The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 2018-0005; VILLAGE WALK; STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2019-02-20CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR VILLAGE WALK PROJECT ID: CT2018-0005 GR2018-0034 DRAWING NUMBER: 513-7A ENGINEER OF WORK: Luis Pa a, PhD, CPSWQ, ToR, D.WRE. R.C.E. 66377 PREPARED FOR: DMS Consultants, Inc. 12371 S Lewis St #203, Garden Grove, CA 92840 (714) 7 40-8840 PREPARED BY: REC CONSULTANTS, INC. 2442 SECOND AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 (619) 232-9210 DATE: February 20, 2019 RECrl\'ED DEC 1 7 2019 LAND OEVi~LGPMENT ENGINEERING 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 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d : Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations Attachment 2: 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 Project Name: Village Walk Project ID: CT2018-0005 CERTIFICATION PAGE I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order. I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. r of Work's Signature, R.C .E. 66377, Expiration 6/30/20 Luis Parra REC Consultants, Inc. December 14, 2018 Carls bo Village El PROJECT VICINITY MAP ~ \ 0~ ~ CARLSBAD VILLAGE ..... V L■llinl Dr Vicinity Map -Not To Scale Pine Avenue Park MagnalaAv B■sawO<ld A~ '.2 Chestnut Av C cityof Carlsbad STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www .carlsbadca .gov E-34 I INSTRUCTIONS: To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Eng ineering Standards (Volume 5). This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to 'STANDARD PROJECT' requirements or be subject to 'PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT' (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: VILLAGE WALK PROJECT ID: CT2018-0005 ADDRESS: 341-47 OAK AVENUE , CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 APN : 203-260-05 The project is (check one): D New Development [Z] Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: 16,798 ft2 ( 0.386 ) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: 11 ,701 ft2 ( 0.26 ) 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 NIA SWQMP#: N/A Then, go to Step 1 and follow the instructions. When completed, sign the form at the end and submit this with yo ur application to the city. E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 02/16 STEP 1 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS To determine if your project is a "development project", please answer the following question: YES NO Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building □ Ill or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)? If you answered "yes" to the above question , provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating "my project is not a 'development project' and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual" and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If you answered "no" to the above question, the project is a 'development project', i:io to Step 2. STEP2 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing new or retrofitting paved sidewalks, bicycle lanes or trails that meet the following criteria: a) Designed and constructed to direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas, or other non- erodible permeable areas; □ Ill b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; c) Designed and constructed with permeable pavements or surfaces in accordance with USEPA Green Streets guidance? 2. Retrofitting or redeveloping existing paved alleys, streets, or roads that are designed and constructed in □ Ill accordance with the USEPA Green Streets guidance? 3. Ground Mounted Solar Array that meets the criteria provided in section 1.4.2 of the BMP manual? □ Ill 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 vou answered "no" to the above questions, your project is not exempt from PDP, i:io to Step 3. E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 02/16 STEP3 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is a PDP , please answer the following questions (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(1)): YES NO 1. Is your project a new development that creates 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces collectively over the entire project site? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, □ Ill and public development projects on public or private land. 2. Is your project a redevelopment project creating and/or replacing 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or Ill □ more of impervious surface? This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land. 3. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a restaurant? A restaurant is a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and □ Ill refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). 4. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a hillside development project? A hillside □ Ill development project includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. 5. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a parking lot? A parking lot is Ill □ a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally for business or for commerce. 6. Is your project a new or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface collectively over the entire project site and supports a street, road, highway □ Ill 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 □ Ill 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 comminqled with flows from adjacent lands).* 8. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface that supports an automotive repair shop? An automotive repair □ Ill shop is a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. 9. Is your project a new development or redevelopment project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious area that supports a retail gasoline outlet (RGO)? This category includes □ Ill 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 land □ Ill and are expected to generate pollutants post construction? 11 . Is your project located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface or (2) increases impervious surface on the property by more than 10%? (CMC □ Ill 21 .203.040) If you answered "yes" to one or more of the above questions, your project is a PDP . If your project is a redevelopment project, go to step 4. If your project is a new project, go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no" to all of the above questions, your project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT.' Go to step 5, check the second box statinQ "My project is a 'STANDARD 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)= 8,574 sq. ft. □ Ill Total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area (B) = 11 ,701 sq. ft. Percent impervious area created or replaced (B/A)*100 = 136% % If you answered "yes", the structural BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. If you answered "no," the structural BMP's required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating "My project is a PDP ... " and complete applicant information. STEPS CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION [ll My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. □ My project is a 'STANDARD PROJECT' OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with 'STANDARD PROJECT' stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a "Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36" and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout 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. D My Project is NOT a 'development project' and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box REC CONSULTANTS Applicant Name: Luis Parra, REC Consultants Applicant Title: Director of Water Resources Applicant Signature: ~ Date: 10/03/2018 • Environmentally Sens1t1ve 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. Th ' B fi C't U O I IS ox or l'Y se n'y YES NO City Concurrence: □ □ By: Date: Project ID: E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV 02/16 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name Village Walk Project ID CT2018-0005 Project Address 341 -347 OAK AVENUE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 203-260-05 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area 0.386 Acres (16 ,798 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area 0.2 Acres (8,574 Square Feet) (subset of Parcel Area) Area to be disturbed by the project 0.386 Acres (16,798 Square Feet) (Project Area) Project Proposed Impervious Area 0.264 Acres (11,741 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) Project Proposed Pervious Area 0.122 Acres (5,055 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) 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): l:8l Existing development D Previously graded but not built out D Agricultural or other non-impervious use D Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description/ Additional Information: The project site is currently two single-family homes with access road, a detached shed and pool area, the rest of the area is landscaped area. Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): l:8l Vegetative Cover l:8l Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas l:8l Impervious Areas Description/ Additional Information: The existing site includes two (2) residential structures, two (2) servicing sheds, an access driveway and parking space. The remainder of the site is vegetated. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): D NRCS Type A l:8l 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 < 10 feet l:8l 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet D GW Depth> 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): D Watercourses D Seeps □ Springs D Wetlands 1:8J 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]: In existing conditions, the Village Walk project site is a residential area with two (2) houses and landscape area. Runoff from the existing site drains to an existing storm drain located within Oak Avenue to the north of the project site. Per Plate B-1 of the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Drainage Facilities, the storm drain converges with a master storm drain to the west of Oak Avenue, ultimately discharging to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The proposed project is a multi-family residential development with includes, house pads, streets and landscaped areas. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Impervious features include 8 multi-family homes in a single structure with an underground parking lot. Landscaped areas will be located adjacent to the structure, including the use of impervious sidewalks and paver entrance to the aforementioned parkinq structure. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Pervious features include landscape areas, sidewalks and driveway. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? 1:8:JYes □No Description/ Additional Information: Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? 1:8:J Yes □No Description / Additional Information: The project will construct a storm drain that will discharge directly to the existing storm drain located within the adjacent Oak Avenue. 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 l:8J lnterior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps l:8J Interior parking garages □Need for future indoor & structural pest control l:8J Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use □ Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features D Food service D Refuse areas □ Industrial processes □ Outdoor storage of equipment or materials □ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning D Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance □ Fuel Dispensing Areas □ Loading Docks D Fire Sprinkler Test Water D Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water l:8J 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 reseNoir, as applicable): Runoff from the site drains to an existing storm drain located within Oak Avenue to the north of the project site. The storm drain converges with a master storm drain to the west of Oak Avenue, ultimately discharging to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reseNoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs ~gua Hedionda Lagoon Indicator Bacteria, ;Toxicity Sedimentation/Siltation, Invasive Soecies Toxicitv Identification of Project Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP DesiQn Manual Appendix 8 .6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern Sediment □ rgJ rgJ Nutrients □ rgJ □ Heavy Metals □ rgJ □ Organic Compounds rgJ □ rgJ Trash & Debris □ rgJ □ Oxygen Demanding □ ~ D Substances Oil & Grease □ rgJ □ Bacteria & Viruses □ rgJ rgJ Pesticides □ rgJ rgJ 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. 181 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. D 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): Runoff from the existing site drains to an existing storm drain located within Oak Avenue to the north of the project site. Per Plate B-1 of the City of Carlsbad Master Plan of Drainage Facilities, the storm drain converges with a master storm drain to the west of Oak Avenue, ultimately discharging to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon approximately 1.1 miles south of the project site. Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? D Yes 181 No , No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? D 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite D 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment D 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite □No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? D No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite D Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. D Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion/ Additional Information: Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff"' · ll'"fhis Section only required if hydromodification manaaement requirements aooly 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)? □No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) □ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 □ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 □ 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. Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. C cicyof Carlsbad Project Name: VILLAGE WALK Project ID: cT201s-ooos DWG No. or Building Permit No .: TBD STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Information Source Control BMPs Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided . Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "NIA" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided . Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 D Yes D No ~ NIA Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: No illicit materials are to be stored on site, in addition all runoff from the project site is contained onsite such that no access to the MS4 is possible from offsite. SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage D Yes D No ~ NIA Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: There are no storm drain curb inlets located within the project site. SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind D Yes D No ~ NIA Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: No outdoor materials storage areas proposed E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 Source Control Requirement (continued) Aoolied? SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and D Yes D No lil N/A Wind Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: No outdoor work areas proposed. SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal lil Yes D No D N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). D On-site storm drain inlets D Yes lil No D N/A lil Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Ii] Yes D No D N/A Ii] Interior parking garages Ii] Yes D No D N/A D Need for future indoor & structural pest control D Yes D No Ii] N/A lil Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Ii] Yes D No D N/A D Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features D Yes D No Ii] N/A D Food service □Yes D No lil N/A D Refuse areas D Yes D No lil NIA D Industrial processes D Yes D No lil N/A D Outdoor storage of equipment or materials D Yes D No lil N/A □ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning □ Yes D No Ii] N/A D Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance □Yes D No Ii] N/A D Fuel Dispensing Areas □Yes D No lil NIA D Loading Docks D Yes D No Ii] N/A □ Fire Sprinkler Test Water D Yes D No lil N/A D Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water D Yes D No lil N/A Ii] Plazas, sidewalks, and parkinq lots Ii] Yes D No D N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. * Next page E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16 INTERIOR FLOOR DRAINS & INTERIOR PARKING LOTS The parking lot is covered by the structure such that no direct runoff is possible. The entrance to the parking lot is porous pavers and has an additional drain intercept to ensure all runoff from the entrance is captured prior to entering the parking lot. In the event of requiring drainage within the parking lot, area drains are provided that are then pumped to the surface BMP. LANDSCAPE/OUTDOOR PESTICIDE USE All homeowners and landscaping maintenance staff will be provided with educational material in regards to the responsible application of pesticides and fertilizers. PLAZAS, SIDEWALKS, AND PARKING LOTS The project includes a parking lot (as discussed previously) and a servicing sidewalk access to the proposed residences. This sidewalk will drain to adjacent landscaping prior to draining to the storm drain system. These flows are then conveyed to the treatment BMP prior to discharging from the project site. 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 (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided. Site Design Requirement I Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features I ~ Yes I D No ID NIA Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I ~ Yes I D No ID N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I D Yes I D No I~ NIA Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: Impervious areas have been minimized onsite, landscaped vegetated areas are located throughout the site in addition to a porous paver entrance. SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I ~ Yes I D No ID N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I ~ Yes I D No ID N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: Rooftops will drain onto adjacent landscape areas. Receiving pervious areas will have a minimum width of 10 feet, and a maximum slope of 5%. E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Requirement (continued) I Aoolied? SD-6 Runoff Collection I □Yes I D No I ~ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: Per Form 1-7, harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. As such runoff collection will not be implemented onsite as other site design BMPs are incorporated within the project. SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I ~ Yes I D No ID NIA Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 HarvestinQ and UsinQ Precipitation I □Yes I D No I~ NIA Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: Per Form 1-7, harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 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. Runoff from the project site is conveyed via a BMP treatment train incorporating the use of disconnection of impervious areas by draining roof drains into adjacent vegetated swales prior to discharging to one (1) infiltration (retention) basin located to the rear of the project site. This infiltration BMPs will also serve as a peak flow detention basin for the project site. Once flows are routed via the aforementioned BMP facility, flows are then discharged to the receiving storm drain system located within Oak Avenue to the north of the project site. A small vegetated area located at the frontage of the project site (approximately 600 sq. ft.) will act as a self-treating area prior to discharging to the curb and gutter within the adjacent Oak Avenue. Per form I-7 (harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist), harvest and re-use has been deemed infeasible. [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 BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-1 DWG 513-7A Sheet No . 3 Type of structural BMP: D Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) igi Retention by infiltration basin (I NF-1) D Retention by bioretention (INF-2) D Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) D Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) D Biofiltration (BF-1 ) D Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatmenUforebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) D Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management D Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: igi Pollutant control only D Hydromodification control only D Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control D Pre-treatmenUforebay for another structural BMP D Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Who will certify construction of this BMP? TMS Oak investments 8, LLC 29250 Paseo Sedano San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 951-801-0888 Who will be the final owner of this BMP? HOA Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? HOA BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit (Required) 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. ~Included ~ Included on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a D Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from OMA Exhibit ~Included □Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs ~ Included D Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs Attachment 1 e Pollutant Control BMP Design ~ Included Worksheets/ Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines ATTACHMENT 1 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA The DMA Exhibit must identify: ~ Underlying hydrologic soil group ~Approximate depth to groundwater Exhibit: ~Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) ~ Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) ~ Existing topography and impervious areas ~ Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite ~ Proposed grading ~ Proposed impervious features ~ Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness ~ Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) ~ Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) 111 :1sG 11 I .'.,i~'l,i\, I • ~ "'-,,_,/ ' (/) I co I I I 14480) - EP 11 " II 40' 1._••· '-~ I 11 1 11 11 1 1~1 /I 11 1 EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT J r;"'I ~ 11 I (PROTECT IN PLil.CE) 0 I I I ~i 11 =EX~IST_. ~OV=E_RH=EA-+--I rj --~-,+-I c--t+--~ // I POWER LINE I I --,-:s,t-:7"'-,H---LI A 'l,'k I I II I =EX=IST~. =DR=IV=EW~A++---, ·'.,~ I I I .. ,r II 11 111 ~<> I I ST 3+56.66 11 -CCJO""IN~EXCOIS~T.'-;Ec;c:P+--:-e1;,<-;"'"Z-S T-1 ST 3+49.99 I I JOIN EXIST. PA 46. 90TC-46.40F 11 I ST 3+40.32 EXIST. SEWER LATERAL 11 I TO BE ABANDONED PER VOLUME 3 ST 3+33.34 SPEC 15063-3.SA PROPOSED 8" (SDR35) STORM DRAIN CONNECTION TO EXIST. 18" DIA. RCP PER SORO STD PLAN 0-9 (41.66)INV-IN (41.55)INV-OUT ST 3+28.44 OAK AVENUE= ST 10+00 PRIVATE DRIVE II I 3+23.44= 1110+00 SEWER MH PER S-1 48.20RIM "'6 I 1(34.20)INV OUT ;:-s· "6 34.40INV IN ti I 11 1 7S__u.L.,_ EXISTING iO' w1DE Pu11B...,L1-1c_s_T_RE_c:_T_1_1A_c_r-,10-N---i-,.-s-c..,.o--~I D M -1 EXISTING-DTILI TIES. PER DOC. NO. 2002-0445744, 20' RESERVING EASEMENT RIGHTS TO M.A IN TAIN I jr I RC:COROED 05/2•/02 ANO 0 ROPQSC:0 10' --;-~~1ir-4~fil IRREVOCP,SLE OFFE R OF DC:DICA TION =--oR p,__ 3LIC ~ ACCE SS EASEMENT PE~ FIN /\1_ MAP (l>ifa.P <c,'-·".cc, 2018-0008) 11 I ST 2+ 70.02 PER DWG NO. 111 430-6 JOIN EXIST. C&G A D SIDEWALK (50.98)TC-(50.5 )FL 111 c-,G EXIST. POWER POL "o'\s\'-(PROTECT IN PLAcp II ""0(lqj I I EXIST. CURB & GUTTER (PROTECT IN PLACE) EXIST. SIDEWALK (PROTECT IN PLACE) I ' 5' 2b' DMA SOIL TYPE TOTAL AREA IMPERVIOUS (sq-ft) (acres) (sq-ft) (acres} DMA-1 B 16185 0.37 11701 0.27 ST-1 B 111 0.00 0 0.00 ST-2 B 408 0.01 0 0.00 ST-3 B 52 0.00 0 0.00 DM-1 B 42 0.00 42 0.00 • TOTAL 16798 0.37 11743 0.27 LEGEND DMA BOUNDARIES ---- BMP AREAS IMP ERVIOUS AREAS LANDSCAPED AREAS SELF TREATING AREAS PERMEABLE PAVERS • • • • 0 I > 0 10' II " PERVIOUS (sq-ft} (acres} 4484 0.10 111 0.00 408 0.01 52 0.00 0 0.00 5055 0.11 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER > 15 FT UNOERL YING SOIL TYPE B ~I ~ I I EXIST. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL W/BLOCK WALL PER SDRSD C-03 (MAX HEIGHT-6) PROPOSED 6' HIGH BLOCK WALL PER SDC-105 STEPS 48.10 FF "' ~~)=_I= O'-'l 0 o Ol"')~ln ·v .,: ci ~ ,-.: 50.1 OTG o LOLO ~ .... 49.lOINV .,: OVERFLOW OUTLET DRAIN PIPE FROM RETENTION AREA '1' 50.00T "'i\c, ~ 48.9 V 49.00 FF 50.00TG 48. 70INV 209. 98' 50.00TG 48.60INV ,,.-,I: "s~ l.:f'l'ff-t-'lltl'"--:>d~--+B"S --- •. r-::s > N-z ·"' -m,-.. r-. V<D <D + .. o~~ 6" DDCV O N I T 1 A 48.70GFF SERVICE 48.03PAD 49.20FF 48.53PAD 49.20 FS 51 .00TG ':,'1·":i G 49.60INV in '" 51.00TG 49.70INV %IMPERVIOUS 72.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,00 ~i r-."' > + ,,,.,. ... + .. ;;~J(,:;,: 0~ ;t-i UN (f 2 47.00FS u 46.SOGFF 45.83PAD UNIT 3 46.S0GFF 45.83PAD - ' ' N33'59 47 W EXIST. RETANING WALL (PROTECT IN PLACE) 0 It) VJ ..: "-LO uN 1T 4 46.SOGFF 45.83PAD DMA -1 UNIT 5 46.50GFF 45.83PED1-<c,"-~c, ~---, 47.00FS s II u ! - 51.00TG :-;",,,,," 51.00TG I 49.35INV <c,'o" '\" ~ <22, 49.25INV {}":, '8, --~ B EXISTING OCEANMIST CONDOMINIUMS "' l -~ ..... ::s > -c"' z N N N <o v ... +0 N ::: ... ... U ~~ i T 47.00FS If I.,, u t ~-· -,- t 51.00TG 49.14INV 46.SOGFF 45.83PAD 6 0 It) VJ ..: LL .,, ~ ~-~ 47.00FS 6"S Ul r-. ::s > + ~~~ NNN cc "<t -s:1-Qi + .. ~ I.ON~, -... C, -" JN 1T 7 46.SOGFF 45.83PAD 0 It) VJ ..: .... LO ~ ' "' ,.. t in 51.00TG ~ 49.04INV n N 51.00TG 48.93INV PROPOSED RET AIING WALL PER SDRSD C-01 F.F. ELEVATION 57.30 50.30FS 6" DIA. PVC DRAIN PIP£\ \ 4820FS AaMP = 440 SF 4'97tJ 7i7P ilFR/SFR 3" MULCH I I ~ 12~· .·,_ --~ --,---t-SLOT I 4'87(} .Fi777i7# 36"x36" DRAINAGE BOX • ' • • ~ "' ' ' ' ' '" ' ' ,:' ~ I I II I I i, r If I I I t II 50.30FS H = 6" sco LNIT 8 46.SOGFF 45.83PAD H = 24" 50.90TG 49.901NV 0 LO VJ ..: LL It) 78" AMENDED SOIL BASIN DETAIL N.T.S, ~ r---• ' 0 (/) • <D ~ 25.03' BMP-1 VJ\ !::i'jj{ 440 sq-ft i /' SEE DETAIL BELOW o C 0 ci 00 PROPOSED RET AIING WALL PER SDRSD C-01 :1s'II • G ". ~ 1._'B w ...JU """" 3" -' a. ~"" z • u -O') g I- NCDU ':.t-'I!! LC) t:; 0 . -"' LC) X Q. L(')w~ en 50.90TG 49.90INV 1 O' FD TAG ON TOP OF WALL X w ...J a... ::::. 0 u 0 I-0 .,: z It) w > ::::. ~ I-0::: w <C LL a... U.: <C <C z ~ <C :::.: z <C en w u z w Cl en w 0::: >-...J ::::. <C u.. I-...J => ::::. t-= en X w SCALE:1"=10 1/) z 0 1/) > w []" 0 0. 0. <: w f-<: 0 z 0 f- 0. []" u (/) w 0 0 z 0 -C Q) E C cr, ~ C > >-c Q) Lu > ,._ • rn :::, X 0 LL 0 -N Ol I N "' N ~ Ol Q) --::, 0 co C (/) C ~ ~ OJ N ·;:: -0 Q) C ~ 0 > Ol <: 0 <: 0 cl 0 N C 01 ·-_J rn C 0 I u ON Q) a, "' Lu VJ-~ ON N m > u .... C -sf-0 co N (I)~ co .. ~ .. 0 w W N _J i-I <: <: 0 U 0 ~ 1/) z 5 <: []" 0 f--z UJ ~ a.. 0 _j UJ > UJ 0 f-- (/) 0 a.. I f- ee I w >< _J UJ f- ~ _j ~ UJ (!) <( _j _j > f-<( f-u f-~ w l;:J o o :r: O:'. 1/) D. SHEET 1 LC) 0 0 0 ' co ..- 0 N f-0 OF 1 SHEETS (.) C U) +-' C 0 +-' ::J U) C 0 u .. 0 w Y'. u w :r: u co 0 0 N O'> <( z 0::: 0 LL ...J <( 0 0 <( (ll (j) ...J 0::: <( 0 "' • u " I > V 7 -.D L X w I o_ :::, CD / ~ 0 3c V "' D > 0 / 00 -C .3 "S 00 C 0 u V) ::, 0 "' ,n 0 c--/ u 0 u <( / iL ! ro 0 N ...... " c::. N ~ ro ~ 0 N ...... .. ...... N ~ Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist 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? [gjT oil et and urinal flushing [gjLandscape irrigation 00ther: _____ _ 2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. Toilet and urinal flu shing demand: ( 9·39al ) (..21!:_) (8 houses) (2·5 persons) (l.Sday) = 37.3ft3 person-day 7.48gal house . . ( 1470gal ) ( lft3 ) 3 Irrigation demand: --(l.Sday)(0.385acre) = 113.7ft acre-1.Sday 7.48gal Total: 150.1 cubic-feet 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. 540 cubic-feet 3a. Is the 36-hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? DY es / [g]N o ~ ij Harvest and use appears to be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to confirm that DCV can be used at an adequate rate to meet drawdown criteria. 36. Is the 36-hour demand greater than 0.25DCV but less than the full DCV? 0Yes / [gj No~ n Harvest and use may be feasible. Conduct more detailed evaluation and sizing calculations to determine feasibility. Harvest and use may only be able to be used for a portion of the site, or ( optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in longer than 36 hours. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? D Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. [gj No, select alternate BMPs. 3c. Is the 36-hour demand less than 0.25DCV? [g!Yes n Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. Note: All rainwater harvest and use must comply with the California Plumbing Code (Sections 1702.9.3, 1702.9.4, etc.). C . . f I fil . F ·b'li C di . Form 1-8 ategonzatton o n tratton east 1 ty on tton Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Note that it is not necessary to investigate each and every criterion in the worksheet if infiltration is precluded. Instead a letter of justification from a geotechnical professional familiar with the local conditions substantiating any geotechnical issues will be required. Criteria Screening Question Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D . Provide basis: Yes No □ Based on WSS information, both basins are located on B type soils. The infiltration rate (before safety factors) below the basin is 9.5 inches per hour. Per the ''Preliminary Infiltration Testing, Storm Water Management, 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad, CA" by Strata-Tech, Inc. dated January 26, 2018, a conservative SF of 3 is applied, thus the design infiltration rate of 3.2 inches per hour is used. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Infiltration is recommended for use on the site. □ Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Criteria 3 Form 1-8 Page 2 of 4 Screening Question Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in .Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Yes No □ Per the Geotechnical Report Strata-Tech, Inc. Preliminary Infiltration Testing Storm Water Management, 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad, CA dated 1 /26/18 the depth of the water table is approximately 15 ft. 4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in .Appendix C.3. Provide basis: □ Infiltration rates determined through Web Soil Survey are greater than 0.5 inches per hour. However, it is anticipated that any amount of infiltration at the site would not increase the risk of changing the seasonality of ephemeral streams 01 increase the risk of contaminating surface waters that currently exits. Potential impacts of the proposed basins are low due to distance in combination witl1 construction recommendations. There is minimal potential contamination with installation of the proposed basins. Part 1 Result * If all answers to rows 1 -4 are ''Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The ~Yes feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. 0No Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site mformat:ton and best professional Judgment cons1denng the definition of MEP 111 the MS4 Permit . .Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by Agency /Jurisdictions to substantiate findings Form 1-8 Page· 3 of 4 Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria 5 Screening Question Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Yes No □ Based on WSS information, both basins are located on B type soils. The infiltration rate (before safety factors) below the basin is 9.5 inches per hour. Per the geotechnical investigation, a conservative SF of 3 is applied, thus the design infiltration rate of 3.2 inches per hour is used. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Infiltration is recommended for use on the site. □ Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Criteria 7 Form 1-8 Page 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 No □ Per the Geotechnical Report Strata-Tech, Inc. Preliminary Infiltration Testing Storm Water Management, 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad, CA dated 1 /26/18 the depth of the water table is approximately 15 ft. Infiltration is recommended for use on the site. 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: Infiltration is recommended for use on the site. □ Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Part 2 Result* If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. ~Yes The 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. *To be completed using gathered site 1nformat:1on and best professional Judgment cons1dermg the definition of j\,fEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings . A Factor Category Sui ta bili ty Assessment Factor Description Soil assessment methods Predominant soil texture Site soil variability Depth to groundwater I impervious layer Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Assigned Factor Product (p) Weight (w) Value (v) p=wxv 0.25 \ 0·25 0.25 l O·Z~ 0.25 I t,. '2.) 0.25 l 0-2.~ Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = :Ep B Desi&m. Level of pretreatment/ sediment loads Redundancy/ resiliency expected Compaction during construction Design Safety Factor, s~ = :Ep Combined Safety Factor, S,ura1= s,\ X Sn Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kvbmvcd (corrected for test-specific bias) Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kdcsi~"' = K,bscrvcd / Su>1nl Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: 1-9 0.5 0.25 ~-0 0·1~ 0.25 -0 ·1~ February 26, 2016 STRATA-TECH, NC. ----~GEDCONSULTANTS 310.968.2999 January 26, 2018 TMS Highland Investments, LLC Tony Sfreddo 29250 Paseo Sedano San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 tsfreddo@icloud.com Subject: stratatech@yahoo.com w.o. 284018-1 Preliminary Infiltration testing, Storm Water Management, 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad, California Ref: STRATA-TECH, INC ; "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Multi-family Residential Development, 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad, California ", January 18, 2018 Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization and terms of our contract STRATA-TECH, Inc. is pleased to submit the results of our storm water infiltration testing. Falling head percolation testing was performed in two Pits at the locations shown on the attached grading plan. The soils encountered consist primarily of beach deposits Orange-yellow, silty, fn sand, Sand, fn to 15-feet. Logs of the Pits are attached. The percolation pit bottoms are substantially separated from seasonal groundwater. Ground water was encountered in adjacent borings that were dry to 15 feet. Groundwater is not expected to rise within 15 feet from the proposed development. STRATA-TECH,INC. GEOCONSULTANTS TMS Highland Investments, LLC. Preliminary Stom1 Water Infiltration Testing 2 Jan uary26 , 2018 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad Testing was performed in 5-foot dry wells consisting of 6-inch slotted well screen with .020" openings in an 8" diameter hand borings having the annular space packed with #3 Monterey filter sand to prevent caving. Hand borings were prepared on 12/27/17. The cased pits were filled with water for pre soak on 12/27/17 and the percolation test conducted immediately following the pre soak which confirmed sand condition criteria as outlined in OC_TGD_5-19-11AppendixVII. The testing consisted of filling each 5-foot pit with water to within 24-inches of the surface and allowing it to seep for 10 min intervals and repeatedly filling the test pit and measuring the stabilized rate at the end of 6th cycle. The drop between successive measurements was recorded for each pit and is the basis for the calculated infiltration rate. The lowest calculated infiltration rate of 9.5 inch/Hr. may be used by the design civil engineer for the infiltration system design for the subject site. When a conservative factor of safety, FS = 3 is applied the infiltration rate becomes 3.2 in/Hr. At the completion of testing the well screens were pulled and remaining holes filled with native soil and tamped. AGENCY REVIEW All soil, geologic and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency (s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis. STRATA-TECH,INC. GE □C □NSULTANTS TMS Highland Investments, LLC. Preliminary Storm Water Infiltration Testing 3 January26 , 2018 341-347 Oak Ave, Carlsbad This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project The work performed was carried out in accordance with acceptable geotechnical principles common to the local area in which we practice. We make no other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted: STRATA-TECH, INC . . ... Roland Acufia, PG President Enclosures: Appendix; A Plate 1 -Pit/Pere Location Map Plate 2 -Test Pit Logs Plate 3 -Test Results Larry Finley RCE 46606 VICINITY MAP Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 341-347 Oak Ave Carlsbad, California STRATA -TECH, INC. Work Order 284018 Plate No. 1 LOCAL GEOLOGY Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 341-347 Oak Ave Carlsbad, California STRATA -TECH, INC. Work Order 284018 Plate No. 1 STRATA-TECH,INC. GE □C □NSUI.TANTS APENDIX A Plot Plan, Boring Logs and Test Results RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION '::!;.--~ -Date Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (/) ~~ u'. (I) C 0.. ,.._ (/)c -::::, i::' (I)(.) .s:::. 341-34 7 Oak ave E in -0 0~ 0.. ro Cl) ·o -::R. i::' (I) ~~ 0 0 Carlsbad, California u B Work Order 284018 Test Pit No. 1 Description of Earth Materials 0 -Orange-Brown, fn sand 2 -Orange-brown , fn-med Sand,w/trace of clay, dry 3.2 113 4 - 6 -Orange-tan, fn-med , silty sand, dry 8 -Bottom at 8' Feet. No Ground Water. No Caving. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION '::!;.-~ -Date 1/0/1900 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (/) 0 .....; u'. (I) (I) s: C 0.. ,.._ (/)c -2 i::' (I)(.) .s:::. 341-347 Oak ave E 0 c.. ro (/) -0 -0.. Cl) ·o -::R. i::' (I) ~~ 0 0 Carlsbad, California u B Work Order 284018 Test Pit No. 2 Description of Earth Materials 0 -Brown, Silty Sand w/ Roots 5 -Orange-Brown, fn -med, Sand , dry 7.2 114.1 10 -9.1 113.9 Yellow-Tan Sand , Dense, damp 15 - Bottom at 15 Feet. No Ground Water. No Caving. - STRATA -TECH, INC. BORING LOCATION MAP 111111,1P "" ur,r., • ..... ~ ,. • 111111{ ll ...... ~ ........ ,ri -· ...... ..... ~ -- I ., ........... ..__ lo■I' l __ ..._. ---·----==-' cma=-..., -.. o. 111.M1wuc1arrw _.,.."" -------mm ffl .. .--··· I -------- ------.,..-:,a. 8 ~~~- , .. ,. -- ·----==r:r--· 0 f'•/ "'-p~ f1 It t,. 1 -::: Sol k r 1J f PLATE:2 Percolation Test Date Sheet Project: 16t~4~~1!:..... Pro.ed l\o: 2.. 6 4./0/it> Date; /'2-~t-11- TP\t t,,.(la.. NO I 0Arl'_ 'T .. '>~Pd R; I:::: ,I. ~ D~ ofTe~ Hole. D,: ~0// uses Soi c1a,~1tic;,t,o,: SM Sit? T.,_,1 Hr 1..-Nlflw" In, (tnth""') , .. ie•· Wh ilh Dll'TI-18' (If round I-fl, ,, sides f If re~ani[ .. lari- S0ndv S011 C,att"ri~ -:-o:t• Greeter Ti,... lni i~I F nal r. "11£'" in !hit r I ln•~rva . n..11th I ~•hto W.ter F'fl ...ii I 5 '? T .. ,~, No. Sta'1T1m• Stoc T11T1e m ll'I.] wa-:!!..l!_n J wa-:er ( " l JNe I 1r .) y/n) ----·--q t-..0 1 Y /t~ q ,' Z,'j ZH ~ (,.. I ')I' 2 q~ ~n q,'~ ?~ -Z.ll b~· 32-... )' ..,,f tv,, r 0'1Y"<"u• ,..,.. '11•t'I ,,.rn,.,t'i ,hol\' I.,,., ,ix nf",,_., of w""•r ,,.,.:,, ,. Nit( i-,,.,.., I .,...n ,., -l'Tll"1 :tGc, thP t Ptt (h::tll -v:: ru"l •o• ~r =1r,1ht11v,;I h'lUr ~rt, ma a~ JrGINl"ttta«-iDn Gv•ry 10 l"'l"ltn ,tc,c;, OtflQr"Wm~. r;,e so,11< (fill OYQrn1«ht Obta n gt ka51 -:WQ Q mc;;5urCHTH~f"U PQf'hO Q OYQf' ;1 urt sic ho ... n ta ~prDJ<imately 30 min.rte t'ltuv,1 1sJ witn • p recisio--of at leu: 0.25 '. At D o, 60 1n TiMP lolTi-ll F oa r ha~P in P Pf ---ol~tior'I tr,tarval Depth tc OQpthto Wi/t<.r Rate T'lQI Nc. Sta"1 Tim~ S.t o~ Time mll'I.) Water :,n l w ater ( ".l ~e111r .) ei,,,n.'in.1 1 //) .' 0 0 II 1!/n IV 7...1/ l-/ql~ 2'570 f.) I 40 2 I h• I 7_ 7l• f z_z, I lJ ?_t.( Jyq,~ 2(),~ ()I'-} f}_; 3 10 :1-5 to , /{/ Z.'f 3~'5 f'3, ¥1 D, :/2- ~ lf)~~i-I/) J'1} [1) 24, 7=>"'.JtSO J3~50 ,(!)l1:i s I ,., I d,I') 11 ~no /{} v, ~?A I 3,,Z..6' rYt -i 6 17 :·/JI/ JJ:1'1 111 2,.1"{ ~~. ~-~ / 3, 7_~ ./), ; ~ 7 • , 8 --!j 10 11 I 12 1.:1 I -J.4 ---... I 15 I I COM r· s .4 //. c,o ,-) ~-' ~, 25'"(~0;,t.'LJ ~::::.. 9,s-J<,. Ii,; I r"~ ~t{r-1211-:av~J l0(11-Z9,~) ,,; Automated Worksheet B.3-1: Pro·ect-Scale BMP Feasibili Ca1egory Capture & Use Inputs Infiltration Inputs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ill -lfl Calculations Ill ----Result 1111 Worksheet B.3-1 General Notes: Descriplion Design Capture Volume for Entire Project Site Proposed Development Type umber of Residents or Employees at Proposed Development Total Planted Arca within Development Water Use Category for Proposed Planted ,\reas Is ,\vcrage Site Design Infiltration Rate S0.500 Inches per I lour? Is ,\vcrage Site Design Infiltration Rare S0.010 Inches per I lour? ls Infiltration of the Full DCV ,\nticipated to Produce Negative Impacts? Is Infiltration of ,\ny Volume Anticipated to Produce cgativc Impacts? 36-f-lour Toilet Use Per Resident or Employee Subtotal: ,\nticipared 36 I lour Toilet Use .\nticipatcd I . \ere L-indscape Use Over 36 I lours Subtotal: J\nticipated JA-indscape Use Over 36 I lour, Total .\nticipared Use Over 36 I lours Total ,\nticipatcd Use / Design Capture Volume . \re Full Capture and Use Techniques Feasible for this Project? ls Full Retention Feasible for this Project? Is Partial Retention rcasiblc for this Project? Feasibility Category Value Units Residential unitlcss 24 # 4.484 sy-ft I.ow nitlcss ~o yes/no '-lo yes/no 0 yes/no 0 yes/no 1.86 cubic-feet 45 cubic-feet 52.14 cubic-feet 5 cubic-feet so cubic-feet 0.09 cubic-feet No unitless Yes yes/no Yes yes/no 3 1,2,3,4,5 A ,\pplicants may use this worksheet to determine the types of structural BMPs that arc acceptable for implementation at their project site (as rc<.Juired in Section 5 of the BM PD!\[). User input should be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for all other cells will be automatically generated. Projects demonstrating feasibility or potential feasibility via this worksheet arc encouraged to incorporate capture and use features in their project. Fl. cgativc impacts associated with retention may include geotcchnical, groundwater, water balance, or other issues identified by a geotechnical engineer and substantiated through completion of f-orm 1-8. C. Feasibility Category 1: ,\pplicant must implement capture & use, retention, and/or infiltration clements for the entire DC\'. D. Feasibility Category 2: , \pplicant must implement capture & use clements for the entire DC\'. E. Feasibility Category 3: .\pplicant must implement retention and/or infiltration clements for all Di\L\s with Design Infiltration Rates greater than 0.50 in/lu. F. Feasibility Category 4: . \pplicant must implement standard ~ biofiltration BMPs sized at .:3% of the effective impervious tributary area for all Di\L\s with Design Infiltration Rates of0.011 to 0.50 in/hr. ,\pplicants may be permitted to implement lined BMPs, reduced size BMPs, and/or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria idc.'lltified in "Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration BMPs" arc satisfied. G. Feasibility Category 5: , \pplicant must implement standard l.iru:2 biofiltration BJ\!Ps sized at .:3% of the effective impervious tributary area for all Dl\l.\s with Design Infiltration Rates of0.010 in/hr or less. Applicants may also be permitted to implement reduced size and/or specialized biofiltration BMPs provided additional criteria identified in "Supplemental Retention Criteria for Non-Standard Biofiltration BMl's" arc satisfied. 11. PDPs participating in an offsite alternative compliance program are not held to the feasibility categories presented herein. Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Desi I 1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type Retention unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-.58 inches 3 3.?00 in/hr 4 11,701 s -ft 5 sq-ft 6 En sq-ft 7 sq-ft 8 4,484 sq-ft 9 sq-ft 10 sq-ft 11 Does Tributary Inco orate Dis ersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No 0 0 No No 0 No yes/no 12 Im ervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area er SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft 13 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area er SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft 14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft 15 Natural T e .A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area er SD-B (Ci=0.10) 16 Natural T e B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area er SD-B (Ci=0.14 I 17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area er SD-B (Ci=0.23) 18 Natural T e D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per S -B (Ci=0.30) 19 Number of Tree Wells Pro osed er SD-A 20 .Average Mature Tree Cano y Diameter I 2 Number of Rain Barrels Pro osed per SD-E 22 .Average Rain Barrel Size 23 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in DQwn~tts::l!m Draina e? No No No No No No No No No I 24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series 25 Percent of U stream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion .Areas 26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dis ersion .Area (Ci=0.90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet I 27 Upstream Im ervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion .Area (C=0.90) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 28 Total Tributary .Area 16,185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s -ft Initial Runoff -Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Draina e .Areas 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless Factor -.. Initial Runoff Factor for Dis ersed & Dispersion .Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless Calculation -Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless -Initial Design Ca ture Volume 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet Total Im ervious .Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft Total Pervious Dispersion .Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s -ft Ratio of Dis ersed Impervious .Area to Pervious Dispersion .Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio 36 .Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dis ersion .Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 37 Runoff Factor .After Dispersion Techniques 0.69 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless -.. . . Dispersion 11111 -Area Adjustments 38 Design Ca ture Volume .After Dis ersion Techniques 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 39 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet I 40 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 41 Final .Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 42 Final Effective Tributary Area 11,168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s -ft I 43 Initial Desi ture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 44 Final Design Ca ture Volume Tributary to BMP 540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet Work§he~t B.1-1 G~neral N Qt~§: .A. .Applicants may use this worksheet to calculate design capture volumes for up to 10 drainage areas User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for all other cells will be automatically generated, errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below. Upon completion of this worksheet, proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s). I I I I I Category BMP Inputs Infiltration Calculations Result 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Worksheet B.4-1 General N otes: Description Drainage Basin ID or Name Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer Design Caprure Volume Tributary to BMP Is Retention BMP Vegetated or Non-Vegetated? Provided Surface .Area Provided Surface Ponding Depth Provided Soil Media Thickness Provided Gravel Storage Thickness Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm Soil Media Pore Space Gravel Pore Space Effective Depth of Retention Storage Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding (Post-Storm) Drawdown Time for Entire Basin (Including 6 Hour Storm) Volume Retained by BMP Fraction ofDCV Retained Percentage of Performance Requirement Satisfied Fraction ofDCV Retained (normalized to 36-hr drawdown) This BMP Overflows to the Following Drainage Basin Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 3.200 540 \'egetated 440 6 18 0 540 0 0 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 10.5 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 9 0 0 925 0 0 1.71 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 n/a n/a l'ltl Units in/hr cubic-feet unitless sq-ft inches inches inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 inches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio unitless n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet A. _-\pplicants may use this worksheet to size Infiltration, Bioretention, and/ or Permeable Pavement BMPs (INF-1, INF-2, INF-3) for up to 10 basins. User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for blue cells are automatically populated based on user inputs from previous worksheets, values for all other cells will be automatically generated, errors/ notifications will be highlighted in red/ orange and summarized below. BMPs fully satisfying the pollutant control performance standards will have a deficit treated volume of zero and be highlighted in green. I I I I I I I Category General Info Initial DCV Site Design Volume Reductions Bl\lP Volume Reductions Total Volume Reductions Performance Standard Treatment Train Result Summa,y Notes: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Description Drainage Bastn ID or Name 85th Percentile Storm Dep Design Infiltration Rare Recommended by Georechnic Engineer Total Tributary .Area 85th Percentile Storm Volume (Rainfall Volume) Initial Weighted Runoff Factor Initial Design Capture Volume Dispersion Area Reductions Tree Well and Rain Barrel Reductions Effective .Area Tributary to BJ\1P Final D esign Capture Volume Tributary to BMP Basin Drains to the Following BMP Typ Volume Retained by BJ\1P (normalized to 36 hour drawdown) Total Fraction ofl.niti.al DCV Retained within DMA Percent of.-\ verage Annual Runoff Retention Provided Percent of Average Annual Runoff Retention Required Percent of Pollution Control Standard Satisfied Discharges to Secondary Treatment in Drainage Bas· Impervious Surface .Area Still Requiring Treatment Impervious Surfaces Directed to Downstream Dispersio Area Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Downstre Dispersion Area Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater of Stormwater Pollutant Control Calculations (V1.2) viii Units BJ\1P-1 unitless 0.58 inches 3.200 in/hr 16,185 sq-ft 782 cubic-feet 0.69 unitless 540 cubic-feet 0 cubic-feet 0 cubic-feet 11,168 square feet 540 cubic-feet Retention unitless 540 cubic-feet 1.00 fraction 80.4% % 80.0% % 100.0% % unitless 0 square feet square feet square feet 0 cubic-feet All fields in this summary worksheet are populated based on previous user inputs. If applicable, drainage basin elements char require revisions and/ or supplemental information outside the scope of these worksheets are highlighted in orange and summairzed in the red text below. If all drainage basins achieve full compliance without a need for supplemental information, a green message will appear below. -Con1,=tulations, all speofie<l drainage basms and Bl'lrPs are in compliance with swrmwater pollutant control requirements. Include 1 lxl 7 color prints of this summary sheet and supporting work.sheet calculations as part of the SWQ:'.[P subrrurtal package. ATTACHMENT 2 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 i:gi Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit boundaries marked on WMAA is requ ired , additional analyses are Critical Coarse Sediment Yield optional) Area Map (Required) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Manual. Sediment Yield Area Determination □ 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite □ 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment □ 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving i:gi Not performed Channels (Optional) □ Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and 1:gJ lncluded Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment: Preliminary Design/Planning/CEQA level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: ~ Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual Final Design level submittal: Attachment 3 must identify: ~ 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) ~ How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance ~ Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds) ~ Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable ~ Maintenance thresholds for BMPs subject to siltation or heavy trash(e.g., silt level posts or other markings shall be included in all BMP components that will trap and store sediment, trash, and/or debris, so that the inspector may determine how full the BMP is, and the maintenance personnel may determine where the bottom of the BMP is . If required, posts or other markings shall be indicated and described on structural BMP plans.) ~ Recommended equipment to perform maintenance ~ When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions (3A) The table below identifies the specific maintenance indicators and actions for the proposed structural BMP. Proposed BMP shall be access via proposed access road. No features proposed to facilitate inspections as all inspections/measurements are based on visual observation. For most maintenance actions, truck is sufficient. A 10-lSyd truck or backhoe may be necessary when removing sediment from BMP. No proprietary parts or training necessary to perform activities for proposed BMPs. ,-BMP: Infiltration Basin MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES MEASUREMENT ROUTINE ACTION MAINTENANCE INDICATOR FIELD MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Vegetation Average vegetation height Visual observation and Cut vegetation to an average height of 6-Management for greater than 12-inches, random measurements Annually, prior to start of wet inches and remove trimmings. Remove Aesthetics emergence of trees or woody throughout the side slope season (optional) vegetation, area any trees, or woody vegetation. Soil Repair Evidence of erosion Visual observation Annually, prior to start of Reseed/revegetate barren spots prior to wet season wet season. Standing water for more than Annually, 96 hours after a Drain facility. Corrective action prior to Standing Water 96 hrs Visual observation target storm (0.60 in) event wet season. Consult engineers if immediate solution is not evident. Trash and Debris Trash and Debris present Visual observation Annually, prior to start of Remove and dispose of trash and debris wet season Measure depth at apparent Remove and properly dispose of Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 10% maximum and minimum Annually, prior to start of Management of the facility design accumulation of sediment. wet season sediment. Regrade if necessary. Calculate average depth (expected every 2 years) Inlet structures, outlet structures, side slopes or other General features damaged, significant Annually, prior to start of Corrective action prior to wet season. Maintenance erosion, burrows, emergence of Visual observation Consult engineers if immediate solution Inspection trees or woody vegetation, wet season is not evident. graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. Reporting I Frequency (# of times per year) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit [Use the City's standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.] . 11 • . • • • . -" • .d., .... t: • . I • _4 · .-.. • • • r • • • s I • ---. .,-___ ., • ·-• • ' ... I ·- . "4 ·. · ... " A a.."P==>l"-..1 + 49 93, p • II ~ II . . II • II • '< -_. • ••• 6"SD II • • :'s"SD 4 ' ' ' II II II PERMANENT WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITY . KEEP OUR WATE RWAYS CLEAN MAINTAIN 111TH CARE -NO MODIFICATIONS 111TIHOUT AGENCY APPROVAL -.c WAT ER QUALITY SIGN NOT TO SC ALE SCALE: 1"=10 2 ft . C, -----# I + + I ~ I I <:, I I I Ii I - 6"SD 6 SD•------------'",----6"S,1 >---- ' ' " <:, -\ "o i;C-" 0' "''6·::o'\ -£ t, '-2 '" 50.30FS 4820FS I ' '" J/ :<; ,_,, 6'o ,._,'6 ,_G 4'-o '-2"' . ':) '\, . " 0" <:, AauP = 440 SF CRA TEO COVER f 5?7il 70,P ,7rR/SER I 12" 1 1 t 2" ---,--~I ------t---t--SLOT 4 3" MULCH t i ' ,, 48/il fi'U77d#' ~ 36"x36" DRAINAGE BOX . ~ " < < 11 J I II i, I I '' '' ' ' ' ' '. ' ' I < < < < \\\ \\\ \I\ ' < ' ' 4 BASIN DETAIL N,T,S , 50.30.FS H = 24 " H = 6" !8" AMENDED SOIL ENGINEER D1'1S CONSULTANTS, INC. C I V I L ENG IN EERS 12311 Lnis St. fl03 Ga""1 G-.... CA. 92840 P. 714-7-4-0-88-40 r. 71-!-7'40-8842 SURENOE.'< IJ. DEWAN "<CE 34559 C:XF. 9/30/19 ~1 ~ DATE 'J_.i ~c, o,_ l/l 0 0 l/l <D ) ,,9 'o INITI AL ENGINEER OF WORK 4 :\'II r:,~ ,G 'or:, )1>?1 1__":,0· BMP ID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTEN ANCE: NAME TMS OAK INVESTM ENTS 8, LLC ADDRESS 29250 PASEO SEDANO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (9 51) 801 -0888 CONTACT: TONY SFREDDO PLAN PR EPARED BY: NAME: MID COMPANY: REC CONSULTANTS INC. ADDRESS: 2442 SECOND AVENUE SIGNATURE SAN DIEGO CA 92101 PHONE NO.: (619)-326-6021 SEAL BMP NOTES : I. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTU RER'S RECOMM ENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS . 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CI TY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIO NS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY \\1LL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CI TY IN SPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTEN ANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. CHOOSE FROM THE LIST BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE FIELDS IN THE INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE FRENQUENCY COLUMNS: ANNUAL SEMI-ANNUALLY QUARTERLY BIMONTHLY MONTHLY AS NEEDED NON E WEEKLY 1 TIME PER YEAR 2 TIMES PER YEAR 3 TIMES PER YEAR 4 TIMES PER YEAR BMP TABLE CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE * FREQUENCY HYDROMODIFICATION & TREATMENT CONTROL 0 INFILTRATION ~ AREA TC-11 440 SF 513-7A 3 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D .) 0 ROOF DRAIN TO • SD-11 1 EA -. ANNUALLY ANNUALLY LANDSCAPING SOURCE CONTROL G) tTRASH ENCLOSURE ~ SD-32 1 EA. -. REGULARLY REGULARLY 0 WATER QUALITY SIGN cs= SEE DETAIL 1 EA. I S~EET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SH~ETS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GRADING PLANS FOR: 341-347 OAK AVENUE, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 GR 2018-0034 BMP SITE PLAN APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER PE 63912 EXPIRES 9 /30 /18 DATE DWN BY: N.C. PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. DATE INITIAL DATE INI TIAL CHKD BY: RE VISIO N DES CRIPTION RVWD BY: CT 2018-005 513 -7A OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL