Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-03; Beach Village Life 1 Mixed Use; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP; 2018-04-13CITY OF CARLSBAD RECORD COPY f'ktL-/1£.!.<f' __ 'Ll?.:..1.e_ foitiai Bde PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR Beach Vill age Life CT 16-03, DRWG # 508-9A, GR 2017-0071 NGIN EER OF WORK: Danny Abada, P.E. PREPARED FOR: Owner: Beach Village Life Attn: Bill Davidson 2 Strauss Terrace, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 (760) 773-5232 Mesaresearch@Aol.com Subdivider: Same as owner PREPARED BY: SPEAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 475 Production Street San Marcos, CA 92078 Telephone: (760) 736-2040 DATE: 4/13/18 • 0 :z ~ (..) w :c RECF.T,1ED U JUL I 8 2018 Z: LAND DE::Vt:.LU / t\,1ENT ::s ENGINEERING a_ TABLE OF CONTENTS Certification Page Project Vicinity Map FORM E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire Site Information FORM E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment 1 a: OMA Exhibit Attachment 1 b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1 c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1 d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1 e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: Beach Village Life I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order. I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. a, P.E. RCE 45381 Expiration 9/30/16 Spear & Associates Inc Company 4/13/18 Date PROJECT VICINITY MAP MAP CI TY OF OCEANS IDE PACIFIC OCEAN /{J NOT TO SCALE CITY OF VIST A L' ESTRELLA 4.~ or MAR RD . ~ ARE Al ROAD ~ ----r-.---~ --(~ COsr 'r ~ AVE "-._~ 0 CITY OF ENC INITAS 2 (j < ..... ~ ~ [Insert City's Storm Water Standard Questionnaire (Form E-34) here] ( City of Carlsbad I INSTRUCTIONS: STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the City requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BM P's) 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 resu lts 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 I concurrentIv. -PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: Beach Villaae Life PROJECT ID: CT 16-03, DRWG # 508-9A, GR 2017-0071 The project is (check one): X New Development D Redevelooment The total proposed disturbed area is: 0.278 acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is 0.278 acres If your project is covered by an approved SWQMP as part of a larger development project, provide the project ID and the SWQMP # of the larger development project: Project ID: SWQMP#: Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with your application to the City. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 STEP1 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS 18 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 th ird box stating "my project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If you answered "no" to the above question, the project is a 'development project', go to Step 2. STEP2 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: ~ a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non-J erodible permeable areas; b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; c) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with US EPA Green Streets guidance? 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed X in accordance with the US EPA Green Streets guidance? 3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? X 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. E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV. 02/16 STEP3 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is a PDP, please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)): YES NO 1. Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces Ix collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. 2. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of Ix impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on oublic or orivate land. 3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more X 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 refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). 4. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious Ix surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside development project includes development on anv natural slope that is twentv-five oercent or areater. 5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more Ix of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot? A parking lot is a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. 6. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more Ix of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway freeway or driveway? A street, road, highway, freeway or driveway is any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. 7. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more ~ of impervious surface collectively over the entire site, and discharges directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)? "Discharging Directly to" includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).* 8. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 Ix square feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 9. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 X 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. 10. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that results in the disturbance of one or more acres of X land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? 11. Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more Ix of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMC 21 .203.040) If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP. If your project is a redevelopment project, Go to step 4. If your project is a new project, Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If yo u 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 'ST AND ARD PROJECT' ... " and complete applicant information. E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV. 02/16 STEP4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) ONLY Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) = sq. ft. 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 BM P's required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BM P's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. STEPS CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION X My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. 0 My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a • Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout my project. Note: For projects that are close to meeting the PDP threshold, staff may require detailed impervious area calculations and exhibits to verify if 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements apply. 0 My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 203-173-02 Applicant Name: Applicant Title: Applicant Signature: Date: • 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 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: I YES I NO I I By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV. 02/16 I"; SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name Beach Village Life Project ID CT 16-03, DRWG # 508-9A, GR 2017-0071 Proj ect Address 300 Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 203-173-02 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area 0.278 Acres ( 12 091 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 0 Acres ( 0 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 0.278 Acres ( 12,091 Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 0.278 Acres ( 12,091 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) 0 Acres 0 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): D Existing development X Previously graded but not built out D Agricultural or other non-impervious use D Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description/ Additional Information: The site includes an existing single family residence. Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): X Vegetative Cover D Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas D Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): D NRCS Type A X NRCS Type B D NRCS Type C D NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): D GW Depth < 5 feet D 5 feet < GW Depth < 1 0 feet X 1 0 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet D GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): • Watercourses D Seeps • Springs D Wetlands X None Description/ Additional Information: Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if so, describe]: The existing drainage is urban and surface drains into Christian Way, with no offsite runoff. The drainage flows east towards Washington Street then, to a curb inlet at the N.E. corner of Washington Street and Grand Ave. From there it heads north draining into the Buena Vista Lagoon then west to the Pacific Ocean. !The topography slopes in a northeasterly direction with elevations ranging from approximately 55 to 44. Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The project proposes a mixed use hotel/spa and residential units development. The development consists of a zero lot line 2 story building with underground parking and associated underground utilities. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Building rooftops, driveways and hardscape. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): none. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? XYes •No Description / Additional Information: Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? XYes •No Description/ Additional Information: fhe existing site drainage sheet flows to the northeast corner of the site. The proposed building roof drainage will be piped by downspouts, which will direct the entire drainage to a "Modular Wetlands Stormwatcr Biofiltration System." The drainage will then be directed to the northeast portion of the site and discharge into the gutter on Christiansen W/ay. Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): • On-site storm drain inlets X Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps X Interior parking garages • Need for future indoor & structural pest control • Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use • Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features • Food service X Refuse areas • Industrial processes • Outdoor storage of equipment or materials • Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning • Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance • Fuel Dispensing Areas • Loading Docks X Fire Sprinkler Test Water • Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water X Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots 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): The runoff surface drains into Cluistian Way, with no offsite runoff. The drainage flows east towards Washington Street then, to a curb inlet at the N.E. corner of Washington St and Grand Ave. From there it heads north draining into the Buena Vista Lagoon then west to the Pacific Ocean. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) lmoaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs !Buena Vista Lagoon Indicator Bacteria, Nutrients, ISedimentation Siltation Identification of Proiect Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Desian Manual Appendix 8 .6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern X X Sediment X X Nutrients Heavv Metals OrQanic Comoounds X Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil & Grease X X Bacteria & Viruses X Pesticides Hydromodification Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? D Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. X No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. o No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. D No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): rThe site drainage surface drains into Christiansen Way, then flows east towards Washington Street then, ~o a curb inlet at the N.E. corner of Washington Street and Grand Ave. From there it heads north through ~he city stormdrain system discharging directly into the Buena Vista Lagoon then west t o the Pacific Ocean. rThe development will remove and replace the existing AC berm fronting the property to the east until the low meets the previously improved curb and gutter at the S.E corner of Christiansen Way and Washington ~treet. From there the site runoff will flow so uth down Washington Street to the curb inlet located at the N.E. corner of Washington Street and Grand Ave. The catch basin at that location was identified by the Howard Chang Study as exempt from hydromodification. (See attached flow path exhibit). Site drains to this Storm Drain System Via City Street Gutter ::: :: ::: :: -----.. .,. __ V'_._ __ ll'OOU--111'_"'_ .-o,,___ .. -···-··-.. --........ .-•• 00.,..-•oo»u,,. ---·--------- ~-Dll-atllOCJIJ$11 -1-.l:lilllttlClllllaa:Mllll(~-WD-~-..i.Dl71NCWOOffJO ~:!-~..=~~~=.1~~;.""to-':'fo:=.,_~~~.:r~~ IIC DlaS5 'I.DW CM -~ Ill lt< SlllUT DII -..i. _..,_,, Dl10 .... ,.o .. ,,c:un i.-. au. 0,-tH[ .:OCN'l'S _, Qllt Of" M:SC (JlffJlllli-,. ~ 5'1nPUlNC ~-DJ:W'IIDN ~ ,taconin,c tH£ to-'IUI 11'1,.0e. lHl~AllllAS~~A---l-_Cloln.G'l'.....,.Dllal~t'9ol[~.l,r,t.J~-'"11CJOJ$11-•.._.0IS11.VrNCADH9"1>al'I. """'- --111.dOIIMi,l,Q(t,llai.,,_,. -----A.tlAQC-ICIJl,IO,tJl'r(-,.,iJ UlM:Cllt-...at-it.111.4 [llJ ... -...&.IIICM:mliDQf:~ 0 DIIS-C,,.Jl:M-<;.-"-"" ---DIISWNCC&\N,\l;IE00040ll-.r.J: ----r.nc:nr:a-,1.-""DIIV.'IIOl-ol. ---......._,,,__.___TtNltlt~nol"awu.NDIIID.SnC:l'PI: ---ll(lllN.,l,Ll)Ofl!All.lll..fllS--~l'lbl"CIW!.Q,l(D•DQnc:"" IIQ!V.tl_DIJl1M 1,11,0lffS 5ICIIWl;fQlM; N'l:-...sEDIJ'fGIC:l'ft -(11 JO'°"* 10-WM "-Dlf (Uy-,_ ,m DCw.s) -N'JINM.DD'111AlolAll11$-DIS!N:'9[~..,~flWIOMC'9"[ lll[1Datff,.i10,. .... l'\.Oll'(,O:u.J:n;al:ICU.U) • IIJU'l"'10~ @ ""'""'°''(30:T-..:l'mton,u) STUDY AREA EXHIBIT HYDROMODIFICATION EXEMPTION BA TIQUITOS CREEK DRAINAGE AREAS SHEET 2 OF 2 HMP GRAPHIC SCALE 1000 0 .S00 1000 WA..OR DRAINACE BASIN BOJMDAAV 1•••1 NAnJRAI.. Ft0W PA™ ~ HYOROMOOIACATIOH EXEMPT AREA r777) H'fflR<lMODIACATIOH ExtMPT ARCA 1r FUTURE l::'.'.LLLJ Cft..,..ACC IWPROltOil£NTS ARE CO<lSTRUC1t0 EXEMPTION EXHIBIT ~iiL,._...... 1 1 INQt • 500 f'EET *This Section onl uirements a Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? •Yes X No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? • 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (G LUs) Onsite • 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 areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? • No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite • Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. • Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion / Additional Information: Flow Control for Post-Project Runotr "'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. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? o No, the low flow threshold is 0.102 (default low flow threshold) D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 D Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 o Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Discussion / Additional Information: (optional) 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. "No Infiltration Condition Determined" due to adverse risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level, according to the geotechnical consultant. The site constraints with the existing development and 11:he proposed zero lot line development also precludes the use of other Proprietary Biofiltration Systems with larger il'oot prints. Refer to Geotech form 1-8 for details and list of hazards. Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional inform ation or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. [Insert City's Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36 (here)] • Reference section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual. • The city has discretion to approve PDP Hydromod exemption to projects discharging to an enclosed embayment (i.e. fagoon). • Reference September 2015 Chang Study* for Hydraulic Adequacy of the Downstream System. • Proper Energy Dissipation • Outlet Location * "Hydromod ification Exemption Analysis for Select Watersheds" dated 09/17/2015, Prepared by Chang Consultants. { City of Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Proiect Information Project Name: Beach Village Life Project ID: CT 16-03, DRWG # 508-9A, GR 201 7-0071 DWG No. or Buildina Permit No.: Source Control BMPs Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2750 www.carlsbad ca.gov All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. • "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 I Aoolied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 I 2>-Yes I • No I • N/A Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage I 'J Yes I o No 1 ~ N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: No stormdrain proposed SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, I Yes I l No I XN/A Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: not proposed SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, [ CJ Yes l c::; No l Q!:N/A Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: not proposed SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind [ X Yes [ U No l • N/A Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 of 3 REV 02/16 Source Control Requirement Annlied? 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). On-site storm drain inlets Yes l No ~N/A LJ Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Z Yes D No J N/A [' Interior parking garages XYes D No IX N/A L Need for future indoor & structural pest control Yes D No ~N/A Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Yes L No ix N/A c.= Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features c Yes D No :ts N/A ~ Food service Yes D No IX N/A ~ Refuse areas K Yes r No Cl N/A Industrial processes Yes J No X: N/A Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Yes LJ No x: NIA J Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning .J Yes u No X::: N/A .J Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance J Yes D No xl N/A 1 Fuel Dispensing Areas [ Yes D No :xJ N/A J Loading Docks lJ Yes D No ~ N/A '7 Fire Sprinkler Test Water X Yes D No D N/A Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Yes 1 No Ll N/A u Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots ~Yes D No C:: N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. E-36 Page 2 of 3 REV. 02/16 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.1 Source Control BMP Requirements Worksheet E.1-1: Source Control BMP Requirements How to comply: Projects must comply with this requirement by implementing all source control BMPs listed in this section that are applicable and feasible for their project. Applicability must be determined through consideration of the development project's features and anticipated pollutant sources. Appendix E.1 provides guidance for identifving source control BMPs applicable to a project. The Standard and PDP SWQMP templates include sections that must be used to document compliance with source control BMP requirements. How to use this worksheet: 1. Review Column 1 and identify which of these potential sources of storm water pollutants apply to your site. Check each box that applies. 2. Review Column 2 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable BMPs in your project site plan. 3. Review Columns 3 and 4 and incorporate all of the corresponding applicable permanent controls and operational BMPs in a table in your project- specific storm water management report. Describe your specific BMPs in an accompanying narrative, and explain any special conditions or situations that required omitting BMPs or substituting alternatives. E-3 February 26, 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets ··--··-.,,•-.·•~• !!':. ....... --• X o< .. -!.. i-,,---:=:-,, -f--IfThese.Soui-ces·Will·B~,. :-. , -o_n ·,the ~roje~t ~i_te _-~ ·:· _·. _ -.... Then Your SWQMP must consider These Source Control BMPs .;~_: •• J ... -•• ,'t.,.. ,: ~-lt"1~. ,::: .. · ; ~ --.. ~: .. : _ _.· ........ I --.. ~ ----:_ -__ ..,._ • ._:.-3, 13 • ID • 1 Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants B. Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Not Applicable C. Interior parking garages Not Applicable • D1. Need for future indoor & structural pest control ~ Not Applicable 2 Permanent Controls-Show on Drawings 3 Permanent Controls-List in Table and Narrative State that interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps will be plumbed to sanitary sewer. State that parking garage floor drains will be plumbed to the sanitary sewer. • Note building design features that discourage entry of pests. E-5 4 Operational BMPs-Include in Table and Narrative }fl Inspect and maintain drains to prevent blockages and overflow. m Inspect and maintain drains to prevent blockages and overflow. 0 Provide Integrated P est Management information to owners, lessees, and operators. February 26, 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets --' . ~. ... ... -' If These Sources Will , ,Be on the Project Site ... Then Your SWQMP must consider These Source Control BMPs 1 Potential Sources of rn G. Refuse areas 0 Not _,\pplicable -. ---) - 2 Permanent Controls-Show on Drawings llll Show where site refuse and recycled materials will be handled and stored for pickup. See local municipal requirements for sizes and other details of refuse areas. • If dumpsters or other receptacles are outdoors, show how the designated area will be covered, graded, and paved to prevent run- on and show locations of berms to prevent runoff from the area. Also show how the designated area will be protected from wind dispersal. ul Any drains from dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas must be connected to a grease removal device before discharge to sanitary sewer. 3 Permanent Controls-List in Table and Narrative ~ State how site refuse will be handled and provide supporting detail to what is shown on plans. ~ State that signs will be posted on or near dumpsters with the words "Do not dump hazardous materials here" or similar. E-8 4 Operational BMPs-lnclude in Table and Narrative Ila State how the following will be implemented: Provide adequate number of receptacles. Inspect receptacles regularly; repair or replace leaky receptacles. Keep receptacles covered. Prohibit/prevent dumping of liquid or hazardous wastes. Post "no hazardous materials" signs. Inspect and pick up litter daily and clean up spills immediately. Keep spill control materials available on-site. See Fact Sheet SC-34, "Waste Handling and Disposal" 1n the CASQA Storm Water Quality Handbooks at W\vw.casqa.org/resources/bmp- handbooks/municipal-bmp-handbook. February 26, 2016 1 Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants IZl N. Fire Sprinkler Test Water 0 Not Applicable 0. Miscellaneous Drain or \Vash Water D Boiler drain lines D Condensate drain lines D Rooftop equipment D Drainage sumps D Roofing, gutters, and trim rn Nor Applicable 2 Permanent Controls- Show on Drawings Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets 3 Permanent Controls-List in Table and Narrative Provide a means to drain fire sprinkler test water to the sanitary sewer. D Boiler drain lines must be directly or indirectly connected to the sanitary sewer system and may not discharge to the storm drain system. D Condensate drain lines may discharge to landscaped areas if the flow is small enough that runoff will not occur. Condensate drain lines may not discharge to the storm drain system. D Rooftop mounted equipment with potential to produce pollutants must be roofed and/ or have secondary containment. D Any drainage sumps onsite must feature a sediment sump co reduce the quantity of sediment in pumped water. D Avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff. E-14 4 Operational BMPs-Include in Table and Narrative ~ See the note in Fact Sheet SC- 41, "Building and Grounds Maintenance," in the CASQA Storm Water Quality Handbooks at www.casga.org/ resources /bm p-handb ooks/municipal-bmp- handbook February 26, 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets ~;lfTh~~e ,S6~;ci~~Will .Iie· · .... -,.•:-~.---;-c--:,-.-" . . ·•·.• ·-----~l -· ·h · p· . : -5-; · :._ . .:·· Then Your SWQMP must consider Thes~ Source Control BMPs _ . · • · on t e . roJect 1te . . . -. -· -. . .• ~ ........ -) , . ,:: -:_ . .-. ,...__ J, !.. ."'5-•• ·.,,,o:!' ._'•'I ~r:-~ • __ '..,,':,..._ ...__ r'~:,• .-. --~~-(~l:..1 1 Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants Kl P. sidewalks, parking lots. D Not .Applicable Plazas, and 2 Permanent Controls-Show on Drawings 3 Permanent Controls-List in Table and Narrative E-15 4 Operational BMPs-lnclude in Table and Narrative IXl Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots must be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris from pressure washing must be collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser must be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer and not discharged to a storm drain. February 26, 2016 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. • "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. Site Design Reauirement I Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features I !Z Yes I D No I C N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I -Yes I ~No I • NIA Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: not feasible due to a zero lot line development SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I • Yes I _ No I ~ NIA Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: zero lot l ine development SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I , Yes I XJ No I • N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: not feasible due to a zero lot line development SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I • Yes I lxNo I o NIA Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: not feasible due to a zero lot line development SD-6 Runoff Collection I Yes l ~No I • N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: not feasible due to a zero lot line development SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I .J Yes I No I ~ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: zero lot line development SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation I L Yes I d No I • N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: not feasible due to a zero lot line d evelopment E-36 Page 3 of 3 REV. 02/16 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS PDP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the 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. "No Infiltration Condition Determined" due to adverse risk of geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level, according to the geotech nical consultant. Refer to the geotech consultant's form 1-8 for specific details. The site constraints with the existing development and the proposed zero lot line development also precludes the use of other Proprietary Biofiltration Systems with larger foot prints. The proposed treatment is by a Proprietary Biofiltration system "Modular Wetlands Stormwater Biofiltration System" which meets BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration requirements. [Continue on next page as necessary.] [Continued from previous page -This page is reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site.] Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMPl Structural BMP ID No. Area A DWG Grading Plan Sheet No. 2 Type of structural BMP: • Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) • Retention by infiltration basin (IN F-1) • Retention by bioretention (INF-2) • Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) • Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) • Biofiltration (BF-1) • Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) • Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management X Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: X Pollutant control only • Hydromodification control only • Combined pollutant control and hydromodificatio n control • Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP • Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): "Modular Wetlands Stormwater Biofiltration System" which meets BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration requirements. ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLL UT ANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit (Required) Attachment 1 b Attachment 1 c Attachment 1 d See OMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing OMA ID matching OMA Exhibit, OMA Area, and OMA Type (Required)* *Provide table in this Attachment OR on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist (Required unless the entire project will use infiltration BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required unless the project will use harvest and use BMPs) Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. X Included X Included on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a • Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from OMA Exhibit X Included • Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs X Included • Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design X Included Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines TOT AL DISTURBED AREA: TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 12,060 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA: TOTAL LOT AREA = 12,060 sf (0.28 AC) EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA PRE-CONSTRUCTION = PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA POST-CONSTRUCTION = IMPERVIOUS AREA INCREASE = 12,060 sf "•, ~---~--'•--~--....__'. ··•,-..,_i~ 'f ~---,~ EXIST. BUILDING '•. L , ~----_·-i I ~ ' ~ : ~PN 203-173 101 11 ; .,.J,L.. ---' I I {54.79} FS 12.3' (54.76) FS 0) -"-~ R {54.76} vl FS i5 TANK3 ~ ~ ----------... t:; ~ .-·. ' •. ; .. I I 59.81}TC ~ ~ ,- EXIST. 6' HIGH MASONRY WALL (55.17}/ FS 59.19 7W (55.15)FS {55.36} FG. a sf 12,060 sf $; 10 5 0 10 20 30 DRAINAGE AREA DMA BREAKDOWN DRAINAGE AREA SURFACE SYMBOL SOIL TYPE DRAINAGE AREA ''A" BUILDING ROOFTOP ibQ'y'.)j "B" 12,060 SQ FT LOT AREAS 12,060 SQ FT I TO/i1L LOT AREA = 12,060 SQ FT ~ I I 'I- "' <ci - ) PLANS PREPARED B~ SPEAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 475 PRODUCTION STREET, SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 ~ FAX (760) 736-4866 WWW.SPEARING.NET ~~'-~~~ \ ' EX. S.L. -~ = CHRISTIANSEN WAY C/L I Pj,_ I . I I .. , I. I. 1 ·· l ,, f-------1 l I : I I • I: I • l DOWNSPOUT PER PLUMBING PLANS VERTICAL ELBOWS PROPOSED BUILDING MAIN LEVELi ELEV = 55'-7" j • •• ' -36" MIN l l l . , FOR MAINTENANCE --! {PER MANUFACTURER) MODULAR WETLANDS MWS-L -4-8-V-UG UPPER DECK GARAGE FLOOR ELEV = 46. 13' /MP[RVIOU7 (P.C.C 1 • PAVERS SIOEWALKI PROPOSED P.C.C". .,. PARKING LOT CURB j h,,, ,v ' ~\7_2~~/~~5~~~<~~~~ 45. 35 ·-· <~.r;;;,;s,.,,//~ · PROPOSED 10" P. V.C. UNDER GROUND STORM DRAIN PIPE TO 3.5" X 22.75" CURB OUTLET FL PROPOSED RECTANGULAR DRAIN PIPE PROPOSED TYPE L ADAPTER MODULAR WETLANDS DETAIL TYPICAL SECTION & OUTLET CONNECTION SCALE· /''-10' 12,060 SQUARE FEET I\ vn•~v• I \ BMP TABLE I BMP ID# BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO,(S) INSPECTION FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY TREATMENT CONTROL I I MODULAR WETLANDS f i--;;-i PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONII 1-·-··_._ 1 ~ (BF-3) MWS L48VUG . '· TC-32 1 508-9A 2 * * CONSTRUCTION SIGN OFF 11JO DAYS PRIDR TD DC TD BER JS T EACH YEAR & VEEKL Y DURING RAIN SEASON. NOTE: ALL DOWNSPOUTS ARE BY MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEMS INC. MODEL MWS-L-4-8-V-UG, 4'-8.5" MODEL H£/GHT WITH 0.081 CFS CAPACITY. --=====-----~ '-EX A X I , X (L-'6 1 \I s a· °Fs 1 1. I.II' 1 · _ ..... 45.10 TW x . • ·--, ', · · 44.60 FG I , ' : J.ZD.E)j,_~_-__ 1 _____ +----- , /,' l _,','.l __.--EX X i i x_{j_J:)x 'x-~x:~1·;s._ L3.39) FS 18.8' ( ~3.07) FS 43.32 FS ( 43.29) FS I ,' [XIS I /<< >>// .. C / "/ X • L,-,-\-X ; ( 43. 13) (2.0%}. ~ .· ,,._ _ ---~--=~~-4:i--~_.-* m -~-,-m_ ~1:(m!i·~--i;'2l_-_m_-::~ •-'---- ,,,-._ --. ., _.,--.---, .. "·--,--.-1~·--.' ---,--~ - ' ,, .. "-· ;..·, ··•" , ___ --- -~·, · ., ;· I •• LEGEND: ~ ~------ EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE DRAINAGE AREA "A" DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA DESIGNATION SWMP NO. __ N_;'._A __ MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT: YES _X_ NO RECORDATION NO. _____ _ PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC CONTACT BILL DAVIDSON ADDRESS 2 STRAUSS TERRACE RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 PHONE NO. (760) 773-5232 PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME JOSHUA R. Z£1GLER COMPANY SPEAR & ASSOC/A TES, INC. ADDRESS 475 PRODUCTION STREET SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 PHONE NO. (760) 736-2040 BMPNOTES: 1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. CONSTRUCTION NOTES (D REMOVE EXISTING FENCE. @ ALL PROPOSED ROOF DRAINS OUTLET TO MODULAR WETLANDS PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION {BF-3) D£VICE BEFORE DISCHARGING OFFS/TE. UNIT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING. @ PROPOSED BUILDING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER ANO SWITCH GEAR AREA. INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING. @ MODULAR WETLANDS PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION {BF-3} DEVICE, MODEL MWS L 48VUG. UNIT TO BE INCORPORA TEO INTO BUILDING. @ CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-1. REQUIRES THE USE OF GRAVEL OR CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL MIXTURES {NO FINES) FOR BACKFILL. @ INSTALL 10" PVC SOLID STORM DRAIN @0.50% MIN. (z) INSTALL CURB OUTLETS FROM FOUNDRY SERVICE & SUPPLIES INC SIZE 1/4 {22.75" WIDE X 3.5" HIGH OPENING} WITH TYPE L ADAPTORS. {PER OWG 508-9} @ /''x72" LINEAR RETAINING WALL SUB-DRAIN. DRAINS TO GARAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. SEE SHEET 6 WALL/FOOTING DRAINAGE DETAIL FOR MORE INFORMATION. @ CONSTRUCT 3" P. V.C SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER {SDRSO) D-27. VICINITY MAP CITY OF OCEANSIDE 7& -:,•,'', ., ' ,', :,': ;;,1 NOT TO SCALE PACIFIC OCEAN ,-----./"" ·- ----- Cosr · ' , CITY OF VISTA {,) 'lc-0 ALGA ESTRELLA DE MAR RD_ ,.__-.-ARENAL ROAD .a, AVE if CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF ENCINITAS 1----+-------t-----------+--+----J-------t-----tl I SHElET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHElETS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ;:==::=:_-:============-=== POST B\,[P SITE PLAN POR APPROVED: BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 300 CHRISTIANSEN Yv A Y JASON S. GELDERT f---+---f--,,----------------+---+---f------1----fl CITY ENGINEER RCE 63912 EXPIRES 9 30 18 DATE DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL CHKD BY : --CT 16-03 508-9A ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL RVWD BY: ! r--l===S=,CFA•L•E•.--•71="===1 =O~' ---ai s:L_ ___________________________________________________ ..'.::::::==:==:::::::::::================================================================:::'..J f-~~+c-=-,,--f---6'1°"----------------+c--+c--t----1----ll ;;D~W;N~B~Y;=: =:;;N:;;JD;;=:::;-;===::P=::R=::O=JE~C==T:==N=::0=. =::::;-1 ;::D::::R==A=W==IN=G:==N:::=O_ SPEAE & ASSOCIA":ES, INC. JOB NO: 15-233 NJ• ATTACHMENT 1 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The OMA Exhibit must identify: D Underlying hydrologic soil group D Approximate depth to groundwater D Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) D Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) D Existing topography and impervious areas D Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite D Proposed grading D Proposed impervious features D Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness D Drainage management area (OMA) boundaries, OMA ID numbers, and OMA areas (square footage or acreage), and OMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) D Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) Category •1 II C;;1.pturc & Use - Inputs - Ill .. lnfiltr.uion - lnpuh --• El -Calculations - Ill -Ill -Rt'suh • Worksheet 8-3-1 General Notes· Description Design Caprure Volume for Entire Pro1<-ct Sire Proposed Dc,-elopmenr Type Number of Residents or Emplorccs at Proposed DtYclopmcnr Total Planted Area w1thin Dcve1',pmcnt \'('ater Use Category for Propc,st..:.d Planted Areas Is Average S1cc lnfiltrat1on Rate Less than 0.5 Inches per flour) ls Retention of the Full DCV Anncipated m Produce Negan,·e Impacts' Is Retention of Any Volume Anriciparcd 10 Produce Neg.mve Impacts? 36-Hour Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee Subtotal: /\nncipated 36 Hour Toiler Use Anticipated 1 Acre Landscape L" se Over 36 Hours Subtotal. ,\nnciparcd Landscape L!se Over 36 I lours Total Anr.icip:ucd Csc O\"er 36 l lours Total Antic1parL-<l Use/ Design \...apture Volume Arc Full Capture and Use Techniques I-c:asiblc for this Pro1cc1? Is l·ull Rctentum reas1ble for this Project? Is Partial Retcntson Feasible for this Project? h:asibil1ry Category Value Units Res1dcoti:tl unttlcss 80 # Q sq-ft Low umdess Yes yes/no Yes yes/no Yes yes/no 0.37 cubic-feet 30 cub1c-fcet 52.14 cub1c-foc1 (I cubic-feet 30 cubic-feet 0.06 cubic-feet No w11tless Ne, yes/no No res/no 5 I, 2,3, 4, 5 A. Applicants nuy U$C thi~ optional wc,rkshcct tO gauge the fca.s1bihty of implementing caprure ;md rn,e rcchrnqucs on thetr pro1cct i-atc. User input should be pro,·ided for yellow shadc..-d cells, values for all other cells will be automatically generated. Projects demonstrating feas1bi1iry or potenual feasibility ~a this \\'Ork~heet arc encouraged to incorporate capture and use features in thc,r proJCCL 614 CALLE VICENTE SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA 92009 W .0 . 6942-A 1 -SC FEBRUARY 15, 2018 Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com Beach Village Life 1, LLC c/o Karnak Planning and Design 614 Calle Vicente San Clemente, California 92009 February 15, 2018 Attention: Mr. Robert Richardson W.O. 6942-A 1-SC Subject: Geotechnical Update Evaluation, Planned Mixed-Use Hotel, Spa, and Condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00 Dear Mr. Richardson: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a geotechnical update evaluation of the subject site with respect to the planned six-story, mixed-use hotel, spa, and condominium development at the subject site. The primary purpose of this update was to update our preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site (GSI, 2015 [see Appendix A]) relative to the currently planned development, the 2016 California Building Code (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2016), and City of Carlsbad storm water requirements (City of Carlsbad, 2016b). This update also address City of Carlsbad Land Development Review comments ("redlines") electronically transmitted to our office by Spear and Associates, Inc. (Project Civil Engineer) on January 30, 2018. Unless specifically superseded herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in GSI (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018) are still considered valid and applicable and should appropriately implemented during project plan ning and construction. GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION GSI previously investigated the subject site, relative to the then-planned development, in September 201 5. This initial study included subsurface exploration with three (3) hollow-stem auger borings, advanced to depths on the order of 31 ½ to 56 feet below the existing ground surface (BEGS). The borings were logged by a GSI representative, who also collected relatively undisturbed and representative bulk samples of the onsite earth materials for laboratory testing. Based on our early findings, we concluded that the subject site was generally suitable to receive the proposed development provided our recommendations were incorporated into the project. The most significant geotechnical factors related to the proposed development included: • • • • • • Potentially compressible colluvium/disturbed natural ground and weathered old paralic deposits within the upper approximately 5 feet of the existing grades which in turn, are underlain by approximately 25 to 29½ feet of relatively unweathered old paralic deposits (formerly termed "terrace deposits" on older regional geologic maps) and thence sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Tertiary Santiago Formation; The occurrence of relatively dry and lightly indurated old paralic deposits between approximately 15 and 20 feet BEGS; Perched groundwater occurring between approximately 21 ½ and 26½ feet below the existing grades, likely resulting from permeability contrasts between the old paralic deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation; The occurrence of relatively granular, very low expansive soils (expansion index [E.I.] of 20 or less) within the upper approximately 30 to 34½ feet of the existing grades; The existence of moderately alkaline, corrosive to severely corrosive soils, possessing negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, and slightly elevated to elevated concentrations of soluble chlorides; and, The need for shoring and/or slot cuts to complete remedial and planned grading . In September 2017, the design team decided that cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles would support the planned building foundation and assist in providing temporary support of the planned excavation. GSI prepared two (2) geotechnical addendums providing axial and lateral capacities for cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles and recommendations for pile installation (GSI, 2017 and 2018). CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS A GSI representative visited the site on February 5, 2018 to observe the current site conditions and to pertorm additional testing for this update evaluation. Based on our observations, the surticial site conditions were generally similar to those described in GSI (2015) with the exception of two (2) recently installed water production wells within the southwesterly quadrant of the property. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT A review of the project architectural, civil engineering, and structural engineering plans prepared by Karnak Planning and Design ([KP&D], 2018), Spear and Associates, Inc. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wpi 2\6900\6942\6942ai .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 2 ([S&A], 2018), and Sun Structural Engineering, Inc. ([SSE], 2018), GSI understands that planned development includes preparing the site for the construction of a mixed use hotel, spa, and condominium building with associated improvements (i.e., underground utilities, pavements, and landscaping). The planned building will consist of six (6) stories with a roof deck and up to two (2) below-grade floor levels. Excavations ranging between approximately 5 and 21 feet BEGS will be necessary to achieve the pad grade for the lowest floor level (Sub Level 2). Shoring will be used to retain excavation walls along the westerly, southerly, and northeasterly property lines. Temporary 1 :1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) slopes will be constructed as part of the planned excavation along the northeasterly and easterly property lines. According to SSE (2018), 30-to 45-foot long CIDH piles, interconnected by grade beams, will be used to support the temporary shoring. GSI understands that the shoring piles will be integrated into the building foundation. A slab-on-grade floor will be constructed at the lowermost floor level (Sub Level 2). The second lowest floor level (Sub Level 1) will consist of a concrete deck. Both below grade concrete sub-floors will receive vehicular loads. GSI understands that structural analysis of the planned building is ongoing, and the loading conditions have not been finalized. However, we anticipate maximum column loads ranging between 400 and 500 kips with maximum wall loads of 5 to 1 0 kips per lineal foot. SUPPLEMENTAL FIELD STUDIES Supplemental field studies were conducted by GSI on February 5, 2017, and consisted of surficial mapping and advancing three (3) exploratory borings for percolation testing, to evaluate onsite soil infiltration rates. The borings were logged by a representative of this office. Following logging, the borings were developed for percolation testing. The logs of the supplemental borings as well as the borings advanced in preparation of GSI {2015) are presented in Appendix B. The infiltration test data is discussed later in this report and presented in Appendix C. The approximate location of the supplemental and GSI (2015) borings are presented on the Geotechnical Map (see Revised Plate 1), which uses S&A (2018), as a base. UPDATED SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS General The site geologic units observed and/or encountered during the supplemental and GSI (2015) subsurface investigations and site reconnaissance included undocumented artificial fill, undifferentiated Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground, Quaternary-age old paralic deposits, and thence the Tertiary Santiago Formation. During our supplemental field work performed in preparation of this update, GSI encountered earth materials not previously identified during the GSI (2015) study. Thus, we are providing an updated summary relative to the onsite geologic units. Beach Village Lile 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 3 The onsite earth units are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. The distribution of these geologic units is shown in plan view and in cross section on Plates 1 and 2, respectively. Artificial Fill -Undocumented (Map Symbol -Afu) Undocumented artificial fill was observed in Infiltration Boring No. 4 (IB-4). As observed therein, the fill consisted of dark grayish brown fine-grained silty sand with some concrete debris. The fill was moist and loose to medium dense. The fill extended to an approximate depth of 5 feet BEGS. Based on communication with a KP&D representative, GSI understands that the fill was placed to backfill a temporary desilting basin that was previously excavated to capture runoff created during the development of the two (2) new water production wells installed within the southwesterly quadrant of the site. The undocumented fill is considered potentially compressible in its existing state and should not be relied upon for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements. Based on our understanding of the planned development, the undocumented fill will likely be removed during the excavation for the below-grade floor levels within the building footprint. Undifferentiated Quaternary Colluvium/Disturbed Natural Ground (Map Symbol - Qcol) A thin mantle of undifferentiated Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground was encountered at the surface in the remaining borings. This earth material generally consisted of dark brown, grayish brown, dark grayish brown, and dark reddish brown silty sand with trace amounts of debris, and light gray fine-grained sand. The undifferentiated Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground was generally dry to moist and loose to medium dense. The colluvium/disturbed natural ground was observed to extend to depths on the order of ½ foot to 5 feet below the existing grades. Based on a review of historical imagery on Google Earth, it appears that trees were removed from the site in late 2014. The disturbed natural ground, encountered in our borings, may be associated with the previous tree removal activity. The undifferentiated Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground is considered potentially compressible in its existing state and should not be used for support of planned settlement-sensitive improvements without mitigation. These earth materials will likely be removed during the planned excavation within the building footprint. Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol -Qop) Quaternary-age old paralic deposits were observed underlying the undocumented fill in Infiltration Boring No. IB-4 and below the undifferentiated colluvium/disturbed natural ground in the remaining borings at approximate depths of ½ foot to 5 feet BEGS. As observed, the upper approximately 2½ to 3 feet of the old paralic deposits were weathered in Borings B-1 and B-2, and Infiltration Boring IB-3. Where weathered, the old paralic deposits generally consisted of slightly porous, dark reddish yellow fine-grained sand with Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 4 trace silt and dark yellowish brown, and dark reddish yellow silty sand. The weathered old paralic deposits were dry to damp and medium dense to dense. Locally, the weathered old paralic deposits contained trace amounts of organic materials (i.e., roots). Unweathered old paralic deposits were encountered at approximate depths of 3 to 5 feet BEGS. These sediments generally consisted of light and dark reddish yellow, dark yellowish brown, reddish yellow, and brownish gray silty sand; yellowish brown, reddish yellow, brownish gray, dark gray, dark yellowish brown, grayish brown, and yellowish gray, predominately very fine-to fine-grained sand with varying concentrations of silt; and dark yellowish brown and reddish yellow clayey sand. The unweathered old paralic deposits were dry to wet and dense to very dense. The near-surface, weathered old paralic deposits are considered potentially compressible in their existing state. Removal and recompaction of these earth materials are recommended for uniform support of settlement-sensitive improvements and planned fills if they are not removed by the planned excavations. The planned excavation within the building footprint will likely remove the weathered old paralic deposits. Unweathered old paralic deposits are considered suitable bearing materials. Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tsa) As observed in the borings, Eocene-age sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Santiago Formation, underlies the old paralic deposits at approximate depths of 30 to 34 ½ feet below the existing grades. The Santiago Formation generally consisted of light gray silty sandstone with interbeds of light olive brown and greenish gray sandy claystone, and light brown and light olive brown clayey sandstone. The Santiago Formation was moist to wet and dense to very dense/hard. The Santiago Formation is considered suitable for support of settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fills in its existing state. Structural Geology Based on our experience in the site vicinity, bedding within Quaternary-age old paralic (terrace) deposits is generally flat lying to gentle westerly dipping. The geologic contact between the old paralic deposits and Santiago Formation consists of an ancient wave-cut platform that slightly dips in a westerly direction. Regional geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2005) indicates Santiago Formation bedding is inclined 10 degrees in a northeasterly direction, in the site vicinity. GROUNDWATER Regional groundwater is expected to generally be coincident with sea level (0 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD29]) or approximately 44 feet below the lowest site elevation. A perched groundwater table was encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2 at respective approximate depths of 21 ½ and 26½ feet below the existing grades or approximate elevations of 22½ to 20½ feet NGVD29. This groundwater table appears to Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 5 be perched atop the less permeable Santiago Formation. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in GSI (2015, 2017, and 2018) and herein, are properly incorporated into final design and construction. However, perched water may present difficulties during the installation of CIDH piles and underground utilities/pumps that extend near or below the aforementioned elevations. Further, the presence of perched water increases the potential for vapor or water transmission through the slab, foundations, and subterranean walls. Some pumping/dewatering could be necessary. Supplemental evaluations with respect to groundwater levels could be performed prior to construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or other conditions that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. Based on the permeability contrasts between any proposed fill and the old paralic deposits, and the Santiago Formation, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excessive irrigation, poor drainage or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should manifestations of this perched condition (i.e., seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. The potential for perched water to occur during and after development should be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. UPDATED SEISMIC SHAKING PARAMETERS Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the updated site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program "U.S. Seismic Design Maps," provided by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2014) was utilized for design (http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). The short spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. The geographic coordinates for the approximate centroid of the site are 33.1603, -117.3516. 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER Site Class Spectral Response -(0.2 sec), S5 Spectral Response -(1 sec), S1 Site Coefficient, Fa Site Coefficient, F, Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue VALUE D 1 .162 g 0.446 g 1.035 1.554 GeoSoils, Inc. 2016 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10 (Chapter 20) Figure 1613.3.1 (1) Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Table 1613.3.3(1) Table16 13.3.3(2) W.O. 6942-A1 -SC February 15, 2017 Page 6 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE 2016 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.203 g Section 1613.3.3 Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMs (Eqn 16-37) Maxim um Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.693 g Section 1613.3.3 Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.802 g Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration (0.2 sec), S05 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.462 g Section 16 13.3.4 Acceleration (1 sec), S01 (Eqn 16-40) PGAM 0.480 g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11 .8.1) Seismic Desig n Category D Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10 (Table 11 .6-1 o r 11.6-2) Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., Mw5.5) will likely be necessary. It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound or maximum credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. Following implementation of remedial earthwork and design of foundations described herein, this potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity that comply with current and adopted building standards. SEISMIC DENSIFICATION POTENTIAL Seismic Densification Seismic densification is a phenomenon that typically occurs in low relative density granular soils (i.e., United States Soil Classification System [USCS] soil types SP, SW, SM, and SC) that are above the groundwater table. These unsaturated granular soils are susceptible if left in the original density (unmitigated), and are generally dry of the optimum moisture content (as defined by the ASTM D 1557). During seismic-induced ground shaking, these Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 7 natural or artificial soils deform under loading and volumetrically strain, potentially resulting in ground surface settlements. The recommended remedial earthwork, discussed herein, would reduce the potential for seismic densification. However, some densification may occur on the adjoining un-mitigated properties or areas of the subject site where remedial grading is not performed. Some of the dry (i.e., well below optimum moisture content) old paralic deposits, consisting of uses soil types SP or SM, above the perched groundwater table may exhibit low magnitude densification. This may influence improvements located above a 1 :1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) projection up from the perimeter of the site or the limits of remedial grading. Special setbacks and/or foundations would be recommended for settlement-sensitive improvements within the influence of densifiable soils. Our evaluation assumes that the current offsite conditions will not be significantly modified by future grading at the time of the design earthquake, which is a reasonably conservative assumption. Summary It is the opinion of GSI that the susceptibility of the developed site to experience damaging deformations from seismically-induced densification is relatively low owing to the recommended recompaction of low density soils (as discussed herein) and the dense nature of the formational earth units that underlie the site to depth. Densification occurring on unmitigated, adjoining properties or portions of the subject site where remedial grading is not performed could potentially affect the proposed improvements located above a 1 :1 (h:v) projection up from the perimeter of the site or the limits of remedial grading. The planned building will be supported by CIDH piles, which transfer buildin g loads into dense old paralic deposits and Santiago Formation. Thus, the potential for the building foundation to be adversely affected by offsite seismic densification is considered low. Seismic densification of unmitigated soil s at the property lines, whose maximum thickness is estimated at approximately 5 feet, has the potential to increase axial loading of the basement walls. This increase in axial loading during a significant seismic event would ultimately be transferred to the CIDH pile foundations by soil friction along the back of the exterior walls if these soils are left in their current condition. Detailing of the wall exterior could reduce this potential to a less than significant amount. EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS Based on our experience with similar nearby sites, we estimate the undocumented fill, undifferentiated colluvium/disturbed natural ground, and weathered, and unweathered old paralic deposits can be excavated using standard earth-moving equipment with little to moderate difficulty. However, localized cemented zones within the old paralic deposits may require the use of heavy ripping and/or rock breaking equipment (i.e., hoe ram). The Santiago Formation, if encountered, may present moderate to significant difficu lty during drilling operations for CIDH pile installation. The localized use of a core barrel cannot be Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 8 precluded due to possible concretions and/or well cemented zones. Site earth materials are anticipated to reduce to particles sizes of 12 inches or less during excavation. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on relatively undisturbed and representative bulk samples of site earth materials collected during the GSI (2015}subsurface exploration in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented in GSI (2015). In order to address City of Carlsbad Land Development Review comments, GSI is providing an updated summary of the GSI (2015) saturated resistivity, pH, and soluble sulfates, and chlorides test results. Updated Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides In preparation of GSI (2015), GSI conducted sampling of onsite earth materials for general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides testing. The testing included evaluation of soil pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results are presented in Appendix D of GSI (2015) and the following table: SAMPLE LOCATION SATURATED SOLUBLE SOLUBLE AND DEPTH (FT) pH RESISTIVITY SULFATES CHLORIDES (ohm-cm) (ppm) (ppm) 8 -1 @ 10 8.10 1,150 0.01 50 130 8 -3 @ 20 8.13 620 0.0250 38 Corrosion Summary The laboratory tests indicate that the tested samples of the onsite soils are moderately alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; are corrosive to severely corrosive to exposed, buried metals when saturated; present negligible ("Exposure Class SO" per Table 19.3.1.1 of American Concrete Institute [ACI] 318-14) sulfate exposure to concrete; and have slightly elevated to elevated concentrations of soluble chlorides. It should be noted that GSI does not consu lt in the field of corrosion engineering. Thus, the client, project architect, and project structural engineer should agree on the level of corrosion protection required for the project and seek consultation from a qualified corrosion consultant as warranted, especially in light of the site's proximity to the Pacific Ocean, which is a corrosive environment. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.0. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 9 The following table summarizes the correlation between electrical resistivity of soil and corrosivity toward ferrous metals. SOIL RESISTIVITY CORROSIVITY (ohm-cm) CATEGORY > 10,000 Mildly Corrosive 2,000 -10,000 Moderately Corrosive 1,000 -2,000 Corrosive < 1,000 Severely Corrosive The following table summarizes the correlation between water-soluble sulfate concentrations in soil and the exposure to concrete per Table 19.3.1 .1 of ACI 318-14. WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE IN SOIL EXPOSURE CLASS (% by weight) <0.10 so 0.10-0.20 S1 0.20-2.00 S2 >2.00 S3 Per ACI 318-14, Exposure Class SO is assigned for conditions where the water-soluble sulfate concentration in contact with concrete is low and sulfate attack to concrete is generally not a concern. Exposure Classes S1 , S2, and S3 are assigned for structural concrete members in direct contact with soluble sulfates in soil or water. The severity of exposure increases from Exposure Class S1 to S3 based on the more critical value of measured water-soluble sulfate concentration in soil or the concentration of dissolved sulfate in water. Seawater is classified as Exposure Class S1. UPDATED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our previous and supplement field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable to receive th e planned development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development and improvements are: Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. W .0. 6942-A 1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 1 o • • • • • • • • • • Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material below existing grades. Foundation support for the planned building . Planned excavations in close proximity to property lines . Temporary slope stability . Perched groundwater and its potential affects during and following the proposed development. Respon se to wetting of dry sandy soils within the old paralic deposits . On-going expansion and corrosion potential of site soils . Erosiveness of site earth materials . Adverse effects of potential storm water infiltration on the existing and planned onsite improvements and nearby properties. Regional seismic activity . The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. 1. Soil engineering, observation, and testing services should be provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill. 2. Geologic observations should be performed during grading and foundation construction to confirm and/or further evaluate the geologic conditions reported herein . Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures/conditions are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted. 3. All undocumented artificial fill, undifferentiated colluviu m/disturbed natural ground, and weathered old paralic deposits are considered unsuitable for the support of the planned settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., foundations, concrete slab-on-grade floors, pavements, hardscape, etc.) or new planned fills. If not removed through planned excavation, all unsuitable soils within the influence of planned settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fil l should be removed to expose dense, unweathered old paralic deposits and then be reused as properly engineered fill. Based on the available data, dense, unweathered old paralic deposits occur at an approximate depths of 3 to 5 feet BEGS. Thus, remedial Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 11 grading excavations should minimally extend to these depths. Based on our understanding of the currently planned development, unsuitable earth materials within the building footprint should be removed by default during planned excavations. However, remedial grading is recommended for uniform support of planned underground utilities and surface improvements between the northerly property line and Christiansen Way. 4. During meetings with the project design team several foundation alternatives were discussed. These included spread footings, mat foundations, CIDH pile foundations, and a hybrid system composed of CIDH piles and a spread footing or mat foundation. It was concluded that supporting the entire planned building by a system of CIDH piles interconnected by grade beams was the most practical to accommodate the anticipated loading conditions and to increase the seismic performance. Recommendations for the design and construction of CIDH pile foundation systems were previously provided in GSI (2017 and 2018). 5. Previous expansion index testing (GSI, 2015), performed on a representative soil sample collected near the pad grade elevation at the westerly end of the planned building, indicates an E.I. less than 5. This correlates to very low expansion potential. Atterberg Limits testing, performed on a representative soil sample collected near the pad grade elevation at the easterly end of the planned building, indicates a P.I. of 6. On a preliminary basis, structural mitigation for expansive soil conditions is not considered necessary. The expansion potential of pad grade soils should be re-evaluated at the conclusion of grading. It should be recognized that some low expansive soil (E.I. = 21 to 50) with a P.I. less than 15 may be present onsite. 6. Previous corrosion testing (GSI, 2015), performed on representative soil samples collected near the pad grade elevation of the planned building, indicates that the soils are mildly alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; are corrosive to severely corrosive to exposed buried metals when saturated; present negligible (Exposure Class SO per ACI 318-14) sulfate exposure to concrete; and contain slightly elevated to elevated concentrations of soluble chlorides. It should be noted that GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. Thus, the client, project architect, and project structural engineer should agree on the level of corrosion protection required for the project and seek consultation from a qualified corrosion consultant as warranted, especially in light of the site's proximity to the Pacific Ocean, which is a corrosive environment. Considering that some CIDH piles will extend below sea level, it is likely that the piles may come into contact with brackish water conditions. Thus, GSI recommends that concrete used in the construction of the piles conform to the requirements in Table 19.3.2.1 of ACI 318-14 for Exposure Classes S1, C2, and W1. In case of conflicting requirements, the more conservative should govern. The use of double corrosion protected steel reinforcement in the CIDH piles should also be considered. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Fi!e:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. W.0. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 12 7. During field work, performed in preparation of GSI (2015), a perched groundwater table was encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2 at approximate respective depths of 21 ½ and 26½ feet below the existing grades. It was not encountered in Boring B-3 to the depth explored (i.e., approximately 34½ feet below the existing grade). The elevation of the encountered perched groundwater surface ranges between approximately 20½ and 22½ feet NGVD29. This water table is likely the result of infiltrated, up-gradient runoff and irrigation waters collecting near the geologic contact between the more permeable old paralic deposits and the underlying, less permeable Santiago Formation and may fluctuate due to climatic conditions. This perched groundwater table is not anticipated to significantly constrain the proposed development. However, any planned excavation, including drilled excavations for CIDH pile installation, extending near or below the aforementioned elevations may encounter caving soils, seepage, and/or saturated soils. Casing of drilled excavations extending below the water table is recommended. The need for some dewatering efforts cannot be entirely precluded. 8. The currently planned development includes planned plus remedial excavations up to approximately 25 feet in close proximity to adjacent property. Where planned excavations do not allow for the temporary slope gradients, recommended herein, a properly designed shoring system will be necessary. Recommendations for the design and construction of temporary and permanent shoring systems were provided in GSI (2015 and 2018). 9. Site soils are considered erosive. Surface drainage should be designed to eliminate the potential for concentrated flows. Positive surface drainage away from foundations is recommended. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented until vegetative covering is well established. The owner will need to maintain proper surface drainage over the life of the project. 10. On a preliminary basis, temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type "B" soils (i.e., 1 :1 [h:v] slope), provided groundwater and/or running sands is not present. Should such conditions be exposed, temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type "C" soils (i.e., 1 ½:1 [h:v] slope). All temporary slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, prior to worker entry. Although not anticipated at this time, exposed conditions may require inclining temporary slopes to flatter gradients. According to CAL-OSHA, the maximum height of unsupported vertical excavations is 4 feet. 11. Although testing (discussed herein) supports that the surficial onsite earth materials are conducive to "partial infiltration," storm water infiltration devices, intended for permanent storm water best management practices (BMPs) are not recommended (i.e., "no infiltration). Storm water infiltration has the potential to introduce contaminants to onsite and near-site water production wells; increase the potential Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 13 for basement retaining walls to experience increased hydrostatic pressures; increase the potential for water transmission through basement retaining walls and the slab-on-grade floor; corrode metal building and underground utility components; cause piping and resultant settlement of underground utility trench backfill; and adversely affect the performance of existing and planned pavements. This potential extends offsite, and may cause distress to existing improvements. 12. The seismicity-acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design and construction of the planned development. 13. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided at the end of this report as Appendix D. Specific recommendations are provided below. UPDATED EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter "J" of the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016), the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix D, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to earthwork, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional earthwork guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or backfilling underground utility trenches and retaining walls after rough earthwork has been completed. This includes grading for pavements and hardscape. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act should be met. It is the onsite general contractor and individual subcontractors responsibility to provide a save working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. Preliminary Earthwork Factors (Shrinkage/Bulking) The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters: Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a 1.gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 14 Undocumented Artificial Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10% to 15% shrinkage Quaternary Colluvium/Disturbed Natural Ground ....... 10% to 15% shrinkage Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0% to 5% bulking Santiago Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% to 8% bulking It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Undocumented fill and colluvium/disturbed natural ground may achieve higher shrinkage if organics or clay content is higher than anticipated. Further, bulking estimates for old paralic deposits may be less than indicated above depending on the degree of weathering. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. If the Client requires additional information regarding embankment factors, additional studies could be provided upon request. Demolition/Grubbing 1. Vegetation and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading. 2. Any existing subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended remedial earthwork should be observed by GSI so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. 3. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the soil engineer. The cavities should be replaced with a 2-to 3-sack sand-cement slurry or fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). 4. Onsite septic systems (if encountered) should be removed in accordance with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) standards/guidelines. 5. If encountered, any existing, abandoned wells should be destroyed in accordance with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health standards/guidelines. Treatment of Existing Ground/Remedial Grading 1. Remedial excavations should consist of all undocumented fill, colluvium/disturbed natural ground, and weathered old paralic deposits such that suitable, dense unweathered old paralic deposits are encountered. Based on the available subsurface data, the depth of remedial grading excavations are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 5 feet BEGS. Based on our understanding of the planned Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 15 development, planned excavations within the building footprint would most likely remove unsuitable soils. However, remedial excavation appears necessary to support planned surface improvements and underground utilities along the project frontage, adjacent to Christiansen Way. The removed soils may be re-used in engineered fills, provided that the soil is cleaned of any organic and deleterious materials, moisture conditioned and mixed to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Remedial excavations should be completed below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the bottom outboard edge of any settlement-sensitive improvement or limits of planned fills unless constrained by property lines or existing improvements that are to remain is serviceable use. 2. Subsequent to the above, the bottoms of remedial excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557), prior to any fill placement. 3. Localized deeper remedial grading excavations may be necessary due to buried drainage channel meanders or dry porous materials, septic systems, etc. The project geotechnical consultant should observe all remedial grading excavations during earthwork construction. Overexcavation Consolidation testing performed in preparation of GSI (2015) indicated that dry sands within the old paralic deposits (USCS soil types SP and SM) can exhibit approximately 0.5 to 1.0 percent of hydrocollapse (response to wetting). Thus, in order to reduce the potential for damaging differential settlement, GSI recommends that portions of the basement floor-level subgrade located less than 15 feet below the existing grades (i.e,, existing ground surface) be overexcavated to at least 5 feet below the planned subgrade elevation or 2 feet below the bottom of grade beams (whichever is greater). The subgrade for the remainder of the basement floor level footprint should be overexcavated to at least 2 feet below the bottom of the grade beams. Based on our understanding of planned grading within the building footprint, it appears that overexcavation to 2 feet below the bottom of the grade beams would govern throughout the planned building footprint. Grade transitions between differing overexcavation depths should be accommodated by the construction of 2: 1 [h:v] or flatter slopes. The zone of the recommended overexcavation is shown on Plate 2. Following overexcavation, the exposed subsoils should be scarified at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and then be recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557) with vibratory compaction equipment. The overexcavation may then be backfilled with the excavated earth materials that have been placed in relatively thin (i.e., approximately 8-to 10-inch thick) lifts, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 16 content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557) with vibratory compaction equipment. Overexcavation below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the shoring dredge line at the face of the shoring wall should be performed in alternating "A," "B," and "C" slot excavations, as recommended below. Alternating Slot Excavations Unshared excavations completed below a 2: 1 (h:v) plane projected down from the shoring dredge line at the face of the shoring wall or below a 1 :1 (h:v) plane projected down from the bottom, outboard edges of existing improvements that need to remain in serviceable use, or property lines should be performed in alternating "A," "B," and "C" slot excavations. The width of alternating slot excavations should not exceed 6 feet. Multiple slots may be excavated simultaneously provided there is at least 12feet of undisturbed soils or properly compacted and approved engineered fill between two open slots. The bottoms of the slot excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfill. Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, any required fill materials should be brought to at least optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6-to 8-inch lifts, and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Fill materials should not be greater than 12 inches in any dimension. Underground-utility agencies/companies may have stricter requirements with respect to the particles sizes of backfill placed in utility trenches. Fill materials placed within the planned building footprint should have an E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 14 or less. Subdrains In the below-grade basement/parking area(s) of the planned building, the basement retaining wall subdrains are anticipated to consist of geocomposite drain panels. GSI understands that these drain panels will be installed adjacent to the "blind-side" waterproofing along the southerly, westerly, and northwesterly sides of the planned building. Because temporary slopes will be constructed as part of the planned excavation along the northeasterly and easterly sides of the building, GSI does not anticipate the use of "blind-side" waterproofing in these areas; however, we assume the use of typical waterproofing and the geocomposite drain panel on the backsides of the basement retaining walls. All geocomposite drain panels should consist of Miradrain 6200 or J-drain 200, or an approved equivalent. The drain panels should be connected to a subdrain at the base of the basement walls. The subdrain should consist of perforated, Schedule 40 or SOR 35 drain pipe with perforations oriented down that is encased in clean crushed ¾ inch to 1½-inch gravels wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). The majority of the accumulated water within the below-grade improvements cannot outlet to an approved drainage facility via gravity; and therefore, needs to be collected and conveyed via solid drain pipe to the planned sump pump that in turn, directs the water to Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\694281 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 17 the City of Carlsbad system. The sump pump should consist of a double redundant system, equipped with alarms, and should be designed such that saturation of the surrounding soils is reduced. Basement retaining walls and site walls should be "waterproofed." Basement retaining walls should be equipped with waterstops installed between the bottom of the walls and the tops of grade beams. Site retaining walls should receive subdrains constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in GSI (2015). Temporary Slopes Unsupported temporary excavation walls ranging between 4 and 20 feet in gross overall height may be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type B soils (i.e., 1: 1 [h:v] slope), provided that groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Should such conditions be exposed, temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type "C" soils (i.e., 1 ½:1 [h:v] slope) All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, prior to worker entry into the excavation. Based on the exposed field conditions, inclining temporary slopes to flatter gradients or the use of shoring may be necessary if adverse conditions are observed. If temporary slopes conflict with property boundaries or other boundary restrictions, shoring or alternating slot excavations will be necessary. Soil and building materials, or heavy construction equipment, should not be stockpiled, stored, nor operated within "H" feet from the top of temporary excavations walls where "H" equals the height of the excavation wall. In addition, heavy axle load vehicles should not be parked nor operated within "H" feet from the top of temporary excavations walls where "H" equals the height of the temporary slope. Unless otherwise noted by the project structural engineer, excavations for underground chambers, tanks, vaults, and sump pumps should not occur until the shoring and/or permanent walls are braced. The construction sequence of the below grade tanks, chambers, and vaults should be approved by the design team and included in the construction documents. Import Fill Materials All import fill material should be tested by GSI prior to placement within the site. GSI would also request environmental documentation (e.g., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment) pertaining to the proposed export site, to evaluate if the proposed import could present an environmental risk to the planned development. At least five (5) business days of lead time will be necessary for the required laboratory testing and document review. Unless a temporary lay-down site is obtained to store the excavated materials from the building footprint. Import materials may be necessary to backfill the basement retaining walls near the northwesterly property corner and to complete remedial grading. In general, GSI recommends that import fill materials have an E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 14 or less. Beach Village Lile 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 18 FOUNDATIONS As previously indicated, it is our understanding that the planned building will be supported by CIDH piles interconnected by grade beams. Recommendations for CIDH pile design and construction were included in GSI (2017 and 2018). SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS Recommendations for the design and construction of slab-on-grade floors were provided in GSI (2015). SHORING It is our understanding that shoring will be used to retain vertical excavations along the southerly, westerly, and northwesterly property lines. Recommendations for the design and construction of temporary and permanent shoring systems were included in GSI (2015 and 2018). RETAINING WALLS Recommendations for the design and construction of retaining walls were provided in GSI (2015). Updated Seismic Surcharge For engineered retaining walls 6 feet or greater in overall height, retaining walls that are incorporated into a building, and/or retaining walls that may pose ingress or egress constraints to the residential structure, GSI recommends that the walls be evaluated for a seismic surcharge (in general accordance with 2016 CBC requirements). The site walls in this category should maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately 1.25 when the seismic surcharge (increment), is applied. For restrained walls, the seismic surcharge should be applied as a uniform surcharge load from the bottom of the footing (excluding shear keys) to the top of the backfill at the heel of the wall footing. This seismic surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken as 17H where "H" for retained walls is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill to the bottom of the footing. The resultant force should be applied at a distance 0.6 H up from the bottom of the footing. For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the bearing pressure may exceed the static value by one-third, considering the transient nature of this surcharge. For cantilevered walls the pressure should be an inverted triangular distribution using 17H. Please note that the evaluation of the seismic surcharge is for local wall stability only. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 19 The 17H is derived from a Mononobe-Okabe solution for both restrained cantilever walls. This accounts for the increased lateral pressure due to shakedown or movement of the sand fill soil in the zone of influence from the wall or roughly a 45° -cp/2 plane away from the back of the wall. The 17H seismic surcharge is derived from the formula: Ph= 3/a •ah• Y1H Where: Ph ah Y1 H = = = = Seismic increment Probabilistic horizontal site acceleration with a percentage of "g" Total unit weight (115 to 125 pct for site soils @ 95% relative compaction). Height of the wall from the bottom of the footing or point of pi le fixity. Backfill for Regional Standard Design Retaining Walls S&A (2018a) indicates the construction of Regional Standard Design C-1 retaining walls along the sides of the ingress/egress driveways servicing the planned building. Since these wal ls are designed for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) of 36 pounds per square foot per foot (psf/ft) of height, GSI recommends that they be backfilled with clean crushed ¾-inch to 1 ½-inch gravels or a clean sand and gravel mixture with no fines. The backfill should be placed above a 1: 1 (h:v) plane projected up from the top rear edge of the wall footings. If gravel backfill is used it should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and densified using vibratory equipment. The gravel backfill should be entirely separated from the surrounding soils with filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). The upper 12 inches of the backfill may consist of native onsite soils with an E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 20 or less. These backfill soils should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). If a clean sand and gravel mixture is used to backfill the walls, it should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). The backs of these retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce the potential for efflorescence staining at the face. The walls should be drained using a subdrain connected to the aforementioned basement sump, or weep holes placed every 5 lineal feet on-center along the length of the walls, directed into a collection sump. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER AGGREGATE BASE (AC/AB) PAVEMENT SECTIONS S&A (2018) indicates that the planned development includes AC/AB parking stalls along the project frontage, adjacent to Christiansen Way. Thus, GSI has evaluated AC/AB pavement sections on a preliminary basis. Final AC/AB pavement sections should be based on resistance value (A-value) testing of the pavement subgrade. Our evaluation Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 201 7 Page 20 assumed a subgrade R-value of 25, a traffic index (T.1.) of 4.5 for a 10-year pavement life, and a T.I. of 5.0 for a 20-year pavement life. Th e table below provides the recommended stru ctural sections for AC/AB pavements. STANDARD PAVEMENT DESIGNS VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CLASS 2 CLASSIFICATION INDEX (T.1.)1'1 A-VALUE AC AGGREGATE BASE<2> INCHES INCHES Parking Stalls 4.5 25 4.0131 4.0141 Parking Stalls 5.0 25 4.0'31 4.0 '·To be confirmed by the Project Civil Engineer/Traffic Engineer based on traffic use and preferred pavement design life. 2 • Assumed A-value for Class 2 AB; R=78 -CalTrans or Greenbook standard Class 2 AB. 3 · Minimum AC thickness per City of Carlsbad (2016a) • · Minimum AB thickness oer City of Carlsbad /2016al PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCC) PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ADJACENT, OFFSITE DRIVEWAY S&A (20 18) indicates that the planned development includes the construction of PCC for alley type driveway per City of Carlsbad Standard Drawings GS-20 on the westerly adjacent property. It is our understanding that the planned driveway will receive heavy axle (HS20) vehicle loads associated with water delivery trucks for the Carlsbad Alkaline Water Company. Thus, we have analyzed the suitability of the ?½-inch thick 560-C-3250 PCC layer over 6 inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate, shown in the aforementioned design standard, to receive the intended vehicle load. Our analysis shows that the section thickness shown in City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing GS-20 is sufficient to support the intended vehicle load, assuming normal maintenance and proper surface drainage. Th e PCC section should be constructed atop firm and non-yielding subgrade soils th at have been moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Class 2 aggregate base should conform to the specifications contained in the latest editi on of the "Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction." All PCCP should be properly detailed Uointing, etc.) per the industry standards (PCA, ACI, etc). Pavements may be additionally reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars, placed 12 inches on center, each way, for improved performance. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1 -SC February 15, 2017 Page 21 PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS General Subgrade and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should generally be 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. All section changes should be properly transitioned. The recommended pavement section thickness, provided above, should be considered preliminary. Further A-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading and underground utility trench backfill. Subgrade Remedial grading, conducted in accordance with the recommendations contained in "Earthwork Construction Recommendations" section of this report should be performed prior to subgrade preparation. Within vehicular traffic areas, including curbs, all surficial deposits of loose soil material generated underground utility construction should be removed or re-compacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed/recompacted, the exposed ground should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during subgrade preparation should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. Aggregate Base Compaction tests are required for the recommended aggregate base section. The minimum rel ative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Base aggregate should minimally conform to Caltrans or Greenbook minimum specifications. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 22 AC Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or sub base course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. 3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4. The base is free of dirt and debris. If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards an approved drainage facility. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to reduce the potential for water to enter the pavement section. These measures may include, but not limited to, subdrainage devices, thickened curbs, vertically installed impermeable liners, or concrete cut-off walls. If cut-off barriers are used, they should extend at least 12 inches below the pavement subgrade elevation. Thickened curbs or concrete cut-off walls should be at least 6 inches wide. IMPERVIOUS BRICK PAVERS S&A (2018) shows impervious non-vehicular brick pavers along the westerly, easterly, and southerly sides of the planned, exterior parking stalls. Impervious brick pavers should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Prior to installation, the subgrade should be scarified at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1 -SC February 15, 2017 Page 23 PCC SIDEWALKS Recommendations for the design and construction of PCC sidewalks were provided in GSI (2015). STORM WATER INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY EVALUATION Percolation Testin Percolation testing was performed in Infiltration Borings IB-1 through IB-4 in general accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2011) guidelines for borehole percolation tests. At the onset of testing, GSI evaluated if the soil conditions in the borings met the "sandy soil criteria" by adding water to the test borings and allowing the water level to fall over two (2) 25-minute test intervals to see if greater than a 6-inch change in water column height occurred within each test period. Testing indicated that the soil conditions in the borings met the sandy soil criteria. The test borings were then pre-soaked over a 2-hour period. Following the pre-soak, GSI performed percolation testing in the borings over a 1-hour period, taking readings every ten minutes. During each test interval, the hole was filled to within approximately 8½ to 12 inches of the surface with water, and the water level was allowed to drop over the 10-minute test interval. Both initial and final readings were rounded to the nearest 1/e inch. The field percolation test data sheets are provided in Appendix C. The change in water column height, recorded during the last test interval, was then used to calculate the infiltration rate using the Porchet Method per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2011) guidelines. Calculation sheets showing the conversion of the field percolation test data to infiltration rates are provided in Appendix C. The following table presents the change in water column height in each test boring during the last test interval. BORING NO. CHANGE IN WATER HEIGHT DURING FINAL TESTING PERIOD CINCHES) IB-1 6.5 IB-2 2.0 IB-3 4.0 IB-4 1.5 The following table summarizes the calculated infiltration rate within each test boring. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a 1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W .0. 6942-A 1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 24 BORING NO. INFILTRATION RATE (INCES/HOUR) IB-1 1.21 IB-2 0.37 IB-3 0.74 IB-4 0.27 Discussion of Test Results As shown above, GSI obtained infiltration rates ranging between 0.27 and 1.121 inches/hour (in/hr). It is our opinion that the rate in Boring IB-4 is not representative of the site as a whole because the testing was predominately performed within undocumented fill. Thus, the infiltration rate obtained in Infiltration Boring IB-4 was not considered in our conclusions regarding the onsite soil infiltration rates. The variable infiltration rates acquired in Infiltration Borings IB-1 through IB-3 are indicative of heterogenous soil conditions (i.e., degrees of weathering and cemetation, bioturbation, disturbance from past tree removal activities, and density). In order to account for heterogeneity, it is our opinion that the infiltration rate of 0.37 in/hr, obtained in Infiltration Boring IB-2, is appropriately conservative for the tested infiltration rate at the subject site. For the site suitability factor-of-safety (FOS), GSI recommends an FOS of 2.0. Thus, the "reliable infiltration rate" is 0.18 inches/hr. This infiltration rate supports the feasibility of "partial infiltration." Th e completed City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (City of Carlsbad, 2016b) Forms 1-8 and 1-9 are included in Appendix C. Feasibility Although our testing shows that th e infiltration rates of the surficial onsite soils are conducive to "partial infiltration," GSI recommends "no infiltration." Our reasoning for not recommending storm water infiltration as part of the planned development is discussed below: Basement Retaining Walls The planned development includes the construction of basement retaining walls. The addition of subsurface water created through storm water infiltration has the potential to exert additional hydrostatic pressures on these walls. In addition, infiltrating storm water adjacent to th e basement retaining walls has the potential to increase moisture transmission through the walls, which could corrode steel reinforcement given that corrosion testing indicates the presence of water soluble chlorides in the onsite soils, and result in efflorescence staining at the wall face. In addition moisture transmission through the basement retaining walls could lead to the generation of mold inside the planned building. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 25 Below-Grade Floor Slabs The planned development includes the construction of below-grade parking levels. The lowermost floor level includes a slab-on-grade floor. Infiltrated storm water adjacent to the planned building has the potential to migrate downward to the lowermost floor level and due to pressure differences between the exterior and interior of the building, the water could eventually migrate into the slab subgrade soils. As a result, there would be an increased potential for moisture transmission through the slab. This could cause corrosion of the steel reinforcement within the slab-on-grade floor. In addition, moisture transmission through the slab-on-grade floor could result in efflorescence staining on the floor slab, lead to the generation of mold inside the planned building, and could adversely effect the performance of mechanical equipment on the lowermost floor level. Existing Water Production Wells The subject site and adjacent westerly property contain water production wells for commercial/retail purposes. The infiltration of storm water has the potential to introduce contaminants into these wells. Pavements The infiltration of storm water could adversely affect the long-term performance of the planned pavements along the project frontage as well as within the Christiansen Way right- of-way. Water that entering into pavement structural sections weakens the subgrade. This can lead to rutting and cracking of the pavement surface. Underground Utilities Infiltrated storm water has the potential to enter underground utility trenches and corrode metal utility components. In addition, water entering underground utility trenches can lead to trench backfill settlement as a result of piping. Settling trench backfill has the potential to distress overlying surface improvements. Offsite Improvements Infiltrated stormwater also has the potential to affect offsite walls, floors, slabs, pavements, and underground utilities, causing distress. Feasibility Summary Since there is no way to accurately predict the pathway of uncontrolled, infiltrated storm water once it passes below the ground surface, its implications to existing and planned improvements cannot be entirely predicted. However, it would increase the potential for the planned development within the subject site as well as nearby existing development to be exposed to its injurious effects causing distress. From a geotechnical perspective, Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Fi\e:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 26 purposely allowing storm water to infiltrate adjacent to structural improvements is not sound engineering practice and should be avoided. "No infiltration" is recommended. UPDATED SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • • • • • • • • • • • • During shoring soldier pile installation . During excavation . During grading . During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. After excavation of building grade beams and retaining wall footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Prior to the placement of concrete for the slab-on-grade floor, flatwork, or PCCP, after the subgrade has been prepared, and before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders. During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement Prior to bringing any import fill materials to the site . During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, underground utility trenches, and retaining walls. When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. When any developer or owner improvements, such as flatwork, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W .0. 6942-A 1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 27 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of improvements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained in GSI (2015) are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, shoring, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/orfurthergeotechnical studies may be warranted. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 28 LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc, W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 29 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. RBB/JPF/ATG/jh Attachments: Distribution: ikJi/f:!:m Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Appendix A -References Appendix B -Boring Logs (This Study and GSI [2015]) Appendix C -Infiltration Data Appendix D-General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria Revised Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map Plate 2 -Geologic Cross Section X-X' (3) Addressee (2 wet signed) Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. W.O. 6942-A1-SC February 15, 2017 Page 30 APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc:. APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318, dated September. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, based on the 2015 International Building Code, 2016 California Historical Building code, Title 24, Part 8, 2016 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10, and the 2015 International Existing Building Code. City of Carlsbad, 2016a, City of Carlsbad engineering standards, vol. 1, general design standards, dated February 16. __ , 2016b, City of Carlsbad engineering standards, vol. 5, Carlsbad BMP design manual (post construction treatment BMPs, dated February 16. GeoSoils, Inc., 2018, Revised cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile recommendations, planned mixed-use hotel, spa, and condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00, W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 5. __ , 2017, Supplemental geotechnical recommendations, proposed mixed-use hotel, spa, and condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00, dated October 23. , 2016, Geotechnical response to City of Carlsbad Engineering Department plan check comments, Beach Village Life 1 Mixed Use, APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, CT 16-03/RP 16-09/CDP16-16, W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated June 20. __ , 2015, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6942-A-SC, dated September 11. Karnak Planning and Design, 2018, Architectural plans for: Mixed Use Hotel Spa and Condominiums, 300 Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, CA 92008, 144 sheets, various scales, Project No.: 20150806 aq, dated January 15. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle, California, regional geologic map series, scale 1:100,000, California Geologic Survey Map No. 2. GeoSoils, Inc. Romanoff, M., 1989, Underground corrosion, National Bureau of Standards Circular 579, Published by National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas, originally issued April 1, 1957 Spear and Associates, Inc., 2018a, Improvement plans for: Beach Village Life, Christiansen Ave., 2 sheets, 10-scale, City of Carlsbad Project No.: CT 16-03, Drawing No.: 508-9, dated February 9. __ , 2018b, Precise grading plans for: Beach Village Life, 300 Christiansen Ave, 12 sheets, various scales, City of Carlsbad Project No.: CT 16-03, Drawing No.: 508-9A, dated February 9. Sun Structural Engineering, Inc, 2018a, Site shoring plan for: Beach Village Life, 300 Christensen Ave. 6 sheets, various scales, City of Carlsbad project no.: CT 16-03, drawing no.: 508-9A, plans electronically transmitted on February 5. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix A Page 2 ' APPENDIX B BORING LOGS (THIS STUDY AND GSI [2015]) GeoSoils, Inc:. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ~ ·a; 0 0 N " . = 0 oz (/) C " 0 .~ "2 ~ -~ CJ l'l ' $ ~* • 0 8~ i, ~ 0 :,; Major Divisions Highly Organic Soils Unified Soil Classification Cobbles 3" Group Symbols GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT coarse Typical Names Well-graded gravels and gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3/4" #4 Gravel I fine coarse CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY CRITERIA Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N Relative (blows/fl) Density 0-4 Very loose 4-10 Loose 10-30 Medium 30-50 Dense > 50 Very dense Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N (blows/fl! <2 2-4 4-8 8-15 15 -30 >30 #10 I Sand medium #40 I Unconfined Compressive Strength Consistencv (tons/ft') Very Soft <0.25 Soft 0.25 -.050 Medium 0.50 -1.00 Stiff 1.00 -2.00 Very Stiff 2.00 -4.00 Hard >4.00 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Silt or Clay fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Slightly Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch Below optimum moisture content for compaction Near optimum moisture content Above optimum moisture content Visible free water; below water table BASIC LOG FORMAT: trace few little some 0-5% 5-10 % 10-25 % 25 -45 % C Core Sample S SPT Sample B Bulk Sample ~ Groundwater Op Pocket Penetrometer Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1 ' ' BORING ELEV. DEPTH GROUP NO. (ft.) {ft.) SYMBOL IB-1 ±51 ½ 0-1 SM 1-3 SM 3-6¼ SM IB-2 ±51½ 0-1 SP 1-1 ½ SM 1½-3½ SM 3½-6¼ SM H· SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) W.O. 6942-A 1-SC Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Logged By:CWP February 5, 2018 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING MOISTURE FIELD DRY (%) DENSITY DESCRIPTION (pcf) QUATERNARY COLLUVIUMLDISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: SILTY SAND, grayish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained. SIL TY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained. QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, dense; fine grained. Total Depth = 6¼' No Groundwater/Caving Backfilled 2/5/18 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUMLDISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: SAND, light gray, moist, medium dense; fine grained. SILTY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained. SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense ; fine grained. QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, dense, fine grained. Total Depth = 6¼' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 2/5/18 PLATE B-2 H- BORING ELEV. DEPTH GROUP SAMPLE DEPTH NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL (ft.) IB-3 ±45½ 0-½ SM ½-3 SM 3-6¼ SM IB-4 ±45½ 0-4 SM 4-5 SM 5-6¼ SM W.O. 6942-A 1-SC Beach Village Life 1, LLC APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Logged By:CWP February 5, 2018 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY DESCRIPTION (%) (pcf) QUATERNARY COLLUVIUMLDISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: SILTY SAND, grayish brown, dry, medium dense; fine grained. WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, medium dense; fine grained. QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, dense; fine grained. Total Depth = 6¼' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 2/5/2018 ARTIFICIAL FILL-UNDOCUMENTED: SIL TY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, loose; fine grained. SIL TY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained, construction debris (concrete). QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, dense; fine grained. Total Depth = 6¼' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 2/5/2018 PLATE B-3 g/ QJ '<ii g JQ C\J ·o . (/)~ "O (/) QJ QJ C <I) -~ ~ CJ 0. (l) ~ C 0 U:: E 0 'if!. 0 L.l) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions Highly Organic Soils CJQ "' QJ QJ > -"' u ~ CJ C VJ "' "O QJ C -"' (.) (/) Cobbles 3" Group Symbols GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Typical Names Well-graded gravels and gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour. silty or clayey fine sands Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts. elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3/4" #4 Gravel CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY CRITERIA Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N Relative (blows/ft) Density 0-4 Very loose 4 -10 Loose 10-30 Medium 30 • 50 Dense > 50 Very dense Standard Penetration Test Penetration Resistance N (blows/ft) <2 2-4 4-8 8-15 15 -30 >30 #10 Sand Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard #40 Unconfined Compressive Strength (tons/ff) <0.25 0.25 -.050 0.50 -1.00 1.00 -2.00 2.00 -4.00 >4.00 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Silt or Clay Unified Soil Classification coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry Slightly Moist Moist Very Moist Wet Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch Below optimum moisture content for compaction Near optimum moisture content Above optimum moisture content Visible free water; below water table BASIC LOG FORMAT: MATERIAL QUANTITY trace 0-5 % few 5 -10% little 10-25 % some 25-45 % OTHER SYMBOLS C Core Sample S SPTSample B Bulk Sample :... • Groundwater Qp Pocket Penetrometer Group name, Group symbol, (grain size). color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles. etc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SP), fine to medium grained. brown. moist. loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 6942-A-SC PROJECT: TROMPOLINO, INC. BORING APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad B-1 SHEET_1_ OF..2_ DA TE EXCAVATED 7-29-15 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer@ 30" Drop Approx. Elevation: 48' MSL C m Standard Penetration Test u 0 s ~ '5l Groundwater 'O .0 ~ ~ 0 -Q) E C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ Seepage ~ .0 ~ >-~ 0 :i Cl) ·c ~ iii Cl) ::, .c ::::) iii a. :,,. 'c ,: u ::, Q) =i C 0 Cl) c:-·5 iii Description of Material Cl cc ::::) ai ::::) Cl ::::;: Cl) SM ~-UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY Jo-1-'J' COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: \ ® O' SI L TY SAND dark brown drv to damo loose. r c:, ,. ~ 2 ~ 50-6" SP 99.6 4.6 18.6 @ 1½' SIL TY SAND, dark reddish brown, damp, loose / 3-becominq medium dense with depth· trace debris. WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: 4-@ 2' SAND with SILT, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; trace 5 roots. ~ 50-6" SM 102.1 5.2 22.2 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: 6-@ 5' SI L TY SAND, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; moderately 7-cemented. 8- 9-~ 35 @8½' SILTY SAND with CLAY/CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown and redd ish yellow, moist, dense; slightly plastic. 10 11- 12- 13- 14- 15-~ 29/ SP 101.4 4.1 17.2 @ 15' SAND with SILT, yellowish brown and reddish yellow, dry, 16-50-6" very dense; very fine to fine grained, trace iron-oxide staining. 17- 18- 19 20-m 40 2.7 @ 20' SAND with SILT, brownish gray, moist, dense; very fine 21 7 to fine grained, micaceous. 22-@ 21 ½' Perched groundwater encountered. 23- 24- 25-~ 27/ 104.4 19.3 87.6 @ 25' SAND with SILT, brownish gray and dark gray, wet, very 26-50-6" dense; very fine to fine grained, trace manganese-oxide 27-staining, micaceous. @ 26' Driller reported increased difficulty in drilling. 28- 29- APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-2 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: TROMPOLINO, INC. APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Sample ~ .c:. a. ., 0 0 'O ,:, ., E -e Li'. >, :::, (/) in "1 (/) -"' 'o ~ u 'S C (/) al ::J ai ::J C (,) .2: ~ C ct: ~ C ~ ::J 1:-'6 0 ~ 40/ SM 11.4 31 50-5" 32 ~ C 0 :;:; ~ :::, iii (/) BORING LOG BORING B-1 DATE EXCAVATED W.O. 6942-A-SC SHEET _3_ OF _3_ 7-29-15 SAMPLE METHOD: Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer@ 30" Drop m ~ -./'• J- ./' -./' ..;" Approx. Elevation: 48' MSL Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample 'Sl Groundwater #\! Seepage Description of Material TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: . .,,-- @ 30' SILTY SANDSTONE with trace CLAY, light gray, wet, very dense; predominately very fine to fine grained, trace medium and coarse grains . 33 110.6 12.9 69.1 34 35-1--1~+---1---1----1--4-----J 36 37 38 39 4o-1----1,""""'f-c-50,:--=5,,-t-s=-cM-l----t-1-c-:3-_4:-+-- 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 1---1,.,..,.,,..--1---1-----+---I--------, 52 53 54 55 55-1--1-+---1---1----1--4---- 57 58 59 APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad v- J' ...:r:-. '<' @ 35' SIL TY SANDSTONE, light gray, moist, dense; fine to coarse grained and SANDY CLAYSTONE, greenish gray, moist, hard. @ 40' SIL TY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, dense; fine to coarse grained. @ 45' SIL TY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, dense. @ 47' Caving encountered. Driller added bentonite grout to stabilize sidewalls of boring. @ 51 ½' lnterbedded CLAYEY SANDSTONE and SIL TY SANDSTONE, light brown (CLAYEY SANDSTONE) and light gray (SIL TY SANDSTONE), wet, very dense. @ 55' No recovery. Total Depth = 56' Groundwater Encountered @ 21 ½' Perched Caving Encountered@ 47' Backfilled 7-29-2015 With Bentonite Grout GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-3 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 6942-A-SC PROJECT: TROMPOLINO, INC. BORING 8-2 SHEET_1_ OF.....3_ APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad DATE EXCAVATED 7-29-15 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer@ 30" Drop Approx. Elevation: 49' MSL C llll Standard Penetration Test <.) 0 .e, l 'Sl Groundwater 'O .0 ~ e:, ,...,. QJ E C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample 1\i Seepage .0 ti'. >, ~ :5 (/) ~ .Q .c u5 <ii (/) ·1: :, '§ C. X i5 ;: (.) :::::, u5 :, QJ :5 C 0 (/) ~ ·a <ii Description of Material a aJ :::::, ai :::::, a :a (/) SM __,... UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY ..,,._, 1-_.,.. COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: _.,.. @ O' SIL TY SAND, dark brown, damp, loose to medium dense; 2 ~ 14/ SM 111.5 2.5 13.5 __,... trace oroanics. r ,,..,A. WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: 3-50-4" ,Y' _.,.. @ 2' SILTY SAND, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; moderately 4-_.,.. . cemented. ..,,.. 5 _.,.. ~ 50-4" SM 108.9 4.6 23.3 ...,.. QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: ,...,-. 6-,Y' @ 5' SIL TY SAND, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; fine grained _.,.. with trace medium grains, moderately cemented. 7-er ...,.. 8-_.,... _.,.. .J-9-. ...,,. __,... 10 I 31 5.4 _.,.. @ 10' SIL TY SAND, reddish yellow, damp, medium dense; fine _.,.. 11 -_.,.. to medium grained. _.,... 12-,.,-- ...,--_.,.. 13-...,-- ...,-- 14-__,... ...,-- 15 ...,-- ~ 32/ SP 104.9 5.2 23.8 @ 15' SAND, yellowish brown , dry, very dense; fine grained, 16-50-6" trace silt. 17- 18- 19- 20-I 40 4.7 @ 20' SAND with SILT, brownish gray, damp, dense; very fine 21 -to fine grained, trace medium grains. 22 23 24- 25 ~ 30/ ~P/Stv 98.7 6.1 23.9 @ 25' SAND with SILT/SIL TY SAND, brownish gray, dry, very 26~ 50-6" dense; very fine grained. 27-@ 26½' Perched groundwater encountered. 28- 29- APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-4 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: TROMPOLINO, INC. APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Sample 0 -0 .D ~ Q) E ~ .D ...; >-:i ~ Cf) .c ti Cf) 0.. X 'o ;;: (.) Q) 'S C 0 Cf) 0 CD :::> iii :::> ~ ~ ::, ti ·o ::;; 00 311 cusc 31-50-4½' 20.9 32- 33- 34- 35- 36- 37· 38- 39- 40- 41 • 42· 43- 44- 45- 46- 47- 48- 49- 50- 51- 52- 53- 54- 55- 56- 57- 58- 59- APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad ~ e_, C .Q ~ ::, '" Cf) BORING LOG BORING B-2 DATE EXCAVATED W.O. 6942-A-SC SHEET2 OF2 7-29-15 SAMPLE METHOD: Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer@ 30" Drop m ~ Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation: 49' MSL '5l-Groundwater ~ Seepage Description of Material TERTIARY SANTIAGO FOUNDATION: @30' SANDY CLAYSTONE/CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light olive brown wet hard. r Total Depth = 31 ½' Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 26½' No Caving Encountered Backfilled 7-29-15 With Bentonite Grout GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-5 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: TROMPOLINO, INC. APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Sample C " 0 _e, -0 .D ~ ~ (1) E 0 ~ -e u:: >, ~ Cf) ·c ~ ~ cil Cf) ::, a. "" i:i ! <.) :J iii (1) 'S C Cf) c'.:' ·a 0 co :J ai :J 0 :::e SM ~ 0 C .Q ~ ~ Cf) BORING LOG BORING B-3 DATE EXCAVATED W 0. __ 6:..c9__:_42=----A--'S-'-C---4 SHEET_1_ OF _3_ 7-29-15 SAMPLE METHOD: Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer@ 30" Drop Ill ~ ._,-. . Approx. Elevation: 56' MSL Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample 'Sl-Groundwater ~ Seepage Description of Material UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY 1-COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: ..r. ._,_ .,-. @ O' SIL TY SAND, dark brown, dry, loose; porous . 2-1---1~.!----+---+-----+----+--+--'"-+-"""---------'------'--_,__'-------'-'-------------, W, 60 SM 109.8 3.8 @ 2' SIL TY SAND, dark brown, dry, dense. 19.9 ._,-. 3-w .,-. .,-. .,-. 4--r .,-. 5+---i77T.,+----+--+---+---t---c:c----:-+=..:.+-,,-,-,-c-=----,--:::----::-:-::::-=----:-:::-:-:-:-=-=-:=--=--=-c==-------------i W, 50-6" SM 123.o 5.9 QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: .,-. 45.3 6-W @ 5' SIL TY SAND, dark reddish yellow, damp, dense. 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- 44/ SM/SP 50-5" ~50-5½" SM ~ 37/ SP ~ 50-4½" 57 SP 119.7 107.1 104.4 APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad 4.3 29.8 6.4 31.0 3.9 17.5 @ 1 O' SIL TY SAND/SAND with SILT, dark yellowish brown, damp, very dense; very fine to fine grained, trace medium grains, moderately cemented. @ 15' SIL TY SAND, dark yellowish brown and light reddish yellow, damp, dense. @ 20' SAND with SILT, grayish brown, dry, very dense; very fine to medium grained. @ 25' SAND with trace SILT, brownish gray, moist, very dense; fine grained. GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-6 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT TROMPOLINO, INC. APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad ---, :E ~ a. <I) 0 31- 32- 33- 34- -"" :i CD Sample -0 <I) .0 Li'. :i <ii vl 'i5 ~ C ::J ai W 27/ ~50-5½" C <) 0 .e, .0 ~ l E >, ~ (/) ·c (/) :, u ::J <ii (/) ~ ·a ::J 0 :'a' SP 102.2 2.7 ~ C 0 ~ :, '" (/) 11.6 BORING LOG BORING B-3 DA TE EXCAVATED W.O. 6942-A-SC SHEET_2_ OF _3_ 7-29-15 SAMPLE METHOD: Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer@ 30" Drop m Standard Penetration Test '5l-Groundwater ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample f\; Seepage Approx. Elevation: 56' MSL Description of Material @ 30' SAND, yellowish gray, dry, dense; very fine to fine grained, trace medium grains, friable. 35-~ 36/ CL ~ TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: ~ 50-5" @ 34½' SANDY CLAYSTONE, light olive brown, moist, hard. 36+---f'l"09---+-+---+----+----------f"-"----------j 37- 38- 39- 40- 41- 42- 43- 44- 45- 46- 47- 48- 49- 50- 51 - 52- 53- 54- 55- 56- 57- 58- 59- APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad Total Depth = 36' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 7-29-2015 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-7 APPENDIX C INFILTRATION DATA GeoSoils, Inc. GSI Appendix, W.O. 6942-Al-SC, dated February 15, 2018 From "City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I," dated February 16, 2016. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form 1-8 Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibili!)'. 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 Js 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: Owing to the heterogenous traits exhibited by the earth materials due to differing degrees of weathering and cementation, bioturbation, disturbance from past tree removal activities, and density, it is our opinion that a tested infiltration rate of 0.37 inches per hour is appropriately conservative for the project site. The "reliable infiltration rate" is 0.37/2.0 = 0.18 inches/hr. This rate does not support full infiltratio n. See the text body and Appendix C of the encompassing report for infiltration test results. 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 2 risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to tl1is Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: No response required. See Criteria No. 1. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion o[study/data source applicability. C-4 February 2016 GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-Al-SC, dated February 15, 2018 From "City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I," dated February 16, 2016. Appendix I : F orms and Checklists Form 1-8 Pa:::c 2 of 4 Criteria Screening Question 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: No response required. See Criteria No. 1. 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: No response required . See Criteria No. 1. 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 No, Result* screening category is Full Infiltration proceed If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally to part 2 be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *Tobe 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 the City to substantiate findings. C-4 February 201 6 CST Appendix, W.O. 6942-Al-SC, dated February 15, 2018 From "City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I." dated Febnw,y /6, 2016. A ppen dix I: Forms and Checklists Form 1-8 l':igc 3 of 4 Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in an appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable 5 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: Owing to the heterogenous traits exhibited by the earth materials due to differing degrees of weathering and cem entation, bioturbation, disturbance from past tree removal activities, and density, it is our opinion t hat a tested infiltration rate of 0.37 inches per hour is appropriately conservative for the project site. The "reliable infiltration rate" is 0.37/2.0 = 0.18 inches/hr. This rate supports "partial infiltration." See the text body and Appendix C of the encom passing report fo r infiltration test results. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narra tive discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of gcotcchnical 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: Ex planations are provided in the "Storm Water Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation" section of the en com passing report. The potential for distress to proposed and existing improvements is high. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. C-4 February 2016 GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-Al-SC, dated February 15, 2018 From "City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I," da1ed February 16, 2016. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria 7 Form 1-8 l'ai:c 4 of 4 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes N o X Explanations are provided in the "Storm Water Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation" section of the enco mpassing report. Contamination of producing nearby water wells may occur. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: X Water rights are considered a legal matter, and typically do not fall within the purview of geotechnical engineering. GSI is not aware of any downstream water rights issues of concern on the adjoining properties. Further, given the low infiltration rate of onsite soils, it does not appear that infiltration should significantly affect downstream water rights, from a geotechnical perspective. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Part 2 !fall answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. T he Result* feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. No Infiltration *Tobe 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 the City to substantiate findings. C-4 February 2016 GSI Appendix, W.O. 6942-Al -SC, dated February IS, 2018 From "City a/Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I," dated February 2016. Appendix I: Forms and C hecklists Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Form 1-9 Rate Worksheet Factor Criteria Factor Description Assigned Factor Product (p) Weight (w) Value (v) p =wx v Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 Predominant soil texture 0.25 I 0.25 A Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.5 Assessment Depth lo groundwater/impervious layer 0.25 I 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = :Ep -t-:-56 Use 2.0 Level of pretreatment/expected sediment loads 0.5 Redundancy/resiliency 0.25 B Design Compaction during construction 0.25 Design Safety Factor, S8 = :Ep Combined Safety Factor, S,0,.1= SA x S8 Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, I<,,.,,.,..., (corrected for test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, K.,,.,,, = K..,......, t S, .. ,1 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: 1-7 June, 2016 Percolation Test Field Data Sheet Project Beach Villaqe Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number: 6942-A1-SC Test Hole No.: IB-1 Date Excavated: 2/5/2018 Test Hole Depth (ft.l: 6¼ Hole Radius(in.): 4 Soil Classification SM Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested bv: CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018 Actual Percolation Tested bv: CWP Date: 2/5/2018 Sandy Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Interval Initial Water Final Water D. in Water Greater than (Min.\ Level (Inches\ Level /Inches\ Level or eaual to 6" 1 10:12 10:37 25 14 43 29 Yes 2 10:38 25 9 39 30 Yes 11 :03 Use: Sandy Soil Criteria Total Initial Water Final Water D. in Water Percolation Time lnterva Elapsed Level Level Level Rate Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min.fin.) 13:05 10 10 9 17 8 1.25 13:15 13:16 10 21 8 1/2 16 7 1/2 1.33 13:26 13:28 10 33 9 16 7 1.43 13:38 13:40 10 45 9 1/2 16 6 1/2 1.54 13:50 13:51 10 56 10 1/2 17 6 1/2 1.54 14:01 14:02 10 67 9 1/2 16 6 1/2 1.54 14:12 Plate No. C-1 Percolation Test Field Data Sheet Proiect: Beach Villaae Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number: 6942-A1-SC Test Hole No.: IB-2 Date Excavated: 2/5/2018 Test Hole Deoth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius{in.l: 4 Soil Classification SM Check for Sandv Soil Criteria Tested bv: CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018 Actual Percolation Tested bv: CWP Date: 2/5/2018 Sandl£ Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Interval Initial Water Final Water t:, in Water Greater than {Min.) Level /Inches) Level {Inches) Level or ea ual to 6" 1 10:18 10:43 25 13 36 23 Yes 2 10:44 11 :09 25 12 31 19 Yes Use: Sandl£ Soil Criteria Total Initial Water Final Water t:, in Water Percolation Time lnterva Elapsed Level Level Level Rate Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min.fin.) 13:10 10 10 12 15 3 3.33 13:20 13:22 10 22 12 16 4 2.50 13:32 13:33 10 33 11 1 /2 14 1/2 3 3.33 13:43 13:45 10 45 12 15 3 3.33 13:55 13:56 10 56 11 1/2 14 1/2 3 3.33 14:06 14:07 10 67 11 1 /2 13 1/2 2 5.00 14:17 Plate No. C-1 Percolation Test Field Data Sheet Project: Beach VillaQe Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number: 6942-A1-SC Test Hole No.: 18-3 Date Excavated: 2/5/2018 Test Hole Depth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius/in.): 4 Soil Classification SM Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by: CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018 Actual Percolation Tested by: CWP Date: 2/5/2018 SandJl Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Interval Initial Water Final Water ii in Water Greater than /Min.) Level (Inches) Level (Inches) Level or equal to 6" 1 10:22 10:47 25 12 35 23 Yes 2 10:48 11 :13 25 14 29 15 Yes Use: Sandl£ Soil Criteria Total Initial Water Final Water ii in Water Percolation Time lnterva Elapsed Level Level Level Rate Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min.fin.) 13:17 10 10 10 15 5 2.00 13:27 13:34 10 27 10 15 5 2.00 13:44 13:47 10 40 11 1 /2 15 3 1/2 2.85 13:57 14:00 10 53 10 1/2 14 1/2 4 2.50 14:10 14:11 10 64 11 15 4 2.50 14:21 14:23 10 76 10 14 4 2.50 14:33 Plate No. C-1 Percolation Test Field Data Sheet Proiect: Beach Villaae Life 1 , LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number: 6942-A1 -SC Test Hole No.: IB-4 Date Excavated: 2/5/2018 Test Hole Deoth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius(in.\: 4 Soil Classification SM Check for Sandv Soil Criteria Tested bv: CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018 Actual Percolation Tested bv: CWP Date: 2/5/2018 Sandll Soil Criteria Test Trial No. Time Time Interval Initial Water Final Water tl in Water Greater than (Min.l Level /Inches) Level (Inches) Level or eaual to 6" 1 10:25 10:50 25 4 17 13 Yes 2 10:51 11 :16 25 9 16 7 Yes Use: Sandll Soil Criteria Total Initial Water Final Water tl in Water Percolation Time lnterva Elapsed Level Level Level Rate Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min.Jin.) 13:31 10 10 9 12 3 3.33 13:41 13:46 10 25 9 11 2 5.00 13:56 14:04 10 43 9 10 1/2 1 1/2 6.67 14:14 14:18 10 57 8 1/2 10 1 1/2 6.67 14:28 14:30 10 69 9 10 1/2 1 1/2 6.67 14:40 14:42 10 81 9 10 1/2 1 1/2 6.67 14:52 Plate No. C-1 SHEET __ ..:..../ __ OF / CALCULATED BY: _/?_6 __ DATE: 2/ 6 /;8 CHECKED BY: _____ DATE: ___ _ W.O. ,91./2. ·At-Se. SCALE: N'atJ,;. -V ,_ 7 ' A ,--' I \_ LI I _c.. l ,I (_,, V ._ ' -r , I , .... / ,., l.t --1>" I A '"' ,. n • / A I / / I\ ,,, ',Ii I .. .. u ,I ... ~() N ,r I -1,. ~ I 1 ' ~ ~ ( , i / \ ~ I ~ -I\ ' Fi h I' . ' ,,. ,_,_ -. - ( ' ( J !:D ,-1: /_ A --rr 1 -~ Jo l -.f l -,-' i., ) ' , CJ <,' ; \ II ·,-.. -"J I J -,I " --I I -I " G, I ,_ Y' , ~ ~ . T .I --. r r ·T I (> : J -.J I"( ,-L I • i I I --. -J -r 7 I -l\ c) r J 'C I c; ·i , I -c,; C I -I I J '" I-, --. 1 . 1,·,.n I I'-" (I. I I-I ~ "'"' '} A I J -I 'I• u/ -• I I ,l c; ! "[l'l 'J I .. ! ,. 'I .fl " -, ; Iv 7, A, I---1--. .,. . flA J . I -11 _\ 1 II> J --I -( -,- .I LJ - I -. --~· ~ . '-J ------·--- SHEET __ ..:..../ __ OF / CALCULATED BY: __:./Z___c:.8 __ DATE: 2/1;, /18 CHECKED BY: _____ DATE: ___ _ CLIENT:Ue..cf/ V'n, .. 6t l-r:tt l LL(. PROJECT: Mu.fo '6E J/o11.1. AIII> SP»' W.O. ~'tt/ 1. · A 1-S l. SCALE: tloNE ,_ I/ i !'l ii\ II ~~LI 'I I 1, I' ~ I r ... 1, I--, ~ r.... ' IO ' I/ I I/ ,, ' / ,I " ,,, I '>,It, "' ,, h I, I ' ·, ·, .., 'I/ ,, I J ' ,.... , ,_ " ' ·1 H~ ~ . ,,. I ,_ 1,. C IJ It EL ~ ,~, ... IJ ✓ ; 11.,i .. L . II ,. "' .. ·-' Q l"f . ,. IL ~~ I I F-, " A -I, I, ' . II I ,~ r ,,,~-II: ., ... , I IJ ' ·IJ ' T r> 1 . ·. .,Sil • .l i'J lrl ,,. l ., I-\ '"I ,. \~ ' 'T ~ j • IJ r, ,_ I \ I -. ~!Zr 11, ' ·1 ,,, F C-!I• I I , ,. 11 ,,. I .M, ' .. ~ ,_ t" I, ~ ~ r,n1 -t-, .. ,, II I~ It I'\ . I •1 U' j II ' ' r:,,-; I ' HI( If. IA 'J ' ,~ T \ I II' . , ID : I ; IV ,~ ,~ J I /',/ -,l 1 1£ ,. . "' ,_ ' V H-++H-++4H-+~--~~-~-l-l-t-++l-+++-H ++-14++-H ·-t--l-H+-H--++-HH-+-1-IH-+-1-H--~+--lH--t-+--ll-l---l-;~_,_--1--1-1 1-. II ,. . -l"l I~ '" I? IL . ,~ H-I--H-+-+H++-H-I-H-++-H+H-l--H-~-1-H-l--H-4--1-H--1-·~ -· --~-+-.-l-+-H-+--H-++--ll-l---l-H-l-+--l-i.-l-1-+-l--l-l-l~ SHEET I OF I CALCULATED BY: 1?6 DATE: z/, /,s , CHECKED BY: DATE: I I ,~ ,·'I, if-J ' l,lt . II 7 / , ill '\ Y, !I Ir I I/ ,.,, ' I J ,_ 'L I I ' 7 -, ' 'Ill<; T ' I• -.. , I/ -,,x i~, " ,_ . I .J / ,,, J I " , l I ,, ,., . •✓ -II r .,_ ~ . ,·, 1,.. ' \ .. I I I I \ r ., I ~ ,_ '\ L · f ~ ~ -.I '" ... :, I --, ,~ ' 1:. '-' r. -, A ,',. 7 ,-.. I \ l"I " T I I J ~ ~Ju " 7-;;; /I I\ ~ ·i IT. ; £ , I I -..I.I --.., I I ---j \ A I .. ~ .... I ~ 7 -·'l l (' :7 .J " tf ,-I -, ..., I --'\. I J ~ l ,. T I I\ I -J -"· '1 r:, ,. 11<:: ... ; 7 1~ l ,;, ·\/ ~ .. , ~ ~ " •-~ ,~ , - I-r-', ,. l If; i< 7q ,' 'I-I~ :-,; 11 '[11' It: I A II I I ' ,., -'I 'l '• •· I ·~ • \ ·c 1r 111 .11 I ,,. \I !Alf r C , . --, ', I )} L I~ . "1 I , ,_ rJ '- l >-->-->--,_ Jt... 1 ......... -I/ i, 1., I,, •---1-i--~ --,--,-.. ->-I- SHEET __ _,/ ___ OF __ 1 __ _ CALCULATED BY: -----'-f?-----'-(3 __ DATE: 1/ b /t 8 CHECKED BY: _____ DATE'. ___ _ CLIENT:Be,4CI•' VruAH-&Ft /1 LU PROJECT: tylr,y..£0 1/4-E JhrEL 411,.,..,.fpA W.O. ~1'12 · Al•.SC. SCALE: Nt>NE --~ Vri 7 1 I\ ) '1 / -, ;, ' 1 I .I \ -ti .Cl ' I ' v'- r r-7 -, I M--1,.,1.1 hN '9 'I'). L J t'b II II' I b ,. f ,i 111: ,, i/c. ' ,. ., c I ,, ,,,., () Ir ~ ., ~ ... 1~ . _.,,., \ ,-' • , J.. ~ I )' \ M '-~ f /(. ~ . I .. ;' ,, ... ., \ I• ll "' ~ ,1..1 !: l I ~-rt 7 r,o,~ " J 11-f ' _,_,_ 1-i ., ~~· -·-,_. l I] I, I .,. ,. 7. 7i ':.i -11 ~-,_ I ~ii!! { J -I I . , ,., G-l . V ., -. ' ' > ~ J r, . ' \.. .,..,, r,,-. , ... r, :< 7 . ~ " J<; L ~ ~ -, \. ' .,. I ~• I ~ ~ ,-c ,, ., I ~ -,--J \ I "'~ ,T '" J -I: 7 . ~ I " { I . I T "} I IL • I ,I _, L" p 1 [.l 1, IA -,. ~ . ·r I< ~ -ri:: IH\ I ~ l I I I • • I I J;:; ( t ~ q J .. \. t i/< - I t " I 'F_ rv ft ... ~ I· N . r'"' I -J I 1 1 . - I,. -l I I -I -,,l -,-~ 9 I -~ ---~,,_ .. ------- APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA GeoSoils, Inc. 1' GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted Code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D 1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in GeoSoils, Inc:. accordance with test methods ASTM designation D 1556, D 2937 or D 2922, and D 3017, at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant. Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted Codes or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed Beach Village Life 1, LLC FHe:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. Appendix D Page 2 ' ' or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant, the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to ½ the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix O Page 3 consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotech nical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching, swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 1 O feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range offoundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. Appendix D Page 4 Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designation D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction, or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the geotechnical consultant. In general, per the latest adopted Code, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2: 1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over- building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 1 O feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 5 slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 6 • If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s}, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including a subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil potential, proximity of the proposed pool/spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per Code, and geometry of the proposed improvements. Recommendations for pools/spas and/or deck flatwork underlain by expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than ¼-inch over 40 feet horizontally, will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below. The 1 :1 (h:v) influence zone of any nearby retaining wall site structures should be delineated on the project civil drawings with the pool/spa. This 1: 1 (h :v) zone is defined Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 7 as a plane up from the lower-most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of the nearby building pad or slope. If pools/spas or associated pool/spa improvements are constructed within this zone, they should be re-positioned (horizontally or vertically) so that they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1: 1 plane. If this is not possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral/vertical deformations and associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested/affected parties. General 1. The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be 60 pounds per cubic foot (pc/) for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2: 1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psi). 3. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces. 4. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 5. Where pools/spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool/spa designer. This includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built-in barbeques, utility poles, etc. 6. All pool/spa walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool/spa without soil support. The shape of pool/spa in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance with the latest adopted Code. Minimally, the bottoms of the pools/spas, should maintain a distance H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. 7. The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool/spa bottom, the cut portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 8 of 48 inches below the pool/spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction at over optimum moisture if the pool/spa is constructed within or near expansive soils. The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pool/spa bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool/spa planning, design, and construction. 8. If the pool/spa is founded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading, the deepest portion of the pool/spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot. 9. Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool/spa under-drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate outlet for discharge. 10. All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials, and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions. 11. An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 12. A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 13. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on-center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended. Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool/spa structure. Pre-moistening and/or pre-soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches (optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil's optimum moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of a 1-to 2-inch leveling course of sand (S.E.>30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable, improvements, deck slabs or flatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or 7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face, in order to reduce, but not eliminate, this potential. Beach Village Life 1, LLC Flle:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 9 14. Pool/spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent bedrock, or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete, subgrade soils below the pool/spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. 15. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool/spa decking to be bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool/spa, should be underlain by an 8-inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge) extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate excessive infiltration of water under the pool/spa deck. These thickened edges should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom. Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete. 16. Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable. 17. Joint and sawcut locations for the pool/spa deck should be determined by the design engineer and/or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6 feet on center. 18. Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/back cuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and/or geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to Cal/OSHA ("Type C" soils may be assumed), state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the responsibility of the pool/spa builder. 19. It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to enhance long-term performance of the pool/spa and associated improvements, and reduce the likelihood of distress. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix O Page 1 O ' ' 20. Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool/spa builder. 21. For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the Code setback and/or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited "cap soils" and built within Code setbacks, or within the influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction: OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa "shell," such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the s\ope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see attached Typical Pool/Spa Detail). The pool/spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa performance under this scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project. OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the s\ope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the pool/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa designers recommendations current applicable Codes. The pool/spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool/spa "leak-free." 22. The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted. Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and materials engineer. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 11 23. All pool/spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard, under the full-time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure on the property (typically the residence). 24. Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure's utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.). 25. The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction. 26. The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, following pool/spa construction. 27. All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete. 28. Any changes in design or location of the pool/spa should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction. Field adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed field changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer. 29. Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any interested/affected parties, that pools/spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a slope, and/or H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some movement or tilting. While the pool/spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack, the levelness of the pool/spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other improvements in this zone. 30. Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc. 31. Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the pool/spa and decking orflatwork, possibly inciuding total functional and economic loss. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 12 ' 32. The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested/affected parties, etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented tor the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 13 representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor · · , should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc:. Appendix D Page 14 All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reason s could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal . If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately co rrect the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Beach Village Life 1, LLC File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .gue GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page 15 TYPE A TYPE 8 Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdrains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate D-1 12-inch minimum 6-inch minimum A-1 8-1 Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe. FIL lER MA lERIAL Perforated pipe: 6-inch-diameter ABS or PVC pipe or approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations (¼-inch diameter) per lineal foot in bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40). For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use a-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40). Sieve Size 1 inch ¾inch ¾ inch No.4 No. 8 No. 30 No.SO No. 200 Percent Passing 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 AL lERNA 1E 1: PERFOAA lED PIPE AND RL lER MA lERIAL \ ~\ _i __ Filter fabric \ ~ 6-inch minimum \ -----....__; I / /'----6-inch l----./... minimum A-2 Gravel Material: 9 cubic feet per lineal foot. Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1 Gravel: Clean ¾-inch rock or approved substitute. Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute. 1 6-inch minimum AL1ERNA1E 2= PERFORAlED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND RLlER FABRIC CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate D-2 Original ground surface to be restored with compacted fill I Back-cut varies. For deep removals, backcut should be made no steeper than 1:1 (HV), or flatter as necessary for safety considerations. 2D Toe of slope as shown on grading plan / cl'~/ Original ground surf ace .f. ~ / D • Anticipated removal of unsuitable material #/ / (depth per geotechnical engineer) ....... / Provide a 1=1 (H=V) minimum projection from toe of slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended removal depth. Slope height, site conditions, and/ or local conditions could dictate flatter projections. FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL Plate D-3 Proposed grade ~ ------ ---- Proposed additional compacted fill ,---.-Previously placed, temporary compacted fill for drainage only --- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL Plate D-4 Drainage per design civil engineer Blanket fill (if recommended by the geotechnical consultant) Design finish slope --~ I 15 toot I ~ . . ~ I m1nIm1.m I 1 10-foot minimum / 25-foot maximum/ --------- Buttress or stabilization fill Typical approved native material Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant I 4-inch-diameter non-perforated outlet pipe and backdrain (see detail Plate D-6). Outlets to be spaced at 100-foot maximum intervals and shall extend 2 feet beyond the face of slope at time of rough grading completion. At the completion of rough grading. the design civil engineer should provide recommendations to convey any outlet's discharge to a suitable conveyance, utilizing a non-erosive device. TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate D-5 I 2-foot 1 I • minimum • I I I -----7 -..... . . . . . . . . I ........ . m ......... . 4-inch minimu .·:.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·:. 3 foot I 2-1001 I I minimum I l bzzj ---Lr ~~:~ : I ~-=------m~~~ 2-inch J pipe minimum Filter Material= Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench. Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material= Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric. Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12 inches in all joints. Minimum 4-lnch-Oiameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM 0 -2751, SOR 35; or ASTM 0 -1527 Schedule 40, PVC-ASTM 0 -3034, SOR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow. Notes= 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil. 2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Filter Material shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size 1 inch ¾inch ¾ inch No.4 No. 8 No. 30 No.50 No. 200 Percent Passing 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 Gravel shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size 1½ inch No.4 No.200 Percent Passing 100 50 8 TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate D-6 Toe of slope as shown on grading plan Proposed grade \ / / ,,.,-- / Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill Compacted fill Backcut varies NOTES= -----r Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant 1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be provided by the geotechnical consultant. 2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon exposed conditions. FILL OVER NATURAL (SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate D-7 H -height of elope Cut/fill contact as shown on grading plan Cut/fill contact as shown on as-buitt plan Original (existing) grade Proposed grade Compacted fill Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTE= The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to construction of the fill portion. FILL OVER CUT DETAIL Plate D-8 Natural slope Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. Subdrains may be required as spec~ied by the geotechnical consultant. :. ··=·· Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Compacted stablization fill ---Bedrock or other approved native material 2 W shall be equipment width (15 feet) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. At no time, shall W be less than H/2, where H is the height of the slope. c. STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL Plate D-9 Proposed finish grade --Natural grade . ~ .__;_-:..-. H -height of slope / -;>7'.":·.-· .·.·· ·. ./ ·.'·: .. ·. , ... . · . . ; 5>> Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. 15-f oot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to back cut. minimum 2. The need and disposition of drains will be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. 3. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the geotechnical consultant. SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL Plate D-10 Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 2=1 or flatter (may increase or decrease pad area) Overexcavate and recompact replacement fill Back-cut varies Avoid and/ or clean up spillage of materials on the natural slope Natural grade -~-~ . -.. · .. < .:-.~---·:··--··.; :· ·.:.-~ --_· .. ,,.·/ .... _ .. /' . .•. . ·. ~ : . . ~ .: .. ·•. . . . ... 2. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical consultant. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL Plate D-11 Natural grade Proposed pad grade -._,·-~ ·· .. . .: .. .. ': .. • .. .. ·: .... -·-:-:-:-.. :·--,.~..:..--- __ l_ ~~,, ,1/}\ '\ ~'y:::;:"~t~ y\ \ «\~,Y/'\ ,,,\ \ \<'<\½v,,\'\ ;(\'0,~,,, Y:-\ ~0.,Y'./\ y\ \~ '1/ 3-to 7-foot minimume /\ overexcavate and recompact 1/-~1/\ Bedrock or per text of report ,,\ \ \1/-, approved native material Typical benching CUT LOT OR MATERIAL -TYPE TRANSmON Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Bedrock or approved native material Natural grade :·: ..... ,:~ • Deeper overexcavation may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant in steep cut-fill transition areas, such that the underlying topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSmON) TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate D-12 VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE Proposed finish grade ~ (E)~ ~ --r ---~ ' _ f (E) Hold-down depth ./ / -cD / '\ ~ J~~100,1. I "-..__,) m1111mum --=-i (8) cD c:co cD (G) (D) m co-(F) ~¼~~~~\¼~~~\%\Z\~~~< \;-Bedrock or approved minimum native material VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE J__ (E) Hold-down depth --~ t 15-foot minimum --: <.-~-<--<-.,___.__ minimum Bedrock or approved native material NOTES: A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows). B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow shall be no greater than 100 feet. C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed direclty on competent material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction. D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnical engineer and/ or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended. E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools; Hold-down depth as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction or as recommended. G. After fill between windrows is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATlONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate D-13 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS Fill lifts compacted ovyr rock after embedment r------- 1 . . . . . Granular material L-_ _ ...:.·.~:-·:.>>>:-Large Rock I I I I Compacted Fill I ------7 ~ Size of excavation to : be commensurate I with rock size I ROCK DISPOSAL LA YEAS Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding ___ -{. ~ompacte~fi~ _ Layer one rock high -~DC JtJr>a _ t_ £ Proposed finish gr~ ,~~ ~·~ ~-__ ·._ ~ --------• Ho '--.. -r ~ PRORLE ALONG LAYER t Compacted fill --~ 3-foot minirmm Fill Slope •• Clear zone TOP VIEW • Hold-down depth or below lowest utility as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. •• Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools, as specified in text of report. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate D-14 Existing grade 5-foot-high impact/ debris wall METHOD 1 1 Pad grade --_L __ --- Existing grade 5-f oot-high impact/ debris wall METHOD 2 '-.. ~ Pad grade __ Existing grade 5-foot-wide catchment area [ 5-foot-high METHOD 3 impact/ debris wall ?>,,.,--__ ~--Pa_d_g_rad_e_ <\ =--(\ ·\ \_,, --\/, /,, Existing grade -:'.(\ 2=1 (h:v) slope cence -\\),~ \ 2:1 (h:v) slope METHOD 4 ~\ 'v-_r-Pad grade \\\'"'--"----_L_ ·--. ;.-:::, ,; NOTTO SCALE c. DEBRIS DEVICE CONTROL METHODS DETAIL Plate D-15 Rock-filled gabion basket Existing grade Filter fabric ~~ -t- 5-foot minimum or as ~~~~'<".! recommended by ~~~~~ geotechnical consultant Drain rock Compacted fill Proposed grade Gabion impact or diversion wall should be constructed at the base of the ascending slope subject to rock fall. Walls need to be constructed with high segments that sustain impact and mitigate potential for overtopping, and low segment that provides channelization of sediments and debris to desired depositional area for subsequent clean-out. Additional subdrain may be recommended by geotechnical consultant. From GSA, 1987 c. ROCK FALL MITIGATION DETAIL Plate 0-16 MAP VIEW NOTTO SCALE Concrete cut-off wall SEEN~I __ s _________ _ Bl Top of slope Gravity-flow, nonperforated subdrain I=== <"pe (lransve,ee) Toe of slope 4 2-inch-thick sand layer .... I -s,eei I Pool 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (longitudinal) Coping ,_ ________ _ A' 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe (transverse) Pool Direction of drainage B' CROSS SECTION VIEW Coping NOTTO SCALE SEE NOTES Pool encapsulated in 5-foot thickness of sand --~ Vapor retarder 6-inch-thick gravel layer 8 r H NOTES= Outlet per design civil engineer Gravity-flow nonperforated subdrain pipe 4-inch perforated subdrain pipe Coping B' 2-inch-thick sand layer Vapor retarder Perforated subdrain pipe 1. 6-inch-thick, clean gravel (¾ to 1½ inch) sub-base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by a 15-mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4-inch-diameter nonperforated pipe at low point and outlet or to sump pump area. 2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (tilting, cracking, etc.) should be expected. 3. Design does not apply to infinity-edge pools/spas. c. TYPICAL POOL/SPA DETAIL Plate D-17 -t- NOTES= 2-foot x 2-f oot x ¼-inch steel plate Standard ¾-inch pipe nipple welded to top of plate ¾-inch x 5-foot galvanized pipe, standard pipe threads top and bottom; extensions threaded on both ends and added in 5-foot increments 3-inch schedule 40 PVC pipe sleeve, add in 5-f oot increments with glue joints bedding of compacted sand 1. Locations of settlement plates should be clearly marked and readily visible (red flagged) to equipment operators. 2. Contractor should maintain clearance of a 5-foot radius of plate base and withiin 5 feet (vertical) for heavy equipment. Fill within clearance area should be hand compacted to project specttications or compacted by alternative approved method by the geotechnical consultant (in writing, prior to construction). 3. After 5 feet (vertical) of fill is in place, contractor should maintain a 5-foot radius equipment clearance from riser. 4. Place and mechanically hand compact initial 2 feet of fill prior to establishing the initial reading. 5. In the event of damage to the settlement plate or extension resulting from equipment operating within the specttied clearance area, contractor should immediately nottty the geotechnical consultant and should be responsible tor restoring the settlement plates to working order. 6. An alternate design and method of installation may be provided at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL Plate D-18 Finish grade ------ "ol n ¾-inch-diameter X 6-inch-long carriage bolt or equivalent LJ <l .<l Ll Ll . <l •-6-inch diameter X 3 to 6 feet I . Ll J 3½-inch-long hole ,j <l Ll <] <l ·., ,j I "----Concrete backfill Ll Ll <l. _t ___ l C. TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT Plate D-19 .. . · . . . . . . . SIDE VIEW Spoil pile Test pit TOP VIEW Flag Spoil pile Flag Light • Vehicle -----50 feet-------i------50feet------i a-------------100 feet--------------" TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate D-20 X "' DaSl1IG ,-----------------------..-~----------------------_._j M=Y P/1. CASSION SCHEDULE J.,,'"f,:,:_ ~~.ll mn...rllllll -IIIIIIJll Ll!lilll -ml& -0 ,.. ... .,,.,,. P-,,) 0 ,.. ... .,..,.. ~ 0 ,.. "1 Wl4d04 ~ 0 ,.. ,s 124,N)t 1.:.,) 0 ,.. ,s .... ,. 1..:.1 0 ,.. YI .,.,. ~ 0 ,.. YI .,,..,. {.r; 0 ,.. ... .,..,,. ~ L~tffl: GS/ LEGEND Afe -.,.,n:w FIL -EJICHD/f1) Afu -Nlin:w FIL -IHXICIJIIOmD Qcol -""'"""""' cw.ul!lll/llSTIIHD HAnMAL - Qop -OUAIEINAl!Y a.D PNIAUC OO'OSl1S Tsa -7DfllNIYSAHl!AOOFtJ1MAID< -?--, -~~=T.: Gm.OQC CQYTACT, ~ -£SJM4JEI) f'DfO£I) Qf(UC)tl4.1Df SfMFAa -!--fSlllAltD R£QOHAl Cl!OlHl""lDf SURf'Aa" D • 0 -= ~~ O\£RDC,4VATD AMJ R£COWPAC1XW -APPRO.GIA 1£ LOCATJOH OF JS•, CDf Pl.£ P£R 5'111 SlRUCnMAL lJICHIRMC (2018) -alH Fl.£ oc;,QiA!JOOI POI 5'111 SIRUCMAl lJICHIRMC (2018) X' "' ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE n.,~or.,..isno«,,-totbCOMmlcfKlfl ~and .,_,dnott-l'fM«/i.-,a,Wtg-,i ~dlpidiNtl( ..... GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION X-X' Revised Plate 2 W.O. 6942-A1-SC DATE: 02/18 SCALE: 1"= 10' ------------------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------~ ------------------------------------------------- 1 =r I I C1/APHfC SCAi.£ I 2.0·: 7 i EX. P.C.C. CtJFl9 I I U.. P.C.C. crR <o' I/' I I IX)' C(l •o· JO' 10 0 5 10 L...1-£-1 I 20 I CHRISTIANSEN WAY TYPICAL SECTlON /(XJl(tlG 'll[Sf ,., -10' PLANS PREPARED BY: SPEAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENOINl!l!RINO & LAND SURVEYING H5 PRODUCTION STREET, SAN MARCOS, CA 92076 PHONE (760) 736-2040 FAX (760) 736-+866 WWW_SP£ARIMC.NET /V()SCAl£ ro' Rft( I CONSTRUCTION NOTF.S © ll£JICM" EXISl1IC (ENC£ @ PROPOSlD R!)()F OIWII OUTL£T TO OIWII 'M/QJCH l/0/UAII IICTl,W)5 tx:JtmSP0Ur BIC#I.IIIAIJCH MIC£ 8fRH: OISCHIJQI(; OFFS/TC. INTS TO BE lllfXJIIPOIWU) l{lf) -0//TSa PU8UC RQ{( OF NKY. @ PflOPOSED 8IJII.J)N; ClElRICAL T1IJHSFORJIER JNJ SIKlal CEA/I A/1£4 NCOff'OIWCD l{lf) 8IJIJJIIC. OIITSIOC PU8UC 11/Qff OF ll<Y JNJ SCflCI1/(l} BIO( F1IOII PUBIJC - I BMP ID © y-· l 1 EX PC.C. CU/19 1 --~ •~ _ _,_._ _____ _ ----------------------------:=--=~~=----'' \ \ . ' '4.56 ff-.,, BMPTABLE 8"1' TYi'£ S'!MBOL CASOA N<l OUANTllY ROOF ORAi< DO~ SPOUT FlLT[R 4J.J2 rs X'Jl (2.0X I • J- ORA\t,ING NO. SHEET NO.(S) ~~~• .L .. "' -•-•-•--"'7 MAIN TE NANCE FREQUENCY SOB-9A HERE 'AS BUILT' I IJ.B' I I N'N 2QJ-17J-()J Afu - Qcol - Qop - Tsa - I GS/ LEGEND _ __, -APPR()J(IWAJ[ L.OCAJJCW Of' GEQ..OQC CCWTACT IB-4 • TP•6 Y.' B-3 18! 7D:z56' APPROmlAJE L.OCA noH OT 1#1. lRA T10N T£ST 80RIHC ,.,,, rorAL DEPTH Ill FlFT (THIS STU'.),, APPRQ)IMIAJE t..OCAT10N OT HCUOW--SlDI A.l.lGER 8CRHG IOTH ll)TAL DEPTH Ill FlFT (CSI. 2015) APPROJCIMAJE' LOCA T10N Of' GECUlQC CROSS SCC110H © KVW/1 WC1LWJ5 8"1 00WNSPWT 8UWIATKJN O£>fC!' LOCATION. IH7S TO 1£ INCDIIFOI/AfCD /NfO 8ULIEC, OllTS« PUii.JC RQ{( OF IIMY. S1I /1£TNLSJ£ITJ. RC(___ EXP,___ D~TE ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE @ OJNSTRIX:T flfTJJN1NC ll<LL P£R SbRSD C-1. SI.AB ON GRADE NOTE: TIC SlA8 av CRAOC a, IC 7" 7'ICX COHCK1f 111111 2• OF afAA( ll'A9fl> SNIO ABO\£ A 1~111. Vll'OII RE7NIDCR. IB/ClllNi BY A CAPlJARY BROK <XWSISTINC OF AT l£ASf ~• OF ~----,--------! REVIE\IED BY• 1--......,---1--------1 1NSPECTCR DATE I SHE2ET I CITY OF ARLSBAD ~ 1---'---'!----------------+---+--1---+---1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT L1.£j l---+---,!----------------+---+--1---+---I 1---'-!---!-----------------1-----+--l---+---I PRECISE GRADING Pl.AN r1JR, BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 300 CHRISTIANSEN AVE Jl'Qd~Of'.«l•ls"°'•pwtofln.Constrvdiori ~ atd should not bit~ l.fXI" n ~ ,n ~6,plaloflol~ PREPARED UNDER -HE SUP(RVIS.CN OF, ~CR2~§01~7~-~00':7:1 =======~~====="='=,=: l---+---,!----------------+---+--1---+---I IAPPROVED: JASON s. Gll..OERT I GEOTECHNICAL MAP 1-1-_ -~ -= -IJ-1-c -,__ -.,, -i_j,,._ .r,,.,, -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -+-+ -----= -_1-1--_ -_ -_1-1-- 7 --=-,...++-cc -=--1-1 -0 ""TY=-c-=oo=NEIR=---=-RC[:::-::5391=z--OP111Ec---cs--=•ca1YJcc/l""'s ~ Revised Plate 1 1------------OWN Y: I PRO~CT NO. I ORA\t,INC NO, 1---------~-------'---''-'-----1 OAlt INllAl. DAlt NTIAl DATE 1i1mA1.. CHKO SY· CT 16 03 508 9A DATE.· 021/18 SCALE.· 1" = 10' JOSI-UAR. ZEIGc.ER R.c.~s~;,t,o/,'i Dl<>NtDI ar"""' REVISION DESCRIPTION 01\0 -ROYAi. QTY .. ...,.,... RVWD BY;==== --w.o. 6942-A1-SC Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Form 1-7 1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? X Toilet and urinal flushing Landscape irrigation Other: ______ _ 2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 ho urs. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/ urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. Toilet & Urinal Flushing: 30 residents (36 hour total) = 30 c.f. Anticipated Total Use Over 36 hours= 30 c.f. 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. 525 c.f. 0.25 DCV = 131 c.f. 3a. ls the 36-hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? Yes /X No Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that D CV can be used at an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria. 3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater than 0.25D CV but less than the full DCV? Yes /X No Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to determine feasibility. J larvest and use may only be able to be used for a portion of the site, or (optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in longer than 36 hours. 3c. Is the 36-hour demand less than 0.25DCV? XYes Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. X Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Desi Ca tu.re Volume 1.1 Drainage 8.t5-IO I I) or Name .\cea .\ umtless Basin Dr:lins ro rhc Follou·mg B~ll' Type: Flow-Thru umtless 85th Percmnlc 24--hr Sronn Depth 058 inches lmpcrnous Smfaccs Nrn D,rcrtcd ro Pl:;prcwn \re,1 (C=0.90) 12,060 sq-ft Scrru-Pcrnous Surfaces Not SrO'mg as pj .. pcc:ino -\re:a (C=0.30) ,q-ft Engi..,eered Pernous Surf.tees Nm Scmnr: a<;; p,o;;pcrs100 \rea (C=0.10) ,q-ft 1':atural Type.-\ Soil Not Sexv,ng as Dispmuc>o Arc-A. (C=0.10) sq-ft ~anm1.I Type B Soil Nor ~emng a'-Ot'-pCP'lPO -\@ (C=0.14) S<J•ft ~atur-AI Type<: Soil NQJ S<:mng as !)1spcn100 \cs;t (C=0.23} "l ft Narur.11 Type D Sen! Nor Strong 2s P1spcr9on -\rea (C=0.30) sq-ft Does Tnbutary I ncorpomtc D1~-pers.ion. Tree \'('elli-, ,1nd/or Rain Barrels? No No 1-:o ~o No ~() t\o ~o No ~() yes/nu lmpcrv10us Surfaces Oirccted to Dispen;:ion Au:2 per SD-8 (Ci=0.90) ,q-ft Semi-Per,,ous Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Arca per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft Engineered Pervtou~ Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Arca per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft .N:itural Type A Sotl Serving as Dispersion Arca per SD-8 (C1:;:;:0.l0) S<j-ft 1'."arural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Arc-a per SD-B (C1'=0. I.J) sq-fr ~arurt1.l Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Arca per SD-8 (C.:;:;:0.23) sq-ft :-.:arural Type D Sot! Serving as Dispersion Arca per SD-B (C,=0.30) sq-fr '.\!umber of Tree Wells Pr0p0scd per SD-:\ # .\verage ~larurc Trtt Canopy Diameter ft '!umber of Ram Barrels Prupo~ per SD-E # .\ veragc R..t.in B:urcl S,.tc g..J Total Ar~ Tnbut-;icy ro 13.\IP 12,060 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 S<j-ft Compo~te Runoff Faaor for St.tndard Dr,unagc .\re--.ts 0.90 0.00 0.00 (I_U() 0.00 0.00 0.00 OJ() 0.00 .,.oo umrlcss ln1tul Composite Runoff F,1cror for Dispersed&. D,spt:rs,on .-\rC"AS 1.00 1.00 I.OJ I.OU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitlc-ss To1al lrnperv,ous Area D,spt:rscd to Perv1ous Surfucc 0 0 u 0 () 0 sq-ft l'ou.1 Pen•iou~ D1$f>ernon Area u !J () 0 0 0 u sq-ft Dispersed Impernous \rca / Pt:rv1ous Dispersion ;\rea n/a n/a n/a n/a n/.t n/a n/,l n/-A n/.t n/a rnno .\djusrmenr F-1.ctor for Oispe-rsed & D1spemvn. \reas t.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 00 1.00 r::ltl() Final -"'-d1usred Tnburary Runoff Factor 0.90 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/:l unirless Final Effective Tnbuwry .'\re:i 10,85• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 st.i•fr lmtul Design Capture Volume 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet \"olumt Reduction per Tree: ,i:·eu 0 0 0 (J 0 I) 0 0 cub1c-ftt1 T<>tal Tree \Veil Volun"IC Rcducflon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet To1al Rall Barrd Volume Re1:h..ict1on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J cubu.:-fctt Dc~1gn Caprurc \'olume Tnburary w B,\IP 525 0 0 I) 0 (J 0 cubic-feet Worksht:<-l B 1-1 General No1c:s· A. \pplu:anu ma:, use this wc,rksheet 10 c,1.lculate design c.tpn1rc volumes for up to 10 dr:uruge :ueas Lser mpur must be provided for )·ellow shaded cells, ntlucs for all orher cells will l>c .tur<>m:uic:dly gencrared, errors/nuUficar,ons will be highlighted 111 red and summanzcd below. L!pon complctmn of th,s ,,mrksheet, proceed co rhe lppropnare 8:-.fP S1ztng worl:.shcer(s). B. lmpervtous surfat.:C§ mclude roofs, cc,ncrele, t1.sph:d1, or pen,ous pavements w1rh Ml impcrnous liner. Serru-pen,ous surfaces include dt:composcd granite, cobblc:s, crushc..-d ::tgp;reg;tte, or comp;-tett.-d soils ,;tu,;h as unpa\•c..-d parking. Engm1.."t."rt.-d pt.TI""IOUS surfaces 1ndude pcn'lOUS pAvenlCnt$ prov1dmg full ret:1..'Tlt1on of the 85th percenule r.unfall di;pth, nr Meas ,1,.irh ~-,,!$ rh.-u ha\'c been amended .nd 1nulched per Section 86.709 of tht' 1...md:.clpe Ordinance. D,spernon areas are perv,ous m stm.1-p~rnou?> :mrfaces rha1 receive runoff from 1mpen•1ous surfoc~ (C:;:;:0.90) and redui.-e swrmwatcr runoff as ourlined m Fact Sheet SD-A. C,ttcgory Flow-Thru B:\IP Inputs II I • • • Dcsc.:ription Drainage Basm l D or Name Tota.I Tributary An-a Final Adiusted Runoff Facwr Design Caprurc Volwnc Volume Effecttvcly Retained and/or B1ofilrcred I Deficit of Effecnvel}' Treated Stormwater Rc:qumng Flow-11im TrearinL-nt Flow R.uc C.1kul.,rion~ Result I I I I El Worksheet B 6-1 Genera.I Notes: Maximum Rated \Varcr Quality Flow Rare of Proposed BMP Adjusrment Facmr Design RaUlfo.11 Intensity for flow-Tilru BMPs \'t"atct Quality Flow Rate R.cqumng Flow-TI1ru Treatment Is How-lbru BMP Adequately Si7.ed? Units 12,060 sq-ft 0.90 unit less 525 cub1c-fcct 0 cubic-feet -525 cub1c-fce1 U.115 CFS 1.00 w1itlcss: 0.20 in/hr 0.050 CFS Yes unirless A. Applicants may use this worksheet to size flow-thru BMPs for up to 10 basins. User inpur muse be pro\;ded for yeUow shaded cells, values for blue ceUs are aut(.>mat1cally populated based on ustr mputs fmm previous \\.Orkshects. values for all other cells will be automaticaUy generated, errors/ noa.ficatio11s will be highlighted lll red and summarized beltJ\v. Applicants proposmg <m-s1te flow-thrn BMPs must also implemem an offsire altemat1ve compliance pro1ect ro offset the deficu of effectively rrcared stonnwatct \·ohune. BMP Treatment Flow Rate for BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration Q =CI A C = (Runoff Factor) I= 0.2 A= (Tributary Area) DMAA C A CA Surface Type Downspout Roof 0.90 0.28 0.25 0.2 Note: Min. Treatment Flow (Scaling 1.5 x Q) Q cfs (cfs) (gal/min) v1anufacture Model Unit Capacity (cfs) I 0.050 0.075 33.5 MWS-L-4-8-V-U( 0.081 Modular I Wetlands Sormwater Biofiltration System Phone (855) 5MOD-WET The MWS Vault unit will be in one location, indoor on the floor of the upper parking deck. The plumbing consultant will manifold all roof drains down into one pipe that will inlet into the enclosed vault type unit. The MWS unit has an internal bypass to circumvent any larger flows. There will be one outlet out of the unit that will gravity flow out the curb face to the city gutter. Adequate offsets will be provided around the unit for maintenance and visual inspection. SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER 6625 PROJECT NMIE BEACH VIL/ACE UFE PROJECT LOCATION CARLSBAD, GA STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED (CF} A.OW RATE {CFS) ----0.075 TREATMENT HGL AVAllABLE (FT) N/A PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS) -IF APPUCABLE 1.6 PIPE QATA I.E. MATER/Al D/Al,/ETER INLEI PIPE 49.89 PVC 10· OUTlll PIPE 48.89 PVC 10· PRETREATMENT 8/0FILTRATION 0/SCIIAI/Gf RIM ELEVATION 53.02 53.02 5J.02 SURFACE LOAD PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN FRAAIE de COVER J5" X 72" WETWID!.IED/A VOLUME (CY) l.64 WETWIDMEDIA Dt1MR'f MEJl-/00 PER CONTRACT OR/RC£ SIZE {DIA. INCHES) '1.J9" NOTES: PR8JMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AJ.L lABOR, EOUIP!./ENT, !.IATERIAI..S ANO INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO omOAD AND INSTAJ.L THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURERS SPECIRGATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT. 2. UNfT MUST BE INSTAJ.1£0 ON LEVEl. 84SE. !./ANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 5" LEVEl. ROCK B4SE UNLESS SPEC/RED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED B4SE SPECIRGATIONS. J. AJ.L PIPES MUST BE A.USH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE. (PIPES ~NOT llflRUDE BEYOND FI.USH). INVERT OF DUTFI.OW PIPE MUST BE FI./JSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAl,/BER A.ODR. AJ.L CAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATER TIGHT WITH A NON-SHRINK CROUT PER 1,/ANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION OETAIL AND SHALL !./EU OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTAJ.L AJ.L EXTERNAL CONNECT/NC PIPES. 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTAJ.LATION OF ALL RISERS, !./ANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO CROUT AJ.L !./ANIIOL£S AND HATCHES TO MATCH AN/SHED SURFACE UNLESS SPEC/RED OTHERWISE. 5. DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION REQUIRED ON ALL UNfTS WfTH VECUAT/ON. GENERAL NOTES I. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE AJ.L MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AJ.L DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACmES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANCE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DE.TA/UNG EXACT Dl!.lfJISIONS, WEICHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT !./ANUFACTURER. /NI.ET PIPE SEE NOTES •,,.;~m=nlt.-'--+-PRE-Fl.TER .. CIKTFIIDGE PLAN VIEW C/.?. .l r-"fJ b c.+----------'---------+..J ~ 6._J 1-----8•1·---L6. -1~------9'-{J•-----~1 - ELEvAr10N VI EW INTERNAL BYPASS DISCLOSURE: THE DESIGN AND CAPACITY OF THE PEAK CONVEYANCE MEJl-/00 TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ENC/NEER OF RECORD. HCL{S) AT PEAK Fl.OW SHALL BE ASSESSED TO ENSURE NO UPSTREAAI Fl.ODD/NC. PEAK I/CL ANO BYPASS CAPACfTY SHOWN ON ORA WING ARE USED FOR CU/DANCE ONLY. LOW INFLOW PIPE DISCLOSURE: fT IS RECO!.l!.lfJIDED THAT A SUFRCIENT VARIATION IN ELEVATION BETWEEN THE INLEI AND OUTlfl BE PROVIDED TO Al.LOW FOR ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT IN THE PRE-TREATMENT CHAl,/BER. FAILURE TO DO SO !.IAY RESULT IN BLOCKAGE AT /NA.OW POINT(S) WHICH MAY GAUSE UPSTRFA!.I Fl.000/NC. C/.?. 6" 5• ~ HATCH L C:!~t~:;:~:J--fiSJ.~02 RIGHT END VIEW TREATIIENT Fl.OW RATE {CFS) 0.081 OPERATING HEAD {FT) 2.5 PRETREATIIENT LOADING RATE {CPI.I/SF} 1.4 WETLAND MEDIA LOAD/NC RATE {CPM/SF) 1.0 11£ PROtU:T 0ESPiHZ1 "4Y IE Pflf11lJ:Tr:D ~ ONC OR llCRC <T 11£ ~ t.6 PATENTS: ,.~ l.'-'l:t-'!St 1,114,Jla; 4..IW'll;llflAT(DRJREDI PROPRIETARY AND CONFWfTW..: 11E HtlW471c:II CflfTMED M HS LW4IR' 6 M 50l£ PRrPOrrf<TMl:¥UM'IE1WOS'smDIS.NfY REJIROD(JC1r)N 1' /WIT OR AS A NG£ W1'IOlf TIC W6ITDi lf1MSSION OF ~ 1E7tMGS S'l'S1lllS IS PIKHB1fJ). Bio6-Clean MWS-L-4-8-V-UG STORM WATER 8/0FIL TRA T/ON SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL All!MS' OR O»fJl F!4100S PfJOHC AFortem Bio 6 Clean A Forterra Company MWS SIZING Anthony J. Spolar 2/12/18 398 Via El Centro, Oceanside, CA 92058 (469) 458-7973 • Fax (760) 433-3176 www.biocleanenvironmental.com A Forterra Company HEAD OVER RECTANGULAR WEIR Given that: Q = VA; Q = peak flow rate, V = cdJ2gh, A = W (dh) cd is the discharge coef ficent, Wis the width of the weir & his the peak HGL rdQ = cdWfiij f h1i 2 dh 2 Q = cdW fig-h 3/2 3 Determine peak HGL by taking the sum: (outlet pipe elev.) + (1 inch differential between discharge chamber and pre -treatment chamber)+ (weir height) + (head over weir) MWS-4-8-V-UG: Given that: Qpeak = 1.6 cf s; W = 3.67' h = ( 1. 6 ~-) 213 = 10.27'1 ~ (0.6076)(3.67)J2(32.l 7) Peak HGL = 48.89' + 0.08' + 2.5' + 0.27' = 51.74' 398 Via El Centro, Oceanside, CA 92058 (469) 458-7973 • Fax (760) 433-3176 www.biocleanenvironmental.com Bio 6 Clean A Forterra Company MWS ORIFICE SIZING rrD 2 Given that: Q = VA; Q = treatment flow rate, V = cd.J2gh, A = 4 cd is the discharge coef f icent & his the treatment HGL Rewrite to solve for the diameter of the orifice. D= [ A -Q] _... rrD2 -_Q_ -V rewrite 4 -cd.J2gh 4Q ~; Cd = CvCc = (0.98)(0.62) = 0.6076 rrcdv L..!:JI L MWS-4-8-V-UG: Given: Q = 0.081 cf s, h = 2.5 ft D= 4(0.081) -------;::::::=========== = 0.1157' = 11.39" 1 rr(0.60 7 6).j 2 (3 2.17) (2.5) The diameter of the orifice needs to be 1.39" in order to produce a head of 2.5' in the MWS unit. 398 Via El Centro, Oceanside, CA 92058 (469) 458-7973 • Fax (760) 433-3176 www.biocleanenvironmental.com WISHIH GTOH STATE DEPAR T MEN T OF ECOLOGY July 2017 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT For the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Ecology's Decision: Based on Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. application submissions, including the Technical Evaluation Report, dated April 1, 2014, Ecology hereby issues the following use level designation: l . General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Basic treatment • Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of l gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. 2. General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Phosphorus treatment • Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of l gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2. l gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. 3. General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Enhanced treatment • Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of l gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. for high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gprn/sq ft of cartridge surface area. 4. Eco logy approves the MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment at the hydraulic loading rate listed above. Designers shall calculate the water quality desjgn flow rates using the fo llowing procedures: • Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology-approved continuous runoff model. • Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual. • Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 5. These use level designations have no expiration date but may be revoked or amended by Ecology, and are subject to the conditions specified below. Ecology's Conditions of Use: Applicants shall comply with the fo llowing conditions: l. Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units, in accordance with Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. applicable manuals and documents and the Ecology Decision. 2. Each site plan must undergo Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. review and approval before site installation. This ensures that site grading and slope are appropriate for use of a MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Storm water Treatment System unit. 3. MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System media shall conform to the specifications submitted to, and approved by, Ecology. 4. The applicant tested the MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System with an external bypass weir. This weir limited the depth of water flowing through the media, and therefore the active treatment area, to below the root zone of the plants. This GULD applies to MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment Systems whether plants are included in the final product or not. 5. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a "one size fits all" maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. • Typically, Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. designs MWS -Linear Modular Wetland systems for a target prefilter media life of 6 to 12 months. • Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to below the design flow rate or decrease in treatment below required levels. • Owners/operators must inspect MWS -Linear Modular Wetland systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction operation to determine site-specific maintenance schedules and requirements. You must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October l to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections. • Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer's guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability. • When inspections are performed, the fo llowing findings typically serve as maintenance triggers: • Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or • Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm. • If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present (but no standing water or excessive sedimentation), perform a minor maintenance consisting of gross solids removal, not prefilter media replacement. • Additional data collection wi ll be used to create a correlation between pretreatment chamber sediment depth and pre-filter clogging (see Issues to be Addressed by the Company section below) 6. Discharges from the MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Applicant: Applicant's Address: A pplication Documents: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. PO. Box869 Oceanside, CA 92054 • Original Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modu lar Wetland System, Linear Storm wate r Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., January 20 I l • Quality Assurance Project Plan: Modular Wetland system -Linear Treatment System performance Monitoring Project, draft, January 201 1. • Revised Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., May 20 11 • Memorandum: Modular Wetland System-Linear GULD Application Supplementary Data, April 2014 • Technical Evaluation Report: Modular Wetland System Stormwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring, April 2014. Applicant's Use Level Request: General use level designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus treatment device in accordance w ith Ecology's Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol -Ecology (TAPE) January 2011 Revision. Applicant's Performance Claims: • The MWS -Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 80-percent ofTSS from stormwater w ith influent concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/I. • The MWS -Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of SO-percent of Total Phosphorus from storm water with influent concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5 mg/I. • The MWS -Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 30-percent of dissolved Copper from storm water with influent concentrations between 0.005 and 0.020 mg/I. • The MWS -Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 60-percent of dissolved Zinc from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.02 and 0.3 0 mg/I. Ecology Recommendations: • Modular Wetland Systems, lnc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and tie ld- testing, that the MWS -Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System filter system is capable of attaining Ecology's Basic, Tota l phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment goals. Findings of Fact: Laboratory Testing T he MWS-Linear Modular wetland has the: • Capability to remove 99 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil l 06) in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 270 mg/L. • Capability to remove 9 1 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in laboratory cond itions with influent concentrations of 84.6 mg/Lat a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. • Capabili ty to remove 93 percent of dissolved Copper in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.757 mg/L. • Capability to remove 79 percent of dissolved Copper in laboratory conditi ons with influent concentrations of 0.567 mg/Lat a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. • Capabi lity to remove 80.5-percent of dissolved Zinc in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.95 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. • Capability to remove 78-percent of dissolved Zinc in laboratory cond itions w ith influent concentrations of0.75 mg/Lat a flow rate of3.0 gpm per square foot of media. Field Testing • Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. conducted monitoring of an MWS-Linear (Model # MWS-L-4-13) from April 201 2 through May 2013, at a transportation maintenance facility in Portland, Oregon. The manufacturer collected flow-weighted composite samples of the system's influent and effluent during 28 separate storm events. The system treated approximately 75 percent of the runoff from 53.5 inches of rainfall during the monitoring period. The applicant sized the system at I gpm/sq ft. (wetland media) and 3gpm/sq ft. (prefilter). • Influent TSS concentrations for qualifying sampled storm events ranged from 20 to 339 mg/L. Average TSS removal for influent concentrations greater than l 00 mg/L (n=7) averaged 85 percent. For influent concentrations in the range of 20-100 mg/L (n= l 8), the upper 95 percent confidence interval about the mean effluent concentration was 12.8 mg/L. • Total phosphorus removal for 17 events with influent TP concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L averaged 65 percent. A bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence lim it (LCL95) of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 58 percent. • The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 60.5 percent for disso lved zinc for influent concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L (n= 11). The lower 95 percent confidence I imit of the mean percent removal was 32.5 percent for dissolved copper for influent concentrations in the range of0.005 to 0.02 mg/L (n=14) at flow rates up to 28 gpm ( design fl ow rate 4 1 gpm). Laboratory test data augmented the data set, showing dissolved copper removal at the design flow rate of 41 gpm (93 percent reduction in influent dissolved copper of 0.757 mg/L). Issues to be addressed by the Company: 1. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect mai ntenance and inspection data for the first year on all install ations in the Northwest in order to assess standard maintenance requirements for various land uses in the region. Modular Wetland Systems, lnc. should use these data to establish required maintenance cycles. 2. Modular Wetland Systems, fn c. should collect pre-treatment chamber sediment depth data for the first year of operation for all installations in the Northwest. Modular Wetland Systems, In c. will use these data to create a correlation between sediment depth and pre-filter clogging. Technology Description: Download at http://www.modularwetlands.com/ Contact Information: Applicant: Zach Kent BioClean A Forterra Company. 398 Vi9a El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 zach. kent@forterrabp.com Applicant website: http://www.modularwetlands.com/ Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwater/newtech/index.html Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E. R .. H" ev1s10n 1storv Date June2011 September 2012 January 2013 December 2013 April 2014 December 2015 July2017 Department of Eco logy Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 douglas.howie@ecy.wa.gov Revision Original use-level-designation document Revised dates for TER and expiration Modifi ed Design Storm Description, added Revision Table, added maintenance discussion, modified format in accordance with Ecology standard Updated name of Applicant Approved GULD designation for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment Updated GULD to document the acceptance of MWS-Linear Modular Wetland installations with or without the inclusion of plants Revised Manufacturer Contact Information (name, address, and emai l) BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES [This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.] Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: 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 D 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 D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite D 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment D 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving D 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 ATTACHMENT 2 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify: • Underlying hydrologic soil group • Approximate depth to groundwater • Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) • Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) D Existing topography o Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite D Proposed grading D Proposed impervious features o Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness o Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management o Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) o Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) : ~ 2 TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: TrllN.-AtEll• t.t,OIIOST IMPERVIOUS AREA: JIR l/1f AtEll • IZJI# ti {IUII K:) Dl1STIIC IIIPE1MOUS -Pf/£-<DHSTIIU:TKJN -0 ,, /f/OFOSE1) IIIPE1MOUS -l'OST-aJNSTRu:TIOII -12.0IO ,, IIIPE1MOUS ---12.0IIO ,, fX. t.<SUNC../ P(R CMltO 88-101 DRAINAGE AREA DMA BREAKDOWN laww;£AtEllSUllll:E I Sllal l.ar«I -.E"ARFA':4" I 1!1ALWC l/tXJF7rl' 1(-,..J-.nt 'Ir' I l.t,/IIIO so FT I tor ARCAS I I I t.t,OIIO so FT ln>W IDT ARCA • 12.0IO SO FT fX. P.C.C. Cl/fTDI\ BIIPl>t _.TYPE TREATMENT CONTROL P. ,. ,, /f/OFOSE1) RU:TNIQ.UI/ ORM/ PIPC ,l!l.EY•5!l'-r ::i.:.,,-/M. R)lt- '()U-»cTIHJ/) IQUM ll£lLWIS ws-{-4-,f-.'f'-«: OECl(IWi4G£F11J0/1 El£V • 46.IJ' MODULAR WETt.ANDS DETAIL ll1'IC4l. SB:TIOH .t ()(ltlD Cl)IK(;OON = r-,o· fX. .C.C. CYTTCR WAY DOA-110. SHEETNO.(I) CCll<STRIJCT10N UlNOFF NOTE: AU. otMNSFOIITS NIE lfY IJIXJIINI '1ClWID SlS1DIS 1/C. 11/XEl. ws-{-4-,9-14.l. 4'-8.S' 11/XEl. IEJGHT Im/ 01)61 Cf5 ~ < -----c-_ 4-1.12 F'S ~ .. ~L.':) ------------'-- .A fX. LEGEND: EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE DRAINAGE AREA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA OESIGNAnoN SWIIP NO. _....:.,H(,'-'-~'---- IIAINTEHANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT: YES_!_ NO __ RECCIIDATDI NO. ____ _ PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR IIAINTEIIANCE: -BCAal -!IE t, UC c:a<TACT Bli IMWl5CW --2 S1RAUSS mil!ACE: RANCHO llf!AGE Cl 1122711 -NO. (790) 7T.J-52J2 PLAN Pl!EPAREll BY: WE PfH.Jd & 2DCiUR CtJIIPNIY SPEM 4 ASSQCIA7l:S, WC. _.. 475 Pl!OOUCJJtW SlRfIT SNI 11ARCOS, CA 92078 -NO. mo, 73§-:2010 BIIPNOlES: 1. ntEIE IIIPSME. IIANDATORYlO IE NSTNJ.ED PEt MAJIIIACT\MER'S RECOMIENDAT10tim OR THEIE PU.HS. ~ NOCIIANGEStoT!tEP'ROl'08Ell_.OII_IHEETMTll0UT,_ 1 NO IU8llmlT10NI TO lltE IIAmaAI. OR TYPO OR PLAHTWfQ TYJJU wmtOUTPRDillJl'Pfl!D(N,. fROllnEarYENmtEBl. 4. NO occ:a.ANCY wu. • GRANTED UNTL DIE aTY ..-e:rac ITAff KAI lm'ECIUI nll PROJECT FOR AP'PRClflRIAlE 111P C0NITitUCTllff AND NTAUAT10N. CONSTRUCTION NOTES © RDltM Dl1STIIC FDC£. © AU. /f/OFOSE1) 1/00F -(}(ltl£T n, IJIXJIINI ll£lLWIS -IIOfJJR41DI (BF..J) ma" /JEFtfl£ IJISQW1CH; om11c. IHI" RI IE IIOOI/POWm)l(lfllJLUlt.. @ /f/OFOSED IUJJfNC E1.EJ:TIIICM. T1WISRS/WJI ,wJ SIIIIDI l,£M .-. /I/CtJl/1'0RloTEDlflfllJLUlt.. © IIODWR ll£lWCIS fflOff/ETNfY BICFIJWt1DI (BF-J) ala; 11/XEl. -L-.C IHI" RI IE IIOOI/POWJfD lflfl IJLUlt.. @ aJNSl1IIJCT /ICIMIMC IWJ. FfR .5Dl5l> C-1. R£Qtl1£S 11£ IJ5C OF Ql41a OR a£MI SWl )NJ GJl41a Ja1lll£S (!Cl FHS) RJlt IINNIL © INSIMJ. 10· M: stUJ STrRJI DRMi-1M. © INSTAii. ClllB /Jl/ll£1S FIKM FWIDIY SE11WCC ~ Sll'PIES 1/C. SIZE~ (22 75• JR" X .15' HQ/ /PfNIIC) fl1I/ r« L NIN'1TRS. ()UDfC»J-9) © l'lttZ-/IENI /IETMM; Ml 5lB-DIMt ORMtS RI G4li4GC l1IOJIIDIT SlS7Elt SEC SIECT & ~ ORNIWJC ~ RJlt iDIIE -© aJNS1111JCT r P.v.c. smwx ,-FFR (SalSDJ rr:n. SITE VICINITY MAP \' CITY or OCEANSIO( \ -y ~ PAOflC OCEAN Cll'1 or (NCINIUS 1---1---+-----------+--+-+---+----l'UII CI~~ ~~~~~AD II~ 1----+--+-------------+----1--,--,----; BEAC'H VII I AGF' Liff I PO:'T BMP --1n: PU,P.: f'OR PLANS PREPARED BY: ~:::~~:::t::::::::::::::::::::::::::t:::::;;::~t:::~:::.:::: "100 C'HRISTIAKSf:t-, WA~ ~rv~t.!!.~~sN~~~~~~~~G • TC-32 -, , I •75 PROOUCTION STREIT. SAN MARCOS. CA g2078 I APPROVED: JASaj S. GELDERT I 20 JO PHONE (780) 7~=1N[tJ (760) 736-4866 tOD Jl413" f'fUIII Ill trT1RIER JST €ADI l£A4' I l,£DLY 11,RH; -.lrASl1< 1---l--+----------------+---t--+--,t---11 (]T'( D«HER Ra: 11»1l ElllW5 I/JO~ ~ DAT[ NlW.. DA"IC N1\AL DAT£ NDAL I 10""' BY: :::e.n::: 11 PRo..ECT NO. I DRA'MNG NO. ~ SCALE: T" IO' """"'""'""""' REVISION DESCRIPTION 1--CIIIO=---.~-.._--ir-aTY~_,=~.._"'-II = =~~== CT 16 OJ . 508 9A ~L,,....--.-"'°""--rcs~. -=~ .... ~..,--,.~_-u,,.=:...,..,..._:::_ ________________________________________________________________________ _E~~~=~==============:::!;:==::=:::::::::!:::::::::::::::=:=!::::=:~~==~=======~===~:!.J I ,o 5 0 10 Structural BMP Maintenance Information Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminary Design/Planning/CEQA level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: X Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: • Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s) D How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance D Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) D Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable D Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltation or heavy trash(e.g., silt level posts or other markings shall be included in all BMP components that will trap and store sediment, trash, and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance personnel may determine where the bottom of the BMP is . If required, posts or other markings shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) [J Recommended equipment to perform maintenance l I When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN 1. Contents 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 2. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN ........................................................... 1 3. Operation & Maintenance of BMP'S .................................................................................. 1 A. Training .............................................................................................................. 2 B. Landscaping ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. Irrigation System ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. D. Roof Drains ........................................................................................................ 2 E. Storm Water Conveyance System Stenciling and Signing Error! Bookmark not defined. F. Structural BMP: Biofiltration .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. G. Outlet Structures ................................................................................................ 4 H. Vector Control Owner Responsibilities ............................................................... 4 ATTACHMENTS Al. Inspection & Maintenance Schedule Bl. Cost Estimate Cl. BMP Training Log Dl. Inspection & Maintenance Log -1- 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes a mixed use hotel/spa and residential units development. The development consists of a zero lot line 2 story building with underground parking and associated underground utilities. 2. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN This document has been prepared in compliance with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements and in accordance with requirements set by the City. A Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) has been prepared fo r the project. It identifies the specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) required for the project. Refer to this project's SWQMP for additional information on BMPs. Proper maintenance of the project BM P's is required for their intended and effective function. This O&M Plan provides operation and maintenance procedures for the BMPs designated in the SWQMP. lt includes procedures to be fo llowed for inspection and maintenance of the BMPs, instructions for documenting the work performed, record keeping, and outlining the requirement and procedures for training of personnel involved in the process. 3. Operation & Maintenance of BMP'S It shall be the responsibility of the "Owner or Designated Responsible Party" to mainta in and to train all employees for the maintenance and operation of all BMPs, to achieve the maximum po ll utant reduction they are designed for, as addressed in the approved Project's SWQMP. The following schedule of O&M's must be fo llowed to sati sfy the Conditions of Concern and the Pollutants of Concern as addressed in the approved Project's SWQMP. This schedule shall inc lude periodic inspections of all Source Control and Treatment Control BMP's. All maintenance records for training, inspection and maintenance shall be retained and provided to the city upon request. The owner may also be required to provide to the City, as part of the maintenance and operation agreement an executed access easeme nt that shall be binding on the land throughout the life of the project. Responsible Party for O&M and For Training Beach Village Life Attn: Bill Davidson 2 Strauss Terrace, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 (760) 773-5232 Mesaresearch@Aol .com T he Designated Responsible Party wi ll be responsible fo r ensuring that individua ls involved in O&M activities, including but not limited to contractors and new owners, will be trai ned according to the training program herein, Additionally, upon any future sale of the prope11y, the Owner will be 1 responsible for ensuring that the new Des ignated Responsible Party is familiar with the contents of the plan and the requirements for the routine inspection, routine and non-routine maintenance and record keeping tasks as described herein. All parties involved in the O&M activities will be required to read this plan. A. Training Personnel training is an important component of the implementation of this O&M Plan. The employee training program may consist of a meeting with any new owners, Designated Responsible Party or contractor/employees involved in the O&M activities to review the contents of this plan and to physically tour the faci lity to observe the BMPs and describe O&M requirements for each BMP. The Designated Responsible Party will implement the training program. All new contractors involved in landscape and/or facility maintenance at the site shall receive training within 30-days of hire and shall receive updated annual training. Maintenance contractor shall verify staff training annually. The Designated Respons ible Party shall be respons ible for documenting all training activities and fo r maintaining records related to training. Forms for documentation of training are included in Attachment CI of this plan. Training records must be shall be retained and provided to the city upon request. B. Roof Drains All roof drains shall be inspected Prior to August 31 of each year to ensure that they are clean and free from trash and in good repair. They shall be flushed and any leaks or damages piping shall be either replaced or repaired. Where roof drains flow onto grass areas splash structures and or rock rip-rap shall be maintained so the flow from the roof drains do not cause erosion or damage to the grass area. During the rain season roof drains shall be inspected weekly and after each rain storm to insure that there is no trash and or silt build up that will restrict the run-off flow from the roof. A ll trash and/or silt build up shall be removed immediately. • It is not permissible to directly connect roof drains into a drain system. • Roof drain downspouts will be directed to a proprietary biotiltration unit for treatment 2 C. Structural BMP: Proprietary BF-3 Biofiltration System Maintenance Indicators and Actions for Filtration BMPs Typical Maintenance Indicator(s) for Maintenance Actions Filtration BMPs Accumulation of sediment, litter, or debris Remove and properly dispose accumulated materials. Obstructed inlet or outlet structure Clear obstructions. Clogged filter media Remove and properly dispose filter media, and replace with fresh media. Damage to components of the filtration Repair or replace as applicable. system Note: For proprietary media filters, refer to the manufacturer's maintenance guide. The facility will be inspected and inspection visits will be completely documented: • Once a month at a minimum. • After every large storm (after every storm monitored or these storm s with more than 0.50 inch of precipi tation.) • On a weekly basis during extended periods of wet weather. Visual Inspection as part of landscape maintenance • Inspect before and after the rainy season (October I through April 30). See Additional Manufacturer's Maintenance requirements below 3 Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System -Linear Maintenance Summary 1- MODULAI\ WETLANDS o Remove Trash from Screening Device -average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. • ( 5 minute average service time). o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber -average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. • ( 10 minute average service time). o Replace Cartridge Filter Media -average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months. • ( 10-15 minute per cartridge average service time). o Replace Drain Down Filter Media -average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months. • (5 minute average service time). o Trim Vegetation -average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months. • ( Service time varies). System Diagram Inflow Pipe (optional) Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter Biofiltration Chamber www.modularwetlands.com Discharge Chamber Access to drain down filter MODULA!< WETLANDS Maintenance Procedures Screening Device 1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. 2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed. Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. 2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. 2. Enter separation chamber. 3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. 7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device , grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter 1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. 3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.modularwetlands.com i_ MODULA!\ WETLANDS Maintenance Notes 1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed , amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It's mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com MO D ULAI\ WE TLANDS Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com MODULA!\ WETLANDS Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www .modularwetlands.com MODULAR WETLANDS Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. lnfo@modularwetlands.com www.modularwetlands.com ~ MODULA!\ WETLANDS Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Project Name -------------------------------------------For Office Use Only Project Address -------------------------------,-<0--,ty-,-l----:<z=-,p-Cod:,---,•-,->-------(Reviewed By) Owner I Management Company ____________________________________ _ (Date) Contact -----------------------Phone ( Office personnel to complete section to the left. Inspector Name ___________________ _ Date Time AM/PM ------- Type of Inspection O Routine 0 FollowUp 0 Complaint 0 Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? 0 No O Yes Weather Condition Additional Notes Inspection Checklist Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.): Structural Integrity: Yes No Comments Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Working Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging th unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes I Depth· specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Does the cartridge filter media need replacement In pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Chamber Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Other Inspection Items: Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (tf applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Waste: Yes No Recommended Maintenance Plant Information Sediment I Silt / Clay No Cleaning Needed Damaqe to Plants Trash I Bags I Bottles Schedule Maintenance as Planned Plant Replacement Green Waste I Leaves/ Foliage Needs Immediate Maintenance Plant Trimm1no Additional Notes. 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 . '· ~ 7i . tenance Report Main S stem, Inc. Wetland Y Modula; 760.433-7640 • 60-433-3176 F. 7 tlands.com E. I nf~o{g@~m~~od~u!_!!la~~rw~e~;;.;;.;___ WWW. tlands.com modularwe -l-AR W0EfLANDS Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands System ~ MO0ULAI\ WETLANDS Project Name ---------------------------------------For Office Use Only (Coty) (Reviewed By) Owner/ Management Company--------------------------------- Contact --------------------- Inspector Name _________________ _ Type of Inspection O Routine D FollowUp D Complaint Weather Condition Site GPS Coordinates Manufacturer/ Trash Map# of Insert Description / Sizing Accumulation Lat: MWS I---Catch Basins Lonc:i: MWS Sedimentation Basin Media Filter ---Condition Plant Condition Drain Down Media Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Inlet and Outlet -----Pipe Condition Comments: Phone ( Date D Storm Additional Notes Foliage Sediment Accumulation Accumulation Time (Uate) Office pe,soonel to complete section to tile !ell AM/PM ------ Storm Event in Last 72-hours? 0 No O Yes Condition of Media Operational Per Total Debris 25/50n5/100 Manufactures' Accumulation (will be changed Specifications @75%) (If not, why?) . 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER 6626 PROJECT NAJ./E BEACH VTLLAGE l/Ff PROJECT LOCATION CARLSBAlJ, C4 STRUCTURE ID TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED (CF) FLOW RAT[ (CFS) ----0.015 TREATMENT HGL AVAIi.ABLE (FT) N/A PEAJ< BYPASS REOIJIRED {CFS) -IF APPUCABI.£ 1.6 PIPE DATA I.E. MAT[R/AL DIAJ,/fTER INLET PIPE 49.89 PH'.: 10· OUTLET PIPE 48.89 Pl'C 10" Pf?ETREA TMENT 8/0FILTRATION OISCIIARGE RIM El.£VATION 5J.02 5J.02 5J.02 SURFACE LOAIJ PEDESTRWI PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN FRA.IIE 4c COVER 35• X 12" WETIANDMEDIA VOLUME {CY) 1.64 WFTWIOI.IEDIA DEl.JVERY MDIIOD PER CONTRACT ORIFICE SIZE (DIA INCHES) -,_39· NOTES: PREl.JMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCITON. INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVTDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERV.LS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO DmOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM Ai/0 #'PUfllENAilCES IN ACCOROAilCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND TH[ MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICAITONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURERS CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTAJ.1ED ON LEVEL BASE. MANUFACTURER R[COMMENDS A MINIMUM 5• LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINfER. COIITRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY PROJECT ENGINEERS RECOI.IMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. J. All PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFAC[ or CONCR[T[. (PIPES C4NNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT or OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLLISH WITH DISCHARGE CHAAIBER FLOOR. AJ.l GAPS AROUND PIPES SHAU. BE SEALED WATER llGlfT W1TH A NON-SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURERS STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND SHAil MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDAll[)S. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL All EXTERNAL CONNECITNG PIPES. 5. COi/TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLAnON or ALL RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROIJT All MANHOLES ANO HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. 6. DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGAOON REOIJIRED ON AJ.l UNfTS WITH VEGETATION. GENERAL NOTES I. MANUFACTURER TO PROVTDE AJ.l MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AJ.l DIMENSIONS, ELEVAITONS, SPECIF/C,4 nDNS AND C4PAC!n[S ARE SU8JECT TO CHAilGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAIL/NC EXACT DIMENSXJNS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES Pl.EASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER. INLET PIPE S£E NOTES ~-cs ~~~•11 :::t= PRE-FILTER ~(ii ii I -~ CARTRIDGE PLAN VIEW ~ .J -it;, .... C/L ~L ~jl ,.L-lb,-':o 6" 9• o· ELEVATION VIEW INTERNAL BYPASS DISCLOSURE: THE DESIGN ANO C4PACllY or THE PEAK COM'EYANCE UETHOD TD BE REVTEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ENG!Nf£R or RECORD. HGl.{S) AT PEAK FLOW SHALL BE ASSESSED TO ENSURE NO UPSTREAJ./ FL()(){)/NC. PEAJ< HC/. AND BYPASS C4PACITY SHOWN ON DRAWING ARE USED FOR GUIDANCE ONLY. LOW INFLOW PIPE DISCLOSURE: IT IS RECOI.IMENDED THAT A SUFFICIENT VARv.nON IN El.£VAITON BETWEEN THE INLET ANO OUTLET Bf PROVTDED TO AJJ.OW FDR ACCUMULATION or SEDIMENT IN THE PRE-TREATMENT CHAAl8ER. FAIi.URE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN BLOCKAGE AT INFLOW POINT{S) WHICH MAY C4IJSE UPSTREAM FLOODING. CJ,1 5•-l 1-4•~0·--l l-6· f-'.---5•-o· -----:...J LEFT END VIEW C.(1 50.25 48.91 I RIGHT END VIEW TREATMENT FLOW RATr (CFS) OPERA nNC HEAO (FT) P/?ETREATMENT LQAD/NG RAT[ (GP/,1/SF} 0.081 2.5 1.4 WFTW/0 MEDIA LOADING RAT[ (CPI.I/SF} I 1.0 TW: PRtXU:r lXSCIIHP ~y IE FflOm:TED f1f OIE OR IIO/I£ or MffJJ.Dt//lN;US'PAlDf'IS: 1.41'.21t J,f}!tll:t 1.0 4,Jll; &..IUII& REIAllP R'HD( PROPf/lETARY ANO CONf1JCNT1AL: 11£ ff'OlalATDi <DmHD It THS ~ 6 T'1£ $CU PRCPOfTY Of MIUAt lf1WDS S>57lMS. MY RUfllXJIJC1DI II IWff at AS A lfQ£ wno/1" Tl£ rRT1DI PfJMSSl(li or 11tXUM ltt7tMiO$ smD6' 6 PfUllmD.. Bio t Clean MWS-L-4-8-V-UG STORM WATER 8/0F/L TRATION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL f'A7fNTS al OHR PA'fENTS l'fJDH; A Forterra 0. Outlet Structures All outlet structures shall be kept functional at a ll times. Routine inspection and corrective maintenance shall include removal of trash sediment and debris and repair of any structural damage or clogging of orifice outlets. The minimum maintenance frequency shall be Prior to August 31 each year, weekly during rainy season or within 24 hours prior to rain forecasts. E. Vector Control Owner Responsibilities VECTOR MANAGEMET CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Any method to limit or eradicate the mammals, birds, insects or other arthropods which transmit disease pathogens. Management of mosquitoes and other vectors in storm water management structures, such as Bioretention Facilities and Best Management Practices, is critical for protecting public health. [n order to implement vector controls including minimizing the risk for mosquito-borne disease transmission, It is the responsibility of the Owner to regularly maintain the outlet structures and monitor the site after every storm event to ensure that the system (comprising of above and below ground storage facilities) is dewatered in less than 72 hours. Otherwise the owner will be required to implement a vector control plan in accordance with California Department of Public Health. • Maintain all drainage inlets and outlets trash free; remove silt; make sure to clear any standing water after 72-hours of ponding. Vector Control Resources: I. F of San Diego vector educational brochures please reference the fo llowing website: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/pests/vector disease.html 2. Please contact the County of San Diego vector control program with specific questions or concerns. 4 ATTACHMENT "Al" INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND ROUTINE INSPECTION TYPE BMP Routine Action Maintenance Maintenance MAINTENANCE Indicator Frequency ACTIVITY Roof drain Trash free and Silt build up of 30 days prior to Remove all trash removal of silt, more than 1" no October 1st each and silt and repair sedimentation & trash year and weekly any damage to Debris durinq rain season. roof drains, Proprietary In accordance 30 days prior to Biofiltration: with October 1st each Modular manufacturer's year and weekly Wetland recommendation during rainy season. Downspout s 5 SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS All Roof to be free from trash and silt and in good repair ATTACHMENT "B1 " Annual Estimate to Maintain all BMPs Biofiltration: Modular Wetland Downspout Filter Maintenance and Replacement (total of 3) Roof Drains: Roof drain inspection and maintenance is already included in the property management responsibi lities. Training: Once a year & training of new employees within their first week of employment. Stormdrain Signage (As needed or every 2 years) Trash Storage Areas: Inspection of trash storage area & ma intenance to those areas is already included in the property management responsibilities. Additional cost: Total Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain BMPs 6 Annual 10-Year $2,100 $21,000 $100 $100 $1,000 $1,000 $50 $500 $2,350 $23,500 ATTACHMENT "C1" BMP TRAINING LOG Personnel Date Type of Training Trained Trainer MO/Day/Yr 7 ATTACHMENT "01" INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG Name of Date Repair made and BMP TYP & DATE Person Description of BMP Condition/ Description repair Description repair required if made and by LOCATION M/D/Y Inspecting any whom 8 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit (Use the City's standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.] - :·"·J,_~,,"~':w:~ "' ~ ~i Rof ---\. \ L-=-~~ ii--1--.~BOl[Dlrk--------~~~~~~-! , 1 ! I \ I I = f-1 ~ ----\, 7 1 \ .,/JF '1 µ:I ------·' ';:,;;= I I , 'lr/A!N FLOOR FF=57,50/ j :,i,, / o, ,,/ 25 / \ I(()) ~ , .. ,,f:'!··· I ,~._"""'"~ 1 SUB l,EVEL 2 PARKING FF=fB.80 ;::: :L----g ../ . : : L:::: J L I ,,,:lf'f· : ~\ :: t " L= : : I SUB LEYEL 1 PARKING FF= 139.60 I f~ / ~ ,, ~ i I J j ~:::::::::::::::: ~-. .;;f"' j I ~ J' I -1-lil \ \ 1 !;,' :; I ( 43 04 11 i::: 1 r·¥ = =r 1 / W""''"'""41i•F' i'i-------'u_ I 1 • , : +" = r 1 1 1 1 ·1 ; , /G f ! 'f) I "'""""" '"•=·c,..,.,,,'f · / * I L' ---_Jj , .............. .-)'\ 'rr = = L ~ ----=t~ 71:::: = 7 11 f \ \ 1 !' / IQ 0%: / -----i " :::J i,tt-----1+------c+-r--f-;---------71_--' ---/ ,'--_,,/ ·\-----7"""'¥,-¾----lfj-----t'-~----------. ---I --------------' I, ~ ---------------~ I ' "'l / 'I , -\ 0 jM ,, ' \ ' , , .. ,,,...... , -, ... , .. ~ -----_il ii , /.i=~,,-7•1~1-l-----/_! _____ f--------r-------~---r ~+-------"i------~,-----r===rr------------t-----------~r==11---------('JF~11 TANIK 3 .. ! --I -~ ~,, I:: ~ ~ --/~ ::---1,1 --------ii ~ ----, -\--+L _J;---,1 -------7 \\ -----\\\ -----& = = :::H--t -----------\\----------·,~ = = ::!i --------- '-: I: ----\ sf eL--,r * 71 \ ' -I _Jo ' I \ ---),.---f------lj---'i!:::--J I = ' == \ ' \ I ---'. \ I * Ii Ii, --:::J \\ \ ) ; " : I"' ~ \ ii I \ ::=::;_ .. ' ' ',\ L :JJ \ I _,/ ' ' " l \ \ ;::.:=;::;::;::;::;~ \ \ \\ ,~.. '. ~11-\-s---t, \ .. \, --!!, \,I 11,\ ~, J!' ! 11 Ir; ;I \\_\. ii\ -' 1 •. ,J , \ :=;;::==r--~-=:::;i \ r,::r--~----<==i\\1_ -(43 ~ ~-, ~ ~o~~ ~ -· .,,~ii ~,i;,1~f;;;;~;;;;;;;;;,b==~'F=-==~~l==-======r'1 -===!~"='===~":'===i;;;;:;~~====~======:!;-~;;;;;;;'==;;;;;\~;;::-;;;;;=~i =!.::~~f' ·~~;rr~=l'~~·==,==..aD~=.4:_ __ ~_;;;;;,L.;._4==:..li-.i\~;;;.;;--~-..:::::::.:;;,; ~ ~ oo~~u.·~,:·:;~/~--.~ diiii~ iiil7'1.iilfidih'ff,™~ I _ / ;J(> ( -----••::\ -_ \ ) _ l, -~ ~ ----,,, __ • ::,,,,/~ ~,,_,,.,,,_. """"'°'"""''"'""""-.,.,,,, "'~-"" ,,,, •:;) N55'56'34"E 201.00' \\ : -\_~ : ~-~____________,__ -_ 'ci>) / / I i / / I i j_,,.1'/i/ // // ,. \_ I , ; I I ) I I / ;: I I I I / / I I -- BMPTABLE BMP ID BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION* MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION FREQUENCY FREQUENCY SIGNOFF TREATMENT CONTROL MODULAR WETlANDS 0 PROPRIETARY DOWNSPOUT ~ BIOFlLTRATION (BF-3) MWS TC--32 1 -HEREON * * - L48VUG LOW IMPACT DESIGN (LID) [El ROOF DRAIN DOWN SPOUT 1001 SD-11 1 -1 ANNUAL ANNUAL - FILTER SOURCE CONTROL w LANDSCAPING -SD-12 ---1 2 TIMES 2 TIMES -& IRRIGATION PER YEAR PER YEAR iK30 !JAYS PRIDR TD DCTDBER 1ST EACH YEAR & wEEKL Y JJURJNG RAIN SEASDN, SWQMP NO. ____ _ PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC ADDRESS 2 STRAUSS TERRACE CONTACT WILLIAM (BILL) DAVIDSON RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 PHONE NO: (760) 773--5232 PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME DANNY ABADA COMPANY SPEAR AND ASSOCIATES ADDRESS 475 PRODUCTION STREET SAN MARCOS CA 92078 PHONE N0 __ 7~60~--7~3~6_-=20~4~0_ CERTIFICATION R C E 45381 BMP NOTES: SIGNATURE 1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDA1lONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 10 5 0 10 20 SCALE: 1 ,, 10' I SHlET I CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SING LC SllE:lc'J' l3MP SITC PLAN BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 300 CHRISTIANSEN VvAY 30 I SHEtTS I PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:J------t---+--------------------+----+----+----+------1 RECORD COPY PROJECT NO. CT 16-03 ~ ~ DATE INl1lAL ~ JOSHUA R. ZEIGLER R.C.E. 85413 DATE ENGINEER OF WORK q EXP. 9/30/18 s:~-:::=:::::-::---:=--::::::-::::-:::-:::-::-::-::-----------------------------===~===================~::=::::::::============================:::::::======:'.::=:===========================-l SPEAR & ASSGCIATC:S, INC. JOB /\0: 15-233 N~D 1 REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL 011-iER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL I DRAWING NO. I INITIAL DATE 508-9A --~--------------------