Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PD 2021-0018; QUIDEL TENANT IMPROVEMENT; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD; 2021-06-08
CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR PD 2021-0018 CBC 2021-0111 ENGINEER OF WORK: Stefani Bell P.E. CFM 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 603-6263 PREPARED FOR: MCFARLANE ARCHITECTS, INC. 6256 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE 510 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 PREPARED BY: 9755 Clairmont Mesa Blvd., Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92124 (858) 614-500 DATE: June 8, 2021 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD C88581 Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL 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 1a: DMA Exhibit Attachment 1b: 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 Attachment 5: Geotechnical Studies Attachment 5a: Infiltration Report Attachment 5b: Geotechnical Report CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: 2285 Rutherford Road Project ID: PD 2021-0018 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. License # 88581, Exp. 3-31-2022 Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date Stefani Bell Print Name Michael Baker International Company June 8th, 2021 Date PROJECT VICINITY MAP CITY or OCEANSIDE PACIFIC OCEAN 78 CITY or VICINITY MAP N.T.S. or N MARCOS E-34 Page 1 of 4 REV 03/19 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE E-34 INSTRUCTIONS: To address post-development pollutants that may be generated from development projects, the city requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design per Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (BMP Manual). To view the BMP Manual, refer to the Engineering Standards (Volume 5). This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision, discretionary permits and/or construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water standards that must be applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Depending on the outcome, your project will either be subject to ‘STANDARD PROJECT’ requirements or be subject to ‘PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT’ (PDP) requirements. Your responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. If staff determines that the questionnaire was incorrectly filled out and is subject to more stringent storm water standards than initially assessed by you, this will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. In this case, please make the changes to the questionnaire and resubmit to the city. If you are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, please seek assistance from Land Development Engineering staff. A completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted with each development project application. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ID: ADDRESS: APN: The project is (check one): New Development Redevelopment The total proposed disturbed area is: ________ ft2 (________) acres The total proposed newly created and/or replaced impervious area is: ________ ft2 (________) 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. 2285 Rutherford Road X 24,731 0.57 24,664 0.57 212-062-08-00 2285 Rutherford Road PD 2021-0018 C cityof Carlsbad □ □ E-34 Page 2 of 4 REV 03/19 STEP 1 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL PROJECTS To determine if your project is a “development project”, please answer the following question: YES NO Is your project LIMITED TO routine maintenance activity and/or repair/improvements to an existing building or structure that do not alter the size (See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design Manual for guidance)? If you answered “yes” to the above question, provide justification below then go to Step 5, mark the third box stating “my project is not a ‘development project’ and not subject to the requirements of the BMP manual” and complete applicant information. Justification/discussion: (e.g. the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building): If you answered “no” to the above question, the project is a ‘development project’, go to Step 2. STEP 2 TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS To determine if your project is exempt from PDP requirements pursuant to MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(3), please answer the following questions: Is your project LIMITED to one or more of the following: YES NO 1. Constructing 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; OR b) Designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads; OR 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 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? 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. X X X X □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-34 Page 3 of 4 REV 03/19 STEP 3 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, 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 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 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 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 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 street, road, highway, freeway or driveway surface collectively over the entire project site? 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 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 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 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 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 you answered “no” to all of the above questions, your project is a ‘STANDARD PROJECT.’ Go to step 5, check the second box stating “My project is a ‘STANDARD PROJECT’…” and complete applicant information. X X X X X X X X X X X □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-34 Page 4 of 4 REV 03/19 STEP 4 TO BE COMPLETED FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (PDP) ONLY Complete the questions below regarding your redevelopment project (MS4 Permit Provision E.3.b.(2)): YES NO Does the redevelopment project result in the creation or replacement of impervious surface in an amount of less than 50% of the surface area of the previously existing development? Complete the percent impervious calculation below: Existing impervious area (A) = __________________________ 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 BMPs required for PDP apply only to the creation or replacement of impervious surface and not the entire development. Go to step 5, check the first box stating “My project is a PDP …” and complete applicant information. If you answered “no,” the structural BMP’s required for PDP apply to the entire development. Go to step 5, check the check the first box stating “My project is a PDP …” and complete applicant information. STEP 5 CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPLETE APPLICANT INFORMATION My project is a PDP and must comply with PDP stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. I understand I must prepare a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for submittal at time of application. My project is a ‘STANDARD PROJECT’ OR EXEMPT from PDP and must only comply with ‘STANDARD PROJECT’ stormwater requirements of the BMP Manual. As part of these requirements, I will submit a “Standard Project Requirement Checklist Form E-36” and incorporate low impact development strategies throughout 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. My Project is NOT a ‘development project’ and is not subject to the requirements of the BMP Manual. Applicant Information and Signature Box Applicant Name: 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: YES NO By: Date: Project ID: 24,664 X227,755 11 X Stefani Bell 6/8/2021 Surface Water Project Manager □ □ □ □ □ ~3dl □ □ SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name 2285 Rutherford Road Project ID PD 2021-0018 Project Address 2285 Rutherford Road, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 212-062-08 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area 6.55 Acres ( 285,373 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 5.41 Acres ( 227, 755 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 0.57 Acres ( 24,731Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 0.57 Acres ( 24,664 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (subset of Project Area) 0 Acres ( 67 Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): Existing development Previously graded but not built out Agricultural or other non-impervious use Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description / Additional Information: Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): Vegetative Cover Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): NRCS Type A NRCS Type B NRCS Type C NRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): GW Depth < 5 feet 5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): Watercourses Seeps Springs Wetlands None Description / Additional Information: IZI IZI IZI IZI IZI ~ 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]: Existing drainage conveyance is urban. There are no natural drainage patterns existing on the site. Runoff generated from the site is directed to several ribbon gutters throughout the parking lot area of the development. The ribbon gutters connect to inlets spread out around the parking lot. Flows picked up by the inlets are conveyed via underground storm drain pipes to a common inlet on Rutherford Drive. Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: Replacement of hardscape throughout the site for trash enclosures, electrical generators, and mechanical yards. New hardscape for patio and walkway. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Replacement of hardscape throughout the site for trash enclosures, electrical generators, and mechanical yards. New hardscape for patio and walkway. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Small pervious landscape area put in next to patio area. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? Yes No Description / Additional Information: Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? Yes No Description / Additional Information: Areas drains will be implemented adjacent to the new patio area which will discharge via curb outlet to the parking lot. Runoff from the front parking lot will be routed into inlets in the parking lot median to be treated before entering the existing onsite storm drain conveyance system. IZI IZI 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 Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps 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 Refuse areas Industrial processes Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Fuel Dispensing Areas Loading Docks Fire Sprinkler Test Water Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots IZI □ IZI 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 flow is conveyed from the project site to via hardline conveyance until it outfalls to the west of Van Allen Way. From there it travels through natural terrain until it reaches Agua Hedionda Lagoon and then the Pacific Ocean. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs Identification of Project Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Pollutant Not Applicable to the Project Site Anticipated from the Project Site Also a Receiving Water Pollutant of Concern Sediment X Nutrients X Heavy Metals X Organic Compounds X Trash & Debris X Oxygen Demanding Substances X Oil & Grease X Bacteria & Viruses X Pesticides X Hydromodification Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. 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. 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): 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? Yes 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 (GLUs) 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 Runoff* *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit. 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. E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Information Project Name: Project ID: DWG No. or Building Permit No.: Source Control BMPs All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix 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. "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: C cityof Carlsbad □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16 Source Control Requirement (continued) Applied? SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal Yes No 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). On-site storm drain inlets Yes No N/A Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Yes No N/A Interior parking garages Yes No N/A Need for future indoor & structural pest control Yes No N/A Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Yes No N/A Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Yes No N/A Food service Yes No N/A Refuse areas Yes No N/A Industrial processes Yes No N/A Outdoor storage of equipment or materials Yes No N/A Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Yes No N/A Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance Yes No N/A Fuel Dispensing Areas Yes No N/A Loading Docks Yes No N/A Fire Sprinkler Test Water Yes No N/A Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Yes No N/A Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Yes No N/A For “Yes” answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for “No” answers. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 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 Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: I ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Requirement (continued) Applied? SD-6 Runoff Collection Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation Yes No N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: I ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID PDP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual). Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP). Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. The type of structural BMPs were chosen based on the flow chart seen in Figure 5-5 of the BMP design manual. Based on the geotechnical findings in the Geocon Report titled “Geotechnical Investigation: Quidel Tenant Improvements”, infiltration is not feasible for this site due to the highly expansive nature of the existing materials and low infiltration rates. Infiltration study provided in Attachment 5a of this report. Using form I-7, harvest and reuse techniques were determined to be infeasible. The improvements around the site are spread out into small section throughout the 6.55 acre property. Due to the distance between the improvements, it was determined that an equivalent area of parking lot, with an equivalent DCV, was to be treated in lieu of the surface improvements not being treated. The site layout and characteristics provided an inadequate amount of area to fit a biofiltration or retention BMP. Because of the limited area to provide treatment, it was determined that a proprietary flow-thru treatment device and urban pond detention vault would be used for pollutant control and hydromodification flow control. In order to the achieve the volume reduction requirements that would be typically seen in biofiltration devices, a dispersion area containing amended soils was implemented in the parking lot median directly in the middle of of DMA 1. [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. 1 CBC 2021-0111 Sheet No. C3.1, C4.1 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Retention by amended soils. Proprietary Flow-thru treatment selected, but retention requirements are not met without the addition of amended soils. ~ Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No.2 CBC 2021-0111 Sheet No. C3.1, C4.1 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Propriety Flow-thru treatment system, Modular Wetland System (Forterra®), will be used due to area constraints for the existing developed site. IZI IZI Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No.3 CBC 2021-0111 Sheet No. C3.1, C4.1 Type of structural BMP: Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Pollutant control only Hydromodification control only Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Propriety urban pond vault (Forterra®), will be used due to area constraints for the existing developed site. IZI IZI ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Sequence Contents Checklist Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit (Required) See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24”x36” Exhibit typically required) Included Attachment 1b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA Area, and DMA Type (Required)* *Provide table in this Attachment OR on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a Included on DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a Included as Attachment 1b, separate from DMA Exhibit Attachment 1c Form I-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 I-7. Included Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs Attachment 1d Form I-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 I-8. Included Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines Included ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT 1a: Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The DMA 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) 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) CURB OPENING CURB OPENING CURB OPENING CURB OPENING TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE COVERED 5050 Avenida Encinas Suite 260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 476-9193 MBAKERINTL.COM DMA TABLE DMA #Total AREA (SF) Impervious Area (SF)BMP # BMP TYPE BMP LOCATION 1 35,490 28,516 1 AMENDED SOILS 440 SQFT N/A N/A 1 35,490 28,516 2 VEGETATED MWS 4' X 8'N/A N/A 1 35,490 28,516 3 URBAN POND VAULT 576 SQFT N/A N/A I I I I I I 0 L __ I ~ I * -------i-\.Jl---\---------:==6 I I I I * EX 24M RCP SD 315 * I I BMP SIZE C z ..... -I z 0 ---- • ---- . ____. ---- N N co (JI :::0 C -I I fTl :::0 "TJ 0 :::0 0 :::0 0 )> 0 • • -------------,. ._ ---' __ _j __________ _/ ---I I = 30 15 0 30 60 90 1-~ I 1------<1 SCALE: 1 "=30' 2 (JI co (.,J )> ..... 7J 7J Z:;o I fTl ..... NU) ..... -I Nr I -< Oo 0) :::0 N ..... I< of'Tl -...J r r 7J LEGEND DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA) ~ DMA BOUNDARY TREATMENT BMP ID POINT OF COMPLIANCE [l] Ci) PARCEL BOUNDARY -~--::::~-- PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IMPERVIOUS 1\\\\1 24,664 SF EX I ST I NG I MPERV I DUS TO BE TREATED I, .. · I 25 , 590 SF IN LIEU OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AMENDED SOILS PERVIOUS DIRECTION OF FLOW STENCIL PER SD-13 PROJECT INFORMATION PARCEL AREA:285,373 SF= 6.55 AC E" •• ·.1 440 SF I·: 'I 6,974 SF CD TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 24,731 SF= 0.57 AC CREATED/REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 24,664 SF= 0.57 AC 85TH PERCENTILE STORM: 0.62 INCHES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY: GEOCON HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP: D GROUNDWATER: ASSUMED DEPTH> 20 FT NO HYDROLOGIC FEATURES EXIST ONSITE NO CCYSA EXIST ONSITE OR UPSTREAM EXISTING GRADE 3• MIN Uf\OERDRAIN OFFSET 4.5' 4.5' 6" PERFORATED SECTION B-B UNDERDRAIN B It.f'ERVIOUS AREA B 12" AMENDED SOIL PER FACT SHEET SD-F 12• GRAVEL EXISTING GRADE -"-r--I t.f'ERV IOUS AREA aJR8 CUT PLAN VIEW AMENDED SOILS N.T.S. REQUIRED RETENTION: 14 CUFT PROVIDED RETENTION: 86 CUFT DENSE ROBUST VEGETATION 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD DMA EXHIBIT PROJECT PERMIT NO: CBC 2021-0111 Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL ATTACHMENT 1c: Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-2 February 2016 Harvest and Use Feasibility Checklist Form I-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? 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 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. [Provide a summary of calculations here] 3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B.2-1. DCV = __________ (cubic feet) 3a. Is the 36 hour demand greater than or equal to the DCV? Yes / No 3b. Is the 36 hour demand greater than 0.25DCV but less than the full DCV? Yes / No 3c. Is the 36 hour demand less than 0.25DCV? Yes 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. 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. Harvest and use is considered to be infeasible. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. No, select alternate BMPs. X 1349 2.8*((0.5*6974)/0.9)*0.015 = 162.73 X X X □ □ □ Modrfied TWU-oWet x [II:(P -x HA /IE)+ SLAJ x 0.015 =2.8~[(0 .5 3 23)/0. !X.0.0 5 - c::> ~ ~ i ,(), ATTACHMENT 1d: Two percolation tests were performed at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin. The following presents the results of our field infiltration rates: P-1 @ 4 Feet: 0.003 inches/hour (0.002 inches/hour with FOS=2) P-2 @ 4 Feet: 0.002 inches/hour (0.001 inches/hour with FOS=2) Based on the field infiltration rates full infiltration would be infeasible at the planned basin location. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists 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? 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 X 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: X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 1-3 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteri a 3 ~ • 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 X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 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: X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Part 1 Result * If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are ''Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The 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. Proceed to Part 2 No "'To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-4 February 2016 Two percolation tests were performed at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin. The following presents the results of our field infiltration rates: P-1 @ 4 Feet: 0.003 inches/hour (0.002 inches/hour with FOS=2) P-2 @ 4 Feet: 0.002 inches/hour (0.001 inches/hour with FOS=2) Based on the field infiltration rates full infiltration would be infeasible at the planned basin location. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists • 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 X 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: X 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. 1-5 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria 7 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, stonn 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 X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: X 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. Part2 Result* If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. 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. No Infiltration *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-6 February 2016 ATTACHMENT 1e: Disturbed Area Calculation: DMA TOTAL AREA (SF) SURFACE AREA (SF) RUNOFF FACTOR WEIGHTED C 1 24,731 Concrete 24,664 0.9 Landscape 67 0.3 TOTAL AREA 24,731 0.57 ACRES DMA Calculation (Includes equivalent area to be treated in lieu of improvements): DMA TOTAL AREA (SF) SURFACE AREA (SF) RUNOFF FACTOR WEIGHTED C 1 35,490 LANDSCAPE 6,974 0.1 Impervious 28,516 0.9 TOTAL AREA 35,490 0.81 ACRES RUNOFF FACTOR PER TABLE B.1.1 0.74 RUNOFF FACTOR PER TABLE B.1.1 0.90 Area treated = 35,490 sf; > Area Disturbed = 24,731 sf Disturbed Area Calculation: 1 85th Percentrile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d=0.62 inches 2 Area Tributary to BMP(s) A=0.57 acres 3 Area Weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1 C=0.9 unitless 4 Tree Wells Volume Reduction TCV= cubic-feet 5 Rain Barrels Volume Reduction RCV= cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV = (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV= 1155 cubic-feet DMA Calculation (Includes equivalent area to be treated in lieu of improvements): 1 85th Percentrile 24-hr storm depth from Figure B.1-1 d=0.62 inches 2 Area Tributary to BMP(s) A=0.81 acres 3 Area Weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.1.1 and B.2.1 C=0.74 unitless 4 Tree Wells Volume Reduction TCV= cubic-feet 5 Rain Barrels Volume Reduction RCV= cubic-feet 6 Calculate DCV = (3630 x C x d x A) - TCV - RCV DCV= 1349 cubic-feet Design Capture Volume Worksheet B.2.-1 Design Capture Volume Worksheet B.2.-1 DCV Treated = 1,349 cf; > DCV Disturbed = 1,155 cf B-36 February 2016 Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1 1 DCV DCV cubic-feet 2 DCV retained DCVretained cubic-feet 3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered cubic-feet 4 DCV requiring flow-thru (Line 1 – Line 2 – 0.67xLine 3) DCVflow-thru cubic-feet 5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)* AF= unitless 6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr 7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= acres 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = AF x (C x i x A) Q= cfs *Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the project's retention and biofiltration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an adjustment factor of 1. Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1 1 DCV DCV cubic-feet 2 DCV retained DCVretained cubic-feet 3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered cubic-feet 4 DCV requiring flow-thru (Line 1 – Line 2 – 0.67xLine 3) DCVflow-thru cubic-feet 5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)* AF= unitless 6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr 7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= acres 8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= unitless 9 Calculate Flow Rate = AF x (C x i x A) Q= cfs *Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the project's retention and biofiltration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an adjustment factor of 1. 1.5 1,155 0 0 1,155 0.90 0.154 0.57 1.5 1349 0 0 1349 0.74 0.206 0.81 Disturbed Area Calculation: DMA Calculation (Includes equivalent area to be treated in lieu of improvements): Use MWS-L-4-8 2285 Rutherford Road -DMA 1-MWS-1 1 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= 35490.00 square feet 2 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix B.2) C= 0.74 unitless 3 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (Section B.1.1.)D= 0.62 in 4 Calculate DCV = D/12 x (C x A - R) V= 1349.000 Cubic Feet 5 Proprietary biofiltration flow rate treatment capacity V= 3506.000 Cubic Feet Volume-Based Sizing for Compact Biofiltration Modular Wetland System is positioned downstream of Urban Pond with hydromodification orifice. The Urban Pond is sized to detain 3,506 cubic feet of runoff for hydromodification requirements and therefore the MWS was sized to treat this volume. This volume treated by the MWS is greater than 1.5 times the DCV. 1,349*1.5 = 2,024 Cubic Feet 3,506 > 2,024 STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-4-8-10'-0"-V-HC SITE SPECIFIC DATA PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW LEFT END VIEW GENERAL NOTES INSTALLATION NOTES PROJECT NUMBER 12817 PROJECT NAME 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD PHASE 1 TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATION CARLSBAD, CA STRUCTURE ID MWS 1 TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED (CF) FLOW BASED (CFS) J,506 N/A TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE {FT) N/K PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED {CFS} -IF APPLICABLE TBD PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 296.92 PVC 18" INLET PIPE 2 N/A N/A N/A OUTLET PIPE 295.62 PVC 18" PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRATION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION 305.70 305.70 305.70 SURFACE LOAD PEDESTRIAN N/A PEDESTRIAN FRAME & COVER 36" X 36" OPEN PLANTER N/A WETLANDMEDIA VOLUME {CY) 5.07 ORIFICE SIZE {DIA. INCHES) 5EA ¢0.42" NOTES: EXTRA TALL CAGE REQUIRED. MWS WILL BACK UP INTO UPSTREAM DETENTION TO 299.50. EOR TO SIZE DETENTION ORIFICE AND PROVIDE PEAK FLOW RAT£ 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURERS' SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER's CONTRACT. REQUIRED TREATMENT VOLUME (CF) DRAINDOWN DURATION {HOURS} AVERAGE DISCHARGE RATE PER MWS UNIT(GPM) OPERA TING HEAD {FT} WETLANDMEDIA INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR) WETLANDMEDIA LOADING RATE {GPM/SF} PATENTED PERIMETER VOID AREA DRAIN DOWN LINE INLET PIPE SEE NOTES r - - 3506 33 13.08 3.4 26 0.26 C/L 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BASE UNLESS SPECIFIED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENGINEER's RECOMMENDED BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE {PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. I _____._m==-'D -- -I -PEAK HGL +- 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL PIPES, RISERS, MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE 6. VEGETATION SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY OTHERS. ALL UNITS WITH VEGETATION MUST HAVE DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY OTHERS. 7. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING BIO CLEAN FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER's WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER ACTIVATION BY A BIO CLEAN REPRESENTATIVE 299.10 TREATMENT HGL VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD 305.70 RIM/FG VEGETATION---....:. Pl.ANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA It ll) 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANG£ FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT BIO CLEAN. ~ . .. , PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: A,. ~ETLANDS TH£ INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ 8 -1 o .DA\._ Cl ea n PROPERTY OF FO/ll£RRA ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS OOCUM£NT. ~~) ::: :::::k:''tJ :~~ ~4r:,,: OF NOR ANY PAKT THEREOF, MAY 8£ IJS£0, R£PROOUC£O OR l,f(){)IF/£0 ~ =s::Jis~REZAIEII fORE/GN PATfN/S III IN ANY MANNER WITH 0/ff TH£ WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. A F'ortarli It 1:0 Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name A unitless 2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.62 inches 3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 28,516 sq-ft 4 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft 5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft 6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft 7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft 8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft 9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) 6,974 sq-ft 10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No No No No yes/no 11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft 13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft 14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft 15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft 16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft 17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft 18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A # 19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter ft 20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E # 21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal 22 Total Tributary Area 35,490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 26 Initial Design Capture Volume 1,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 29 Ratio of Dispersed 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 30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless 32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 1,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 36 Final Effective Tributary Area 27,682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet False False Automated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0) Dispersion Area, Tree Well & Rain Barrel Inputs (Optional) Standard Drainage Basin Inputs Results Tree & Barrel Adjustments Initial Runoff Factor Calculation Dispersion Area Adjustments No Warning Messages Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name A - - - - - - - - - unitless 2 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.62 - - - - - - - - - inches 3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location D unitless 4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted unitless 5 Nature of Restriction Soil Type unitless 6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no 7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No yes/no 8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? No yes/no 9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer in/hr 10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 - - - - - - - - - in/hr 11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 1.5% - - - - - - - - - percentage 12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.01 - - - - - - - - - ratio 13 Required Retention Volume 14 - - - - - - - - - cubic-feet False False Automated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0) Advanced Analysis Basic Analysis Result No Warning Messages Category #Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name A ---------sq-ft 2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 ---------in/hr 3 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,430 ---------cubic-feet 4 Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated?Vegetated unitless 5 Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined?Lined unitless 6 Does BMP Have an Underdrain?Underdrain unitless 7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media?Standard unitless 8 Provided Surface Area 440 sq-ft 9 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 0 inches 10 Provided Soil Media Thickness 12 inches 11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness)12 inches 12 Underdrain Offset 3 inches 13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest)6.00 inches 14 Specialized Soil Media Filtration Rate in/hr 15 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retention unitless 16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltration unitless 17 Specialized Gravel Media Pore Space unitless 18 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 19 Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless 20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain)0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 22 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain)0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 23 Effective Retention Depth 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 24 Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time)0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 26 Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 27 Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time)86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 1,344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 1.1579 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cfs 30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 113.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 31 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 33 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless 36 Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain)0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless 37 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 38 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 40 Total Depth Biofiltered 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 2,015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 42 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 1,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 43 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 1,008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 44 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements?Yes ---------yes/no 47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor)0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 48 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater -400 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Biofiltration Calculations -This BMP does not fully satisfy the performance standards for pollutant control for the drainage area. - BMPs sized at <3% of the effective tributary areas must be accompanied by Reduced Size BMP Maintenance calculations (see last tab). False -BMPs with underdrains must have a soil media thickness of at least 18 inches. Result False False Attention! Retention Calculations Automated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0) False False BMP Inputs Amended soils BMP is not being utilized for pollutant control or flow control. It is being utilized to satisfy retention requirements only. 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 Sequence Contents Checklist Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Exhibit (Required) Included See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required, additional analyses are optional) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual. Exhibit showing project drainage boundaries marked on WMAA Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area Map (Required) Optional analyses for Critical Coarse 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 Channels (Optional) See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Not performed Included Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual Included ~ ~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT 2a: 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) Existing topography 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 Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) 5050 Avenida Encinas Suite 260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 476-9193 MBAKERINTL.COM HMP TABLE DA #Total AREA (SF) Impervious Area (SF)BMP # BMP TYPE BMP LOCATION 1 35,490 28516 3 URBAN POND VAULT 576 SQFT N/A N/A '' '' '' '' " " " ,, ,, ,, " " " " " " " * :I! I :I! :ice)- "' .:>~__.1..9J$. ""' \ . \ \ \ I I EX 24H RCP SD (") )> ;;o r (/) (n~ I'\ ~ \ ~ ~~ I'\ . 'f.$~~i t ~ a\, \~ 1 '?, ~ \ : ~ . \" \ -----, 1\~-ler\1 \ \ __J\ \ \ I .. -0 ~ ~ ' . . .___.,, ~ .. --'.J,~~ ,.,~~, / . . .... ,.J"••'-•·-. . ·, . . '. : ;~✓-. .· ._\'. . '",,..." i ~ ". " -·~ ·: .. , ·., "·, ··'· ... • />W.~, . . . ~1. 0 ... ,• , ·.o\, "--""' ·. "'"'-\ !~-• I :::-:: ro )> 0 . •, ' . . . J' ··o;_. . •. 1>4', I I I I I I I I I I I i=1 I I .. 0 I I I I I C z ...... --i z 0 -> • N N co (]1 ;;o C --i I fTl ;;o "'TJ 0 ;;o 0 ;;o 0 )> 0 / / > / ~ l ½ w ~ / ' o w---111----1 X w· :I! ~-~ -~ • > ~~ \ ~ ~~, . - -"'-'-:::: -+---== -- -- -- -- -- -- --- - - - - ---- -------=-~~~-----~~-w --w "' ---=------w - - -,___...,_L __ M __ -~ ~ ~ ~ =ffl -EX.•· ,r;J w,TER ___ -~+--; _ S:~~'h--~i'1-F,-'f. _ w---l!l.-e~1---w _ ""'"'.-' ---=-~-=-+c-=-- i ±310 --+--,--t--1E E--t-+-+ -++-+E f f . -~,-+--+-,\!;~~~r,-.,:. , I • ~ I J1s -:..-----,..,_ "" I -~ ' 1 www , -• 309 L__ ---------------(JIB}--~flll _ _-:-[:] 0:-___ .'.._ ___ i __________ _,,' I _. ----- 323 =,,-._.,!. - * r BMP SIZE 30 15 0 30 60 90 1-~f----1 __ 1----<1 SCALE: 1 "=30' / / -~ /'it~' .... X / . . . ~' • . 1 " ,. ., . '., -s C ' ... . ' /// '> ' 'yj / X (]1 c.o 0J ►-" -u -u Z;;o I fTl ...... N Cl) -> --i Nr I -< Oo 0) ;;o N....,. I< of'Tl --.J r r -u J' LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA EXISTING DRAINAGE BOUNDARY PROPOSED DRAINAGE BOUNDARY HYDROMODIFICATION BMP ID POINT OF COMPLIANCE --- PARCEL BOUNDARY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IMPERVIOUS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS TO BE TREATED IN LIEU OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AMENDED SOILS PERVIOUS DIRECTION OF FLOW PROJECT INFORMATION PARCEL AREA:285,373 SF= 6.55 AC [1] G 1\\\\1 24,664 SF ~ • ... I 25,590 SF E" •• ·.1 440 SF I·} > j 6,974 SF TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 24,731 SF= 0.57 AC CREATED/REPLACED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 24,731 SF= 0.57 AC 85TH PERCENTILE STORM: 0.62 INCHES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY: GEOCON HYDROLOGJC SOIL GROUP: D GROUNDWATER: ASSUMED DEPTH> 20 FT NO HYDROLOGJC FEATURES EXIST ONSITE NO CCYSA EXIST ONSITE OR UPSTREAM 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD HMP EXHIBIT PROJECT PERMIT NO: CBC 2021-0111 Michael Baker INTERNATIONAL ATTACHMENT 2b: 22 11 88 1616 101044 2525 2727 2323 2222 99 55 1212 1515 1414 33 2424 66 2626 1313 2121 2020 77 1717 1818 1919 1111 RedMountainReservoir LAKEHENSHAWTURNERLAKE LAKEWOHLFORD BUENAVISTALAGOON DIXONRESERVOIR AQUAHEDIONDALAGOON SAN MARCOSLAKE SUTHERLANDRESERVOIRBATIQUITOSLAGOON SANDIEGUITORESERVOIR RESERVOIRLAKEPOWAY SAN ELIJOLAGOON EL CAPITANRESERVOIR SAN VICENTERESERVOIR MIRAMARRESERVOIR SANTEERECREATIONALLAKES MISSIONBAY LOVELANDRESERVOIRLAKEMURRAYMOUNTHELIXLAKE SAN DIEGOBAY CHOLLASHEIGHTSRESERVOIR HANSENRESERVOIR MORENARESERVOIRSWEETWATERRESERVOIRBARRETTLAKE LOWER OTAYRESERVOIOR LOSPENASQUITOSLAGOON LAKERAMONA UPPER OTAYRESERVOIR SANDIEGUITOLAGOON LAKEHODGES SAN VICENTERESERVOIR LAKE LINDO CARLSBADCARLSBAD CHULACHULAVISTAVISTA EL CAJONEL CAJON LA MESALA MESA NATIONALNATIONALCITYCITY OCEANSIDEOCEANSIDE POWAYPOWAY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY SANSANDIEGODIEGO SANSANMARCOSMARCOS SANTEESANTEE VISTAVISTA San D ie goR iv erChollasC reekSanDiegui toRiverSanMarcosCreek Rattlesnake Creek DulzuraCreekSanMarcosCreek E scondidoCreekTijuanaRiver JamulCree kSycamoreCreek Cot tonwood CreekBuena Vist aCreek Poway C reek Otay R iver Ca rrol C anyon Lusardi Creek Los Pe n asqu itos C r eek E n cinitas C ree kWoodglenVistaCreekAgua Hed iondaC r e ekSantaMargaritaRiverSweetwat erRiverRoseC ree k San Lui sReyRive rO ta yRiv erSanta Ysabel Creek Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Exhibit Date: Sept. 8, 2014Regional San Diego County Watersheds Aerial Imagery Source: DigitalGlobe, 06/2012 Legend Regional WMAA Streams Watershed Boundaries Municipal Boundaries Rivers & Streams Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas NORTH051015Miles REACH ID NAME 1 Santa Margarita River 2 San Luis Rey River 3 Buena Vista Creek 4 Agua Hedionda Creek 5 San Marcos Creek 6 Encinitas Creek 7 Cottonwood Creek (Carlsbad WMA) 8 Escondido Creek 9 San Dieguito Creek - Reach 1 10 San Dieguito Creek - Reach 2 11 Lusardi Creek 12 Los Penasquitos / Poway Creek 13 Rattlesnake Creek 14 Carroll Canyon Creek 15 Rose Creek 16 San Diego River 17 Sycamore Creek 18 Woodglen Vista Creek 19 San Vicente Creek 20 Forester Creek 21 Chollas Creek 22 Sweetwater River - Reach 1 23 Sweetwater River - Reach 2 24 Otay River 25 Jamul / Dulzura Creek 26 Tijuana River 27 Cottonwood Creek (Tijuana WMA) PROJECT SITE L-----+----------------J··~ ~----------jt - Geosyntec1> i#IHS consultants E'-:GINEERING COMPANY WMAA CCYSA Map Write a description for your map. Legend 2285 Rutherford Rd CCYSA Stream 2 mi N➤➤NData CSUMB SFML, CA OPC Data CSUMB SFML, CA OPC Data CSUMB SFML, CA OPC © 2021 Google © 2021 Google © 2021 Google \ \ ATTACHMENT 2d: Project Name:Hydrologic Unit: Project Applicant:Rain Gauge: Jurisdiction:Total Project Area: Parcel (APN):Low Flow Threshold: BMP Name:BMP Type: BMP Native Soil Type:BMP Infiltration Rate (in/hr): HMP Sizing Factors Minimum BMP Size DMA Name Area (sf) Pre Project Soil Type Pre-Project Slope Post Project Surface Type Area Weighted Runoff Factor (Table G.2-1)1 Volume Volume (CF) Pervious 6,974 D Flat Landscape 0.1 0.12 84 Impervious 28,516 D Flat Concrete 1.0 0.12 3422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BMP Tributary Area 35,490 Minimum BMP Size 3506 Proposed BMP Size*3517 * Assumes standard configuration 6.3 ft 3.5 ft 561 CF Notes: 1. Runoff factors which are used for hydromodification management flow control (Table G.2-1) are different from the runoff factors used for pollutant control BMP sizing (Table B.1-1). Table references are taken from the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual, April 2018. This BMP Sizing Spreadsheet has been updated in conformance with the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual, April 2018. For questions or concerns please contact the jurisdiction in which your project is located. Describe the BMP's in sufficient detail in your PDP SWQMP to demonstrate the area, volume, and other criteria can be met within the constraints of the site. BMP's must be adapted and applied to the conditions specific to the development project such as unstable slopes or the lack of available head. Designated Staff have final review and approval authority over the project design. Standard Cistern Depth (Overflow Elevation) Provided Cistern Depth (Overflow Elevation) Minimum Required Cistern Footprint) Areas Draining to BMP Carlsbad 212-062-08 D BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0 NA Cistern 0.1Q2 24,664 Oceanside 904 Enter BMP Name 2285 Rutherford McFarlane Architects Urban Pond footprint (SF) Urban Pond depth Required Volume (CF) Default depth. Not used. / ,/ I :1 - ----/ --I ! ~ -'' ..... - '~ Project Name:Hydrologic Unit: Project Applicant:Rain Gauge: Jurisdiction:Total Project Area: Parcel (APN):Low Flow Threshold: BMP Name BMP Type: Rain Gauge Unit Runoff Ratio DMA Area (ac) Orifice Flow - %Q2 Orifice Area Soil Type Slope (cfs/ac)(cfs) (in2) Pervious Oceanside D Flat 0.571 0.160 0.009 0.13 Impervious Oceanside D Flat 0.571 0.655 0.037 0.55 3.50 0.047 0.69 0.93 Max Orifice Head Max Tot. Allowable Orifice Flow Max Tot. Allowable Orifice Area Max Orifice Diameter (feet)(cfs)(in2)(in) Provide Hand Calc.0.043 0.64 0.900 Average outflow during surface drawdown Max Orifice Outflow Actual Orifice Area Selected Orifice Diameter (cfs)(cfs)(in2)(in) Drawdown (Hrs)Provide Hand Calculation Oceanside Cistern Drawdown time exceeds 96 Hrs. Project must implement a vector control program. 904 BMP Sizing Spreadsheet V3.0 Carlsbad 212-062-08 2285 Rutherford McFarlane Architects 0.1Q2 24,664 Enter BMP Name Pre-developed Condition No Orifice Required for Infiltration Facilities DMA Name Q = Cd * A * (2gH)^0.5 Q = (0.65) * (PI * ((.90/12)^2)/4) * (2*32.2*7)^.5 Q=0.05798 cfs Drawdown Time: T = (Vol/Q)/3600 T = (3517/0.05798)/3600 T = 16.85 hrs ◄ Proposed Composite Weighted CCounty of San Diego Hydrology Manual (June 2003)Per Table 3-1, Soil Type DType D soil, C= 0.351D 0.81 35490 6,974 28516 80% 0.79Composite C WeightedOn-Site Drainage Area (ac) Area (sf) Pervious (sf)Impervious (sf)% ImperviousSoil Type 2285 Rutherford- Proposed Hydrology Summary Table Slope %Slope (%) Lm (ft) Ti (min) Slope (%) L (ft) V (ft/s)** Tt (min)P6 (in)I (in/hr)Q2 (cfs) P6 (in)I (in/hr)Q10 (cfs) P6 (in)I (in/hr)Q100 (cfs) DMA 1 35490 0.81 D 0.79 267 311 306 1.9 2% 75 4.0 1.9% 192 2.7 1.2 5.2 1.3 3.35 2.2 1.8 4.63 3.0 2.75 7.08 4.6 *Based on County of San Diego Hydrology Manual (June 2003) Table 3-1 **Based on TR-55 Figure 3-1 for Shallow Concentrated Flow Existing landuse - Limited Industrial County of San Diego Hydrology Manual (June 2003) Q=CIA Q = Flow Rate (cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient Weighted Composite I = Intensity (in/hr) A = Area (acres) 2 Year 10 Year 100 YearTotal Flow Length (ft) Up-St Elevation Downs-St Elevation Initial Travel Time (Per Table 3-2)Travel Time (Shallow Concentrated Flow)Total Tt (min)Drainage Area Area (ac) CSoil GroupArea (sf) Hydrograph Summary Report 1 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 Manual 4.600 5 245 6,180 ------ ------ ------ UrbanPond INFLOW 2 Reservoir 2.725 5 250 6,169 1 303.98 4,021 Discharge Location1 Urban Pond.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Friday, 06 / 11 / 2021 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 06 / 11 / 2021 Hyd. No. 2 Discharge Location1 Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 2.725 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 4.17 hrs Time interval = 5 min Hyd. volume = 6,169 cuft Inflow hyd. No. = 1 - UrbanPond INFLOW Max. Elevation = 303.98 ft Reservoir name = Urban Pond Max. Storage = 4,021 cuft Storage Indication method used. 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 Q (cfs) Time (hrs) Discharge Location1 Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 1 Total storage used = 4,021 cuft _ ,_ ~- 111111111 Pond Report 3 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 06 / 11 / 2021 Pond No. 1 - Urban Pond Pond Data Contours -User-defined contour areas. Conic method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 297.00 ft Stage / Storage Table Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft) 0.00 297.00 576 0 0 1.00 298.00 576 576 576 2.00 299.00 576 576 1,152 3.00 300.00 576 576 1,728 4.00 301.00 576 576 2,304 5.00 302.00 576 576 2,880 6.00 303.00 576 576 3,456 7.00 304.00 576 576 4,032 Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise (in)= 18.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 Span (in)= 18.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 No. Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Invert El. (ft)= 297.00 297.00 0.00 0.00 Length (ft)= 17.87 17.87 0.00 0.00 Slope (%)= 0.33 0.33 0.00 n/a N-Value = .010 .010 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Multi-Stage = n/a Yes No No Crest Len (ft)= 3.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El. (ft)= 303.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 Weir Type = 1 --- --- --- Multi-Stage = Yes No No No Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Contour) TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00 Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s). 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Stage (ft) 0.00 297.00 2.00 299.00 4.00 301.00 6.00 303.00 8.00 305.00 Elev (ft) Discharge (cfs) Stage / Discharge Total Q PLAN VIEW BIO CLEAN 30"Ø BIO CLEAN 30"Ø FLOW CONTROL ORIFICE WITH STAND PIPE FOR BYPASS EXAMPLE NOT PROVIDED BY BIOCLEN URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION PLAN VIEW SITE SPECIFIC DATA* GRADE ADJUSTMENT RISERS URBANPOND MODULES SIDEWALLS TOTAL STORAGE CAPACITY PROJECT NUMBER 12817 PROJECT NAME 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD PHASE 1 TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATION CARLSBAD, CA STRUCTURE ID UNIT 1 REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME {CF} I 3,506 PIPE DATA I.£ MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 JOJ.00 PVC 12 INLET PIPE 2 JOJ.00 PVC 12 OUTLET PIPE 1 29 7. 00 PVC 18 FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION 305± SURFACE LOADING REQUIREMENT HS20 FRAME AND COVER ¢JO" CORROSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS NA KNOWN GROUNDWATER ELEVATION NA NOTES: PER £OR, ¢0.90" ORIFICE PLATE TO BE PLACED AT OUTLET PIPE WITH STAND PIPE WITH CREST ELEVATION AT JOJ.JJ. *PER ENGINEER OF RECORD TYPE HEIGHT COUNT 8'x8' PERIMETER TOP 1'-0" 9 LENGTH (FT) HEIGHT (FT) COUNT 8'-o" 7'-7" 1 8'-7" 7'-7" 2 171-211 7'-7" 1 WATER VOLUME AT 6.JJ' WATER DEPTH = 3,517 CF HEAVIEST PIECE: PERIMETER MODULE = 14,225 LBS. J" 12" JO"¢ 0 2 0 f THIS PRODUCT ~y BE PROTECTED BY PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: ,6.. ~ ONE OR /JORE OF THE FOLLOWING us B ■ ~ CI ~ PATENTS: D795.385; D828.902: THE INFOR~TION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE SOLE 10 \\;/JV ea n ~-D828,903: 10, 151,083: 10, 151,096. PROPERTY OF FORTERRA AND ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, RELATED FOREIGN PATENTS OR OTHER NOR ANY PART THEREOF, ~y BE USED, REPRODUCED OR MODIFIED -• t:::::: 12•; STAND PIPE FOR BYPASS CREST ELEV. J0J.JJ I I II 1...-&.1-..&.,.1i-----~90~ ORIFICE I.£ 297.00 ~ 1:60 SCALE PATENTS PENDING. IN ANY ~NER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FOl?TERRA. AF'orterrar-<o _______________________________________________ ...._ ______________ ,..., ___ , ___ ,....., _______________________ _ ELEVATION VIEW POURED IN PLACE BASE SLAB DETAIL URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION GENERAL ELEVATION DETAILS INSTALLATION NOTES GENERAL NOTES ” 1. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS AND INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD AND INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING AND THE MANUFACTURER's SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BAS£ MANUFACTURER REQUIRES A POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE BASE SLAB. SOIL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING RECOMMENDED COMPACTION AND BASE SPECIFICATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR TO PLACE A LAYER OF GEOTEXTILE FABRIC IN THE EXCAVATED PIT AREA. A GRAVEL OR AGGREGATE LAYER OF SUB-BASE IS RECOMMENDED BELOW THE POURED IN PLACE BASE SLAB. THE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL WRAP UP AT LEAST 1' ALONG THE OUTER WALLS AND BE SECURED INTO PLACE WITH THE BACKFILL. THE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PREVENTS FINE SOIL PARTICLES FROM MIGRATING INTO THE SYSTEM. 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH. INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL GAPS AROUND PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT WITH A NON-SHRINK GROUT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL AND SHALL MEET OR EXCEED REGIONAL PIPE CONNECTION STANDARDS. 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL RISERS, MANHOLE FRAMES AND COVERS. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL FRAMES AND COVERS TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE 6. THE URBANPOND MODULE SYSTEM IS TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C891-90, INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND PRECAST UTILITY STRUCTURES. PROJECT PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS MUST BE FOLLOWED ALONG WITH ANY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. 7. DESIGNATED EMBEDDED LIFTERS MUST BE USED. USE PROPER RIGGING TO ASSURE ALL LIFTERS ARE EQUALLY ENGAGED WITH A MINIMUM 60 DEGREE ANGLE ON SLINGS AS NOTED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S LIFTING PROCEDURES. USE RIGGING THAT EQUALIZES THE LOAD BETWEEN ALL LIFTERS. 8. BIO CLEAN RECOMMENDS BEGINNING INSTALLATION WITH THE OUTLET MODULE 9. MODULES MUST BE PLACED AS CLOSE TOGETHER AS POSSIBLE, AND GAPS SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 1/4~ 10. ALL EXTERIOR SYSTEM JOINTS {SIDES AND TOP} SHALL BE COVERED WITH A MIN. 6 JOINT WRAP. 11. INSTALL PANEL WALLS AT DESIGNATED LOCATIONS ON THE PLAN VIEW DRAWING. SECURE PANEL WALLS WITH 2 BOLTS ON TOP. 12. THE FILL PLACED AROUND THE URBANPOND MODULES MUST BE DEPOSITED EVENLY, AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ELEVATION, AROUND ALL SIDES. AT NO TIME SHALL THE FILL BEHIND ONE SIDE BE MORE THAN 1'-0" HIGHER THAN THE FILL ON THE OPPOSITE SID£ BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED AND/OR VIBRATED TO ENSURE THAT BACKFILL MATERIAL IS WELL SEATED AND PROPERLY INTERLOCKED. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY WEDGING ACTION AGAINST THE STRUCTURE, AND ALL SLOPES WITHIN THE AREA TO BE BACKFILLED MUST BE STEPPED OR SERRA TED TO PREVENT WEDGING ACTION. CARE SHALL ALSO BE TAKEN SO AS NOT TO DISRUPT THE JOINT WRAP FROM THE JOINT DURING THE BACKFILL PROCESS. BACKFILL MATERIAL MUST BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 57 {MSHTO M43} AGGREGATE OR NATIVE MATERIAL IF APPROVED BY THE SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. IF NATIVE MATERIAL IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO MIGRATION, CONFIRM WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED. 13. AT NO TIME SHALL MACHINERY OR VEHICLES GREATER THAN THE DESIGN HS-20 LOADING CRITERIA TRAVEL ON TOP OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT THE MINIMUM DESIGN COVERAGE IF TRAVEL IS NECESSARY OVER THE SYSTEM PRIOR TO ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM DESIGN COVER, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE ULTIMATE LOAD/BURDEN OF THE OPERATING MACHINERY SO AS NOT TO EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM. IN SOME CASES HAND OPERATED COMPACTION EQUIPMENT MAY BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO NOT EXCEED THE ALLOTTED DESIGN LOADING. 14. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF URBANPOND. STEPPED OR SERRATED AND APPLICABLE OSHA REQUIREMENTS 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANG£ FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT MANUFACTURER. 3. ANY VARIATION FOUND DURING CONSTRUCT/ON FROM THE SITE AND SYSTEM ANALYSIS MUST BE REPORTED TO THE PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER. 4. CONCRETE BASE SLAB F'C = 4,000 PSI AT 28 DAYS FY= 40,000 PSI GROUT {NON-SHRINK} FM = 6,000 PSI ~ -THts_PROD_uc_T MA_r_BE_PRO_T£i_crm_BY ____ P._'R,_OP._'R_1EJj_f1_R_Y-AM_v_c_o_NA-,o-EN_n_~_L:--...,...-----.----1-------,------------------------t es ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING us B ■ C ea n ~ PATENTS: 0795385· 0828,902· THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE SOI.£ IO ll.V_JJ ;;:; 0828,903;0 10,t5i,Ofil; 10,151,096. PROPERTY OF FORTERRA AND ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, ~ "'" REIATED FOREIGN PATENTS OR OTHER NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY BE USED, REPROO/JCED OR MODIFIED ~ 1 :60 SCALE PATENTS PENDING. IN ANY MANNER WTTH our THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. A Forterra Company "'iL---------------------L--------..L...-------------'---------......;;.;;.;.;;;;.;;;;;.;.;;;..;;;;;.;;;:;,;;;;.;:.._.i...... _____________________ ____. ELEVATION VIEW BELEVATION VIEW A ELEVATION VIEW CTOP VIEW URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION SINGLE MODULE - PERIMETER--~ 1:40 SCALE cp VIEW 8 1· 1'-o·---4'-J·--- -------B'-r------- II II ~ ~ ,.I ,.I IO 00 II (0 THIS PRODUCT AIAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR I/ORE OF THE FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 10,151,083 82 .t 10,151,096 82. REI.ATED FORfJGN PATENTS OR OTHER PATENTS PENDING PROPRIETARY AND CONRDENTIAL: THE INFORAIATlON CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUUENT IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF FORTERRA AND ffS COi/PAN/ES. THIS DOCUUENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF. AIAY BE USED, REPROlJUCED OR MOD/RED IN ANY UANNER WITH OI.JT THE WRffTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. 81-1·---• I -i. --8'-o·---• I ,_.._/ __l "A===:=-=======;::::::::===;::::::::::; c::) .. I t ¾. CIW,(fER (TYP) Bio 6 Clean A Forlena Companr \ - la~ Jfi~ I I 1/ r-+-;-+----- ELEVATION VIEW BELEVATION VIEW A ELEVATION VIEW CTOP VIEW (FRAME & COVER / GRADE ADJUSTMENT NOT SHOWN) URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION SINGLE MODULE - PERIMETER--~ 1:40 SCALE ,----- cp 1,---7 I I cb \,==91 l ..-1 ---1-1-- M "al ----- cp VIEW 8 1" 1·-o·---4'-J"---. -------8'-7"------- THIS PRODUCT AW BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 10,151,083 82 &: 10,151,096 82. RELATED FOREIGN PATENTS OR OTHER PATENTS PENDING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS OOCUMENT IS THE SOI.£ PROPERTY OF FORTERRA ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS OOCUMENT, NOR ANY P.MT THEREOF, AW BE IJSEO, REPROO/JCEO OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. Bio "'"Clean A Forterrll Company ,0, <I .. '1 UO"f61 t' J'D~ \ I I i --+---+- >-->-- EXTERIOR VIEW TOP VIEWBOLT HOLE DETAIL URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION SINGLE MODULE - EXTERIOR WALL PANEL~ 1:40 SCALE 1 •, SLOTTED HOLE FOR USE WITH i •, EXPANSION ANCHORS/NUTS/WASHERS ~ 4• • - THIS PRODUCT AW BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 10,151,083 82 &: 10,151,096 82. RELATED FOREIGN PATENTS OR OTHER PATENTS PENDING PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS OOCUMENT IS THE SOI.£ PROPERTY OF FORTERRA ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS OOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, AW BE IJSEO, REPROO/JCEO OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. I . e·-o· . I l_ 11 11 I • 1'.. I __ :@: __ __:@: __ BOTTOM OF FORM 11. 8'-0" -1 Bio "'"Clean A Forterrll Company EXTERIOR VIEW TOP VIEWBOLT HOLE DETAIL URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION SINGLE MODULE - EXTERIOR WALL PANEL~ ~ 1:40 SCALE 1 •111 SLOTTED HOLE FOR USE WITH f •111 EXPANSION ANCHORS/NUTS/WASHERS ~ 4• • - THIS PRODUCT AIAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR I/ORE OF THE FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 10,151,083 82 .t 10,151,096 82. REI.ATED FORfJGN PATENTS OR OTHER PATENTS PENDING PROPRIETARY AND CONRDENTIAL: THE INFORAIATlON CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUUENT IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF FORTERRA AND ffS COi/PAN/ES. THIS DOCUUENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF. AIAY BE USED, REPROlJUCED OR MOD/RED IN ANY UANNER WITH 0/JT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. II H u I • 81-1· • I l_ ~ I --•--11 11 --•--I • BOTTOM OF FORM t1. a'-r • I Bio 6 Clean A Forlena Companr EXTERIOR VIEW TOP VIEWBOLT HOLE DETAIL URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION SINGLE MODULE - EXTERIOR WALL PANEL1:40 SCALE 1 •, SLOTTED HOLE FOR USE WITH i •, EXPANSION ANCHORS/NUTS/WASHERS • - THIS PRODUCT A44Y 8£ PROTECTED fl( ON£ OR MOR£ OF TH£ FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 0795,JBS; 0828,902; 0828,SOJ; 10, 151,0BJ; 10,151,096. R£1AT£D FOR£IGN PATENTS OR OTHER PATENTS PENO/NG. = II II = II II H H H H Ll Ll Ll Ll -----------11·-~·--------------. l_ 1r--=I ==I =I==--=*=--=-,@,==--==I =I==--=*=--=-,@,=-=-=====·-*==--=-,@,=-=-==Ii===·-*==---=,@,=-=-==I =I ~~!-•-BOTTOM OF FORM l ..__ __________ ,1•-~·--------------1 PROPRIETARY AND CONADENTIAL: TH£ INFORMATION CONTAIN£0 IN THIS DOCUMENT IS TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF FORT£RRA ANO fTS COl,IPANlfS. THIS OOCUMfNT, NOR ANY PART THfRfOF. A44Y 8£ IJS£0, R£PROOIJC£0 OR MOOIF/£0 IN ANY A44NN£R WITH OI/T TH£ WRfTTfN CONS£NT OF FORTfRRA. Bio "'"Clean A F'ortanl Campany LINKUP SLAB * SINGLE MODULE INTERIOR & PERIMETEREXTERIOR WALL PANEL URBANPOND PRECAST CONCRETE STORMWATER DETENTION LIFT RIGGING LIFTERS FOR TIPPING UPRIGHT AND VERTICAL HANDLING MUST USE SPREADER BEAM OR OTHER RIGGING THAT EQUALIZES THE LOAD BETWEEN ALL LIFTERS AND REMAINS VERT/CALLY ALIGNED TO THE CONCRETE H H u u H H u u '-THIS PRODUCT ~y BE PROTECTED BY PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: I ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING us ~ PATENTS: 0795,385; 0828,902; THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE SOI.£ ~ 0828,903; 10,151,083; 10,151,096. PROPERTY OF FORTERRA AND ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, REIATED FOREIGN PATENTS OR OTHER NOR ANY PART THEREOF, ~y BE USED, REPROO/JCED OR MODIFIED Bio "'"Clean * SOME MODULES MUST USE RIGGING THAT EQUALIZES THE LOAD BETWEEN ALL LIFTERS "'" 1 :40 SCALE PATENTS PENDING. IN ANY ~NER WTTH our THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. A Forterra Company ao ________________________ ....._ ________ ....., _______________ ....., ______________ ....._ ________________________________ _. ATTACHMENT 3: 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 SD-F Amended Soil www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-45 Effective September 15, 2020 E.7 SD-F Amended Soil MS4 Permit Category Site Design Manual Category Site Design Applicable Performance Standard Site Design Primary Benefits Volume Reduction Peak Flow Attenuation Description Amended soils are soils whose physical, chemical, and biological characteristics have been altered from the natural condition to promote beneficial storm water characteristics. Amended soils shall be used as part of SD-B Impervious Area Dispersion, where applicable. Typical storm water management benefits associated with amended soils include: • Improved hydrologic characteristics—amended soils can promote infiltration, decrease runoff rates and volumes, and more effectively filter pollutants from storm water runoff • Improved vegetation health—amended soils provide greater moisture retention, and altered chemical and biological characteristics that can result in healthier plant growth, reduced irrigation demands, and reduced need for fertilization and maintenance • Reduced erosion—amended soils produce healthier plant growth and reduced runoff which results in reduced soil erosion Not all amended soils have the same storm water benefits, the soil amendment used should be suited for the design purpose and design period of the amended area. Design Adaptations for Project Goals Amended soil primarily functions as a site design BMP for reducing the effective imperviousness of a site by providing partial or full infiltration of the flows that are routed to amended soil areas and otherwise slowing down excess flows that eventually reach the storm drain system. Amended soil is used in conjunction with SD-B Impervious Area Dispersion. Image Credit: WDOE Guidelines and Resources for Implementing Amended Soil BMP T5.13 MULCH LOOSE SOIL 019 n cm ll r LOOSE OR FRACTURED SUBSOIL SD-F Amended Soil www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-46 Effective September 15, 2020 Varying categories of soil amendments have different benefits and applications. Mulch is a soil amendment that is added at grade, rather than mixed into the soil. Mulch reduces evaporation and improves retention. Shavings and compost are common soil amendments that improve biological and chemical properties of the soil. Sand can be used as an amendment to improve the drainage rates of amended soils. Native soil samples may need to be analyzed by a lab to determine the specific soil amendments needed to achieve the desired infiltration, retention, and/or filtration rates. Amending soil per these guidelines is not the same as preservation of naturally occurring topsoil and vegetation. However, amending soil will improve on-site management of storm water flow and water quality. Design Criteria and Considerations Soil amendments must meet the following design criteria and considerations. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the County reviewer if appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale □ Mulch is applied at grade over all planting areas to a depth of 3”. Mulch should be applied on top and not mixed into underlying soils □ Shavings or compost are rototilled into the native soil to a minimum depth of 6” (12 inches preferred). If soil is not completely mixed the overall benefit will be reduced. □ Compost meets the criteria in Appendix F.2 Section 803-5.1 If poor quality compost is used, it will have negative impact to water quality. □ Soil amendments are free of stones, stumps, roots, glass, plastic, metal, and other deleterious materials. Large debris in amended soils can cause localized erosion. Trash/harmful materials can result in personal injury or contamination. □ Mixing of soils are done prior to planting Soil mixing before planting results in a more homogeneous mixing and will reduce the stress on plants. □ Care is taken around existing trees and shrubs to prevent root damage during construction and soil amendment application. Preservation of existing established vegetation is an important part of site design and erosion control. □ Soil amendments are applied at the end of construction Soil amendments applied too soon in the construction process may become over compacted reducing effectiveness. □ Soil amendments are compatible with planned vegetation The soil amendments impact the pH and salinity of the soil. Some plants have sensitive pH and/or salinity tolerance ranges. SD-F Amended Soil www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater E-47 Effective September 15, 2020 Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Site Design • When soil amendments are used a runoff factor of 0.1 can be used for DCV calculation for the amended area. • Amended soils should be used as part of SD-B Impervious Area Dispersion, and to increase the retention volume in other BMPs. Maintenance Annual maintenance may be required to determine reapplication requirements of amended soils. Amended soils should be regularly inspected for signs of compaction, waterlogging, and unhealthy vegetation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary 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 Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter Access to drain down filter Pre-Treatment Chamber Biofiltration Chamber Discharge Chamber Outflow Pipe Inflow Pipe (optional) MODULAR WETLANDS www.modularwetlands.com 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. MODULAR WETLANDS www.modularwetlands.com 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. MODULAR WETLANDS 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. MODULAP- WETLANDS www.modularwetlands.com 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. MODULAR WETLANDS www.modularwetlands.com 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. MODULAR WETLANDS www.modularwetlands.com Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com MODULAR WETLANDS For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / /Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Yes Depth: Yes No Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):Size (22', 14' or etc.): Other Inspection Items: Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Office personnel to complete section to the left. 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Chamber: Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity: Working Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? 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)? Project Name Project Address Inspection Checklist CommentsNo Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Sediment / Silt / Clay Trash / Bags / Bottles Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage Waste:Plant Information No Cleaning Needed Recommended Maintenance Additional Notes: Damage to Plants Plant Replacement Plant Trimming Schedule Maintenance as Planned Needs Immediate Maintenance CLEAN. !NVPRONM(NTAL StltVtCE.$, INC. ---- □ □ □ □ □ □ www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com ~R W0EfLANDS -·~ • . ",6 \ ;•"' ~ \~, ''\ ' -,,-.......::.._ ' .. ~, ~ --.. ,... .,, ~ h~---,::ir,, .. ,,,,,,.... ' ~ ..... . / ·::.,. .. .~ . I 'ti!.~(;.;,"' -; H\11~~,I ', ' i .• -,,t.,~;·,c;: . ·•,:_, i .. , ' " •. -~., . . .. ,, ., . . ' •. •• ·' -. ·•'·•'-f · ' . . . I , ... --,; ... "' .. . . . ..... ~ ' ' . . ... -,. ... ~,· . ~ 'flt, ;;.,:;:.__ -, , .• ~ . " ... , 4' -=··;;~--~ ---- For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # Comments: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Media Condition Plant Condition Media Filter Condition Long: MWS Sedimentation Basin Total Debris Accumulation Condition of Media 25/50/75/100 (will be changed @ 75%) Operational Per Manufactures' Specifications (If not, why?) Lat:MWS Catch Basins GPS Coordinates of Insert Manufacturer / Description / Sizing Trash Accumulation Foliage Accumulation Sediment Accumulation Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to the left. Project Address Project Name Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands SystemCLEAN. ~ MODULA R E.NV/RONME.NTAL SE.RVICE.S , INC. WETLANDS ---- □ □ □ □ □ □ UrbanPond™ A Stormwater Storage Solution A Forterra Company INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL 5796 Armada Drive Suite 250 | Carlsbad, CA 92008 | 855.566.3938 stormwater@forterrabp.com | biocleanenvironmental.com Bio ~Clean 1 | Page URBAN POND INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE Inspection and maintenance of the Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration system is vital for the performance and life cycle of the stormwater management system. All local, state, and federal permits and regulations must be followed for system compliance. Manway access locations are provided on each system for ease of ingress and egress for routine inspection and maintenance activities. Stormwater regulations require that all BMPs be inspected and maintained to ensure they are operating as designed and providing protection to receiving water bodies. It is recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess the site specific conditions. Inspection after the first significant rainfall event and at quarterly intervals is typical. This is recommended because pollutant loading and pollutant characteristics can vary greatly from site to site. Variables such as nearby soil erosion or construction sites, winter sanding on roads, amount of daily traffic and land use can increase pollutant loading on the system. The first year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years to ensure appropriate maintenance is provided. Without appropriate maintenance a BMP can exceed its storage capacity, become blocked, or damaged, which can negatively affect its continued performance. Inspection Equipment Following is a list of equipment to allow for simple and effective inspection of the underground detention, retention, or infiltration system: • Bio Clean Environmental Inspection and Maintenance Report Form • Flashlight • Manhole hook or appropriate tools to access hatches and covers • Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures • Measuring pole and/or tape measure • Protective clothing and eye protection • Note: Entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine inspections of the system. Inspection Steps The key to any successful stormwater BMP maintenance program is routine inspections. The inspection steps required on the Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration system are quick and easy. As mentioned above, the first year should be seen as the maintenance interval establishment phase. During the first year more frequent inspections should occur in order Bio~Clean AForterr.iCompany 2 | Page to gather loading data and maintenance requirements for that specific site. This information can be used to establish a base for long term inspection and maintenance interval requirements. The Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration system can be inspected though visual observation without entry into the system. All necessary pre-inspection steps must be carried out before inspection occurs, especially traffic control and other safety measures to protect the inspector and nearby pedestrians from any dangers associated with an open access hatch or manhole. Once these access covers have been safely opened the inspection process can proceed: • Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other information (see inspection form). • Observe the upstream drainage area and look for sources of pollution, sediment, trash and debris. • Observe the inside of the system through the access manholes. If minimal light is available and vision into the unit is impaired, utilize a flashlight to see inside the system and all of its modules. • Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions in the inflow and outflow pipes. Check pipes for movement or leakage. Write down any observations on the inspection form. • Observe any movement of modules. • Observe concrete for cracks and signs of deterioration. • In detention and retention systems inspect for any signs of leakage. • In infiltration systems inspect for any signs of blockage or reasons that the soils are not infiltrating. • Through observation and/or digital photographs, estimate the amount of floatable debris accumulated in the system. Record this information on the inspection form. Next, utilizing a tape measure or measuring stick, estimate the amount of sediment accumulated in the system. Sediment depth may vary throughout the system, depending on the flow path. Record this depth on the inspection form. • Finalize inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required. Maintenance Indicators Based upon observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required based on the following indicators: • Damaged inlet and outlet pipes. • Obstructions in the system or its inlet or outlet. • Excessive accumulation of floatables. • Excessive accumulation of sediment of more than 6” in depth. • Damaged joint sealant. Bio~Clean AForterr.iCompany 3 | Page Maintenance Equipment While maintenance can be done fully by hand it is recommended that a vacuum truck be utilized to minimize time requirements required to maintain the Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration system: • Bio Clean Environmental Inspection and Maintenance Report Form • Flashlight • Manhole hook or appropriate tools to access hatches and covers • Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures • Measuring pole and/or tape measure • Protective clothing and eye protection • Vacuum truck • Trash can • Pressure washer • Note: Entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally not required for routine inspections of the system. Entry into the system will be required if maintenance is required. Maintenance Procedures It is recommended that maintenance occurs at least three days after the most recent rain event to allow for drain down of the system and any upstream detention systems designed to drain down over an extended period of time. Maintaining the system while flows are still entering it will increase the time and complexity required for maintenance. Once all safety measures have been set up cleaning of the system can proceed as follows: • Using an extension on a boom on the vacuum truck, position the hose over the opened manway and lower into the system. Remove all floating debris, standing water (as needed) and sediment from the system. A power washer can be used to assist if sediments have become hardened and stuck to the walls and columns. Repeat the same procedure at each manway until the system has been fully maintained. Be sure not to pressure wash the infiltration area as it may scour. If maintenance requires entry into the vault: • Following rules for confined space entry use a gas meter to detect the presence of any hazardous gases. If hazardous gases are present do not enter the vault. Follow appropriate confined space procedures, such as utilizing venting system, to address the hazard. Once it is determined to be safe, enter utilizing appropriate entry equipment such as a ladder and tripod with harness. Bio~Clean AForterr.iCompany 4 | Page • The last step is to close up and replace all manhole covers and remove all traffic control. • All removed debris and pollutants shall be disposed of following local and state requirements. For Maintenance Services please contact Bio Clean at 760-433-7640, or email info@biocleanenvironmental.com. Bio~Clean AForterr.iCompany ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit [Use the City’s standard Single Sheet BMP Plan.] E.GENPARALLELGEAR E.GENSDG&ESERVICE GEAR SDG&EPADMOUNTATSTRASH COMPACTORPOWERPEDESTALRECYCLE COMPACTORLN2 TANKHOT WATERSYSTEMHAZMATDI SKID(CENTRAL PLANT)PATIO" ' ►aJ 7J ► z ;:o 1~ <, NIO ~ 0 -I NO I ~ o< °' a,~ I G-J, t01 0 I "" "' I rjL~~ 1 ,., 1-----1 Vo \ \ I I \ \ I I ------,-14--- I "" I ---I I I --------;l--l---------\ I I ___, I--- '"' I I ___, 1--- I I -----1 ,____ I "' I ___, 1-- I I -----.l'i\--- 1 I ___, ,_,,____ I "" I ------t:":o) I il ---t11!<1-)----I I------+ I I ,e I ------11-ll----\.--l I---+ I I I I ~ 1------+I I I O I I---+ I I "' I I 1---+ I I I \ I---+ I I "' I ,............ D: 24" RCP Sl 4ID ---+--W 0 ► ;:o ' (/) (I] ► 0 -I ► ;:o 7J 7J,;::► ► z ►o ;:o 7J -I ~ I ' NZ51 ___.. 0 0 ____.. N" . -I I ---" tO ---" fTl7J Oo~ o, G-J I o, ;:o N G-J ~ -I 1 0 0 0 -00 ;:o C z -I z 0 JTO N N 00 (Jl ;:o C -I :r: fTI ;:o ,] 0 ;:o 0 ;:o 0 ► 0 ' ►aJ 7J ► z ;:o 1~ <, NIO ~ 0 -I NO I ~ 0 < -...J a,~ I o, tO ' 0 =~:r11~ L-_-M~~l-1'e'~-w~~-~"t--,,--~~~"'-,.-""-.. JA= =-=..,.,.,..-~. -----, ~-_,----<l]~·w-_-,_-_ -~-...,..--- 1~f'Et--H~ik<l:i=f¥E ~+' U=I EIHH E++-++1-I I I I I --i-- " 1 311 '" '" "" "' " r 0 E ►aJ 7JO z~ 10 ► N ;:o ~, N (f) I aJ O ► 0,0 N I~ oz (D(") @ W--t----1 ) (' I L A 1" ,.. t (Jl (D (,J ►~ 7J 7J z ;:o I fTI ~ N C/l ~ -I N' I -< Oo 0, ;:o N~ I< C! rn DATE INITIAL ENGINEER OF WORK PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME ARE SD REGION NO.71 LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ADDRESS 10996 TORREYANA ROAD SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 CONTACT JANE GREEN PHONE NO. (858) 368-4188 PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME STEFANI BELL COMPANY MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL ADDRESS 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS SUITE 260 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PHONE NO. (760) 4 76-9193 SIGNATURE BMP NOTES: CERTIFICATION QSD/QSP 1. THESE BMPS ARE MANDATORY TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE PLANS. 2. NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BMPS ON THIS SHEET WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. NO SUBSTITUTIONS TO THE MATERIAL OR TYPES OR PLANTING TYPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER. 4. NO OCCUPANCY WILL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE CITY INSPECTION STAFF HAS INSPECTED THIS PROJECT FOR APPROPRIATE BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BMP TABLE BMP ID# BMPTYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY TREATMENT CONTROL (D MODULAR WETLAND IQ ~I MP-20 J2 SF. SYSTEM VOLUME RETENTION CD AMENDED SOILS ". ·· .. TC-12 .11Q_SF. AREA -... ~-. HYDROMODIFICATION (D URBAN POND □ MP-50 1 EA (INCLUDES CISTERN) LOW IMPACT DESIGN (L.I.D.) SOURCE CONTROL ©-® STENCILS NO DUMPING SD-13 DRAINS TO OCEAN @) WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL SC-34 * CHOOSE FROM THE LIST BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE FIELDS IN THE INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE FRENQUENCY COLUMNS: SEMI-ANNUALLY QUARTERLY BIMONTHLY MONTHLY AS NEEDED NONE WEEKLY 1 TIME PER YEAR 2 TIMES PER YEAR 3 TIMES PER YEAR 4 TIMES PER YEAR DATE INITIAL DATE DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION * MAINTENANCE * FREQUENCY FREQUENCY SEMI-ANNUALLY CBC2021-0111 4,8 SEMI-ANNUALLY TO ANNUALLY CBC2021-0111 4,8 QUARTERLY SEMI-ANNUALLY CBC2021-0111 4,8 QUARTERLY AS NEEDED I SH1EET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SH~ETS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SINGLE SHEET BMP SITE PLAN 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD RECORD COPY PROJECT NO. PD 2021-0018 INITIAL DRAWING NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL INITIAL DATE CBC 2021-0111 ATTACHMENT 5: GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES ATTACHMENT 5a: INFILTRATION STUDY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION QUIDEL RUTHERFORD 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR JUNE 8, 2021 PROJECT NO. G2667-11-01 ~ McFARLANE ARCHITECTS Architecture • Planning • Interiors Project No. G2667-11-01 June 8, 2021 McFarlane Architects 6256 Greenwich Drive, Suite 510 San Diego, California 92122 Attention: Ms. Cecilia Krump Subject: STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION QUIDEL RUTHERFORD 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Quidel Tenant Improvements, 2285 Rutherford Road, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 19, 2021 (Project No. G2667-11-01). Dear Ms. Krump: In accordance with your request, we herein submit the results of our storm water management investigation for the Quidel Rutherford project located in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map). Vicinity Map GEOCON INCORPORATED G E OT E CHN I CAL ■E NV I RONMENTA L ■ MA T ER I A L S 6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 92121-297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -2 - June 8, 2021 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is occupied by a two-story, concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building constructed in 1990. The site is located south of Rutherford Road roughly 250 feet southwest of Priestly Drive and north of Palomar Airport Road. Surface parking and driveways are located on the north, east, and south sides of the building. Office buildings are located to the east and west of the site and Carlsbad Airport is located to the south. An ascending slope with a height varying from roughly 4 to 12 feet is present along the east side of the parking lot. The adjacent building to the east is located near the top of slope. The property is relatively flat with elevations varying from 300 to 315 feet mean sea level (MSL) at the northwest and southwest, respectively. The Existing Site Plan shows the current site conditions. Existing Site Map We understand the proposed tenant improvements will consist of constructing a new patio on the northwest corner of the building, emergency generator pads, electrical switch gear pads, and retaining walls on the east of the existing structure, mechanical yard equipment updates, and interior building tenant improvements. The new retaining walls on the east side of the property will have a maximum height of 10 feet and will be separated from the existing building on the adjacent property by 30 feet. Interior building footings will be increased in size by replacing existing footings. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -3 - June 8, 2021 We prepared the referenced geotechnical investigation report for the site and proposed development. Our field investigation consisted of advancing 2 exploratory borings. During our investigation, we encountered 2 feet of undocumented fill and the Santiago Formation in our borings to the maximum depths explored of 20 feet. The occurrence, distribution, and description of each unit encountered are shown on the Site Geologic Map and on the boring logs in Appendix A of the referenced report. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. TABLE 1 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition A Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. B Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -4 - June 8, 2021 The property is underlain by shallow undocumented fill and the Santiago Formation. Table 2 presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property. The Hydrologic Soil Group Map presents output from the USDA website showing the limits of the soil units. TABLE 2 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY – HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Name Map Unit Symbol Approximate Percentage of Property Hydrologic Soil Group kSAT of Most Limiting Layer (inches/hour) Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes HrC 100 D 0.00 – 0.06 Hydrologic Soil Group Map According to the USGS Soil Survey, the property possesses a Hydrologic Soil Group D classification. The estimated ‘Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat)’ according to the USGS Soil Survey is between 0.00 and 0.06 in/hr. Full infiltration (a factored infiltration rate greater than Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -5 - June 8, 2021 0.5 inches/hour) or partial infiltration (a factored infiltration rate greater than 0.05 inches/hour) on the property would be considered infeasible within the Santiago Formation STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS The following presents a discussion of the soil types on site regarding storm water infiltration feasibility. Soil Types Undocumented Fill (Qudf) – Undocumented fill is present across the site and is comprised of silty to sandy clays. The undocumented fill was encountered during our subsurface investigation to a maximum depth of approximately 2 feet within the planter areas but may be up to 5 feet thick in other areas of the site. The undocumented fill was not tested or observed during placement and should be considered highly variable. Water that is allowed to migrate within the undocumented fill soil cannot be controlled, would destabilize support for the existing improvements, and would shrink and swell. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should not be allowed within the undocumented fill. Santiago Formation (Tsa)– The Santiago Formation exists below the undocumented fill across the site. The Santiago Formation is composed of very stiff to hard, silty to sandy claystone. Due to the very dense and fine-grained nature of the formational materials, the infiltration rates estimated within the Santiago Formation are very low. Infiltration Rates We performed 2 infiltration tests using the Aardvark permeameter at the site within the general area of the proposed storm water devices within the Santiago Formation. The Site Plan shows the approximate locations of the infiltration tests. The results of the tests provide parameters regarding the saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of the on-site soil and geologic units. Table 3 presents the results of the estimated field saturated hydraulic conductivity and estimated infiltration rates obtained from the percolation tests. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -6 - June 8, 2021 Site Plan TABLE 3 FIELD PERCOLATION INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS Test Location Test Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Field-Saturated Infiltration Rate, ksat (inch/hour) C.4-1 Worksheet Infiltration Rate1, ksat (inch/hour) P-1 4 Tsa 0.028 0.003 0.002 P-3 4 Tsa 0.014 0.002 0.001 Average:0.021 0.003 0.002 1 Using a factor of safety of 2. Infiltration categories include full infiltration, partial infiltration and no infiltration. Table 4 presents the commonly accepted definitions of the potential infiltration categories based on the infiltration rates. \ \ \ \ "' } • . . . !,, . Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -7 - June 8, 2021 TABLE 4 INFILTRATION CATEGORIES Infiltration Category Field Infiltration Rate, I (inches/hour) Factored Infiltration Rate1, I (inches/hour) Full Infiltration I > 1.0 I > 0.5 Partial Infiltration 0.10 < I < 1.0 0.05 < I < 0.5 No Infiltration (Infeasible) I < 0.10 I < 0.05 1 Using a Factor of Safety of 2. Groundwater Elevations The BMP Design Manual indicates that the depth to the groundwater table beneath an infiltration BMP must be greater than 10 feet for infiltration to be allowed. We did not encounter groundwater during our investigation and groundwater is anticipated to be deeper than 150 feet below existing grades. Therefore, infiltration due to groundwater elevations would be considered feasible at the site. New or Existing Utilities New utilities are proposed throughout subject development and existing utilities located adjacent to the property boundaries within existing streets. Therefore, full infiltration near these utilities should be considered infeasible within these areas. Setbacks for infiltration from the utilities and structures Would be required. The setback for infiltration devices should be a minimum of 10 feet and a 1:1 plane of 1 foot below the closest edge of the deepest adjacent utility. Soil or Groundwater Contamination We did not observe soil or groundwater contamination during our field investigation. The environmental consultant should evaluate if infiltration would be possible from an environmental standpoint, if allowed. We expect infiltration associated with this risk would be considered feasible. Slopes and Other Geologic Hazards Cut and/or fill slopes are not proposed or located adjacent to the site. Due to the lack of existing or proposed slopes, full or partial infiltration should be considered feasible at the site. The existing soil possess a “very high” expansion potential (expansion index greater than 130). Therefore, infiltration should not be allowed to help reduce the risk of expansion affecting the site exists if water is allowed to infiltrate. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -8 - June 8, 2021 Existing or Planned Structures The site is relatively flat with an existing 2-story structure occupying the central portion of the site. Buildings also exist on the neighboring properties. Water should not be allowed to infiltrate in areas where it could affect the neighboring properties and adjacent structures. Mitigation for existing structures consists of not allowing water infiltration within a lateral distance of at least 10 feet from the existing structures. Storm Water Narrative and Conclusion The 2285 Rutherford Road property is underlain by shallow undocumented fill and the Santiago Formation. Based on the field infiltration rates, full infiltration (infiltration rate greater than 0.5 inches/hour) and partial infiltration (infiltration rate greater than 0.05 inches/hour) would be not be feasible within the Santiago Formation. We did not perform infiltration testing within the undocumented fill materials as the storm water devices will be founded in the Santiago Formation. The site possesses a “No Infiltration” conditions due to the dense and fine-grained nature of the formational materials and the very low infiltration rate. Storm Water Management Devices Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm water devices. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at least 3 inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner should consist of solid pipe. The penetration of the liners at the subdrains should be properly waterproofed. The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Storm Water Standard Worksheets The SWS requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet C.4-1 or Form I-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. The attached Form I-8 presents the completed information for the submittal process. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1 or Form I-9) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table 5 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -9 - June 8, 2021 TABLE 5 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Concern – 3 Points Medium Concern – 2 Points Low Concern – 1 Point Assessment Methods Use of soil survey maps or simple texture analysis to estimate short-term infiltration rates. Use of well permeameter or borehole methods without accompanying continuous boring log. Relatively sparse testing with direct infiltration methods Use of well permeameter or borehole methods with accompanying continuous boring log. Direct measurement of infiltration area with localized infiltration measurement methods (e.g., Infiltrometer). Moderate spatial resolution Direct measurement with localized (i.e. small- scale) infiltration testing methods at relatively high resolution or use of extensive test pit infiltration measurement methods. Predominant Soil Texture Silty and clayey soils with significant fines Loamy soils Granular to slightly loamy soils Site Soil Variability Highly variable soils indicated from site assessment or unknown variability Soil boring/test pits indicate moderately homogenous soils Soil boring/test pits indicate relatively homogenous soils Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer <5 feet below facility bottom 5-15 feet below facility bottom >15 feet below facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table 6 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. TABLE 6 FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES – PART A1 Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p = w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 1 0.25 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 3 0.75 Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50 Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p 1.75 1. The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 or Form I-9 using the data on this table. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 -10 - June 8, 2021 If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED John Hoobs CEG 1524 Shawn Foy Weedon GE 2714 JH:SFW:arm Attachments: Form I-8 Aardvark Test Sheets (e-mail) Addressee jl()L Appendix I: Forms and Checklists 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? 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 We encountered infiltration rates of 0.001 and 0.002 including a factor of safety of 2. Therefore, the site is considered to possess a "No Infiltration" condition No X 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: The on-site soils have an Expansion Index (El) of 145 or 'Very High' expansion classification that will not allow for reliable infiltration X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 1-3 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteri a 3 llbEm =~ • 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 X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. 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: X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability. Part 1 Result * If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are ''Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The 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. Proceed to Part 2 No "'To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-4 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists ~ . _....._ . L¥fillli • ~ 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 We encountered infiltration rates of 0.001 and 0.002 including a factor of safety of 2. Therefore, the site is considered to possess a "No Infiltration" condition No X 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: The on-site soils have an Expansion Index (El) of 145 or 'Very High' expansion classification that will not allow for reliable infiltration X 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. 1-5 February 2016 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Criteria 7 Screening Question Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, stonn 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 X Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. 8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: X 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. Part2 Result* If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. 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. No Infiltration *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-6 February 2016 TEST NO.:P-1 GEOLOGIC UNIT:Tsa EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT):0 Reading Time Elapsed (min) Water Weight Consumed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in3)Q (in3/min) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 0.045 1.25 0.249 3 5.00 0.030 0.83 0.166 4 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.083 5 5.00 0.020 0.55 0.111 6 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 7 5.00 0.015 0.42 0.083 8 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 9 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 10 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 11 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 12 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 13 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 FACTOR OF SAFETY:2.0 BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT): TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT): MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): 6.0 6.1 TEST INFORMATION BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN):4 3.8 -4 TEST RESULTS FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): 0.003 0.002 STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN):0.028 TEST DATA AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD PROJECT NO.:G2667-11-01 0.0 0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Q (in3/min)Time (min) ~ - GEOCO INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 · FAX 858 558-6159 TEST NO.:P-2 GEOLOGIC UNIT:Tsa EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT):0 Reading Time Elapsed (min) Water Weight Consumed (lbs) Water Volume Consumed (in3)Q (in3/min) 1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 2 5.00 0.050 1.38 0.277 3 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 4 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 5 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 6 5.00 0.010 0.28 0.055 7 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 8 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 9 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 10 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 11 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 12 5.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 13 5.00 0.005 0.14 0.028 FACTOR OF SAFETY:2.0 BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT): TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT): MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN): 6.0 6.2 TEST INFORMATION BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN):4 4.2 -4 TEST RESULTS FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR): 0.002 0.001 STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN):0.014 TEST DATA AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD PROJECT NO.:G2667-11-01 0.0 0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Q (in3/min)Time (min)"" GE OCO INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 · FAX 858 558-6159 - ATTACHMENT 5b: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION QUIDEL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR MARCH 2, 2021 PROJECT NO. G2667-11-01 ~ McFARLANE ARCHITECTS Architecture • Planning • Interiors Project No. G2667-11-01 March 2, 2021 McFarlane Architects 6256 Greenwich Drive, Suite 510 San Diego, California 92122 Attention: Mr. Neal McFarlane Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION QUIDEL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. McFarlane: In accordance with your request and authorization of our Proposal No. LG-21007 dated January 6, 2021, we herein submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We performed our investigation to evaluate the underlying soil and geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards, and to assist in the design of the proposed tenant improvements. The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. The site is suitable for the proposed tenant improvements provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the planned project. Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED John Hoobs CEG 1524 Shawn Foy Weedon GE 2714 JH:SFW:arm (e-mail) Addressee GEOCON INCORPORATED G E OT E CHN I CAL ■E NV I RONMENTA L ■ MA T ER I A L S 6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 92121-297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1 2.SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2 3.GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 4 4.SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 5 4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) .................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Santiago Formation (Tst) ....................................................................................................... 5 5.GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................... 6 6.GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 6 6.1 Regional Faulting and Seismicity .......................................................................................... 6 6.2 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................................... 8 6.3 Storm Surge, Tsunamis, and Seiches ..................................................................................... 8 6.4 Landslides .............................................................................................................................. 9 7.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 10 7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 10 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics .................................................................................... 11 7.3 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 12 7.4 Subdrains ............................................................................................................................. 14 7.5 Temporary Excavations ....................................................................................................... 14 7.6 Seismic Design Criteria – 2019 California Building Code .................................................. 14 7.7 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................................... 16 7.8 Mat Foundation .................................................................................................................... 17 7.9 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade .................................................................................................... 18 7.10 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................. 20 7.11 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................... 21 7.12 Lateral Loading .................................................................................................................... 25 7.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................................................ 25 7.14 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ................................................................................. 26 7.15 Testing and Observation Services During Construction ...................................................... 26 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING LIST OF REFERENCES Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 1 - March 2, 2021 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed tenant improvements at the 2285 Rutherford Road property in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map). Vicinity Map The purpose of our geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions and general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may affect development of the property including faulting, liquefaction and seismic shaking based on the 2019 CBC seismic design criteria. In addition, we provided recommendations for remedial grading, shallow foundations, concrete slab-on-grade, concrete flatwork, pavement, and retaining walls. We reviewed the overall site plan prepared by McFarlane Architects, dated February 18, 2021 and the concept plan exhibits A and B prepared by Michael Baker International dated February 25, 2021. The scope of this investigation included reviewing readily available published and unpublished geologic literature (see List of References), performing engineering analyses and preparing this report. We also advanced two exploratory borings to a maximum depth of about 20 feet, sampled soil and performed laboratory testing. Appendix A presents the exploratory boring logs and details of the field Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 2 - March 2, 2021 investigation. The details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are shown in Appendix B and on the boring logs in Appendix A. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property is occupied by a two-story, concrete tilt-up office/warehouse building constructed in 1990. The site is located south of Rutherford Road roughly 250 feet southwest of Priestly Drive and north of Palomar Airport Road. Surface parking and driveways are located on the north, east, and south sides of the building. Office buildings are located to the east and west of the site and Carlsbad Airport is located to the south. An ascending slope with a height varying from roughly 4 to 12 feet is present along the east side of the parking lot. The adjacent building to the east is located near the top of slope. The property is relatively flat with elevations varying from 300 to 315 feet mean sea level (MSL) at the northwest and southwest, respectively. The Existing Site Plan shows the current site conditions. Existing Site Plan We understand the proposed tenant improvements will consist of constructing a new patio on the northwest corner of the building, emergency generator pads, electrical switch gear pads, and retaining walls on the east of the existing structure, mechanical yard equipment updates, and interior building Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 3 - March 2, 2021 tenant improvements. The new retaining walls on the east side of the property will have a maximum height of 10 feet and will be separated from the existing building on the adjacent property by 30 feet. Interior building footings will be increased in size by replacing existing footings. The Proposed Site Plans show the planned building and improvements. Proposed Site Plan – Exhibit A – East Pads Proposed Site Plan – Exhibit B - Patio I I I I I \ ·- 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD ~ -- - --"------=--j_-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = = ~ = ----,-----T --M---M---M---M---M---M---M---M---M---M-No c... ---------A------------------r--=--=--=-± "-, 1J -~w.,c~~I'--~~~ (m> Aaf,;Sm4 I 3 -~f---] (J,~,-3-,-, ,_,_ -~==,'D:11' I (J12) (J,s, l~~~~~~::~~=~;;~~~,t ----~ --------Fl.. -316~50 DOOR FS 310.45 • SW DOOR FS 3 10.32 2285 RUTHERFORD ROAD TW 310.06 FG 308. 76 EX. WATER METER le BAO<FLOW PREVENTER TO BE RELOCATED ~ . TW 310 .17 ~ FG 308.59 \ \ I . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _I Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 4 - March 2, 2021 The locations, site descriptions, and proposed development are based on our site reconnaissance, review of published geologic literature, field investigations, and discussions with project personnel. If development plans differ from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for review of the plans and possible revisions to this report. 3. GEOLOGIC SETTING Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The province is bounded by the Transverse Ranges to the north, the San Jacinto Fault Zone on the east, the Pacific Ocean coastline on the west, and the Baja California on the south. The province is characterized by elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by straight-sided sediment-filled valleys. The northwest trend is further reflected in the direction of the dominant geologic structural features of the province that are northwest to west-northwest trending folds and faults, such as the nearby Rose Canyon fault zone. Locally, the site is within the coastal plain of San Diego County. The coastal plain is underlain by a thick sequence of relatively undisturbed and non-conformable sedimentary bedrock units that thicken to the west and range in age from Upper Cretaceous age through the Pleistocene age which have been deposited on Cretaceous to Jurassic age igneous and volcanic bedrock. The coastal plain is a relatively stable block that is dissected by relatively few faults. The site is located on the northern portion of the coastal plain. Marine sedimentary units make up the geologic sequence encountered on the site and consist of Tertiary-age Santiago Formation. This geologic unit generally consisting of siltstone and claystone and likely in excess of 200 feet thick. The Regional Geologic Map shows the geologic unit in the area of the site. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 5 - March 2, 2021 Regional Geologic Map 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS We encountered one surficial soil unit (consisting of undocumented fill) and one formational unit (consisting of Santiago Formation). The occurrence, distribution, and description of each unit encountered is shown on the Site Geologic Map and on the boring logs in Appendix A. The surficial soil and geologic units are described herein in order of increasing age. 4.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) We encountered undocumented fill in our borings to a depth of 2 feet within planter areas in the parking lot. Deeper fills (potentially up to 5 feet thick) may be present beneath the building and within utility areas. In general, the shallow fill within planter areas consists of soft to stiff, moist, silty to sandy clay and possesses a “very high” expansion index (expansion index greater than 130). The undocumented fill within the paved parking lot and beneath the building is considered suitable in its current condition for the support of foundations or structural fill. However, the undocumented fill within planter areas is not considered suitable in its current condition for the support of foundations or structural fill and remedial grading will required. The undocumented fill can be reused for new compacted fill during grading operations provided it is generally free of roots and debris. 4.2 Santiago Formation (Tst) Tertiary-age Santiago Formation underlies the undocumented fill and generally consists of very stiff to hard, damp, mottled yellowish and reddish gray, silty to sandy claystone. The Santiago Formation Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 6 - March 2, 2021 generally possesses a “very high” expansion potential (expansion index greater than 130). The Santiago Formation is considered suitable for support of structural loads and fill soils. The Site Geologic Map provides the location of borings and thickness of fill soils encountered. Site Geologic Map 5. GROUNDWATER We did not encounter groundwater or seepage during our site investigation. However, it is not uncommon for shallow seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed when sites are irrigated or infiltration is implemented. Seepage is dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and varies as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project. We expect groundwater is deeper than about 150 feet below existing grade. We do not expect groundwater to be encountered during construction of the proposed development. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Regional Faulting and Seismicity A review of the referenced geologic materials and our knowledge of the general area indicate that the site is not underlain by active, potentially active, or inactive faults. An active fault is defined by the t \;_ -- J \ • t l }, • ,r,.L};1,: .oot_ ~ -------,_.J o,-l':r----:.:----;------;;-------:-------"oc__!I~ -• • • • • • I • • • • •'• , '~ /' \ 1<-~ \,:/t C / / I J ~" EB Geocon Le end B-2 ... Approximate Location of Boring (2') ... Approximate Depth of Undocumented Fill 7 Qudf...Undocumented Fill Tsa ... Santiago Formation '() Indicates Where Buried Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 7 - March 2, 2021 California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last 11,700 years. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. The USGS has developed a program to evaluate the approximate location of faulting in the area of properties. The following figure shows the location of the existing faulting in the San Diego County and Southern California region. The fault traces are shown as solid, dashed and dotted that represent well-constrained, moderately constrained and inferred, respectively. The fault line colors represent faults with ages less than 150 years (red), 15,000 years (orange), 130,000 years (green), 750,000 years (blue) and 1.6 million years (black). Faults in Southern California The San Diego County and Southern California region is seismically active. The following figure presents the occurrence of earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 2.5 from the period of 1900 through 2015 according to the Bay Area Earthquake Alliance website. San Cler':1t!ntl of Santa t .tlina ·1ce Murril! • an D ,e ~\ B01o"eg<t --~ .,spri,1,i ,~m .. , "J • . . •· ~ ..,. .-I ,.. 't.. .J I " -L 0 :.■s ,t .. .. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 8 - March 2, 2021 Earthquakes in Southern California Considerations important in seismic design include the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of structures should be evaluated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the local agency. 6.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are cohesionless or silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface and soil densities are less than about 70 percent of the maximum dry densities. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Due to the lack of a permanent, near-surface groundwater table and the very stiff, silt/clay nature of the underlying Santiago Formation, liquefaction potential for the site is considered to be negligible. 6.3 Storm Surge, Tsunamis, and Seiches Storm surges are large ocean waves that sweep across coastal areas when storms make landfall. Storm surges can cause inundation, severe erosion and backwater flooding along the water front. The site is located approximately 3.5 miles from Pacific Ocean and is at an elevation of about 300 feet or greater above MSL. Therefore, the potential of storm surges affecting the site is considered to be negligible. 8 • • • • • 5• 1980,.J., 2015 I Magnlt~d• 0 0 0 t.!2.5• Ml• M~• • O.t♦ n, • 0 oQ MS· . M7• • • Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 9 - March 2, 2021 A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The site is located approximately 3.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and is at an elevation of about 300 feet MSL. Therefore, we consider the risk of a tsunami hazard at the site to be negligible. A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced ground displacement. The site is not located near an inland body of water, Therefore, we opine the potential for seiches to impact the site to be negligible. 6.4 Landslides We did not observe evidence of previous or incipient slope instability at the site during our study and the property is relatively flat. Published geologic mapping indicates landslides are not present on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, we opine the potential for landsliding is not a significant concern for this project. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 10 - March 2, 2021 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 We did not encounter soil or geologic conditions during our exploration that would preclude the proposed tenant improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. We will provide supplemental recommendations if we observe variable or undesirable conditions during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein. 7.1.2 With the exception of possible moderate to strong seismic shaking, we did not observe or know of significant geologic hazards to exist on the site that would adversely affect the proposed project. 7.1.3 The undocumented fill within the pavement areas and beneath the building is expected to be suitable for support of the proposed tenant improvements. However, the shallow undocumented fill within existing planter areas is potentially compressible and unsuitable in its present condition for the support of compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements. Remedial grading of these areas and within planned improvement areas should be performed as discussed herein. The Santiago Formation is considered suitable for the support of proposed fill and structural loads. 7.1.4 We did not encounter groundwater during our subsurface exploration and we do not expect it to be a constraint to project development. However, seepage or saturated soils within the undocumented fill may be encountered during the grading operations, especially during the rainy season. 7.1.5 Excavation of the undocumented fill and Santiago Formation should generally be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional, heavy-duty equipment during grading and trenching operations. We expect very heavy effort will be required for excavations into the harder portions of the Santiago Formation. 7.1.6 Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the engineering properties of the fill for building pad, parking lot and slope areas. Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein. 7.1.7 Based on our review of the project plans, we opine the planned tenant improvements can be constructed in accordance with our recommendations provided herein. We do not expect the planned improvements will destabilize or result in settlement of adjacent properties if properly constructed. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 11 - March 2, 2021 7.1.8 Surface settlement monuments and canyon subdrains will not be required on this project. 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 7.2.1 Excavation of the in-situ soil should be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional heavy-duty equipment. Excavation of the formational materials will require very heavy effort using conventional heavy-duty equipment during the grading and trenching operations. 7.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be “expansive”(expansion index [EI] of greater than 20) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. Appendix B presents the results of the laboratory expansion index tests. We expect a majority of the soil encountered possess a “very high” expansion potential (EI greater than 130) in accordance with ASTM D 4829. TABLE 7.2.1 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index (EI) ASTM D 4829 Expansion Classification 2019 CBC Expansion Classification 0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21 – 50 Low Expansive 51 – 90 Medium 91 – 130 High Greater Than 130 Very High 7.2.3 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Appendix B presents results of the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content test. The test results indicate the on-site materials at the locations tested possess “S0” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. 7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements susceptible to corrosion are planned. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 12 - March 2, 2021 7.3 Grading 7.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report and the City of Carlsbad’s Grading Ordinance. Geocon Incorporated should observe the grading operations and provide testing during the fill placement. 7.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the city inspector, general contractor, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 7.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris, and vegetation. The depth of vegetation removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soil unless approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. 7.3.4 Abandoned foundations and buried utilities (if encountered) should be removed and the resultant depressions and/or trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material as part of the remedial grading. 7.3.5 We expect the new emergency generator pads and proposed improvements will be supported on shallow foundation system or mat slab foundation embedded in properly compacted fill or Santiago Formation. The fill soils within the parking lot should be tested at finish grade to evaluate if suitable for support of the proposed improvements. We should also observe the proposed foundation excavations within the building to check for proper bearing prior to placement of steel and concrete. The upper 2 to 3 feet of materials below the proposed grade within planter and proposed improvement areas should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. The removals should extend at least 3 feet outside of the proposed foundation systems, where possible. The removals can be limited to the Santiago Formation, if encountered. 7.3.6 In areas of proposed surface improvements (i.e. pavement or flatwork), the upper 1 foot of existing soil should be processed, moisture conditioned as necessary and recompacted. Deeper removals may be required in areas where loose or saturated materials are encountered. The removals should extend at least 2 feet outside of the improvement areas, where possible. Table 7.3.1 provides a summary of the grading recommendations Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 13 - March 2, 2021 TABLE 7.3.1 SUMMARY OF GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS Area Removal Requirements Proposed Structural Improvements and Equipment Test Existing Subgrade Soils for Proper Compaction. Process Upper 2 to 3 Feet of Existing Fill Soils Below Pad Grade Within Existing Planter Areas Surface Improvement Areas Process Upper 1 Foot of Existing Materials Within Existing Planter Areas. Grading Limits 2 to 3 Feet Outside of Improvement Areas, Where Possible Exposed Bottoms of Remedial Grading Scarify Upper 12 Inches 7.3.7 In general, existing soil is suitable for use from a geotechnical engineering standpoint as fill if relatively free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at least 3 to 5 percent above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil underlying pavement should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content shortly before paving operations. 7.3.8 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of the characteristics presented in Table 7.3.2. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material. TABLE 7.3.2 SUMMARY OF IMPORT FILL RECOMMENDATIONS Soil Characteristic Values Expansion Potential “Very Low” to “Medium” (Expansion Index of 90 or less) Particle Size Maximum Dimension Less Than 3 Inches Generally Free of Debris Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 14 - March 2, 2021 7.4 Subdrains 7.4.1 With the exception of retaining wall drains, we do not expect the installation of other subdrains. 7.5 Temporary Excavations 7.5.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the responsibility of the contractor and their competent person to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA guidelines in order to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations and adjacent improvements. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations. 7.5.2 The stability of the excavations is dependent on the design and construction of the shoring system and site conditions. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated cannot be responsible for site safety and the stability of the proposed excavations. 7.6 Seismic Design Criteria – 2019 California Building Code 7.6.1 Table 7.6.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7- 16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association (SEA) to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented herein are for the risk- targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). Sites designated as Site Class D, E and F may require additional analyses if requested by the project structural engineer and client. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 15 - March 2, 2021 TABLE 7.6.1 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference Site Class C Section 1613.2.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 0.968g Figure 1613.2.1(1) MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.354g Figure 1613.2.1(2) Site Coefficient, FA 1.2 Table 1613.2.3(1) Site Coefficient, FV 1.5* Table 1613.2.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.161g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.531g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.774g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.354g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39) *Note: Using the code-based values presented in this table, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed by the project structural engineer. Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis should be performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed. 7.6.2 Table 7.6.2 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16. TABLE 7.6.2 ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.422g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.507g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) 7.6.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 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 avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 16 - March 2, 2021 7.6.4 The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. The values presented herein assume a Risk Category of II and resulting in a Seismic Design Category D. Table 7.6.3 presents a summary of the risk categories in accordance with ASCE 7-16. TABLE 7.6.3 ASCE 7-16 RISK CATEGORIES Risk Category Building Use Examples I Low risk to Human Life at Failure Barn, Storage Shelter II Nominal Risk to Human Life at Failure (Buildings Not Designated as I, III or IV) Residential, Commercial and Industrial Buildings III Substantial Risk to Human Life at Failure Theaters, Lecture Halls, Dining Halls, Schools, Prisons, Small Healthcare Facilities, Infrastructure Plants, Storage for Explosives/Toxins IV Essential Facilities Hazardous Material Facilities, Hospitals, Fire and Rescue, Emergency Shelters, Police Stations, Power Stations, Aviation Control Facilities, National Defense, Water Storage 7.7 Shallow Foundations 7.7.1 New shallow footings founded in the properly compacted fill or Santiago Formation should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. Table 7.7 provides a summary of the foundation design recommendations. TABLE 7.7 SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Minimum Continuous Foundation Width, WC 12 inches Minimum Isolated Foundation Width, WI 24 inches Minimum Foundation Depth, D 30 Inches Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Minimum Steel Reinforcement 4 No. 5 Bars, 2 at the Top and 2 at the Bottom Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf Bearing Capacity Increase 300 psf per Foot of Depth 300 psf per Foot of Width Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 4,000 psf Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet Footing Size Used for Settlement 8-Foot Square Design Expansion Index 180 or less Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 17 - March 2, 2021 7.7.2 The foundations should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations herein and the Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope (unless designed with a post-tensioned foundation system). Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail 7.7.3 The bearing capacity values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.7.4 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. Foundation modifications may be required if unexpected soil conditions are encountered. 7.7.5 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 7.8 Mat Foundation 7.8.1 We understand the proposed emergency generator pads and mechanical yard equipment may be supported on a mat foundation. A mat foundation consists of a thick, rigid concrete mat that allows the entire footprint of the structure to carry building loads. In addition, the mat can tolerate significantly greater differential movements such as those associated with expansive soils or differential settlement. Table 7.8 provides a summary of the foundation design recommendations. SAND AND VAPOR RETARDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI I. .I FOOTING WIDTH, We PAD GRADE CJ J: ~f-f-c.. 0 UJ 00 LL Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 18 - March 2, 2021 TABLE 7.8 SUMMARY OF MAT FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Expected Design Foundation Dimensions 20 x 15 Feet Minimum Foundation Depth 6 Inches Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Minimum Steel Reinforcement Per Structural Engineer Bearing Capacity 1,000 psf Estimated Total Settlement ½ Inch Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 75 to 125 pci Design Expansion Index 180 or less 7.8.2 The modulus of subgrade reaction values should be modified as necessary using standard equations for mat size as required by the structural engineer. This value is a unit value for use with a 1-foot square footing. The modulus should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when used with larger foundations: where: KR = reduced subgrade modulus K = unit subgrade modulus B = foundation width (in feet) 7.8.3 A mat foundation system will allow the structure to settle with the ground and should have sufficient rigidity to allow the structure to move as a single unit. Re-leveling of the mat foundation could be necessary through the use of mud jacking, compaction grouting or other similar techniques if differential settlement occurs 7.9 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade 7.9.1 Concrete slab-on-grade replacement within the building or new exterior slabs should be constructed in accordance with Table 7.9. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 19 - March 2, 2021 TABLE 7.9 MINIMUM CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Minimum Concrete Slab Thickness 5 inches Minimum Steel Reinforcement No. 4 Bars 12 Inches on Center, Both Directions Typical Slab Underlayment 3 to 4 Inches of Sand/Gravel/Base Design Expansion Index 180 or Less 7.9.2 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R- 06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture. The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled environment. 7.9.3 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand for 5-inch and 4-inch thick slabs, respectively, in the southern California region. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans. 7.9.4 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints and/or expansion joints to reduce unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) when establishing crack-control spacing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing should be considered where concrete-exposed finished floors are planned. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 20 - March 2, 2021 7.9.5 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 7.9.6 The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads. 7.9.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 7.10 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 7.10.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 7.10. The recommended steel reinforcement would help reduce the potential for cracking. TABLE 7.10 MINIMUM CONCRETE FLATWORK RECOMMENDATIONS Expansion Index, EI Minimum Steel Reinforcement* Options Minimum Thickness EI<180 No. 4 Bars 12 inches on center, Both Directions 4 *In excess of 8 feet square. 7.10.2 The subgrade soil should be properly moisturized and compacted prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at least 3 to 5 percent above its optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The moisture content should be maintained until the concrete has been placed. Lifting of the flatwork should be expected due to the highly expansive nature of the existing soil. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 21 - March 2, 2021 7.10.3 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade. The steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. 7.10.4 Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements. 7.10.5 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. 7.10.6 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 7.11 Retaining Walls 7.11.1 Retaining walls should be designed using the values presented in Table 7.11.1. Soil with an expansion index (EI) of greater than 90 should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. This will require import soils or the use of gravel for suitable backfill materials. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 22 - March 2, 2021 TABLE 7.11.1 RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, Level Backfill) 40 pcf Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, 2:1 Sloping Backfill) 55 pcf Seismic Pressure, S 15H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (8+ Feet High) 13H psf Expected Expansion Index for the Subject Property EI<90 H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall 7.11.2 The project retaining walls should be designed as shown in the Retaining Wall Loading Diagram. Retaining Wall Loading Diagram 7.11.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure should be applied to the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added. IF PRESENT RETAINING WALL ACTIVE PRESSURE H (Feet) i---FOOTING SEISMIC (IF REQUIRED) AT-REST/ RESTRAINED (IF REQUIRED) Ri_ psf ---H>8' Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 23 - March 2, 2021 7.11.4 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section 1613.3.5 of the 2019 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-10. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. 7.11.5 Retaining walls should be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, and excessive foundation pressure. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to consider active pressure on the keyway. 7.11.6 Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (EI of 90 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. The retaining wall should be properly drained as shown in the Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail 7.11.7 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also considered in the design of the retaining walls. H PROPOSED GRADE TEMPORARY BACKCUTPER OSHA CONCRETE BROWDITCH RETAINING WALL OR Fl 140N FILTER RIC (OR EQUIVALENT) 213 H OPEN GRADED GROUND SURFACE WATER PROOFING PER ARCHITECT DRAINAGE PANEL {MIRADRAIN 6000 DR EQUIVALENT) 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK (1 CU. FT.IFT.) OR WRAP DRAINAGE PANEL 12" AROUND PIPE 1• MAX. AGGREGATE PROPOSED GRADE . •••f' L TER FABRIC ENVELOPE 1---ll\'!"''~• ;,.·%.,;:yMIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT """"l'l!=~,.......,-----; 4" DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET 4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE OR TOTAL DRAIN EXTENDED TO APPROVED OUTLET Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 24 - March 2, 2021 7.11.8 In general, wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Table 7.11.2. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. TABLE 7.11.2 SUMMARY OF RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Width 12 inches Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Depth 18 Inches Minimum Steel Reinforcement Per Structural Engineer Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet 7.11.9 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls. In the event that other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 7.11.10 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 7.11.11 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 25 - March 2, 2021 7.12 Lateral Loading 7.12.1 Table 7.12 should be used to help design the proposed structures and improvements to resist lateral loads for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. TABLE 7.12 SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOAD DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value Passive Pressure Fluid Density 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction (Concrete and Soil) 0.3 Coefficient of Friction (Along Vapor Barrier) 0.2 to 0.25* *Per manufacturer’s recommendations. 7.12.2 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 7.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 7.13.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 7.13.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 7.13.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above- grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - 26 - March 2, 2021 pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered. 7.13.4 We should prepare a storm water infiltration feasibility report if storm water management devices are planned. Storm water management devices should be designed such that infiltration is not allowed due to the highly expansive nature of the existing materials. 7.14 Grading and Foundation Plan Review 7.14.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading and building foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to evaluate if additional analyses and/or recommendations are required. 7.15 Testing and Observation Services During Construction 7.15.1 Geocon Incorporated should provide geotechnical testing and observation services during the grading operations, foundation construction, utility installation, retaining wall backfill and pavement installation. Table 7.15 presents the typical geotechnical observations we would expect for the proposed improvements. TABLE 7.15 EXPECTED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES Construction Phase Observations Expected Time Frame Grading Base of Removal Part Time During Removals Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Operations Full Time Foundations Foundation Excavation Observations Part Time Utility Backfill Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Operations Part Time to Full Time Retaining Wall Backfill Fill Placement and Soil Compaction Operations Part Time to Full Time Subgrade for Sidewalks, Curb/Gutter and Pavement Soil Compaction Operations Part Time Pavement Construction Base Placement and Compaction Part Time Asphalt Concrete Placement and Compaction Full Time Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 March 2, 2021 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. APPENDIX A Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 March 2, 2021 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION We performed the drilling operations on February 8, 2021 using a CME 75, hollow stem auger drill rig with Baja Explorations. Borings extended to maximum depth of approximately 20 feet. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Geologic Map. The boring logs are presented in this Appendix. We located the borings in the field using existing reference points; therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly. We obtained samples during our subsurface exploration in the borings using a California sampler. The California sampler is composed of steel and is driven to obtain ring samples. The sampler has an inside diameter of 2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 3 inches. Up to 18 rings are placed inside the sampler that is 2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height. We obtained ring samples at appropriate intervals, placed them in moisture-tight containers, and transported them to the laboratory for testing. We also obtained bag samples of the soil excavated. The type of sample is noted on the exploratory boring logs. The samplers were driven 12 inches. The sampler is connected to A rods and driven into the bottom of the excavation using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches the sampler is driven. The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot. The values indicated on the boring logs are the sum of the last 12 inches of the sampler. If the sampler was not driven for 12 inches, an approximate value is calculated in term of blows per foot or the final 6-inch interval is reported. These values are not to be taken as N-values as adjustments have not been applied. We estimated elevations shown on the boring logs either from a topographic map or by using a benchmark. Each excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs. We visually examined, classified, and logged the soil encountered in the borings in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions observed and the depth at which samples were obtained. UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Soft, moist, yellowish brown mottled gray, Sandy CLAY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Very stiff, damp, mottled yellowish gray, Silty CLAY BORING TERMINATED AT 11 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil CH CH 102.8 105.9 105.9 22.2 21.2 22.2 B1-1 B1-2 B1-3 42 46 38 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1 DRY DENSITY(P.C.F.)... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 95 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)BORING B 1 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERJ. LANCASTER CONTENT (%)SAMPLE NO.02-05-2021 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MOISTUREBY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)309' G2667-11-01.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. G2667-11-01 ,... ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... - ,... ~ :)0 _.·._ ./ / /1// F /V/ /!,// /V/ / /!,// / /V/ // !/ / // V/ I; /!,// /V/ /!,// / /V/ // !/ / // V/ // !/ / // V/ // !/ / // V/ // !/ / // V/ // !/ / // V/ I; /!,// /V/ /!,// I] liiiiJ - - - - - - - - - UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf) Soft, moist, yellowish gray, Sandy to Silty CLAY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Hard, damp, mottled yellowish gray, Sandy CLAY -Becomes very stiff, Silty CLAY Hard, dry, mottled reddish gray, Silty to Sandy CLAY; overconsolidated BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled with soil CH CH CH 102.0 108.6 104.2 124.9 127.6 22.6 19.3 23.0 11.6 10.7 B2-1 B2-2 B2-3 B2-4 B2-5 B2-6 60 32 35 69/9" 63/9" ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1 DRY DENSITY(P.C.F.)... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 95 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)BORING B 2 ... CHUNK SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERJ. LANCASTER CONTENT (%)SAMPLE NO.02-05-2021 SAMPLE SYMBOLS MOISTUREBY:EQUIPMENT ELEV. (MSL.)314' G2667-11-01.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. G2667-11-01 ~ ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ fil ~ - APPENDIX B Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - B-1 - March 2, 2021 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were tested for in-place dry density/moisture content, maximum density/optimum moisture content, direct shear strength, expansion index, water-soluble sulfate and unconfined compressive strength characteristics. The results of our current laboratory tests are presented herein. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample No. Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) B2-1 Gray, Silty CLAY (Qudf) 109.6 17.9 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index 2019 CBC Expansion Classification ASTM Soil Expansion Classification Before Test After Test B2-1 15.2 37.6 94.5 145 Expansive Very High SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) ACI 318 Sulfate Exposure B2-1 0-5 Qudf/Tsa 0.046 S0 ----- Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 - B-2 - March 2, 2021 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1558 Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Hand Penetrometer Reading/Unconfined Compression Strength (tsf) and Undrained Shear Strength (ksf) B1-1 2.5 Tsa 4.5 B1-2 5.0 Tsa 4.5 B1-3 10.0 Tsa 4.5 B2-2 2.5 Tsa 4.5 B2-3 5.0 Tsa 4.5 B2-4 10.0 Tsa 4.5 B2-5 15.0 Tsa 4.5 B2-6 19.0 Tsa 4.5 1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE 1000 2000 4000 -- 22.8 22.8 22.3 22.6 102.1 100.9 102.9 102.0 1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE 27.0 27.5 27.4 27.3 1908 2656 2818 -- 969 1271 1742 -- 1400 24 550 18 DRY DENSITY (PCF): QUIDEL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS G2667-11-01 DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D 3080 NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD WATER CONTENT (%): PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF): ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF): RESULTS PEAK COHESION, C (PSF) PROJECT NO.: Tsa N SAMPLE NO.: SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): B2-2 2.5' GEOLOGIC UNIT: NATURAL/REMOLDED: INITIAL CONDITIONS FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) ULTIMATE COHESION, C (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF): WATER CONTENT (%): AFTER TEST CONDITIONS 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3SHEAR STRESS (PSF)HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN) 1 K 2 K 4 K 1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK 1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE 4 K 2 K 1 K 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000SHEAR STRESS (PSF)NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000SHEAR STRESS (PSF)NORMAL STRESS (PSF)A X A X GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS A X 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159 ., I,. r ., .. ., ~ . ~ "("" I I -------PEAK ULTIMATE .. " ., ., ., .n i ~ ., .. ., .. ., ., ., ____, ~ ' ' ~ ~ Geocon Project No. G2667-11-01 March 2, 2021 LIST OF REFERENCES 1.2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the 2018 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated July 2019. 2.American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, dated August, 2011. 3.American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2017. 4.California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996. 5.California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html 6.Kennedy, M. P., and S. S. Tan, 2009, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’x60’ Quadrangle, California, USGS Regional Map Series Map No. 2, Scale 1:100,000. 7.Special Publication 117A, Guidelines For Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California 2008, California Geological Survey, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008. 8.Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. 9.USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.