0001Jan2000Flow (cfs)01234567Reservoir "BMP-1" Results for Run "Q100"Run:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:StorageRun:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:Pool ElevationRun:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:OutflowRun:Q100 Element:BMP-1 Result:Combined Inflow Project: BASIN283 Simulation Run: Q100 Reservoir: BMP-1 Start of Run: 01Jan2000, 00:00 Basin Model: Post_Dev End of Run: 01Jan2000, 06:05 Meteorologic Model: Met 1 Compute Time:27Mar2018, 11:10:59 Control Specifications:Control 1 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 00:00 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 01Jan2000 00:01 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 01Jan2000 00:02 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 01Jan2000 00:03 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 01Jan2000 00:04 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 01Jan2000 00:05 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 01Jan2000 00:06 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 01Jan2000 00:07 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 01Jan2000 00:08 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 01Jan2000 00:09 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 01Jan2000 00:10 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1 01Jan2000 00:11 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:12 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:13 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:14 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:15 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:16 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:17 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:18 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:19 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:20 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:21 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:22 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:23 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:24 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:25 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 Page 1 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 00:26 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:27 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:28 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:29 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:30 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:31 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:32 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:33 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:34 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:35 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:36 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:37 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:38 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:39 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:40 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:41 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:42 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:43 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:44 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:45 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:46 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:47 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 00:48 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:49 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:50 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:51 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:52 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:53 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:54 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:55 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:56 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 Page 2 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 00:57 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:58 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 00:59 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:00 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:01 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:02 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:03 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:04 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:05 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:06 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:07 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:08 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:09 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:10 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:11 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:12 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:13 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:14 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:15 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:16 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:17 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:18 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:19 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:20 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:21 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:22 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:23 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:24 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:25 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:26 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:27 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 Page 3 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 01:28 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:29 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:30 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:31 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:32 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:33 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:34 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:35 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:36 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:37 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:38 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:39 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:40 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:41 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:42 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:43 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:44 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:45 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:46 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:47 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:48 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:49 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:50 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:51 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:52 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:53 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:54 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:55 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:56 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:57 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 01:58 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 Page 4 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 01:59 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:00 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:01 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:02 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:03 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:04 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:05 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:06 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:07 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 02:08 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:09 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:10 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:11 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:12 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:13 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:14 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:15 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:16 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:17 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:18 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:19 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:20 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:21 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:22 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:23 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:24 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:25 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:26 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:27 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:28 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:29 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 Page 5 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 02:30 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:31 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:32 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:33 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:34 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:35 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:36 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:37 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:38 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:39 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:40 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:41 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:42 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:43 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:44 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:45 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:46 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:47 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 02:48 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:49 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:50 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:51 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:52 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:53 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:54 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:55 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:56 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:57 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:58 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 02:59 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:00 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 Page 6 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 03:01 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:02 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:03 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:04 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:05 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:06 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:07 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 03:08 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.6 01Jan2000 03:09 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.6 01Jan2000 03:10 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.6 01Jan2000 03:11 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:12 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:13 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:14 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:15 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:16 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:17 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:18 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:19 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:20 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:21 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:22 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:23 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:24 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:25 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 03:26 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 03:27 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 03:28 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 03:29 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 03:30 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 03:31 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.8 Page 7 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 03:32 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:33 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:34 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:35 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:36 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:37 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:38 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 03:39 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 03:40 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 03:41 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 03:42 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 03:43 1.0 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 03:44 1.1 0.1 1.1 1.0 01Jan2000 03:45 1.1 0.1 1.1 1.0 01Jan2000 03:46 1.1 0.1 1.1 1.0 01Jan2000 03:47 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.1 01Jan2000 03:48 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.1 01Jan2000 03:49 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.1 01Jan2000 03:50 1.3 0.1 1.1 1.2 01Jan2000 03:51 1.4 0.1 1.1 1.3 01Jan2000 03:52 1.5 0.1 1.1 1.4 01Jan2000 03:53 1.5 0.1 1.1 1.4 01Jan2000 03:54 1.6 0.1 1.1 1.5 01Jan2000 03:55 1.7 0.1 1.1 1.6 01Jan2000 03:56 1.8 0.1 1.1 1.7 01Jan2000 03:57 1.9 0.1 1.1 1.7 01Jan2000 03:58 1.9 0.1 1.1 1.8 01Jan2000 03:59 2.0 0.1 1.1 1.9 01Jan2000 04:00 2.1 0.1 1.1 2.0 01Jan2000 04:01 2.5 0.1 1.1 2.2 01Jan2000 04:02 2.9 0.1 1.2 2.4 Page 8 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 04:03 3.3 0.1 1.2 2.8 01Jan2000 04:04 3.7 0.1 1.2 3.2 01Jan2000 04:05 4.1 0.1 1.2 3.6 01Jan2000 04:06 4.5 0.1 1.2 4.0 01Jan2000 04:07 4.9 0.1 1.2 4.4 01Jan2000 04:08 5.4 0.1 1.3 4.8 01Jan2000 04:09 5.8 0.1 1.3 5.2 01Jan2000 04:10 6.2 0.1 1.3 5.6 01Jan2000 04:11 5.7 0.1 1.3 5.8 01Jan2000 04:12 5.1 0.1 1.3 5.6 01Jan2000 04:13 4.6 0.1 1.3 5.2 01Jan2000 04:14 4.1 0.1 1.3 4.7 01Jan2000 04:15 3.6 0.1 1.2 4.3 01Jan2000 04:16 3.1 0.1 1.2 3.8 01Jan2000 04:17 2.6 0.1 1.2 3.2 01Jan2000 04:18 2.0 0.1 1.2 2.7 01Jan2000 04:19 1.5 0.1 1.2 2.2 01Jan2000 04:20 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.7 01Jan2000 04:21 1.0 0.1 1.1 1.3 01Jan2000 04:22 0.9 0.1 1.1 1.1 01Jan2000 04:23 0.9 0.1 1.1 1.1 01Jan2000 04:24 0.9 0.1 1.1 1.0 01Jan2000 04:25 0.8 0.1 1.1 1.0 01Jan2000 04:26 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 04:27 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 04:28 0.8 0.1 1.1 0.9 01Jan2000 04:29 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 04:30 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 04:31 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.8 01Jan2000 04:32 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 04:33 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.7 Page 9 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 04:34 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 04:35 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.7 01Jan2000 04:36 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 04:37 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 04:38 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 04:39 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.6 01Jan2000 04:40 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.6 01Jan2000 04:41 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:42 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:43 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:44 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:45 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:46 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:47 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:48 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 01Jan2000 04:49 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:50 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:51 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:52 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:53 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:54 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:55 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:56 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:57 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:58 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 04:59 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:00 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:01 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:02 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:03 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:04 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.4 Page 10 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 05:05 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:06 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:07 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 01Jan2000 05:08 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:09 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:10 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:11 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:12 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:13 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:14 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:15 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:16 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:17 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:18 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:19 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:20 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:21 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:22 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:23 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:24 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:25 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:26 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:27 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:28 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:29 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:30 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:31 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:32 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:33 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:34 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:35 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 Page 11 Date Time Inflow (CFS) Storage (AC-FT) Elevation (FT) Outflow (CFS) 01Jan2000 05:36 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:37 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:38 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:39 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:40 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:41 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:42 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:43 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:44 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:45 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:46 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:47 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:48 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:49 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:50 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:51 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:52 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:53 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:54 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:55 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:56 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:57 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 01Jan2000 05:58 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 05:59 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 06:00 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 06:01 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 06:02 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 06:03 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 06:04 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 01Jan2000 06:05 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 Page 12 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 61 Figure 2-3 20 15 10 9 8 6 5 -::::!;! 0 4 -Q) C. ~ 3 en -2.5 Q) Q) ... 2 -en 1.5 1 -t-----.P,....s:::::--__:__-l--+---....:::.....:::--+--+-----,~d---~~RYE-~..::,,..,.::.-1 0.9 0.8 0.7 --f-----Jc...__----,~U,S---,f-+---1-~ ·l ·----1- 0.6 0.5 0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 Discharge (tt3/s) Figure 2-3 8-inch Gutter and Roadway Discharge-Velocity Chart San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (July 2005) Page 2-13 20 30 40 50 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 62 IV. REFERENCES Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 63 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 64 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 65 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 66 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 67 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 68 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 69 Yada Family Farm Subdivision, bha, Inc. 1835 Buena Vista Way land planning, civil engineering, surveying Drainage Study 70