HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-14A; TRAILS END; STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2017-03-31T 04- iq-h RECORD COPY
-_4Lth2
Initial Date
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)
STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
TRAILS END DEVELOPMENT
CTO4-14A
481-lA
SWQMP No. 16-23
ENGINEER OF WORK:
1 No. 322471
Evp. LJJ
Bruce A. Tait, C032247, 12/3/18
PREPARED FOR:
The PEV Family Revocable Trust / Pacifica Real Estate Services
5505 Cancha De Golf
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091
858-755-0216
PREPARED BY:
Masson & Associates, Inc.
200 E. Washington Ave. Suite 200
Escondido, California 92025
760-741-3570
DATE:
March 31, 2017
RECEIVED
MAY 17. 2017
LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I > CERTIFICATION PAGE PROJECT
I
VICINITY MAP
> FORM E-34 STORM WATER STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE SITE INFORMATION
> FORM E-36 STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST SUMMARY OF
PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS
> ATTACHMENT 1: BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
ATTACHMENT 1A: DMA EXHIBIT
I 0 ATTACHMENT 113: TABULAR SUMMARY OF DMAS AND DESIGN CAPTURE
I VOLUME CALCULATIONS
ATTACHMENT 1C: HARVEST AND USE FEASIBILITY SCREENING (WHEN APPLICABLE)
0 ATTACHMENT 1D: CATEGORIZATION OF INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY CONDITION
(WHEN APPLICABLE)
I 0 ATTACHMENT 1E: POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP DESIGN WORKSHEETS /
CALCULATIONS
I > ATTACHMENT 2: BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL
MEASURES
I 0 ATTACHMENT 2A: HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT
I 0 ATTACHMENT 213: MANAGEMENT OF CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT
YIELD AREAS
I 0 ATTACHMENT 2C: GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT OF RECEIVING
CHANNELS
0 ATTACHMENT 2D: FLOW CONTROL FACILITY DESIGN
I
> ATTACHMENT 3: STRUCTURAL BMP MAINTENANCE THRESHOLDS AND ACTIONS
> ATTACHMENT 4: SINGLE SHEET BMP (SSBMP) EXHIBIT
I
I
1•
I
CERTIFICATION PAGE
I Project Name: Trails End Development
Project ID: CT04-14A
I hereby declare that / 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.
S 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
I 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
I 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
I the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my
responsibilities for project design.
I
i 03f BUT/
I 'C032247 12/31/18 CK No.32247.
I
Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date
Bruce Tait P.E. 1
Print Name Of
Masson & Associates, Inc.
5 Company
I March 31, 2017
Date
I
I
I
caty o STORM WATER STANDARDS Development Services
C
f QUESTIONNAIRE Land Development Engineering
1635 Faraday Avenue ar s a E-34 (760) 602-2750
www.carlsbadca.gov
H
H
I
I
I
I
INSTRUCTIONS:
To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that new
development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management
Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual,
refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5).
This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application
(subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of
storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the
outcome, your project will either be subject to STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to PRIORITY
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements.
Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City
staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff
determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than
initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please
make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city.
If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the
questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff.
A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed
and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted
concurrently.
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME: Trails End Development PROJECT ID: CT04-14A
ADDRESS: (street number not assigned) Donna Drive, Carlsbad CA APN: 156-090-41-00
The project is (check one): lI1 New Development DRedevelopment
The total proposed disturbed area is:121,532 ft2 (_2.79) acres
The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is:90,169 ft2 (_2.07 ) 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: No
Project IDN/A 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.
1
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STEP 1
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS
To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question:
YES NO
Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building
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.
STEP 2
TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer
the following questions:
Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following:
YES NO
1. Constructing newor 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 E 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
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? E •
If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, provide discussion/justification below, then go to Step 5, mark
the second box stating "my project is EXEMPT from PDP .....and complete applicant information.
Discussion to justify exemption (e.g. the project redeveloping existing road designed and constructed in accordance with
the USEPA Green Street guidance):
If you answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, go to Step 3.
I
I STEP
U TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)):
YES NO
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, • El
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 El
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 K El
development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent orgreater.
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 Na 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 surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a Street, road, highway El freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface
used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles.
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 I
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 El i 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
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 El ON
21.203.040)
If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a POP. 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.
I
STEP 4
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) =0 sq. ft. LI 0
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 PDP 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
* 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.
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 myproject.
Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations
and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply.
My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual.
Applicant Information and Signature Box
Applicant Name:Mr. Pino Vitti Applicant Title: Trustee
Applicant Signature: Date:
U Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas
designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources control Board (Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water
I Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as
preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; Habitat
Management Plan; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the City.
This Box for City
Use Only
City Concurrence:
YES NO
El -1 E
By:
Date:
Project ID:
Project Summary Information
Project Name Trails End Development
Project ID C10414A
Project Address Donna Drive, Carlsbad California
Assessors Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 15609041 00
Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904.21.
Parcel Area
2.79 Acres ( 121,532 Square Feet)
Existing Impervious Area
(subset of Parcel Area) 0 Acres ( 0 Square Feet)
Area to be disturbed by the project
(ProjectArea) 2.79 Acres (_121,532 —Square Feet)
Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area) 1.34 Acres ( 58,510 Square Feet)
Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subsetof Project Area) 1.45 _Acres (_63_022 _Square Feet)
Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the
Project.
This may be less than the Parcel Area
Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):
Existing development
Previously graded but not built out
Agricultural or other non-impervious use
Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Description / Additional Information:
Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply):
/ Vegetative Cover
Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas
Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:
The site is an mt ill project and has never been developed previously. The site has
characterized by natural vegetation and has no impervious surfaces.
Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
NRCS Type A
'I NRCS Type B
NRCS Type C
I NRCS Type D
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
GW Depth < 5 feet
5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet
10 feet .< GW Depth < 20 feet
I GW Depth > 20 feet
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
/ None
Description / Additional Information:
P Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns
__________
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:
The proposed site is planned to be developed into (7) residential duplex buildings, each have 2
separate residences, for a total number of 14 residences. The proposed projects land use is
consistent with the surrounding development and will not adversely impact the adjoining lands
or the character of the neighborhood.
List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking
lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):
As with any residential development, the project will include impervious surfaces. Impervious
surfaces will include; roofs, driveways, parking areas, streets, patios and hard landscaping. The
increase in runoff as ,a function of the new impervious surfaces will be mitigated by a retention
basin.
List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):
The project will include several types of pervious surfaces within the design. The pervious
surfaces include; landscaping, grass areas, blo retention Basin, permeable payers and planting
areas.
Does the project include grading and changes to site topography?
'I Yes
No
Description I Additional Information:
Considering the site has never been graded before, the site will require considerable re-
contouring to make the site developable for the land use plan. Although, every effort has been
made to reduce the earthwork, the site will require approximately 22,000 cubic yards of fill be
implement the design presented.
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water
conveyance systems)?
/ Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:
As shown on the plan, several new drainage systems have been included in the designs which
play an important role in controlling surface runoff. The facilities include; Catch Basins, area
yard drains, storm drainage pipe, perforated underdrain pipes, headwalls, rip rap energy
dissipaters, spillways and a bio-filtration basin. All of these systems work in conjunction to
control and discharge flows in a manner most similar to the existing condition.
Identification of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern
Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or
reservoir, as applicable):
Surface runoff draining from the site is discharged in a controlled fashion into a storm drain on
Monroe Street approximately 1 mile upstream of the Buena Vista Lagoon. Runoff then travels an
additional 1.5 miles within the Lagoon before reaching the Pacific Ocean.
List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the
Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the
pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water
bodies:
303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs
Buena Vista creek! 904.21 Sediment Toxicity. Source Unknown; Selenium Needed
Buena Vista Lagoon! 904.21 Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients,
edimentation/SiItation. Nonnoint/Point Source
Needed
Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Buena Vista Creek HA /
104.21
Indicator Bacteria. Nonpoint!Point Source Needed
Identification of Project Site Pollutants
Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see
BMP Design Manual Appendix 13.6):
Also a Receiving
Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of
Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern
x NA
Sediment
X NA
Nutrients
X NA
Heavy Metals
X NA
Organic Compounds
X NA
Trash _&_Debris
___________________ Oxygen Demanding x NA
Substances
X NA
Oil _&_Grease
X
Bacteria _&_Viruses
X NA
Pesticides
I
Hydromodification Management Requirements
I Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design
Manual)?
Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required.
No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains I discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayment's, or the
Pacific Ocean.
I No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank
are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs,
lakes, enclosed embayment's, or the Pacific Ocean.
V' No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate
loran exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.
Description I Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above):
Since the project is exempt from hydromodification, the critical coarse sediment is not an issue for this I project site.
I Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas*
*This Section only required if hydromodificationmanagement requirements apply
Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas ' exist within the project drainage boundaries?
Yes
No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps
I If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual been performed?
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite I 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment
6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite
No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield I areas identified based on WMAA maps
If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? I No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUsônsite
Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined
that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the
SWQMP. I 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,
I and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.
Discussion I Additional Information:
I
I
I E34 REV 02/16
Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply
List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification
management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number
correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number
correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.
N/A, 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.
Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)?
No, the low flow threshold is 0.102 (default low flow threshold)
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.102
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.302
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.502
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:
Discussion / Additional Information (optional)
N/A, 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.
Other Site Requirements and Constraints
When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water
management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or City
codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and
drainage requirements.
N/A
City of Carlsbad .......Zoning Ordinance
City of Carlsbad .......Design Guidelines
City of Carlsbad .......Grading and Drainage Ordinance
City of Carlsbad .......Engineering Standards
Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed
This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous
sections as needed.
N/A
I
STANDARD PROJECT Development Services ccity of REQUIREMENT Land Development Engineering
Carlsbad CHECKLIST 1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-2750 E-36 www.carlsbadca.gov
Project Information
Project Name: Trials End Development
Project ID:CTO4-1A
DWG No. or Building Permit No.: 481-1A
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible . See
Chapter 4 and Appendix Ei of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this
checklist.
Answer each category below pursuant to thefollowing.
Yes means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the
Model BMP Design Manual Discussion/justification is not required
'No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justificat ion must be
provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed.
"N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is
addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas) . Discussion/justification may be
provided.
Source Control: Requirement Applied?
SC -1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 XYes No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented:
Discharges from site are controlled by BMP's preventing illicit discharges to the MS4.
SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage X Yes. No N/A
Discussion/justification if SC-2 notimplemented:
Drop Inlets will include stenciling and or placards indicating surface runoff drains to the Ocean.
SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Yes No CX/A Dispersal
Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented:
No post development storage of material is proposed.
Source Control Requirement (continued) Applied?
SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and
Wind Dispersal Yes No
Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented:
No post development outdoor work areas are proposed.
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal CXY
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).
DOn-sitestormdraininlets
D Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps X yes
Dlnteriorparking garages No
RX
D Need for future indoor & structural pest control
DLandscape/OutdoorPesticideUse
D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features N
D Food service N
D Refuse areas
D Industrial processes
_
D Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
DVehicle and Equipment Cleaning
_______
D Vehicle/Equipment_Repair and Maintenance
No
X No
'X NC, D Fuel Dispensing Areas
DLoading Docks
D Fire Sprinkler Test Water X Yes
D Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Yes
DPlazas, sidewalks, and parking lots ____es ___ _ For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" Thwe,'
This is a residential project with no common interior parking structure.
Site Design BMPs
All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See
Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in
this checklist.
Answer each category below pursuant to the following.
'Yes means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of
the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion /justification is not required.
"No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be
provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed.
"N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is
addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be
provided.
Source Control Requirement I-. Applied?
SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features X Yes No I NIA
Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented:
SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I Yes X No I N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented:
Considering the development plan and existing slopes across the site, the entire site will be regraded to accommodate the
development plan. No significant trees or vegetation was observed on site.
SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area X Yes No I N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented:
SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I Yes X No NIA
Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented:
As the site will be completely regraded, soil compaction of import soils will be required. Unfortunately, no native areas will
remain undisturbed.
SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I Yes (I X No I NIA
Discussion/justification if SD -5 not implemented
I
Source Control Requirement (continued) I Applied?
SD-6 Runoff Collection
Q Yes No I N/A
Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented:
SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species X Yes No I NIA
Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented:
SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation i Yes I X No NIA
Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented:
Total rain barrel volume is less than 0.25 DCV and also the landscape areas are not greater than 30
percent of the project footprint (per required rain barrel in BMP manual) See Form 1-7 for calculation
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of
the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control
must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to
hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow
control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both
storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be
achieved within the same structural BMP(s).
PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the 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 pollution control measures and structural BMP's have been implemented on site. The
proposed Bio filtration Pond will treat onsite runoff. This systems and other infiltration BMPs
such as pervious concrete payers have also been used to infiltrate storm runoff.
Hydromodification is exempt for this project therefore flow Control BMP is not required.
The bio filtration basin has a high rating for removal of all likely pollutants from storm water.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Structural BMP Summary Information
[Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed
structural BMP]
Structural BMP ID No.
DWG 481-1A Sheet No. 4
Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (lNF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1)
v' 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)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:
v' 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):
IMP #1
ATTACHMENT 1
BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1.
Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
Attachment Contents Checklist
Sequence
Attachment la DMA Exhibit (Required) I Included
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the
back of this Attachment cover sheet.
(24"x36" Exhibit typically required)
Attachment lb Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing I Included on DMA Exhibit in
DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Attachment la
Area, and DMA Type (Required)* Included as Attachment 1 b,
separate from DMA Exhibit
*Provide table in this Attachment OR
on DMA Exhibit in Attachment la
Attachment lc Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility I Included
Sôreening Checklist (Required unless ] Not included because the entire
the entire project will use infiltration project will use infiltration BMPs
BMPs)
Refer to Appendix 13.3-1 of the BMP
Design. Manual to complete Form 1-7.
Attachment id Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration I Included
Feasibility Condition (Required unless ] Not included because the entire
the project will use harvest and use project will use harvest and use
BMPs) BMPs
Refer to Appendices C and D of the
BMP Design Manual to complete
Form 1-8.
Attachment le Pollutant Control BMP Design I Included
Worksheets / Calculations (Required)
Refer to Appendices B and E of the
BMP Design Manual for structural
pollutant control BMP design
guidelines
I
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit:
I The must DMA Exhibit identify:
I I Underlying hydrologic soil group
'7 Approximate depth to groundwater
I Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands)
I Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present). "See Course Sediment Exhibit."
I l Existing topography and impervious areas
I Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite
U I Proposed grading
I Proposed impervious features
I Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness
'I Drainage boundaries, DMA ID management area (DMA) numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or
acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self retaining, or self mitigating)
1
1 Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP)
I
I
I
I
1
I 12
I
SWMP NO. 1ñ2__
PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE:
NAME ?OLEUMILLEODLOCABLLLRUJSL.
ADDRESS SAUDCANCHADEGOLF CONTACT _000IDOLLUC&__ RANCHO SANTA FE. CA92091 PHONE NO. AMA-ASP-fl/iN
PLAN PREPARED BY:
NAME BRUCETAIl,C0322R7
COMPANY MASSON_&_ASSOOATES_INC
ADDRESS 200_E_WASHIIIGTON AVE _4200
ESCONDIIIO_CA_92020
PHONE NO. ?AY-74.L,351O.
BMP NOTES: , ' CERTIFICATION DM11/0SP71715
I. THESE AMPS ARE MANOATORA TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS DR THESE PLANS, NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER,
NO SUBSTITUTIONS 10 THE MATERIAL OR TAPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE
CITY ENC/AEER,
NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR
APPOOPAIARE LIMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION.
S. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT,
6. SEE PROJECT SWOMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
BMP TABLE
INSPECTION * I * BMP ID NO BAP TYPE SYMBOL CASDA QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO/ MAINTENANCE SI . FREQUENCY I FREQUENCY
TREATMENT CONTROL
BIORLTRATON ,_•_. 1-32 1,959 S.F. 481-IA I 2 I MONTHLY MONTHLY
HYDROMOOIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL
N/A
HYDROMODIPICATION
N/A I I II
LOW IMPACTDESIGN (LID.)
PERMEABLE PAVEMENT TC 10 2.825 SF 991 1W 2 SEMI-ANNUALLY ANNUALLY
GRASSPAVE2 TC-31 2.622 SF 481-IA 2 SEMI-ANNUALLY ANNUALLY
SMART SEE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION N/A
TWIZ
'N/A 481-IL PLANS MONTHLY AS-NEEDED
SOURCE CONTROL
® STENCILS: NO DUMPING, GRAINSTO_DAPAN SD-13 3 EA 461-1A 2 SEMI-ANNUALLY AS-REEOEO
NEED FOR FUTURE
INDOOR/STRUCTURAL [1] SC-Al
PEST CONTROL
LANDS APE/OUTDOOR PISTCIDE USE: PROAIOE Ej] SC-41
IMP
ROOFTOP DRAIN TO ® PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE
AREA, AVOID USE OF SC-lU
UNPROTECTED METALS
PLAZAS, SIDEWALKS, AND PARKING LOTS, ® SWEEP REGULARLY, COLLECT DEBRIS, SE-?
COLLECT WA SC-43
HAD DISCHARGE TO
SANITARY SEWER
U
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
1
1
f \\ \ \ \ CONCRETE DITCH -
3. 1 THE PROJECT SITE IS UNDERLAIN WITH HYDROLOGIC SOIL X \ \ / 7
\ N___--_ --- GROUP \ 'ç X
2. GROUND WATER WAS NOT OBSERVED OR FOUND DURING
IV THE SOIL x BORING OPERATION TER'
+ DMA 3
SELF-MITIGATED A REA
N /PLANTED W/OROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS
14,070
/'25
SF (032
/ / / / \ \ \\ \
\\\\
\ H
I
I \\\ \U
\\\
L T ( LOT 14 \\ \\ \ \\ 5H I I \ ç
\\\ \ \\ \\\ HH
11
LI
12'x 2 i3
AREA DRAINS I
Y,
/1/ '
- \\\ \ \\
' ' \\\
I\/I\N\\I\/ \:.•'
N I 0 \L.JUVI.AA
SLO1 25001SF
(057 AC) \\
N \\ \ \\\I
0
\\\\
\i$- \ -\ \H5 LO
ir
80331 SF \\I\\\\ 1
LOT I
\LOT; 9 \\\\\\ \\/L
\\ \\
( / /
/I//
/ -/ - : : -- :::
N LOTS
LO7 \ I\/•
\\ '-hft ::
/ EMERGENCY / I
"
\ \ \ 1/
I • I
/ SPILLWAY
- / / I • -. , / .....:--......:: ..• :."z
BIOEENTION N I
I 1
_8ASIN
OUTLET STRUCTURE
- POC 1 12 x12Y 'H,N. DMA#1 AND DMA #2 DISCHARGE DIRECTLY T
/ -JN AREA DRAINS THE BMP BASIN OR IMP#1 AS SHOWN
TYPICAL / //
IMP #1 =4,362 SF BASIN // /
/ * \+ /
/ //
/////
/
/
L
AREA DRAINS
TYPICAL
LEGEND
BUILDING
DRAINAGE AREA • I I • DMA
LANDSCAPE DMA EXHIBIT FOR
AC PAVEMENT TRAILS END
PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS EEEL CITY OF CARLSBAD, CA
GRASSPAYPD
AIORETENTION BASIN - - Planrong Engineering ASurveylrtg '-/L PRIVATE STORM DRAIN 3- - SD— Solved.
N/A / i \ FLOW DIRECTION ______ 200 B. Washington Ave. Suite 200
NJ / io o 40 N AH.\\ S \\ > A Escondido, CA 92025
All - -- A RETAINING WALLS 0,760,741.3570
SCA IN;ft'T LOT LIRE LOT # M A S S 0 N P. 760. 74 .1786
ROOF DRAINS S & ASSOCIATES INC vswmaSsonaSSoccom
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Harvest and Use Feasibility Checl6st Form 1-7
....................
I. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during
the wet season?
Toilet and urinal flushing
/ Landscape irrigation . .
Other:
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.
[Provide a summary of calculations here] NA
Flushing: 14 DU x 2.5 people per DU x 9.3 gallons/person x 36 hours/24 hours /day = 488 gallons, however, since
practical method of utilizing stormwater for toilet flushing in private homes has not yet been developed, this demand i
not included in the total demand for the site.
Irrigation for Moderate Hydrozone: 1470 gallons per irrigated acre per 36 hours x .4 acres = 588 gallons
Total Demand: 588 gallons
25%*2677=669> 588 gallons
Calculate the DCV using worksheet B.2-1
DCV =2677 (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 DCV 0 2SDCV but less than the full DCV less than 25DCV7
Yes ' () Yes I Yes
Harvest and use appears to be Halvest and use may be feasible. H est and use is
feasible. Conduct more detailed Conduct more detailed evaluation and considered to be infeasibi
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 draining in longer than 36 hours.
Is hatvest and use feasible based on further evaluation?
D Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. .
/ No, select alternate BMPs.
iCategorization ruar Infiltration yI Feasibility Condition Form 1-8
Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Lt? 1n th t, .m
-i £iw iL. 1T:1 tiihi
r rsUjfl iflpr'
Criteria Screening Quc tion Yes No
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility
locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this
Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
x
Provide basis:
Onsite testing using the inverse auger hole, or "Porchet" method evaluated infiltration rates of 0.25, 0.33, and 0.42
inches per hour to formational soils that would remain subsequent to remedial grading onsite. It should also be
noted that any artificial fill, created through removallrecomp action of onsite souls would likely possess an
infiltration rate below the 0.5 inch/hour threshold. See GSI report dated June21, 2016
and references.
for other related discussions
Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies calculations maps data sources
discussion of study/data source applicability.
etc Provide narrative
2
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechrncal hazards (slope stability,
groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be
mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
x
Provide basis:
Basins located within 10 feet of any residential structure or settlement sensitive improvement (walls, pavements, etc.)
:an adversely affect the performance of the improvement by, 1. Facilitating heave of expansive soil, 2. Increasing soil
moisture transmission rates through concrete flooring, and 3. Increase the potential for a loss in bearing strength of
soil, due to saturation. Mitigative grading for the support of structure generally involves the removal and
ecompaction of near surface soils. This is anticipated to create a permeability contrast, and the potential for the
development of a shallow "perched" water table, which can be anticipated to migrate laterally, beneath the
structure(s). Planned utilities in the vicinity would act as "french drains" and also be adversely affected. Adjacent,
offsite slopes are generally steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be subject to an increased potential for
instability due to the lateral migration of water from a potential infiltration area located
dated June 21, 2016 for other related discussions and references
up gradient. See GSI report
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources,
discussion of study/data source applicability.
etc. Provide narrative
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Form .1-8 Page 2 of 4
Criteria 1 - Screening Quetion .'Yes No
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow
water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presentedin AppendixC.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing grades
onsite.
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 discharge of
contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this
Screening Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
I' his is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet existing grades onsite.
Significant drainage courses do not appear to present onsite, and/or would be truncated by the existing Hosp Way,
located downslope and offsite to the west of the site and should not be adversely affected by infiltration from a site of
his size.
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 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
Part 1 feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration
Result
* ,, i If any answer from row 1-4 s "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but Proceed to Part
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design.
Proceed to Part 9
*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 Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings
1-5 February 26,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Form 1-8 Page 3 of 4
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?
Criterij Screening Question
-
Yes No
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any
5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening x Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Site specific infiltration testing evaluated infiltration rates of 0.25, 0.33 and 0.42 inches per hour for onsite native soils.
However, it should be noted that any artificial fill, created through removal/recompaction of onsite soils would likely
possess a further reduced infiltration rate, and basins located within 10 feet of a residential structure, utility trench, or
other improvement, would be adversely affected. See GSI report dated June 21, 2016 for other related discussions and
references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability 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,
6 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis: Please see Discussion Note at the End of this Form 1-8
No. Basin located within 10 feet of any residential structure can adversely affect the performance of the structures
foundation system by, 1. Facilitating heave of expansive soil, 2. Increasing soil moisture transmission rates through
concrete flooring, and 3. Increase the potential for a loss in bearing strength of soil, due to saturation. Mitigative
grading for the support of structure generally involves the removal and recompaction of near surface soils. This is
anticipated to create a permeability contrast, and the potential for the development of a shallow "perched" water
able, which can be anticipated to migrate laterally, beneath the structure(s), or offsite adjacent property. Planned
utilities in the vicinity would act as "french drains" and also be adversely affected. Adjacent, offsite slopes are
enerally steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be subject to an increased potential for instability due to
he lateral migration of water from a potential infiltration area located up gradient. See GSI report dated June 21,
016 for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
Form 1-8 -
Criteria Screenin Question I
Yes
-----1
No
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns
7 (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? X
The response to this Screening Question must be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
rhis is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing grades
onsite.
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
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water
rights? The response to this Screening Question must be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
X =
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. The site currently drains offsite and no runoff appears to be retained onsite.
Significant drainage courses do not appear to present onsite, and/or would be truncated by the existing Hosp Way,
located downslope and offsite to the west of the site and should not be adversely affected by infiltration from a site of
this size.
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. =
Part2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
No
Result* i infiltration . i If any answer from row 5-8 s no, then of any volume s considered to be Infiltration
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
lering the definition of MEP in the
to substantiate findings
I
I Discussion Note: This bio-filtration site was logically placed at the lowest corner of the site. This is also the location of
the connection of the proposed sewer to the existing sewer in the neighboring property. Due to the topography it is
necessary to construct a berm to contain the stormwater during treatment. About 11 feet from the toe of this berm
I is an existing home. These factors combined, result in increased risk of geotechnical hazards such as slope stability,
utilities and moisture intrusion to the adjacent downhill home. These factors cannot be acceptably mitigated to an
acceptable level, since mitigation would require lining around 70% of the blo-filtration basin and even this lining
I would not guarantee complete elimination of infiltration in unacceptable areas. 100% impervious liner is therefore
recommended.
I
1
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth d= 0.600
-
inches
2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 2.41 acres
3 Area Weighted runoff factor C= 0.62 unitless
4 Rain Barrels volume reduction TCV= 0 cubic-feet
5 IStreet trees volume reduction RCV= 0 cubic-feet
6
-
CalculatorDCV=
(3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV
DCV= 3261.4 cubic-feet
Simvle rd for Biofiltration Bkl4wns
1 Remang DCV after implementing retention BMPs 3261.4 cubic-feet
Partial Retention
2 Infiltration ratefromWorksheet D.5-1if partial infiltration is feasible 0 in/hr.
3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours
4 Depthof runoff thatcan be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 0 inches
5 Aggregate pore space 0.4 in/in
6 Requireddepthof gravelbelowtheunderdrain[Line4/Line5] 0 inches
7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 2600 sq-ft
8 Media retained pore space 0.1 in/in
9 Volume retained by BMP [[Line4± (Line 12x Line 8)]/121x Line 7 390 cubic-feet
10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 - Line 91 2871.4 cubic-feet
BMP Parameters
11 SurfacePonding[6inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 24 inches
12 Media Thickness [18 inches minimum] 18 inches
13 Aggregate Storage above underdrain invert (12 inches typical) - use 0 inches for
sizingif theaggregateisnotovertheentirebottomsurfacearea 12 inches
14 Media available pore space 0.2 in/in
15 Media filtration rate to be used for sizing 5 in/ hr.
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 (Line13_x Line 5)] _14)_± 32.4 inches
19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 ± Line 18] 62.4 inches
Option 1— Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV
20 Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 10] 4307 cubic-feet
21 Required Footprint [Line 20/ Line 19] x 12 828 sq-ft
Option 2 -Store_0.75of remainingDCV in pores and pond' ng
22 Required Storage (surface ± pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] 2154 cubic-feet
23 Required Footprint [Line 22/ Line 18] x 12 798 sq-ft
Footprint of the BMP
24 Area draining to the BMP 105332 sq-ft
25 AdjustedRunoff Factor for drainage area _(Refer to Appendix B.1 and B.2) 0.62
26 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x 0.03] 1959 sq-ft
27 Footprint of theBMP =Maximum(Minimum(Line 21,Line23),Line26) 1959 sq-ft
Note: Line 7 is used to estimate the amount of volume retained by the BMP. Update assumed surfam area in Line 7
un its equivalent to the required biofiltration footpjint (either Line 21 or Line,
* See Form 1-8
** Side slope mostly <10%
SITE
San Diego County
85 th Percentile lsopluvials
Legend
-85th PERCENTILE ISOPLWIAL
[:J INCORPORATED CITY
NOTE:
The 85th percentile is a 24 hour rainfall total
It represetns a value such that 85% of the
observed 24 hour rainfall totals will be less
than that value.
I-February 26,
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \ ,\ \PN
'N
233.5
_(\
A top
18" AMENDED SOIL EMERGENCY WEIR
RISER OUTLET STRUCTURE
—A Cot— MIN. INFILTRATION RATE 5"/HR
i BASIN TOP ELEV
OP ELEV RISER T
-BASIN INVERT
dMox
BOTTOM OF AMENDED SOIL
EXIST GROUND H1 • V1N 7NV \\ '\—< / 1 ________ - LIDINVERT-BOTTOM OF GRAVEL
\\ N
NN \ \W GRAVEL L Agravel (Ag) - IMPERVIOUS LINER
\,\V_I\7/I/ I-_ BIOF LIRATION AREA
1 \
, B/OF/L TRA'l TIONAREA CROSS SECT/ON (TYP)
/ NOT TO SCALE
V \\ \\N7A N 1 LV IS 1.7 10 1 1159 660 1 4362 5111/9
V
\ 7 I \
CONCRETE DITCH 1. THE PROJECT SITE IS UNDERLAIN WITH HYDROLOGIC SOil
\\ \\ t\ GROUP "B
2. GROUND WATER WAS NOT OBSERVED OR FOUND DURING /w w THE SOIL BORING OPERATION
rn/
DMA 3
SELF-MITIGATED AREA
' ] \çPLANTED WITH DROUGHT TOLERANT PL.ANTS1
I \ \ \ \ I 14,070 SF (9.32 AC) J
\ \ I ( I \ \\ \ \
\N
/ 12x12' k 1 LOT3 \\ \,\ N LOTJ
AREA DRAINS / \ IN \\ \ \\
\\ \+ \ \\
LOT
N
1•
LO1 25,001 SF /
\
— :'::\ \\ \ ' \ •\ '\ \.\ 80,331 SF \\\\\.7\\H
-_-----:-- I (184 AC)
I LO 1
I
\
LOT 8 \ 7\I \ \\\
/ EMERGENCY \ \ LOT\7
SPILL WAJ
,,,BLOETENT/,ON ,0 'I
/ I / I ,ASIN SA—VE
A A /
±
OUTLET STRUCTURE - I N \ ) / /.7 zi / / I(
POC I 12"x12" DMA#1 AND DMA #2 DISCHARGE DIRECTLY
AREA DRAINS -N\\ "/ THE BMP BASIN OR !MP#1 AS SHOWN x
- IMP #1 =4362 SF BASIN TYPICAL
IM
1 85th percentile 24-hr storm depth d= 0.600 inches
Trails End
T 3,
2 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 2.41 acres
3 Area Weighted runoff factor C= 0.62 unitless
4 Rain Barrels volume reduction TCV- 0 cubic-feet
5 Street trees volume reduction RCV- 0 cubic-feet
6 Calculator DCV =
(3630xCx d xA)-TCV- RCV
DCV= 1 3261.4 cubic-feet
IArea Weighted runoff factor = {(0.9*(56400)+0.3*(16908+23558+8488))/(105332))
0.62
LEGEND
I /
/ AREA DRAINS
TYPICAL BUILDING
DRAINAGE AREA NIMIN DMA
/ I)... LANDSCAPE
// Ac PAVEMENT
PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS
CRASSPAVSD 0 0
/ ... A'. ' / " " .' / /• " ' "-.. " " " EI0FILTRAI1ON BASIN
'T•' /" /\ / 7/ ;',/ ' - ' -_ PRIVATE STERN DRAIN 0-' — SD —
FLOW DIRECTION > 3 RETAINING WALLS
LOT UNE __LOT #
ROOF DRAINS 0
N / / N 'N' / 7'N., ,. '' / •/// 7/
6 / '1• / —"_ // /7 7/ / — Planning A Engineering A Surveying
Solved.
200 E WoshInon Ave., Suite 200
Escond do. CA 92025
0. 760.7413570
M A S S 0 N F. 760.741.1786
/ ( I \ & ASSOC IATES, INC.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
[BMP SITE PLAN MAP FOR
TRAILS END
40 X
RECORD COPY PROJECT NO
J7->i/'ScA /7N/itET.' ' IN ' N CT04-14A NJ_/ ,I/' DR HIALE' \7± \\ DRAWING ND
INITIAL DATE 481-1A
\\\ \-
\\\ \7
\\\ \
\13\
SOURCE CONTROL BMPs
MARK INLETS WITH THE WORDS: "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO A BAY"
Dl NEED FOR FUTURE INDOOR/STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL
D2 LANDSCAPE/OUTDOOR PESTICIDE USE: PROVIDE IMP
ROOFTOP AND EQUIPMENT: CONNECT CONDENSATE DRAIN TO
o SANITARY SEWER, PROVIDE ROOFING AND/OR SECONDARY
CONTAINMENT TO EQUIPMENT, AVOID USE OF UNPROTECTED
METALS
PLAZAS, SIDEWLAKS, AND PARKING LOTS: SWEEP REGULARY,
P COLLECT DEBRIS, COLLECT WASHWATER AND DISCHARGE TO
SANITARY SEWER
I AREA = 48fl S.F. / 0.1N AC.
0 D1
AREA = 37S&41 r
SE; t' 14
- A- A- —
-
7
7
7
7
P / I
-
E 1 18 A o 1927240
- A /
P ..:. / '=. D2
/
0 D1 14,14/4
fl o O2y
.BIOFLRATON I,
-
-
P
OD1 J///
-, /
•••
A
GRASSPAVE2
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LEGEND
BUILDING
LANDSCAPE
AC PAVEMENT
PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS EEEEE
GRASSPAVE2 o?oo
BIOFILTRATION BASIN
PRIVATE STORM DRAIN 13- - SD -
FLOW DIRECTION
DOWNSPOUT TO SWALE OR LANDSCAPE ----*4--A--
RETAINING WALLS
ROOF DRAINS S
-
IV
2m 20 40 60
SCALE IN FEET
H GRAPHIC SCALE
1"=20
SOURCE CONTROL EXHIBIT FOR
TRAILS END
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CA
AW
lanning A Engineering A Surveying
Solved.
200 E. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Escondido, CA 92025
0. 760.741.3570
fyi A S S 0 N F. 760.741.1786
& ASSOCIATES. INC. www.masson-assoc,com
/
BMP TABLE
BMP IS BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASAA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * I MAINTENANCE * FREGUENCY FREQUENCY
TREATMENT CONTROL
() BIOF1LTRATION . YC-32 1,959 S.F. 481-iA 2 MONTHLY MONTHLY
HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL
N/A
HYDROMODIFICATION
N/A
LOW IMPACT DESIGN (LID.)
0 PERMEABLE
PAVEMENTLLLL TC—I0 2,825 SF. 481—lA 2 SEMI—ANNUALLY ANNUALLY
GRASSPAVED TC-31 2,622 S.F. 481—IA 2 SEMI—ANNUALLY ANNUALLY
SMART SEE LANDSCAPE ORGATOIR N/A SD—I2 N/A 481—IL PLANS MONTHLY AS—NEEDED
SOURCE CONTROL
SILNOLU, N0 DUMRNG.
DRieS TO AN SD—IS 3 EA 481—IA 2 SEMI—ANNUALLY AS—NEEDED
NEED FOR FUTURE
RIOOOR/STRUCTURAL [] SC-41
PEST CONTROL
LRNOSC BJ'E/OU 150CR
PESDODE AYE: FROND [ SC— 41
IMP
ROSETOP DRAM TO 0
PERVISEIS LANDSCAPE
RREA, AVOID USE SE [] SC—TO
UNPROTECTED METALS
PLAZAS. SIDEWALKS. RHO PRLUIINU LOTS: SWEEP REOLLARLY.
COLLECT DEBRIS. SE-7
COLLECT IT AND DISCHARGE TO SANITARY SEWER
S ID C C
Engineering Surveying
Solved. 0
200 E. Washington Ave., Suite 200 4 A Escondido, CA 92025 12
0.760.741.3570 12 M A S S 0 N F. 760.741.1786
& ASSOCIATES, INC. ww.rrsosso9-ossoc,cor9
LEGEND
CONCREM DITCH X'\
\j BUILDING
AC PAVEMENT F
t LAN DSCAPE
PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS LL
11/ i S ( / r L LLLLLL
GRASSPAVE2 0 0
\ \ \ \ \ N.PLANTED W/DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS I /
/ / \ / >A 7 \ BIOFILTRATION BASIN
1 /I/)Il • 1 11 .e 1
PRIVATE STORM DRPJN 0- - SD
FLOW DIRECTION
—
RETAINING WALLS —
ROOF DRAINS S
10
I \
0 01
LOT 14 A,
127420
I
\ L
\\
7 AREA DRAINS 7- / / \ \ I A \L 71 \ I? V \ \ \ \
TYPICAL 1 \ 7 \ 10 \ \ T 9 7 \ /
so
)
I 1
S LOT 2
2
\
1\
\\
1?
LOT
\ \ \\ \\ l LOT 16 10 \ LOT 4\ \ N
sevser,I/5 .n\\'N\''\' \ \S
NN
1
-72 4L
o
x2
I AREA DRAINS
I
\ LOTI 10
\\
\ 1\'1\
0 0'
/ TYPICAL
o
OT 8
SPILLWAY
LL
EABB
L PAP WOO '
I \
UTLETSTR 7777 UCTURE 15I ? , /V'
I poci 12'X12' F '57/ // /
/
\ /
AREA DRAINS '1's17 i 20 TO 0 20 40 6O
GRAPH I C SCALE
FIMP #1 -4,362 SF BASIN -Z k SCALE IN FEET
SWMP NO. 16-23
PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE:
NAME PEE FAMILY REIITSEARtE TRIJST
ADDRESS 5505 CANCHA SE GOLF CONTACT DARIO SE LUCA
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92091 PHONE NO. 839-733-0716
PLAN PREPARED BY:
NAME BRUCE TAT, 3032247
COMPOST MASSCH A ASSOCIATES, INC
ADDRESS 2OR E. WASHINGTON AYE, 2OS
ESCONGISO. CA 92523
PHONE NO. 76O-741-1670
BMP NOTES: CERTIFICATION O39/YP 71113
I THESE SNIPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED AMPS ON THIS SHEET 91140(11 PRIOR APPROVALFROM THE CITY ENGINEER,
NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE
CITY INONEER.
NA OCCUPANCY BILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STRAY HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR
APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLAOON,
REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT.
SEE PROJECT SWOMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
171 EET CITY OF CARLSBAD IIT5 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
— SINGLE SHEET BMP PLAN
TRAILS END
-
RECORD COPY
INITIAL DATE
Ij PROJECT NO
CT04-14A
DRAWING NO. L481_1 SW REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE INITIAl. DATE INITIAL
- - OTHER APPROVAL - — OTS OvAL
I
ATTACHMENT 2
I
BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL
MEASURES
[This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.]
U Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:
None required since this site will be exempt from
hydromodification requirements.
Attachment Contents Checklist
Sequence
Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Included
Exhibit (Required)
See Hydromodification Management
Exhibit Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet.
Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse Exhibit showing project drainage
Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit boundaries marked on WMAA
is required, additional analyses are Critical Coarse Sediment Yield
optional) Area Map (Required)
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Coarse
Manual. Sediment Yield Area Determination
6.2.1 Verification of
Geomorphic Landscape Units
Onsite
6.2.2 Downstream Systems
Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment
6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis
of Potential Critical Coarse
Sediment Yield Areas Onsite
Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Not performed
Channels (Optional) Included
See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design
Manual.
Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and Included
Structural BMP Drawdown
Calculations (Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual
I
I
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the
I Hydromodification Management Exhibit:
Not required since this site will be exempt from =
hydromodification requirements.
The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify:
Underlying hydrologic soil group
I Approximate depth to groundwater
Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands)
Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present)
Existing topography
Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite
Proposed grading
Proposed impervious features
1 Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness
Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management
U Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary,
create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions)
I Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location type of BMP and
size/detail)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I- February 26,
I
I
ATTACHMENT 3
Structural BMP Maintenance Information
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural I BMP Maintenance Information Attachment:
Preliminary Design/Planning/CEQA level submittal:
Attachment 3 must identify
I > Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section
7.7 of the BMP Design Manual
I Final Design level submittal:
Attachment 3 must identify:
I > 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 structural the BMP(s).
o The indicators of required maintenance include the failure of any of the BMP's. Failure of the BMP
I could include clogging of an inlet as indicated by failure to drain or slow draining of the bio Basin.
The Basin should drain in a 72 hour period and be free debris.
I > How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance
o Maintenance of the BMP can easily be accessed from the projects common open space
I necessary
Permeable payers have been provided on the access pathway for equipment should it be
to maintain the bio-filtration BMP Access to clean out the pipe can be done via
removable catch basin grate inlet.
I > 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
I and compare to maintenance thresholds)
o The access corridor to the Structural BMP's has been overlain with concrete payers, insuring
permanent access to the Bio Retention Basin, headwall and spillway.
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix I Forms and Checklists
I > Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable.
o No specific proprietary parts or part numbers
I > Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltatjon 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,
I personnel
and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance
determine the bottom the BMP is. If may where of required, posts or other markings
shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.)
I a Please see inspection and fact sheets on the following pages.
> Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
I o Routine maintenance can be accomplished with hand tools. Should major maintenance (such as
replacement of amended soil or gravel) be required, it is anticipated that a small backhoe will be
>
needed.
When training applicable, necessary special or certification requirements for inspection and
maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management
1
a No special training or certification is required
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I- February 26,
I
I
Appendix E: UMP Design Fact Sheets
E18 BF-1 Bioffitration
I
Manual Cate or
Applicable Performance
Standard -
Pollutant Control
Flow Control
Prima Benefits
Treatnient
I ; , . volume Reduction (Incidental)
- - . . . Peak Flow Attenuation (Optional) Location: 43' Street and Logan Avenue, Son Diego. California
I Description
Biofiltration (Bioretention with uridecdrain) facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter
I water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or
overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Bioretenrion with underdxain facilities are
commonly incorporated into the site within parking lot landscaping, along roadsides, and in open
I provide
spaces. Because these types of facilities have limited or no infiltration, they are typically designed to
enough hydraulic heart to more flows through the ujideidrain connection to the storm drain
system. Treatment is achieved through filtration, sedimentation, sorption, biochemical processes and
plant uptake.
I Typical bioretention with undeicirain components include:
Inflow distribution mechanisms (cg, perimeter flow spreader or filter strips)
I • Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap)
Shallow surface ponding for captured flows
I . 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 I .
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)
E-91 February 26, 2016
I
I
I
I Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
I
Apprndi.. E: BMP Dtsigo Fact SIiei9
I • o :a.*vc the bo:ton otLr
0. e t1av icae
I MkN1.*.V. l"N ll r- CPAI4
I A1 I1LLm
t 'Vr3 /7' '
' W (.4A1
I -
• .;:• /
I \
jrucr/
TA!I 0."30( rACWt. W04ASUPrXCC AA
I PLAN
NOT $CALL
I
EAC-
I
AvATLr) .C41
1.".
o s i okAtz~
:/A.• sA I tt OsOtkc r- W "VC :'7 \
Ii: VWC '
L T J1,COU1W7, ..
SECTION A-A
I
.)!
I f-M Fcbiiry 16.
I
I- February 26,
I
I
I
Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets
Typical plan and Section view, of a Biofiltration BMP
I IDesig Adaptations for Project Goals -1
Biofiltration 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 I 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 I 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
I . 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
I 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.
U !Eigncnteria Considerations and
Bioretention with underdrain must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below I criteria may be approved at the discretion of County staff if it is determined to be appropriate:
I
Siting and Dcsjn Intent/Rationale
Placement observes geotechnical .
recommendations regarding potential hazards . i . Must not negatively impact existing site 0 (e.g., slope stability, shs, liquefaction geotechnical concerns. U zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations,
utilities).
Lning prevents storm water from I An impermeable liner or other hydraulic impacting groundwater and/or sensitive
restriction layer is included if site constraints environmental or geotechnical features.
I
D indicate that infiltration or lateral flows should Incidental infiltration, when allowable,
not be allowed, can aid in pollutant removal and
groundwater recharge. .
I
I
I
E-93 February 26, 2016
I
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
I Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets
Siting and Design Intent/Rationale
Bigger BMPs require additional design I features for proper performance.
Contributing tributary area greater than 5
acres may be allowed at the discretion of I Contributing tributary area must be S 5 acres (< if the Count's staff following conditions
- El 1 acre preferred),. are met 1) incorporate design features
(e.g. flow spreadets) to minimize short I circuiting of flows in the BMP and 2)
incorporate additional design features
I requested by County staff for proper
performance of the regional BMP.
o Finish grade of the facility is S 2% Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and
channe1i22t10n within the facility.
Suthce Pon ding
Surface ponding limited to 24 hour for
plant health Surface ponding &a' down
Surface ponding is limited to a 24 hour 0 time greater than 24-hours but less than
drawdown time. 96 hours may be allowed at the discretion
I of County staff if certified by a landscape
architect or agronomist.
Surface ponding capacity lowers
I subsurface stoinge requirements. Deep
surface ponding raises safety concerns
Surface ponding depth greater than 12
I inches (for additional pollutant control or
surface outlet structures or flow control
orifices) may be allowed at the discretion
i 0 Surface ponding depth is 6 and 5 12 inches of County staff if the following conditions
I are met 1) surface ponding depth
drawdown time is less than 24 hours; and
.2) safety issues and feiicing requirements I 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 pEovides room for had over:
.
. 0 . . provided. .
overflow structures and minimizes risk of
. uncontrolled surface discharge.
I . . ... .
E-94 February 26, 2016
I I- February 26,
I
I
I . Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets
Surface Pon ding
I . .
Side slooes are stabilized with vegetation and Gentler side slopes are safer, less prone to
.. D .
. are = 3H;lV or shallower. erosion, able to establish vegetation more
quickly and easier to maintain.
I Vegetation
Plantings are suitable for the climate and Plants suited to the climate and ponding • 0 expected pond.ing depth A plant list to aid in depth are more likely to survive. selection can be found in Appendix E,20.
I An irrigation system with a connection to water 0 supply should be provided as needed,
Seasonal irrigation might be needed to
keep plants healthy.
Mulch (Mandatory)
I A minimum of 3 inches of well aged, shredded Mulch will suppress weeds and maintain
for C] hardwoodmulch that has been stock-piled or moisture plant growth.Aging mulch
. kills . pathogens and weed seeds and 2Uow-s.
. . . . . stored for at least 12 months is provided.
.. . . the beneficial microbes to multiply.
Media Layer
I Media maintains a minimum filtration rate. of
A filtration rate of at least 5 inches per
hour allows soil to drain between events. -
in/hr over lifetime of facility An initial filtration The initial rate should be higher than long
. .. . .
rate of 8 to 12 in/hr is recommended to allow term target.rateo account for clogging I .
for cl ogging over time' the initial filtration rate over time. However an excessively high
should not exceed 12 inches per hour. initial rate can have a negative impact on
. treatment performance, therefore an.
upper limit is needed
I
I
I
I
E-95 February 26, 2016
I
I
I
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
.Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets
I Media Layer I
Media is a minimum 18 inches deep, meeting
I 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) nr Counts of San Diego roots. I Low Impact Development Handbook--
Appendix G -Bioretention Soil Specification Standard specifications must be followed. 0 (June 2014, unless superseded by more recent
I edition).
Alternatively, for proprietary designs and For non-standard or proprietary designs,
I custom media mixes not meeting the media compliance with F.1 ensures that
specifications contained in the 2016 City Storm adequate treatment performance will be
Water Standards or County LID Manual, the provided
media meets the pollutant treatment I performance criteria in Section F.1.
Greater surface area to tributary area
I ratios a) maximizes volume retention as
required by the MS4 Permit and b)
decrease loading rates per square foot and
therefore increase longevity. I Media surface area is 3% of contributing area Adjusted runoff factor is to account for times adjusted runoff factor or greater..Unless 0 site design BMPs implemented upstream - demonstrated that the BMP surface area can be
smaller than 3% of the BMP (such as rain barrels, I impervious area dispersion, etc) Refer to
Appendri. B.2 guidance
I Use Worksheet B.5-1 Line 26 to estimate
the minimum surface area required per
this criteria
I Where receiving waters are impaired or have a Potential for pollutant export is partly a
TMDL for nutrients, the system is designed function of media composition, media
0 with nutrient sensitive media design (see fact
BF
design must minimize potential for export
of nutrients, particularly where receiving I sheet -2). waters are impaired for nutrients.
Filter Course Layer
I A filter course is used to prevent migration of I gration of media can cause clogging of
0 fines through layers of the facility.Filter fabric the aggregate storage layer void spaces or
is not used subgr'mde Filter fabric is more likely to
I clog.
I E-96 February 26, 2016
I
I I- February 26,
I
I
I Appendix E: BMP Design Pact Sheets
Filter course Layer
Washing aggregate will help eliminate
I D Filter course is washed and free of fines, fines that could clog the facility and
impede infiltration.
Gradation relationship between layers can I Filter course calculations assessing suitability for evaluate factors (e g, bridging,
0 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
I Class 2 Permeable per Cakrans specification 68-
1.025 is recommended for the storage layer. . Waslui aegate will help eliminate
o Washed, open-graded crushed rock may be fines that could clog the aggregate storage
I used, however a 4 6 inch washed pea gravel layer void spaces or subgrade. filter course layer at the top of the crushed rock
is required.
I The depth of aggregate provided (12-inch Proper storage layer configuration and
o typical) and storage layer configuration is . underdiarn placement will minimize adequate for providing conevance for facility drawdown time
I unde.rdrain flows to the outlet structure.
Inflow, Underdmi.u,, and Outflow Structures
Inflow, underdriuns and outflow, structures are Maintenance will prevent dogging and
. I o . . . accessible for inspection and maintenance. ensure proper operation of the flow
control structures
I .
[J
Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or
. .
. use energy dissipation methods. (e.g. ra ra
. . -. High inflow velocities can cause erosion
level spreader) for concentrated inflows
Cui.b cut inlets are i i at least 12 inches wde, have Inlets must not restrict flow and apron I o 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
I A
erosion.
nrnumal separation from subgrade or
Underdrarn outlet elevation should be a the liner lessens the risk of fines entering
o minimum of 3 inches above the bottom the ünderdrain and can improve hydraulic
elevation of the aggregate storage layer. performance by allowing perforations to
remain unblocked.
I 0 Minimum underdriun diameter is cs inches Smaller diameter underdiains are prone to
• clogging
I
E-97 February 26, 2016
I
I
I
I
I Appendix
I Inflow,
I An
I 300
I: Forms and Checklists
Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets
Undcrdrain, and Outflow Structures
Undrdmi Slotted underdranns are made Of slotted, PVC pipe IS provide greater intake
capacity, dog resistant drainage, and conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or reduced entrance velocity into the pipe,: corrugated, HDPE pipe conforming to thereby reducing the chances of solids AASHTO 252M or equivalent.
underchain cleanout with a minimum 6-inch Properly spaced deanouts will facilitate 0 diameter and lockable cap is placed every 250 to tuiderdr maintenance. feet as required based on underdrain length.
Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream
I
storin.drain system or discharge point Size Planning for overflow lessens the risk of 0 overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow property damage due to flooding. for on-line infiltration basins and water quality
peak flow for off-line basins.
I ConceptuaThesign - and Sizing Approach for Storm Water Pollutant Control Only
I .To design bioretention with undeictrain 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, I I.
contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended.
media surface area tributary ratio.
I 2. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected site design runoff for tributary areas.
3. Use the sizing worksheet presented in Appendix B.5 to size biofiltration BMPs.
I onceptiI.öesiand Sizing Approach when Storm Water Flow control is Applicable',. 1
Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface din and/or
I .
aggregate storage volunles, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination
of storm water pollutant control design. Pie-development and allowable post-project flow rates and
durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual.
1. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements,
contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended
I 2.
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 I altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control levels. Multi-level orifices can be
I
E-98 February 26, 2016
I
I I- February 26,
I
I
I Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets
used within an outlet structure to control the full range of flows.
3. If bioretention with underdrain cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control. I 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.
I 4 After bioretention with underdra.ui 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E49 February 26, 2016
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Conditions when Maintenance Date and Results expected when
Defect maintenance is needed needed? description of
maintenance
maintenance is performed
Standing water Water stands in the biofiltration swale
conducteda
I There should be no areas of standing water once inflow has
between storms and does not drain within 24 ceased. Any of the following could apply: sediment or trash
hours after rainfall, blockages removed, grade from head to foot of biofiltration
area improved, media surface scarified, underdrains flushed
Trash and debris accumulated in the
in manner that does not cause an illegal discharge.
Trash and debris Trash and debris removed from the biofiltration
biofiltration swale and around the inlet
Evidence of accumulated sediment in the
swale and disposed of properly.
Sediment Material removed so that there is no clogging or
biofiltration swale. blockage. Material is disposed of property.
Erosion Channels have formed around inlets there Obstructions and sediment removed so that water flows
are areas of bare soil, or there is other freely and disperses throughout the biofiltration swale.
evidence of ero on. Obstructions and sediment are disposed of properly.
VegeIaon Vegetation is dead, diseased, or overgrown. Vegetation is healthy and attractive. Grass is
Mulch is missing or patchy. Areas of bare
maintained at least 3 inches in height.
All bare earth is covered, except mulch is kept 6 inches 6 Mulch (if used)
earth are exposed or mulch layer is less away from trunks of trees and shrubs. Mulch is even at
than inrh rIn .. ..
Sediment or debris accumulations.
. - dflih nf
Inlet/outlet is dear of sediment and debris and allows 7. lnletfoutlet
water to flow freely.
a. Miscellaneous Any condition not covered above that needs The design specificaons are met.
attention for the biofiltration sw&e 10
function as designed
9. Flow Control Structure Water stands in the biofiltration swale Maintenance will prevent clogging
between storms and does not drain Within 24
hours after rainfall.
I
I
i TABLE 7-3. Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Vegetated BMPs
Typical Maintenance Indicator(o Maintenance Actions
Accumulation of sediment, litter, or. Remove and properly dispose of accumulated materials nhout
debris damage to the vegetation.
Poor vegetation establishment Re-seed, re-plant, or re-establish vegetation per original plans.
Overgrown vegetation Mow or turn as appropriate but not less than the design height of
the vegetation per original plans when 'ipphc'ihle (e.g. 'i vegetated
swale ma require a minimum vegetation height)
Erosion due to concentrated irrigation Repair/re-seed/re-plant eroded areas and adjust the irrigation system.
flow
Erosion due to concentrated storm Repair/re iced/re-plant eroded areas and make appropriate
water runoff flow corrective measures such as adding uosion control blankets adding
stone at flow entry points, or minor re-grading to restore proper I
drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected
h\ restoring the BMP to the original plan and grade The County
must be contacted prior to 'ins additional repairs or reconstruction
Standing water in vegetated swales Make appropriate corrective measures such as adjusting irrigation
system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation,
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 County staff in the
Watershed Protection Program must be contacted prior to any
additional repairs or reconstruction
Standing water in hioretcntion Make appropriate corrective measures such as 'Icl)usting irrigation
biofiltration with partial retention, or system, removing obstructions of debris or invasive vegetation,
biofilti'inon areas, or flow-through cleating undeidi uns (where applicable), 01 np'inmg/repl'icing
Planter boxes for longer than 96 hours clogged or compacted soils
follo ing a storm event*
Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear obstructions.
Damage to structural components such as Repair or replace as applicable
welts inlet or outlet stiuctuies
"These BMPs typically include a surface ponding layer as part of their function which may take 96 hours to drain
following a storm event.
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way .* Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoiIsinc.com
June 21, 2016
W.O. 6635-Al-SC
Pacifica Real Estate Services, Inc.
5505 Cancha de Golf
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92091
Attention: Ms. Andrea Raynal
Subject: Storm Water Infiltration Rate Evaluation, Trails End Development, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. Raynal:
In accordance with your request and authorization, and in response to City plan check
comments (Esgil, 2015), GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared the following supplement to our
geotechnical update (GSI, 2016), regarding storm water infiltration at the subject site.
GSI's scope of services included a review of the referenced reports/plans (see
Appendix A), onsite infiltration testing, engineering and geologic analysis, and preparation
of this report.
Unless specifically superceded in the text of this report, the conclusions and
recommendations presented in GSI (2013, 2014, and 2016) are considered valid and
applicable with respect to the subject site, and should be properly incorporated into the
design and construction phases of site development.
STORM WATER TREATMENT AND HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT
Infiltration Feasibility
In accordance with the BMP Design Manual (County, 2016), the infiltration feasibility forthis
site was evaluated.
An evaluation of the soils hydraulic conductivity, or (K) was performed in accordance with
the Porchet, or inverse auger hole method (Van Hoorm, 1979; USBR, 1984). Based on the
testing performed, K values of 0.25 inches/hour (Test Hole #1), 0.33 inches/hour
(Test Hole #2), and 0.42 inches/hour (Test Hole #3) were evaluated. These values are
generally belowthe recommended feasibility threshold (0.50 inches per hour) per the EPA
(Clar, et al., 2004), and the County (County, 2016) for full infiltration. It should be noted
that a review of the United States Department of Agriculture database (USDA; 1973, 2015)
indicates surlicial soils were evaluated with infiltration rates on the order of 0.57 to
I
I
I
1.98 inches/hour; however, these rates are evaluated for surlicial soils that would be
removed and exported, or recompacted during mass grading, and as such, are not
considered representative of "as-built" site conditions, or representative of rates for the
relatively denser and less permeable "formational" soils at depth, that wereevaluated as
part of this report
I
I
I
Based on our review and engineering analysis, full infiltration, is not feasible. Partial
infiltration may be feasible for areas of undisturbed soil, located no closer than 10 feet from
any structure. For hydromodification structures located within 10 feet of a residential
structure, storm water treatment and hydromodiflcation management should be designed
for no infiltration. An additional discussion of infiltration feasibility is presented in
Appendix B, which contains a Categorization of infiltration feasibility condition, worksheet
C.41, provided by the City (2016). It should be noted that the infiltration rates evaluated
are for undisturbed, native soils. Infiltration rates for compacted fills will be substantially
less. Compacted fills are considered as belonging to Hydrologic soil Group "D" (no
infiltration).
Onsite Infiltration-Runoff Retention Systems
General design criteria regarding the use of onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems
(OIRRS) are presented below.
Should onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems (OIRRS) be planned for Best
Management Practices (BMP's) or Low Impact Development (LID) principles for the
project, some guidelines should/must be followed in the planning, design, and
construction of such systems Such facilities, if improperly designed or implemented
without consideration of the geotechnical aspects of site conditions, can contribute to
flooding, saturation of bearing materials beneath site improvements, slope instability, and
possible concentration and contribution of pollutants into the groundwater or storm drain
and/or utility trench systems.
A key factor in these systems is the infiltration rate (often referred to as the percolation rate)
which can be ascribed to, or determined for, the earth materials within which these
systems are installed. Additionally, the infiltration rate of the designed system (which may
include gravel, sand, mulch/topsoil, or other amendments, etc.) will need to be considered.
The project infiltration testing is very site specific, any changes to the location of the
proposed OIRRS and/or estimated size of the OIRRS, may require additional infiltration
testing. Locally, relatively impermeable formations include the underlying formational
(Santiago) bedrock, which is anticipated to have relatively very low vertical infiltration rate
Some of the methods which are utilized for onsite infiltration include percolation basins,
dry wells, bio-swale/bio-retention, permeable payers/pavement, infiltration trenches, filter
boxes and subsurface infiltration galleries/chambers. Some of these systems are
constructed using native and import soils, perforated piping, and filter fabrics while others
I
Pacifica Real Estate Services, inc.
Trails End, Carlsbad
FiIe:e:wp12\66OO\6635a1.gua
W.O. 6635-Al-SC
June 21, 2016
Page 3
I
employ structural components such as stormwater infiltration chambers and
filters/separators. Every site will have characteristics which should lend themselves to one
or more of these methods; but, not every site is suitable for OIRRS. In practice, OIRRS are
usually initially designed by the project design civil engineer. Selection of methods should
include (but should not be limited to) review by licensed professionals including the
geotechnical engineer, hydrogeologist, engineering geologist, project civil engineer,
landscape architect, environmental professional, and industrial hygienist. Applicable
governing agency requirements should be reviewed and included in design
considerations. The following geotechnical guidelines should be considered when
designing onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems:
It is not good engineering practice to allow water to saturate soils, especially near
slopes or improvements; however, the controlling agency/authority is now requiring
this for OIRRS purposes on many projects.
o Wherever possible, infiltration systems should not be installed within ±50 feet of the
tops of slopes steeper than 15 percent or within H/3 from the tops of slopes (where
H equals the height of slope).
Wherever possible, infiltrations systems should not be placed within a distance of
H/2 from the toes of slopes (where H equals the height of slope).
Wherever possible, infiltration systems should not be installed within 10 feet of a
residential structure
The landscape architect should be notified of the location of the proposed OIRRS
If landscaping is proposed within the OIRRS, consideration should be given to the
type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon subsurface improvements
(i.e., some trees/shrubs will have an effect on subsurface improvements with their
extensive root systems) Over-watering landscape areas above, or adjacent to, the
proposed OIRRS could adversely affect performance of the system Soil chemical
amendment could alter soil chemistry, which may affect soil corrosion and
permeability.
Areas adjacent to, or within, the OIRRS that are subject to inundation should be
properly protected against scouring, undermining, and erosion, in accordance with
the recommendations of the design engineer.
P1
I
I
I
I
• If subsurface infiltration galleries/chambers are proposed, the appropriate size,
depth interval, and ultimate placement of the detention/infiltration system should be
evaluated by the design engineer, and be of sufficient width/depth to achieve
optimum performance, based on the infiltration rates provided. In addition, proper
debris filter systems will need to be utilized for the infiltration galleries/chambers.
Debris filter systems will need to be self cleaning and periodically and regularly
maintained on a regular basis. Provisions for the regular and periodic maintenance
I Pacifica Real Estate Services, inc. W. 0. 6635A1-Sc.
Trails End, Carlsbad June 21, 2016
File e \wpl2\6600\6635a1 gua God, Inc. Page 4
I
I
I
of any debris filter system is recommended and this condition should be disclosed
to all interested/affected parties.
Where infiltration systems are located within setback areas noted above,
I impermeable liners and subdrains should be used along the bottom of bioretention
swales/basins located within the influence of slopes and structures. Impermeable
liners used in conjunction with bioretention basins should consist of a 30-mu
I polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane that is covered by a minimum of 12 inches of
clean soil, free from rocks and debris, with a maximum 4:1 (h:v) slope inclination,
I
or flatter, and meets the following minimum specifications:
Specific Gravity (ASTM D792): 1.2 (g/cc, mm.); Tensile (ASTM D882):
73 (lb/in-width, mm); Elongation at Break (ASTM D882): 380 (%, mm);
I Modulus (ASTM D882): 32 (lb/in-width, mm.); and Tear Strength
(ASTM Dl 004):8 (lb/in, mm); Seam Shear Strength (ASTM D882) 58.4 (lb/in,
I
mm); Seam Peel Strength (ASTM D882) .15 (lb/in, mm).
Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.),
should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in
I accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our
review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be
warranted. It should be noted that structural and landscape plans were not available for
I review at this time.
I LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These
I opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no
warranty is express or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSl
assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
I inaction; or work performed when GSl is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
I any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion of the project.
I
I
I
I
Pacifica Real Estate Services, Inc. W.O. 6635-Al-SC
Trails End, Carlsbad . June 21, 2016
FiIe:e:\wpl2\6600\6635a1.gua Geoo, Inc. Page 5
I
I
I
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you havel any questions
I concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the undersigned.
I Respectfully submitted,
t GeoSoils, inc (9 r 4 ) ((t I
' CIVIL CA VW lip Robert G. Crisman David W. Skelly
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857
RGC/DWS/JPF/Jh
Attachments Appendix A - References
I Appendix B - Infiltration Worksheet and Test Data
Plate 1 - Infiltration Test Location Map
Distribution (2) Addressee
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pacifica Real Estate Services, Inc. W.O. 6635-Al -SC
Trails End, Carlsbad June 21, 2016
File e \wpl2\6600\6635a1 gua GeoSoHs, Inc. Page 6
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2011, Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACl 318-11), an ACt standard and commentary: reported by ACI Committee 318;
Adopted May 24, published August.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10.
Blake, Thomas F, 2000, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak
horizontal acceleration from3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version.
Building News, 1995, CAL-OSHA, State of California, Construction Safety Orders, Title 8,
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, amended October 1
California Building Standards Commission, 2013a, California Building Code, California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2012 International
Building Code, 2013 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2013
California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10
2013b, 2013 California green building standards code of regulations, Title 24,
Part 11, dated July.
Gao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Willis, C.J., 2003, The revised 2002
California probalistic seismic hazard maps, dated June,
http //www conversation ca gov/cgs/rghm/psha/faultparameters/pdf/documents
/2002_ca_hazardmapspdf =
Esgil Corporation, 2015, Plan check for Seven new duplexes, N W corner of Carlsbad
Village Drive & Donna Dr., Plan Chk. No. PC13-0072, dated November 13.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2016, Geotechnical update and plan review, Trails End development,
Carlsbad, California, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 6.
2014, Geotechnical discussion and review, retaining wall drainage and permeable
pavement design/construction, proposed Trails End Development, Northwest
Corner of the Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive Intersection, Carlsbad,
San Diego County California W.O. 6635-A-SC, Dated March 20
2013, Geotechnical update evaluation, proposed Trails End Development,
Northwest corner of the Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive Intersection,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6635-A-SC, dated November 27.
2005, Geotechnical grading plan review, Trails End Development, northwest corner
of the intersection of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California, W.O. 3993-Al-SC dated August 29.
Geoh, Inc. =
I
I
2003, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Trails End Development, Northwest
I corner of the intersection of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive, City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, W.O. 3993-A-SC, dated December 15.
I Masson & Associates, Inc., 2015, precise grading plans for: Trails End development, CT
04-14A, Sheets 1 through 5, Drawing 481-1A, Job No. 13136, Print Dated
October 14.
I United States Geological Survey, 2014, U.S. Seismic design maps, earthquake hazards
program, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
Version 3.1.0, dated July.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- Geok, I H
I
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
From "Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated Februaiy 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnicat and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
I Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition
I I 'Is II I'
Part I - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences
that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater
11. than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on X
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Onsite testing using the inverse auger hole, or "Porchet" method evaluated infiltration rates of 0.25. 0.33,
and 0.42 inches per hour for formational soils that would remain subsequent to remedial grading onsite.
It should also be noted that any artificial fill, created through removal/recompaction of onsite soils would
likely possess an infiltration rate below the 0.5 inch/hour threshold. See GSI report dated June 21, 2016
for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or
2 other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this : X
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
Basins located within 10 feet of any residential structure or settlement sensitive improvement (walls,
pavements, etc.) can adversely affect the. performance of the improvement by, 1. facilitating heave of
expansive soil, 2. Increasing soil moisture transmission rates through concrete flooring, and 3. Increase the
potential for a loss in bearing strength of soil, due to saturation. Mitigative grading for the support of
structures generally involves the removal and recompaction of near surface soils. This is anticipated to
create a permeability contrast, and the potential for the development of a shallow 'perched" water table,
which can be anticipated to migrate laterally, beneath the structure(s). Planned utilities in the vicinity would
act as "french drains" and also be adversely affected. Adjacent, offsite slopes are generally steeper than
3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be subject to an increased potential for instability due to the lateral
migration of water from a potential infiltration area located up gradient. See GSI report dated June 21, 2016
for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
I
GSI Appendix B. W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
From "Model B/vIP Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated Februa,y 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
I&IIIIi ii,i ion Yes No
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants
3 or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to X
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensible evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This isa hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing
grades onsile.
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 a change of seasonality of ephemeral streams
4 or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The X
response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing
grades onsite Significant drainage courses do not appear present onsite and/or would be truncated by
the existing Hosp Way, located downslope and offsite to the west of the site and should not be adversely
affected by infiltration from a site of this size.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
Part 1 In the answers to rows 1-4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility proceed Result* screening category is Full Infiltration to part 2
If any answer from row 1-4 is"No?',infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally
be feasible or desirable to achieve a full infiltration design
Proceed to Part 2
To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by [City Engineer] to substantiate findings.
I
I
I
C-12 February 2016
I
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
From 'Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated Februaiy 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Part 2 - Pat ii,tl liiiili.ia&iwi N,s. No Intuit_1itu I'eiTtiJih STBitu Criteria
W'ould infiltration of water in an i:ihie anion rit lie physically feasilit withoiit any negative coriseqili ic€s
flial cannot he reaoti:thIv nthigai d. -
Criteria Sereehing Questioii Yes No
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable
rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on x a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and
Appendix D.
Provide basis
Site specific infiltration testing evaluated infiltration rates of 0.25, 0.33, and 0.42 :inches per hour for onsite
native soils. However, it should be noted that any artificial fill, created through removal/recompaction of
onsite soils would likely possess a further reduced infiltration rate, and basins located within 10 feet of a
residential structure utility trench or other improvement would be adversely affected See GSl report
dated June 21, 2016 for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater
6 mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an X
acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
No. Basins located within 10 feet of any residential structure can adversely affect the performance of the
structures foundation system by, 1. facilitating heave of expansive soil, 2. Increasing soil moisture
transmission rates through concrete flooring, and 3. Increase the potential for a loss in bearing strength of
soil, due to saturation. Mitigative grading for the support of structures generally involves the removal and
recompaction of near surface soils. This is anticipated to create a permeability contrast, and the potential
for the development of a shallow "perched" water table, which, can be anticipated to migrate laterally,
beneath the structure(s), or offsite onsite adjacent property. Planned utilities in the vicinity would
potentially act as "french drains" and also be adversely affected. Adjacent, offsite slopes are generally
steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be subject to an increased potential for instability due
to the lateral migration of water from a potential infiltration area located up gradient. See GSI report dated
June 21, 2016 for other related discussions and references. '
I
GSI Appendix B. W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
I From "Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated Februaiy 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing
significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table,
7 storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening X
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing
grades onsite.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights?
8 The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive X
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. The site currently drains offsite and no runoff appears to be retained onsite.
Significant drainage courses do not appear present onsite, and/or would be truncated by the existing Hosp
Way, located downslope and offsite to the west of the site and should not be adversely affected by
infiltration from a site of this size.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 2 If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
Result* feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. No
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.
I * To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings.
I
C-14 February 2016
1
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
From "Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated Februa,y 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
I Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition
Part I - Full Jnfiltration Feasibility Scrceni,i Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible iroiii a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences
that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria - Screening Question Yes
- No
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater
1 than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on X
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Onsite testing using the inverse auger hole, or "Porchet" method evaluated infiltration rates of 0.25. 0.33,
and 0.42 inches per hour for formational soils that would remain subsequent to remedial grading onsite.
It should also be noted that any artificial fill, created through removal/recompaction of onsite soils would
likely possess an infiltration rate below the 0.5 inch/hour threshold. See GSI report dated June 21, 2016
for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or
2 other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this X
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
Basins located within 10 feet of any residential structure or settlement sensitive improvement (walls,
pavements, etc.) can adversely affect the performance of the improvement by, 1. facilitating heave of
expansive soil, 2. Increasing soil moisture transmission rates through concrete flooring, and 3. Increase the
potential for a loss in bearing strength of soil, due to saturation. Mitigative grading for the support of
structures generally involves the removal and recompaction of near surface soils. This is anticipated to
create a permeability contrast, and the potential for the development of a shallow perched" water table,
which can be anticipated to migrate laterally, beneath the structure(s). Planned utilities in the vicinity would
act as "french drains" and also be adversely affected. Adjacent, offsite slopes are generally steeper than
3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be subject to an increased potential for instability due to the lateral
migration of water from a potential infiltration area located up gradient. See GSI report dated June 21, 2016
for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
I
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
I From 'Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
S
Criteria Screening Question 441 \c No
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants
3 or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to X
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensible evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing
grades onsite. -
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 a change of seasonality of ephemeral streams
4 or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The X
response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing
grades onsite. Significant drainage courses do not appear present onsite, and/or would be truncated by
the existing Hasp Way, located downslope and offsite to the west of the site and should not be adversely
affected by infiltration from a site of this size.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
Part 1
Result*
In the answers to rows 1-4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility
screening category is Full Infiltration
proceed
to part 2
If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration maybe possible to some extent but would not 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 judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by [City Engineer) to substantiate findings.
C-12 February 2016
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
I From 'Model B1t'JF Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
so= RIEW
l'ai I 2 - I';ijti:il IiIiiIIi!ijui s. Infiltration I'ea.ihiIit Steiiii( ril'Ii.i
%1oiiId irifillraiioiiol aterinan apj)reci.tI)It :tlllollal be I)lISitI!I Ii:IiII iIIu,iiI ill\ IIt2lli\ uI1stlIuIIIc, S
that cannot be jeacoiiib1v mitigated?
Criteria Screening, Qilestioti Yes No
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable
rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and
Appendix D.
Provide basis
Site specific infiltration testing evaluated infiltration rates of 0.25, 0.33, and 0.42 inches per hour for onsite
native soils. However, it should be noted that any artificial fill, created through removal/recompaction of
onsite soils would likely possess a further reduced. infiltration rate, and basins located within 10 feet of a
residential structure, utility trench, or other improvement, would be adversely affected. See GSI report
dated June 21, 2016 for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater
6 mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an X
acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis: ' •HI
No. Basins located within 10 feet of any residential structure can adversely affect the performance of the
structures foundation system by, 1. facilitating heave of expansive soil, 2. Increasing soil moisture
transmission rates through concrete flooring, and 3. Increase the potential for a loss in bearing strength of
soil, due to saturation. Mitigative grading for the support of structures generally involves the removal and
recompaction of near surface soils. This is anticipated to create a permeability contrast, and the potential
for the development of a shallow "perched" water table, which can be anticipated to migrate laterally,
beneath the structure(s), or offsite onsite adjacent property. Planned utilities in the vicinity would
potentially act as "french drains" and also be adversely affected. Adjacent, offsite slopes are generally
steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and would be subject to an increased potential for instability due
to the lateral migration of water from a potential infiltration area located up gradient. See GSI report dated
June 21, 2016 for other related discussions and references.
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21, 2016
I From "Model BMF Design Manual, San Diego Region: Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix C: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
FIN
Criteria Sc
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing
significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table,
7 storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening X
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. Groundwater was evaluated at a depth of greater than 50 feet below existing
grades onsite.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights?
8 The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive X
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
This is a hillside development. The site currently drains offsite and no runoff appears to be retained onsite.
Significant drainage courses do not appear present onsite, and/or would be truncated by the existing Hosp
Way, located downslope and offsite to the west of the site and should not be adversely affected by
infiltration from a site of this size.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 2 If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
Result* feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. No
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.
I * To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering, the definition of MEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings.
I
C-14 February 2016
I
I
I
- Geotechnical ° Geologic • Environmental
I 5741 Palmer Way ° Carlsbad, California 92008 ° (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915
I
INVERSED AUGER HOLE (PORCHET) METHOD - DATA SHEET
PROJECT: Trails End, Santee DATE: June, 2016
I CLIENT: Pacifica Real Estate Services WORK ORDER: 6635-Al-SC
I
HOLE NUMBER I
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SM
I DEPTH (D') OF TEST HOLE (in) 42.25 inches
I
HOLE DIAMETER (in) 4.5 inches
HOLE RADIUS (r) (in) 2.25 inches
I INITIAL WATER LEVEL (in) 23.25 inches
Time At (mm) t (mm) Ht (in) ht (in) ht + 1/z r
9:41 0 0 23.25 19.0 20.125
10:06 25 25 29.33 12.92 14.045
10:27 20 45 31.50 10.75 11.90
11:55 28 73 32.50 9.75 10.87
11:28 33 106 33.75 8.50 9.62
I
where tan a [log (ho +Y2 r) - log (ht +V2 r)] It-t0
K 0.25 inches/hour
I NOTES:
relatively dense and cemented at 30 inches. Heavily burrowed from 0 to 18 inches
I
CSI Appendix B, W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21,2016
I
I
I GéSdRS,I1,
- Geotechnical 9 Geologic 9 Environmental
I 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX(760)931-0915
I
. INVERSED AUGER HOLE (PORCHET) METHOD - DATA SHEET
PROJECT: Trails End, Santee DATE: June, 2016
I CLIENT: Pacifica Real Estate Services WORK ORDER: 6635-Al-SC
I
.HOLE NUMBER 2
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SM
I DEPTH (D') OF TEST HOLE (in) 43 inches
I
HOLE DIAMETER (in) 4.5 inches
HOLE RADIUS (r) (in) 2.25 inches
INITIAL WATER LEVEL (in) 24.25 inches
Time it (mm) t (mm) Ht (in) ht (in) ht + 1/2 r
10:25 0 0 24.25 18.75 19.87
10:55 30 . 30 . 27.75 .. 15.25 16.37
11:30 35 65 29.50 13.50 14.62
12:00 30 95 31.5 11.5 12.62
I
I where tan a = [log (ho +Y2 r) -log (h+1/2 r)] /t-t0
K = 0.33 inches/hour
NOTES:
I relatively dense and cemented at 24 to 30 inches.
I
GSI Appendix B, W.O. 663541-SC, dated June 21 2016
I
I .
Inc
Geotechnical e Geologic • Environmental
5741, Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 ° FAX(760)931-0915
I
INVERSED AUGER HOLE (PORCHET) METHOD - DATA SHEET
PROJECT: Trails End, Santee DATE: June, 2016
I CLIENT: Pacifica Real Estate Services WORK ORDER: 6635-Al-SC
I
HOLE NUMBER 3
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SM
I DEPTH (D') OF TEST HOLE (in) 47 inches
I
HOLE DIAMETER (in) 4.5 inches
HOLE RADIUS (r) (in) 2.25 inches
INITIAL WATER LEVEL (in) 31.0 inches
Time At (mm) t (mm) Ht (in) ht (in) ht + 1/2 r
10:35 0 0 31.0 16.0 . 17.12
11:00 30 30 34.50 1.2.5 13.62
11:35 30 60 36.25 10.75 11.87
12:05 30 90 38.25 8.75 9.87
12:55 30 120 40.0 7.0 8.12
I
wheretana [Iog(h0 -i-1Ar) -log (h+Yzr)]It-t0
K = 0.42 inches/hour. •
NOTES:
relatively dense and cemented at 30 inches.
I
GSI Appendix B. W.O. 6635-Al-SC, dated June 21,2016
I
L 41'
\ '
II rwxe:t - .
II — $3 i
1 k I I I 4) • 4 • t 1U L!I • • • 4 • I. • .
.' b • .44) • • • . 11. . • .4* • • 14 '''I • ••• • • •-
/
4 I . 0 • 4 4 0 • .. , 1$')] a a a • . a - I a • a a S • 0-a .,. Va ••a 4 , '4'.Ag S e • a • • -b--- '
-.-- I 54
••, • • •,• f'ff!4
I - • • • • • • -••4. a • a-a a a a a . • •.'.a 4 4.
•
'
--
-- -I-,--
=
I-