The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCUP 2017-0008; OAKMONT OF CARLSBAD; SWQMP; 2019-12-18RECORD COPY 2&)JiJ _?- 3 -?c Initial Date CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR OAKMONT OF CARLSBAD CUP 2017-0008 GR 2019-0013 DWG 517-4A ENGINEER OF WORK: JASON F. VROOM NO. 61297 PREPARED FOR: Oakmont Senior Living 9240 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Windsor, CA 95492 (707) 535-3211 PREPARED BY: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering 2248 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 431-9896 DATE: December 18, 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) PRELIMINARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR OAKMONT OF CARLSBAD CUP 2017-0008 GR2019-0013 .DWG 5174A ENGINEER OF WORK: JASON F. VROOM NO. 61297 N 129 CML PREPARED FOR: Oakmont Senior Living 9240 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 S • Windsor, CA 95492 • • (707)535-3211 PREPARED BY: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering 2248 FaradayAvenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)431:-9896 DATE: • December 18, 2019 • pyCFTVED FEB 182e20 LAND cEvE.OPMENT ENGE.kING 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 POP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for POP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment 1 a: DMA Exhibits (Developed and Existing Condition) Attachment I b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1 C: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment id: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment le: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets I Calculations Attachment 2: Hydromodification Calculations (Underground Storage Unit Worksheet) Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit Attachment 5: Modular Wetlands System Sizing and Details Attachment 6: Contech Storage System Detail for Hydromodification Management Attachment 7: Geotechnical, Soils and Infiltration Reports Attachment 8: Supplemental SWMM Model Outputs and Report CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: Oakmont of Carlsbad Project ID: CUP 2017-0008 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. of Work's Signature, PE #61297 & Expiration Date 6/30/2021 Print Name Alliance Land Planning & Engineering Company January 10, 2020 Date PROJECT VICINITY MAP (citv.i STORM WATER STANDARDS Development Services Carlsbad QUESTIONNAIRE Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue E-34 (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. 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. 'IN QR PROJECT NAME: Oakmont of Carlsbad PROJECT ID: CUP 2017-0008 ADDRESS: 2740 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 APN:209-120-01-00 The project is (check one): III New Development 0 Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: 245,540 ft2 (5.64 ) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 140.527 ft2 (_323 ) 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 lof4 REV 02116 9 'EEm 1' F . ............. C~ 0 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 El 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. ,1 110 11;1~11i ST E R 4 Cig O vmwahm~ - - -P, To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: s 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: Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; El 10 Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; 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 El / 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? U 121 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 POP ..." and complete applicant information. Discussion to justify exemption ( e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with the USEPA Green Street guidance): f you answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from POP, go to Step 3. E-34 Page 2of4 REV 04/17 NO! IN _ lo determine if your project is a POP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1 )): YES NO 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, 0 and public development projects on public or private land. 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 El more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. 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 0 izi refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). 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 LI i=i development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. 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 El a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious street, road, highway, freeway or driveway surface collectively over the entire project Z El site? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, other vehicles. _trucks, _motorcycles, _and Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of El 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands) . 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 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. 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 El RGO's that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMC 0 21.203.040) If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..." and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the second box stating "My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT'..." and complete applicant information. E-34 Page 3of4 REV 04/17 Ii STEP TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) - 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. fl J Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)100 = % If you answered 'yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..." and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BMP's required for POP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ..."and complete applicant information.. STEP 5 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION !J 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 time of application. 0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36° and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the POP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. o My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box s0 Apøcantfle Project Engineer :: ::; u Envlronmetaily Sensitive ArXs Include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological ignIficance by thejSate Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designate with the RAREjbeneficlal use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendmets); areas desl~ated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat Managemknt Plan; andy other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been Identified by the City. This Box for City Use Only City Concurrence: YES NO By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4of4 REV 04/17 11I1 rilitSIXTM IfI-111110iT.:11i X11 &-111 M.8 OWN Project Name Oakmont of Carlsbad Project ID CUP 2017-0008 Project Address 0 2740 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 209-120-01-00 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area 6.38 Acres (277,913 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 0.01 Acres ( 312 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 5.64 Acres ( 245,540 Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 3.25 Acres (_141.357 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset ofProject Area) 2.39Acres (_104.183 Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): Existing development X Previously graded but not built out Agricultural or other non-impervious use X Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description /Additional Information: - Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): X Vegetative Cover X Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): 0NRCS Type A ONRCS Type B DNRCS Type C XNRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): 0 G Depth <5 feet 05 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet 0 10 feet < GW Depth <20 feet X GW Depth >20 feet *NOTE: Nearby soil test borings do not detect the presence of groundwater at any significant depth. Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): O Watercourses 0 Seeps Springs 0 Wetlands X None Description / Additional Information: Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if so, describe]: The existing site topography consists of a mass graded lot and storm drain outlet infrastructure. The storm water runoff drains to an existing desilting basin in the southeasterly corner of the lot. This runoff flows to a diverter box, which takes low flow east downstream to an existing "flood control" basin just off-site of the project boundary, then to a natural drainage course. High flow drains south across Faraday Avenue to existing drainage facilities. Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The proposed developed site consists of a three-story luxury assisted living facility, a two-story memory care building and a one-story model building. A pool, parking areas, athletic courts, pet park, walkways, and outdoor courtyard seating areas are also proposed. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): The proposed impervious features consist of 3 building rooftops, asphalt paved parking areas, athletic courts and paved walkways. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): The proposed pervious features consist of landscape areas around the outdoor courtyard and adjacent to walkways and buildings. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? XYes 0 N Description / Additional Information: The site will require cut and fill for the proposed building pads per preliminary grading plan. Approx. 5,425 cy of export has been estimated. Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? XYes 0 No Description I Additional Information: The proposed site drainage consists of a new storm water conveyance system to collect, treat, and drain runoff to the existing storm drain diverter box in the southeasterly corner of the site. The existing diverter box will be plugged to prevent drainage to an existing off-site desilting basin. This will result in high flow and low flow draining from the site via an existing 24" storm drain line running across Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street. The existing pollution control basin which secondarily treats low flow from the undeveloped site is an off-site BMP and will not be used to comply with required treatment of runoff from the developed site. Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): X On-site storm drain inlets X Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps X Interior parking garages X Need for future indoor & structural pest control X Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use X Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features X Food service X Refuse areas (Note: All trash bins are located within building under rooftop) Industrial processes X Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Fuel Dispensing Areas 0 Loading Docks X Fire Sprinkler Test Water X Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water X Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Mte-1 WHOM arms Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): The ultimate receiving body of water for this project is Agua Hedionda Lagoon, located approximately 3.5 miles from the site. The lagoon is not an impaired water body. The project discharges to a public MS4 system which leads to Agua Hedionda Creek. 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 Agua Hedionda Creek (Category 5) Manganese, Phosphorus, Selenium, lOS, Toxicity 5A (TMDL still required) ilfii IP tTSt1Rb1t Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Pollutant Not Applicable to the Project Site Anticipated from the Project Site Also a Receiving Water Pollutant of Concern Sediment X Nutrients X Heavy Metals X Organic Compounds X Trash & Debris X Oxygen Demanding Substances X Oil& Grease X Bacteria & Viruses X Pesticides X Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? X Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embankments, or the Pacific Ocean. D No, the iroject 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. 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): The increase in peak flow runoff for the developed condition site will be mitigated by utilizing an underground storage chamber for hydromodification control. A continuous simulation hydrologic analysis for hydromodification management resulted in a total Peak flow runoff decrease for the developed condition from the existing condition site. (see Attachment 2 Hydromodification Calculations) Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? 0 Yes X 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? 06.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite 06.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 06.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite 0 No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? 0 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. o 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 I Additional Information: The WMAA map for this project has been provided in attachment 2b. The relatively small bit of CCSYA shown in red on the WMAA is located to the north of this project site and is opposite and away from the project drainage pattern for the project. The CCSYA is down the slope to rear (north) of the project site and all site drainage runs south towards Faraday Ave where no CCSYA is shown. 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. For hydromodification management, the structural BMP will be onsite underground storage chambers in each drainage management area (DMA), which will be used for flow control to mitigate the increase in peak flow runoff for the developed condition site. There is only one POC. POC I is at the existing diverter box in the southeast corner of the project. Drainage will flow to an existing 24" storm drain line running southeast along Faraday Ave and El Fuerte St connected to the existing diverter box. This flow discharges southeast of the street intersection to Agua Hedionda Creek. The ultimate receiving water body is Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? X No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow. threshold) Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 0 Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Discussion I Additional Information: (optional) 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 City codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. None This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. (City of I Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov at Project Name: Oakmont of Carlsbad Project ID: CUP2017-0008 All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix EA of the BMP-Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) 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 EA 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 attachmentsif more space is needed. AN/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has. no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 . 9 Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: . SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage 0 Yes FO No 0 N/A' Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: S SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind WYes 0 No 0 N/A S Dispersal • • • • S Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: . E-36 Page 1 of 4 • • Revised 09/16 5ourcéCtThlIRiüIremenf(ëift1ñiWd) SC4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Y es N 0 N/A Discussionfjustiflcation if SC4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal 9 Yes 0 No 1 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: 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 Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). l On-site storm drain inlets BF-1, BF-3 (I Yes 0 No 0 N/A Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps 0 Yes 0 No H N/A lI Interior parking garages BF-1, BF-3 IN Yes 0 No 0 N/A (l Need for future indoor & structural pest control SC-41 N Yes 0 No 0 N/A ll Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use SC-41 N Yes 0 No 0 N/A Il Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A l) Food service See Below II Yes 0 No 0 N/A 1 Refuse areas SC-34 S Yes 0 No 0 N/A Industrial processes 0 Yes 0 No lJ N/A lii Outdoor storage of equipment or materials SC-31, SC-33 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A N Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning SC-21 IN Yes 0 No 0 N/A Ii Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance See Below IM Yes 0 No 0 N/A O Fuel Dispensing Areas 0 Yes 0 No N N/A O Loading Docks 0 Yes 0 No IIJ N/A W Fire Sprinkler Test Water SC-41 IN Yes 0 No 0 N/A ] Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water See Below 9 Yes 0 No 0 N/A 9 Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots See Below Iii Yes 0 No 1 0 N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. Food Service - Grease interceptor to be installed prior to discharge of kitchen waste to public sewer. Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance - No discharge of vehicle fluids, hazardous material, or rinse water into storm drains. - No vehicle fluids In uncontained environment. Leaking fluids shall be contained immediately. - No unattended drip parts or open containers of vehicle fluids unless within a secondary containment area. Misc Drain or Wash Water - Boiler drain lines must connect only to sanitary sewer and not storm drain system. - Condensate drains may discharge to landscape only if no runoff will occur and may not discharge to storm drain system. - Rooftop equipment with potential to pollute shall be roofed or have secondary containment. - - Drainage sumps shall feature a sediment sump to reduce the quantity of sediment in pumped water. - - MYOIO ruoung, guuers, anu mm maue at copper or amer unpruiectea meiaus inat may eacn into runon. Plazas, Sidewalks, and Parking Lots - Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent accumulation of debris and litter. - Debris from pressure washing shall be collected and kept out of storm drain system. E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09116 I 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 (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) 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. Discussionfjustificatión 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. SD-11 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features l!J Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I ii Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I N Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I iii Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I ii Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 Pfl •'. SD-6 Runoff Collection 1k Yes 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I iii Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation I 0 Yes I 0 No I 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: We explored water harvesting systems for the purpose of supplemental on-site irrigation and found that the bulk of annual precipitation in Carlsbad occurs between November and March, which is the period of time when the majority water harvesting would occur. However, during this period there is the least amount of supplemental irrigation needed due to natural rainfall often meeting, or exceeding, the needs of the plantings. Typically harvested water would not be required for use until warmer months which would mean retaining water on-site for extended periods of time that would create potential for stagnation of stored water and related health concerns when untreated water is applied to landscape. E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS All POPs 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 City 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 City 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 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 together or separate. The existing "flood control" basin located just offsite at the southeast corner of the site will not be used for overflow/additional collection of runoff overflow from onsite basins. Proposed structural BMPs for this site include two biofiltration basins and one media filter to treat runoff for the developed site. This report demonstrates the DCV for the developed condition site can be entirely treated by these proposed structural BMPs. [Continue on next page as necessary.] [Continued from previous page - This page is reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site.] [Copythus page asneeded'to provide all at individual,propoed" ,PL IMcMt,,q1i8MP1 Structural BMP I DWG 517-4A Sheet No. 10 of 14 Type of structural BMP: O Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) X Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatmentlforebay 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) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: X Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control O Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Biofiltration basin located along frontage of Faraday Ave. Picks up water quality flows from DMA-1 after the storm drain splitter box. High flows are then routed to a Infiltration Chamber (BMP4). Msed . w Structural BMP 2 DWG 5174A Sheet No. 12 of 14 Type of structural BMP: O Retention by harvest and use (HU-I) D Retention by infiltration basin (INF-I) O Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PRA) X Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) OFlow-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) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management O Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: X Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): - See Attachment 3 for Fact Sheet BF-1 and Biofiltration Checklist for compliance. - Per Appendix F.1, this proprietary BMP is certified for use by the Washington State Technology Assessment Protocol-Ecology program (TAPE) and qualifies with General Use Level Designation for the appropriate project pollutants identified in Table F. I-I. Attachment 5 includes TAPE certification from manufacturer. - Per Appendix F.2, a larger footprint biofiltration BMP is infeasible due to: The limiting space for treatment locations due to the small size of the site and the intensive requirements for the entitled use. - The site is ineligible for percolation due to geologic fill conditions. - Due to the nature of the proposed assisted living use we cannot have biofiltration in the interior of the project. - City site plan and parking requirements do not allow space for additional biofiltration basins. - The proposed proprietary device is biofiltration and treats storm water to the State of California and City of Carlsbad standards. Gra t. [.Copyth Net ;pageas. trucMR1 Structural BMP 3 DWG 517-4A Sheet No. 11 of 14 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (lNF-1) Retention by bioretention (lNF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (lNF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) X Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatmentiforebay 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) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: X Pollutant control only O Hydromodification control only O Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP O Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Biofiltration basin located along frontage of Faraday Ave. Picks up water quality flows from DMA-3. L?...(Copy$hls!pageasi.needed VMV Structural BMP 4 DWG 517-4A Sheet No. 8 of 14 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) O Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (lNF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatmentlforebay 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) X Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management O Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: O Pollutant control only X Hydromodification control only O Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control O Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP O Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): ADS Underground Storage Chambers implemented for hydromodification control only. Details are included in Attachment 6, and storage chamber footprints are shown in Developed SWQMP Exhibit. Ma N proposed Structural BMP 5 DWG 517-4A Sheet No. 11 of 14 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (H U-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) O Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) O Biofiltration (BF-1) 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) X Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management O Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only X Hydromodification control only O Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control O Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP O Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): ADS Underground Storage Chambers implemented for hydromodification control only. Details are included in Attachment 6, and storage chamber footprints are shown in Developed SWQMP Exhibit. ctu' BM [Copy this page asneeded to provide informatiornfoach individual proposed- - ....I•I4_4 . •••• . - Structural BMP 6 DWG 517-4A Sheet No. 14 of 14 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) O Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) 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) X Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management C3 Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: O Pollutant control only X Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control D Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): ADS Underground Storage Chambers implemented for hydromodification control only. Details are included in Attachment 6, and storage chamber footprints are shown in Developed SWQMP Exhibit. ATTACHMENT I BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 1 DMA Exhibit (Required) X Included (see SWQMP Exhibit) See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Attachment lb Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing 0 Included on DMA Exhibit in DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Attachment 1 Area, and DMA Type (Required)* X Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from DMA Exhibit *Provide table in this Attachment OR (see Attachment le) on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 Attachment Ic Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility X Included Screening Checklist (Required unless 0 Not included because the entire the entire project will use infiltration project will use infiltration BMPs BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Attachment I d Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required X Included unless the project will use harvest and 0 Not included use BMPs) Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. Attachment le Pollutant Control BMP Design X Included Worksheets I Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines ATTACHMENT la ~S _ _ LwIN A ral N b d F S1 i1L SITE LOCATION FARADAY k- 0 44 LEGEND BASIN BOUNDARY .......... .. .............................. SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION -FLOW PATH nity Map NJO SCALE IN FEET l inch = 40 ft. 2248 FARADAY AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PLANS PREPARED BY: PLANS PREPARED FOR: BENCHMARK PROPERTY OWNER: SHEET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEET TEL: (760) 431-9896 ALLIANCE LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. o/k SAN DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BENCHMARK NO.: 1 I 1 FAX: (760) 431-8802 ALLIANCE 27413 TOURNEY ROAD SUITE 120 FARADAY AVE., CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 431-9896 0 NO. 61297 z 2248 OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING DESCRIPTION: 2" ALUMINUM DISC STAMPED GPS CONTROL PT. 2002 OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING OAKMONT P DMA/SWQMP EXHIBIT PLANS PREPARED UNDER DIRECTION OF: LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. VALENCIA, CA 91355 TEL: (661) 799-2760 \cIL.7 * STREET 9240 OLD REDWOOD HWY, SUITE 200 LOCATION: IN SIDEWALK NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, 300—FEET WEST OF MELROSE DRIVE. STREET 220 CONCOURSE BLVD. EXISTING CONDITION FAX: (760) 431-8802 ADDRESS WINDSOR, CA 95492 ADDRESS SANTA ROSA, CA 950403 1/29/18 ATTN: HANNAH DAUGHERTY (707) 535-3211 RECORD FROM: R.O.S. NO.17271 (PT. NO. 71) ATTN: ATTN: HANNAH DAUGHERTY (707) 535-3211 LOT I CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • HILLSIDE DESIGN • SURVEYING NO. 61297 DATE ELEVATION: 444.00 MSL TRACT NO. 14926 \CAD\1672\SWQMP\1672_SWQMP—EX—EXHI BIT. dwg PLAN PREPARATION DATE: O1/28/1 SWMP NO. CUP 2017-0008 PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING ADDRESS 220 CONCOURSE BLVD CONTACT DAVID HUNTER WINDSOR, CA 95492 PHONE NO. PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME JASON F. VROOM V'- SIGNATURE COMPANY ALLIANCE LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. ADDRESS 2248 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE NO. (760) 431-9896 BMP NOTES: CERTIFICATION THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BMP TABLE BMP ID # BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY j DRAWING NO. SHEET P40 (S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE * FREQUENCY TREATMENT CONTROL BIOFILTRATION UNIT TC-32 1 EA. 517-4A 12 (POST RAIN EVENT) SEMI-ANNUALLY ANNUALLY HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL ED BIOFILTRATION AREA + + + + + + + + + 4- + TC-32 3,426 SF. 517-4A 10,11 ANNUALLY SEMI-ANNUALLY - BMP-SIGN 0_ 2EA. 10,11 HYDROMODIFICATION WET VAULT (INCLUDES CISTERN) MP-50 3 EA. 517-4A 8,11,14 ANNUALLY ANNUALLY LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D.) ROOF DRAIN SD-lI 18 EA. 5174A 7-14 QUARTERLY QUARTERLY SOURCE CONTROL TRASH ENCLOSURE [H1J1 SD-32 1 EA. 5174A 7 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY STENCILS NO DUMPING DRAINS TO OCEAN SD-13 517-4A 7,8,9,11 SEMI-ANNUALLY SEMI-ANNUALLY 15 23 77 7 ) 7 Nj 24 w BUILDING 2 AR OF +<.+, li!, 30 31 li - - 25 10 7 7 V - 7 N .0,- <7 I V C - - - - - 7 7 ;77 ---- --_ SHEET 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SHEETS 1 SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING OF CARLSBAD RECORD COPY INITIAL DATE PROJECT NO. CU P2017-0008 DATE INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DRAWING NO. 517-4A ENGINEER OF WORK OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL r AvRj r KIT r r: CARLSBAD D A/,qW0 X M HI IT MP E DEVELOPED CONDITION PROPERTY BOUNDARY 20 5 )N I LEGEND PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED LOW FLOW LINE HI FLOW/LOW FLOW SPLITTER PDX PROPOSED DRAIN BASIN BOUNDARY _ .......................................... SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION TREATMENT AREA BMP FOOTPRINT REQUIRED BMP FOOTPRINT PROVIDED FLOW RATE REQUIRED FLOW RATE PROVIDED VOLUME REQUIRED VOLUME PROVIDED A=1.22 AC Q0:073CFS UNC21 _ - 55.00 SPUTBOX / - IE QR-O.063 CFS 1 -2 800 CF -" -(SELF MITIGATING).- .Qp-O.14DCFS VRI2:912 CF GRAPHIC SCALE AREA = N 40 0 20 40 80 (IN FEET) 7- PROPERTY 'E -) MA2\ TRENCH DRAIN 1430 4 BOUNDARY 1 inch = 40 -\~ 47.0 IE 77 0C 1 sump IE PU EXISTING BASIN q 13 AND REMAIN EXISTING 12" HOPE / 7 \Ld I PLUG EXISTING \ IE LOW FLOW DRAIN LINE ITH 56.60 U BRICK AND HIAN MAX. STORAGE r X RIPRAP PAD DEPTHTOP OF BANK 2 -v LOW FLOW PER PLAN I V EXISTING 41 SD_ INLET DRAIN OVERFLOW OUTLET, TYPE \ I \ "F" CATCH BASIN PER FREEBOARD*I - vPER DWG 415-9C 1.0 SPUTTER BOX SDRSD STD. DWC D-7 / UM 0 -10 : STORAGE DEPTH, D= BOTTOM OF BASIN f S PER PLAN - OUT TO SD All Vicinity Map NO SCALE 21" MEDIA LAYER Z 15" GRAVEL LAYER PVC, SCHED 40 ALL CATCH BASIN AND INLETS THAT DISCHARGE INTO AN EXISTING 5 IN/HR INFIL E~ry Ul 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK SUBDRAIN @ 0.5% UMA OR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MUST BE STENCILED TO DISCOURAGE PERFORATED AND A ILLEGAL DUMPING OF POLLUTANTS. STENCIL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N AREA 2,1 10 \DIAMETER OF 30 INCHES. 30 MIL PVC, OR EQUIVALENT MINIMUM FREEBOARD DEPTH OF 1.0 REQUIRED P 5 NO SCALE Z 13 STORAGE NOTE: MIDDLE LAYER TO CONSIST OF 85% CLASS A TOP SOIL, 15% HUMIC COMPOST (INFILTRATION RATE 51N/HR) Z BLENDING: MATERIAL SHALL BE BLENDED PRIOR TO DELIVERY BY A TWIN SCREW XXX MILL OR EQG1IVA-LE5 Z BUCKET BLENDING IS NOT EQUIVALENT. J CLASS A TOP SOIL SPEED SAND 70%-80% SILT 15%-20% SF (PER ADS SPEC.) A.C. R Vie . PERMEABLE CEOTEXTILE / H QO.17cFs* LOW-FLOW OR EQUAL) PUMP I OLE MANH 2' MAX HEAD -A J BMPR =2,082 SF /Ii4oN 7 TRENCH DRAIN LID 47.5 IE F ex Z' X" BM2, OUTLET WEIR 45" ADS STORMTECH 1 2" GRAVEL* STRUCTURE DMA and BM`P Table PROPERTY BOUNDARY Z SID IN STORAGE UNIT 9" GRAVEL* CATCH BASIN I INLET PIPE TO DIE I ADS UNIT I 6" PVC, SCHED 40 \ 6 DRAIN / 50.85 FL / 7 - - L LOW-FLOW ORIFICE PERFORATED AND \ O AND SPACING VARY RIFICE 4851E MITIGAhNC; TO WQT BASIN WRAPPED IN MIPAFI 140N (PER TABLE BELOW) _- _- - - \ * GRAVEL TO BE AREA = 025 AC SIZES, ELEVAONS, PIPE IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK 30 MIL PVC, OR EQUIVALENT CRITERIA, PER PLAN TYPICAL ADSUNDERGROUNDSTORAGEDETAIL NO SCALE ORIFICE SIZE AND PLACEMENT HEIGHT USU(EMP) NOXSIZE HEIGHT OVER INV 1 (4) 1 X 4" 0" 3 X 2.5" 12" 2 (6) 1 X 1.25" 0" 3 X 3" 26" 3 (5) 1X3" 0" 2 X 3" 12" / DMA TotalArea to BMP sf ac New or Existing1 Impervious Area (C = 9) sf Pervious Area, Landscape (C=0.1) sf Weighted Area sf weighted C2 Treatment Method Size Required Size Provided Pollutant control sf Pollutant Flowrate cfs Hydromod cf Pollutant Control DCV 2 cf Pollutant control sf Pollutant F!owrate cfs Hydromod cf Drawdown Time hr 1 122,986 2.82 75,314 47,672 72,550 0.59 BMP 1- Biofiltration Basin 2,082 - - 3,809 2,126 - - 4.2 1 - - - - - - BMP-4-USU14 - - 2250 - - 2380 - 2 55,758 1.28 27,799 27,959 27,815 0.50 BMP 2- Biofilter Unit - 0.071. - 1,544 - - - n/a 3 65,182 1.50 41,774 23,408 39,937 0.61 BMP 3- Biofiltration Basin 1,193 - - 2,126 1,300 - - 3.9 - - - - - BMP5 -USU3 - - 1275 - - - 1417 - 3 - - - - - - BMP 6-USU2 4 - - 2800 - - - 2809 - 4 NOT USED 0 - - - - 5 18,663 0.43 0 18,663 1,866 0.10 Self Mitigating 6 11,333 0.26 0 11,333 1,133 0.10 Self Mitigating 7 11,005 0.25 0 11,005 1,101 0.10 Self Mitigating Total 284,927 6.54 144,887 140,040 144,402 0.51 - 2,250 CIF - 2,447 CIF 7 1 r,'11-01 - 0RDMA-i,DMA-2, AND DMA-3 'U VIA~blll-- V=?81 CF 1 No existing impervious area is considered forthis project (SELF IVi I T I GATI N # 2 This value calculated per Appendix 8, Section 8.1 of Carlsbad BMP Manual. Worksheets provided in Attachment le of this report. :\.R F 4 = 1) 2A Ar ----- ,..' Drawdown based upon 5 in/hr minimum infiltration rate of soil media. Gravel layer will infiltrate atgreater rate. Worksheet provided in Attachment le of this report. - - - Underground Storage Unit (USU) utilized for hydromodifi cation mitigation only. Orifice sizing provided in separate table on this map. 2248 FARADAY AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TEL: (760) 431-9896 FAX: (760) 431-8802 ALLIANCE 27413 TOURNEY SUI TE 120 ROAD LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. VALENCIA, CA 91355 TEL: (661) 799-2760 FAX: (760) 431-8802 CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • HILLSIDE DESIGN • SURVEYING SHEET 1 PLANS PREPARED BY: ALLIANCE LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. 2248 FARADAY AVE., CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 431-9896 PLANS PREPARED UNDER E DIRECTION OF: JASO F. ROOM NO. 61297 OAKMONT DMNSWQMP EXHIBIT DEVELOPED CONDITION LOT TRACT NO. 97-13-01 OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING STREET 220 CONCOURSE BLVD. ADDRESS SANTA ROSA, CA 950403 ATTN: ATTN: DAVID HUNTER (707) 535-3213 I SHEET I SAN DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BENCHMARK NO.: OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING DESCRIPTION: 2" ALUMINUM DISC STAMPED GPS CONTROL PT. 2002 PLANS PREPARED FOR: BENCHMARK I PROPERTY OWNER: I i I CITY OF CARLSBAD STREET 9240 OLD REDWOOD HWY, SUITE 200 LOCATION: IN SIDEWALK NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ADDRESS WINDSOR, CA 95492 300-FEET WEST OF MELROSE DRIVE. ATTN: DAVID HUNTER (707) 535-3213 RECORD FROM: R.O.S. NO.17271 (PT. NO. 71) ELEVATION: 444.00 MSL OFESA F. ((E 61297 XP \\ C1 IL OP * 10/29/19 DATE \CAD\1672\SWOMP\1672SWQMP-DEV-EXHIBIT.dwg ATTACHMENT lb (SEE ATTACHMENT le) / I / — -'I I I j7FR '! X - SEE SHEET No. 4 / 1 \ FARAD4 Y A I'f AND LOT 1 TO BE RELOCA lED 2. ~ST.PF12-~;~a-~;~L;~U;~T~LINEl~NLOT~2 BE PROTECTED IN Pt CE J MS T. 12' £XCESS EFFLUENT LINE IN EL FIJER1E STREET TO BE RELOCA lED PER CO. V DI#3. 3821 4. £7ST 14' SEM& FORCE MAIN PER BUENA SAW/ TA 116W D/51 WQ No. 5024 iT) BE PRO1EC1ED IN PLACE 5 RH'1T—OF—WA Y PERMIT FRCIW CYTY cr WSTA REWIRED PR/OR TO ANY NtWK VI111/N BUENA SAN/TA 11CM E4&EAIENT NO MY ELECTRONIC DATA FiLES ARE FOR REFERENCE MY AND ARE NOT W BE USED P61? HORIZONTAL OR kER11CAL SUR kEY CW1ROL ,#oc ESsj0- f4c I?'A' 1±21 (D m La rr NO. 55,381 * EXP. 12/31/04 * CIV%t. t0p I SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS 5 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 15 I4DINC PiN/S FOR CARLSBAD 041(5 NORTH PHASE 1 67 97-13 - [APPROVED LLOYD B. HUBBS E23889EXP:12-31-05CITYENGINEERDATE L1ADDED f LE,WS14 F REfr1SED LE LINE NOTES _ ____ FD WN BY: PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. CHKD BY RVWDBY: ______ C. T97-13 __415-94 DATE INITIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL BENCHMARK: DESCRIPTION: 2" ALUMINUM DISC STAMPED GPS CONTROL PT 2002 LOCATION: IN SIDEWALK NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, 300 FEET Kf ST OF MELROSE DRIkE RECORD FROM: R.S NO. 17271 (PT NO. 71) ELEVATION: 444.00 M.&L DATUM: NGk1) 1.929 DESIGNED BY: H.R. DATE APRIL 2003 "AS BUILT" 0 DRAWN BY: TGCG CONSULT NTS __________________ P.E. EXP._____ DATE 2710 Laker Avenue West Civil Engineering ENGINEER OF WORK: Suite 100 Planning REVIEWED BY Carlsbad, California 92008 Processing 760-931-7700 Surveying Fax: 760-931-8680 DATE: www.odayconsultants.com TIMOTHY 0. CARROLL JR. RCE: 55381 INSPECTOR DATE 1:\961005\9605A005dwg Apr 13, 2006 2:37pm Xrefs 9605A0 9605TP04 9605TP07 9605PLAN 9605AMAP 96057U1L 9605FUTL 9605F0RD 9605EUTL 9605E0RD 9605ESTR 9605FSTR 9605ACRD 9605DUTL S raw, EVEWEPIEWEd DiuFi r•l1 1 1LIA Em I - - 1w1i. 'Yc -a pá r&r41' rAJV ftdc. F EI hFISR&A fir F! YA012 M12 I AK I 'L5L4D QAK5 NC APAI)AY AL/AIJI 3flC.L.I I C s7- ,s . .0 AWING NO. - S ATTACHMENT lc Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? Drought tolerant vegetation will be used at J Toilet and urinal flushing all landscaped areas. Rain water harvesting l Landscape irrigation will result in standing water longer than 2 0 Other: weeks and could pose vector issues. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. Modified ETWU = ETOWet X [[E(PF xHA)\IE] + SLA] x 0.015 Using the an average value for HA over the I commercial lot and Low Plant Water Use (per Table B.3-2); Modified ETWU = 2.7 x [[(0.2 x 94,015)\0.9] + 0] x 0.015 Modified ETWU = 846 Calculate the DCV using worksheet B.2-1. DCV = 7.475 (cubic feet) 3a. Is the 36 hour demand greater 3b. Is the 36 hour demand greater than 3c. Is the 36 hour demand than or equal to the DC\'? 0.25DCV but less than the full DCV? less than 0.25.DCV? DYes / XNo > DYes /X No XYes Harvest and use appears to be Harvest and use may be feasible. Harvest and use is feasible. Conduct more detailed Conduct more detailed evaluation and considered to be infeasible. evaluation and sizing calculations sizing calculations to determine to confirm that DCV can be used feasibility. Harvest and use may only be at an adequate rate to meet able to be used for a portion of the site, drawdown criteria, or (optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while drainina in Ionizer than 36 hours. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? o Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. X No, select alternate BMPs. 1-2 February 2016 ATTACHMENT 1d 4...-------: . - ., - ... - - ..t ..r. _._- • .er..r. - - - GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL d ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS0 Project No. 06442-32-29 September 25, 2017 Oakmont Senior Living 9240 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492 Attention: Ms. Hannah Daugherty Subject: TRANSMITTAL OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT 1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Phase 1, Lots I through 9, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 30, 2006. Addendum to Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park - Phase 1, Lot 1, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 30, 2008. Update Geotechnical Correspondence, Carlsbad Oaks North Lot 1, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 28, 2017 (Project No. 06442-32-29). Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Oakmont of Carlsbad, Lot 1 of Tract No. 14926, prepared by Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc., dated June 30, 2017. Dear Ms. Daugherty: In accordance with your request, Geocon Incorporated has provided geotechnical engineering services on the subject project. Specifically, we have performed two in-situ permeability tests to aid in evaluating the on-site storm water BMP design. The following information is provided to support storm water BMP design in accordance with the 2016 City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the 2016 City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. 6960 Flanders Drive 0 Son Diego, Colilornia 92121.2974 0 Telephone 858.558.6900 0 Fox 858.558.6159 Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. TABLE I HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These A consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of B moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or welt drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils C having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These D consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. The subject sheet-graded pad is underlain by compacted fill placed above the Point Loma formation. After completion of the proposed grading operations, the property would consist of compacted fill over Pont Loma Formation. The compacted fill and formational materials should be classified as Soil Group D. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. Table 2 presents the information from the USDA website. The Hydrologic Soil Group Map presents output from the USDA website showing the limits of the soil units. The USDA information is presented in Appendix B. Project No. 06442-32-29 -2- September 25, 2017 TABLE 2 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Approximate Hydrologic kSAT of Most Map Unit Name Symbol Percentage Soil Group Limiting Layer of Property (Inches/ Hour) Cieneba coarse sandy loam CiG2 44 D 1.98-5.95 Huerhuero loam HrD 56 D 0.00-0.06 In-Situ Testing We performed two Soil Moisture, Inc. Aardvark Permeameter tests at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 1. Test P-1 was located in the bottom of an existing basin. Some standing water was observed in a portion of this basin. Test P-2 was hand augered until practical refusal was encountered on the Point Loma Formation contact. The test borings were 4 inches in diameter. The results of the tests provide parameters regarding the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil and geologic units. Table 3 presents the results of the field saturated hydraulic conductivity/infiltration rates obtained from the Aardvark Permeameter tests. The data sheets are presented in Appendix A. We applied a feasibility factor of safety of 2 to the test results. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the non-homogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil. TABLE 3 FIELD PERMEAMETER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Geologic Test Depth Field-Saturated Field Test No. Unit (feet, below grade) Hydraulic Conductivity, Infiltration Rate ksi,t (inch/hour) (inch/hour) P-i Qcf 2.4 0.0002 0.0001 P-2 Kp 3.75 0.002 0.001 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS The Site Plan, Figure 1, presents the existing property and the locations of the in-situ infiltration test locations. Soil Types Compacted Fill - Compacted fill exists across the property. The proposed storm water BMP's will be founded in compacted fill placed above very dense formational materials. The compacted fill is comprised of sandy/clayey silt. The fill has been or will be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. In our experience, compacted fill does not possess Project No. 06442-32-29 - 3 - September 25, 2017 infiltration rates appropriate for infiltration BMP's, as demonstrated by the in-situ testing. Hazards that occur as a result of fill soil saturation include a potential for hydro-consolidation of the granular fill soils and/or swelling of the expansive soils, long-term fill settlement, differential fill settlement, and lateral movement associated with saturated fill relaxation. The potential for lateral water migration to adversely impact existing or proposed structures, foundations, utilities, and roadways, is high. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible. Section D.4.2 of the 2016 Storm Water Standards (SWS) provides a discussion regarding fill materials used for infiltration. The SWS states: For engineered fills, infiltration rates may still be quite uncertain due to layering and heterogeneities introduced as part of construction that cannot be precisely controlled. Due to these uncertainties, full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used in areas where infiltration BMP's are founded in compacted fill. Where possible, infiltration BMPs on fill material should be designed such that their infiltrating surface extends into native soils. The underlying formation below the compacted fill is expected between 5 to 10 feet below proposed finish grades after remedial grading is performed. Full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible within the compacted fill and liners and subdrains should be used. if the infiltration BMP's extended below the compacted fill, partial infiltration may be feasible. Because of the uncertainty offill parameters as well as potential compaction of the native soils, an infiltration BMP may not be feasible. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used in the fill areas. If the source offill material is defined and this material is known to be of a granular nature and that the native soils below are permeable and will not be highly compacted, infiltration through compacted fill materials may still be feasible. In this case, a project phasing approach could be used including the following general steps, (1) collect samples from areas expected to be used for fill, (2) remold samples to approximately the proposed degree of compaction and measure the saturated hydraulic conductivity of remolded samples using laboratory methods, (3) if infiltration rates appear adequate for infiltration, then apply an appropriate factor of safety and use the initial rates for preliminary design, (4) following placement of fill, conduct in-situ testing to refine design infiltration rates and adjust the design as needed. However, based on the discussion above, it is our opinion that infiltrating into compacted fill should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used. Infiltration Rates The results of the unfactored infiltration rates (i.e. field saturated hydraulic conductivity) for Tests P-i and P-2 were 0.0002 inches per hour (iph) and 0.002 iph, respectively. After applying a feasibility factor of safety of 2.0, the infiltration rates obtained for P-i and P-2 are 0.0001 and 0.001 iph, respectively. The infiltration test results show the on-site soil permeability is variable across the site. A Project No. 06442-32-29 -4 - September 25, 2017 single design rate for an area could not be accurate based on the variability. Therefore, based on the results of the field infiltration tests, anticipated grading, and our experience, full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible. The results of the permeability testing are presented in Appendix A. Groundwater Elevations Groundwater is expected to be encountered at depths greater than 100 feet below the site, therefore groundwater is not expected to be a factor. Groundwater mounding is caused when infiltration is allowed and the lateral hydraulic conductivity is relatively low causing an increase in the groundwater table. Groundwater mounding is not likely. Soil or Groundwater Contamination Based on review of the Geotracker website, no active cleanup sites exist on or adjacent to the subject site. In addition, we are not aware of any contaminated soils or shallow groundwater on the site that would preclude storm water infiltration. An environmental assessment was not part of our scope of work. Slopes Existing slopes exist on the perimeter of the property. Infiltration of storm water adjacent to cut or fill slopes should be avoided. Fill slopes will exhibit instability if water is allowed to saturate the compacted fill. Cut slopes may exhibit daylight seepage. Storm Water Management Devices Based on the discussion above, both infiltration tests did not meet the minimum feasibility criteria for full or partial infiltration. To limit the, adverse impacts of storm water infiltration, i.e. lateral water migration, daylight water seepage, etc., the design should include liners and subdrains. The impermeable liners should consist of a high-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC. The liner should surround the bottom and sides of the infiltrating surface and should extend slightly above the high water elevation. The subdrain should be perforated, installed near the base of the excavation, be at least 4-inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The final segment of the subdrain outside the limits of the storm water BMP should consist of solid pipe and connected to a proper outlet. Any penetration of the liner should be properly waterproofed. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Project No. 06442-32-29 - 5 - September 25, 2017 Storm Water Standard Worksheets The Storm Water Standard manual stipulates the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet C.4-1 or Form 1-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. A completed Form 1-8 is presented in Appendix B. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table 4 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. TABLE 4 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Medium Low Concern —3 Points Concern —2 Points Concern - I Point Use of soil survey maps or Use of well permeameter simple texture analysis to or borehole methods with . Direct measurement with estimate short-term accompanying continuous boring log, localized (i.e. small- infiltration rates. Use of Direct measurement of scale) infiltration testing Assessment Methods well permeameter or infiltration area with methods at relatively high borehole methods without localized infiltration resolution or use of accompanying continuous measurement methods extensive test pit boring log. Relatively (e.g., infiltrometer). infiltration measurement sparse testing with direct Moderate spatial methods. infiltration methods resolution Predominant Soil Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly Texture with significant fines loamy soils Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits Site Soil Variability indicated from site assessment or unknown indicate moderately indicate relatively variability homogenous soils homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater! <5 feet below 5-15 feet below >15 feet below Impervious Layer facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table 5 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. Project No. 06442-32-29 - 6 - September 25, 2017 TABLE 5 FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES - PART A1 Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (P.= w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 3 0.75 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 3 0.75 Site Soil Variability 0.25 3 0.75 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25. Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = . 2.5 The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9 using the data provided above. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety. If you have questions, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON iNCORPORATED ",- ~, -I. ~J( zt, &1---7 Trevor E. Myers RCE 63773 TEM:DBE:dmc E. ,I (4) Addressee (( No. RCE637730 dB.Evan's CEO 1860 - F DAM B. EVANS NO. 1860 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Project No. 06442-32-29 - 7 - September 25, 2017 0 - . S. - .t.• . 1 ' a S p I CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH — LOT 1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA J O, 160' SCALE l -- 80' (On 11x17) .GEOCON LEGEND P-2 APPROX. LOCATION OF PERMEABILITY TEST GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAI• ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 6960 R.ANDERS DRIVE - SAN DiEw, CAIWORMA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900- FAX 858 558-6159 PROJECT NO. 06442 - 32- 29 FIGURE 1 - - SITE PLAN DATE 09-25-2017 Pil.d25I2O17 eI4AM I Br.JONATHAN WILKINS I File I.ccalion:Y'IPROJECTSPO&'.42-32-29 Cailbad Oads NailS let lSHEETSlOS442-32.29 SItePlend ral"Ll V 9100 IS] FAI APPENDIX A AARDVARK TEST RESULTS FOR CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 06442-32-29 <00) GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: Oakmont Senior Living Date: 9/15/2017 Project Number: 06442-32-29 By: DG Test Number: P-i Borehole Diameter, d (In.): 4.00 Ref. EL (feet, MSL): 238.0 Borehole Depth, H (in): 29.00 Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 235.6 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (in.): 28.00 Estimated Depth to Water Table, S (feet): i0000 Height APM Raised from Bottom (In.): 2.00 Pressure Reducer Used:l No Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.): 4775 Head Height Calculated, h (in.): 5.66 Head Height Measured, h (in.): 5700 Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.): 1228.00 Reading Time Elapsed (mm) Water Weight Consummed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in 3) (3/j) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 15.00 0.060 1.66 0.111 3 20.00 0.025 0.69 0.035 4 15.00 0.010 0.28 0.018 5 15.00 0.015 0.42 0.028 6 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 7 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 8 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 9 1 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 Steady Flow Rate, Q fin'/min): 0028 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 10 20 30 40 Time (mm) Soil Matric Flux Potential, ct... m I °•°°°° ]in'/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate) = 4.07E-06 uin/min i 0.0002 uin/hr 50 60 (4GEoCoN Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: Oakmont Senior Living Date: 9/15/2017 Project Number: 06442-32-29 By: DG Test Number: P-2 Ref. EL (feet. MSLI: 250 Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 249.3 Borehole Diameter, d (in.): 4.00 Borehole Depth, H (in):45.00 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (In.) 28.00 Estimated Depth to Water Table,S (feet): 100.00 Height APM Raised from Bottom (in.): 2.00 Pressure Reducer Used: _No Distance Between Res evoir and APM Float, 0 (in.):63.75 Head Height Calculated, h (in.): 5.71 Head Height Measured, h (in.): 73.00 Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.): 1228.00 Reading Time Elapsed . Water Weight Water Volume Q (1n3/min) (mm) Consummed (Ibs) Consumed (in) _1_1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 _2_ 10.00 0.110 3.05 0.305 _3_ 10.00 0.160 4.43 0.443 _4_ 15.00 0.180 4.98 0.332 _5_ 5.00 0.025 0.69 0.138 _6_ 5.00 0.035 0.97 0.194 7 5.00 1 0.030 1 0.83 0.166 10 1 5.00 1 0.040 1 1.11 1 0.222 11 5.00 0.050 1 1.38 1 0.277 12 5.00 0.050 1 1.38 1 0.277 Steady Flow Rate, Q (in/min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (mm) 60 70 80 Soil Matric Flux Potential, &. m I_0.0003Iin2/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate) = 2.72E-05 in/min 0.002uin/hr APPENDIX B FORM 1-8 FOR CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 06442-32-29 Part.f- Full ItiioFililii iñCriieri .... J•• =Hon t . ..... Cntena .ScreemngQucsnonr - - es No .......................... 4 . Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 1 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a X comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Based on the results of permeability testing in two locations at the site, the unfactored infiltration rates were measured to be 0.0002 inches/hour (iph), and 0.002 iph using a constant head borehole permeameter placed inside a 4-inch diameter boring between 2 and 4 feet below existing grades. If applying a feasibility factor of safety of 2.0, the infiltration rates would be 0.0001 iph and 0.001 iph. Based on the USDA Web Soil Survey website, the underlying soils are classified as Cieneba sandy loam and Huerhuero loam and belong to Hydrologic Soil Group D, which are generally not considered suitable for infiltration BMP's. The existing compacted fill should be classified as Hydrologic Soil Group D, which is not suitable for infiltration BMP's. Information collected from the USDA website is attached. The Aardvark Permeameter test results are presented in Appendix A. In accordance with the Riverside County storm water procedures, which reference the United States Bureau of Reclamation Well Permeameter Method (IJSBR 7300), the saturated hydraulic conductivity is equal to the unfactored infiltration rate. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) 2 that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening X Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Natural slopes and fill slopes surround the property. Full infiltration adjacent to descending slopes is not recommended due to slope instability and daylight water seepage issues. The landslide potential is very low to negligible. Groundwater mounding is not likely to occur. Existing and proposed utilities would be in close proximity to the proposed BMP's. The potential for lateral water migration and distress to the public and private roadway improvements and proposed buildings is high. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can ltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other 3 factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening X Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Groundwater is not located within 10 feet from the proposed infiltration BMP. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased 4 discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this X Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: It is our opinion there are no adverse impacts to water balance impacts to stream flow, or impacts on any downstream water rights. It should be noted that researching downstream water rights or evaluating water balance issues to stream flows is beyond the scope of the geotechnical consultant. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If all answers to rows I - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The rt 1 feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration No. Result* If any answer from row 1-4 is "No". infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not See Part 2 generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 "To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings. Part 2—Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? 5 The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation X of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The infiltration test results did not meet the minimum threshold of 0.01 iph for partial infiltration. Saturating compacted fill may result in settlement and distress to nearby public roadway improvements and proposed private improvements and structures. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) 6 that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening X Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: The adverse impacts of partial infiltration could be reasonably mitigated to acceptable levels using side liners and a subdrain. However, infiltrating into compacted fill is not recommended. Any infiltration BMP's should be founded in the formational materials and side liners should be used to prevent lateral water migration and daylight water seepage from adversely impacting the compacted fill and slopes. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. g 11 1110 1 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Groundwater is not located within approximately 10 feet from the bottom of the proposed basins. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to 8 this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors X presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Geocon is not aware of any downstream water rights that would be affected by incidental infiltration of storm water. Researching downstream water rights is beyond the scope of the geotechnical consultant. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration No.. Result* If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be Infiltration infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. 9'o be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California (Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1) 3320N , , • 3329N 14i 1V Ai JOS AF Ar ' 1 S ' 7 3 S'3il M 1p'1'750t l 4vslicl t this 3311 N I N 475050 -, 47505 475077, 475710 4(5(57 4(505) 475533 475570 475010 470 S MapSce: 1:1,900ptinonAIanape(11' x8.5") sheet Pleters N o 25 55 100 15,0 A - Feet " 0 55 1(5) 25) Map pmj&ion: Web Mer Com&woi*atee: WG584 Edge tics: UTM Zone lit') WGS84 usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Map Unit Legend I N 77 Map UnutSymbot<, Map t(nlame , r;F1 1 AcrsiOl rent,,cf l < C1G2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 3.1 43.7% 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded HrD Huertiuero loam, 9 to 15 4.0 56.3% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 7.2 100.0% Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded—San Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Diego County Area, California San Diego County Area, California CI1132—Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hb9s Elevation: 500 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 64 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cieneba and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cleneba Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and granodiorite Typical profile HI - 0 to 10 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 10 to 14 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: SHALLOW LOAMY (1975) (ROI9XD060CA) Hydric soil rating: No Natural Resources Web Soil Surjey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Cleneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded—San Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Diego County Area, California Minor Components Vista Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Las posas Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 12, 2016 usr Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes—San Diego County Area, Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 California San Diego County Area, California HrD—Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbcp Elevation: 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 260 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Huerhuero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Huerhuero Setting Landform: Marine terraces Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Calcareous alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile HI - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 55 inches: clay loam, clay H2 - 12 to 55 inches: stratified sand to sandy loam H3 - 55 to 72 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 9 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 25.0 Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonimgated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes—San Diego County Area, Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 California Ecological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (ROI9XDO61 CA) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Las fibres Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Oliventain Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 12, 2016 usn Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 ATTACHMENT le SWQMP for Oakmont Senior Living of Carlsbad -'Weighted C' Calculation Tributary Area Runoff Factor 85th %, 24-hr Storm Rainfall (in) DCV (cu ft) sq ft Acres (AC) DMA-1 122,986 2.82 0.58 0.64 3,809 DMA-2 55,758 1.28 0.52 0.64 1,544 DMA-3 65,182 1.50 0.61 0.64 2,126 Total DCV = 7,479 Surface Runoff Factor C Tributary Area A (sq ft) CxA Weighted Total DMA-1 Roof 0.9 32,315 29,083 Concrete or Asphalt 0.9 42,999 38,699 Landscape 0.1 47,672 4,767 122,986 72,549 0.59 DMA-2 Roof 0.9 21,202 19,082 Concrete or Asphalt 0.9 6,597 5,937 Landscape 0.1 27,959 2,796 55,758 27,815 0.50 DMA-3 Roof 0.9 14,017 12,615 Concrete or Asphalt 0.9 27,757 24,981 Landscape 0.1 23,408 2,341 65,182 39,937 0.61 Total IMP Area 140,301 sf 3.22 ac Drawdown Based on DCV and Basin Area (1) (2) (3)=(1)x(2)/12 In/ft (4) (5)=(4)/(3) Area of Basin at invert Min Infiltration Rate Flowrate Through Media DCV Drawdown 4 In/hr cf/hr cf hr DMA-1 2,126 5 [ 886 3,706 4.2 DMA-3 1,300 5 [ 542 2,126 3.9 Biofiltration Basin (DMA-1) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-L DCV [jm (aijuw !4h O ! 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.64 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 2.82 acres 3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) C= 0.59 unitless 4 Tree wells volume reduction TC\T= - cubic-feet 5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV= - cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV = (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV= 3,809 cubic-feet B-10 February 2016 Biofiltration Basin (DMA-1) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.5-1: Simple Sizing Method for Biofiltration BMPs I 10MARffiMM4iA 1 I Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs 3,809 1 cubic-feet Partial Retention 2 Infiltration rate from Form 1-9 if partial infiltration is feasible 0 in/hr. 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours 4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 0 inches 5 Aggregate pore space 0.40 in/in 6 1 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4/ Line 51 0 inches 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 2.126 sq-ft 8 Media retained pore storage 0.1 in/in 9 Volume retained by BMP [[L)n(4 + (Line 12 x Line 8)]/12] x Line 7 372 cubic-feet 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line I - Line 9] 3,437 cubic-feet BMP Parameters 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 12 inches 12 - Media Thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer thickness to line . '• this ne for sizing calculations 21 inches 13 - Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical) - use 0 inches for sizing if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area 12 inches 14 Media available pore space O2 in/in 1- - Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (5 in/hr. with no outlet control; f the filtration is controlled by the outlet, use the outlet controlled rate) in/hr.i 5 Baseline Calculations 16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 hours 17 Depth filtered during storm [Line 15 x Line 16] 30 inches 18 - Depth of Detention Storage [Line 11 + (Line 12 x Line 14) + (Line 13 x Line 5)] 21 inches 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 18] 51 inches Option 1— Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV 20 Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 101 5,1 cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20/ Line 19] x 12 L1,213 sq-ft Option 2- Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding 22 Required Storage (surface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] 2,578 cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint [Line 22/ Line 18] x 12 1,473 s9-ft Footprint of the BMP 24 Area draining to the BMP 122.986 sq-ft 25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.59 26 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] 2,177 sq-ft 27 Footprint of the BMP = Maxixnum(Minimum(Line 21, Line 23), Line 26) 2,177 sq-ft Note: Line 7 is used to estimate the amount of volume retained by the BMP. Update assumed surface area in Line 7 until its equivalent to :he required biofiltration footprint (either Line 21 or Line 23) B-26 February 2016 tAJ& ('cLJ ('!) " A - I ) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs: Use for Sizing Proprietary Biofiltratlon BMP Flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to filter or treat the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of every storm event. The required flow-thru treatment rate should be adjusted for the portion of the DCV already retained or biofiltered onsite as described in Worksheet B.6-1. The following hydrologic method shall be used to calculate the flow rate to be filtered or treated: Q = C x i x A Where: Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr. A = Tributary area (acres) which includes the total area draining to the BMP, including any offsite or onsite areas that comingle with project runoff and drain to the BMP. Refer to Section 3.3.3 for additional guidance. Street projects consult Section 1.4.2. Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows Nil -1 I DCV DCV ' 3,809 'cubic-feet 2 DCV retained DCV,,,â 0 cubic-feet 3 DCV biofiltered DCVi 3,809 cubic-feet - DCV requiring flow-thru (Line l— Line 2-0.67xLine3) DCV, 1,257 cubic-feet 5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)* AF= 0.33 unitless 6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr 7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 2.82 acres 8 - Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.52 unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate =AFxCxixA Q= 0.097 cfs *Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the project's retention and biofiltration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an adjustment factor of 1. Qreq = 1.5 X 0.097 = 0.145 CFS B-36 February 2016 DMA-I Low Flow - 4"@0.7% 0.17 cfs 'roject_Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge [input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.00700 ftift Normal Depth 0.33 it Diameter 0.33 it esults 1 Discharge 0.17 113/s Flow Area 0.09 if Wetted Perimeter 1.04 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.08 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0.23 ft Percent Full 100.0 % Critical Slope 0.00988 ft/ft Velocity 1.96 fits Velocity Head 0.06 it Specific Energy 0.39 it Froude Number 0.00 Madmum Discharge 0.18 ft'/s Discharge Full 0.17 ft3/s Slope Full 0.00700 Will Flow Type SubCrItical fF Input Data Downstream Depth - 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number 01 Steps 0 IGVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 it Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % -Normal Depth Over Rise I00.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Bentley Systsms. Inc. Hasetad Methods So--dIItitaster V81 (SELECTeerIes 1) 108.11.01.03J 1012812019927:57 AM 27 Slemons Company Drive Suite 200W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203.755.1666 Page 1 of 2 DMA-1 Low Flow - 4"@0.7% = 0.17 cfs GVF Output Data Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Cnticai Slope Infinity ft/s 0.33 ft 0.23 ft 0.00700 ft/ft 0.00988 ft/ft Bentley Systems. Inc. Hassled Methods Soie94IIMaster VII (SELECTserfes 1) 103.11.01.031 1012812019 9:27:57 AM 27 Stamens Company Drive Suite 200W Watertown, CT 86795 USA +1.203-755.1666 Page 2 of 2 Proprietary Biofiltration (DMA-2) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV (q MAuim 1&o bu 1 85" percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.64 inches 2 Area tributary to B (s) A= 1.28 acres 3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix 1 B.1.1 and W2.1) C= 0.50 unitless 4 Tree wells volume reduction TCV - cubic-feet 5 Rain barrels volume reduction - cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV = (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV 1,544 cubic-feet B-10 February 2016 Proprietary Biofiltration (DMA-2) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs: Use for Sizing Proprietary Biofiltration BMP Flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to filter or treat the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of every storm event. The required flow-thru treatment rate should be adjusted for the portion of the DCV already retained or biofiltered onsite as described in Worksheet B.6-1. The following hydrologic method shall be used to calculate the flow rate to be filtered or treated: Q = C x i x A Where: Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr. A = Tributary area (acres) which includes the total area draining to the BMP, including any offsite or onsite areas that comingle with project runoff and drain to the BMP. Refer to Section 3.3.3 for additional guidance. Street projects consult Section 1.4.2. Worksheet B.6-1. Flow-Thru Design Flows I DCV DCV 1,544 cubic-feet 2 DCV retained DCVw.w o cubic-feet 3 DCV biofikered DCVbioffltcwd i cubic-feet - DCV requiring flow-thru (Line l— Line 2-0.67xLine3) 510 cubic-feet 5 Adjustment factor (Line 4/ Line I)* AF= 0.33 UflitleSS 6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr 7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 1.28 acres 8 - Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.50 unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = AF x (C x I x A) Q= 0.042 cfs *Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the project's retention and biofiltration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an adjustment factor of 1. QREQ = 1.5 (0.042 cfs) = 0.063 cfs Conclusion: Use L-4-6 which provides treatment of 0.073 cfs B-36 February 2016 DMA-2 Low Flow - 4"@0.5% = 0.14 cfs Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge [i nput Data Roughness Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.00500 ft/ft Normal Depth • 0.33 it Diameter 0.33 ft [Results I Discharge 0.14 ft3/s Flow Area 0.09 fill Wetted Perimeter 1.04 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.08 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0.21 ft Percent Full . 100.0 % Critical Slope 0.00899 ft/ft Velocity 1.66 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.37 ft Froude Number 0.00 Maximum Discharge 0.15 fWs Discharge Full 0.14 ft3/s Slope Full 0.00500 ft/ft Flow Type SubCritical rGVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 VF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headless 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 100.00 % Downstream VelOCItY Infinity fits - Bentley Systems Inc. Haestad Methods SolBUstIlte.Master VBI (SELECTse,Ies 1) 108.11.01.03j 1012812019 9:31:43 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1.203.755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope Infinity ft/s 0.33 It 0.21 It 0.00500 ft/ft 0.00899 ft/ft DMA-2 Low Flow 4"@0.5% = 0.14 cfs VF Output Data Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SolBshthI,Mastsr Val (SELECTeerles 1) 103.11.01.031 1012812019 9:31:43 AM 27 Siemens Company Drive Suite 200W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Biofiltration Basin (DMA-3) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.2-1. DCV 85' percentile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d= 0.64 inches 2 Area tributary to BMP (s) 1.50 acres 3 Area weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1) C= 0.61 unitless 4 Tree vdlis volume reduction TCV= - cubic-feet 5 Rain barrels volume reduction RCV= - cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV = (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV 2,126 cubic-feet B-tO February 2016 Biofiltration Basin (DMA-3) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods Worksheet B.5-1: Simple Sizing Method for Biofilt.tation BMPs ffiwNb I T64&4000 "0 1 1 Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs T 2.126 I cubic-feet Partial Retention 2 Infiltration rate from Form 1-9 if partial infiltration is feasible 0 in/hr. 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours 4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 0 inches 5 Aggregate pore space 0.40 in/in 6 1 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4/ Line 5] 0 inches 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 1,300 sq-ft 8 Media retained pore storage 0.1 in/in 9 Volume retained by BMP [[Ljpe-4 + (Line 12 x Line 8)]/12] x Line 7 228 cubic-feet 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 - Line 9] 1,898 cubic-feet BMP Parameters 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 12 inches - 12 - Media Thickness [18 inches minimum], also add mulch layer thickness to this line for sizing calculations 21 inches 13 - Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical) - use 0 inches for sizing if the aggregate is not over the entire bottom surface area 12 inches 14 Media available pore space 0.2 in/in 15 - Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (5 in/hr. with no outlet control; if the filtration is controlled by the outlet, use the outlet controlled rate) Baseline Calculations 16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 hours 17 Depth filtered during storm [Line 15 x Line 16] 30 inches 18 - Depth of Detention Storage [Line ll+ (Line 12x Line 14)+(Line13x Line 5)] 21 inches 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 18] 51 inches Option 1— Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV 20 J Required biofihered volume [1.5 x Line 10] 2,847 cubic-feet 21 Required Footprint [Line 20/ Line 191 x 12 670 sq-ft Option 2- Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and ponding 22 Required Storage (surface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] 1,424 cubic-feet 23 Required Footprint [Line 22/ Line 18] x 12 814 sq-ft Footprint of the BMP 24 Area draining to the BMP 65.182 sq-ft 25 Adjusted Runoff Factor for drainage area (Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.61 26 MInimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] 1,193 sq-ft 27 Footprint of the BMP = Maximum(Minimum(Line 21, Line 23), Line 26) 1.300 sq-ft Note: Line 7 is used to estimate the amount of volume retained by the BMP. Update assumed surface area in Line 7 until its equivalent to the required biofiltration footprint (either Line 21 or line 23) B-26 February 2016 4JQ1 6 4A ...') Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs: Use for Sizing Proprietary Biofiltration BMP Flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to filter or treat the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of every storm event. The required flow-thru treatment rate should be adjusted for the portion of the DCV already retained or biofiltered onsite as described in Worksheet B.6-1. The following hydrologic method shall be used to calculate the flow rate to be filtered or treated: Q = C x i x Where: Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 02 in/hr. A = Tributary area (acres) which includes the total area draining to the BMP, including any offsite or onsite areas that comingle with project runoff and drain to the BMP. Refer to Section 3.3.3 for additional guidance. Street projects consult Section 1.4.2. Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Plows I DCV DCV 2,126 cubic-feet 2 DCV retained 0 cubic-feet 3 DCV biofiltered DCVb,g 2,126 cubic-feet - DCV requiring flow-thru (Line 1 - Line 2— 0.67xLine 3) DCVthN 702 cubic-feet 5 Adjustment factor (Line 4/ Line 1)* AF= 0.33 unitless 6 1 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr 7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 1.50 acres 8 - Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.52 unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = AF x (C x i x A) Q= 0.052 cfs *Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the project's retention and bioflkration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an adjustment factor of 1. Qreq = 1.5 x 0.052 =0.077 cfs B-36 February 2016 DMA-3 Low Flow - 4"00.5% = 0.14 eft pject Descripti6n I Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Discharge LnputData '1 ' I Roughness Coefficient 0.012 Channel Slope 0.00500 ftift Normal Depth 0.33 ft Diameter 0.33 ft rResults I i,I Discharge 0.14 ftIs FlowArea 0.09 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.04 ft Hydraulic Radius S 0.08 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0.21 ft Percent Full 100.0 % Critical Slope 0.00899 ft/ft Velocity 1.66 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.37 ft Froude Number 0.00 Madmum Discharge 0.15 ft'/s Discharge Full 0.14 fWs Slope Full 0.00500 ft/ft Flow Type SubCritical GVF Input DataJ Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data I Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headless 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 100.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods SoIMaster V81 (SELECTeerIes 1) 11111.111.01.031 1012812019 9:46:25 AM 27 Simmons Company Drive Suite 200W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 DMA-3 Low Flow - 4"@05% = 0.14 cfs Output Data Upstream Velocity Normal Depth Critical Depth Channel Slope Critical Slope Infinity ft/s 0.33 ft 0.21 ft 0.00500 ft/ft 0.00899 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods So9dlIMaster V81 (SELECTsevtes 1) I08.11.01.03 1012812019 9:46:26 AM 27 Stemons Company Drive Suite 200W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1.203.755-1666 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2 HYDROMODIFICATION CALCULATIONS UNDERGROUND STORAGE UNIT WORKSHEET HYDROMOD (SWMM ANALYSIS) PRESENTED IN ATTACHMENT 8 ATIACHMENT 2b 4 - -,---r-. ..- Al A jj ;.- : ' 09 ~ wsi~ Ll ly . d - .- H Fjy . *. .- I . •- e - - - - - '- -. - -:t : - - -4; - - - ;-. - .--. - i Oakmont Senior Livinu - - - - Project Site r* 'Runoff all drains south I -tj? " - I and away from canyon — • %I 4IkA - to north where CCSYA — exists AlAl Al elt Al All I / -Z iw AJJ .1 I — IM - 74 7' - V VVV.V Ih.N Y~ AA L ' F) / VY - _ VV• V V V V VV 1 / . D. CC)JfJf/ :' V, V 1j ' I - U / \ DIE GLTI/'O LV_VVV _V ] --------------------- \ Legend / - Watershed Boundaries L1iE GI VIJO IL [i Municipal Boundaries Luis Ie LIKE < VVVJ - Rivers & Streams / /> 1IIVIDLD1 H Regional WMAA Streams , / lAI , V Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas : - - . ' •4/ V -2 •VV •V -: • : it 4T LL ccUiJfY Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Carlsbad Watershed - HU 904.00, 211 m12 Miles 0 25 50 100 Geosyntec Exhibit Date: Sept. 8, 2014 COflSu1tafltS ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminary Design/PlanningICEQA level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: O Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) 0 How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) 0 Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltation or heavy trash(e.g., silt level posts or other markings shall be included in all BMP components that will trap and store sediment, trash, and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance personnel may determine where the bottom of the BMP is. If required, posts or other markings shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) 0 Recommended equipment to perform maintenance 0 When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management 77 Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Structural BMPs This Section presents typical maintenance indicators and expected maintenance actions (routine and corrective) for typical structural BMPs. There are many different variations of structural BMPs, and structural BMPs may include multiple components. For the purpose of maintenance, the structural BMPs have been grouped into four categories based on common maintenance requirements: Vegetated infiltration or filtration BMPs Non-vegetated infiltration BMPs Non-vegetated filtration BMPs Detention BMPs The project civil engineer is responsible for determining which categories are applicable based on the components of the structural BMP, and identifying the applicable maintenance indicators from within the category. Maintenance indicators and actions shall be included in the project-specific O&M section of the SWQMP. During inspection, the inspector checks the maintenance indicators. If one or more thresholds are met or exceeded, maintenance must be performed to ensure the structural BMP will function as designed during the next storm event. 7.7.1 Maintenance of Vegetated -Infiltration-or Filtration BMPs "Vegetated infiltration or filtration BMPs" are BMPs that include vegetation as a component of the BMP. Applicable Fact Sheets may include INF-2 (bioretention in Appendix E.9), PR-i (biofiltration with partial retention in Appendix E.11),IBF-I (biofiltration in Appendix E.I2)I or FT-1 (vegetated 7-7 February 2016 Chapter 7: Long Term Operation and Maintenance swale in Appendix E.15)*. The vegetated BMP may or may not include amended soils, subsurface gravel layer, underdrain, and/or impermeable liner. The project civil engineer is responsible for determining which maintenance indicators and actions shown below are applicable based on the components of the structural BMP. TABLE 7-2. Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Vegetated BMPs Accumulation of sediment, litter, or Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials, without debris damage to the vegetation. Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans. Overgrown vegetation Mow or trim as appropriate, but not less than the design height of the vegetation per original plans when applicable (e.g. a vegetated swale may require a minimum vegetation height). Erosion due to concentrated irrigation Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation flow system. Erosion due to concentrated storm Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas, and make appropriate warer runoff flow corrective measures such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Standing water in vegetated swales used Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation for pretreatment and/or site design system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, BMPs loosening or replacing top soil to allow for better infiltration, or minor re-grading for proper drainage. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade, the City Engineer shall be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. Standing water in bioretention, Make appropriate corrective measures such as biofiltration with partial retention, or inspecting/ unclogging orifice opening, adjusting irrigation system, biofiltration areas, or flow-through removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation, clearing planter boxes* for longer than 96 hours underdrains (where applicable), or repairing/replacing dogged or following a storm event** compacted soils. Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear obstructions. Damage to structural components such Repair or replace as applicable. as weirs, inlet or outlet structures "These BMPs typically include a surface ponding layer as part of their function which may take 96 hours to drain following a storm event. Vegetated swales and flow-through planter boxes in regards to flow-thru treatment control BMPs are not options as structural BMPs. Carlsbad has not adopted an Alternative Compliance Program. 7-8 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.12 BF-1 Biofiltration MS4 Permit Category 131ofiltration f oil A .; . Location: 431 Street and Logan Avenue, San Diego, California Description Manual Category Biofiltration Applicable Performance Standard Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits Treatment Volume Reduction (I ncidntal) Peak How Attenuation (Optional) Biofiltration (Bioretention with underdrain) facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Bioretention with underdrain facilities are commonly incorporated into the site within parking lot landscaping, along roadsides, and in OCfl spaces. Because these types of facilities have limited or no infiltration, they are typically designed to provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the undcrdrain connection to the storm drain system. Treatment is achieved through filtration, sedimentation, sorption, biochemical processes and plant uptake. Typical hioretention with underdrain components include: Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g, perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) [nergy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) Shallow surface ponding for captured flo\VS Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on expected climate and ponding depth Non-floating mulch layer (Optional) Media layer (planting mix or engineered media) capable of Supporting vegetation growth Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into unccmpacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer Aggregate storage layer with underdrain(s) Impermeable liner or uncompactcd native soils at the bottom of the facility E-66 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Overflow structure .PL, .PiOTTOSCALE ;Exc SATURATEDSJORAGE AGGREGATE:BELOWUNDERDFAIN FILTERCC IAMETER UNOERDRAIN: GREGTESTORAGE SECTIGNA-K NO1TOSCALE Typical plan and Section view of a Bioffitration BMP. E-67 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Bioffitration Treatment BMP for storm water pollutant control. The system is lined or un-lined to provide incidental infiltration, and an underdrain is provided at the bottom to carry away filtered runoff. This configuration is considered to provide biofiltration treatment via flow through the media layer. Storage provided above the underdrain within surface ponding, media, and aggregate storage is considered included in the biofiltration treatment volume. Saturated storage within the aggregate storage layer can be added to this design by raising the underdrain above the bottom of the aggregate storage layer or via an internal weir structure designed to maintain a specific water level elevation. Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. The system can be designed to provide flow rate and duration control by primarily providing increased surface ponding and/or having a deeper aggregate storage layer above the underdrain. This will allow for significant detention storage, which can be controlled via inclusion of an outlet structure at the downstream end of the underdrain. Bioretention with underdrain must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Placement observes geotechnical recommendations regarding potential hazards Must not negatively impact existing site () (e.g., slope stability, landslides, liquefaction geotechnical concerns. zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations, utilities). Lining prevents storm water from An impermeable liner or other hydraulic impacting groundwater and/or sensitive restriction layer is included if site constraints environmental or geotechnical features. indicate that infiltration or lateral flows should Incidental infiltration, when allowable, not be allowed, can aid in pollutant removal and groundwater recharge. Bigger BMPs require additional design features for proper performance. Contributing tributary area greater than 5 Contributing tributary area shall be 5 acres acres may be allowed at the discretion of CS I acre preferred). the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) incorporate design features (e.g. flow spreaders) to minimizing short circuiting of flows in E-68 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale the BMP and 2) incorporate additional design features requested by the City Engineer for proper performance of the regional BMP. [I Finish grade of the facility is S 2%. Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and channelization within the facility. Surface Pon ding Surface ponding limited to 24 hours for Plant health. Surface ponding drawdown Surface ponding is limited to a 24-hour time greater than 24-hours but less than drawdown time. 96 hours may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if certified by a landscape architect or agronomist. Surface ponding capacity lowers subsurface storage requirements. Deep surface ponding raises safety concerns. Surface ponding depth greater than 12 inches (for additional pollutant control or surface outlet structures or flow- control orifices) may be allowed at the [] Surface ponding depth is 2 6 and < 12 inches. discretion of the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) surface ponding depth drawdown time is less than 24 hours; and 2) safety issues and fencing requirements are considered (typically ponding greater than 18" will require a fence and/or flatter side slopes) and 3) potential for elevated clogging risk is considered. A minimum of 2 inches of freeboard is Freeboard provides room for head over provided, overflow structures and minimizes risk of uncontrolled surface discharge. Side slopes are stabilized with vegetation and Gentler side slopes are safer, less prone 99 are = 3H:1\ or shallower, to erosion, able to establish vegetation more quickly and easier to maintain. Vegetation E-69 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Plantings are suitable for the climate and Plants suited to the climate and ponding E] expected ponding depth. A plant list to aid in depth are more likely to survive. selection can be found in Appendix E.20. An irrigation system with a connection to Seasonal irrigation might be needed to water supply should be provided as needed. keep plants healthy. Mulch (Optional) - Mulch will suppress weeds and maintain A minimum of 3 inches of well-aged, shredded moisture for plant growth. Aging mulch hardwood mulch that has been stockpiled or kills pathogens and weed seeds and stored for at least 12 months is provided, allows the beneficial microbes to multiply. Media Layer A filtration rate of at least 5 inches per Media maintains a minimum filtration rate of 5 hour allows soil to drain between events. in/hr over lifetime of facility. An initial The initial rate should be higher than filtration rate of 8 to 12 in/hr is recommended long term target rate to account for to allow for clogging over time; the initial clogging over time. However an filtration rate should not exceed 12 inches per excessively high initial rate can have a hour. negative impact on treatment performance, therefore an upper limit is needed. Media is a minimum 18 inches deep, meeting either of these two media specifications: City of San Diego Storm Water Standards A deep media layer provides additional Appendix F (February 2016, unless superseded filtration and supports plants with deeper by more recent edition) or County of San roots. Diego Low Impact Development Handbook: Appendix G -Bioretention Soil Specification Standard specifications shall be followed. (June 2014, unless superseded by more recent edition). Alternatively, for proprietary designs and For non-standard or proprietary designs, custom media mixes not meeting the media compliance with F.l ensures that specifications contained in the 2016 City of adequate treatment performance will be San Diego Storm Water Standards or County provided. LID Manual, the media meets the pollutant treatment performance criteria in Section F.1. E-70 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Media surface area is 3% of contributing area times adjusted runoff factor or greater. Greater surface area to tributary area ratios: a) maximizes volume retention as required by the MS4 Permit and b) decrease loading rates per square foot and therefore increase longevity. Adjusted runoff factor is to account for site design BMPs implemented upstream of the BMP (such as rain barrels, impervious area dispersion, etc.). Refer to Appendix B.2 guidance. Use Worksheet B.5-1 Line 26 to estimate the minimum surface area required per this criteria. Potential for pollutant export is partly a function of media composition; media design must minimize potential for export of nutrients, particularly where receiving waters are impaired for nutrients. Where receiving waters are impaired or have a TMDL for nutrients, the system is designed with nutrient sensitive media design (see fact sheet BF-2). Filter Course Layer A filter course is used to prevent migration of Migration of media can cause clogging of [ fines through layers of the facility. Filter fabric the aggregate storage layer void spaces or is not used. subgrade. Filter fabric is more likely to clog. Washing aggregate will help eliminate [Z Filter course is washed and free of fines. fines that could clog the facility and impede infiltration. Gradation relationship between layers Filter course calculations assessing suitability can evaluate factors (e.g., bridging, for particle migration prevention have been permeability, and uniformity) to completed. determine if particle sizing is appropriate or if an intermediate layer is needed. Aggregate Storage Layer Class 2 Permeable per Caltrans specification Washing aggregate will help eliminate 68-1.025 is recommended for the storage layer. fines that could clog the aggregate Washed, open-graded crushed rock may be storage layer void spaces or subgrade. used, however a 4-6 inch washed pea gravel E-71 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale filter course layer at the top of the crushed rock is required. The depth of aggregate provided (12-inch Proper storage layer configuration and i..., typical) and storage layer configuration is underdrain placement will minimize adequate for providing conveyance for facility drawdown time. underdrain flows to the outlet structure. Inflow, Underdrain, and Outflow Structures Inflow, underdrains and outflow structures are Maintenance will prevent clogging and accessible for inspection and maintenance, ensure proper operation of the flow control structures. Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or High inflow velocities can cause erosion, use energy dissipation methods. (e.g., riprap, scour and/or channeling. level spreader) for concentrated inflows, Curb cut inlets are at least 12 inches wide, have Inlets must not restrict flow and apron a 4-6 inch reveal (drop) and an apron and prevents blockage from vegetation as it energy dissipation as needed. grows in. Energy dissipation prevents erosion. A minimal separation from subgrade or Underdrain outlet elevation should be a the liner lessens the risk of fines entering minimum of 3 inches above the bottom the underdrain and can improve elevation of the aggregate storage layer. hydraulic performance by allowing perforations to remain unblocked. (] Minimum underdrain diameter is 6 inches. Smaller diameter underdrains are prone to clogging. Slotted underdrains provide greater Underdrains are made of slotted, PVC pipe intake capacity, dog resistant drainage, conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or and reduced entrance velocity into the corrugated, HDPE pipe conforming to pipe, thereby reducing the chances of AASHTO 252M or equivalent, solids migration. An underdrain cleanout with a minimum 6- inch diameter and lockable cap is placed every Properly spaced cleanouts will facilitate 250 to 300 feet as required based on underdrain maintenance. underdrain length. Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream Planning for overflow lessens the risk of EI storm drain system or discharge point Size property damage due to flooding. overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow E-72 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale for on-line infiltration basins and water quality peak flow for off-line basins. To design bioretention with underdrain for storm water pollutant control only (no flow control required), the following steps should be taken: I. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, incJuding placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected Site design runoff for tributary areas. Use the sizing worksheet presented in Appendix B.5 to size biofiltration BI{Ps. Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface ponding and/or aggregate storage volumes, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination of storm water pollutant control design. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Iteratively determine the facility footprint area, surface ponding and/or aggregate storage layer depth required to provide detention storage to reduce flow rates and durations to allowable limits. Flow rates and durations can be controlled from detention storage by altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control levels. Multi-level orifices can be used within an outlet structure to control the full range of flows. If bioretention with underdrain cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control required by this manual, an upstream or downstream structure with significant storage volume such as an underground vault can be used to provide remaining controls. After bioretention with underdrain has been designed to meet flow control requirements, calculations must be completed to verify if storm water pollutant control requirements to treat the DCV have been met. E-73 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.12 BF-1 Biofiltration MS4 Permit Category Biofiltration Manual Category Bio filtration *,d I 1 rJ p I L Applicable Performance Standard Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits Treatment Volume Reduction (incidental) Peak Flow Attenuation (Optional) Location: 43d Street and Logan Avenue, San Diego, California Description biotiltration (Bioretention with underdrain) facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Bioretention with underdrain facilities are commonly incorporated into the site within parking lot landscaping, along roadsides, and in open spaces. Because these types of facilities have limited or no infiltration, they are typically designed to provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the underdrain connection to the storm drain system. Treatment is achieved through filtration, sedimentation, sorption, biochemical processes and plant Uptake. Typical hioretention with underdrain components include: Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g, perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) Fnergy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) Shallow surface ponding for captured flows Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on expected climate and ponding depth Non-floating mulch layer (Optional) Media layer (planting mix or engineered media) capable of supporting vegetation growth Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into uncompacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer Aggregate storage layer with underdrain(s) Impermeable liner or uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility E-66 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Overflow structure URB.CUT \-VEGETTED:SIDE$LOPE ': PLAN NOT t0SCALE 6OflO ROMCURB CUT TO,APRON MIwr.o:IrMAx \ SURF.CE PoNDING; .CLEANOUT- EXCAVATED SIZOPE SHOWNAT MIN;:lr MEDIA WITH - 'MIN.ii/HR F1 T."' 10N RATEj ,757-7 SATURATED StORCE FILTERCOUR AGGREGATE STORAGE LAY ,ECTIO'NA-I NOTTOSCALE Typical plan and Section view of a Biofiltration BMP E-67 . February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Biofihration Treatment BMP for storm water pollutant control. The system is lined or un-lined to provide incidental infiltration, and an underdrain is provided at the bottom to carry away filtered runoff. This configuration is considered to provide biofiltration treatment via flow through the media layer. Storage provided above the underdrain within surface ponding, media, and aggregate storage is considered included in the biofiltratiOn treatment volume. Saturated storage within the aggregate storage layer can be added to this design by raising the underdrain above the bottom of the aggregate storage layer or via an internal weir structure designed to maintain a specific water level elevation. Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. The system can be designed to provide flow rate and duration control by primarily providing increased surface ponding and/or having a deeper aggregate storage layer above the underdrain. This will allow for significant detention storage, which can be controlled via inclusion of an outlet structure at the downstream end of the underdrain. Bioretention with underdrain must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Placement observes geotechnical recommendations regarding potential hazards Must not negatively impact existing site (e.g., slope stability, landslides, liquefaction geotechnical concerns. zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations, utilities). Lining prevents storm water from An impermeable liner or other hydraulic impacting groundwater and/or sensitive restriction layer is included if site constraints environmental or geotechnical features. indicate that infiltration or lateral flows should Incidental infiltration, when allowable, not be allowed, can aid in pollutant removal and groundwater recharge. Bigger BMPs require additional design features for proper performance. Contributing tributary area greater than 5 Contributing tributary area shall be S 5 acres acres may be allowed at the discretion of ( I acre preferred). the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) incorporate design features (e.g. flow spreaders) to minimizing short circuiting of flows in E-68 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale the BMP and 2) incorporate additional design features requested by the City Engineer for proper performance of the regional BMP. ] Finish grade of the facility is < 2%. Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and channelization within the facility. Surface Pon ding Surface ponding limited to 24 hours for Plant health. Surface ponding drawdown Surface ponding is limited to a 24-hour time greater than 24-hours but less than ZI drawdown time. 96 hours may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if certified by a landscape architect or agronomist. - - Surface ponding capacity lowers subsurface storage requirements. Deep surface ponding raises safety concerns. J Surface ponding depth is 2 6 and 12 inches. Surface ponding depth greater than 12 inches (for additional pollutant control or surface outlet structures or flow- control orifices) may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) surface ponding depth drawdown time is less than 24 hours; and 2) safety issues and fencing requirements are considered (typically ponding greater than 18" will require a fence and/or flatter side slopes) and 3) potential for elevated clogging risk is considered. A minimum of 2 inches of freeboard is Freeboard provides room for head over 191 provided, overflow structures and minimizes risk of uncontrolled surface discharge. Side slopes are stabilized with vegetation and Gender side slopes are safer, less prone 91 are = 3H:1\ or shallower, to erosion, able to establish vegetation - more quickly and easier to maintain. Vegetation E-69 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Desi-n Intent/Rationale Plantings are suitable for the climate and Plants suited to the climate and ponding I expected ponding depth. A plant list to aid in depth are more likely to survive. selection can be found in Appendix E.20. An irrigation system with a connection to Seasonal irrigation might be needed to water supply should be provided as needed. keep plants healthy. Mulch (Optional) Mulch will suppress weeds and maintain A minimum of 3 inches of well-aged, shredded moisture for plant growth. Aging mulch Q hardwood mulch that has been stockpiled or kills pathogens and weed seeds and stored for at least 12 months is provided, allows the beneficial microbes to multiply. Media Layer A filtration rate of at least 5 inches per Media maintains a minimum filtration rate of 5 hour allows soil to drain between events. in/hr over lifetime of facility. An initial The initial rate should be higher than filtration rate of 8 to 12 in/hr is recommended long term target rate to account for to allow for clogging over time; the initial clogging over time. However an filtration rate should not exceed 12 inches per excessively high initial rate can have a hour. negative impact on treatment performance, therefore an upper limit is needed. Media is a minimum 18 inches deep, meeting either of these two media specifications: City of San Diego Storm Water Standards A deep media layer provides additional Appendix F (February 2016, unless superseded filtration and supports plants with deeper by more recent edition) or County of San roots. Diego Low Impact Development Handbook: Appendix G -Bioretention Soil Specification Standard specifications shall be followed. une 2014, unless superseded by more recent edition). Alternatively, for proprietary designs and For non-standard or proprietary designs, custom media mixes not meeting the media compliance with F.l ensures that specifications contained in the 2016 City of adequate treatment performance will be San Diego Storm Water Standards or County provided. LID Manual, the media meets the pollutant treatment performance criteria in Section F.1. E-70 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Greater surface area to tributary area ratios: a) maximizes volume retention as required by the MS4 Permit and b) decrease loading rates per square foot and therefore increase longevity. Media surface area is 3% of contributing area Adjusted runoff factor is to account for factor or greater. times adjusted runoff site design BMPs implemented upstream of the B14P (such as rain barrels, impervious area dispersion, etc.). Refer to Appendix B.2 guidance. Use Worksheet B.5-1 Line 26 to estimate the minimum surface area required per this criteria. Potential for pollutant export is partly a Where receiving waters are impaired or have a function of media composition; media TMDL for nutrients, the system is designed design must minimize potential for with nutrient sensitive media design (see fact export of nutrients, particularly where sheet BF-2). receiving waters are impaired for nutrients. Filter Course Layer A filter course is used to prevent migration of Migration of media can cause clogging of fines through layers of the facility. Filter fabric the aggregate storage layer void spaces or is not used. subgrade. Filter fabric is more likely to clog. Washing aggregate will help eliminate ] Filter course is washed and free of fines, fines that could clog the facility and impede infiltration. Gradation relationship between layers Filter course calculations assessing suitability can evaluate factors (e.g., bridging, for particle migration prevention have been permeability, and uniformity) to completed. determine if particle sizing is appropriate or if an intermediate layer is needed. Aggregate Storage Layer Class 2 Permeable per Caltrans specification Washing aggregate will help eliminate 191 68-1.025 is recommended for the storage layer. fines that could clog the aggregate Washed, open-graded crushed rock may be storage layer void spaces or subgrade. used, however a 4-6 inch washed pea gravel E-71 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale filter course layer at the top of the crushed rock is required. The depth of aggregate provided (12-inch Proper storage layer configuration and , typical) and storage layer configuration is underdrain placement will minimize adequate for providing conveyance for facility drawdown time. underdrain flows to the outlet structure. Inflow, Underdrain, and Outflow Structures Inflow, underdrains and outflow structures are Maintenance will prevent clogging and accessible for inspection and maintenance, ensure proper operation of the flow control structures. Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or High inflow velocities can cause erosion, use energy dissipation methods. (e.g., riprap, scour and/or channeling. level spreader) for concentrated inflows, Curb cut inlets are at least 12 inches wide, have Inlets must not restrict flow and apron a 4-6 inch reveal (drop) and an apron and prevents blockage from vegetation as it energy dissipation as needed. grows in. Energy dissipation prevents erosion. A minimal separation from subgrade or Underdrain outlet elevation should be a the liner lessens the risk of fines entering minimum of 3 inches above the bottom the underdrain and can improve elevation of the aggregate storage layer. hydraulic performance by allowing perforations to remain unblocked. Minimum underdrain diameter is 6 inches. Smaller diameter underdrains are prone to clogging. Slotted underdrains provide greater Underdrains are made of slotted, PVC pipe intake capacity, dog resistant drainage, conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or and reduced entrance velocity into the corrugated, HDPE pipe conforming to pipe, thereby reducing the chances of AASHTO 252M or equivalent, solids migration. An underdrain cleanout with a minimum 6- inch diameter and lockable cap is placed every Properly spaced cleanouts will facilitate 250 to 300 feet as required based on underdrain maintenance. underdrain length.. Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream Planning for overflow lessens the risk of storm drain system or discharge point Size property damage due to flooding. overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow E-72 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale for on-line infiltration basins and water quality peak flow for off-line basins. To design bioretention with underdrain for storm water pollutant control only (no flow control required), the following steps should be taken: Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected site design runoff for tributary areas. Use the sizing worksheet presented in Appendix B.5 to size biofiltration BMPs. Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface ponding and/or aggregate storage volumes, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination of storm water pollutant control design. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Iteratively determine the facility footprint area, surface ponding and/or aggregate storage layer depth required to provide detention storage to reduce flow rates and durations to allowable limits. Flow rates and durations can be controlled from detention storage by altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control levels. Multi-level orifices can be used within an outlet structure to control the full range of flows. If bioretention with underdrain cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control required by this manual, an upstream or downstream structure with significant storage volume such as an underground vault can be used to provide remaining controls. After bioretention with underdrain has been designed to meet flow control requirements, calculations must be completed to verify if storm water pollutant control requirements to treat the DCV have been met. E-73 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.14 BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration Systems The purpose of this fact sheet is to help explain the potential role of proprietary BN'lPs in meeting biofiltration requirements, when full retention of the DCV is not feasible. The fact sheet does not describe design criteria like the other fact sheets in this appendix because this information varies by BMP product model. A proprietary BMP may be acceptable as a "biofiltration BMP" under the following conditions: The BMP meets the minimum design criteria listed in Appendix F, including the pollutant treatment performance standard in Appendix F.1; The BMP is designed and maintained in a manner consistent with its performance certifications (See explanation in Appendix F.2); an The BMP is acceptable at the discretion of the City Engineer. In determining the acceptability of a BMP, the City Engineer should consider, as applicable, (a) the data submitted; (b) representativeness of the data submitted; (c) consistency of the BMP performance claims with pollutant control objectives; certainty of the BMP performance claims; (d) for projects within the public right of way and/or public projects: maintenance requirements, cost of maintenance activities, relevant previous city experience with operation and maintenance of the BMP type, ability to continue to operate the system in event that the vending company is no longer operating as a business; and (e) other relevant factors. Proprietary biofiltration BMPs must meet the same sizing guidance as non-proprietary BMPs. Sizing is typically based on capturing and treating 1.50 times the DC\T not reliably retained. Guidance for sizing biofiltration BMPs to comply with requirements of this manual is provided in Appendix F.2. E-77 February 2016 *r.....• - Appendix F: Bioffitration Standard and Checklist Appendix r' Blofiltration Standard and Checklist M7_=- £iEiTi tT The MS4 Permit and this manual define a specific category of storm water pollutant treatment BMPs called "biofiltration BMPs." The MS4 Permit (Section E.3.c.1) states: Bioffitration BMPs must be designed to have an appropriate hydraulic loading rate to maximize storm water retention and pollutant removal, as well as to prevent erosion, scour, and channeling within the BMP, and must be sized to: Treat 1.5 times the DCV not reliably retained onsite, OR Treat the DCV not reliably retained onsite with a flow-thru design that has a total volume, including pore spaces and pre-filter detention volume, sized to hold at least 0.75 times the portion of the DCV not reliably retained onsite. A project applicant must be able to affirmatively demonstrate that a given BMP is designed and sized in a manner consistent with this definition to be considered as a "biofiltration BMP" as part of a compliant storm water management plan. Retention is defined in the MS4 Permit as evapotranspiration, infiltration, and harvest and use of storm water vs. discharge to a surface water system. 4i41it' I m(4iIrI'114 This appendix contains a checklist of the key underlying criteria that must be met for a BMP to be considered a biofiltration BMP. The purpose of this checklist is to facilitate consistent review and approval of biofiltration BMPs that meet the "biofiltration standard" defined by the MS4 Permit. This checklist includes specific design criteria that are essential to defining a system as a biofiltration BMP; however it does not present a complete design basis. This checklist was used to develop BMP Fact Sheets for PR-1 biofiltration with partial retention and BF-1 biofiltration, which do present a complete design basis. Therefore, biofiltration BMPs that substantially meet all aspects of the Fact sheets PR-1 or BF-1 should be able to complete this checklist without additional documentation beyond what would already be required for a project submittal. F-i February 2016 Appendix F: Bioffitration Standard and Checklist Other biofiltration BMP designs' (including both non-proprietary and proprietary designs) may also meet the underlying MS4 Permit requirements to be considered biofiltration BMPs. These BMPs may be classified as biofiltration BMPs if they (1) meet the minimum design criteria listed in this appendix, including the pollutant treatment performance standard in Appendix F.1, (2) are designed and maintained in a manner consistent with their performance certifications (See explanation in Appendix F.2), if applicable, and (3) are acceptable at the discretion of the City Engineer. The applicant may be required to provide additional studies and/or required to meet additional design criteria beyond the scope of this document in order to demonstrate that these criteria are met. The checklist in this appendix is organized into the seven (7) main objectives associated with biofiltration BMP design. It describes the associated minimum criteria that must be met in order to qualify a biofiltration BMP as meeting the biofiltration standard. The seven main objectives arc listed below. Specific design criteria and associated manual references associated with each of these objectives is provided in the checklist in the following section. I. Biofiltration BMPs shall be allowed only as described in the BMP selection process in this manual (i.e., retention feasibility hierarchy). Biofiltration BMPs must be sized using acceptable sizing methods described in this manual. Biofiltration BMPs must be sited and designed to achieve maximum feasible infiltration and evapotransplrauon. Biofiltration BMPs must be designed with a hydraulic loading rate to maximize pollutant retention, preserve pollutant control/sequestration processes, and minimize potential for pollutant washout. Biofiltration BMPs must be designed to promote appropriate biological activity to support and maintain treatment processes. Biofiltration BMPs must be designed to prevent erosion, scour, and channeling within the BMP. Defined as biofiltration designs that do not conform to the specific design criteria described in Fact Sheets PR-i or BF- 1. This category includes proprietary BMPs that are sold by a vendor as well as non-proprietary BMPs that are designed and constructed of primarily of more elementary construction materials. F-2 February 2016 Appendix F: Biofiltration Standard and Checklist U The biofiltration BMP is sited to allow for maximum infiltration of runoff volume based on the feasibility factors considered in site planning efforts. It is also designed to maximize evapotranspiration through the use of amended media and plants (biofiltration designs without amended media and plants may be permissible; see Item 5). For biofiltration BMPs categorized as "Partial Infiltration Condition," the infiltration storage depth in the biofiltration design has been selected to drain in 36 hours (+/-25%) or an alternative value shown to maximize infiltration on the site. Document site planning and feasibility analyses in project SWQMP per Section 5.4. Included documentation of estimated infiltration rate per Appendix D; provide calculations using Appendix B.4 and B.5 to show that the infiltration storage depth meets this criterion. Note, depths that are too shallow or too deep may not be acceptable. For biofiltration BMP locations categorized as Document on plans that the infiltration o "Partial Infiltration Condition," the infiltration storage covers the entire bottom of the BMP storage is over the entire bottom of the biofiltration BMP footprint (i.e., not just underdrain trenches); or an equivalent footprint elsewhere on the site. Mi U For biofiltration BMP locations categorized as "Partial Infiltration Condition," the sizing factor used for the infiltration storage area is not less than the minimum biofiltration BMI' sizing factors shown in Appendix B.5. 1. An impermeable liner or othcr hydraulic restriction layer is only used when needed to avoid geotechnical and/or subsurface contamination issues in locations identified as "No Infiltration Condition." The use of "compact" biofiltration BMP design2 is permitted only in conditions identified as "No Infiltration Condition" and where site-specific documentation demonstrates that the use of larger footprint biofiltration BMPs would be infeasible. Provide a table that compares the minimum sizing factor per Appendix B.5 to the provided sizing factor. Note: The infiltration storage area could be a separate storage feature located downstream of the biofiltration BMP, not necessarily within the same footprint. If using an impermeable liner or hydraulic restriction layer, provide documentation of feasibility findings per Appendix C that recommend the use of this feature. Provide documentation of feasibility findings that recommend no infiltration is feasible. Provide site-specific information to demonstrate that a larger footprint biofiltration BMP would not be feasible. 2 Compact biofiltration BMPs are defined as features with infiltration storage footprint less than the minimum sizing factors in Appendix B.5.1. Note that if a biofiltration BMP is accompanied by an infiltrating area F-4 February 2016 Appendix F: Bioffitration Standard and Checklist biofiltration BMPs conducted in the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual (July 2011). For BMPs that do not meet the biofiitration media specification and/or the range of acceptable media filtration rates described in Fact Sheet, PR-1 and BF-1, additional documentation must be provided to demonstrate that adequate pollutant treatment performance is provided to be considered a biofiltration BMP. Project applicants have three options for documenting compliance: 1) Project applicants may provide documentation to substantiate that the minor modifications to the design is expected to provide equal or better pollutant removal performance for the project pollutants of concern than would be provided by a biofiltration design that complies with the criteria in Fact Sheets PR-1 and BF-1. Minor modifications are design elements that deviate only slightly from standard design criteria and are expected to either not impact performance or to improve performance compared to standard biofiltration designs. The City has the discretion to accept or reject this documentation and/or request additional documentation to substantiate equivalent or better performance to BF-1 or PR-I, as applicable. Examples of minor deviations include: Different particle size distribution of aggregate, with documentation that system filtration rate will meet specifications. Alternative source of organic components, with documentation of material suitability and stability from appropriate testing agency. Specialized amendments to-provide additional treatment mechanisms, and which have negligible potential to upset other treatment mechanisms or otherwise deteriorate ,erformances. ISee Attachment 5 for documentationi For proprietary BMPs; project applicants may provide evidence that the BMP has been certified for use as part of the Washington State Technology Assessment Protocol-Ecology certification program and meets each of the following requirements: The applicant must demonstrate (using the checklist in this Appendix) that the BMP meets all other conditions to be considered as a biofiltration BMP. For example, a cartridge media filter or hydrodynamic separator would not meet biofiltration BMP design criteria regardless of Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certification because they do not support effective biological proceses. The applicant must select BMPs that have an active Technology Acceptance Protocol- Ecology certification, with General Use Level Designation for the appropriate project pollutants of concern as identified in Table F.1-1. The list of certified technologies is updated as new technologies are approved (link below. Technologies with Pilot Use Level Designation and Conditional Use Level Designations are not acceptable. Refer F-8 February 2016 Appendix F: Biofiltration Standard and Checklist to: http:llwwsv.ccv.wa.gov/programslwqlstormwater/ newtech /technologies.h The applicant must demonstrate that BMP is being used in a manner consistent with all conditions of the Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certification while meeting the flow rate or volume design criteria that is required for biofiltration BMPs under this manual. Conditions of Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certification are available by clicking on the technology name at the website listed in bullet b. Additional discussion about sizing of proprietary biofiltration BMPs to comply with applicable sizing standards is provided below in Section F.2. 3) For BMPs that do not fall into options I or 2 above, the City Engineer may allow the applicant to submit alternative third-party documentation that the pollutant treatment performance of the system is consistent with the performance levels associated with the necessary Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certifications. Table F.1-1 describes the required levels of certification and Table F.1-2 describes the pollutant treatment performance levels associated with each level of certification. Acceptance of this approach is at the sole discretion of the City Engineer. If Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certifications are not available, preference shall be given to: Verified third-party, field-scale testing performance under the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership Tier II Protocol. This protocol is no longer operated, however this is considered to be a valid protocol and historic verifications are considered to be representative provided that product models being proposed are consistent with those that were tested. Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership verifications were conducted under New Jersey Corporation for Advance Testing and are archived at the website linked below. Note that Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership verifications must be matched to pollutant treatment standards in Table F.1-2 then matched to an equivalent Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certification in Table F.1-1. Verified third-party, field-scale testing performance under the New Jersey Corporation for Advance Testing protocol. Note that NewJersey Corporation for Advance Testing verifications must be matched to pollutant treatment standards in Table F.1-2 then matched to an equivalent Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology certification in Table F.M. A list of field-scale verified technologies under Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership Tier II and New Jersey Corporation for Advance Testing can be accessed at: http://www.njcat.org/verification-process/technology-veriflcation-database.html (refer to F-9 February 2016 Appendix F: Biofiltration Standard and Checklist field verified technologies only). Table F.1-1: Required Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology Certifications for Poiltuants of Concern for Biofiltration Performance Standard il 111ifl ¶f.ib ii flow t*siii tIID2114 Trash Basic Treatment OR Phosphorus Treatment OR Enhanced Treatment Sediments Basic Treatment OR Phosphorus Treatment OR Enhanced Treatment Oil and Grease Basic Treatment OR Phosphorus Treatment OR Enhanced Treatment Nutrients Phosphorus Treatment' Metals Enhanced Treatment Pesticides Basic Treatment (including filtration)' OR Phosphorus Treatment OR Enhanced Treatment Organics Basic Treatment (including filtration)' OR Phosphorus Treatment OR Enhanced Treatment Bacteria and Viruses Basic Treatment (including bacteria removal processes)' OR Phosphorus Treatment OR Enhanced Treatment - There is no Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology equivalent for nitrogen compounds; however systems that are designed to retain phosphorus (as well as meet basic treatment designation), generally also provide treatment of nitrogen compounds. Where nitrogen is a pollutant of concern, relative performance of available certified systems for nitrogen removal should be considered in BMP selection. 2— Pesticides, organics. and oxygen demanding substances are typically addressed by particle filtration consistent with the level of treatment required to achieve Basic treatment certification; if a system with Basic treatment certification does not provide filtration, it is not acceptable for pesticides, organics or oxygen demanding substances. 3—There is no Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology equivalent for pathogens (viruses and bacteria), and testing data are limited because of typical sample hold times. Systems with Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology Basic Treatment must be include one or more significant bacteria removal process such as media filtration, physical sorption, predation, reduced redox conditions, and/or solar inactivation. Where design options are available to enhance pathogen removal (i.e., pathogen-specific media mix offered by vendor), this design variation should be used. F-10 February 2016 Appendix F: Bioffitration Standard and Checklist Table F.1-2: Performance Standards for Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology Certification TI 20— 100 mg/L TSS Effluent goal 20 mg/L TSS Basic Treatment 100— 200 mg/L TSS 2 80% TSS removal >200 mg/L TSS > 80% TSS removal Enhanced - Dissolved copper 0.005- 0.02 Must meet basic treatment goal and (Dissolved Metals) mg/L better than basic treatment currently Treatment defined as >30% dissolved copper removal Dissolved zinc 0.02 - 0.3 mg/L Must meet basic treatment goal and better than basic treatment currently defined as >60% dissolved zinc removal Phosphorous Total phosphorous 0.1 —0.5 Must meet basic treatment goal and Treatment mg/L exhibit 250% total phosphorous removal Oil Treatment Total petroleum hydrocarbon> No ongoing or recurring visible sheen 10 mg/L in effluent Daily average effluent Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration < 10 mg/L Maximum effluent Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration for a 15 mg/L for a discrete (grab) sample Pretreatment 50— 100 mg/L TSS S 50 mg/L TSS 2 200 mg/L TSS 2 50% TSS removal F-li February 2016 Appendix F: Bioffitration Standard and Checklist F.2 Guidance on Sizing and Design of Non-Standard Biofiltration BMPs This section explains the general process for design and sizing of non-standard biofiltration BlvlPs. This section assumes that the BMPs have been selected based on the criteria in Section P.1. F.2.1 Guidance on Design per Conditions of Certification/Verification The biofiltration standard and checklist in this appendix requires that "the BMP is used in a manner consistent with manufacturer guidelines and conditions of its third-party certification." Practically, what this means is that the BJ1P is used in the same way in which it was tested and certified. For example, it is not acceptable for a BMP of a given size to be certified/verified with a 100 gallon per minute treatment rate and be applied at a 150 gallon per minute treatment rate in a design. Certifications or verifications issued by the Washington Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology program and the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership or New Jersey Corporation for Advance Testing programs are typically accompanied by a set of guidelines regarding appropriate design and maintenance conditions that would be consistent with the certification/verification. It is common for these approvals to specify the specific model of BMP, design capacity for given unit sizes, type of media that is the basis for approval, and/or other parameter. The applicant must demonstrate conclusively that the proposed application of the BMP is consistent with these criteria. For alternate non-proprietary systems that do not have a Technology Acceptance Protocol-Ecology / Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership / New Jersey Corporation for Advance Testing certification (but which still must provide quantitative data per Appendix P.1), it must be demonstrate that the configuration and design proposed for the project is reasonably consistent with the configuration and design under which the BMP was tested to demonstrate compliance with Appendix F. 1. F.2.2 Sizing of Proprietary Biofiltration BMP This sizing method is Qniy available when the BMP meets the pollutant treatment performance standard in Appendix F.1. Proprietary biofiltration BI*vlPs are typically designed as a flow-based BMPs (i.e., a constant treatment capacity with negligible storage volume). Additionally, proprietary biofiltration is only acceptable if no infiltration is feasible and where site-specific documentation demonstrates that the use of larger footprint biofiltration BMPs would be infeasible. The applicable sizing method for biofiltration is therefore reduced to: Treat 1.5 times the DCV. The following steps should be followed to demonstrate that the system is sized to treat 1.5 times the DCV. 1. Calculate the flow rate requited to meet the pollutant treatment performance standard without F-12 February 2016 Appendix F: Bioffittation Standard and Checklist scaling for the 1.5 factor. Options include either: Calculate the runoff flow rate from a 0.2 inch per hour uniform intensity precipitation event (See methodology Appendix B.6.3), or Conduct a continuous simulation analysis to compute the size required to capture and treat 80 percent of average annual runoff for small catchments, 5-minute precipitation data should be used to account for short time of concentration. Nearest rain gage with 5-minute precipitation data is allowed for this analysis. Multiply the flow rate from Step I by 1.5 to compute the design flow rate for the biofikration system. Based on the conditions of certification/verification (discussed above), establish the design capacity, as a flow rate, of a given sized unit. Demonstrates that an appropriate unit size and number of units is provided to provide a flow rate that meets the required flow rate from Step 2. F-13 February 2016 ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit (See "SWQMP Exhibit" per Attachment 1) ATTACHMENT 5 MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM® DETAILS M 0 D U L A R WETLANDS Advanced Stormwater Biofiltration :V • I - V I p 44 0• V 4 - The Urban Impact For hundreds of years natural wetlands surrounding our shores have played an integral role as nature's stormwater treatment system. But as our cities grow and develop, these natural wet- lands have perished under countless roads, rooftops, and parking lots. Plant A Wetland Without natural. wetlands our cities are deprived of water purification, flood control, and land stability. Modular Wetlands and the MWS Linear re-establish nature's presence and rejuvenate waterways in urban areas. I V'PlW 1'. - I - L / MWS Linear The Modular Wetland System Linear represents a pioneering breakthrough in stormwater tech- nology as the only biofiltration system to utilize patented horizontal flow, allowing for a smaller footprint and higher treatment capacity. While most biofilters use little or no pie-treatment, the MWS Linear incorporates an advanced pie-treatment chamber that includes separation and pie- filter cartridges. In this chamber sediment and hydrocarbons are removed from runoff before it enters the biofiltration chamber, in turn reducing maintenance costs and improving performance. MoJuLaVveta cis. com . : " •I• + ; ____ Configurations The MWS Linear is the preferred biofiltration system of Civil Engineers across the country due to its versatile design. This highly versatile system has available "pipe-in" options on most models, along with built-in curb or grated inlets for simple integration into your stormdrain design. Curb Type wl~.ql The Curb Type configuration accepts sheet flow through a curb opening and is commonly used along road ways and parking lots. It can be used in sump or flow by conditions. Length of curb opening varies based on model and size. - - -- _ Grate Type The Grate Type configuration offers the same features and benefits as the Curb Type but with a grated/drop inlet above the systems pre-treatment chamber. It has the added benefit of allowing for pedestrian access over the inlet. ADA Ir compliant grates are available to assure easy and safe access. The Grate Type can also be used in scenarios where runoff needs to be intercepted on both sides of landscape islands. Vault Type The system's patented horizontal flow biofilter is able to accept inflow pipes / r directly into the pre-treatment chamber, meaning the MWS Linear can be used 47•. in end-of-the-line installations. This greatly improves feasibility over typical P11- decentralized designs that are required with other biofiltration/bioretention systems. Another benefit of the "pipe in" design is the ability to install the system downstream of underground detention systems to meet water quality volume requirements. Downspout Type F; 1 The Downspout Type is a variation of the Vault Type and is designed to accept a vertical downspout pipe from roof top and podium areas. Some models have the option of utilizing an internal bypass, simplifying the overall design. The system can be installed as a raised planter and the exterior can be stuccoed or covered with other finishes to match the look of adjacent buildings. oduLarvetLandscorn 'A I "', !i~`, : V Ia Performance The MWS Linear continues to outperform other treatment methods with superior pollutant removal for TSS, heavy metals, nutrients, hydrocarbons and bacteria. Since 2007 the MWS Linear has been field tested on nu- merous sites across the country. With it's advanced pre-treatment chamber and innovative horizontal flow biofilter, the system is able to effectively remove pollutants through a combination of physical, chemical, and biological filtration processes. With the same biological processes found in natural wetlands, the MWS Linear harnesses natures ability to process, transform, and remove even the most harmful pollutants. ApprovaIs The MWS Linear has successfully met years of challenging technical reviews and testing from some of the most prestigious and demanding agencies in the nation, and perhaps the world. Washington State DOE Approved A The MWS Linear is approved for Genera Use Level Designation (GULD) for Basic, En- hanced, and Phosphorus treatment at 1 gpm/ft2 loading rate. The highest performing BMP on the market for all main pollutant categories. I To:al Ortho I Dissolved I I I Total I I 155 Nitrogen Dissolved Zinc Total Zinc Motor Oil Phosphorus Phosphorus I I I Copper I I Copper I I 85% 64% 67% 45% 66% 38% 69% 50% 95% AL DEQ Assignment The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality assigned the MWS Linear, the highest phosphorus removal rating for manufactured treatment devices to meet the new Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Technical Criteria. MASTEP Evaluation The University of Massachusetts at Amherst - Water Resources Research Center, issued a technical evaluation report noting removal rates up to 84% TSS, 70% Total Phosphorus, 68.5% Total Zinc, and more. Rhode Island DEM Approved Approved as an authorized BMP and noted to achieve the following minimum removal efficiencies: 85% TSS, 60% Pathogens, 30% Total Phosphorus for discharges to freshwater systems, and 30% Total Nitrogen for discharges to saltwater or tidal systems. Ivct1drldscorn Installation The MWS Linear is simple, easy to install, and has a space efficient design that offers tower excavation and in- stallation costs compared to traditional tree-box type systems. The structure of the system resembles pre-cast catch basin or utility vaults and is installed in a similar fashion. The system is delivered fully assembled for quick in- stallation. Generally, the structure can be unloaded and set in place in 15 minutes. Our experienced team of field technicians are available to supervise installations and provide technical support. Maintenance Reduce your maintenance costs, man hours, and materials with the MWS Linear. Unlike other biofiltration systems that provide no pie-treatment, the MWS Linear is a self-contained treatment train which incorporates simple and effective pre-treatment. Maintenance requirements for the biofilter itself are almost completely - eliminated, as the pre-treatment chamber removes and isolates trash, sediments, and hydrocarbons. What's left is the simple maintenance of an easily accessible pre-treatment chamber that can be cleaned by * hand or with a standard vac truck. Only periodic replacement of low- cost media in the pre-filter cartridges is required for long term opera- ' tion and there is absolutely no need to replace expensive biofiltration '•ft media. , t.•' .. -. ? Pt.ant SeL.ection Abundant plants, trees, and grasses bring value and an aesthetic benefit to any urban setting, but those in the MWS Linear do even more - they increase pollutant removal. What's not seen, but very important, is that below grade the stormwater runoff/flow is being subjected to nature's secret weapon: a dynamic physical, chemi- cal, and biological process working to break down and remove non-point source pollutants. The flow rate is controlled in the MWS Linear, giving the plants more "contact time" so that pollutants are more successfully decomposed, volatilized and incorporated into the biomass of The MWS Linears micro/macro flora and fauna A wide range of plants are suitable for use in the MWS Linear, but selec- tions vary by location and climate. View suitable plants by selecting the list relative to your project location's hardy zone. Please visit www.ModularWetlands.com/Plants for more information and various plant lists. WA S KINGTON S T*TI DIPAITMI NT. OF ECOLOGY July 2017 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT For the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Decision: ased on Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. application submissions, including the Technical valuation Report, dated April 1, 2014, Ecology hereby issues the following use level 1. General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Basic treatment Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. . ueneraL use level aesignation tLiULD) nor tne MW -Llnear moauta Treatment System for PhosDhorus treatment Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. uenerai use designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular W Treatment S r for Enhanced treatment Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology-approved continuous runoff model. Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 5. These use level designations have no expiration date but may be revoked or amended by - Ecology, and are subject to the conditions specified below. Ecology's Conditions of Use: 'Applicants shall comply with the following conditions: Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units, in accordance with Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. applicable manuals and documents and the Ecology Decision. Each site plan must undergo Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. review and approval before site installation. This ensures that site grading and slope are appropriate for use of a MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System unit. MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System media shall conform to the specifications submitted to, and approved by, Ecology. The applicant tested the MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System with an external bypass weir. This weir limited the depth of water flowing through the media, and therefore the active treatment area, to below the root zone of the plants. This GULD applies to MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment Systems whether plants are included in the final product or not. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a "one size fits all" maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. . Typically, Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. designs MWS - Linear Modular Wetland systems for a target prefilter media life of 6 to 12 months. Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to below the design flow rate or decrease in treatment below required levels. Owners/operators must inspect MWS - Linear Modular Wetland systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction operation to determine site-specifçj maintenance schedules and requirements. You must the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections. Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer's guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability. When inspections are performed, the following findings typically serve as maintenance Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm. . If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present (but no standing water or excessive sedimentation), perform a minor maintenance consisting of gross solids removal, not prefilter media replacement. Additional data collection will be used to create a correlation between pretreatment chamber sediment depth and pre-filter clogging (see Issues to be Addressed by the Company section below) - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Applicant: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. Applicant's Address: P0. Box 869 Oceanside, CA 92054 Application Documents: Original Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., January 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan: Modular Wetland system - Linear Treatment System performance Monitoring Project, draft, January 2011. Revised Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., May 2011 Memorandum: Modular Wetland System-Linear GULD Application Supplementary Data, April 2014 Technical Evaluation Report: Modular Wetland System Stormwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring, April 2014. Applicant's Use Level Request: General use level designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus treatment device in accordance with Ecology's Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol - Ecology (TAPE) January 2011 Revision. Applicant's Performance Claims: The MWS - Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 80-percent of TS from stormwater with influent concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/l. The MWS - Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 50-percent of Total Phosphorus from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5 mg/l. The MWS - Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 30-percent of dissolved Copper from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.005 and 0.020 mg/i. The MWS - Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 60-percent of dissolved Zinc from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.02 and 0.30 mg/l. Ecology Recommendations: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and field- testing, that the MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System filter system is capable of attaining Ecology's Basic, Total phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment goals. Findings of Fact: Laboratory Testing The MWS-Linear Modular wetland has the: Capability to remove 99 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 270 mg/L. Capability to remove 91 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 84.6 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. Capability to remove 93 percent of dissolved Copper in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.757 mg/L. Capability to remove 79 percent of dissolved Copper in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 0.567 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. Capability to remove 80.5-percent of dissolved Zinc in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.95 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. Capability to remove 78-percent of dissolved Zinc in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 0.75 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. Field Testing Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. conducted monitoring of an MWS-Linear (Model # MWS-1,4713) from April 2012 through May 2013, at a transportation maintenance facility in Portland, Oregon. The manufacturer collected flow-weighted composite samples of the system's influent and effluent during 28 separate storm events. The system treated approximately 75 percent of the runoff from 53.5 inches of rainfall during the monitoring period. The applicant sized the system at 1 gpm/sq ft. (wetland media) and 3gpm/sq ft. (prefilter). Influent TSS concentrations for qualifying sampled storm events ranged from 20 to 339 mg/L. Average TSS removal for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L (n=7) averaged 85 percent. For influent concentrations in the range of 20-100 mg/L (n--18), the upper 95 percent confidence interval about the mean effluent concentration was 12.8 mg/L. Total phosphorus removal for 17 events with influent TP concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L averaged 65 percent. A bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL95) of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 58 percent. The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 60.5 percent for dissolved zinc for influent concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L (n=11). The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 32.5 percent for dissolved copper for influent concentrations in the range of 0.005 to 0.02 mg/L (n=14) at flow rates up to 28 gpm (design flow rate 41 gpm). Laboratory test data augmented the data set, showing dissolved copper removal at the design flow rate of 41 gpm (93 percent reduction in influent dissolved copper of 0.757 mg/L). Issues to be addressed by the Company: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect maintenance and inspection data for the first year on all installations in the Northwest in order to assess standard maintenance requirements for various land uses in the region. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should use these data to establish required maintenance cycles. 2. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect pre-treatment chamber sediment depth data for the first year of operation for all installations in the Northwest. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. will use these data to create a correlation between sediment depth and pre-filter clogging. Technology Description: Download at http://www.inodularwetlands.com/ Contact Information: Applicant: Zach Kent BioClean A Forterra Company. 398 Vi9a El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 za ch. ken t(iWorterraby.com Applicant website: h://.modulanwetlands.comI Ecology web link: htp://w.ecywa.gov/programs/wWstormwãter/newtech/index.html Ecology:.:,Douglas C. Howie, P.E: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program : (360) 407-6444 douglas.howie(ecy.wa.gov Revision History Date Revision June 2011 : Original use-level-designation document- September 2012 Revised dates for TER and expiration'. January 2013 Modified Design Storm Description, added Revision Table, added maintenance discussion, modified format in accordance with Ecology standard December 2013 Updated name of Applicant . S April 2014 Approved GULD designation for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment December 2015 dãGULDtdocumenftheacceptance of MW'SLiE?J ...... 45dülaWëtlãiiWiiitã1l966ns with or July 2017. Revised Manufacturer Contact Information (name, address; and . email) . BiowClean A Forterra Company Modular Wetlands and Pesticides Independent field data using the Modular Wetlands System was obtained showing the removal of Tetráchlorphenol and Pentachiorophenol (herbicides/pesticides). The following test results outline the analyte removal results in mg/Kg. Analyte Sample A Inlet mg/Kg Sample B Inlet mg/Kg Sample C Inlet mg/Kg Sample D Inlet mg/Kg Oil . 6980 <560 . .5260 <530 Tetrachlorophenol 5 3.4 <2.5 1 4.6 <2.5 letrachlorophenol 6 9 4.9 9.7 . 5.4 Pentachlorophenol 47 16 52 22 *Data sample matrix consisted of untreated influent water and was conducted independently by SPECTRA Laboratories Sean M. Hasan Western Regional Director BioCIean A Forterra Company 398 Via El Centro, Oceanside, CA 92058 (760) 433-7640 • Fax (760) 433-3176 www.BioCleanEnvironmentaicom BII!i CLEAN £RS'RONMENTA& :$rRVgCLL INC. Section F 1 Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System PART I - GENERAL 01.01.00 Purpose The purpose of this specification is to establish generally acceptable criteria for Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland Systems used for biofiltration of stormwater runoff including dry weather flows and other contaminated water sources. It is intended to serve as a guide to producers, distributors, architects, engineers, contractors, plumbers, installers, inspectors, agencies and users; to promote understanding regarding materials, manufacture and installation; and to provide for identification of devices complying with this specification. 01.02.00 Description Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland Systems (MSFWS) are used for filtration of stormwater runoff including dry weather flows. The MSFWS is a pre-engineered biofiltration system composed of a pretreatment chamber containing filtration cartridges, a horizontal flow biofiltration chamber with a peripheral void area and a centralized and vertically extending underdrain, the biofiltration chamber containing a sorptive media mix which does not contain any organic material and a layer of plant establishment media, and a discharge chamber containing an orifice control structure . Treated water flows horizontally in series through the pretreatment chamber cartridges, biofiltration chamber and orifice control structure. 01.03.00 Manufacturer The manufacturer of the MSFWS shall be one that is regularly engaged in the engineering design and production of systems developed for the treatment of stormwater runoff for at least (10) years, and which have a history of successful production, acceptable to the engineer of work. In accordance with the drawings, the MSFWS(s) shall be a filter device Manufactured by Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc., or Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., or assigned distributors or licensees. Bio Clean Environmental Services Inc., and Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., can be reached at: Corporate Headquarters: Bio Clean Environmental Service, Inc. 2972 San Luis Rey Road Oceanside, CA 92058 Phone: (760) 433-7640 Fax: (760) 433-3176 www.biocleanenvironmental.net Corporate Headquarters: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 869 Oceanside, CA 92049 Phone: (760) 433-7650 www.modulprwetlands.net Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System Page 1 of 6 B1 CLEAN LNWW4MNTAL SCRVIC5. INc. -- — 01.04.00 Submittals 01.04.01 Shop drawings are to be submitted with each order to the contractor and consulting engineer. 01.04.02 Shop drawings are to detail the MSFWS and all components required and the sequence for installation, including: System configuration with primary dimensions Interior components Any accessory equipment called out on shop drawings 01.04.03 Inspection and maintenance documentation submitted upon request. 01.05.00 Work Included 01.05.01 Specification requirements for installation of MSFWS. 01.05.02 Manufacturer to supply components of the MSFWS(s): Pretreatment chamber components (pre-assembled) Concrete Structure(s) Biofiltration chamber components (pre-assembled) Flow control discharge structure (pre-assembled) 01.06.00 Reference Standards ASTM C 29 Standard Test Method for Unit Weight and Voids in Aggregate ASTM C 88 C 88 Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate ASTM C131 C 131 Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregates by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine ASTM C 136 C 136 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates ASTM C 330 C 330 Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregate for Structural Concrete ASTM D 698 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft.-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3) ASTM D 1621 10 Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties Of Rigid Cellular Plastics ASTM D 1777 ASTM 01777- 96(2007) Standard Test Method for Thickness of Textile Materials ASTM D 4716 Standard Test Method for Determining the (In-plane) Flow Rate per Unit Width and Hydraulic Transmissivity of a Geosynthetic Using a Constant Head AASHTO T 99- Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 2.5-kg 01 (5.5-Ib) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in) Drop AASHTO T 104 Standard Method of Test for Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate AASHTO T 260 Standard Method of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and Concrete Raw Materials. AASHTO T 288 Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Resistivity AASHTO T 289 Standard Method of Test for Determining ph of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing AASHTO T 291 Standard Method of Test for Determining Water Soluble Chloride Ion Content in Soil AASHTO T 'xrn T 290 Standard Method of Test for Determining Water Soluble Sulfate Ion Content in Soil Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System Page 2 of 6 Bill CLEAN w LlOJMt4L SERVICES, .INC. PART 2-COMPONENTS The Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland Systems (MSFWS) and all of its components shall be self-contained within a concrete structure constructed of concrete with a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 5,000 psi, with reinforcing per ASTM A 615, Grade 60, and supports and H20 loading as indicated by AASHTO. Each Chamber shall have appropriate access hatches for easy maintenance and sized to allow removal of all internal components without disassembly. All water transfer system components shall conforn with the following; Filter netting shall be 100% Polyester with a number 16 sieve size, and strength tested per ASTM D 3787. Drainage cells shall be manufactured of lightweight injection-molded plastic and have a minimum compressive strength test of 6,000 psi and a void area along the surface making contact with the filter media of 75% or greater. The cells shall be at least 2" in thickness and allow water to freely flow in all four directions. 02.01.00 Pretreatment Chamber Components 02.01.01 Filter Cartridges shall operate at a loading rate not to exceed 3 gallons per minute per square foot surface area. 02.01.02 Drain Down System shall include a pervious floor that allows water to drain into the underdrain pipe that is connected to the discharge chamber. 02.02.00 Bioflltration Chamber Components 02.02.01 Media shall consist of ceramic material produced by expanding and vitrifying select material in a rotary kiln. Media must be produced to meet the requirements of ASTM C330, ASTM C331, and AASHTO M195. Aggregates must have a minimum 24-hour water absorption of 10.5% mass. Media shall not contain any organic material. Flow through media shall be horizontal from the outer perimeter of the chamber toward the centralized and vertically extending underdrain. The retention time in the media shall be at least 3 minutes. Downward flow filters are not acceptable alternatives. The thickness of the media shall be at least 19" from influent end to effluent end. The loading rate on the media shall not exceed 1.1 gallons per minute per square foot surface area. Media must be contained within structure that spaces the surface of the media at least 2" from all vertically extending walls of the concrete structure. 02.02.02 Planting shall be native, drought tolerant species recommend by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. 02.02.03 Plant Support Media shall be made of a 3" thick moisture retention cell that is inert and contains no chemicals or fertilizers, is not made of organic material and has an internal void percentage of 80%. 02.03.00 Discharge Chamber The discharge device shall house a flow control orifice plate that restricts flows greater than designed treatment flow rate. All piping components shall be made of a high-density polyethylene. The discharge chamber shall also contain a drain down filter if specified on the drawing. Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System Page 3 of 6 BII' CLEAN6 "%11WXM1.f4rAL $UVSCES, INC. JWK PART 3- PERFORMANCE 03.01.00 General 03.01.01 Function - The MSFWS has no moving internal components and functions based on gravity flow, unless otherwise specified. The MSFWS is composed of a pretreatment chamber, a biofiltration chamber and a discharge chamber. The pretreatment device houses cartridge media filters, which consist of filter media housed in a perforated enclosure. The untreated runoff flows into the system via subsurface piping and or surface inlet. Water entering the system is forced through the filter cartridge enclosures by gravity flow. Then the flow contacts the filter media. The flow through the media is horizontal toward the center of each individual media filter. In the center of the media shall be a round slotted PVC pipe of no greater than 1.5" in diameter. The slotted PVC pipe shall extend downward into the water transfer cavity of the cartridge. The slotted PVC pipe shall be threaded on the bottom to connect to the water transfer cavity. After pollutants have been removed by the filter media the water discharges the pretreatment chamber and flows into the water transfer system and is conveyed to the biofiltration chamber. Once runoff has been filtered by the biofiltration chamber it is collected by the vertical underdrain and conveyed to a discharge chamber equipped with a flow control orifice plate. Finally the treated flow exits the system. 03.01.02 Pollutants - The MSFWS will remove and retain debris, sediments, TSS, dissolved and particulate metals and nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorus species, bacteria, BOO, oxygen demanding substances, organic compounds and hydrocarbons entering the filter during frequent storm events and continuous dry weather flows. 03.01.03 Treatment Flow Rate and Bypass - The MSFWS operates in-line. The MSFWS will treat 100% of the required water quality treatment flow based on a minimum filtration capacities listed in section 03.02.00. The size of the system must match those provided on the drawing to ensure proper performance and hydraulic residence time. Minimum Treatment Capabilities System must be capable of treating flows to the specified treatment flow rate on the drawings. The flow rate shall be controlled by an orifice plate. PART 4- EXECUTION 04.01.00 General The installation of the MSFWS shall conform to all applicable national, state, state highway, municipal and local specifications. 04.02.00 Installation The Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials and incidentals required to install the (MSFWS) device(s) and appurtenances in accordance with the drawings and these specifications. Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System Page 4 of 6 BIJO CLEAN" LUVI*ONAUWTAL SERVICES.INC. 04.02.01 Grading and Excavation site shall be properly surveyed by a registered professional surveyor, and clearly marked with excavation limits and elevations. After site is marked it is the responsibility of the contractor to contact local utility companies and/or DigAlert to check for underground utilities. All grading permits shall be approved by governing agencies before commencement of grading and excavation. Soil conditions shall be tested in accordance with the governing agencies requirements. All earth removed shall be transported, disposed, stored, and handled per governing agencies standards. It is the responsibility of the contractor to install and maintain proper erosion control measures during grading and excavation operations. 04.02.02 Compaction - All soil shall be compacted per registered professional soils engineer's recommendations prior to installation of MSFWS components. 04.02.03 Backfill shall be placed according to a registered professional soils engineer's recommendations, and with a minimum of 6" of gravel under all concrete structures. 04.02.04 Concrete Structures - After backfill has been inspected by the governing agency and approved the concrete structures shall be lifted and placed in proper position per plans. 04.02.05 Subsurface Flow Wetland Media shall be carefully loaded into area so not to damage the Wetland Liner or Water Transfer Systems. The entire wetland area shall be filled to a level 9 inches below finished surface. 04.02.06 Planting layer shall be installed per manufacturer's drawings and consist of a minimum 3" grow enhancement media that ensures greater than 95% plant survival rate, and 6" of wetland media. Planting shall consist of native plants recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Planting shall be drip irrigated for at least the first 3 months to insure long term plant growth. No chemical herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers shall be used in the planting or care and maintenance of the planted area. 04.03.00 Shipping, Storage and Handling 04.03.01 Shipping - MSFWS shall be shipped to the contractor's address or job site, and is the responsibility of the contractor to offload the unit(s) and place in the exact site of installation. 04.03.02 Storage and Handling— The contractor shall exercise care in the storage and handling of the MSFWS and all components prior to and during installation. Any repair or replacement costs associated with events occurring after delivery is accepted and unloading has commenced shall be born by the contractor. The MSFWS(s) and all components shall always be stored indoors and transported inside the original shipping container until the unit(s) are ready to be installed. The MSFWS shall always be handled with care and lifted according to OSHA and NIOSA lifting recommendations and/or contractor's workplace safety professional recommendations. 04.04.00 Maintenance and lnsDection 04.04.01 Inspection - After installation, the contractor shall demonstrate that the MSFWS has been properly installed at the correct location(s), elevations, and with appropriate components. All components associated with the MSFWS and its installation shall be subject to inspection by the engineer at the place of installation. In addition, the contractor shall demonstrate that the MSFWS has been installed per the manufacturers specifications and recommendations. All Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System Page 5 of 6 BI CLEAN* .4 *'V,' £NVIP.ONMNThLSCRVSC$; INC. components shall be inspected by a qualified person once a year and results of inspection shall be kept in an inspection log. 04.04.02 Maintenance - The manufacturer recommends cleaning and debris removal maintenance of once a year and replacement of the Cartridge Filters as needed. The maintenance shall be performed by someone qualified. A Maintenance Manual is available upon request from the manufacturer. The manual has detailed information regarding the maintenance of the MSFWS. A Maintenance/Inspection record shall be kept by the maintenance operator. The record shall include any maintenance activities preformed, amount and description of debris collected, and the condition of the filter. 04.04.03 Material Disøosal - All debris, trash, organics, and sediments captured by the MSFWS shall be transported and disposed of at an approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. Please refer to state and local regulations for the proper disposal of toxic and non-toxic material. PART 5- QUALITY ASSURNACE 05.01.00 Warranty The Manufacturer shall guarantee the MSFWS against all manufacturing defects in materials and workmanship for a period of (5) years from the date of delivery to the . The manufacturer shall be notified of repair or replacement issues in writing within the warranty period. The MSFWS is limited to recommended application for which it was designed. 05.02.00 Performance Certification The MSFWS manufacturer shall submit to the Engineer of Record a "Manufacturer's Performance Certificate" certifying the MSFWS is capable of achieving the specified removal efficiency for suspended solids, phosphorous and dissolved metals. Modular Subsurface Flow Wetland System Page 6 of 6 M 0 D U L A R WETLANDS Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary Remove Trash from Screening Device - average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (5 minute average service time). Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber - average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. (10 minute average service time). Replace Cartridge Filter Media - average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months. ( 10- 15 minute per cartridge average service time). Replace Drain Down Filter Media - average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. (5 minute average service time). Trim Vegetation - average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. (Service time varies). System Diagram Inflow Pipe (optional) Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter :i Access to drain down filter Pre-Treatment Chamber www.modularwetlands.com Discharge Chamber Outflow Pipe M .0 DU:L A R WETLANDS. / ", ' Maintenance Procedures S Screening Device Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole' cover when completed. Separation Chamber Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. Enter separation chamber. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.moduiarwetiands.com Q. 0 U. .t A 1 WETLANDSI Maintenance Notes Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com 1~: M 0 D U L A R WE Ti. ANDS Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screenina Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber, It's mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. SeDaration Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. Wi, I www.modularwetlands.com 1~~ M 0 D U L A R WETLANDS Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. : ci T -- -. - ' I ( 4 : tit Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com MODULAR WETLANDS Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. - -r---. -ç V ; ---i V www.modularwetlands.com M .O .D 11 1 A R ETLANDS Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com www.modularwetlands.com BI4 CLEAN VIQNMtNJ.4j sL scg5. sc, Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Project Name Project Address 04) (Zip Code) (Riviewed By) .: Owner I Management Company Offlce peonnel inpu ec1ic Contact Phone ( ) — Inspector Name Date / / Time AM /PM Type of Inspection D Routine 0 Follow Up 0 Complaint 0 Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? D No 0 Yes Weather Condition Additional Notes Inspection Checklist Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.): Structural Integrity: Yes No Comments Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning property? rking Condition: is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging th unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Is the filter insert (ii applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation In in pie-treatment chamber. Depth: Does the cartridge filter media need replacement In pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Chamber Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Other Inspection Items: Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (II applicable)? Is It evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Waste: Yes No Sediment / Silt / Clay Trash / Bags I Bottles Green Waste I Leaves / Foliage Recommended Maintenance No Cleaning Needed Schedule Maintenance as Planned Needs Immediate Maintenance Plant Information Damage to Plants Plant Replacement Plant Trimming litional Notes: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 L A-- 0-'0 U LA R WETLANDS '> Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com www.modularwetlands.com BI CLEAN Cleaning and Maintenance Report I _ . Modular Wetlands System Project Name Project Address (city) (zip COW Owner I Management Company Contact Phone Inspector Name Date / / lime AM /PM Type of Inspection D Routine 0 Follow Up 0 Complaint D Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? 0 No 0 Yes Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # GPS Coordinates of Insert Manufacturer / Description / Sizing Trash Accumulation Foliage Accumulation Sediment Accumulation Total Debris Accumulation Condition of Media 25/50/75/100 (will be changed @ 75%) Operational Per Manufactures Specifications (II not, why?) - Lat MWS Catch Basins Long: MWS Sedimentation Basin Media Filter Condition Plant Condition Drain Down Media Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Comments: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 ATTACHMENT 6 ADS STORAGE SYSTEM DETAIL FOR HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT SiteASSIST Me] M) StonTIIbch' FOR STORMTECH INSTRUCTIONS, DOWNLOAD THE I!I INSTALLATION APP DMA-1 STORAGE CHAMBER PRELIMINARY DETAILS ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 1672 — Oakmont of Carlsbad Faraday Ave & El Fuerte St STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-3500 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE MADE FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 3. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORT PANELS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 4. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 5. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORM WATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWABLE LOADS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORM WATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 7. ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING UPON REQUEST TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE: A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY AASHTO FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET. THE 50 YEAR CREEP MODULUS DATA SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 MUST BE USED AS PART OF THE AASHTO STRUCTURAL EVALUATION TO VERIFY LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. C. STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION DETAIL ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION IS BASED. 8. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. C2015 ADS. INC. IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEM STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. MAINTAIN MINIMUM -9" (230 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. INLET AND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12"(300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2" (20-50 mm) MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3 OR #4. STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING.. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH rr INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACÔORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 2. THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-3500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE"STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3. FULL 36"(9130 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANT'V . CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT COMPUTER GENERATED CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION (10) STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS (4) STORMTECH MC-3500 END CAPS INSTALLED WITH 12 COVER STONE, 9" BASE STONE, 40% STONE VOID INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME: 2380 CF AREA OF SYSTEM: 765 F1' PERIMETER OF SYSTEM: 130 FT 24" CORED END CAP PART# MC3500IEPP24BC OF ALL MC-3500 24" CONNECTIONS ISOLATOR R( C.) PROPOSED STRUCTURE W!ELEVATED BYP MANIFOLD (DESIGN BY ENGINEER! PROVIDE[ OThE 12"x 12"ADS N-12 TOP MANIFOLD, INV2 ABOVE CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD BY ENGINE SEE TECH SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD S12 GUIDAN PLACE MINIMUM 17.5' OF ADS GEOSYNTHET 315WTK WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDD STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET F SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INI RC (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER) MC-3500 18" BOTTOM CONNECTIONS (DESIGN BY ENGINEER! PROVIDED BY SHEET OTHERS) 2 OF.6.. ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 6) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) 6"(150 r rC-350O END CAP SUBGRADE SOILS (SEE NOTE 5) ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS AASHTO MATERIAL. COMPACTION / DENSITY MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIREMENT FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. D OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT N/A PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER AASHTO M145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24"(600 mm) OF INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% A-i, A-2-4, A-3 MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. OR COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 12"(300 mm) C STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU AASHTO M431 WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER. OF THIS LAYER. 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE 9,10 MATERIALS. B EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M431 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. LAYER) TO THE'C' LAYER ABOVE. DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT OF THE CHAMBER. DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 SURFACE. 23 PLEASE NOTE: - THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO.4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". S STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9"(230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) 24- (2.4 m) (600 mm) MIN" MAX 1 12"(300 mm) MIN I 45" (1140 mm) - mV_ _f! , ;~ . _.I gij'' i L DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED I - - BY DESIGN ENGINEER 9 (230 mm) MIN 9. (230 mm) MIN - 77"(1950mm) k- 12" (300 mm) TYP 'TO BOTTOM OF F1.EXI&E PAVEMENT FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RI.flThG FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, C Y -' INCREASE COVER TO3O(75Omm) EQ MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". "ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS" TABLE ABOVE PROVIDES MATERIAL LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, GRADATIONS, AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION, EMBEDMENT, AND FILL MATERIALS. - THE "SITE DESIGN ENGINEER" REFERS TO THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF THE STORMTECH CHAMBERS FOR THIS PROJECT. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. SHEET 30F6 40 H 6" (150 mm) INSERTA TEE PART#06N125T351F INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTEREC ON CORRUGATION CRES1 CONCRETE SLAB 8"(200 mm) MIN THICKNESS FLEXSTORM CATCH Ii PART# 6212NYF) WITH USE OF OPEN GRATE CONCRETE COLLAP PAVEMEN1 TH CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS 12"(300 mm) NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN BODY W/SOLID HINGED COVER OR GRATE PART# 2712AG06N SOLID COVER: 1299CGC GRATE: 1299CGS 6"(150 mm) ADS N-12 HDPE PIPE MC-3500 CHAMBER COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT CAP WITH ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 6011 v — NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE 2 MC-3500 CHAMBER FLEXSTOR?AT PURE INSERTS IN ANY STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES TECH HIGHLY MS 41 UL r:i1T1 END CAP co w CATCH BASIN OR It MANHOLE - I Hj SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24" [600 mm) MIN RECOMMENDED) 24'(600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE FACTORY PRE-CORED END CAP PART #: MC3500IEPP24BC TWO LAYERS OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315WTM WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 8.25'(2.51 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS MC-3500 ISOLATOR ROW DETAIL NTS INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW FOR SEDIMENT A. INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) A.I. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3"(80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B. ALL ISOLATOR ROWS REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW THROUGH OUTLET PIPE I) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii) FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3"(80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS. AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. NOTES INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. MC-3500 6" INSPECTION PORT DETAIL NTS SHEET 40F6 UNDERDRAIN DETAIL NTS STORMTECH STORMTECH CHAMBER DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN SECTION B-B UTLET MANIFOLD FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STORMTECH END CAP FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE - ,DESIGN ENGINEER 4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 SYSTEMS 6"(150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 & MC-4500 SYSTEMS VALLEY STIFFENING RIB CREST STIFFENING RIB MC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NTS r CREST / WEB LOWER JOINT CORRUGATION - 86.0"(218 4 mm) INSTALLED FOOT INSERTA TEE CONNECTION INSERTA TEE TO BE (X) INSTALLED, CENTERED OVER CORRUGATION SIDE VIEW CHAMBER MAX DIAMETER OF INSERTA TEE HEIGHT FROM BASE OF CHAMBER (X) SC-310 6" (150 mm) 4"(100 mm) SC-740 10" (250 mm) - 4" (100 mm) DC-780 10" (250 mm) 4" (100 mm) MC-3500 12" (300 mm) 6"(150 mm) MC-4500 12" (300 mm) 8"(200 mm) INSERTA TEE FITTINGS AVAILABLE FOR SDR 26, SDR 35, SCH 40 IPS GASKETED & SOLVENT WELD, N-12, HP STORM, C-900 OR DUCTILE IRON PLACE ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (CENTERED ON INSERTA-TEE INLET) OVER BEDDING STONE FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT SIDE INLET CONNECTIONS. GEOTEXTILE MUST EXTEND 6" (150mm) PAST CHAMBER FOOT NOTE: PART NUMBERS WILL VARY BASED ON INLET PIPE MATERIALS. CONTACT STORMTECH FOR MORE INFORMATION. UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION 77.0" (1956 mm) __________ 77.0 (1956 mm) NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 77.0" X 450" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm) CHAMBER STORAGE 109.9 CUBIC FEET• (3.11 m3) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE* 178.9 CUBIC FEET (5.06 m3) WEIGHT ' 135.0 lbs. (61.2 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 77.0" X 45.0" X 22.5" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 571 mm) END CAP STORAGE 14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m3) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE" 46.0 CUBIC FEET (1.30 m3) WEIGHT 50.0 lbs. (22.7 kg) ASSUMES 12"(305 mm) STONE ABOVE. 9"(229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS 12'(305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY INSERTA TEE DETAIL NTS DO NOT INSTALL- INSERTA-TEE AT CHAMBER JOINTS 90.0" (2286 mm) ACTUAL LENGTH 22.5" INSTALLED I 25.7" 1 (653 mm) CONVEYANCE PIPE MATERIAL MAY VARY (PVC, HDPE, ETC.) STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NLJMRFR FNniNr. WITH "T" PART# STUB B C MC3500IEPP06T 6"(150 mm) 33.21'(844 mm) MC35001EPP06B - 0.66" (17 mm) MC3SOOIEPPO8T 8" (200 mm) 31.16" (791 mm) MC3500IEPP08B - 0.81" (21 mm) MC3500IEPP1OT 10" (250 mm) 29.04" (738 mm) MC3500IEPP1O B — 0.93" (24 mm) MC3SOOIEPP12T 12" (300 mm) 26.36" (670 mm) MC3500IEPP12B - 1." (34 mm) MC3500IEPP1ST j" (375 mm) - 23.39" (594 mm) MC3SOOIEPP15B - 1.50" (38 mm) MC3500IEPP18TC 18" (450 mm) 20.03" (509 mm) MC3500IEPP18BC - 1.77" (45 mm) MC3500IEPP24TC 24" (600 mm) - 14.48" (368 mm) MC3500IEPP24BC = 2.06" (52 mm) MC3500IEPP30BC 30" (750 mm) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE 12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm) ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500 END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm) THE INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B' ARE THE HIGHTEST POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE SIZE. MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL - - NTS cCCI) STORMTECH END CAP C z o LL z 9- 12"(300mm) 2 MIN SEPARATION C 06C.) (1) a D 0 C .. 12"(300 mm) MIN INSERTION ctl MANIFOLD STUB 04 -. 6 11111111 ii co MANIFOLD HEADER LL CL I \II 1 O liiJ l II liii I II MANIFOLD HEADER z o a. MANIFOLD STUB U) Ui a 1.- . 12" (300 mm) 12"(300 mm) MIN SEPARATION MIN INSERTION le - -. - - - I C.) - NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING. ME3 -- . Q CID 1 cog IA Va .. . . _ O ow di oc ... . SHEET 60F 6 SiteASSIST Ston'rilèch' FOR STORMTECH FIA INSTRUCTIONS, DOWNLOAD THE INSTALLATION APP DMA-2 STORAGE CHAMBER PRELIMINARY DETAILS ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 1672 - Oakmont of Carlsbad Faraday Ave & El Fuerte St IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEM STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. MAINTAIN MINIMUM -9" (230 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. INLET AND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12"(300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2'(20-50 mm) MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3 OR #4. STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING.. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH Ir INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-3500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". FULL 36"(900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANT' CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-3500 OR APPROVED EQUAL. CHAMBERS SHALL BE MADE FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORT PANELS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWABLE LOADS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORM WATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING UPON REQUEST TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE: A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY AASHTO FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET. THE 50 YEAR CREEP MODULUS DATA SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 MUST BE USED AS PART OF THE AASHTO STRUCTURAL EVALUATION TO VERIFY LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION DETAIL ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION IS BASED. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED ATAN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. INC. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT (11) STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS (8) STORMTECH MC-3500 END CAPS INSTALLED WITH 120 COVER STONE, 9 "BASE STONE, 40% STONE VOID INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME: 2809 CF AREA OF SYSTEM: 914 FP PERIMETER OF SYSTEM: 123 FT COMPUTER GENERATED CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 30.80' 24" CORED END CAP PART# MC3500IEPP248C OF ALL MC-3500 24" CONNECTIONS ISOLATOR R( PROPOSED STRUCTURE W!ELEVATED BYP MANIFOLD (DESIGN BY ENGINEER! PROVIDE( OTHE 12"x 12" ADS N-12 TOP MANIFOLD, INV 2€ ABOVE CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD BY ENGINE SEE TECH SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD S12 GUIDA PLACE MINIMUM 17.5' OF ADS GEOSYNTHET 315WTK WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDD STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET F SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INI RO > w (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER) MC-3500 18" BOTTOM CONNECTIONS (DESIGN BY ENGINEER! PROVIDED BY SHEET OTHERS) 20F6 PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) BO11OMOFFLE*IBLEPAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVEO 8' INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, 24" INCREASE COVER TO3O(l5Omm). , j • (2.4m) - - - T (600 mm) MIN MAX I 12" (300 mm) MIN I 45" (1140 mm) I I UJjL1 I AM i ~-4 I DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED . BY DESIGN ENGINEER 9'(230 mm) MIN mm) MIN _] 9. 7T (1950 mm) . .12"(300 mm)TYP ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 6) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) 6" (150 N El (SEE NOTE 5) ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS AASHTO MATERIAL COMPACTION / DENSITY MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIREMENT FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. D OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT. N/A PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT' GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. MAY BE PART OF THE '0' LAYER AASHTO M145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24'(600 mm) OF INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/ AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% A-i. A-2-4, A-3 MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. OR COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 12"(300 mm) C STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU AASHTO M43' WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER. OF THIS LAYER. 3,357,4,467,5, 56, 57,6,67,68, 7,78,8,89, DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE 9,10 . MATERIALS. B EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M431 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE. DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT OF THE CHAMBER. DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) . 3,4 SURFACE .23 PLEASE NOTE: . . . . THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO.4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. MflTFS! MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" "ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS" TABLE ABOVE PROVIDES MATERIAL LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, GRADATIONS, AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION, EMBEDMENT, AND FILL MATERIALS. THE "SITE DESIGN ENGINEER" REFERS TO THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF THE STORMTECH CHAMBERS FOR THIS PROJECT. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED INLAYER '0' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. , SHEET 30F .6 STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS FLEXSTORM PURE INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS GEOSYNThETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT MC-3500 END CAP SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24'[600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED) INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW FOR SEDIMENT 4 (bUU mm) HOPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE FACTORY PRE-CORED END CAP PART #: MC3500IEPP24BC MC-3500 ISOLATOR ROW DETAIL NTS TWO LAYERS OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315WTM WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 8.25'(2.51 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS A. INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) Al. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN CONCRETE COLLAF REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG PAVEMEN1 LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B. ALL ISOLATOR ROWS 6.1. REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW B.2. USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW THROUGH OUTLET PIPE MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE B.3. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3"(80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. CONCRETE SLAB 8"(200 mm) MIN THICKNESS STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45"(1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN FLEXSTORM CATCH Ii VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED WITH USE OF OPEN GRATE STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. 6" (150 mm) INSERTA TEE STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. PART#06N125T351F INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTERE( ON CORRUGATION CRES1 NOTES INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. TH CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS 12"(300 mm) NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN BODY W/SOLID HINGED COVER OR GRATE PART# 2712AG06N SOLID COVER: 1299CGC GRATE: 1299CG5 6"(150 mm) ADS N-12 HDPE PIPE MC-3500 CHAMBER MC-3500 6" INSPECTION PORT DETAIL NTS MC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION NTS i- CREST F- (114 NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 77.0" X 45.0" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm) CHAMBER STORAGE 109.9 CUBIC FEET (3.11 m3) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE 178.9 CUBIC FEET (5.06 m) WEIGHT 135.0 lbs. (61.2 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 77.0" X 45.0" X 22.5" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 571 mm) END CAP STORAGE 14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m') MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE* 46.0 CUBIC FEET (1.30 m3) WEIGHT 50.0 lbs. (22.7 kg) "ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS, 12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "1" PART # STUB B C MC3500IEPPO6T 6" (150 mm) 33.21" (844 mm) MC3500IEPP068 - 0.66 (17 mm) MC3500IEPPO8T 8" (200 mm) - 31.16" (791 mm) MC3500IEPP08B - 0.81" (21 mm) MC3500IEPP1OT 10'(250 mm) 29.04" (738 mm) MC3500IEPP10B - 0.93" (24 mm) MC3500IEPP12T 12" (300 mm) 26.36" (670 mm) MC3500IEPP128 - 1.35" (34 mm) MC3500IEPP15T 15" (375 mm) 23.39" (594 mm) MC3500IEPP15B - 1.50" (38 mm) MC3500IEPP18TC 18" (450 mm) - 20.03" (509 mm) MC3500IEPP18BC - 1.77" (45 mm) MC3500IEPP24TC 24" (600 mm) 14.48" (368 mm) MC3500IEPP248C = 2.06" (52 mm) MC3500IEPP30BC 30" (750 mm) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE 12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm) ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500 END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm) THE INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B' ARE THE HIGHTEST POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE SIZE. UNDERDRAIN DETAIL NTS STORMTECH FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE - ...... _.. .. .)ESIGN ENGINEER 4'(100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 SYSTEMS 6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 & MC-4500 SYSTEMS SECTION B-B SECTION A-A DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN INSERTA TEE DETAIL NTS NOTE: PART NUMBERS WILL VARY BASED ON INLET PIPE MATERIALS. CONTACT STORMTECH FOR MORE INFORMATION. PLACE ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (CENTERED ON INSERTA-TEE INLET) OVER BEDDING STONE FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT SIDE INLET CONNECTIONS. GEOTEXTILE MUST EXTEND 6" (150 mm) PAST CHAMBER FOOT CHAMBER MAX DIAMETER OF INSERTA TEE HEIGHT FROM BASE OF CHAMBER (X) SC-310 6" (150 mm) 4" (100 mm) SC-740 10" (250mm) 4" (100 mm) DC-780 10" (250mm) 4" (100 mm) MC-3500 12" (300 mm) 6° (150mm) MC-4500 12" (300 mm) 8" (200 mm) INSERTA TEE FITTINGS AVAILABLE FOR SDR 26, SDR 35, SCH 40 IPS GASKETED & SOLVENT WELD, N-12, HP STORM, C-900 OR DUCTILE IRON 0 — cc/) COG) o LL w z Om ( - gaO I .2.2 G) a P — 0 CO_S -o o I- C..JCO N- I-. co cc L.LLI I 25.7" "1 (653 mm) SHEET 50F6 WEB LOWER JOINT CORRUGATION 110101111 22.50 (571 mm) INSTALLED 45.0" (1143 mm) 77.0" (1956 mm) ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STORMTECH END CAP CONVEYANCE PIPE MATERIAL MAY VARY (PVC, HDPE, ETC.) INSERTA TEl CONNECTIOI DO NOT INSTALL INSERTA-TEE AT CHAMBER JOINTS INSERTA TEE TO BE INSTALLED, CENTERED OVER CORRUGATION SIDE VIEW STORMTECH VALLEY STIFFENING RIB UTLET MANIFOLD CHAMB>T7TT, CREST STIFFENING RIB FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS '- UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION ___________ 77.0" (1956 mm) SHEET 60F6 MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL NTS STORMTECH END CAP 12"(300 mm) MIN SEPARATION 12"(300 mm) MIN INSERTION MANIFOLD STUB MANIFOLD HEADER 'Jul 12"(300 mm) L 12"(300 mm) MIN SEPARATION MIN INSERTION MANIFOLD HEADER MANIFOLD STUB NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING. SiteASSIST DMA-3 STORAGE CHAMBER PAM Storn1Tech FOR STORMTECH INSTRUCTIONS, PRELIMINARY DETAILS I DOWNLOAD TH NINZIrN INSTALLATION APP ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. 1672 - Oakmont of Carlsbad Faraday Ave & El Fuerte St STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-3500 OR APPROVED EQUAL. CHAMBERS SHALL BE MADE FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORT PANELS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWABLE LOADS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORM WATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING UPON REQUEST TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE: A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY AASHTO FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET. THE 50 YEAR CREEP MODULUS DATA SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 MUST BE USED AS PART OF THE AASHTO STRUCTURAL EVALUATION TO VERIFY LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION DETAIL ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION IS BASED. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED ATAN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. C2015 AM. INC. IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEM STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. MAINTAIN MINIMUM -9" (230 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. INLET AND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12"(300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4.2" (20-50 mm) MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3 OR #4. STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING.. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-3500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". FULL 36"(900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANTY CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT (5) STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBERS (4) STORMTECH MC-3500 END CAPS INSTALLED WITH 12 • COVER STONE, 9" BASE STONE, 40% STONE VOID INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME: 1406 CF AREA OF SYSTEM: 473 FV PERIMETER OF SYSTEM: 94 FT 24" CORED END CAP PART# MC3500IEPP24BC OF ALL MC-3500 24" CONNECTIONS ISOLATOR RC PROPOSED STRUCTURE W/ELEVATED BYR MANIFOLD (DESIGN BY ENGINEER I PROVIDEC OTHE 12"x 12" ADS N-12 TOP MANIFOLD, INV 26 ABOVE CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD BY ENGINE SEE TECH SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD SIZ GUIDAN PLACE MINIMUM 17.5' OF ADS GEOSYNTHET 315WT1( WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDI STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET F SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INI RO COMPUTER GENERATED CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION z 0 C) U) w 0 (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER) MC-3500 18" BOTTOM CONNECTIONS (DESIGN BY ENGINEER! PROVIDED BY SHEET OTHERS) 20F6 ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) T0 BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER To 30' (750 mm). PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 6) 8' 24" (600 mm) MIN (2.4 m) MAX 12"(300 mm) MIN I EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) 45" (1140 mm) ____E DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN ENGINEER 9"(230 mm) MIN - 12"(300mm)TYP 6"(150 9" 77" (1950 mm) (230 mm) MIN IVI-.)DUU END CAP SUBGRADE SOILS J (SEE NOTE 5) NOTES: SHEET 30F6 ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-3500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL COMPACTION I DENSITY CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIREMENT FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM ANY SOIUROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. D OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT N/A PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% AASHTO M1451 A-i, A-2-4, A-3 BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. OR COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 12" (300 mm) C STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU AASHTO M43' WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER. OF THIS LAYER. 3, 357,4,467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE 9.10 MATERIALS. B EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' ' LAYER) TO THE C' LAYER ABOVE. DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 34 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M431 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT OF THE CHAMBER. DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 SURFACE .23 PLEASE NOTE: THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO.4 (AASHTO M43) STONE-. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9"(230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. 3, WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". MC-3500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". "ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS" TABLE ABOVE PROVIDES MATERIAL LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, GRADATIONS, AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION, EMBEDMENT, AND FILL MATERIALS. THE "SITE DESIGN ENGINEER" REFERS TO THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF THE STORMTECH CHAMBERS FOR THIS PROJECT. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. CONCRETE COLLAF PAVEMEN1 CONCRETE SLAB 8" (200 mm) MIN THICKNESS FLEXSTORM CATCH Ii PART# 6212NYF) WITH USE OF OPEN GRATE 6"(150 mm) INSERTA TEE PART#06N125T351F INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTEREC ON CORRUGATION CRES1 TH CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS 120 (300 mm) NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN BODY W/SOLID HINGED COVER OR GRATE PART# 2712AG06N SOLID COVER: 1299CGC GRATE: 1299CGS 6"(150 mm) ADS N-12 HDPE PIPE MC-3500 CHAMBER SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24"[600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED) CATCH BASIN BASIN OR MANHOLE MC-3500 CHAMB :70 24"(600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE FACTORY PRE-CORED END CAP PART #: MC3500IEPP24BC I IUNAL iNrI.. I IUN 1'UK I 3500 END CAP vv o, '.Jr ,., 11 u dETICS 315WTM WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 8.25' (2.51 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS GEOSYNThETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS FLEXSTORM PURE INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES MC-3500 ISOLATOR ROW DETAIL NTS INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW FOR SEDIMENT A. INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) A.I. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B. ALL ISOLATOR ROWS REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW THROUGH OUTLET PIPE I) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii) FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW USING THE JE1VAC PROCESS A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JE1VAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS. GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. NOTES INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. MC-3500 6" INSPECTION PORT DETAIL NTS INSERTA TEE TO BE INSTALLED, CENTERED OVER CORRUGATION SECTION A-A SIDE VIEW CHAMBER MAX DIAMETER OF INSERTA TEE HEIGHT FROM BASE OF CHAMBER (X) SC-310 6" (150 mm) 4"(100 mm) SC-740 10"(250 mm) 4"(100 mm) DC-780 10"(250 mm) 4" (100mm) MC-3500 12" (300 mm) 6" (150 mm) MC-4500 12" (300 mm) 8" (200 mm) INSERTA TEE FITTINGS AVAILABLE FOR SDR 26, SDR 35, SCH 40 IPS GASKETED & SOLVENT WELD, N-i 2, HP STORM, C-900 OR DUCTILE IRON NOTE: PART NUMBERS WILL VARY BASED ON INLET PIPE MATERIALS. CONTACT STORMTECH FOR MORE INFORMATION. INSERTA TEE CONNECTION PLACE ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (CENTERED ON INSERTA-TEE INLET) OVER BEDDING STONE FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT SIDE INLET CONNECTIONS. GEOTEXTILE MUST EXTEND 6"(150 mm) PAST CHAMBER FOOT FOOT '— UPPER JOINT CORRUGATION BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION 77.0" (1956 mm) 77.0" . (1956 mm) UNDERDRAIN DETAIL• NTS STORMTECH STORMTECH CHAMBER UTLET MANIFOLD FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STORMTECH END CAP FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE - u.,j,vnjcn nu.,., ,Juc dr %Ju.iJcnljrvUu,o rcn a.. C L)ESIGN ENGINEER 4"(100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 SYSTEMS 6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 & MC-4500 SYSTEMS 86.0" (2184 mm) INSTALLED 90.0" (2286 mm) ACTUAL LENGTH 22.5" (571 mm) — INSTALLED I I 25.7" 1 (653 mm) SHEET 50F6 MC-3500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION• NTS VALLEY CREST STIFFENING RIB 4 CORRUGATION CREST WEB STIFFENING RIB LOWER JOINT NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 77.0" X 45.0" X 86.0" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 2184 mm) CHAMBER STORAGE 109.9 CUBIC FEET (3.11 m3) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE 178.9 CUBIC FEET (5.06 m3) WEIGHT 135.0 lbs. (61.2 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 77.0" X 45.0" X 22.5" (1956 mm X 1143 mm X 571 mm) DO NOT INSTALL END CAP STORAGE 14.9 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m3) INSERTA-TEE AT MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE" 46.0 CUBIC FEET (1.30 m3) CHAMBER JOINTS WEIGHT 50.0 lbs. (22.7 kg) *ASSUMES 12"(305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9"(229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS, 12"(305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMRFRS FNniKir. WITh "1" DUAL WALL PERFORATED HOPE UNDERDRAIN SECTION B-B INSERTA TEE DETAIL NTS CONVEYANCE PIPE MATERIAL MAY VARY (PVC, HOPE, ETC.) I .PART# STUB B C MC3500IEPPO6T 6" (150 mm) 33.21" (844 mm) MC3500IEP PO6B - . 0.66" (17 mm) MC3500IEPP08T 8" (200 mm) — 31.16" (791 mm) MC3500IEPPO8B - 0.81" (21 mm) MC3500IEPP1OT 10" (250 mm) 29.04" (738 mm) MC3500IEPP10B - 0.93" (24 mm) MC3500IEPP12T 12"(300 mm) - 26.36" (670 mm) MC3500IEPP12B 1.35" (34 mm) MC3500IEPP15T 15" (375 mm) 23.39" (594 mm) MC3500IEPP15B — 1.50" (38 mm) MC3500lEPP18TC 18" (450 mm) — . 20.03" (509 mm) . MC3500IEPP 18BC — 1." (45 mm) MC3500IEPP24TC 24" (6ó0 mm) . 14.48" (368 mm) MC3500IEPP24BC = 2.06"(52 mm) MC3500IEPP30BC 30" (750 mm) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE 12-24"(300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE AND 15-48"(375-1200 mm) ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-3500 END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES GREATER THAN 10'(250 mm) THE INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN B ARE THE HIGHTEST POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE SIZE. F MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL V NTS cCCl) .0 STORMTECH END CAP to (I Lu /\ / \ I 12(300mm) 2 IL / \ MIN SEPARATION 05 .2. . 12(300 mm) MIN INSERTION — 7 . MANIFOLD STUB MANIFOLD HEADER .1!IJlli. !! • ui QiJi/j __ \::::ER 0 me 12 (300 mm) 12(300 mm) MIN SEPARATION MIN INSERTION — le . . ... NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL -.x FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING. • w r- o SHEET 60F6 FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I LOTS I THROUGH 9 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR TECHBILT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 30, 2006 PROJECT NO. 06442-32-04A GEOCON INca 1P O..R.AT 9. 1) :C3EOTECHNICAL CONSuLTANTS Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 Techbilt Construction Company 3575 Kenyon Street San Diego, California 92110 Attention: Mr. Raul Guzman Subject: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK - PHASE 1 LOTS 1 THROUGH 9 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our Proposal No. LG-05 260 revison dated August 1, 2005, we have provided testing and observation services during grading for Phase I of Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Lots 1 through 9. The site is located to the west of the intersection of Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue. The scope of our services included the following: Observing the grading operation including the placement of compacted fill, the removal and/or processing of loose topsoil, alluvial deposits, landslide debris and undocumented fill placed by others; and the undercutting of formational material exposed at or near street subgrade to facilitate utility excavations. In addition, we observed the placement of several subdrain systems to verify proper installation. Performing in-place density and moisture content tests in fill placed and compacted on the pads/lots and associated streets. Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction, shear strength, and expansion characteristics of the soil material used as fill. In addition, the water-soluble sulfate content of randomly selected samples from finish grade was tested. Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map. Preparing this final report of grading. 6960 Ponders drive I Son DiegoCcIiforniä 9274 6 TeIephore 08) 55869.00 Fox (858) 5584159 The purpose of this report is to document that the grading of the subject business park has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report and subsequent consultations and that the fill materials have been properly compacted. At the time of this report, the grading for Lots 1, 2, and 6 was incomplete and an addendum report will be provided for these lots after completion. In addition, the density tests for portions of Lots 13 and 14 (Phase 2) that were part of the overall mass grading plan for Phase I have also been included herein. Grading operations for Phase I were performed concurrently with those for El Fuerte Street and Faraday Avenue. Geotechnical information relating to the grading of these roads is presented in the following reports: Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Roadway Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Faraday Avenue Extension - Stationl0+00 through 80+80, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 27, 2006 (Project Nos. 06442-32- 05A and 06442-32-06A). Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park El Fuerte Street Extension - Station 10+00 through 38+00, Carlsbad, California; prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 13, 2006 (Project No. 06442-32- 08A). An update geotechnical report presenting fine grading recommendations and geotechnical design criteria for the proposed ultimate development should be prepared by Geocon Incorporated once final plans have been prepared for the individual building pads. GENERAL The grading contractor for the project was Pinnick Incorporated of El Cajon, California. The project grading plans were prepared by O'Day Consultants, the project civil engineer, and are entitled Grading and Erosion Control Plans for: Carlsbad Oaks North, Phase 1, C. T. 97-13, City of Carlsbad approval dated October 26, 2004 (Drawing No. 415-9A). Recommendations for grading were provided in our report entitled Update Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Oaks North, Business Park and Faraday Avenue Offsite, Carlsbad, California, dated October 21, 2004 (Project No. 06442- 32-03). Staking and collection of the field survey information was performed by O'Day Consultants. The exhibit used as a base map to present the as-graded geologic information and in-place density test locations (Figures 1 through 4) is a copy of a compilation of digital information provided by O'Day Consultants. The map depicts the ultimate grading configuration with respect to lot lines, slope areas, lot numbers, and finish pad elevations. In addition, the existing ground topography prior to grading is shown. The base-of-fill elevations are also presented. This information was collected by surveyors from O'Day Consultants during remedial grading operations. The as-graded geologic contacts were Projcct No. 06442-32-04A -2- August 30, 2006 derived from intermittent field survey shots and estimates made by our field representatives based on survey and/or grade-checkers' stakes. In this regard, the contacts should be considered approximate. References to elevations and locations herein are based on as-graded survey information (remedial grading exhibits) provided by O'Day Consultants or grade-checkers' stakes in the field. Geocon Incorporated does not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage. GRADING Grading began with removing and exporting brush and vegetation from the areas to be graded. Topsoil, alluvium, landslide debris, and undocumented fill deposits were then removed to expose formational material. Within areas to receive fill, the exposed soil was then scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted. Fill materials from on-site excavations were then placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. The areas where hard rock or dense formational material was exposed at or near street subgrade were undercut approximately 7 feet to facilitate the excavations for underground utilities. The undercut criteria where formational materials exposed near finish grade of the building pads was determined on a case-by-case basis by the owner, depending upon the apparent rippability of the materials exposed. Future excavations in areas where undercuts were not performed may encounter difficult digging and require breaking and/or localized blasting. Also, oversize material may be generated by the excavations and require special handling. Refer to the "As-Graded" Geologic Map (Figures 1 through 4) for the approximate delineation of formational areas. Fill Materials and Placement Procedures The on-site fill materials generally consisted of silty to clayey sands and sandy clays with mixtures of gravel and boulders generated from the various formational units exposed on site. In general, the upper 10 feet of building pads and roadways were limited to oversize material less than 12 inches in maximum dimension and 6 inches in the upper 3 feet. Rock material greater than 12 inches was placed deeper than 10 feet below proposed finish grade and at least 3 feet below the deepest utility. Fill materials classified as "soil-rock" mixtures were placed in some portions of the site by spreading and compacting the materials with a Caterpillar bulldozer in lifts 2 to 3 feet thick or less. During placement of each lift, the fill was uniformly wheel-rolled with loaded rock trucks. These materials were heavily watered during spreading prior to compacting. Soil fills were placed in lifts no thicker than would allow for adequate bonding and compaction. The soil was moisture conditioned, as necessary, and mixed during placement. Project No. 06442-32-04A .3 - August 30, 2006 Field In-Place Density and Laboratory Testing During grading, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 2922-01 (nuclear). Results of the field density tests and moisture content tests performed during grading are summarized on Table I and the approximate locations are presented on the "As-Graded" Geologic Map. In general, the in-place density test results indicate that the fill at the locations tested has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent and an appropriate moisture content. Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557-02), expansion characteristics (ASTM D 4829-03), sulfate potential (CA Test No. 417) and shear strength (ASTM D 3080-03). Laboratory testing for Phase I (Lots I through 9) was performed concurrently with the grading for Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street; as such, the sample numbers are not in consecutive order. The results of the laboratory tests that are applicable to the subject grading are summarized on Tables II through V. Slopes Cut and fill slopes were graded at design inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with maximum heights of approximately 70 feet. Slopes that exposed potentially adverse conditions (e.g., weak siltstones and claystones, erosive soils, extensive seepage, etc.) were provided with a stability fill. The area where a stability fill was constructed is shown on the "As-Graded" Geologic Map. In general, fill slopes were either over-filled and cut back or track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. Fill slopes comprised of clayier soil may be prone to surficial loosening due to cyclical wetting and drying and may require increased maintenance. All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slope. Stabilization Fill Slopes A drained stabilization fill was constructed behind Lot 2 to reduce the potential of surficial slope instability due to the presence of weak claystone and siltstone materials and extensive seepage. In general, a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) backcut was initiated beyond the top of slope and was extended below pad grade. A heel drain and panel drain system was installed to collect the seepage encountered along the temporary backcut. The excavation was then was backfllled with compacted granular fill material. Figure 5, Geologic Cross Section A-A', shows the approximate limits of the stability fill. Project No. 06442-32-04A -4- August 30. 2006 Subdrains (General) Two types of subdrains were constructed in accordance with our recommendations. The systems consisted of a stability fill backdrain and canyon subdrains. The subdrain locations were surveyed by the project civil engineer and the locations are presented on the "As-Graded" Geologic Map. Additional discussion regarding the construction of the drainage systems is provided below. The final segment of subdrains consisted of non-perforated drainage pipe provided with a concrete cut-off wall constructed at the perforated/non-perforated interface. It is recommended that all subdrain outlets that empty into open space or brow ditches be provided with a headwall structure to protect the end of the pipe from damage or burial. Stability Fill Backdralns The stability fill constructed on the north facing slope behind Lot 2 was provided with a drain system consisting of 4-foot-wide Mirafi drainage panels positioned approximately 20 to 30 feet on center and vertically oriented against the temporary backcut and connected to a heel drain at the bottom. The heel drain consisted of an 8-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe surrounded by 3%-inch, open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. The heel drain was extended to the west and east along the stability fill backcut and ultimately connected to a storm drain box structure located outside of the toe of slope at El Fuerte Street approximate Station 17+75 and into the brow ditch situated on the west side of Lot 2. In addition, heel drain cleanouts were installed along the stability fill backcut in the event that future maintenance is necessary. The cleanouts were capped at the finish ground surface and their locations have been shown on the "As-Graded" Geologic Map. Canyon Subdrains Typical canyon subdrains consisting of 8-inch, perforated PVC pipe encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric were placed at the base of the remedial excavations where a depression occurred in the bedrock topography. Some of the original subdrain alignments were later diverted due to conflicts with underground utilities in Faraday Avenue which were not known during the initial placement of the subdrain system. Finish Grade Soil Conditions Observations and laboratory test results indicate that prevailing soils randomly sampled (for Lots 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8) at finish grade have an Expansion Index (El) ranging from 0 to 2 and are classified as having a "very low" expansion potential (El of 20 or less) as defined by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-I-B. The expansion condition for the lots in an interim condition will be provided upon completion of grading. Table ill presents the results of the expansion classification for the prevailing soils at finish grade. Project No. 06442-3204A - 5 - August 30, 2006 Oversize fragments and rock materials were generated from excavations during the grading operation. To the extent possible, the oversize material was placed within the "hold down" areas as previously discussed. The potential for encountering oversize materials (12 inches or greater) should be considered if deep excavations (10 feet or more) are proposed (i.e., underground utilities, etc.). Although particular attention was given to restricting the oversize material to the placement zones described previously, some randomly occurring fragments larger than 12 inches in nominal diameter may be present in the upper portions of fill areas. The performance of the fill, however, should not be adversely affected and the grading performed is considered to be in substantial conformance with our recommendations. Corrosion Laboratory tests performed on random soil samples to measure the percentage of water-soluble sulfate of the compacted till at finish grade for Lots 3 through 5, and 7 and 8 indicate that the on-site materials possess a "negligible" to "moderate" potential for sulfate exposure to concrete structures, as defined by UBC Table 19-A-4. Table V presents the results of the water-soluble sulfate for the various lots sampled (Lots 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8). Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed if improvements are planned that are susceptible to corrosion. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS In general, the soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those described in the referenced project geotechnical report. The enclosed "As-Graded" Geologic Map (Figures 1 through 4) depicts the general geologic conditions observed. Information provided by the project paleontologist was utilized in identifying the geologic units. Figure 5 (Geologic Cross Section A-A') represents the general geometry of the stability fill.. The figures have been annotated to show a general representation of the as-graded geologic conditions observed during grading. Geologic contacts should be considered approximate. No geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued development of the lots. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the referenced project soil reports. Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project soil. Project No. 06442-32-04A -6- August 30, 2006 report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described herein. 1.2 No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. Based upon laboratory test results and field observations, it is our opinion that the fill soils within the subject lots and associated streets have generally been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at the locations tested. 1.3 Fine grading and construction of utilities/foundations may encounter non-rippable formational material and/or generate some concretionary fragments and/or rock material 12 inches or greater in situ. Deeper excavations within the fill (10 feet or greater) for improvements such as utility lines, loading docks, etc., may also encounter oversize material (12 inches or greater). The potential for these conditions should be taken into consideration when determining the type of equipment to utilize for future excavation operations. The oversize material may require special handling techniques and exportation. 1.4 It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, particularly after landscape irrigation is initiated. The occurrence of induced groundwater seepage from landscaping can be greatly reduced by implementing and monitoring a landscape program that limits irrigation to that sufficient to support the vegetative cover without overwatering. Shallow subdrains may be required in the future if seeps occur after rainy periods or after landscaping is installed. 1.5 References to the thickness and extent of rock hold-down areas within roadways or capping of building pads are approximate and were based upon the finish grade elevations of the approved referenced grading plans. 2.0 Drainage 2.1 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. Project No. 06442-32-04A -7 - August 30. 2006 3.0 Update Geotechnical Report 3.1 An update geotechnical report presenting fine-grading recommendations and geotechnical design criteria should be prepared by Geocon Incorporated once the final development plans have been prepared for the subject lots. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading and represent conditions at the date of our final observation of grading operations on June 13, 2006. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience and test results. Due to the inaccuracies inherent in most field and laboratory soil tests, and the necessary assumption that the relatively small soil sample tested is representative of a significantly larger volume of soil, future tests of the same soil location or condition should not be expected to duplicate specific individual test results of this report. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. It is the responsibility of Techbilt Construction Company to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, are incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Recommendations that pertain to the future maintenance and care for the property should be brought to the attention of future owners of the property or portions thereof. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 06442-32-04A - 8 - August 30, 2006 Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED /z. 1la Troy Reist CEO 2408 TKR:SR:anh KAL ó? o/1RoYIREIsT\4. I No. 240 U) I CT1FIED i -* ENGtNEERNG * p GEOLOGIST OPC Shane Rodacker RCE 63291 (10/del) Addressee Project No. 06442-32-04A -9- August 30, 2006 0 0 SCALE 1' = 60' LLJ GEOCON LEGEND Qcf .........COMPACTED FILL Quc ........COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA Tsa ........SANTIAGO FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried) I(p ........ POINT LOMA FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried) Kgr .........GRANITIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) 246 APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST FG ...Finish Grade 7 ST... .Slope Test Cq APPROX. ELEVATION AT BASE OF FILL it APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN -- 5 APPROX. ELEVATION OF S(JBDRAIN 2 N N APPROX. LOCATION OF INACTIVE FAULT N '- U .... Upthrown Side (Apparent) 0.. ..Downthrown Side (Apparent) - - 37 STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT >-- >--. A A' N ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION N \ ./ ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT " j (Dotted Where Buried; Queried Where Uncertain) /1 APPROX. LIMITS OF STABILITY FILL '-- - / \\ / N 'N / x 00 16 / \\ 7 / X/06442-32-04A/RA/TR6442-42-O4AAS-GRD4P/DWG 1 S 51" " ,5555 'I........................,, / "--SI 'ii \ \ \\\\\ \S / I N 244 7 \\ \ \\\ 'S \ \ '5' "5' " •' \ \\ • 260 5- SCA E-1.1 5' •'' -5 .5 2 '- S ' 555555,, 'N -. ....... ..'•.,,, , ..:" 55S5,, T.T x " :''''- 5" - ' AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK PHASE 1; LOTS I THROUGH 9 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA G-Eocor.E SCALE 1" = 60' 1DATE8 - 30 - 2006 INCORPORATED (40) PROJECT NO. 064 42 2 - - 04A FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS '" 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 PHONE 858558-6900- FAX 858558-6159 SHEET 2 OF 4 - N '547 270 / ... . . ... 55 , f.- " '' , - '. - -IV XJ06442-32-04AJRA/TR_6442-42-04A_AS'GRD'MAP/DWG. 1 /1 u ' / 5 '1\- '1--D 77 ' 114 41,;Tr~,tC,,1t`4 SI N :00 \\ N. CYI . . .. .... .... C:~ ...... ..... .. .;- ! \* /7 ,/ Ul \ sex x / t!> /i/; / / K/ //// - / \ /• 1 L11- \77 N \\\ \ ), / \ t Cl) "N / /U6442-2O4A/RAfl R_ô42-42O4AAS4iRD-MAWLWG. N \\ \\ \ t IF WIN 4Q " :< CAY / \" N IIr4l*Fr.tJ ICO ) \% \A\\ \ CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK PHASE 1 LOTS 1 THROUGH 9 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA A . A' 320 EXISTING Tsa GRADE _ 00,00 CLAYSTONE —' CLAYSTONE AND SILTSTONE //// - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — ? PANEL SANDSTONE / —?- HEEL ----- —? ? DRAIN Kp Kp I • I I I I I J I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 DISTANCE (Feet) GEOCON LEGEND GEOLOGIC CROSS - SECTION A - A' SCALE: I"= 20 (Horiz. = Vert) Qcf ........ COMPACTED FILL Quc ........ COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA Tsa ........SANTIAGO FORMATION GEOCON (low) Kp ........ POINT IOMAFORMATION INCORPORATED .......APPROX LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT GEO1EO1MCAL CONSULTANTS 6960 F ANDRS DJVE-SAN DIEGO. CA1iFOMA92l2l.2974 (Queried Where Uncertain) IHONE 858 5590 . FAX 8585586159 - PROJECT NO. 06442-32-04A FIGURE 5 DATE 8/30/2006 280 260 LOT TOE 300 a) z TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd. or 3/4 Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (s') (pC1) (%) (%) (%) 1 07/11/05 Lot - 312 1 0 119.9 8.7 93 90 2 07/11/05 Lot 312 1 0 117.3 9.1 91 90 3 07/11/05 Lot 6 316 1 0 116.3 8.9 90 90 4 07112/05 Lot 308 4 0 111.7 17.6 90 90 5 07/12/05 Lot 317 4 0 114.1 18.2 92 90 6 07/12/05 LotS 312 4 0 111.5 16.4 90 90 7 07/12/05 Lot 319 4 0 111.4 16.6 90 90 8 07/14/05 Lot 1 230 1 0 116.3 9.7 90 90 9 07/14/05 Lot 232 1 0 118.5 10.1 92 90 10 07/14/05 Lot I - 236 1 --117.6 10.0 91 90 11 07/14105 Lot 240 1 0 116.7 9.8 90 90 12 07/15/05 Lot I 238 1 0 119.1 10.4 92 90 13 07/15/05 Lot 1 242 1 0 117.1 9.3 91 90 14 07/15/05 Lot 1 244 1 0 116.3 9.5 90 90 15 07/15/05 Lot 1 245 1 0 116.8 10.7 91 90 16 07/19/05 Lot 320 4 0 115.0 14.1 93 90 17 07/19/05 Lot 322 4 0 111.6 13.2 90 90 18 07/20/05 Lot 328 3 0 117.8 10.1 92 90 19 07120/05 Lot 236 3 0 116.0 9.3 91 90 20 07/20/05 Lot I 244 3 0 115.2 9.5 90 90 21 07/20/05 Lot 1 246 3 0 118.0 9.6 92 90 22 07/22105 Lot 318 2 0 117.1 9.3 90 90 23 07/22/05 Lot 6 323 2 0 119.3 8.5 92 90 24 07/22/05 Lot 6 322 2 0 117.4 8.4 90 90 25 07/22/05 Lot 6 334 2 0 119.3 9.0 92 90 26 07/22/05 Lot 8 307 1 0 116.3 8.9 90 90 27 07/22/05 Lot 8 311 1 0 116.7 9.3 90 90 28 07/22105 Lot 316 1 0 121.2 10.0 94 90 29 07/22/05 Lot 320 1 0 116.4 11.0 90 90 30 07/25/05 Lot 338 1 0 117.1 8.9 91 90 31 07/25/05 Lot 340 1 0 119.8 11.2 93 90 32 07/25/05 Lot 6 342 1 0 116.3 9.2 90 90 33 07/25/05 Lot 6 343 1 0 121.7 9.6 94 90 34 07/25/05 Lot 345 1 0 116.4 8.6 90 90 35 07/25/05 Lot 345 1 0 118.0 9.7 91 90 36 07/25/05 Lot6 346 4 0 1 13. 7 12.7 92 90 37 07/25/05 Lot 6 346 4 0 118.0 11.9 95 90 38 07/25/05 Lot 6 347 3 0 115.6 9.9 90 90 39 07/25/05 Lot 6 347 3 0 116.0 10.4 91 90 40 07/26/05 Lot 347 4 0 11.4.0 13.7 92 90 41 07/26/05 Lot 326 4 0 111.6 14.1 90 90 42 07/26/05 Lot 328 3 0 116.1 11.1 91 90 43 07/26/05 Lot 348 3 0 116.6 10.3 91 90 44 07/26/05 Lot 349 3 0 118.3 9.7 92' 90 45 07/26/05 Lot 6 345 3 0 115.6 9.2 90 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rel. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location (ft) No. (%) (pci) (%) (%) (%) 46 07/26/05 Lot 349 3 0 115.2 11.4 90 90. 47 07/26/05 Lot 6 349 3 0 120.4 12.2 94 90 48 07/26/05 Lot 350 3 0 116.5 9.4 91 90 49 07/26/05 Lot 6 343 2 0 122.8 9.0 94 90 50 07/27/05 Lot 6 352 3 0 118.7 9.5 93 90 51 07/27/05 Lot 6 352 3 0 116.4 10.7 91 90 52 07/27/05 Lot 6 351 3 0 117.5 9.4 92 90 53 07/27/05 lot 6 333 3 0 124.9 10.9 98 90 54 07/27/05 Lot 6 350 3 0 115.6 12.0 90 90 55 07/27/05 Lot 6 353 3 0 118.8 9.2 93 90 56 07/27/05 Lot 6 330 . 3 0 1 16. 5 9.6 91 90 57 07/28/05 Lot 1 255 3 0 117.4 9.6 92 90 58 07/28/05 Lot I 249 3 0 115.2 9.9 90 90 59 07/28/05 Lot 6 336 2 0 119.8 8.4 92 90 60 07/28/05 Lot 6 340 2 0 122.4 9.3 94 90 61 07/28/05 Lot 358 2 0 117.1 9.5 90 90 62 07/28/05 Lot 333 2 0 117.2 8.7 90 90 63 08/01/05 Lot 8 325 3 0 118.7 10.4 93 90 64 08/02/05 Lot 310 3 0 117.4 9.1 92 90 65 08/02/05 Lot 313 3 0 116.5 8.9 91 90 66 08/02/05 Lot8 315 3 0 115.2 10.2 90 90 67 08/02105 Lot 317 3 0 115.9 11.4 91 90 68 08/03/05 Lot . 327 3 0 117.8 9.3 92 90 69 08/03/05 Lot 8 325 3 0 115.5 10.4 90 90 70 08/03/05 Lot 8 330 3 0 121.3 9.7 95 • 90 71 08/03/05 Lot8 332 3 0 1 18. 2 10.2 92 90 72 08/03/05 Lot 8 336 3 0 115.2 10.5 90 90 73 08/03/05 Lot 8 334 3 0 116.7 10.0 91 90 74 08/03/05 Lot 8 336 3 0 121.6 9.4 95 90 75 08/03/05 Lot 8 316 3 0 118.9 9.0 93 90 76 08/04/05 Lot8 318 3 0 1 15. 3 9.0 90 90 77 08/04105 Lot 8 322 3 0 120.1 8.9 94 90 78 08/04/05 Lot 8 314 3 0 124.4 9.7 97 90 79 08/04/05 Lot 319 3 0 116.0 10.4 91 90 80 08/04/05 Lot 8 322 3 0 118.0 10.2 92 90 81 08/04/05 Lot 325 3 0 115.2 8.5 90 90 82 08/04/05 Lot 8 327 3 0 118.7 8.8 93 90 83 08/04/05 Lot 6 355 2 0 120.0 9.0 92 90 84 08/04/05 Lot 356 2 0 118.7 9.4 91 90 85 08/05/05 Lot 6 356 2 0 121.0 8.4 93 90 86 08/05/05 Lot 6 357 2 0 123.9 8.5 95 90 87 08/05/05 Lot 6 358 2 0 117.2 9.0 90 90 88 08/05/05 Lot 358 2 0 118.0 9.1 91 90 89 08/05/05 Lot 6 359 2 0 122.0 8.9 94 90 90 08/05/05 Lot 6 348 2 0 119.4 8.3 92 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Re!. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (%) (°O (%) (%) (%) 91 08/08/05 Lot 6 335 2 0 122.6 8.7 94 90 92 08/08/05 Lot 341 2 0 121.4 8.9 93 90 93 08/08/05 Lot 6 346 2 0 118.0 9.1 91 90 94 08/09/05 Lot 5 305 3 0 120.0 9.7 94 90 95 08/09/05 Lot 5 - 308 3 0 115.2 10.0 90 90 96 08/10/05 Lot 309 3 0 1 18. 8 12.2 93 90 97 08/10/05 Lot 313 3 0 115.3 11.4 90 90 98 08/10/05 Lot 317 3 0 118.1 9.3 92 90 99 08/10/05 Lot 320 3 0 123.1 10.5 96 90 100 08/10/05 Lot] 255 3 0 115.5 11.3 90 90 101 08/10/05 Lot 1 259 3 0 117.5 10.2 92 90 102 08/11/05 Lot 320 1 0 117.3 11.4 91 90 103 08/11/05 Lot 321 1 0 121.7 9.8 94 90 104 08/11/05 Lot 324 4 0 112.4 13.7 91 90 105 08/11/05 Lot - 324 4 0 111.6 12.9 90 90 106 08/11/05 Lot 326 4 0 116.2 13.9 94 90 107 08/11/05 Whiptail Loop 62+00 342 3 0 118.8 9.7 93 90 108 08/11/05 Whiptail Loop 63+30 328 3 0 116.0 10.2 91 90 109 08/11/05 Lot 335 3 0. 120.3 9.5 94 90 110 08/12/05 Whiptai1 Loop 60+75 356 3 0 117.0 10.3 91 90 111 08/12/05 Lot 338 3 0 115.2 9.6 90 90 112 08/12/05 Lot 329 2 0 125.9 9.5 97 90 113 08/12/05 Lot 334 2 0 119.3 8.9 92 90 114 08/12/05 Lot 332 2 0 118.4 8.5 91 90 115 08/12/05 Lot 336 2 0 117.1 8.9 90 90 116 08/15/05 Lot 269 1 0 117.9 9.1 91 90 117 08/15/05 Lot 271 1 0 116.3 8.7 90 90 118 08/15/05 Lot 275 1 0 118.6 9.6 92 90 119 08/16105 Lot 272 2 0 118.1 9.4 91 90 120 08/16/05 Lot . - - 285 - .0 119.7 • 10.0 92 90 121 08/16/05 FutureParkSite 235 4 0 111.6 13.6 90 90 122 08/16/05 Future Park Site 237 4 0 116.3 14.8 94 90 123 08/16/05 Lot 3 275 2 0 122.6 8.5 94 90 124 08/16/05 Future Park Site 242 4 0 115.0 12.7 93 90 125 08/17/05 Lot 1 - - - 245 4 0 - 112.3 15.5 91 90 126 08/17/05 Lot 1 247 4 0 111.6 16.0 90 90 127 08/17/05 Lot 328 2 0 117.1 8.2 90 90 128 08/17/05 Lot 8 330 2 0 123.3 8.5 95 90 129 08/18/05 Whiptai1 Loop 59+25 373 2 0 119.6 9.3 92 90 130 08/18/05 1,ot7 387 2 0 122.3 9.0 94 90 131 08/18/05 Lot7 389 2 0 1 17 .6 9.0 90 90 132 08/18/05 Lot 394 2 0 120.0 8.7 92 90 ST 133 08/18/05 Lot I 250 2 0 119.6 8.9 92 90 ST 134 08/18/05 Lot I 250 2 0 121.0 9.0 93 90 135 08/18/05 Lot 335 2 0 118.5 9.4 91 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30. 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd. or 3/4w Dry Moist. Rd. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location (1k) No. (%) (PCf) (%) (%) (%) 136 08/18/05 Lot 340 2 0 117.6 8.3 90 90 137 08/18/05 Lot 338 2 0 117.4 8.5 90 90 138 08/18/05 Whiptail Loop 60+10 360 2 0 119.3 8.9 92 90 139 08/18/05 Lot 342 2 0 118.0 10.1 91 90 140 08/18/05 Lot 353 2 0 123.3 8.5 95 90 141 08/18/05 Lot 353 2 0 123.3 8.5 95 90 142 08/22/05 Lot 8 338 2 0 120.7 8.7 93 90 143 08/22/05 Lot 332 2 0 117.4 9.3 90 90 144 08/22/05 Lot 340 2 0 118.6 10.7 91 90 145 08/22/05 Lot 8 341 2 0 122.7 10.0 94 90 146 08/22/05 Lot 8 342 2 0 120.2 9.7 92 90 147 08/22/05 Lot 344 2 0 117.1 10.4 90 90 148 08/23/05 Lot 8 342 2 0 123.3 9.0 95 90 149 08/23/05 Lot 340 2 0 118.7 8.3 91 90 150 08/23/05 Future Park Site 246 4 0 116.7 13.5 94 90 151 08/23/05 Lot 1 252 4 0 114.1 12.5 92 - - 90 152 08/23/05 Future Park Site 250 4 0 111.6 13.0 90 90 153 08/23/05 Lot .343 2 0 117.6 . 8.3 90 90 154 08/23/05 Lot 8 342 2 0 118.8 8.9 91 90 155 08/24/05 Lot 8 325 2 - 0 120.6 8.7 93 90 156 08/24/05 Lot8 327 2 0 123.9 8.8 95 90 - - 157 08/24/05 Lot 8 345 2 0 117.1 9.0 90 90 ST 158 08/24/05 Lot 1 243 1 0 117.1 8.2 91 90 ST 159 08/24/05 Lot 1 240 1 0 116.3 8.0 90 90 160 08/25/05 Lot 279 1 0 118.5 12.0 92 90 161 08/25/05 Lot 280 1 0 116.4 9.1 90 90 162 08/25/05 Lot 6 350 2 0 117.2 9.0 90 90 163 08/25/05 Lot 351 2 0 122.2 9.9 94 90 164 08/25/05 Lot 8 328 2 0 118.5 10.0 91 90 165 08/25/05 Lot 282 1 0 116.8 8.7 91 90 166 08/25/05 Lot 3 285 1 0 119.3 9.4 92 90 167 08/25/05 Lot 5 334 1 0 116.3 8.3 90 90 168 08/25/05 Lot 5 333 1 0 121.4 9.6 94 90 169 08/26/05 Lot 288 4 0 111.6 12.5 90 90 170 08/26/05 Lot 288 4 0 112.4 11.8 91 90 171 08/26/05 Lot3 295 4 0 115.0 12.7 93 90 172 08/26/05 Lot 293 4 0 112.0 11.4 90 90 173 08/26/05 Lot 3 295 4 0 114.2 12.2 92 90 174 08/26/05 Lot 298 4 0 111.7 11.4 90 90 175 08/26/05 Lot 315 2 0 121.0 9.2 93 90 176 08/29/05 Lot 5 308 1 0 116.2 9.9 90 90 177 08/29/05 Lot 311 1 0 116.7 9.3 90 90 178 08/29/05 Lot 332 2 0 118.7 8.8 91 90 179 08/29/05 Lot 5 335 2 0 120.4 9.0 93 90 180 08/29/05 Lot 309 1 0 115.3. 4.6 89 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd. or 3/4 Dry Moist. Rd. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. ('Ye) (pci) (%) (%) (%) 180A 08/29/05 Lot 5 309 1 0 119.2 10.1 92 90 181 08/29/05 Lot 324 1 0 114.8 6.1 89 90 181A 08/29/05 Lot 324 1 0 117.4 8.6 91 90 182 08/29/05 Lot 318 1 0 122.6 7.8 95 90 183 08/29/05 Lot 5 334 1 0 122.1 7.6 95 90 FG 184 08/29/05 Lot 1 260 1 0 117.4 7.2 91 90 FO 185 08/29/05 Lot 1 263 1 0 116.8 7.0 91 90 186 08/30/05 Lot 3 308 2 0 120.1 7.8 92 90 187 08/30/05 Lot 3; North 309 2 0 119.8 7.9 92 90 188 08/30/05 Lot 317 2 0 120.8 8.0 93 90 189 08/30/05 Lot 324 2 0 116.6 5.5 90 90 189A 08/30/05 Lot 324 2 0 119.0 8.0 91 90 190 08/30/05 Lot 326 2 0 118.9 6.1 91 90 190 A 08/30/05 Lot 5 326 2 0 122.6 8.4 94 90 191 08/30/05 Lot 5 333 2 0 120.1 6.8 92 90 191A 08/30/05 Lot5 333 2 0 121.3 8.1 93 90 192 08/30/05 Lot 334 I 0 122.7 11.1 95 90 193 08/30/05 Lot 326 1 0 124.7 9.3 97 90 194 08/31/05 Lot 5 332 2 0 120.2 8.3 92 90 195 08/31/05 Lot 333 2 0 123.1 - 9.7 95 90 196 08/31/05 Lot4 416 2 0 119.2 11.4 92 90 197 08/31/05 Lot 425 4 0 116.5 8.2 94 90 198 08/31/05 Lot 4 428 2 0 120.1 9.6 92 90 199 08/31/05 Lot 337 2 0 114.1 5.5 88 90 199A 08/31/05 Lot 337 2 0 117.9 10.5 91 90 200 08/31/05 Lot4 430 2 0 118.9 7.8 91 90 201 08/31/05 Lot 337 2 0 120.4 8.8 93 90 202 09/01/05 Lot 5 335 2 0 120.5 9.5 93 90 203 09/01/05 Lot 335 2 0 119.6 9.5 92 90 204 09/01/05 Lot 440 2 0 120.9 10.5 - 93 - 90 205 09/01/05 Lot 5 44! 2 0 122.9 10.0 94 90 206 09/01/05 Lot 297 4 0 113.6 14.6 92 90 207 09/01/05 Lot 3 298 2 0 120.1 9.0 92 90 208 09/01/05 Lot 297 2 0 118.0 9.2 91 90 209 09/01/05 Lot 299 2 0 118.9 8.8 91 90 210 09/02/05 Lot3 300 2 0 121.0 9.0 93 90 211 09/02/05 Lot 299 2 0 122.2 7.6 94 90 212 09/02105 Lot 295 2 0 117.4 8.8 90 90 213 09/02105 Lot 301 2 0 118.8 8.6 91 90 214 09/02/05 Lot 302 2 0 120.0 8.9 92 90 215 09/02/05 Lot3 310 2 0 117.4 8.0 90 90 216 09/02/05 Lot 3; North 311 2 0 117.1 7.9 90 90 217 09/06/05 Lot 312 2 0 120.5 9.6 93 90 218 09/06105 Lot 3; North 314 2 0 122.7 8.6 94 90 219 09/06/05 Lot 315 2 0 121.4 9.8 93 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rel. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location 00 NO (%) (Pa) (%) (%) (%) 220 09/06/05 Lot 3; North 317 2 0 124.6 8.7 96 90 221 09/06/05 Lot 316 2 0 121.9 9.5 94 90 222 09/06/05 Lot 3;North 318 2 0 123.7 8.7 95 90 223 09/06/05 Lot 300 2 0 119.0 10.6 91 90 224 09/06/05 Lot 3 302 2 0 118.7 9.6 91 90 225 09/07/05 Lot 3 304 2 0 120.2 9.3 92 90 226 09/07105 Lot 3 305 2 0 118.2 8.8 91 90 227 09/07/05 Lot 3 306 2 0 117.0 9.2 90 90 228 09/07/05 Lot 3 318 2 0 122.8 9.5 94 90 229 09/07/05 Lot 3; North 0 121.7 7.8 94 90 230 09/07/05 Lot3 307 2 0 117.9 8.0 91 90 231 09/07/05 Lot 310 2 0 118.8 12.6 91 90 232 09/07/05 Lot 319 2 0 118.9 8.5 91 90 233 09/08/05 Lot 3 308 2 0 119.6 8.8 92 90 234 09/08/05 Lot 3 309 2 0 118.6 9.4 91 90 235 09/08/05 Lot 3 313 2 0 122.4 9.2 94 90 236 09/08/05 Lot 312 2 0 122.8 8.9 94 90 237 09/08/05 Lot 3 308 2 0 121.7 10.7 94 90 238 09/08/05 Lot 3 310 2 0 121.5 8.5 93 90 239 09/09/05 Lot 314 2 0 117.7 10.2 90 90 240 09/09/05 Lot 3 311 2 0 1 22. 9 8.0 94 90 241 09/09/05 Lot 3 309 2 0 119.4 8.7 92 90 242 09/13/05 Lot 320 2 0 120.1 8.7 92 90 243 09/13/05 Lot 3; North 325 2 0 120.6 9.0 93 90 244 09/13/05 Lot 3; North - 3222 0 117.1 8.4 90 90 245 09/13/05 Lot 328 2 0 117.5 8.7 90 90 246 09/14/05 Lot 3; North 331 2 0 119.7 9.2 92 90 247 09/14/05 Lot 335 2 0 121.9 8.7 94 90 248 09/14/05 Lot 337 2 0 118.9 8.9 91 90 249 09/14/05 Lot 3; North 338 2 0 117.3 8.0 90 90 250 09/14105 Lot3 340 2 0 117.9 8.6 91 90 251 09/15/05 Lot 352 2 0 117.2 11.0 90 90 252 09/15/05 Lot 6 354 2 0 120.9 10.4 93 90 253 09/15/05 Lot 355 2 0 121.9 9.0 94 90 254 09/15/05 Lot 6 357 2 0 117.6 9.3 90 90 255 09/16/05 Lot 313 2 0 121.4 8.4 93 90 256 09/16/05 Lot 318 2 0 119.6 8.9 92 90 257 09/16/05 Lot 315 2 0 118.4 9.2 91 90 258 09/16/05 Lot 316 2 0 118.8 8.8 91 90 259 09/19/05 Lot 3; North 34-5 0 122.0 8.6 90 90 260 09/19/05 Lot 3; North 347 5 0 125.4 8.0 93 90 261 09/19/05 Lot 3; North 348 2 0 119.4 8.5 92 90 262 09/19/05 Lot 351 2 0 118.1 9.0 91 90 263 09/19/05 Lot 3; North 352 5 0 121.6 8.1 90 90 ST 264 09/20/05 Lot 3 300 5 0 119.2 9.0 88 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A . August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Rcqd. or 3/4fl Dry Moist. Rd. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. lcst No. Date Location '') No. ("°) (p'O (%) (%) (%) ST 264A 09/26/05 Lot3 300 5 0 122.0 7.5 90 90 265 09/20/05 Lot 3 352 5 0 121.6 8.0 90 90 266 09/20/05 Lot 3; North 354 5 0 123.9 7.8 92 90 267 09/20/05 Lot 3; North 355 5 0 122.4 8.2 91 90 268 09/21/05 Lot 3; North 358 5 0 121.77.09090 269 09/21/05 Lot 3; North 360 5 0 121.6 7.6 90 90 270 09/21/05 Lot 3; North 364 S 0 124.7 7.5 92 90 271 09/21105 Lot 3; North 267 5 0 121.6 7.0 90 90 272 09/22105 Lot 6 340 5 0 121.6 7.9 90 90 273 09/22/05 Lot 6 343 5 0 125.4 8.2 .. 93 9 274 09/22/05 Lot 8 344 2 0 118.0 8.5 91 90 275 09/22/05 Lot 8 346 2 0 117.6 9.0 90 90 276 09/22/05 Lot 6 344 5 0 121.9 7.9 90 90 277 09/22/05 Lot 6 349 5 0 127.1 7.6 94 90 278 09/22/05 Lot 8 346 2 0 U7.5 9.0 90 90 279 09/22/05 Lot8 347 2 0 119.4 8.2 92 90 280 09/23/05 Lot 6 346 5 0 125.4 7.0 93 90 281 09/23/05 Lot 349 5 0 123.2 8.2 91 90 282 09/23/05 Lot 346 2 0 117.2 9.1 90 90 283 09/23/05 Lot 8 349 2 0 122.0 8.7 94 90 284 09/23/05 Lot 8 320 2 0 120.6 9.0 93 90 285 09/23/05 Lot 8 . 325 2 0 117.1 8.5 90 90 286 09/23/05 Lot 6 344 2 0 117.6 9.3 90 90 287 09/23/05 Lot 6 346 2 0 120.2 9.0 92 90 288 09/26/05 Lot 6 360 2 0 114.5 4.5 88 90 288 A 09/26/05 Lot 6 360 2 0 119.7 8.9 92 90 289 09/26/05 Lot 6 359 2 0 113.4 4.9 87 90 289A 09/26/05 Lot6 359 2 0 117.2 8.7 90 90 ST 290 09/26/05 Lot 3 305 5 0 122.1 7.5 90 90 ST 291 09/26/05 Lot 3 285 5 0 123.3 8.0 91 90 ST 292 09/26/05 Lot 3 295 5 0 121.6 7.9 90 90 293 09/26/05 Lot 340 3 0 116.8 9.0 91 90 294 09/26/05 Lot 336 3 0 121.1 8.9 95 90 295 09/27/05 Lot 3 319 5 0 127.3 8.5 94 90 296 09/27/05 Lot 3 315 5 0 122.9 8.7 91 90 297 09/27/05 Lot 324 5 0 121.6 7.5 90 90 298 09/27/05 Lot 5 329 5 0 122.0 7.6 90 90 299 09/27/05 Lot 8 350 2 0 119.3 9.4 92 90 300 09/27/05 Lot 8 346 2 0 121.6 8.7 93 90 301 09/28/05 Lot 6 350 2 0 120.7 9.4 93 90 302 09/28/05 Lot 6 353 2 0 117.1 8.5 90 90 303 09/28/05 Lot 354 2 0 118.1 8.9 91 90 304 09/29/05 Lot 358 2 0 117.5 8.5 90 90 305 09/29/05 Lot 6 360 2 0 119.3 9.0 92 90 306 09/29/05 Lot 13 355 2 0 117.6 9.2 90 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Location Elev. or Depth (ft) Curve No. Plus 3/4" Rock (%) Field Dry Dens (Pd) Field Moist. Cont. (%) Field Rd Comp (%) Req'd. Rd. Comp. (%) 307 09/29/05 Lot 8; North 355 2 0 117.1 9.0 90 90 308 09/29/05 Lot 8 328 2 0 122.0 8.4 94 90 309 09/29/05 Lot 8 330 2 0 118.5 8.9 91 90 310 09/30/05 Lot 7 367 2 0 118.1 8.7 91 90 311 09/30/05 Lot 368 2 0 117.3 8.5 90 90 312 09/30/05 Lot 8; North 375 2 0 122.4 8.3 94 90 313 09/30/05 Lot 8; North 378 2 0 117.2 9.3 90 0 314 09/30/05 Lot 13 380 2 0 119.3 8.5 92 90 315 09/30/05 Lot 13 375 2 0 117.6 9.1 90 90 316 09/30/05 Lot 13 373 2 0 118.5 8.8 91 90 317 10/03/05 Lot 8; North 365 2 0 120.0 9.0 92 90 318 10/03/05 Lot 8; North 370 2 0 117.6 8.4 90 90 319 10/03/05 Lot 8;North 375 2 0 117.2 9.5 90 90 320 10/03/05 Lot 8; North 377 2 0 118.8 11.2 91 90 321 10/03/05 Lot 13 376 2 0 123.3 9.4 95 90 ST 322 10/04/05 Lot 3; North 345 5 0 1 21. 7 8.0 90 90 ST 323 10/04/05 Lot 3; North 355 5 0 124.2 7.5 92 90 ST 324 10/04105 Lot 3; North 355 5 0 121.6 7.0 90 90 ST 325 10/04/05 Lot 3; North 365 5 0 122.2 7.1 90 90 326 10/04/05 Lot 13 380 2 0 118.0 8.4 91 90 327 10/04/05 Lot 8; North 380 2 0 122.3 8.8 94 90 328 10/04/05 Lot 13 383 2 0 119.8 9.4 92 90 329 10/05/05 Lot 8; North 385 2 0 120.7 9.1 93 90 330 10/05/05 Lot 13 383 2 0 117.1 8.4 90 90 331 10/05/05 Lot 8; North 360 2 0 117.9 8.5 - 91 90 332 10/05/05 Whiptail Loop 13+50 305 2 0 113.4 4.0 87 90 332 A 10/05/05 Whiptail Loop 13+50 305 2 0 117.1 8.4 90 90 333 10/05/05 Whiptail Loop 11+50 290 2 0 114.7 4.6 88 90 333 A 10/05/05 Whiptail Loop 11+50 290 2 0 117.4 8.7 90 90 334 10/06/05 Whiptail Loop 57+00 389 2 0 120.7 8.5 9390 335 10/06/05 Whiptail Loop 58+00 381 2 0 117.2 8.7 90 90 336 10/06/05 Lot 13 365 2 0 117.9 8.4 91 90 337 10/06/05 Lot 13 370 2 0 117.1 8.6 90 90 338 10/06/05 Lot 8 350 2 0 123.9 9.3 95 90 339 10/06/05 Lot 325 2 0 118.1 9.0 91 90 340 10/07/05 Lot 8; North 352 2 0 1 23. 3 9.1 95 90 341 10/07/05 Lot 8; North 354 2 0 119.8 8.8 92 90 342 10/07/05 Lot 330 2 0 117.6 9.0 90 90 343 10/07/05 Lot 330 2 0 120.2 8.5 92 90 344 10/07/05 Lot 388 2 0 122.4 8.7 94 90 345 10/07/05 Lot 13 364 2 0 1 17. 1 8.1 90 90 346 10/07/05 Lot 13 368 2 0 121.1 8.4 93 90 347 10/07/05 Lot 8; North 370 2 0 117.6 8.8 90 90 348 10/07/05 Lot 330 2 0 118.4 8.7 91 90 349 10/10/05 Lot 8; North 368 2 0 117.2 8.6 90 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30. 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rel. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (°) (P') (%) (%) (%) 350 10/10/05 Lot 13 370 2 0 122.7 9.2 94 90 351 10/10/05 Lot 8; North 372 2 0 117.5 8.2 90 90 352 10/10/05 Lot 334 2 0 120.0 8.5 92 90 353 10/10/05 Lot 8 338 2 0 117.5 8.4 90 90 354 10/10/05 Lot 336 2 0 121.8 8.9 94 90 355 10/10/05 Lot 332 2 0 117.2 9.0 90 90 356 10/11/05 Lot 8; North 385 2 0 120.0 9.0 92 90 357 10/11/05 Lot 8;North 376 2 0 118.1 8.8 91 90 358 10/11/05 Lot 8; North 387 2 0 117.6 8.5 90 90 359 10/11/05 Lot 8 338 2 0 120.7 8.8 93 90 360 10/11/05 Lot 8 333 2 0 118.4 8.2 91 90 361 10/12105 Lot 358 2 0 117.1 8.0 90 90 362 10/12105 Lot 6 360 2 0 119.4 8.7 92 90 363 10/12105 Lot 362 2 0 123.6 8.5 95 90 364 10/12105 Lot 355 2 0 120.3 8.7 92 90 365 10/12/05 Lot 362 2 0 117.1 9.0 90 90 366 10/13/05 Lot 13 393 2 0 118.0 8.4 91 90 367 10/13/05 Lot 13 385 2 0 117.5 8.2 90 90 368 10/13/05 Lot 13 395 2 0 118.4 8.6 91 90 369 10/13/05 Lot 7 360 2 '0 1207 9.0 93 90 370 10/14/05 Lot 13 396 2 0 119.9 8.5 92 90 371 10/14/05 Lot 13 380 2 0 123.7 9.3 95 90 372 10/14/05 Lot 8; North 375 2 0 117.2 9.0 90 90 373 10/14/05 Lot7 363 2 0 120.7 8.9 93 90 374 10/17/05 Lot 329 2 0 117.5 9.0 90 90 375 10/17/05 Lot 8 332 2 0 117.6 9.2 90 90 376 10/17/05 Lot 8; North 390 2 0 123.9 8.7 95 90 377 10/17/05 Lot 380 2 0 120.7 8.8 93 90 378 10/18/05 Lot 8 335 2 0 120.6 8.9 93 90 379 10/18/05 Slope Between Lots 6ll 366 2 0 118.0 9.4 91 90 380 10/18/05 Slope Between Lots 6/7 382 2 0 123.1 8.9 95 90 381 10/18/05 Lot 344 2 0 121.8 9.6 94 90 382 10/18/05 Lot 345 2 0 117.1 10.4 90 90 383 10/18/05 Lot 340 2 0 117.5 9.9 90 90 384 10/18/05 Lot 7 375 2 0 120.0 10.2 92 90 385 10/21/OS Lot 343 2 0 128.6 4.7 99 90 385A 10/21/05 Lot 343 2 0 127.2 11.1 98 90 386 10/21/05 Lot 8 345 2 0 127.4 3.8 98 90 386A 10/21/05 Lot 345 2 0 125.7 12.4 97 90 387 10/21/05 Lot 345 2 0 122.9 6.9 94 90 3 ii. A 10/21/05 Lot8 345 2 0 119.2 11.2 92 90 388 10/21/05 Lot 243 4 0 113.2 16.2 91 90 389 10/21/05 Lot 246 4 0 115.2 15.4 93 90 390 10/24/05 Lot 238 4 0 112.2 17.9 91 90 391 10/24/05 Lot 240 4 0 114.7 18.2 93 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Location Elev. or Depth (1) Curve No. Plus 3/4" Rock (%) Field Dry Dens. (PCf) Field Moist. Cont. (%) Field Rel. Comp. (%) Req'd. Rel. Comp. (%) 392 10124/05 Lot 241 4 0 113.9 18.6 92 90 393 10/25/05 Lot 250 4 0 112.9 18.0 91 90 394 10/25/05 Lot 250 4 0 114.2 17.4 92 90 395 10/27/05 Lot 253 4 0 115.0 16.5 93 90 396 10/27/05 Lot 255 4 0 112.9 17.2 91 90 ST 397 10/31/05 Lot 350 2 0 119.4 6.8 92 90 ST 398 10/31/05 Lot6 350 2 0 119.1 6.7 92 90 ST 399 10/31/05 Lot6 350 2 0 119.8 6.7 92 90 ST 400 10/31/05 Lot . 345 2 0 119.5 6.9 92 90 ST 401 10/31/05 Lot 345 2 0 120.4 7.0 93 90 ST 402 10/31/05 Lot 350 2 0 121.8 5.6 94 90 ST 403 10/31/05 Lot 6 345 2 0 120.3 8.4 92 90 ST 404 10/31/05 Lot 6 345 2 0 117.6 7.9 90 90 ST 405 10/31/05 Lot 350 2 0 118.0 8.7 91 90 ST 406 10/31/05 Lot 355 2 0 117.0 8.5 90 90 ST 407 10/3 I/OS Lot 325 2 0 116.6 7.1 90 90 ST 408 10/31/05 Lot 325 2 0 117.5 7.3 90 90 FO 409 10/31/05 Lot 317 2 0 120.3 7.4 92 90 PG 410 10131/05 Lot 317 2 0 121.1 6.8 93 90 FG 411 10/31/05 Lot 320 2 0 120.1 7.2 92 90 FG 412 10/31/05 Lot 324 2 0 1 20. 3 8.0 92 90 413 11/03/05 Lot 257 9 0 104.8 18.4 93 90 414 11103/05 Lot 257 9 0 101.7 19.0 90 90 415 11/04/05 Lot8 354 2 0 116.5 8.2 90 90 416 11/04/05 Lot8 351 2 0 117.2 9.3 90 90 417 11/04/05 Lot 8; North 394 2 0 119.7 8.7 92 90 418 11104/05 Lot 8; North 397 2 0 118.7 7.7 91 90 ST 419 11/14/05 Lot 13; East 390 3 0 117.2 7.1 92 90 ST 420 11/14/05 Lot 13; East 392 3 0 115.5. 7.5 90 90 ST 421 11/14105 Lot8; North 386 2 0 118.7 8.1 91 90 ST 422 11/14/05 Lot 13;East 395 3 0 116.5 7.8 91 90 ST 423 11/14/05 Lot 8; North 387 3 0 115.0 7.5 90 90 ST 424 11/14/05 Lot 13-, East 395 3 0 115.1 7.8 90 90 ST 425 11/14/05 Lot 8; North 386 3 0 115.9 7.4 91 90 426 11/15/05 Lot8 348 9 0 104.0 18.5 92 90 427 1 1/1 5/05 Lot 8 34.6 9 0 101.7 20.2 90 90 428 11/15/05 Lot 8 350 9 0 102.1 22.1 90 90 429 11/16/05 Lot8 349 9 0 104.8 19.4 93 90 430 11/16/05 Lot8 348 9 0 103.0 20.1 91 90 431 11/17/05 Lot7 383 3 0 115.0 8.6 90 90 432 11/17/05 Lot 389 2 0 122.9 8.6 94 90 433 11/18/05 Lot 386 2 0 123.5 8.8 95 90 434 11/18/05 Lot 7 389 2 0 119.9 8.1 92 90 435 11/21/05 Lot 256 13 0 113.2 14.1 93 90 436 11/21/05 Lot 258 13 0 111.0 12.7 91 90 Projcct No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Rcq'd. or 3/4" Dry Moist Rel. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (°'°) (Pa) (%) (%) (%) 437 11/30/05 Lot 8 397 18 0 104.0 19.5 90 90 438 12101/05 Lot 8 335 14 0 100.8 23.3 94 90 439 12/01/05 Lot 337 14 0 97.8 22.6 91 90 440 12/01/05 Lot 352 14 0 98.5 20.0 92 90 441 12/01/05 Lot 340 15 0 101.0 21.7 90 90 442 12/09/05 Lot 8 343 2 0 120.0 6.8 92 90 443 12/09/05 Lot 8 345 2 0 117.1 7.9 90 90 444 12/09/05 Lot 347 2 0 119.3 8.4 92 90 445 12/09/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 2+90 256 20 0 121.4 8.5 91 90 446 12109/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 1+90 255 20 0 122.1 7.9 92 90 447 12109/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 2+50 260 16 0 110.8 16.2 93 90 448 12/12/05 Lot 7;North 406 2 0 117.1 8.5 90 90 449 12/12/05 Lot 7; North 425 2 0 119.3 7.8 92 90 450 12/12/05 Lot 7; North 415 2 0 118.4 7.5 91 90 451 12/12/05 Lot 14 431 2 0 117.2 7.9 90 90 452 12/13/05 Slope Between Lots 6/7 382 2 0 120.0 6.8 92 90 453 12/13/05 Lot 378 2 0 117.1 7.3 90 90 454 12/13/05 Slope Between Lots 6l7 390 2 0 117.5 7.5 90 90 455 12/13/05 Lot 256 13 0 114.3 15.6 94 90 456 12/13/05 Slope Between Lots 6/7 394 2 0 117.9 7.0 91 90 457 12/14/05 Lot 7; North 436 2 0 117.5 7.5 90 90 458 12/14/05 Lot 7; North 442 2 0 118.5 8.0 91 90 459 12/14/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 3+95 258 16 0 111.2 13.1 93 90 460 12/14/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 4+80 257 16 0 110.5 12.8 93 90 461 12/14/05 Lot 2; Stability fill 4+30 262 16 0 107.9 14.9 90 90 462 12115/05 Lot 2: Stability Fill 6+70 262 16 0 107.6 15.8 90 90 463 12/15105 Lot 2; Stability Fill 7+25 265 16 0 112.5 16.1 94 90 464 12/15/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 5+70 267 16 0 110.1 16.5 92 90 465 12/15/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 3+25 266 21 0 116.0 15.2 93 90 466 12/15/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 4+35 269 21 0 112.5 13.8 90 90 467 12115/05 Lot2;Stability Fill 5+00 275 21 0 112.9 14.0 90 90 468 12/16/05 Lot 351 3 0 116.6 7.5 91 90 469 12/16/05 Lot 352 3 0 117.4 8.6 92 90 470 12/16/05 Whiptail Loop 18+00 337 2 0 120.6 7.8 93 90 471 12/16/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 8+20 262 21 0 112.5 12.2 90 90 472 12/16/05 Lot2; Stability Fill 7+90 266 21 0 114.5 11.8 92 90 473 12/19/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 3+50 271 21 0 115.9 14.5 93 90 474 12119/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 4+55 278 21 0 113.7 12.2 91 90 475 12119/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 6+75 270 21 0 112.6 11.4 90 90 476 12/19/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 4+10 281 16 0 107.8 16.0 90 90 477 12/19/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 6+40 282 21 0 115.8 16.2 93 90 478 12/20/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 4+65 286 21 0 113.7 15.1 91 90 479 12/20/05 Lot 2; Stability 1911 3+75 292 21 0 118.9 16.2 95 90 480 12/20/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 4+30 297 21 0 114.5 13.0 92 90 481 12/20/05 Lot 8 352 3 0 116.0 12.0 91 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rel. Re!. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (%) (Pd) (%) (%) (%) 482 12/20/05 Lot 354 3 0 115.2 9.1 90 90 483 12/20/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 9+30 258 20 0 122.5 8.1 92 90 484 12/20/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 9+70 262 20 0 120.9 6.9 91 90 485 12/21/05 Lot 14 448 3 0 115.3 10.1 90 90 486 12/21/05 Lot 14 - 452 3 0 118.8 7.5 93 90 487 11/05 Lot 14 2/2 455 3 0 116.5 8.0 91 90 488 12/22/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 8+85 268 21 0 116.2 11.5 93 90 489 12/22/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 8+20 275 21 0 112.5 15.6 90 90 490 12/22/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 9+60 275 21 0 113.8 14.2 91 90 491 12/22/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 8+80 279 21 0 118.7 13.7 95 90 492 12/22105 Lot 2; Stability Fill 5+65 295 21 0 1 12. 5 12.9 90 90 ST 493 12/23/05 Lot 8; East 350 5 0 124.9 7.1 92 90 ST 494 12/23/05 Lot 8; South 342 2 0 116.6 7.5 90 90 ST 495 12/23/05 Lot 8; South 345 2 0 118.5 8.2 91 90 496 12/23/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 263 15 0 101.3 18.9 90 90 497 12123/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 265 15 0 102.9 20.2 92 90 498 12/27/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 263 15 0 105.7 20.4 94 90 499 12/27/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 267 15 0 102.3 22.1 91 90 500 12/29/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 261 15 0 103.2 18.2 92 90 501 12/29/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 273 21 ..113.7 13.5 91 90 ST 502 12/30/05 Lot8;South 34! 2 0 1 16. 9 7.3 90 90 ST 503 12/30/05 Lot 8; South 341 2 0 117.1 9.0 90 90 ST 504 12/30/05 Lot 8; South 344 2 0 117.5 7.5 90 90 ST 505 12/30/05 Lot 8; South 342 20 0 121.9 7.0 92 90 ST 506 12/30/05 Lot 4; South 353 5 0 121.1 90 90 ST 507 12/30/05 Lot 4; West 355 2 0 116.7 6.6 90 90 508 12130/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 265 18 0 107.1 17.5 93 90 509 12130/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 271 20 0 119.8 9.7 90 90 510 12/30/05 Lot 2; Stability Fill 278 20 0 122.7 9.9 92 90 511 01/06/06 Lot 351 2 - 0 118.5 10.2 91 90 512 01/06/06 Lot 354 2 0 1 17. 5 8.7 90 90 513 01/10/06 Lot 397 2 0 122.0 8.9 94 90 514 01/10/06 Lot7 395 2 0 118.3 7.5 91 90 515 01/10/06 Lot7 375 2 0 117.1 9.2 90 90 516 01/10/06 Lot 7; Stability Fill -. 269 14 -98.6 18.0 92 90 517 01/11/06 Lou 7 398 2 0 1 18. 1 10.0 91 90 518 01/11/06 Lot 399 2 0 117.3 9.0 90 90 519 01/12/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 265 12 0 119.9 10.4 93 90 520 01/12/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 276 21 0 117.4 11.5 94 90 521 01/12/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 280 21 0 113.7 15.0 91 90 522 01/13/06 Lot 400 2 0 1 20. 7 9.9 93 90 523 01/13/06 Lot7 400 2 0 119.3 10.0 92 90 524 01/16/06 Lot 401 2 0 120.1 9.5 92 90 525 01/16/06 Lot 399 2 0 117.6 8.9 90 90 526 01/16/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 271 24 0 112.3 13.1 91 90 Project No. 06442.32-04A August 30. 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Req'd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rd. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location (ft) No. (%) (P) (%) (%) (%) 527 01/16/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 274 24 0 113.1 12.8 91 90 528 01/17/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 275 24 0 111.7 12.2 90 90 529 01/17/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 285 24 0 112.1 10.9 90 90 530 01/17/06 Lot 383 2 0 119.7 9.0 92 90 531 01/17/06 Lot 389 2 0 118.7 8.5 91 90 ST 532 01/18/06 Lot 7; North 439 2 0 116.7 8.6 90 90 ST 533 01/18/06 Lot 7; North 441 5 0 123.0 6.5 91 90 ST 534 01/18/06 Lot 7; North 445 2 0 118.0 7.5 91 90 535 01/18/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 266 18 0 107.2 20.1 93 90 536 01/18/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 27.24 0 113.8 12.2 92 90 537 01/19/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 283 24 0 112.3 11.3 91 90 538 01/19/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 290 24 0 115.3 10.9 93 90 539 01t23/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 290 24 0 114.3 12.4 92 90 540 01/23/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 315 24 0 116.4 13.3 94 90 541 01/25/06 Lot 349 2 0 125.1 8.0 96 90 542 01/25/06 Lot 6 350 2 0 118.1 9.9 91 90 543 01/31/06 Lot 352 2 0 120.1 8.5 92 90 544 01/31/06 Lot 353 2 0 123.9 8.7 95 90 FG 545 02/01/06 Lot 8 356 2 0 121.3 8.7 93 90 FO 546 02/01/06 Lot 8 352 2 0 123.4 8.5 95 90 FG 547 02/01/06 Lot 8 348 2 0 124.3 8.6 96 90 FG 548 02/01/06 Lot 8 350 2 0 123.8 8.5 95 90 FG 549 02/01/06 Lot 8 348 2 0 123.6 8.7 95 90 FO 550 02/01/06 Lot 7 406 1 0 120.5 8.4 93 90 FG 551 02/01/06 Lot 7 400 - -. 1 - 0 122.3 8.6 95 90 FG 7. 552 02/01/06 Lot 402 1 0 121.7 8.7 94 90 ST 553 02/01/06 Lot 7; Southwest 385 1 0 115.9 11.1 90 90 ST 554 02/01/06 Lot 7; Southwest 395 1 0 117.6 10.5 91 90 ST 555 02/01106 Lot 7; Southwest 400 1 0 116.0 10.9 90 90 556 02/02/06 Lot 6 356 2 0 117.2 9.9 90 90 557 02/02/06 Lot 6 354 2 0 121.0 10.2 93 90 FG 558 02/06/06 Lot 4 364 2 0 119.1 8.7 92 90 FG 559 02/06/06 Lot 340 2 0 121.3 7.8 93 90 FG 560 02/06/06 Lot 5 340 2 0 120.7 8.1 93 90 FG 561 02/06106 Lot 5 343 2 0 119.2 8.3 92 90 562 03/02/06 Lot 1 255 13 0 1 09. 8 12.5 90 90 563 03/02/06 Lot 256 13 0 111.3 13.0 91 90 564 03/06/06 Lot 1 250 15 0 101.3 20.1 90 90 565 03/06/06 Lot 1 258 15 0 103.4 22.1 92 90 566 03/06/06 Lot 1 252 15 0 103.7 19.8 92 90 567 03/06106 Lot 1 255 15 0 101.9 21.7 91 90 568 03/07/06 Lot 1 251 15 0 103.3 22.0 92 90 569 03/16/06 Lot 1 255 19 0 103.0 10.4 88 90 569 A 03/16/06 Lot 1 255 19 0 105.3 14.8 90 90 570 03/16/06 Lot 1 252 19 0 104.3 11.1 89 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Rcqd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rd. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location No. (%) (PCI) (%) (%) (%) 570A 03/16/06 Lot 252 19 0 105.6 14.9 90 90 571 03/27/06 Lot 258 13 0 110.7 13.3 91 90 572 03/27/06 Lot 2 262 13 0 113.2 12.7 93 90 573 03/28/06 Lot 1 253 12 0 116.1 11.8 90 90 574 03/28/06 Lot I - 254 12 0 121.5 12.7 94 90 575 03/28/06 Loll 255 12 0 119.5 10.1 93 90 576 04/03/06 Lot 1 255 19 0 105.7 16.9 90 90 577 04/03/06 Lot 1 258 19 0 106.5 15.9 91 90 578 04/11/06 Lot I 252 19 0 108.6 16.8 93 90 579 04/11/06 Lot 1 - 252 19 0 105.7 17.4 90 90 ST 580 04/14/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 285 21 0 115.2 10.8 92 90 ST 581 04/14/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 285 21 0 112.8 12.3 90 90 ST 582 04/20/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 292 19 0 107.9 14.9 92 90 ST 583 04/20/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 283 19 0 II1.0 14.6 95 90 ST 584 04/20/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 285 19 0 106.5 14.7 91 90 ST 585 04/20/06 Lot 2; Stability Fill 285 19 0 105.4 14.5 90 90 586 04/21/06 Lot 256 16 0 107.8 15.6 90 90 587 04/21/06 Lot 259 16 0 109.8 16.0 92 90 PG 588 04/26/06 Lot 258 13 0 110.8 12.7 91 90 FG 589 04/26/06 Lot 9 -. - 260 13 0 110.3 13.1 90 90 FG 590 04/26/06 Lot 9 262 13 0 1 09. 9 13.5 90 90 ST 591 04/26/06 Lot 253 13 0 109.8 15.5 90 90 ST 592 04/26/06 Lot 250 13 0 111.0 14.8 91 90 593 04/28/06 Lot 364 22 0 113.5 16.5 93 90 594 04/28/06 Lot 363 22 0 109.8 15.4 90 90 595 05/03/06 Lot6 360 22 0 116.2 11.8 95 90 596 05/03/06 Lot 6 360 22 0 113.1 12.7 93 90 597 06/13/06 Lot 6 357 32 0 119.5 4.5 89 90 597A 06/13/06 Lot 357 32 0 122.2 7.0 91 90 • 598 06/13/06 Lot6 357 32 0 118.8 5.5 89 90 598 A 06/13/06 Lot 6 357 32 0 120.6 7.2 90 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE I EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,... : Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction. Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS DTN - DUPLICATE TEST NUMBER FG - FINISH GRADE ST - SLOPE TEST - CURVE NO. Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test results table for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. - ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted. - TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test (ASTM D1556) NU: Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D2922) OT: Other - ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot. Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-02 Proctor Maximum Optimum Curve No. Source and Description Dry Density Moisture Content (pet) (%) Dark brown, Silty, fine SAND 129.2 8.5 2 Olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 130.1 8.6 3 Very dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse 128.0 8.9 SAND with trace gravel 4 Very dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium 123.9 12.0 SAND, with trace gravel Dark reddish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse 135.1 7.4 SAND with trace gravel 9 Light olive, fine to medium, Sandy SILT 112.9 17.3 with little clay 12 Olive gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND 128.9 9.2 13 Light yellowish brown, Silty, fine to coarse 122.0 11.8 SAND with silt 14 Light yellowish brown, Silty CLAY/ 107.5 17.8 Clayey SILT 15 Olive green, Silty CLAY 112.2 17.8 16 Light yellowish brown, Clayey, fine to 119.4 12.6 coarse SAND 18 Light brown, fine, Sandy SILT 115.5 15.0 19 Dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 117.0 14.7 with trace gravel 20 Very dark reddish brown, Silty, fine to 133.1 7.6 medium SAND 21 Light brown, fine to coarse, Clayey, SAND 124.9 11.4 with trace gravel 22 Brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND 122.0 11.4 24 Olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 124.0 11.3 with trace silt 32 Dark yellowish brown, Silty, fine to coarse 134.0 7.3 SAND with trace gravel and clay Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE Ill SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829-03 Sample No. (Lot No.) Moisture Content Dry Density (pci) Expansion Index Before Test (%) After Test (%) El- 1 (Lot 8) 7.7 13.9 118.8 0 EI-2 (Lot 8) 9.1 13.7 113.2 0 El-3 (Lot 8) 8.1 14.9 118.4 0 E1-4 (Lot 8) 8.2 13.5 118.2 0 El-5 (Lot 5) 8.9 14.8 113.2 0 EI-6 (Lot 5) 8.8 14.7 113.2 0 El-i (Lot 5) 8.8 14.1 113.2 0 El-8 (Lot 7) 8.5 15.6 117.9 0 El-9 (Lot 7) 8.9 14.2 113.0 0 El- 10 (Lot 7) 8.2 13.1 117.9 0 El- il (Lot 4) 8.3 14.3 117.8 0 El- 12 (Lot 4) 8.4 13.9 113.8 0 El- [3 (Lot 4) 8.4 15.8 117.6 2 EI-14 (Lot 3) 9.0 16.5 113.0 1 EI-15 (Lot 3) 9.3 14.9 113.9 2 El- 16 (Lot 3) 8.4 14.2 117.8 1 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080-03 Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Unit Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 5 121.5 7.4 1015 48 9 102.6 17.1 250 18 12 116.2 9.1 220 30 13 111.3 11.9 440 39 14 99.3 16.3 230 34 15 100.3 18.5 400 19 16 108.3 12.7 360 33 Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30, 2006 TABLE IV (Continued) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080-03 Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Unit Cohesion (pst) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 18 104.2 14.7 570 28 19 105.8 14.1 580 33 20 120.9 6.6 380 39 21 112.6 11.3 110 34 24 112.0 10.7 500 37 Samples were remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. TABLE V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. (Lot No.) Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure El-i (Lot 8) 0.020 Negligible EI-2 (Lot 8) 0.111 P9 '61M EI-3 (Lot 8) 0.012 Negligible EM (Lot 8) 0.024 Negligible El-5 (Lot 5) 0.012 Negligible El-6 (Lot 5) 0.017 Negligible El-7 (Lot 5) 0.047 Negligible El-8 (Lot 5) 0.003 Negligible EI-9 (Lot 5) 0.009 Negligible EI-10 (Lot 5) 0.007 Negligible El- li (Lot 4) 0.004 Negligible EI-12 (Lot 4) 0.007 Negligible EI-13 (Lot 4) 0.011 Negligible EI-14 (Lot 3) 0.002 Negligible El-IS (Lot 3) 0.008 Negligible EI-16 (Lot 3) 0.004 Negligible Project No. 06442-32-04A August 30. 2006 ADDENDUM TO FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK - PHASE I LOT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR TECHBILT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 30, 2008 PROJECT NO. 06442-32-04A GEOCON 1. t1 0 g P OR ATE :GEOTEcaNItAi ONIJLTATS 00 Project No. 06442-32-04A October 30, 2008 Techbilt Construction Company 3575 Kenyon Street San Diego, California 92110 Attention: Mr. Raul Guzman Subject: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK - PHASE 1 LOT 1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADDENDUM TO FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING Reference: 1. Addendum to Final Report of. Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park - Phase 1, Lots 2 and 6, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated December 26, 2007 (Project No. 06442-32-04A). Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park - Phase 1, Lots 1 through 9, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 30, 2006 (Project No. 06442- 32-04A): Grading and Erosion Control Plans for: Carlsbad Oaks North, Phase], Drawing No. 415-9A, CT 97-13, prepared by O'Day Consultants, with City of Carlsbad signature dated October 26, 2004. Dear Mr. Guzman: We have prepared this addendum to Reference No. 2 to present information collected during minor grading operations performed on the subject lot subsequent to issuance of the geotechnical report. The additional grading was performed in July 2008. The scope of our services included the following: Observing the grading operation. Performing in-place density and moisture content testing in fill placed and compacted on the subject lot. Performing laboratory testing to aid in evaluating the maximum dry density, optimum moisture content of the compacted fill. Additionally, laboratory testing was performed on samples of soil present at finish grade to evaluate the expansion characteristics and water- soluble sulfate content. 6966 Flanders biive . San Diego, .ccklornia 92121.2974 N ..elephone t8381 558 900. I Fax (858)' 5584159. - Revising the As-Graded Geologic Map presented in our report dated August 30, 2006, to reflect the new as-graded conditions. Preparing this addendum report of grading. GRADING As discussed in our report dated August 30, 2006, the initial grading on Lot 1 consisted of removing surficial deposits to expose dense Point Loma Formation. Fills were then placed and compacted within the lot. Where very dense formation soils were exposed at pad sheet-grade, the formation was undercut approximately 5 feet below the design grades presented on the project grading plans (Reference No. 3) and partially replaced with compacted fill. Grading resulted with slope areas and the outer approximately 15 feet of the building pad constructed to design grades. In general, the central portion of the pad was left approximately 2 feet to 4 feet below design sheet-grade upon completion of Phase 1 mass grading. Recent grading consisted of placing and compacting a soil stockpile located in the central portion of the pad. These soils were generated from other areas of the business park and from off-site. Fills were placed in lifts no thicker than would allow for adequate bonding and compaction. The soil was moisture conditioned, as necessary, and mixed during placement. Fills generally consisted of silty to clayey sand to silty sand. The finish elevation contours presented on Figure 1 were provided by the project civil engineer, O'Day Consultants, and reflect actual pad grade after completion of grading. For the following testing references, we utilized the applicable ASTM or California version of the test procedure at the time of testing. During the grading operation, we observed compaction procedures and performed in-place density testing to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill soils. We performed in-place density testing in general conformance with ASTM D 2922. Results of the in-place dry density and moisture content tests pertinent to Lot 1 are summarized on Table I. Lot I was initially graded concurrently with the overall Phase 1 mass grading operations for the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park. Test results for areas beyond Lot 1 are excluded from Table I. Consequently, test number designations are not consecutive. In-place density test results taken during previous and recent grading indicate fill soils have a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above the optimum moisture content at the locations tested. We have revised Figure 1 of Reference No. 2 to include the approximate locations of recent in-place density testing performed on the lot. We performed laboratory testing on samples of soil used for fill to evaluate moisture-density relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). We also performed laboratory testing on samples collected at finish grade to evaluate their expansion potential Project No. 06442.32-04A - -2- October 30. 2008 (ASTM D 4829) and water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No. 417). Results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables 11 through 1V. Finish Grade Soil Conditions Observations and laboratory test results indicate that randomly sampled soils at finish grade of Lot I have an Expansion Index (El) ranging from 46 (low expansive) to 76 (medium expansive). Table 1 presents soil classifications based on ASTM D 4829. Results of the finish grade El tests are summarized on Table ifi. TABLE 1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX ASTM D 4829 Expansion Index (El) Soil Classification 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High Greater Than 130 Very High The building pad of Lot 1 was generally graded to approximately 1- to 3-feet below design pad grade shown in Reference No. 3. Figure 1 reflects the as-graded lot configuration. In general and with respect to design pad grades shown on the project grading plans (Reference No. 3), the upper 10 feet of the pad was graded, with soil fill containing rock fragments less than 12 inches in maximum dimension and 6 inches in the upper 3 feet. Rock material greater than 12 inches was placed deeper than 10 feet below the original proposed finish grade. Where an undercut was performed on the pad portion of the lot, the undercut was extended at least 5 feet below the original design sheet grade and replaced with properly compacted fill. The areas that have been undercut are annotated as Quc on the As-Graded Geologic Map. Corrosive Potential Samples obtained for expansion testing were also subjected to water-soluble sulfate testing to assess whether the soil contains high enough sulfate concentrations that could damage normal Portland cement concrete. Table IV summarizes the sulfate test results. In accordance with 2007 California Building Code (CBC), we have classified sulfate test results using guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. The laboratory test results indicate an exposure class Si and S2 with severity medium Project No. 06442-32-04A -3 - October 30. 2008 to severe based on Table 4.2.1 of AC! 318-08. ACI guidelines (see Table 4.3.1, AC! 318-08) should be followed in determining the type of concrete to be used. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different sulfate concentrations. Over time, landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may also increase the concentration. Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. If improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Grading on Lot 1 has resulted in compacted fill (Qcf and Quc) overlying the Point Loma Formation (Kp). A small area of this formation is exposed at grade in the cut slope located along the southwest margin of the lot. The As-Graded Geologic Map (Figure 1) depicts the general geologic conditions observed during grading operations. Geologic contacts should be considered approximate. CONCLUSIONS 1.0 General 1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical reports. Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the geotechnical report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the recommendations of the geotechnical report, they have been described herein. 1.2 No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued development of Lot 1. Based upon laboratory test results and field observations, it is our opinion that the fill soils within the subject lot have been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at the locations tested. 1.3 Fine grading and construction of utilities/foundations may encounter very dense formational materials and/or generate some concretionary fragments and/or rock material 12 inches or greater in size. Deeper excavations within the fill (10 feet or greater) for improvements such as utility lines, loading docks, etc., may also encounter oversize material (12 inches or greater). The potential for these conditions should be taken into Project No. 06442-32-04A -4- October 30, 2008 consideration when determining the type of equipment to utilize for future excavation operations. The oversize material may require special handling techniques and exportation. 1.4 It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed, particularly after landscape irrigation is initiated. The occurrence of induced groundwater seepage from landscaping can be greatly reduced by implementing and monitoring a landscape program that limits irrigation to that sufficient to support the vegetative cover without overwatering. Shallow subdrains may be required in the future if seeps occur after rainy periods or after landscaping is installed. 1.5 References to the thickness and extent of undercutting and rock hold-down areas within the building pads are approximate and were based upon the finish-grade elevations of the approved referenced grading plans. 1.6 Geotechnical recommendations presented in Reference No. 2 remain applicable for the continued development of Lot 1. 1.7 An update geotechnical report presenting fine grading recommendations and geotechnical design criteria for the ultimate development of the lot should be prepared by Geocon Incorporated once fine grading plans have been prepared. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading and represent conditions at the date of our final observation of grading operations on July 2008. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term observation implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience and test results. Due to the inaccuracies inherent in most field and laboratory soil tests, and the necessary assumption that the relatively small soil sample tested is representative of a significantly larger volume of soil, future tests of the same soil location or condition should not be expected to duplicate specific individual test results of this report. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. Project No. 06442-32-04A - 5 - October 30, 2008 We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, are incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Recommendations that pertain to the future maintenance and care for the property should be brought to the attention of future owners of the property or portions thereof. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. If there are any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED (6) Addressee (3/del) Techbilt Construction Incorporated Job Site Attention: Mr. Fran Richmond AD David B. Evans CEG 1860 OAL DAVID B. EVANS No. 16W - CERliflED * ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Op RCE 66915 EA:DBE:dmc Project No. 06442-32-04A - -6- October 30, 2008 11-5_1'___--- ; 1 ' 1g° -- - -- \ \ - --.-- ---. / "S ' % , " 11 % //// -'1 i - I , - -, "", "'~ \ , ,I - -a-- N - _—---// / - -- - ) ,f/'/ :-- -- .. . .... -_""-_..__'. / / _ / --- \ \~ 1z _", ~ ; \ ~ \ _._' - I --- .... _~'~~ -" I ) i _- __F__ - I-,---. --I--',- _' ~~ ... ... .. --_ , _.0000~ '__ ' I -- - ---- ~ -_ ---- 11 "' , I " - - - 1 \, " E - ------ ~_ _- - '__""'_- \ __ ", - __ .1 I 11 \' \" \ '. ,"I " __ ~ ~ ---. --:~_' ~ _____.' \ " \1 I "" ~ 1, / I ~ ,,,,,,---: .... :~_'-~~' i - _- 05~Eivo , I , - - . ~ , , I - ,~ -1., ~ I / I \ _' - _... . __ --_ _\ '\__..--_'_ _---:::~~ - ---- I ....... - 1~_1:1____:'___1 I , . , 11 / , ,,, ,,, \"''\"'_\<: ~'-- - . ." '_- - .. , I , . :::;:::~ - _'_"~ - -'_'_ '\ , I I I \ , i, " " '~~ . " ,,,, \\ \\\ \ \ \\ \\\\ \\\\ 7 \\ \ / ST' 158. 7 .1 1 \ / 11 11 CALE 1" = 60' GEOCON LEGEND Qcf ........ COMPACTED FILL Quc.........COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA - - -- i sa........SANTIAGO FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried) / - - LIF // // rip POINT LOMA FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried) /1 '1 7 / I'll! I / Kgr ........GRANITIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) / I / / / // NN it 246 .APPROX. LOCATION OF IN PLACE DENSITY TEST \ FG .... Finish Grade \ \\ ST... .Slope Test APPROX. ELEVATION AT BASE OF FILL \ N. \ \ N \ .d ,-\ \ APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN \ - £± APPROX ELEVATION OF SUBDRAIN - - ...........APPROX. LOCATION OF INACTIVE FAULT U .... Upthrown Side (Apparent) --- D .... Downthrown Side (Apparent) -\ \ - 37 \ 7 - STRIKE AND DIP OF JOINT -- -. -- 7 A A' APPROX LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION . // -. / 11 APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT - / , (Dotted Where Buried; Queried Where Uncertain) NN / / -. 'A / 'I I 11, APPROX. LIMITS OF STABILITY FILL "- / / / \7 \\ 7 ' vi -- / — - / / / - k \ / - 'Z\ / / )77 - - \V / - Jj\' \ //I! /Z/ /, 78 / /////7//. p-\' /I 7J-N--////'/// -V ///J\\, // // // _/ — - - - z / - ) -2 7 ,/ / / / / N 4. // ////7 / /// 11 z - ) y -:, / Dr/XVwDm I 11 , / / //////// - // / // /-2'27 // / // / O / /// // - - / / 7/ / / -. -, / // / / - \\ / / /2/ ///// - _7 - -- / / / / // // // / ' '//° / _/ / / / / / / - / / / // / // / / :1 r "°" I j7'/ N o \ /' 1' / I I / I / ;- ' / - - /1 // // ,// / /1 // / ///K" - - - 1/, /'I//!J/ / / / i I / ( - /// //( /1 /1/ ////// I / / / / j / 1 1 1 / / / / / 1 I , /1 / I / / / / / - -- - - O / / / ///, , /// / / / I / , \\\'._~'/ \\ " \ \ I \ \% ~. --'111 - \\\\\ \ - - N \\ \ / /' / \ / 7 _\\\\ \, I / /7/ / ..' \ I\, \ j 1 1 , , / I ; I /V " \ I 1, I it 1 ! '~ \\ \ i i ~ I ~' \ , 3 / \ N \ \\ I \ll \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I / 1,1/ / ,/ //// // _ \ \ ',i \ , \ 1i !, 1) / /f , / , I N N - / / / / /' / / - - _2 i /1/ - / ,i j ///,/,/, / - - \\ - - -/ l%\/ / / / I / /A\ \ \ Z // -/1/i I i It it - - -I..-------- - - \ N \ 7 - - _ / //// / , / 7 ft / /// ,/ 11 / / / F \ I N\ \ \ 1, I \ \ I I F\\ / -- \ \\'\ \ \7 7 - _\ \ • - ',',/' - 7/-. - a - 'N I 'J / 11 / \\ / N -/ / \\ / l f l\' LI - \2 - - / / \F / f I, I ( \ I ( )\ - / / / I \ - /7/ \\ - / "ii \' N I 1 , 11 11 i i ' /q, U u ; f- --\ I I I \ \ // \ / ///; VIf ! - - - N // I L [\/j ) )/) .562 , / / \67/' )z<____ %K7711",7 - - - N - - N __1 /'11 / I , "' i i : ~ 11 " , "'___1___'____ "__ "" \- "\ 1-_" — \ ~ , , 11 , - 'L" \' ,_' - \'. \1 \\ ~ I i 5 / ~ , _' I / \ I , ~ _..-'~ I -1, \ t , " \ ~ I i it ._._._./ / \ z - 11 ~ ; . . ~tf \ I * 11 \ \ / , _ , '--.-,- "I 4 - - i I I __/ / / , '~ .- \ _\_ i~ r _11' ,\\\, it \1 it I252 -' - 111. 11 , / -- -- - 57 . -'_ "\, - ", < \ Qcf 11 \ ___"~ _'\ , ___..._'__'_. --------------..-* ..... -"--- - ' \__-, I" \ '\ \\\ _____ - "I I ~ -:-_ , -4 ' 11\ "~ ~ -' 'I" \1 \\\ 1, __ \ _11-In 11 1~ - ...... , '~ A\ \", .) - 1, \ J, "I ; , -1 "-" \,\ ... -, \ ; - ~~' \", ') - - "~. \ I ; <-, /~ ... I ~"' , A I ~"' i \ __1 , \ 11 \x \1 i ", "I 1~1 1_11' .. - ' - _zz _~~ 3 ` (_______ i , \" I I \ \ \ __ \ I , 1 257 I - -, / / // , -11 ~ -- -- \ / - N / NN N - - 11 I - - - - - - / N N\ N 12561 - - N 11, -11- \ \ ,8753E\__ ~_ \ \ \ ----__'_. _-, - - ---- _____ 1, " I ! -.."- ii--l- Q __ ~~ , \ N N I // 6001 254 1 •625 - _____ - _-_.-'__'__'.__._6 - - .62f '/\ 25 612 N \ \ - - .11 N, - ___ .602 _ _-•-•--- .6_( 2 -. -. . -- - . -. ---. \ N /\\ ll------- F F / / -!1I/ l258- : _--606 •FG630 -- -- / '•::I25 N N - "N \' /1 / - // / / ' / - -- - 0 - -- - -- - N / -- - I ~ j .% ;~~______' ....... -.-.-----.-------.---.-.--.-.--------,",----""---"",*,-I ...... ---A 0 11 \,\ 4 I ", -, ' 0 , __'. I'll, \ \ \ , / // / /7 7 4-J - I.FG 628 __ - I260 ITEMPORARYSTORMDRAL2 t 615A - \ - 7 - / / - /1 7 -/ S / -N .-------- - - _—?_ ---- ---ABANDONEDANDCAPPED--. - N -- -- - \ 7 - - / / / -t, J7 / / ---- —i - - - - - - WItI4CONCRETE - - - - - \N - -- t . / Ø> / "I 1-1 '~ ~1'1 '-~'~' "-- I _1-11 N_ ----- ~~ 7 J 7/ // /7 - - - ___ _ - I - ~' - - -- ~..~ -- ~'~.- - -"' / v " ___ T.~all . .. ..... - .-: -------- - --.-. - ........ * ~ - ~ I "..' -- - --- ------ - - ~' '_ __ _::~_~_~' --_ _. ..? - : __ / __'_ ______ -1, , - - I / I - ____-_ -~t_ QtV2( _. I I ----- ---- 7 ;- - I " 01"-261 " _ m / () 0 / \ _' 11 256- -_ w ___ .el --,-,--, " 1~ ::~' ~ I I - I ".1- - __ 0 Aj*(P -_-, ,, _ ?61 - ,, - ~ -1 - I I mi~k '-..* ll.e ~ L7 _~* I - Q —Cf ~'~ '~_ 0 - 0 - __*:~~~' - /A ____ .' -- \ 11 - '_ i_'~ \~ - ,~ -11 40i ;_~ — I ~ - --- ~~_51W_ 0 -- ---'I,- 11 :'~ ----,--.,. \~' I , W46 ~ - ., - _____ : _____~ 'i~ ... _ ___ I/ /I '/ _-_ __ ~UT_EL,Zum- - - ----- ------ _~U_-. ':-.:~:.- -, ~~ .... - ~ ",,' I I Qw,ii-- -".L-- _" - - - I N/- _ - -----,-"- // '_' I 1/// " / ~" ////7/ - _~ , I ' :A- - Tsa - - J2 . . ..... ---- -- - - -- - TOPOFHELDRAII - ,__ ___ , - - 540 - 266 j TT - N :~~ ... ... -T7:-- / / --------------------------------------------- - - -~' - - -"---, - - 39 /1 - --- 7- -------- - / /' / , _1 ... --_... ..... . .. ~ ... . .... . ....... --.._...__'._ __ - - ___...__-1 -- __ .... . ... . ..... ... - .... __'.'__- .. . .... . .... . ....... ~ ..... _'. -'~- ~-_ V_i' -_ -, -'-..__..' __'___'_--"-'- ___ __-_ __ __ ....... _""' ___ ___ ... . .... ____.. -..---. --'-------- ----- ..... _Z I / __ , ""___'1_...__.. ........ .___'__'._ ............. _'__...__ ... . ........ ~ . .. . ....... . ..... I /// I/ //,/ / X/// , ~"' ....... I ___.._. ~ ___-, , , __ ._ ': , _~.'.__ " _\__7_ ///////// / I.- // _ - I -- - - - -- - - ------ -- ------- -- ----- --- ---- - ' -- ---------- -- --.-- -:-------- - -- - --. - / //// //// N - ---------- - /// -::----- - --- -- ---- - -- -- - --- - —--:- -- -- / / / / / // / -- -- - -- -- N - - - / / , // / - - - -- - -- - - - - - - ------- /, ---- - _ - ,//// / / //// - -. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ----- A", '__ ",_ / /. _'..______ 'T ... 9 "_", - - - ------ - -`y7__ ., __ - 11 Z 11 11 5- 5' -._-- - - - ------ ---- 7 ------_____I.-- -- -- - - I-"-I: - -- - -- 7/1________i-i- - AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP ----------------______-____________- - ...............____-- - -- - - __i_ - CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK - -- - - -- -- ---- --_ -- - PHASE 1, LOTS 1 THROUGH \it 7\\ IN \ ----- -- ---- --- - - N ----7--- 77 -- ---.. - BflUN 7 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA - - - /I 11 i 11 -- SCALE DATE -N -S- - -- -- - . --/ G-E000N 1"60' 08302006 -S'/' \ 1 IS - - -- -- - - - - INCORPORATED PROJECT NO. 06442-32 - 04A FIGURE / - -5' -- '- <-. - - / GEOTECALCONSULTANFS - -- -: -. - I -- 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 - S - PH0NE858558-6900- FAX 858558-6159 SHEET I OF I X:/06442-32-04AJRAJEA6442-32-04AAS-GRD GE -MAP/EVIS 10-29-2008)/DWG REVISED DATE: 12 -26-2007 (LOT 2) REVISED DATE: 10 -30-2008 (LOT 1) TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd. or 3/4" Dry Moist. Re!. Rd. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. Test No. Date Location (It) No. (q) (PCI) (%) (%) (%) 8 07/14/05 Lot 1 230 1 0 116.3 9.7 90 90 9 07/14/05 Lot 232 1 0 118.5 10.1 92 90 10 07/14/05 Lot 1 236 1 0 117.6 10.0 91 90 ii 07/14/05 Lot 1 240 1 0 116.7 9.8 90 90 12 07/15/05 Lot 1 238 1 0 119.1 10.4 92 90 13 07/15/05 Lot 1 242 1 0 117.1 9.3 91 90 14 07/15/05 Lot 244 1 0 116.3 9.5 90 90 15 07/15/05 Lot 1 245 1 0 116.8 10.7 91 90 19 07/20/05 Lot 1 236 3 0 116.0 9.3 91 90 2007/20/05 Loti 244 - 3 0 115.2 9.5 90 90 21 07/20/05 Lot 1 246 3 0 118.0 9.6 92 90 57 07/28/05 Lot 1 255 3 0 117.4 9.6 92 90 58 07/28/05 Lot 1 249 3 0 115.2 9.9 90 90 100 08/10/05 Lot 1 255 3 0 115.5 11.3 90 90 101 08/10/05 Lot 259 3 0 117.5 10.2 92 90 125 08/17105 Lot 1 245 4 0 112.3 15.5 91 90 126 08/17/05 Lot 247 4 0 111.6 16.0 90 90 ST 133 08/18/05 Lot! 250 2 0 119.6 8.9 92 90 ST 134 08/18/05 Lot 1 250 2 0 121.0 .9.0 93 90 151 08/23/05 Lot! : 252 -. 4 0 114.1 12.5 92 90 ST 158 08/24/05 Lot 1 243 1 0 1 17. 1 8.2 91 90 ST 159 08/24/05 Lot 1 240 1 0 116.3 8.0 90 - 90 FO 184 08/29/05 Lot 1 260 1 0 117.4 7.2 91 90 FG 185 08/29/05 Lot 1 263 1 0 116.8 7.0 91 90 562 03/02/06 Lot 1 - 255 -. 13 0 109.8 12.5 90 90 56 .-. 63 Loll 256 13 0 111.3 13.0 91 90 564 03/06/06 Lot 1 250 15 0 101.3 20.1 90 90 565 03/06/06 Lot 1 258 15 0 103.4 22.1 92 90 566 03/06/06 Lot 1 252 15 0 103.7 19.8 92 90 567 03/06/06 Lot! 255 15 0 101.9 21.7 91 90 568 03/07/06 Lot 1 251 15 0 103.3 22.0 92 90 569 03/16/06 Lot 1 255 19 0 103.0 10.4 88 90 569A 03/16/06 Lot! 255 19 0 105.3 14.8 90 90 570 03/16/06 Lot 1 252 19 0 104.3 11.1 89 90 570A 03/16/06 Lot! 252 19 0 105.6 14.9 90 90 573 03/28/06 Lot 1 253 12 0 1 16. 1 11.8 90 90 574 03/28/06 Loc1 254 12 0 121.5 12.7 94 90 575 03/28/06 Lot 1 255 12 0 119.5 10.1 93 90 576 04/03/06 Loll 255 19 0 105.7 16.9 90 90 577 04/03/06 Lot 1 258 .19 0 106.5 - 15.9 91 - 90 578 04/11/06 Lot 1 252 19 0 1 08. 6 16.8 93 90 579 04/11/06 Lot 252 19 0 105.7 17.4 90 90 636 07123/08 Lot 257 24 0 112.6 12.8 91 90 637 07/23/08 Lot 1 260 18 0 105.3 14.5 91 90 FO 638 07/23/08 Lot 1 255 18 0 106.0 14.0 92 90 Project No. 06442-32-04A October 30, 2008 TABLE I EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C.....Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction. Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS DTN - DUPLICATE TEST NUMBER FG - FINISH GRADE ST - SLOPE TEST - CURVE NO. Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test results table for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. - ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted. - TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test (ASTM D1556) NU: Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D2922) OT: Other - ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot. - LOCATION DESCRIPTION (IP): Indicates in-place tests. Where (IP) appears in the location description, the compaction procedures were not observed by a representative of Geocon. Tests were taken at the surface or in test pits after placement of the fill. The results of these tests are indicative of the relative compaction at the location of the test only and may not be extrapolated to adjacent areas. Geocon has no opinion regarding the relative compaction of fill in adjacent areas. Project No. 06442-32-04A October 30. 2008 TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTMD1557 Proctor Curve No Source and Description ____________________________________________________ Maximum Dry Density (pd) Optimum Moisture Content (%) 1 Dark brown, Silty, fine SAND 129.2 8.5 2 Olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 130.1 8.6 3 Very dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 128.0 8.9 4 Very dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND with trace gravel 123.9 12.0 12 Olive gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND 128.9 9.2 13 Light yellowish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with silt 122.0 11.8 15 Olive green, Silty CLAY 112.2 17.8 18 Light brown, fine, Sandy SILT 115.5 15.0 19 Dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND with trace gravel 1 117.0 1 14.7 24 Olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND with trace silt 1 124.0 1 11.3 TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No. (Lot No.2 and location on Pad) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Before Test After Test EI-39(Southwest Portion) 9.4 20.7 112.7 50 EI-40 (Northwest Portion) 10.3 24.3 108.6 74 EI41 (Northeast Portion) 8.9 20.8 112.8 56 EI-42 (Southeast Portion) 8.9 19.1 114.7 46 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No.* % Soluble Sulfate Sulfate Exposure Class Exposure Rating EI-39 0.290 S2 Severe (high risk) EI-40 0.183 SI Moderate (medium risk) EI-41 0.268 S2 Severe (high risk) Et-42 0.216 S2 Severe (high risk) *See Table III for location on pad. **Reference: Table 4.2.1, ACI 318-08 report. Project No. 06442-32-04A October 30, 2008 GEOCON INCOR POR ATED GEOTECHNICAL a ENVIRONMENTAL a MATERIALS Project No. 06442-32-29 June 28, 2017 Oakmont Senior Living 9240 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492 Attention: Ms. Hannah Daugherty Subject: UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL CORRESPONDENCE CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH LOT I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Daugherty: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this correspondence provide our opinion regarding the feasibility of creating a senior living facility on Lot 1 of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park in Carlsbad, California. For the purpose of this letter, we have reviewed the preliminary development plan entitled Oakmont of Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California, Site Plan, prepared by Landesign Group, dated February 2017, and our reports entitled Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Phase 1, Lots 1 through 9, Carlsbad, California, dated October 30, 2006 and Addendum to Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Phase 1, Lot 1, Carlsbad, California, dated October 30, 2008. Lot 1 of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park consists of an easterly sloping sheet graded pad that was created in 2006 during the overall mass grading of Carlsbad Oaks North Phase 1. The lot was originally left low and subsequently completed in 2008. The as-graded condition consists of compacted fill underlain by the Point Loma Formation. The center portion of the pad was undercut to eliminate cut-fill transitions that resulted from the mass grading. Fill thicknesses across the pad range from approximately 2 to 20 feet. The surface soils have a "low" to "medium" expansion potential and a "moderate" to "severe" sulfate exposure rating. The referenced plan indicates that development will consist of fine grading the site to support a three- story luxury assisted living facility, a two-story memory care building and a one-story models building. A pool, parking areas and associated infrastructure is also proposed. Although the referenced plan is preliminary, we anticipate that cuts and fills on the order of five feet or less will be necessary to achieve the final building pad configuration. Based on our review, and the information above, it is Our opinion that the proposed senior living facility is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. A future update geotechnical report considering the ultimate development plan should be prepared once civil grading plans are developed. The report would provide specific geotechnical recommendations pertinent to the design and construction of the project. 6960 Flanders Drive a Son Diego, California 92121.2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 N Fox 858.558.6159 Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence or desire additional information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON iNCORPORATED 4avid van4 CEG 1860 DBE:ejc (4) Addressee Project No. 06442-32-29 - 2 - June 28, 2017 TRANSMITTAL OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING WINDSOR, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 PROJECT NO. 06442-32-29 GEOCON INCORPORATED 0 GEOTECHNICAL a ENVIRONMENTAL n MATERIALS Project No. 06442-32-29 September 25, 2017 Oakmont Senior Living 9240 Old Redwood Highway, Suite 200 Windsor, California 95492 Attention: Ms. Hannah Daugherty Subject: TRANSMITTAL OF GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT 1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Phase 1, Lots I through 9, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 30, 2006. Addendum to Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park - Phase 1, Lot 1, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 30, 2008. Update Geotechnical Correspondence, Carlsbad Oaks North Lot 1, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated June 28, 2017 (Project No. 06442-32-29). Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Oakmont of Carlsbad, Lot 1 of Tract No. 14926, prepared by Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Inc., dated June 30, 2017. Dear Ms. Daugherty: In accordance with your request, Geocon Incorporated has provided geotechnical engineering services on the subject project. Specifically, we have performed two in-situ permeability tests to aid in evaluating the on-site storm water BMP design. The following information is provided to support storm water BMP design in accordance with the 2016 City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the 2016 City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. 6960 Flanders Drive IN Son Diego, California 92121.2974 a Telephone 858.558.6900 U Fox 858.558.6159 Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. TABLE I HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These A consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of B moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils C having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These D consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. The subject sheet-graded pad is underlain by compacted fill placed above the Point Loma formation. After completion of the proposed grading operations, the property would consist of compacted fill over Pont Loma Formation. The compacted fill and formational materials should be classified as Soil Group D. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. Table 2 presents the information from the USDA website. The Hydrologic Soil Group Map presents output from the USDA website showing the limits of the soil units. The USDA information is presented in Appendix B. Project No. 06442-32-29 - 2 - September 25, 2017 TABLE 2 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Approximate Hydrologic kSAT of Most Map Unit Name Symbol Percentage Soil Group Limiting Layer of Property (Inches/ Hour) Cieneba coarse sandy loam CiG2 44 D 1.98-5.95 Huerhuero loam HrD 56 D 0.00-0.06 In-Situ Testing We performed two Soil Moisture, Inc. Aardvark Permeameter tests at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 1. Test P-i was located in the bottom of an existing basin. Some standing water was observed in a portion of this basin. Test P-2 was hand augered until practical refusal was encountered on the Point Loma Formation contact. The test borings were 4 inches in diameter. The results of the tests provide parameters regarding the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil and geologic units. Table 3 presents the results of the field saturated hydraulic conductivity/infiltration rates obtained from the Aardvark Permeameter tests. The data sheets are presented in Appendix A. We applied a feasibility factor of safety of 2 to the test results. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the non-homogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil. TABLE 3 FIELD PERMEAMETER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Geologic Test Depth Field-Saturated Field Test No. Unit (feet, below grade) Hydraulic Conductivity, Infiltration Rate k1 (inch/hour) (inch/hour) P-i Qcf 2.4 0.0002 0.0001 P-2 Kp 3.75 0.002 0.001 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS The Site Plan, Figure 1, presents the existing property and the locations of the in-situ infiltration test locations. Soil Types Compacted Fill - Compacted fill exists across the property. The proposed storm water BMP's will be founded in compacted fill placed above very dense formational materials. The compacted fill is comprised of sandy/clayey silt. The fill has been or will be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. In our experience, compacted fill does not possess Project No. 06442-32-29 - 3 - September 25, 2017 infiltration rates appropriate for infiltration BMP's, as demonstrated by the in-situ testing. Hazards that occur as a result of fill soil saturation include a potential for hydro-consolidation of the granular fill soils and/or swelling of the expansive soils, long-term fill settlement, differential fill settlement, and lateral movement associated with saturated fill relaxation. The potential for lateral water migration to adversely impact existing or proposed structures, foundations, utilities, and roadways, is high. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible. Section D.4.2 of the 2016 Storm Water Standards (SWS) provides a discussion regarding fill materials used for infiltration. The SWS states: For engineered fills, infiltration rates may still be quite uncertain due to layering and heterogeneities introduced as part of construction that cannot be precisely controlled. Due to these uncertainties, full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used in areas where infiltration BMP's are founded in compacted fill. Where possible, infiltration BMPs on fill material should be designed such that their infiltrating surface extends into native soils. The underlying formation below the compacted fill is expected between 5 to 10 feet below proposed finish grades after remedial grading is performed. Full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible within the compacted fill and liners and subdrains should be used. If the infiltration BMP's extended below the compacted fill, partial infiltration may be feasible. Because of the uncertainty offill parameters as well as potential compaction of the native soils, an infiltration BMP may not be feasible. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used in the fill areas. If the source offill material is defined and this material is known to be of a granular nature and that the native soils below are permeable and will not be highly compacted, infiltration through compacted fill materials may still be feasible. In this case, a project phasing approach could be used including the following general steps, (1) collect samples from areas expected to be used for fill, (2) remold samples to approximately the proposed degree of compaction and measure the saturated hydraulic conductivity of remolded samples using laboratory methods, (3) if infiltration rates appear adequate for infiltration, then apply an appropriate factor of safety and use the initial rates for preliminary design, (4) following placement of fill, conduct in-situ testing to refine design infiltration rates and adjust the design as needed. However, based on the discussion above, it is our opinion that infiltrating into compacted fill should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used. Infiltration Rates The results of the unfactored infiltration rates (i.e. field saturated hydraulic conductivity) for Tests P-i and P-2 were 0.0002 inches per hour (iph) and 0.002 iph, respectively. After applying a feasibility factor of safety of 2.0, the infiltration rates obtained for P-1 and P-2 are 0.0001 and 0.001 iph, respectively. The infiltration test results show the on-site soil permeability is variable across the site. A Project No. 06442-32-29 -4- September 25, 2017 single design rate for an area could not be accurate based on the variability. Therefore, based on the results of the field infiltration tests, anticipated grading, and our experience, full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible. The results of the permeability testing are presented in Appendix A. Groundwater Elevations Groundwater is expected to be encountered at depths greater than 100 feet below the site, therefore groundwater is not expected to be a factor. Groundwater mounding is caused when infiltration is allowed and the lateral hydraulic conductivity is relatively low causing an increase in the groundwater table. Groundwater mounding is not likely. Soil or Groundwater Contamination Based on review of the Geotracker website, no active cleanup sites exist on or adjacent to the subject site. In addition, we are not aware of any contaminated soils or shallow groundwater on the site that would preclude storm water infiltration. An environmental assessment was not part of our scope of work. Slopes Existing slopes exist on the perimeter of the property. Infiltration of storm water adjacent to cut or fill slopes should be avoided. Fill slopes will exhibit instability if water is allowed to saturate the compacted fill. Cut slopes may exhibit daylight seepage. Storm Water Management Devices Based on the discussion above, both infiltration tests did not meet the minimum feasibility criteria for full or partial infiltration. To limit the adverse impacts of storm water infiltration, i.e. lateral water migration, daylight water seepage, etc., the design should include liners and subdrains. The impermeable liners should consist of a high-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC. The liner should surround the bottom and sides of the infiltrating surface and should extend slightly above the high water elevation. The subdrain should be perforated, installed near the base of the excavation, be at least 4-inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The final segment of the subdrain outside the limits of the storm water BMP should consist of solid pipe and connected to a proper outlet. Any penetration of the liner should be properly waterproofed. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Project No. 06442-32-29 - 5 - September 25, 2017 Storm Water Standard Worksheets The Storm Water Standard manual stipulates the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet C.4-1 or Form 1-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. A completed Form 1-8 is presented in Appendix B. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table 4 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. TABLE 4 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Medium Low Concern —3 Points Concern —2 Points Concern - 1 Point Use of soil survey maps or Use of well permeameter simple texture analysis to or borehole methods with . Direct measurement with estimate short-term accompanying continuous boring log, localized (i.e. small- infiltration rates. Use of Direct measurement of scale) infiltration testing Assessment Methods well permeameter or infiltration area with methods at relatively high borehole methods without localized infiltration resolution or use of accompanying continuous measurement methods extensive test pit boring log. Relatively (e.g., infiltrometer). infiltration measurement sparse testing with direct Moderate spatial methods. infiltration methods resolution Predominant Soil Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly Texture with significant fines loamy soils Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits Site Soil Variability indicated from site assessment or unknown indicate moderately indicate relatively variability homogenous soils homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater/ <5 feet below 5-15 feet below >15 feet below Impervious Layer I facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table 5 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safet' This table only presents the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. Project No. 06442-32-29 -6- September 25, 2017 TABLE S FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES - PART Al Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p = w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 3 0.75 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 3 0.75 Site Soil Variability 0.25 3 0.75 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = I 2.5 The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9 using the data provide1 above. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety. If you have questions, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON iNCORPORATED I ~f"~J 4 --,14 - &1--7 Trevor E. Myers RCE 63773 TEM:DBE:dmc E. IIf44f (4) Addressee (( No.RCE637730 V\4 CIV David B. Evan's CEG 1860 - DAVID B. EVANS NO. 1860 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Project No. 06442-32-29 - 7 - September 25. 2017 APPENDIX A AARDVARK TEST RESULTS FOR CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 06442-32-29 <00) GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: Oakmont Senior Living Date: 9/15/2017 Project Number: 06442-32-29 By: DG Test Number: P-i Borehole Diameter, d (in.): 4.00 Ref. EL (feet, MSL): 238.0 Borehole Depth, H (In): 29.00 Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 235.6 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (in.): 28.00 Estimated Depth to Water Table, S (feet): 100.00 Height APM Raised from Bottom (in.): 2.00 Pressure Reducer Used: No Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.): 47.75 Head Height Calculated, h (in.): 5.66 5700 Head Height Measured, h (in.): Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.): 1228.00 E ppr C 0 10 20 30 40 Time (mm) Soil Matric Flux Potential. 4)- 0.= I 0.00004 Iin/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate) Kwt = 4.07E-06 ]i./.in 1 0.0002 uin/hr 50 60 <~07) GEOCON Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis Project Name: Oakmont Senior Living Project Number: 06442-32-29 Test Number: P-2 Date: 9/15/2017 By: DG Ref. EL (feet, MSL): 253.0 Bottom EL (feet, MSL):249.3 Borehole Diameter, d (in.): 4.00 Borehole Depth, H (in):45.00 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (in.) 28.00 Estimated Depth to Water Table, S (feet): 100.00 Height APM Raised from Bottom (in.): 2.00 Pressure Reducer Used: No Distance Between Resevoir and APM Float, D (in.): 63.75 Head Height Calculated, h (in.): 5.71 Head Height Measured, h (in.): 73.00 Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (in.): 1228.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (mm) Soil Matric Flux Potential, 4... t)m I_0.0003Iin2/min Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (infiltration Rate! = 2.72E-05 Jn/min 1 0.002uin/hr APPENDIX B FORM 1-8 FOR CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH - LOT I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 06442-32-29 ftm U3 AV 33 (Ytrj Part 2— Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? 5 The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation X of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The infiltration test results did not meet the minimum threshold of 0.01 iph for partial infiltration. Saturating compacted fill may result in settlement and distress to nearby public roadway improvements and proposed private improvements and structures. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) 6 that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening X Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: The adverse impacts of partial infiltration could be reasonably mitigated to acceptable levels using side liners and a subdrain. However, infiltrating into compacted fill is not recommended. Any infiltration BMP's should be founded in the formational materials and side liners should be used to prevent lateral water migration and daylight water seepage from adversely impacting the compacted fill and slopes. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. [L Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Groundwater is not located within approximately 10 feet from the bottom of the proposed basins. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to 8 this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors X presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Geocon is not aware of any downstream water rights that would be affected by incidental infiltration of storm water. Researching downstream water rights is beyond the scope of the geotechnical consultant. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration No Result* If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be Infiltration infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California (Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1) 332N 1 -. 338rN 404 All t L 01 V 0.1 GOP 4 I ? ¶ S p * 33- 11"N Soil Mi1i lilY riot lie vrlicl it 33811"N 475757 -+ 475770 475710 475758 475757 475730 475870 475810 470 C C En Map Se: 1:t,9Wp.intonA landscape (ir x8.5")sheet Meters N o 25 50 100 150 I -Feet " 0 EL) 1W Map ojection: Web Mertaex Com&ciat: WG584 Edge tics: UTM Zone uN WGS84 usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Map Unit Legend N. qn Sy C1G2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 3.1 43.7% 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded HrD Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 4.0 1 56.3% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 7.2 j 100.0% VDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded—San Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot I Diego County Area, California San Diego County Area, California C1G2—Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hb9s Elevation: 500 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 64 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cieneba and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cieneba Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and granodiorite Typical profile HI - 0 to 10 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 10 to 14 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: SHALLOW LOAMY (1975) (ROI9XD060CA) Hydric soil rating: No i Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded—San Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Diego County Area, California Minor Components Vista Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Las posas Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 12, 2016 VDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description: Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes—San Diego County Area, Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 California San Diego County Area, California HrD—Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbcp Elevation: 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 260 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Huerhuero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Huerhuero Setting Landform: Marine terraces Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Calcareous alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile HI -0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 55 inches: clay loam, clay H2 - 12 to 55 inches: stratified sand to sandy loam H3 - 55 to 72 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 9 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 25.0 Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D us Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes—San Diego County Area, Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 California Ecological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (ROI9XDO61 CA) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Las fibres Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Otiventain Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 12, 2016 A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 012 ATTACHMENT 8 Supplemental SWMM Model Outputs and Report CHNICAL MEMORANDUM: SWMM Modeling for Hydromodification Compliance of: Oakmont Carlsbad CUP2017-0008, GR2019-0013, DWG 517-4A Carlsbad, CA Prepared for: Alliance Land Planning and Engineering August 23, 2019 ( No. 45005 *\ E, 3-31-2OJ Tory R. Walker, R.C. E. 45005 President RY R.WALKERENGINEERING BLE SOLUTIONS IN WATER RESOURCES LCENit.EDR, STE z06, VISTA, CA 92084 760-414-9212 TORY R.WALKER ENGINEERING RELIABLE SOLUTIONS IN WATER RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Alliance Land Planning and Engineering 2248 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 FROM: Tory Walker, PE, CFM, LEED GA DATE: August 23, 2019 RE: Summary of SWMM Modeling for Hydromodification Compliance for Oakmont Carlsbad, CA INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum summarizes the approach used to model the proposed Oakmont development project in the city of Carlsbad, CA, using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) 5.1. SWMM analyses were prepared for the pre- and post- developed conditions at the project site to determine if the proposed biofiltration basins meet Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) requirements. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) established these requirements in the Final HMP Document' dated March 2011, prepared by Brown & Caldwell for the County of San Diego Copermittees, which includes the City of Oceanside. SWMM MODEL DEVELOPMENT The Oakmont project proposes to develop a vacant parcel located just north of the intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street in the City of Carlsbad. Two (2) SWMM scenarios were prepared for this study, one for the pre-developed and another for the post-developed conditions. One Point of Compliance (POC-1) has been identified for the project site, as shown on the Point of Compliance Exhibit in Attachment 6. For both SWMM scenarios, flow duration curves were prepared for POC-1 to determine if the proposed biofiltration Best Management Practices (BMP) and underground storage vault are sufficient to meet the current HMP requirements. The input data required to develop SWMM analyses include rainfall, watershed characteristics, and BMP configurations. The Oceanside gauge from the Project Clean Water website was used for this study, since it is the most representative of the site precipitation due to elevation and proximity to the project site. WATERSHED. FLOODPLAIN eSTORM WATER MANAGEMENTS RIVER RESTORATION FLOOD FACILITIES DESIGNS SEDIMENT e EROSION 172 Civic CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 2o6, VISTA CA 97084 760-414-9212 . TRWENCINEERINC.COM Oakmont Carlsbad HMP Memo March 18, 2019 —TRWE— Evaporation for the site was modeled using the values prescribed by the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual'. The site was modeled with Type D hydrologic soil, as determined from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. In existing conditions, soils are assumed to be compacted to represent the current developed condition of the site. Soils are also assumed to be compacted in proposed conditions. Based on the HMP Review and Analysis prepared for the Cities of San Marcos, Oceanside & Vista', other SWMM inputs for the subareas are discussed in the appendices to this document, where the selection of the parameters is explained in detail. HMP MODELING POC-1 is located to the southeast of the project site where the proposed storm drain network will drain into an existing desilt basin directly discharging to a vegetated channel along the northern portion of the project site. The site drainage ultimately discharges to Agua Hedionda Creek. One POC was used for HMP analysis. In existing conditions, DMA 1 drains southeasterly to POC-1. The existing site was modeled as completely pervious, as required by RWQCB Order No. 119-2013-00014. In proposed conditions, the majority of the developed area tributary to POC-1 is drained to three underground storage vaults (USV 1, USV 2 and USV 3). Runoff resulting from DMA 1 and DMA 3 are routed to 2 underground storage vaults USV 1 and USV 3, the runoff from the vaults will then be routed to 2 receiving BMP biofiltration basins (BMPs 1 and 3) and then to POC-1. Runoff resulting from the underground storage vault 2 will be routed directly to POC-1. The remaining BMPs are directly conveyed via storm drain to POC-1. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 summarize data for POC-1 DMAs. The BMP biofiltration basins and underground storage vaults are responsible for handling hydromodification requirements for POC-1. The biofiltration basins have been designed with ponding depth of one foot. Each BMP is comprised of a 21-inch layer of amended soil (a highly sandy, organic rich compost with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 in/hr), and a layer of gravel for additional detention, and 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 each basin via a low-flow orifice outlet within the gravel layer to the receiving storm drain system. A riser structure will be constructed within each BMP as an emergency overflow such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system (see dimensions in Tables 2 and 3). TABLE 1.1 - SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR POC-1 MR io ae DMA 1 5.60 0.0% TOTAL 5.60 - TABLE 1.2 - SUMMARY OF DEVELOPED CONDITIONS FOR POC-1 DMA 'Tnbutary Area, A(ac)' __________________________________________ '. ? Impervious Percentage, Ip- 4' DMA 1 2.747 61.2% DMA 2 1.355 57.3% DMA 3 1.496 69.0% TOTAL 5.60 - 2 Job #406-02 Oakmont Carlsbad HMP Memo March 18, 2019 —TRWE-- General Considerations All biofiltration basins were modeled using the biofiltration LID module within SWMM. The biofiltration module can model the underground gravel storage layer, underdrain with an orifice plate, amended soil layer, and a surface storage pond up to the elevation of the invert of the emergency weir. Detailed outlet structure locations and elevations should be shown on the construction plans based on the recommendations of this study. It is assumed that storm water quality requirements for the project will be met by the proposed storm water quality facilities. However, detailed water quality requirements are not discussed within this technical memo. For further information regarding storm water quality requirements for the project, please refer to the site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWOMP). BMP MODELING FOR HMP PURPOSES Modeling HMP BMPs Biofiltration basins are proposed for hydromodification conformance for the project site. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the dimensions required for HMP compliance according to the SWMM models that were undertaken for the project. Table 4 illustrates the dimensions of the underground storage vault. TABLE 2— SUMMARY OF DUAL PURPOSE BMPs: Biofiltration with Surface Ponding WOUR606.1 FIP Grav GrveI d&Irain e6ttnii 1urface ' AreaQ)(ft. ((n) .Depth Ojjf D<(ln) áft2) (ft!) QpptBasII 'Depth (ft) 1 2,126 21 - 2,126 2,126 1.0 3 1 1,300 21 - 1,300 1,300 1.0 Gravel Area = Amended Soil Area. Amended soil depth is equal to 21-inches for all BMPs. Diameter of orifice in gravel layer with invert at bottom of layer; tied with hydromod min threshold (10%02). Vertical walls were assumed for the surface storage of all BMPs. Therefore, bottom area Is approximately equal to top area. The total surface depth from the bottom of the pond to the top of the pond berm or wall (pond spill crest). TABLE 3— SUMMARY OF UNDGERGROUND STORAGE VAULT DIMENSIONS Im J4 I wo Lf 1401 P'ni 1 450 5.00 2,250 2 560 5.00 2,800 3 255 5.00 - 1,275 *Modeled area assumes 100% void space. Actual storage device must maintain the storage height, but the actual footprint required can vary, dependent on the selected product, and will not affect modeling. FLOW DURATION CURVE COMPARISON Flow Duration Curves (FOC) were compared at the project's POC by exporting the hourly runoff time series results from SWMM to a spreadsheet. The FDC was compared between 10% of the existing 3 Job #406-02 Oakmont Carlsbad HMP Memo March 18, 2019 —TRWE--- condition Q2 up to the existing condition Qo. The 01 and Q.o were determined with a partial duration statistical analysis of the runoff time series in an Excel spreadsheet using the Cunnane plotting position method (which is the preferred plotting methodology in the 2011 HMP). As the SWMM Model includes a statistical analysis based on the Weibull Plotting Position Method, the Weibull Method was also used within the spreadsheet to ensure that the results were similar to those obtained by the SWMM Model. The range from 10% of Q2 up to Qio was divided into 100 equal time intervals; the number of hours that each flow rate was exceeded was counted from the hourly series. Additionally, the intermediate peaks with a return period "i" were obtained (Q with i=3 to 9). For the purpose of the plot, the values were presented as percentage of time exceeded for each flow rate. FDC comparison for POC-1 is illustrated in Figure 1 in both normal and logarithmic scale. As can be seen in Figure 1, the FDC for the proposed condition with the HMP facilities is within 110% of the curve for the existing condition in both peak flow and duration. The additional runoff volume generated from developing the site will be released to the storm drain system at a flow rate below the 10% Q2 lower threshold. Additionally, the project will not increase peak flow rates between the Q.i and the Q.io, as shown in the graphics and also in the peak flow tables in Attachment 1. DRAWDOWN TIME To ensure compliance with the 96 hour drawdown requirements (per Section 6.4.6 of the Final HMP document dated March 2011), drawdown calculations are provided in Attachment 5 of this report. SUMMARY This study has demonstrated .that the proposed biofiltration basins, coupled with the underground storage facilities recommended within the Oakmont Carlsbad project are sufficient to meet the current HMP criteria if the cross-sectional area and volume recommended within this technical memorandum, and the respective orifices and outlet structures, are incorporated as specified within the proposed project site. KEY ASSUMPTIONS Type 0 soil is representative of both the existing and developed conditions site per the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The biofiltration basins are lined to prevent infiltration into the underlying soil. 4 Job #406-02 Oakmont Carlsbad HMP Memo March 18, 2019 —TRWE-- REFERENCES [1] - "Final Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) prepared for the County of Son Diego", March 2011, Brown and Caldwell. - "Model BMP Design Manual: San Diego Region for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management". June 2015, Geosyntec Consultants & RICK Engineering Company. - "Review and Analysis of San Diego County Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP): Assumptions, Criteria, Methods, & Modeling Tools - Prepared for the Cities of San Marcos, Oceanside & Vista", May 2012, Tory R. Walker Engineering. - Order 119-2013-001, California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region (SDRWQCB). -"Handbook of Hydrology", David R. Maidment, Editor in Chief. 1992, McGraw Hill. ATTACHMENTS* Peak Flow Frequency Comparison Tables Flow Duration Curve Comparison Plots and Data Partial Duration Series Data Storage and Rating Curves S. Drawdown Time Calculations Pre-Developed and Post-Project DMA Exhibits NRCS Soil Map B. SWMM Input Data 9. SWMM Summary Report 6 Job #406-02 ATTACHMENT 1 Peak Flow Frequency Comparison Tables ATTACHMENT 1 Q2 to (Lo Comparison Table - POC-1 Reduction, Exist - Return Period Existing Condition (cfs) Mitigated Condition (cfs) Mitigated (cfs) 2-year 2.99 2.09 0.90 3-year 3.22 2.59 0.63 4-year 3.69 2.91 0.77 5-year 3.80 3.33 0.47 6-year 3.84 3.38 0.46 7-year 4.10 3.51 0.59 8-year 4.20 3.65 0.55 9-year 4.38 3.85 0.53 4.73 4.17 0.57 10-year ATTACHMENT 2 Flow Duration Curve Comparison Plots and Data ATTACHMENT 2 FLOW DURATION CURVE ANALYSIS 1) Flow duration curve shall not exceed the existing conditions by more than 10%, neither in peak flow nor duration. The figures on the following pages illustrate that, for the project's POC, the flow duration curve in post-development conditions with the proposed IMPs is within 110% of the existing flow duration curve. The flow duration curve table following the curve shows that if the interval 0.1002 - Ow is divided in 100 sub-intervals, then a) the post development divided by pre- development durations are never larger than 110% (the permit allows up to 110%); and b) there are no more than 10 intervals in the range 101%-110% which would imply an excess over 10% of the length of the curve (the permit allows less than 10% of excesses measured as 101- 110%). Consequently, the design passes the hydromodification test. It is important to note that the flow duration curve can be expressed in the "x" axis as percentage of time, hours per year, total number of hours, or any other similar time variable. As those variables only differ by a multiplying constant, their plot in logarithmic scale is going to look exactly the same, and compliance can be observed regardless of the variable selected. However, in order to satisfy the City of Oceanside HMP example, % of time exceeded is the variable of choice in the flow duration curve. The selection of a logarithmic scale in lieu of the normal scale is preferred, as differences between the pre-development and post-development curves can be seen more clearly in the entire range of analysis. Both graphics are presented just to prove the difference. In terms of the "y" axis, the peak flow value is the variable of choice. As an additional analysis performed by TRWE, not only the range of analysis is clearly depicted (10% of 02 to 02o) but also all intermediate flows are shown (0.2, 03, 04, Os, 08, Q7, 08 and Os) in order to demonstrate compliance at any range 02 - 02+i. One of the limitations of both the SWMM and SDHM models is that the intermediate analysis is not performed (to obtain Qi from i = 2 to 10). TRWE performed the analysis using the Cunnane Plotting position Method (the preferred method in the HMP permit) from the "n" largest independent peak flows obtained from the continuous time series. The largest "n" peak flows are attached in this appendix, as well as the values of Qi with a return period "i", from i=2 to 10. The Q values are also added into the flow-duration plot. Q2 = 2.99 cfs Fraction 10% Q10=. 4.73 cfs Step = 0.0448 cfs Count= 499679 hours 57.00 years IntervaI (cfs) 1ou > Q tunè HouQ 3im W670 aji?JL 1 0.299 928 1.86E-01 911 1.82E-01 98% Pass 2 0.344 832 1.67E-01 778 1.56E-01 94% Pass 3 0.389 762 1.52E-01 699 1.40E-01 92% Pass 4 0.433 693 1.39E-01 634 1.27E-01 91% Pass 5 0.478 661 1.32E-01 558 1.12E-01 84% Pass 6 0.523 615 1.23E-01 499 9.99E-02 81% Pass 7 0.568 587 1.17E-01 434 8.69E-02 74% Pass 8 0.613 547 1.09E-01 382 7.64E-02 70% Pass 9 0.657 519 1.04E-01 334 6.68E-02 64% Pass 10 0.702 478 9.57E-02 295 5.90E-02 62% Pass 11 0.747 453 9.07E-02 263 5.26E-02 58% Pass 12 0.792 416 8.33E-02 237 4.74E-02 57% Pass 13 0.837 396 7.93E-02 221 4.42E-02 56% Pass 14 0.881 366 7.32E-02 206 4.12E-02 56% Pass 15 0.926 340 6.80E-02 191 3.82E-02 56% Pass 16 0.971 309 6.18E-02 179 3.58E-02 58% Pass 17 1.016 296 5.92E-02 167 3.34E-02 56% Pass 18 1.061 278 5.56E-02 151 3.02E-02 54% Pass 19 1.105 271 5.42E-02 137 2.74E-02 51% Pass 20 1.150 252 5.04E-02 128 2.56E-02 51% Pass 21 1.195 238 4.76E-02 126 2.52E-02 53% Pass 22 1.240 229 4.58E-02 118 2.36E-02 52% Pass 23 1.285 215 4.30E-02 109 2.18E-02 51% Pass 24 1.329 204 4.08E-02 101 2.02E-02 50% Pass 25 1.374 187 3.74E-02 94 1.88E-02 50% Pass 26 1.419 172 3.44E-02 90 1.80E-02 52% Pass 27 1.464 154 3.08E-02 88 1.76E-02 57% Pass 28 1.509 144 2.88E-02 84 1.68E-02 58% Pass 29 1.553 133 2.66E-02 82 1.64E-02 62% Pass 30 1.598 127 2.54E-02 71 1.42E-02 56% Pass 31 1 1.643 121 2.42E-02 64 1.28E-02 53% Pass 32 1.688 119 2.38E-02 58 1.16E-02 49% Pass 33 1.732 116 2.32E-02 56 1.12E-02 48% Pass 34 1.777 111 2.22E-02 54 1.08E-02 49% Pass 35 1.822 107 2.14E-02 51 1.02E-02 48% Pass 36 1.867 100 2.00E-02 48 9.61E-03 48% Pass 37 1.912 93 1.86E-02 47 9.41E-03 51% Pass -t Interval WX. isti jo r4PaS5 Fail? Q (cfs) Hours > Q % titiie' HourS>Q 7 postJPie 38 1.956 88 1.76E-02 46 9.21E-03 52% Pass 39 2.001 78 1.56E-02 43 8.61E-03 55% Pass 40 2.046 73 1.46E-02 40 8.01E-03 55% Pass 41 2.091 68 1.36E-02 34 6.80E-03 50% Pass 42 2.136 66 1.32E-02 32 6.40E-03 48% Pass 43 2.180 63 1.26E-02 31 6.20E-03 49% Pass 44 2.225 62 1.24E-02 30 6.00E-03 48% Pass 45 2.270 59 1.18E-02 29 5.80E-03 49% Pass 46 2.315 57 1.14E-02 29 5.80E-03 51% Pass 47 2.360 52 1.04E-02 29 5.80E-03 56% Pass 48 2.404 50 1.00E-02 28 5.60E-03 56% Pass 49 2.449 48 9.61E-03 27 5.40E-03 56% Pass 50 2.494 46 9.21E-03 27 5.40E-03 59% Pass 51 2.539 44 8.81E-03 23 4.60E-03 52% Pass 52 2.584 43 8.61E-03 22 4.40E-03 51% Pass 53 2.628 41 8.21E-03 20 4.00E-03 49% Pass 54 2.673 41 8.21E-03 19 3.80E-03 46% Pass 55 2.718 40 8.01E-03 18 3.60E-03 45% Pass 56 2.763 39 7.81E-03 18 3.60E-03 46% Pass 57 2.808 39 7.81E-03 18 3.60E-03 46% Pass 58 2.852 37 7.40E-03 18 3.60E-03 49% Pass 59 2.897 35 7.00E-03 18 3.60E-03 51% Pass 60 2.942 33 6.60E-03 15 3.00E-03 45% Pass 61 2.987 33 6.60E-03 15 3.00E-03 45% Pass 62 3.032 31 6.20E-03 15 3.00E-03 48% Pass 63 3.076 31 6.20E-03 14 2.80E-03 45% Pass 64 3.121 29 5.80E-03 14 2.80E-03 48% Pass 65 3.166 23 4.60E-03 14 2.80E-03 61% Pass 66 3.211 22 4.40E-03 14 2.80E-03 64% Pass 67 3.256 22 4.40E-03 14 2.80E-03 64% Pass 68 3.300 21 4.20E-03 14 2.80E-03 67% Pass 69 3.345 21 4.20E-03 13 2.60E-03 62% Pass 70 3.390 21 4.20E-03 11 2.20E-03 52% Pass 71 3.435 21 4.20E-03 11 - - 2.20E-03 52% Pass 72 3.480 21 4.20E-03 10 2.00E-03 48% Pass 73 3.524 21 4.20E-03 10 2.00E-03 48% Pass 74 3.569 20 4.00E-03 10 2.00E-03 50% Pass 75 3.614 19 3.80E-03 9 1.80E-03 47% Pass 76 3.659 16 3.20E-03 9 1.80E-03 56% Pass 77 3.704 15 3.00E-03 9 1.80E-03 60% Pass 78 3.748 13 2.60E-03 8 1.60E-03 62% Pass 79 3.793 12 2.40E-03 7 1.40E-03 58% Pass 80 3.838 9 1.80E-03 7 1.40E-03 78% Pass 81 3.883 9 1.80E-03 7 1.40E-03 78% Pass 82 3.928 9 1.80E-03 7 1.40E-03 78% Pass ItaI (cfs) ttffiQ1 1% 83 3.972 9 1.80E-03 6 1.20E-03 67% Pass 84 4.017 9 1.80E-03 6 1.20E-03 67% Pass 85 4.062 9 1.80E-03 6 1.20E-03 67% Pass 86 4.107 8 1.60E-03 6 1.20E-03 75% Pass 87 4.151 7 1.40E-03 6 1.20E-03 86% Pass 88 4.196 7 1.40E-03 6 1.20E-03 86% Pass 89 4.241 7 1.40E-03 5 1.00E-03 71% Pass 90 4.286 6 1.20E-03 S 1.00E-03 83% Pass 91 4.331 6 1.20E-03 5 1.00E-03 83% Pass 92 4.375 6 1.20E-03 5 1.00E-03 83% Pass 93 4.420 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 94 4.465 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 95 4.510 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 96 4.555 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 97 4.599 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 98 4.644 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 99 4.689 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass 100 4.734 6 1.20E-03 4 8.01E-04 67% Pass ATTACHMENT 3 Partial Duration Series Data ATTACHMENT 3 List of the "n" Largest Peaks: Pre & Post-Developed Conditions Basic Probabilistic Equation: R = 1/P R: Return period (years). P: Probability of a flow to be equaled or exceeded any given year (dimensionless). Cunnane Equation: Weibull Equation: n+O.2 n+1 i:.Position of the peak whose probability is desired (sorted from large to small) n: number of years analyzed. Explanation of Variables for the Tables in this Attachment Peak: Refers to the peak flow at the date given, taken from the continuous simulation hourly results of the n year analyzed. Posit: If all peaks are sorted from large to small, the position of the peak in a sorting analysis is included under the variable Posit. Date: Date of the occurrence of the peak at the outlet from the continuous simulation Note: all peaks are not annual maxima; instead they are defined as event maxima, with a threshold to separate peaks of at least 12 hours. In other words, any peak P in a time series is defined as a value where dP/dt = 0, and the peak is the largest value in 25 hours (12 hours before the hour of occurrence and 12 hours after the occurrence, so it is in essence a daily peak). 4. List of Peak events and Determination of Q2 and Q10 (Pre-Development) Oakmont Carlsbad (POC-1) (Year) Cunnane (cfs) Welbull (cfs) Peaks ' ' Date Posit Period of Return (Years) 10 4.73 4.86 Weibull Cunnane 9 4.38 4.54 2.18 2/6/1969 57 1.02 1.01 8 4.20 4.23 2.2 2/12/2003 56 1.04 1.03 7 4.10 4.13 2.23 2/27/1991 55 1.05 1.05 6 3.84 3.90 2.26 2/8/1993 54 1.07 1.07 5 3.80 3.81 2.26 2/22/1998 53 1.09 1.09 4 3.69 3.69 2.29 4/27/1960 52 1.12 1.11 3 3.22 3.23 2.33 1/16/1972 51 1.14 1.13 2 2.99 2.99 2.33 3/19/1981 50 1.16 1.15 Note: Cunnane is the preferred method by the Final HMP. 2.33 12/22/1982 49 1.18 1.18 2.34 2/22/2008 48 1.21 1.20 2.37 3/1/1991 47 1.23 1.23 2.42 2/12/1992 46 1.26 1.25 2.44 3/15/1986 45 1.29 1.28 2.48 2/14/1998 44 1.32 1.31 2.49 3/17/1963 43 1.35 1.34 2.5 1/29/1980 42 1.38 1.38 2.53 2/15/1986 41 1.41 1.41 2.55 1/6/2008 40 1.45 1.44 2.59 3/11/1995 39 1.49 1.48 2.61 1/16/1978 38 1.53 1.52 2.7 1/18/1993 37 1.57 1.56 2.74 2/4/1994 36 1.61 1.61 2.81 12/2/1961 35 1.66 1.65 2.82 2/17/1998 34 1.71 1.70 2.87 2/18/1993 33 1.76 1.75 2.88 11/11/1985 32 1.81 1.81 2.9 11/15/1952 31 1.87 1.87 2.9 10/20/2004 30 1.93 1.93 2.99 2/23/1998 29 2.00 2.00 3.02 2/16/1980 28 2.07 2.07 3.09 12/19/1970 27 2.15 2.15 3.09 1/27/2008 26 2.23 2.23 3.14 2/3/1998 25 2.32 2.33 3.16 11/22/1965 24 2.42 2.42 3.16 1/29/1983 23 2.52 2.53 3.16 2/27/1983 22 2.64 2.65 .16 12/30/1991 21 2.76 2.78 .17 2/10/1978 20 2.90 2.92 .26 3/2/1980 19 3.05 3.08 - .61 4/1/1958 18 3.22 3.25 .62 - 3/1/1978 17 3.41 3.45 3.65 1/16/1952 16 3.63 3.67 3.68 3/17/1982 15 3.87 3.92 3.71 2/20/1980 14 4.14 4.21 3.76 2/18/2005 13 4.46 4.54 3.8 10/29/2000 12 4.83 4.93 3.82 10/27/2004 11 5.27 5.40 3.83 1/14/1993 10 5.80 5.96 4.07 2/25/1969 9 6.44 6.65 4.15 2/4/1958 8 7.25 7.53 4.26 2/25/2003 7 8.29 8.67 4.81 9/23/1986 6 9.67 10.21 5.09 1/4/1995 5 11.60 12.43 5.29 1/15/1979 4 14.50 15.89 5.63 10/1/1983 3 19.33 22.00 5.88 1 1/4/1978 2 29.00 35.75 6.29 1 4/14/2003 1 58.00 95.33 List of Peak events and Determination of Q2 and Q10 (Post-Development) Oakmont Carlsbad (POC-1 T (Year) Cunnane (cfs) Weibull (cfs) Peaks (cfs) Date Posit Period of Return (Years) 10 4.17 4.26 Weibull Cunnane 9 3.85 4.00 1.602 1/13/1997 57 1.02 1.01 8 3.65 3.70 1.62611/22/1996 56 .04 - 1.03 7 3.51 3.54 1.628 1/12/1960 55 1.05 - .05 6 3.38 3.40 1.633 3/1/1983 54 .07 - - .07 5 3.33 3.34 1.64 12/5/1966 53 .09 - .09 - 4 2.91 2.92 1.644 12/18/1967 52 1.12 1.11 3 2.59 2.59 1.661 3/5/1995 51 1.14 1.13 2 2.09 2.09 1.663 1/3/2005 50 1.16 1.15 Note: Cunnane is the preferred method by the Final HMP. 1.667 3/11/1995 49 1.18 1.18 1.685 2/26/2004 48 1.21 1.20 1.713 1/16/1993 47 1.23 1.23 1.737 1/11/2005 46 1.26 1.25 1.781 2/2/1960 45 1.29 1.28 1.797 1/11/1980 44 1.32 1.31 1.801 3/24/1994 43 1.35 1.34 1.824 11/30/2007 42 1.38 1.38 1.827 1/15/1993 41 1.41 1.41 1.847 9/18/1963 40 1.45 1.44 1.903 1/9/2005 39 1.49 1.48 1.978 12/28/2004 38 1.53 1.52 1.99 11/18/1986 37 1.57 1.56 1.991 12/25/1983 36 1.61 1.61 2.012 1/20/1962 35 1.66 1.65 2.043 1/15/1978 34 1.71 1.70 2.048 3/8/1968 33 1.76 1.75 2.048 12/24/1988 32 1.81 1.81 2.062 2/23/2005 31 1.87 1.87 2.075 2/18/2005 30 1.93 1.93 2.089 1/6/1979 29 2.00 2.00 2.123 4/27/1960 28 2.07 2.07 2.174 2/17/1998 27 2.15 2.15 2.224 2/15/1986 26 2.23 2.23 2.238 9/23/1986 25 2.32 1 2.33 2.445 2/22/2008 24 2.42 2.42 2.501 3/2/1980 23 2.52 2.53 2.519 2/23/1998 22 2.64 2.65 2.532 1/16/1972 21 2.76 2.78 2.57 8/17/1977 20 1 2.90 2.92 2.605 1/16/1978 19 3.05 3.08 2.633 1/29/1980 18 3.22 3.25 2.685 2/3/1998 17 3.41 3.45 2.904 11/22/1965 16 3.63 3.67 2.907 12/30/1991 15 3.87 3.92 2.932 3/17/1982 14 4.14 4.21 3.037 2/10/1978 13 4.46 4.54 3.332 3/1/1978 12 4.83 4.93 3.348 1/16/1952 11 5.27 5.40 3.375 2/20/1980 10 5.80 5.96 3.47 2/4/1958 9 6.44 6.65 3.578 10/27/2004 8 7.25 7.53 3.747 2/25/1969 7 8.29 8.67 4.234 2/25/2003 6 9.67 10.21 4.397 1/4/1978 5 11.60 12.43 5.307 1/4/1995 4 14.50 15.89 5.558 1/15/1979 3 19.33 22.00 5.941 10/1/1983 2 29.00 35.75 6.553 4/14/2003 1 58.00 95.33 ATTACHMENT 4 Storage and Rating Curves ATTACHMENT 4 ELEVATION vs. AREA The elevation vs. area curves in the model are calculated in Excel and imported into the model. The summary of elevation vs. area for each IMP has been provided on the following pages. The LID surface storage depth beneath the lowest surface discharge structure is accounted for in the LID module as illustrated in Attachment 7. ELEVATION vs. DISCHARGE The total elevation vs. discharge curve is imported from an Excel spreadsheet that calculates the elevation vs. discharge of the outlet system. Elevation vs. discharge relationships are provided for the surface discharge of the biofiltration basins as this is where a Modified Puls routing procedure will be taken into account in the continuous simulation model. The orifice sizes have been selected to maximize their size while still restricting flows to conform with the required 10% of the Q2 event flow as mandated in the Final Hydromodification Management Plan by Brown '& Caldwell, dated March 2011. While TRWE acknowledges that these orifices are small, to increase the size of these outlets would impact the basin's ability to restrict flows beneath the HMP thresholds, thus preventing the IMP from conforming with HMP requirements. In order to further reduce the risk of blockage of the orifices, regular maintenance of the riser and orifices must be performed to ensure potential blockages are minimized. A detail of the orifice and riser structures is provided in Attachment 5 of this memorandum. DISCHARGE EQUATIONS Weir: Qw= Cw LH3"2 (1) Slot: As an orifice: Q5 = B5 h5 c9 F2g(H — (2.a) As a weir: Q5 = C B5 H312 (2.b) For H > h slot works as weir until orifice equation provides a smaller discharge. The elevation such that equation (2.a) = equation (2.b) is the elevation at which the behavior changes from weir to orifice. Vertical Orifices As an orifice: Q0 = 0.25 . rD2 c9 j29 (H — (3.a) As a weir: Critical depth and geometric family of circular sector must be solved to determined Q as a function of H: Q A A 7. D2 — = —; H = y +A7.; T' Ta,. = 2.Jy(D —y1.); A = — sin(a 7.)]; g y D = [1— sin(0.5 a)] (3.b.1, 3.b.2, 3.b.3, 3.b.4 and 3.b.5) There is a value of H (approximately H = 110% D) from which orifices no longer work as weirs as critical depth is not possible at the entrance of the orifice. This value of H is obtained equaling the discharge using critical equations and equations (3.b). .A mathematical model is prepared with the previous equations depending on the type of discharge. The following are the variables used above: Ow, Q, Qo = Discharge of weir, slot or orifice (cfs) Cw, cg : Coefficients of discharge of weir (typically 3.1) and orifice (0.61 to 0.62) 1, B5, D, hs : Length of weir, width of slot, diameter of orifice and height of slot, respectively; (ft) H: Level of water in the pond over the invert of slot, weir or orifice (ft) Ar, Tcr, Ycr, aa: Critical variables for circular sector: area (ft'), top width (ft), critical depth (ft), and angle to the center, respectively. Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_1 Discharge vs Elevation Table Low orifice 4.000 Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 0 Number ofweirs: 0 Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 0.00 B 3.00 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 2.500 0.183 ft Number of orif: 3 Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir invert elev: 1.000 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 0.00 ft B: 4.00 ft Note: h = head above the invert of the B: 1hj, 0.00 ft lowest surface discharge opening. 0.000 ft h* (ft) H/D-low - H/D-mid - Qiow-orif (cfs) QJow-welr (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) Qmld.orif (cfs) Qmld-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Oweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Mot (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.167 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.250 1 0.750 0.000 0.125 1 0.103 0.103 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.103 0.333 1.000 0.000 0.177 0.167 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.417 1.250 0.000 0.217 0.235 0.217 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.217 0.500 1.500 0.000 0.251 0.300 0.251 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.251 0.583 1.750 0.000 0.280 0.357 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.280 0.667 2.000 0.000 0.307 0.401 0.307 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.307 0.750 2.250 0.000 0.332 0.431 0.332 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.332 0.833 2.500 0.000 0.355 0.446 0.355 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.355 0.917 2.750 0.000 0.376 0.451 0.376 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.376 1.000 3.000 0.000 0.396 0.453 0.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.396 1.083 3.250 0.400 0.416 0.464 0.416 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.446 1.167 3.500 0.800 0.434 0.503 0.434 0.127 0.106 0.106 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.540 .250 - 3.750 1.200 0.452 0.591 0.452 0.194 0.205 0.194 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.646 .333 - 4.000 1.600 0.469 0.757 0.469 0.244 0.300 0.244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.713 1.417 4.250 2.000 0.485 1.039 0.485 0.284 0.372 0.284 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.770 1.500 4.500 2.400 0.501 1.480 0.501 0.320 0.409 0.320 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.821 1.583 4.750 2.800 0.517 2.131 0.517 0.352 0.418 0.352 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.869 1.667 5.000 3.200 0.532 3.054 0.532 0.382 0.427 0.382 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.913 1.750 5.250 3.600 0.546 4.317 0.546 0.409 0.491 0.409 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.955 1.833 5.500 4.000 0.561 5.605 0.561 0.434 0.702 0.434 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.995 1.917 5.750 4.400 1 0.574 5.744 0.574 0.459 1.187 0.459 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.033 2.000 6.000 4.800 1 0.588 5.879 0.588 0.482 ---2-1-24---7 0.482 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.069 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_1 Discharge vs Elevation Table Cow-orifice 4.000 - Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 0 Number of weirs: 0 Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 0.00 B 3.00 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 2.500 h,wt 0.183 ft Number of orif: 3 Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir invert elev: 1.000 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 0.00 ft B: 4.00 ft *Note: h = head above the invert of the B: 111.1,0.000 0.00 ft lowest surface discharge opening. ft h (ft) H/D-low - HID-mid - ajow-orif (cfs) Qiow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) amid-orif (cfs) Qmld-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 2.083 6.250 5.200 0.601 6.011 0.601 0.503 3.737 0.503 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.105 2.167 6.500 5.600 : 0.614 6.140 0.614 0.524 6.310 0.524 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.139 2.250 6.750 6.000 0.627 6.267 0.627 0.545 10.191 0.545 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.171 2.333 7.000 6.400 0.639 6.391 0.639 0.564 15.795 0.564 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.203 2.417 7.250 6.800 0.651 6.513 0.651 0.583 23.612 0.583 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.234 2.500 7.500 7.200 0.663 6.632 0.663 0.601 34.214 0.601 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.264 2.583 7.750 7.600 0.675 6.750 0.675 0.619 48.258 0.619 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.294 2.667 8.000 8.000 0.687 6.865 0.687 0.636 66.493 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.323 2.750 8.250 8.400 0.698 6.979 0.698 0.653 89.768 0.653 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.351 2.833 8.500 8.800 0.709 7.090 0.709 0.669 119.034 0.669 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.378 2.917 8.750 9.200 0.720 7.200 0.720 0.685 155.354 0.685 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.405 3.000 9.000 9.600 0.731 7.309 0.731 0.701 199.904 0.701 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.431 3.083 9.250 10.000 0.742 7.415 0.742 0.716 253.984 0.716 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.457 3.167 9.500 10.400 0.752 7.520 0.752 0.731 319.020 0.731 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 _183 3.250 9.750 10.800 0.762 7.624 0.762 0.745 396.572 0.745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 _1.508 3.333 10.000 11.200 0.773 7.727 0.773 0.760 488.338 0.760 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.532 3.417 10.250 11.600 0.783 7.828 0.783 0.774 596.163 0.774 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.557 3.500 10.500 12.000 0.793 7.927 0.793 0.788 722.039 0.788 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.580 3.583 10.750 12.400 0.803 8.026 0.803 0.801 868.119 0.801 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.604 3.667 11.000 12.800 0.812 8.123 0.812 0.815 1036.716 0.815 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.627 3.750 11.250 13.200 0.822 8.219 0.822 0.828 1230.312 0.828 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.650 3.833 11.500 13.600 0.831 8.314 0.831 0.841 1451.562 0.841 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.298 _1.970 3.917 11.750 14.000 0.841 8.408---F 0.841 1 0.853 1703.302 0.853 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.844 _2.538 4.000 12.000 1 14.400 0.850 8.501 1 0.850 1 0.866 1988.555 0.866 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.550 3.266 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_1 Discharge vs Elevation Table Lài1fice -- 4.000" - - - - Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 0 Number of weirs: 0 Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 0.00 ft Invert: 0.00 B 3.00 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 2.500 " hgot 0.183 ft Number of orif: 3 Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir invert elev: 1.000 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 0.00 ft B: 4.00 ft 'Note: h = head above the invert of the B: 1ho, 0.00 ft lowest surface discharge opening. 0.000 ft h (ft) HID-low - H/D-mid - flow-crlf (cfs) aJow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) amid-crlf (cfs) fmld-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qwelr (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 4.083 12.250 14.800 0.859 8.593 0.859 0.878 2310.534 0.878 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.386 4.124 4.167 12.500 15.200 0.868 8.684 0.868 0.890: 2672.650 0.890 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.335 5.094 - 4.250 ' 12.750 15.600 0.877 8.774 0.877 0.902 3078.518 0.902 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.384 6.164 4.333 13.000 16.000 0.886 8.863 0.886 0.914 1 3531.961 0.914 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.525 7.325 4.417 13.250 16.400 0.895 8.951 0.895 0.926 4037.017 0.926 0.000 0.000 • 0.000 6.750 8.571 4.500 13.500 16.800 0.904 9.038 • 0.904 0.938 4597.948 0.938 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.054 '9.896 4.583 13.750 17.200 0.912 9.125 0.912 : 0.949 5219.239 0.949 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.433 11.295 4.667 14.000 17.600 0.921 9.211 0.921 0.960 5905.609 0.960 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.883 12.764 4.750 14.250 18.000 0.930 9.295 0.930 0.972 6662.017 0.972 0.000 0.000 '0.000 12.400 14.301 4.833 14.500 18.400 0.938 9.380 0.938 0.983 7493.663 - 0.983 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.982 15.902 4.917 14.750 18.800 0.946 9.463 0.946 0.994 8406.002 0.994 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.626 17.566 5.000 15.000 19.200 0.955 9.546 0.955 1.004 9404.739 • 1.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.330 19.288 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_2 Discharge vs Elevation Table Liificé - 1.250" Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 1 Number of weirs: 0 Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 0.00 B 1.50 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 3.000 " h 0.083 ft Number of orif: 3 - Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir invert elev: 2.167 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: 4.00 ft Invert: 3.75 ft B: 4.00 ft *Note: h - head above the Invert of the -1h.1, lowest surface discharge opening. 0.167 ft h (ft) H/D-low - HID-mid - Ojow-crif (cfs) Qiow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) amid-crlf (cfs) Qmid-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qwelr (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.800 0.000 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.167 1.600 0.000 0.014 0.018 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.250 2.400 0.000 0.019 0.024 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.333 3.200 0.000 0.022 0.025 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.417 4.000 0.000 0.026 0.041 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.500 4.800 0.000 0.028 0.125 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.583 5.600 0.000 0.031 0.309 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.667 6.400 0.000 0.033 0.332 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.750 7.200 0.000 0.035 0.354 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.035 0.833 8.000 0.000 ' 0.037 0.375 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.917 8.800 0.000 0.039 0.394 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 1.000 9.600 0.000 0.041 0.413 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 1.083 10.400 0.000 0.043 0.431 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 1.167 11.200 0.000 0.045 0.448 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 1.250 12.000 0.000 0.046 0.464 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 1.333 12.800 0.000 0.048 0.480 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 1.417 13.600 0.000 0.050 0.495 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000' 0.050 1.500 14.400 0.000 0.051 0.510 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.051 1.583 15.200 0.000 0.052 0.525 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 1.667 16.000 0.000 0.054 0.539 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.054 1.750 16.800 0.000 0.055 0.553 .0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 1.833 17.600 0.000 0.057 0.566 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 1.917 18.400 0.000 0.058 0.579 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 2.000 19.200 0.000 0.059 0.592 0.059 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.059 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_2 Discharge vs Elevation Table Liifké - 1.250 Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 1 Number of weirs:, 0 'Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 0.00 B 1.50 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 3.000 h,wt 0.083 ft Number of orif: 3 - 'Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir invert elev: 2.167 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: 4.00 ft Invert: 3.75 ft B: 4.00 ft Note: h head above the invert of the 8: 3.00 ft lowest surface discharge opening. 0.167 ft h (ft) H/D-low - H/0-mid - QJow-orif (cfs) Ojow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) Qmld-orif (cfs) Q,nld-welr (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 2.083 20.000 0.000 0.060 0.604 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 2.167 20.800 0.000 0.062 0.617 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.062 2.250 21.600 0.333 0.063 0.629 0.063 0.000 0.033 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.096 2.333 22.400 0.667 0.064 0.640 0.064 0.150 0.122 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.186 2.417 23.200 1.000 0.065 0.652 0.065 0.259 0.244 0.244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.309 2.500 24.000 1.333 0.066 0.663 0.066 0.334 0.376 0.334 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.401 2.583 24.800 1.667 0.067 0.675 0.067 0.396 0.496 0.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.463 2.667 25.600 2.000 0.069 0.686 0.069 0.449 0.586 0.449 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.517 2.750 26.400 2.333 0.070 0.696 0.070 0.496 0.639 0.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.566 2.833 27.200 2.667 0.071 0.707 0.071' 0.539 0.658 0.539 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.610 2.917 28.000 3.000 0.072 0.718 0.072 0.579 0.662 0.579 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.651 3.000 28.800 3.333 0.073 0.728 0.073 0.617 0.691 0.617 .0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.689 3.083 29.600 3.667 0.074 0.738 0.074 0.652 0.810 0.652 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.726 3.167 30.400 4.000 0.075 0.748 0.075 0.685 1.107 0.685 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.760 3.250 31.200 4.333 0.076 0.758 0.076 0.717 1.704 0.717 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.793 3.333 32.000 4.667 0.077 0.768 0.077 0.748 .2.758 0.748 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.825 3.417 32.800 5.000 0.078 0.778 0.078 0.777 4.463 0.777 0.000 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.855 3.500 33.600 5.333 0.079 0.787 0.079 0.805. 7.054 0.805 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.884 3.583 34.400 5.667 0.080 0.797 0.080 0.833 10.815 0.833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.912 3.667 35.200 6.000 0.081 0.806 0.081 0.859 16.076 0.859 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.940 3.750 36.000 6.333 0.082 0.815 0.082 0.885 23.222. 0.885 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.966 3.833 36.800 6.667 0.082 0.825 0.082 0.910 32.696 0.910 0.112 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 1.104 3.917 37.600 1 7.000 0.083 0.834 0.083 0.934 44.998 1 0.934 1 0.216 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.234 4.000 38.400 1 7.333 0.084 0.842 0.084 0.958 60.696 1 0.958 1 0.279 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.321 Liifici -- - - - 1250 Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 1 Number of weirs: Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: B 1.50 ft B: Middle orifice 3.000 h51 0.083 ft Number of orif: 3 Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir invert elev: 2.167 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: Invert: 3.75 ft B: 0.00 0.00 4.00 ft 4.00 ft Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_2 Discharge vs Elevation Table 'Note: h = head above lowest surface discharge opening. hg, 0.167 ft hs (ft) H/D-low - H/D-mid - ajow.orlf (cfs) Qiow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) Qmld-orif (cfs) Qmld-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Otot (cfs) 4.083 39.200 7.667 0.085. 0.851 0.085 0.981 80.424 0.981 0.330 0.000 0.000 0.298 1.695 4.167 40.000 8.000 0.086 0.860 0.086 1.003 104;889 1.003 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.844 2.308 4.250 40.800 8.333 0.087 0.869 0.087 1.025 134.871 1.025 0.414 0.000 0.000 1.550 3.076 4.333 41.600 8.667 0.088 0.877 0.088 1.047 171.231 1.047 0.450 0.000'0.000 2.386 3.971 4.417 42.400 9.000 0.089 0.886 0.089 1.068 214.913 1.068 0.484 0.000 0.000 3.335 .4.975 4.500 43.200 9.333 0.089 0.894 0.089 1.089 266.947 1.089. 0.515 0.000 0.000 . 4.384 6.077 4.583 44.000 9.667 0.090 0.903 0.090 1.109 328.453 1.109 0.544 0.000 0.000 5.525 7.268 4.667 44.800 10.000 0.091 0.911 0.091 1.129 400.645 1.129 0.572 0.000 0.000 6.750. 8.542 4.750 45.600 10.333 0.092 0.919 0.092 1.149 484835 1.149 0.599 0.000 0000 8.054 9.894 4.833 46.400 10.667 0.093 0.927 0.093 1.168 582.437 1.168 0.625 0.000 0.000 9.433 11.318 4.917 47.200 11.000 0.094 0.935 0.094 1.187 694.968 1.187 0.649 0.000 0.000 10.883 12.812 5.000 48.000 11.333 0.094 0.943 0.094 . 1.206 824.055 1.206 0.673 0.000 0.000 12.400. 14.373 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_3 Discharge vs Elevation Table Low orifice - 3.000" Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 0 Number of weirs: 0 Ca-low: 0.62 Invert: 2.00 ft Invert: 0.00 B 1.08 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 3.000 Number of orif: 2 Ca-middle: 0.62 invert elev: 1.000 ft Note: h head above the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening. haot 0.083 ft Upper slot Emergency weir Number of slots: 0 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 3.75 ft B: 4.00 ft B: 3.00 ft h,$m 0.167 ft hs (ft) H/D-low - H/D-mid - Qjow-orif (cfs) qJow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) Qmld-orif (cfs) Q.mid-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Osiot-low (cfs) Q.slot-upp (cfs) Qweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.167 0.667 0.000 0.050 0.041 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.250 1.000 0.000 0.086 1 0.081 0.081 0.000 0.000. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.081 0.333 1.333 0.000 0.111 0.125 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.111 0.417 1.667 0.000 0.132 0.165 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.500 2.000 0.000 0.150 0.195 0.150 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.150 0.583 2.333 0.000 0.165 0.213 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.165 0.667 2.667 1 0.000 0.180 0.219 0.180 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.180 0.750 3.000 0.000 0.193 1 0.221 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.193 0.833 3.333 0.000 0.206 0.230 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.206 0.917 3.667 0.000 0.217 0.270 0.217 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.217 1.000 4.000 0.000 0.228 0.369 0.228 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.228 1.083 4.333 0.333 0.239 0.568 0.239 0.000 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.261 .167 - 4.667 1 0.667 0.249 0.919 0.249 0.100 1 0.081 0.081 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.330 .250 - 5.000 .1.000 0.259. 1.488 0.259 0.173 0.162 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.421 .333 - 5.333 1.333 - 0.268 2.351 0.268 0.223 0.250 0.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.491 1.417 5.667 1.667 . 0.278 2.776 0.278 0.264 0.330 0.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.541 1.500 6.000 2.000 0.286 2.864 0.286 0.299 0.391 0.299 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.586 1.583 6.333 2.333 0.295 . 2.949 0.295 0.331 0.426 0.331 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.626 1.667 6.667 2.667 0.303 3.032 0.303 .0.360 0.438 0.360 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.663 1.750 7.000 3.000 0.311 3.113 0.311 0.386 0.441 0.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.698 1.833 7.333 3.333 0.319 3.192 0.319 0.411 0.461 0.411 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.730 1.917 7.667 3.667 0.327 3.269 0.327 0.435 .0.540 0.435 0.000 .0.000 0.000 0.000 0.762 2.000 8.000 4.000 0.334 3.344 0.334 0.457 0.738 0.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.791 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV3 Discharge vs Elevation Table Loifice 3.000" - Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 0 Number of weirs: 0 Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 2.00 ft Invert: 0.00 B 1.08 ft B: 0.00 Middle orifice 3.000" hsl, 0.083 ft Number of orif: 2 Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergency weir Invert elev: 1.000 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: 3.75 ft Invert: 3.75 ft B: 4.00 ft Note: h = head above the invert of the B: lhg, 3.00 ft lowest surface discharge opening. 0.167 ft h (ft) H/D-low - H/D-mid ' - Qiow-orif (cfs) Qiow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low (cfs) Qmld-orif (cfs) Qmld-welr (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 2.083 8.333 4.333 0.342 3.418 0.342 0.478 1.136 0.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.820 2.167 8.667 4.667 0.349 3.490 0.349 0.499 1.839 0.499 0.000 ' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.848 2.250 9.000 5.000 0.356 3.560 0.356 0.518 2.975 0.518 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.874 2.333 9.333 5.333 0.363 3.629 0.363 0.537 4.703 0.537 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.900 2.417 9.667 5.667 0.370 3.697 0.370 0.555 7.210. 0.555 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.925 2.500 10.000 6.000 0.376 3.764 0.376 0.573 10.717 0.573 0.000' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.949 2.583 10.333 6.333 0.383 3.829 0.383 0.590 15.482 0.590 0.000 0.000 ' 0.000 0.000 0.973 2.667 10.667 6.667 0.389 3.894 0.389 0.606 21.797 0.606 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.996 2.750 11.000 7.000 0.396 3.957 0.396 0.623 29.999 .0.623 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.018 2.833 11.333 7.333 0.402 4.019 0.402 0.638 40.464 0.638 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.040 2.917 11.667 7.667 0.408 4.081 0.408 0.654: 53.616 0.654 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.062 3.000 12.000 8.000 0.414 4.141 0.414 0.669 69.926 0.669 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.083 3.083 12.333 8.333 0.420 4.201 . 0.420 0.684 89.914 0.684 0.0001 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.104 3.167 12.667 8.667 0.426 4.260 0.426 0.698 114.154 0.698 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.124 3.250 13.000 9.000 0.432 4.317 0.432 0.712 143.275 0.712 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 _14 3.333 13.333 9.333 0.437 4.375 0.437 0.726 177.965 0.726 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.163 3.417 13.667 9.667 0.443 4.431 0.443 0.739 218.968 0.739 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.183 3.500 14.000 10.000 : 0.449 , 4.487 0.449 0.753 267.097 0.753 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.201 3.583 14.333 10.333 0.454 4.542 0.454 0.766 323.224 0.766 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.220 3.667 14.667 10.667 0.460 4.596 0.460 0.779 388.291 0.779 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.238 3.750 15.000 _11.000 0.465 4.650 0.465 0.791 463.312 0.791 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.256 3.833 15.333 _11.333 0.470 4.703 0.470 0.804 549.370 0.804 . 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.298 1.572 3.917 15.667 11.667 1 0.476 4.756 1 0.476 0.816 647.626 1 0.816 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.844 2.135- 4.000 16.000 12.000 1 0.481 4.808 1 0.481 0.828 759.316 1 0.828 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.550 1 2.859 Outlet structure for Discharge of Underground Storage Vault USV_3 Discharge vs Elevation Table Cow-orifice 3000 ° - - Lower slot Lower Weir Number of orif: 1 Number of slots: 0 Number of weirs: Cg-low: 0.62 Invert: 2.00 ft Invert: B 1.08 ft B: Middle orifice 3.000 hslot 0.083 ft Number of orif: 2 Cg-middle: 0.62 Upper slot Emergeflc, weir invert elev: 1.000 ft Number of slots: 0 Invert: Invert: 3.75 ft B: *Note: h = head above the invert of the 3.00 ft lowest surface discharge opening. 0.167 ft 0 0.00 0.00 3.75 ft 4.00 ft h (ft) H/D-low - H/D-mld - oJow-orif (cfs) oiow-weir (cfs) Qtot-low -(cfs) Qmld-orif (cfs) Qmld-weir (cfs) Qtot-med (cfs) Qslot-low (cfs) Qslot-upp (cfs) Qweir (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Qtot (cfs) 4.083 16.333 12.333 0.486 4.859 0.486 0.840 885.758 0.840 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.386 3.712 4.167 16.667 12.667 0.491 4.910 0.491 0.852 1028.350 0.852 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.335 4.678 4.250 17.000 13.000 0.496 4.960 0.496 0.863 1188.578 0.863 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.384 5.744 4.333 17.333 13.333 0.501 5.010 0.501 0.875 1368.012 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.525 6.901 4.417 17.667 13.667 0.506 5.060 0.506 0.886 1568.315 0.886 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.750 8.142 4.500 18.000 14.000 0.511 5.109 0.511 0.897 1791.239 0.897 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 8.054 9.462 4.583 18.333 14.333 0.516 5.157 0.516 0.908 2038.634 0.908 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.433 10.857 4.667 18.667 14.667 0.520 5.205 0.520 0.919 2312.445 0.919 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.883 12.323 4.750 19.000 15.000 0.525 5.252 0.525 0.930 2614.718 0.930 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.400 13.855 4.833 19.333 15.333 0.530 5.300 0.530 0.941 2947.600 0.941 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.982 15.452 4.917 19.667 15.667 0.535 5.346 0.535 0.951 3313.343 0.951 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.626 17.112 5.000 20.000 16.000 0.539 5.393 0.539 0.962 3714.306 0.962 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.330 18.830 ATTACHMENT 5 Drawdown Time Calculations DRAWDOWN CALCULATIONS Note: Drawdown calculations are from invert of lowest surface discharge opening in riser structure to the surface bottom of the basin. Therefore, discharge occurs only through the underdrain orifice. Biofiltration 1 Surface Depth (ft) Area (ftA2) Volume (ft"3) 1.00 2126 2126 Underdrain Orifice Diameter 6.000 in Drawdown Flow Rate 0.246 cfs Time to Drain Surface 2.4 hrs Biofiltration 3 Surface Depth (ft) Area (ft"2) Volume (ft"3) 1.00 1300 1300 Underdrain Orifice Diameter 6.000 in Drawdown Flow Rate 0.150 cfs Time to Drain Surface 2.41 hrs ATTACHMENT 6 Pre-Developed and Post-Project DMA Exhibits )N I LEGEND PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED LOW FLOW LINE HI FLOW/LOW FLOW SPLITTER PDX PROPOSED DRAIN BASIN BOUNDARY SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION TREATMENT AREA BMP FOOTPRINT REQUIRED BMP FOOTPRINT PROVIDED FLOW RATE REQUIRED FLOW RATE PROVIDED VOLUME REQUIRED VOLUME PROVIDED LOW FLOW INLET DRAIN 21" MEDIA LAYER 5 IN/HR INFIL IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE TO MIL PVC, OR EQUIVALENT BMP 2 111100 A=1.22 AC 77, ST DMA-5, 55.00 SPUTTER BOX -225 (SELF MITIGATING) Qp- 0. 140 CFS VR CIF GRAPHIC SCALE Vp=2,912 CIF AREA 0.43 AC Qloo=7.38 CFS 40 0 20 40 80 Vicinity Map _ r IN FEET NO SCALE 1 inch 40 ft. TRENCH DRAIN / \\ E 00 .'\/ H SUMP IF PUMP EXISTING BASIN TO BE ABANDONDED AND REMAIN EXISTING 12" HDPE PROPERTY BOUNDARY___~ TO BE ABANDONDED .00, 100, D PLUG EXISTING MAX, STORAGE 56.60 1 50 "NA DRAIN LINE ~~I TH BRICK AND MORTAR-,- RIPRAP PAD DEPTH ::~x zzx TOP OF BANK PER PLAN OVERFLOW OUTLET, TYPE EXISTING 24" SD_ PER DWG 415-9C M "I"' CATCH BASIN PER FREEBOARD* SDRSD STD. DWG D-7 SPLITTFR Box IV 0 STORAGE DEPTH, D=12" -4 BOTTOM OF BASIN L PER PLAN -------------- ZZ .19 .l xr CATCH BASIN STENCIL DETAIL 15 CRAVEL LAYER 6 PVC, SCHED 40 ALL CATCH BASIN AND INLETS THAT DISCHARGE INTO AN EXISTING T/4" CRUSHED ROCK SUBDRAIN © 0.5% / I / / II ==IV! H \ ( \ \ 7/ 7/ / z 7/ OR PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MUST BE STENCILED TO DISCOURAGE PERFORATED AND ILLEGAL DUMPING OF POLLUTANTS. STENCIL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM \DIAMETER OF 30 INCHES, 171, WRAPPED IN MIRAF-I 140N P MINIMUM FREEBOARD DEPTH OF 1.0' REQUIRED VR=1,275 C1 1310FILTRATION BASIN DETAIL 0, -1 479 C 01 NO SCALE 7/Z 7Z - 7/ Qioo=7.52 \ NOTE: MIDDLE LAYER TO CONSIST OF 85% CLASS A TOP SOIL, 15% HUMIC COMPOST (INFILTRATION RATE 51N/HR) / /: . 7/ 7/ 7/ 777 ADS STCP4CP BLENDING: MATERIAL SHALL BE BLENDED PRIOR TO DELIVERY BY A TWIN SCREW XXX MILL OR EQ101VALEN-T. BUCKET BLENDING IS NOT EQUIVALENT. J CLASS A TOP SOIL SPEED _MP 3 SILT 15%-20% 3MPR=1,193 SF BMPp=1,300 SF ark" Z POROUS GRAVEL FILL (PER ADS SPEC.)PERMEABLE GEOTEXTILE I \I -/ SPLITTER BOX B0FLT.T!flN \\\ \ \ \ A.C. PAVEMENT FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N / SUMP 4" © 0.7% CJ/ SPUTTER TRENCH DRAIN 'I ale A=2.82 AC OUTLET STRUCTURE 47.5 IF MANHOLE 2' MAX HEA Fp OUTLET I I 45 ADS STORM TECH 12 GRAVE L* 1 - U' R 7PROPERTY OU N DA / DMA and BMP Table SID 9" GRAVEL* CATCH BASIN 1-115 51 OUTLET DRAIN X SUB-GRADE TRENCH DRAIN 48.68 IF INLET PIPE TO ADS UNIT 6 P VC, SCHEID 40 6" DRAIN SUBDRAIN © 0.5% \ ORIFICE HEIGHT / - 48.5 IE R RT f'' A LOW-FLOW ORIFICE PERFORATED AND \ AND SPACING VARY JP / -- \ \ LLr IVU I TO WOT BASIN WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N \ (PER TABLE BELOW) V 7/ - - - - -A'E A U5 AC \ * GRAVEL TO BE F . 7/ NOTE: ELEVATIONS, PIPE IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE \ " SIZES, AND OTHER DESIGN 30 MIL PVC, OR EQUIVALENT 3/4 CRUSHED ROCK - - CRITERIA, PER PLAN -ii-- - - ->-- . -7/ TYPICAL ADS UNDERGROUND STORAGE DETAIL NO SCALE 25° C 2,250 =2,447 C ORIFICE SIZE AND PLACEMENT HEIGHT DO13 USU (BMP) NO X SIZE HEIGHT OVER INV . FOR DMA-1, DMA-2, AND DMA-3 1 (4) 1 X 4: 0" EVR=6,325 CIF DMA Total Area to BMP sf ac New or Existing1 Impervious Area (C = 0.9) sf Pervious Area, Landscape (C=0.1) sf Weighted Area sf weighted C2 Treatment Method Size Required ________ Size Provided Pollutant control sf Pollutant F!owrate cfs Hydromod cf Pollutant Control DCV cf Pollutant control sf Pollutant Flowrate cfs Hydromod cf Drawdown Time3 hr 1 122,986 2.82 75,314 47,672 72,550 0.59 BMP 1- Biofiltration Basin 2,082 - - 3,809 2,126 - - 4.2 1 - - - - - BMP -4- USU 14 - - 2250 - - 2380 - 2 55,758 1.28 27,799 27,959 27,815 0.50 BMP 2 - Biofilter Unit - 0.071 - 1,544 - - - n/a 3 65,182 1.50 41,774 23,408 39,937 0.61 BMP 3- Biofiltration Basin 1,193 - - 2,126 1,300 - - 3.9 3 - - - - - - BMP S- USU 3 4 - - 1275 - - - 1417 - 3 - - - - - - BMP6- USU 2 4 - - 2800 - - - 2809 - 4 NOT USED 0 - - - - 5 18,663 0.43 0 18,663 1,866 0.10 Self Mitigating 6 11,333 0.26 0 11,333 1,133 0.10 Self Mitigating 7 11,005 0.25 0 11,005 1,101 0.10 Self Mitigating Total 284,927 6.54 144,887 140,040 144,402 0.51 I \'P1 F 2 (6) 1 X 1.25" 0" 1 ... . . " " . Noexistingimpervious areas consideredforthis project X 3 26 (SEL F IVf I IN value calculated per Appendix B, Section B.1 of Carlsbad BMP Manual. Worksheets provided in Attachment le of this report. 3 (5) 1 X 3 0 AREA = fl 7A A (i_- . Drawdown based upon 5 in/hr minimum infiltration rate of soil media Gravel layer will infiltrate at greater rate Worksheet provided in Attachment le of this report 2 X 3 12" - Underground Storage Unit (USU) utilized for hydromodifi cation mitigation only. Orifice sizing provided in separate table on this map. 2248 FARADAY AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TEL: (760) 431-9896 FAX:(760) 431-8802 27413 TOURNEY ROAD LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. VALENCIA, CA 91355 TEL: (6 799-2760 FAX: (760) 431-8802 ALLIANCE SUITE 120 PLANS PREPARED BY: ALLIANCE LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. 2248 FARADAY AVE., CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 431-9896 ry_ O.61297Z CIVIL or- CA0V PLANS PREPARED FOR: OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING STREET 9240 OLD REDWOOD HWY, SUITE 200 ADDRESS WINDSOR, CA 95492 ATTN: DAVID HUNTER (707) 535-3213 BENCHMARK SAN DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BENCHMARK NO.: DESCRIPTION: 2" ALUMINUM DISC STAMPED GPS CONTROL PT. 2002 ____________ LOCATION: IN SIDEWALK NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, 300-FEET WEST OF MELROSE DRIVE. RECORD FROM: R.O.S. NO.17271 (PT. NO. 71) ELEVATION: 444.00 MSL PROPERTY OWNER: OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING STREET 220 CONCOURSE BLVD. ADDRESS SANTA ROSA, CA 950403 ATTN: ATTN: DAVID HUNTER (707) 535-3213 SHEET 1 I I CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEET I 1 OAKMONT DMNSWQMP EXHIBIT DEVELOPED CONDITION LOT I TRACT NO. 97-13-01 PLANS PREPARED UZERE DIRECTION OF: 10/29/19 __________________________________________________ CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • HILLSIDE DESIGN • SURVEYING JAS0 0M NO. 61297 DATE \101Z \VVLIVIV \I 0 /L5VVI../MV-ULV--LXhIbI I.dwg *AKMONT OF CARL m DMA/SWQMP EXHII EXISTING CONDIT14, SITE LOCATION LEGEND BASIN BOUNDARY SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION FLOW PATH inity Map NO SCALE - - ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 40 ft. 2248 FARADAY AVE. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 lw4ft TEL: (760) 431-9896 FAX: (760) 431-8802 ALLIANCE 27413 TOURNEY SUITE 120 ROAD LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. VALENCIA, CA 91355 TEL: (661) 799-2760 FAX: (760) 431-8802 PLANS PREPARED BY: ALLIANCE LAND PLANNING & ENGINEERING INC. 2248 FARADAY AVE., CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 431-9896 SHEET I SHEET 1 I CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANS PREEARED UNDER 3IE DIRECTION OF: CIV1L ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • HILLSIDE DESIGN • SURVEYiNG OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING STREET 220 CONCOURSE BLVD. ADDRESS SANTA ROSA, CA 950403 ATTN: ATTN: HANNAH DAUGHERTY (707) 535-3211 1/29/18 JASO OM NO. 61297 OAKMONT DMA/SWQMP EXHIBIT EXISTING CONDITION LOT TRACT NO. 14926 PLANS PREPARED FOR: BENCHMARK SAN DIEGO COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS BENCHMARK NO.: OWNER NAME: OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING DESCRIPTION: 2" ALUMINUM DISC STAMPED GPS CONTROL PT. 2002 STREET 9240 OLD REDWOOD HWY, SUITE 200 LOCATION: IN SIDEWALK NORTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, ADDRESS WINDSOR, CA 95492 300-FEET WEST OF MELROSE DRIVE. ATTN: HANNAH DAUGHERTY (707) 535-3211 RECORD FROM: R.O.S. NO.17271 (PT. NO. 71) ELEVATION: 444.00 MSL DATE I: \CAD\1672\SWQMP\1672SW0MP—EX--EXHIBIT.dwg PLAN PREPARATION DATE: 01/28/18 ATTACHMENT 7 NRCS Soil Map Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California (Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1) 475550 332ON _ -, 19, - J - - -. 8 -ir- - - - ##., A'0;.el - — -' -. - - 8 S - - - V 5 3 At r - - - ' Soil Ii i iiiy not h. vili(l it 33 11"N I V 33 8'11" N 470 4,7*L 478J 4770 475710 47575 47570 475830 4770 4710 470 C C Map Scale: 1:1,900 if pri on A bndscape (11' x8.5") shea. N 0 25 50 ice is - Feet o &l ice 200 xx) Map xojedion: Web Metator C acxdinatss: WGS84 Edge tk: (JIM Zone SiN WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—San Diego County Area, California Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Map Unit Legend 01 JJAOl jfl C1G2 Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded 3.1 43.7% HrD Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes 4.01 56.3% Totals for Area of Interest 7.2 100.0% n Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded—San Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Diego County Area, California San Diego County Area, California C1132—Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hb9s Elevation: 500 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 35 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 64 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Cieneba and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Cieneba Setting Landforth: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and granodiorite Typical profile HI - 0 to 10 inches: coarse sandy loam H2 - 10 to 14 inches: weathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 4 to 20 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: SHALLOW LOAMY (1975) (R019XD060CA) Hydric soil rating: No Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description: Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, ero ded—San Carlsbad Oaks North - Lot 1 Diego County Area, California Minor Components Vista Percent of map unit: 10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Las posas Percent of map unit: 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 12, 2016 usc Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/20/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 8 SWMM Input Data ATTACHMENT 8 EXPLANATION OF SELECTED VARIABLES Sub Catchment Areas: Please refer to the attached diagrams that indicate the DMA and biofiltration IMP sub-areas modeled within the project site at both the pre and post developed conditions draining to the POC. Parameters for the pre- and post-developed models include soil type C as determined from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (see Attachment 8). Suction head, conductivity and initial deficit correspond to average values expected for this soil type, according to sources consulted, professional experience, and approximate values obtained by the interim Orange County modeling approach. TRWE selected infiltration values, such that the percentage of total precipitation that becomes runoff is realistic for the soil types and slightly smaller than measured values for Southern California watersheds. Selection of a Kinematic Approach: As the continuous model is based on hourly rainfall, and the time of concentration for the pre-development and post-development conditions is significantly smaller than 60 minutes, precise routing of the flows through the impervious surfaces, the underdrain pipe system, and the discharge pipe was considered unnecessary. The truncation error of the precipitation into hourly steps is much more significant than the precise routing in a system where the time of concentration is much smaller than 1 hour. Sub-catchment IMP: The area of biofiltration must be equal to the area of the development tributary to the biofiltration facility (area that drains into the biofiltration, equal external area plus biofiltration itself). Five (5) decimal places were given regarding the areas of the biofiltration to insure that the area used by the program for the LID subroutine corresponds exactly with this tributary. LID Control Editor: Explanation of Significant Variables Storage Depth: The storage depth variable within the SWMM model is representative of the storage volume provided beneath the lowest surface outlet within the biofiltration basin. This is the volume that can only discharge from the facility via the LID portion of the basin. In those cases where the surface storage has a variable area that is also different to the area of the gravel and amended soil, the SWMM model needs to be calibrated as the LID module will use the storage depth multiplied by the IMP area as the amount of volume stored at the surface. Let AIMp be the area of the IMP (area of amended soil and area of gravel). The proper value of the storage depth So to be included in the LID module can be calculated by using geometric properties of the surface volume. Let Ao be the surface area at the bottom of the surface pond, and let Ai be the surface area at the elevation of the invert of the first row of orifices (or at the invert of the riser if not surface orifices are included). Finally, let hi be the difference in elevation between Ao and A. By volumetric definition: AIMP SD = (A0+A) h• 2 (1) Equation (1) allows the determination of So to be included as Storage Depth in the LID module. Porosity: A porosity value of 0.4 has been selected for the model. The amended soil is to be highly sandy in content in order to have a saturated hydraulic conductivity of approximately 5 in/hr. TRWE considers such a value to be slightly high; however, in order to comply with the HMP Permit, the value recommended by the Copermittees for the porosity of amended soil is 0.4, per Appendix A of the Final Hydromodification Management Plan by Brown & Caldwell, dated March 2011. Such porosity is equal to the porosity of the gravel per the same document. Void Ratio: The ratio of the void volume divided by the soil volume is directly related to porosity as n/(1-n). As the underdrain layer is composed of gravel, a porosity value of 0.4 has been selected (also per Appendix A of the Final HMP document), which results in a void ratio of 0.4/(1-0.4) = 0.67 for the gravel detention layer. Conductivity: Due to the natural soil and geotechnical conditions existing on site, infiltration may not be a viable addition to the LID design. As the IMP's are to be lined, the conductivity value was set to 0 to represent zero infiltration. Clogging factor: A clogging factor was not used (0 indicates that there is no clogging assumed within the model). The reason for this is related to the fairness of a comparison with the SDHM model and the HMP sizing tables: a clogging factor was not considered. Drain (Flow) coefficient: The flow coefficient in the SWMM Model is the coefficient needed to transform the orifice equation into a general power law equation of the form: q =C(H_ff)fl (2) where q is the peak flow in in/hr, n is the exponent (typically 0.5 for orifice equation), HD is the elevation of the centroid of the orifice in inches (assumed equal to the invert of the orifice for small orifices and in our design equal to 0) and H is the depth of the water in inches. The general orifice equation can be expressed as: Q= D2 I2g 7r D2 (H-HD) 144\J 12 (3) where Q is the peak flow in cfs, D is the diameter in inches, cg is the typical discharge coefficient for orifices (0.61-0.63 for thin walls and around 0.75-0.8 for thick walls), g is the acceleration of gravity in ft/s2, and H and Ho are defined above and are also used in inches in Equation (3). It is clear that: q ()x A,Mp 12X3600 = Q (cfs) (4) Cut-Off Flow: Q (cfs) and q (in/hr) are also the cutoff flow. For numerical reasons to insure the LID is full, the model uses cut-off = 1.01 Q. Manning's n Values for Overland Flow' The BMP Design Manuals within the County of San Diego allow for a land surface description other than short prairie grass to be used for hydromodification BMP design only if documentation provided is consistent with Table A.6 of the SWMM S User's Manual. In January 2016, the EPA released the SWMM Reference Manual Volume I - Hydrology (SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual). The SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual complements the SWMM 5 User's Manual by providing an in-depth description of the program's hydrologic components. Table 3-5 of the SWMM Hydrology Reference Manual expounds upon Table A.6 of the SWMM 5 User's Manual by providing Manning's n values for additional overland flow surfaces. Therefore, in order to, provide SWMM users with a wider range of land surfaces suitable for local application and to provide Copermittees with confidence in the design parameters, we recommend using the values published by Yen and Chow in Table 3-5 of the EPA SWMM Reference Manual Volume I - Hydrology. The values are provided in the table below: Overland Surface Manning value (n) Smooth asphalt pavement 0.010 Smooth impervious surface 0.011 Tar and sand pavement 0.012 Concrete pavement 0.014 Rough impervious surface 0.015 Smooth bare packed soil 0.017 Moderate bare packed soil 0.025 Rough bare packed soil 0.032 Gravel soil 0.025 Mowed poor grass 0.030 Average grass, closely clipped sod 0.040 Pasture 0.040 Timberland 0.060 Dense grass 0.060 Shrubs and bushes 0.080 Land Use Business 0.014 Semibusiness 0.022 Industrial 0.020 Dense residential 0.025 Suburban *residential 0.030 Parks and lawns 0.040 'Content summarized from Improving Accuracy in Continuous Simulation Modeling: Guidance for Selecting Pervious Overland Flow Manning's n Values in the San Diego Region (TRWE, 2016). PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION (POC-1) PRE_DEV_POC-1 [TITLE] ;Project Title/Notes Pre-Dev Input (POC-1) [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW-UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN_AMPT FLOW-ROUTING KINWAVE LINK-OFFSETS DEPTH MIN-SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP-STEADY-STATE NO START-DATE 08/28/1951 START-TIME 05:00:00 REPORT-START-DATE 08/28/1951 REPORT-START-TIME 05:00:00 END—DATE 05/2 3/2008 END-TIME 23:00:00 SWEEP-START 01/01 SWEEP-END 12/31 DRY-DAYS 0 REPORT-STEP 01:00:00 WET—STEP 00:15:00 DRY—STEP 04:00:00 ROUTING-STEP 0:01:00 RULE—STEP 00:00:00 INERTIAL-DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL-FLOW-LIMITED BOTH FORCE-MAIN-EQUATION H-W VARIABLE-STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING-STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 12.557 MAX-TRIALS 8 HEAD-TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM-STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters MONTHLY 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.06 DRY-ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source OCEANSIDE INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES OCEANSIDE [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack DMA_i OCEANSIDE POC-1 5.599 0 1219 2 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted 6AA_1 0.012 0.05 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] Page 1 PRE_DEV_POC-1 ;;subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD Ir1A.1 9 0.025 0.30 [OUTFALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To POC-1 0 FREE NO [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time value OCEANSIDE FILE "X:\ENGR\HMP\SWMM\Rain Gages\Oceanside\Oside_HOURLY.prn" [REPORT] ;Reporting Options SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS 2182.681359 6021.851375 2183.279716 6040.229030 Units Degrees [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord C-1 2182.907528 6035.170481 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment x-Coord Y-Coord 2182.902773 6036.961572 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord y-Coord OCEANSIDE 2182.938818 6038.414210 Page 2 POST-DEVELOPED CONDITION (POC-1) POST_DEV_POC-1 [TITLE] ;Project Title/Notes Oakmont Carlsbad (403-02) Developed Condition (POC-1) [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW—UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN....AMPT FLOW—ROUTING KINWAVE LINK—OFFSETS DEPTH MIN—SLOPE 0 ALLOW_PONDING NO SKIP—STEADY—STATE NO START—DATE 08/28/1951 START—TIME 05:00:00 REPORT—START—DATE 08/28/1951 REPORT—START—TIME 05:00:00 END—DATE 05/23/2008 END—TIME 23:00:00 SWEEP—START 01/01 SWEEP—END 12/31 DRY—DAYS 0 REPORT—STEP 01:00:00 WET—STEP 00:15:00 DRY—STEP 04:00:00 ROUTING—STEP 0:01:00 RULE—STEP 00:00:00 INERTIAL—DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL—FLOW—LIMITED BOTH FORCE—MAIN—EQUATION H-W VARIABLE—STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING—STEP 0 MIN_SURFAREA 0 MAX--TRIALS 0 HEAD—TOLERANCE 0 SYS_FLOW_TOL 5 LAT_FLOW_TOL 5 MINIMUM—STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data source Parameters MONTHLY 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.06 DRY—ONLY NO [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source OCEANSIDE INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES OCEANSIDE [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack BMP_1 OCEANSIDE POC-1 0.04881 0 10 0 0 BMP_3 OCEANSIDE POC-1 0.02984 0 10 0 0 DMA,-1 OCEANSIDE USV_i 2.698 61.2 798 2 0 DMA-2 OCEANSIDE USV_2 1.355 57.3 394 2 0 DMA--3 OCEANSIDE uSv_3 1.467 69.0 652 2 0 [SUBAREAS] Page 1 0. 0 5 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 5 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 O 0 3 6 0 0 width InitSat Fromlmp ToPery RptFile 0 • 0 100 0 * 0 0 100 0 * Gated Route To NO NO BMP_1 NO BMP_3 POST_DEV_POC-i S-Pery PCtZero RouteTo PctRouted 0.1 25 OUTLET 0.1 25 OUTLET 0.1 25 OUTLET 0.1 25 OUTLET 0.1 25 OUTLET ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery BMP_i 0.012 .08 0.05 BMP_3 0.012 .08 0.05 DMA-1 0.012 .08 0.05 DMA--2 0.012 .08 0.05 DM&3 0.012 .08 0.05 [INFILTRATION] Subcatchment Suction (sat IMD Ap_i 9 0.025 0.3 BMP_3 9 0.025 0.3 DMA--1 9 0.01875 0.3 DMA--2 9 0.01875 0.3 DMA-3 9 0.01875 0.3 [LID-CONTROLS) ;;Name Type/Layer Parameters BMP_i BC BMP_i SURFACE 12 0 BMP_i SOIL 21 0.4 BMP_i STORAGE 12 0.67 BMP_i DRAIN .3524 0.5 BMP_3 BC BMP_3 SURFACE 12 0 BMP_3 SOIL 21 0.4 BMP_3 STORAGE 12 0.67 BMP_3 DRAIN .5763 0.5 [LID-USAGE] ;;Subcatchment LID Process Number Area DrainTo FromPery 'p BMP_1 BMP_1 1 2126.16 POC-]. 100 BMP_3 BMP_3 1 1299.83 POC-1 100 [OUTFALLs] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data POC-1 0 FREE Route_to_BMP_i 0 FREE Route_to_BMP_3 0 FREE [STORAGE] ;Name - Elev. MaxDepth InitDepth Shape Curve Name/Params N/A Fevap Psi Ksat IMD USV_]. 0 5.0 0 TABULAR SURF_USV_1 0 0 USV_2 0 5.0 0 TABULAR SURF_USV_2 0 0 usv_3 0 5.0 0 TABULAR SURF_USV_3 0 0 (OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTable/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated OUT-1 USV_1 Route_to_BMP_i 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT_USV_1 NO OUT-3 uSv_3 Route_to_BMP_3 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT_USV_3 NO OUT-2 USV_2 POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUT_USV_2 NO Page 2 Type X-Value Rating 0.000 0.083 0.167 0.250 0.333 0.417 0.500 0.583 0.667 0.750 0.833 0.917 1.000 1.083 1.167 1.250 1.333 1.417 1.500 1.583 1.667 1.750 1.833 1.917 2.000 2.083 2.167 2.250 2.333 2.417 2.500 2.583 2.667 2.750 2.833 2.917 3.000 3.083 3.167 3.250 3.333 3.417 3.500 3.583 3.667 3.750 3.833 3.917 4.000 4.083 4.167 4.250 4.333 4.417 4.500 4.583 4.667 4.750 4.833 4.917 POST....DEV_POC-1 [CURVES] ;Name OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i- OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_U S V_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_US V_i OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_US V_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_i OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 OUT_USV_1 V-Value 0.000 0.013 0.049 0.103 0.167 0.217 0.251 0.280 0.307 0.332 0.355 0.376 0.396 0.446 0.540 0.646 0.713 0.770 0.821 0.869 0.913 0.955 0.995 1.033 1.069 1.105 1.139 1.171 1.203 1.234 1.264 1.294 1.323 1.351 1.378 1.405 1.431 1.457 1.483 1.508 1.532 1.557 1.580 1.604 1.627 1.650 1.970 2.538 3.266 4.124 5.094 6.164 7.325 8.571 9.896 11.295 12.764 14.301 15.902 17.566 Page 3 POST_DEV_POC-1 OUT_USV_1 5.000 19.288 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_US V_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT...USV_2 OUT_U SV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OLJT_USv_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_U Sv_2 OuT_USv_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_US v_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_US V_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_US V_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 OUT_USV_2 Rating 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.007 0.167 0.017 0.250 0.023 0.333 0.027 0.417 0.031 0.500 0.034 0.583 0.037 0.667 0.040 0.750 0.043 0.833 0.045 0.917 0.048 1.000 0.050 1.083 0.052 1.167 0.054 1.250 0.056 1.333 0.058 1.417 0.060 1.500 0.062 1.583 0.063 1.667 0.065 1.750 0.067 1.833 0.068 1.917 0.070 2.000 0.072 2.083 0.106 2.167 0.196 2.250 0.319 2.333 0.412 2.417 0.475 2.500 0.529 2.583 0.578 2.667 0.622 2.750 0.663 2.833 0.702 2.917 0.739 3.000 0.773 3.083 0.807 3.167 0.838 3.250 0.869 3.333 0.898 3.417 0.927 3.500 0.954 3.583 1.093 3.667 1.224 3.750. 1.312 3.833 1.388 3.917 1.456 4.000 1.519 4.083 1.877 4.167 2.478 4.250 3.238 4.333 4.126 4.417 5.124 4.500 6.220 4.583 7.407 4.667 8.677 4.750 10.025 4.833 11.446 4.917 12.938 5.000 14.495 Page 4 POST_DEV_POC-1 OUT_USV_3 Rating 0.000 0.000 ouT_usv_3 0.083 0.011 OUT_USV_3 0.167 0.041 OUT_USV_3 0.250 0.081 OUT_USV_3 0.333 0.111 OUT_USV_3 0.417 0.132 OLJT_uSv_3 0.500 0.150 OUT_USV_3 0.583 0.165 OUT_USV_3 0.667 0.180 OUT_USV_3 0.750 0.193 OLIT_uSv_3 0.833 0.206 OuT_uSv_3 0.917 0.217 OUT_USV_3 1.000 0.228 OUT_USV_3 1.083 0.261 OuT_uSv_3 1.167 0.330 OUT_USV_3 1.250 0.421 OUT..USV_3 1.333 0.491 OUT_uSv_3 1.417 0.541 OUT_USV_3 1.500 0.586 OUT_USV_3 1.583 0.626 OUT_USV_3 1.667 0.663 OUT_USV..3 1.750 0.698 OUT_USV_3 1.833 0.730 OUT_USv_3 1.917 0.762 OUT_USV_3 2.000 0.791 OUT_USV_3 2.083 0.820 OUT_USV_3 2.167 0.848 OUT_uSv_3 2.250 0.874 OUT_uSv_3 2.333 0.900 OUT_usv_3 2.417 0.925 OUT_uSv_3 2.500 0.949 O%JT_USV_3 2.583 0.973 OUT_USV_3 2.667 0.996 Otrr_uSv_3 2.750 1.018 OUT_uSv_3 2.833 1.040 OIJT_USV_3 2.917 1.062 OUT_USV_3 3.000 1.083 OtJT_uSv_3 3.083 1.104 oUT_usv_3 3.167 1.124 OUT_uSv_3 3.250 1.144 OUT_USV_3 3.333 1.163 OUT_USV_3 3.417 1.183 OuT_UsV_3 3.500 1.201 OUT_USV_3 3.583 1.220 OuT_USV_3 3.667 1.238 OuT_USV_3 3.750 1.256 OuT_uSv_3 3.833 1.572 OUT_LJSv_3 3.917 2.135 ouT_usv_3 4.000 2.859 oul_uSv_3 4.083 3.712 OLJT_LJSv_3 4.167 4.678 OLJT_uSv_3 4.250 5.744 OUT_LJSV_3 4.333 6.901 OUT_USV_3 4.417 8.142 OUT_USV_3 4.500 9.462 ouT_usv_3 4.583 10.857 oUT_IJSv_3 4.667 12.323 OUT_USV_3 4.750 13.855 OuT_USV_3 4.833 15.452 OUT_USV_3 4.917 17.112 OUT_USV_3 5.000 18.830 SURF_USV_1 storage 0 450 SURF_USV_1 5.0 450 Page 5 POST_DEV_POC-1 SURF_USV_2 Storage 0.0 520 SURF_USV_2 5.0 520 SURF_USV_3 storage 0.0 255 SURF_USV_3 5.0 255 (TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time value OCEANSIDE FILE "X: \ENGR\HMP\SWMM\Rai n Gages\oceansi de\Osi deJIOuRLY. pm " (REPORT] ;Reporting Options SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS 191.920 4920.830 1021.827 5718.627 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node - x-Coord v-Coord POC-1 382.242 5232.818 Route..to_BMP_1 164.742 5427.141 Route,.t0_BMP_3 607.765 5436.055 usv_1 163.851 5546.588 USV_2 382.334 5433.700 Usv_3 606.874 5560.428 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord Ap_i 166.525 5393.268 BMP_3 605.982 5399.508 DMA--1 163.851 5640.184 DMA-1 163.851 5640.184 DM&..2 382.334 5634.425 DMA-3 606.874 5634.425 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage x-Coord v-Coord OCEANSIDE 12.353 5661.642 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 9 Summary Files from the SWMM Model PRE_DEV_POC-1 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Dev Input (POC-1) NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. * *** **** * ** * *** * Analysis Options ** a ** * ** *** a a *** Flow units ...............CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........YES ROIl ...................NO Snowmelt ...............NO Groundwater ............NO Flow Routing ...........NO Water Quality ..........NO Infiltration Method ......GREEN.AMPT Starting Date ............08/28/1951 05:00:00 Ending Date ..............05/23/2008 23:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ......0.0 Report Time step .........01:00:00 wet Time step ............00:15:00 Dry Time step ............04:00:00 volume Depth Runoff Quantity continuity acre-feet inches Total Precipitation 315.060 675.250 Evaporation Loss 11.780 25.248 Infiltration Loss 239.708 513.752 surface Runoff ...........70.066 150.167 Final storage ............0.000 0.001 Continuity Error (%) -2.061 volume volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10A6 gal Dry Weather Inflow 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow 70.066 22.832 Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.000 ROIl Inflow ..............0.000 0.000 External Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 70.066 22.832 Flooding Loss 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored volume 0.000 0.000 Final stored volume 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) 0.000 subcatchment Runoff Summary Page 1 PRE,...DEV_POC-1 Total Total Total Total Impery Pery Total Total Peak Runoff - Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff subcatchment in in in in in in in 10A6 gal CFS DMA...1 675.25 0.00 25.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 513.75 0.00 150.17 150.17 22.83 6.29 0.222 Analysis begun on: Thu Jan 17 16:47:30 2019 Analysis ended on: Thu Jan 17 16:47:45 2019 Total elapsed time: 00:00:15 Page 2 POST_DEV_POC-1 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- oakmont Carlsbad (403-02) Developed Condition (PoC-1) NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. Analysis Options Flow Units ............... Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ RDII ................... Snowmelt............... Groundwater............ Flow Routing ........... Ponding Allowed ........ water Quality .......... Infiltration Method ...... Flow Routing Method ....... Starting Date ............ Ending Date .............. Antecedent Dry Days ...... Report Time step ......... Wet Time Step ............ Dry Time Step ............ Routing Time Step ........ CFS YES NO NO NO YES NO NO GREEN....AMPT KIN WAVE 08/28/1951 05:00:00 05/23/2008 23:00:00 0.0 01:00:00 00:15:00 04:00:00 60.00 sec Runoff Quantity Continuity Initial LID Storage ...... Total Precipitation ...... Outfall Runon ............ Evaporation Loss ......... Infiltration LOSS ........ Surface Runoff ........... LID Drainage ............. Final Storage ............ Continuity Error (%) ..... A * ** * *** * A *** * * ***** * * **** Flow Routing Continuity ** *** *** **** * * ****** *** ** * Dry Weather Inflow ....... wet Weather Inflow ....... Groundwater Inflow ....... ROIl Inflow .............. External Inflow .......... External Outflow ......... Flooding LOSS ............ Evaporation LOSS ......... Exfiltration LOSS ........ Initial Stored volume Volume Depth acre-feet inches 0.014 0.029 315.041 675.250 153.373 328.736 40.452 86.705 81.489 174.660 226.718 485.942 123.975 265.724 0.033 0.071 -0.905 volume volume acre-feet 10A6 gal 0.000 0.000 350.692 114.278 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 350.654 114.266 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 1 ----------------------------------- Infil surface Drain Initial Loss Outflow Outflow Storage in in in in 0.00 4874.13 18471.52 2.10 0.00 2692.66 19643.28 2.10 ----------------- Final Continuity storage Error in ------------------- 3.17 -0.00 3.21 -0.00 Final stored volume 0.001 0.002 POST_.DEV_POC-1 Continuity Error (%) 0.010 * * ***** *** *** * *** * * * **** * **** * * * Highest Flow Instability Indexes ** ** * * ***** ** * * *** * * ** ** * * ****** All links are stable. * * ** * *** ** * ** ****** * * * *** Routing Time Step Summary ** ** * *** ** *** ** ***** * * ** * * * Subcatchment Runoff Summary * * *** ** * *** * * ***** * * * *** * * * * **** * ** * ** ****** * *** ** a * Minimum Time Step : Average Time step Maximum Time step : Percent in Steady state : Average Iterations per step : Percent Not Converging : Total Total Total Total Impery Pery Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 10A6 gal CFS BMP_1 675.25 23781.20 1110.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 23344.76 30.94 3.24 0.955 BMP_3 675.25 22778.69 1117.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 22335.12 18.10 1.77 0.952 DMA_1 675.25 0.00 71.35 182.57 357.65 72.64 430.28 31.52 3.18 0.637 DMA_2 675.25 0.00 68.25 201.14 334.98 79.59 414.57 15.25 1.59 0.614 DMA_3 675.25 0.00 76.97 145.03 403.96 59.38 463.34 18.46 1.74 0.686 60.00 sec 60.00 sec 60.00 sec 0.00 1.00 0.00 **** * *** * * * ***** * * LID Performance Summary ** ** * ** ** * *** * ** ***** * * Total Evap Inflow LOSS Subcatchment LID Control in in BMP_1 BMP_1 24456.45 1110.26 BMP_3 BMP_3 23453.94 1117.39 * **** ** * **** * ***** Node Depth Summary ** ** *** *** a a ** *** a --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Page 2 Node Type POC-1 OUTFALL Route_to_BMP..]. OUTFALL Route_to_BMP_3 OUTFALL USV_1 STORAGE USV_2 STORAGE USv_3 STORAGE POST_DEV_POC-1 Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------------------------------------------------ 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 0.01 3.99 3.99 18857 11:48 3.99 0.02 4.02 4.02 18857 11:47 4.02 0.01 3.86 3.86 18857 11:28 3.86 Node Inflow Summary Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume volume Error Node Type CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CFS days hr:min 10A6 gal 10A6 gal Percent POC-1 OUTFALL 5.01 6.61 18857 12:01 49 64.3 0.000 Route..t0_BMP_1 OUTFALL 0.00 3.18 18857 11:48 0 31.5 0.000 Routeto_BMP_3 OUTFALL 0.00 1.74 18857 11:28 0 18.5 0.000 USV_1 STORAGE 3.18 3.18 18857 11:46 31.5 31.5 0.011 USv_2 STORAGE 1.59 1.59 18857 12:01 15.3 15.3 0.055 USV_3 STORAGE 1.74 1.74 18857 12:01 18.5 18.5 -0.001 Node Flooding Summary NO nodes were flooded. ** ** a * a a * a * * ** ***** ** a Storage volume Summary ***** a ***** * ***** a Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage unit 1000 ft3 Full LOSS LOSS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS usv_1 0.003 0 0 0 1.796 80 18857 11:32 3.18 USv_2 0.009 0 0 0 2.090 80 18857 11:46 1.60 USV_3 0.001 0 0 0 0.984 77 18857 11:28 1.74 Outfall Loading Summary ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10A6 gal POC-1 4.45 0.11 6.61 64.282 Rout&.to_BMP_1 3.05 0.08 3.18 31.519 Route.to_BMP_3 2.58 0.05 1.74 18.457 System ----------------------------------------------------------- 3.36 0.24 1.74 114.257 Page 3 Y 11 POST_.DEV_POC-i ** a a ** a a * ** *** * ****** * * *** * * * LinkFlow Summar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ IFlowl Occurrence Ivelocl Full Full Link Type ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth OUT_i DUMMY 3.18 18857 11:48 OUT-3 DUMMY 1.74 18857 11:28 OUT-2 DUMMY 1.60 18857 11:47 * a * **** * ****** ** a Conduit Surcharge summary ***** ** a *** **** * ****** ** * NO conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Wed Feb 27 15:29:28 2019 Analysis ended on: wed Feb 27 15:30:06 2019 Total elapsed time: 00:00:38 Page 4