Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PD 2020-0046; KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP); 2021-05-11
CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROJECT ID PD2020-0046 / GR2020-0030 DRAWING No. DWG 527-6A ENGINEER OF WORK: KATHEREEN SHINKAI, P.E. 68369 PREPARED FOR: CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 331-5000 PREPARED BY: LPA, INC. 5301 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 (949) 261-1001 DATE: May 11, 2021 05/11/2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certification Page Project Vicinity Map FORM E-34 Storm Water Standard Questionnaire Site Information FORM E-36 Standard Project Requirement Checklist Summary of PDP Structural BMPs Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs Attachment 1 a: OMA Exhibit Attachment 1 b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1 c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1 e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets/ Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 4: Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit Attachment 5: Geotechnical Evaluation for reference CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: Kelly Elementary School Modernization Project ID: PD2020-0046 / GR2020-0030 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. Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date Kathereen Shinkai, P.E. Print Name LPA, Inc. Company 5/11 /2021 Date PROJECT VICINITY MAP Project Site Address: 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, CA PROJECT LOCATION VICINITY CITY or OCEANSIDE PACIFIC OCEAN 78 MAP CITY or ENCINITAS I NOT TO SCALE i CITY or VISTA ··-··-· ITY or AN MARCOS .. J I 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. Kelly Elementary School Modernization 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 X N/A 207-241-01-00 96,935 2.23 75,807 1.74 N/A PD2020-0046 / GR2020-0030 C cityof Carlsbad □ I □ 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: Assistant Superintendent, Business ServicesEric Dill May 10, 2021 75,807 X 162,425 46.7 X□ □ □ □ □ ~ /2 'I),,.;/ □ □ SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project Summary Information Project Name Kelly Elementary School Modernization Project ID PD2020-0046 I GR2020-0030 Project Address 4885 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 207-241-01-00 Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Carlsbad 904 Parcel Area 8.278 Acres (360,590 Sauare Feet) Existing Impervious Area Acres {162,425 Square Feet) (subset of Parcel Area) 3.73 Area to be disturbed by the project Acres (96,935 Square Feet) (Project Area) 2.23 Project Proposed Impervious Area Acres (75 807 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) 1.74 Project Proposed Pervious Area Acres {21 ,128 Square Feet) (subset of Project Area) 0.49 Note: Proposed Impervious Area+ Proposed Pervious Area= Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This mav 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 elementary school with residential developments to the north, west and east and abutting Laguna Riviera City Park to the south. The site is bordered by public roadways on the north and east sides. Stormwater runoff flows from the northwest toward the southeast and is captured onsite in an underground drainage system that outlets to a concrete-lined ditch along Kelly Drive. The concrete ditch outlets to grade southwest of the intersection of Park Drive ;:mrl KP.llv nrivP. whP.rP. it flnws tn Am 1;::i HP.rlinnrl;::i r.rP.P.k ;::inrl 11ltim::itP.lv tn Am 1;::i HP.rlinnrl;::i I ;::innnn. GI Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): ~ Vegetative Cover ~ Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas ~ Impervious Areas Description / Additional Information: Existing vegetative cover at the project site includes grass play fields, grass areas between the buildings and islands in the parking lot, and planters around the buildings. Existing non-vegetated pervious areas are minimal and include various small planters near the administration building. Existing impervious areas consist of the buildings, asphalt athletic court, fire lane, parking lot and concrete walkways and plaza area. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): □NRCS Type A □NRCS Type B □NRCS Type C E:INRCS Type D Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW): [j GW Depth < 5 feet □ 5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet ~ 10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet [j GW Depth > 20 feet Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): □ Watercourses □Seeps □ Springs □Wetlands ~None Description / Additional Information: There are no known existing natural hydrologic features within the site. Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if so, describe]: The existing site is currently developed with an elementary school. The school's main campus is generally flat, gradually sloping from northwest to southeast. An approximately 50 foot high vegetated slope ascends to the west/northwest property line from the edge of the main grass playing field. Stormwater from the upper portion of this slope is collected and conveyed offsite via a concrete v-gutter that flows along the slope to the southeast corner of the property where it enters an underground pipe and outlets into a public concrete-lined ditch that parallels Kelly Drive. Site stormwater runoff from the main campus flows from the northwest toward the southeast and is captured onsite in grate inlets and collected in an underground drainage system that also outlets to the concrete-lined ditch. Runoff from the grass playing field at the northeast corner and the parking lot sheet flows to the curb and gutter in Kelly Drive. The gutter flows south to a curb inlet at the corner of Kelly Drive and Park Drive and is conveyed underground to the concrete-lined ditch. The concrete ditch outlets to grade southwest of the intersection of Park Drive and Kelly Drive where it flows to Agua Hedionda Creek and ultimately to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Runoff from offsite is not conveyed through the project site. Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: The project proposes new construction of a 1-story multipurpose building with attached lunch shelter, modernization to existing Building A including new servery addition, and campus site improvements including new ac paved athletic court and firelane, concrete walkways, playground surfacing and equipment, and a new sanitary sewer service. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): Proposed impervious features include the multipurpose building, asphalt athletic court, rubberized playgrounds, and concrete paved walkways. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Proposed pervious features include planters near the multipurpose building and within the courtyard and athletic court, and grass area between the relocatable classrooms and the kindergarten playground. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? ~Yes □No Description / Additional Information: Grading will occur for the new firelane and multipurpose building, maintaining the overall site topography. Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? 0Yes □No Description / Additional Information: The project includes new underground storm drain to capture roof drains from the existing relocatable buildings and new underground storm drain to capture roof drains from the new multipurpose building and runoff from the new athletic court and surrounding areas. 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 IJ Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps □ Interior parking garages IJ Need for future indoor & structural pest control ~ Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use □ Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features IJ Food service 0 Ref use areas IJ Industrial processes El Outdoor storage of equipment or materials IJ Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning IJ Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance IJ Fuel Dispensing Areas IJ Loading Docks IJ Fire Sprinkler Test Water IJ Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water ~ Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots Identification of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): Stormwater runoff is captured onsite in an underground drainage system that outlets to a concrete-lined ditch along Kelly Drive. Part of the site sheet flows to curb and gutter along Kelly Drive and enters a curb inlet to the south that outlets into the same concrete ditch. The concrete ditch outlets to grade southwest of the intersection of Park Drive and Kelly Drive where it flows to Agua Hedionda Creek and ultimately to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 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 Bodv Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs Agua Hedionda Creek Benthic Community Effects, Bifenthrin, Benthic Community Effects, Bifenthrin, Chlorpyrifos, Cypermethrin, Indicator Chlorpyrifos, Cypermethrin, Indicator Bacteria, Malathion, Manganese, Bacteria, Malathion, Manganese, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Selenium, Total Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Selenium, Total Dissolved Solids, Toxicity Dissolved Solids, Toxicity 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 A Jpendix B.6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern X X Sediment X X Nutrients X X Heavy Metals X Orqanic Compounds X Trash & Debris Oxygen Demanding X Substances X Oil & Grease X X Bacteria & Viruses X X Pesticides Hydromodification Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? 0 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? IJ 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 IJ 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 g Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 8 of the SWQMP. IJ 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 manaaement 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. POC 1 is where the onsite existing underground storm drain system connects to the existing City of Carlsbad underground storm drain. POC 1 is located near the southeast corner of the Kelly Elementary School property. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? ~ No, the low flow threshold is 0.1O2 (default low flow threshold) □ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.102 □ Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3O2 El Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5O2 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. Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. Appendix C of the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual also states that infiltration may not be feasible when groundwater is within 10 feet of the base of the infiltration BMP. Refer to project Geotechnical Evaluation included in Attachment 5. Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. C cityof Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Project Information Project Name: Kelly Elementary School Modernization Project ID: PD2020-0046 DWG No. or Building Permit No.: GR2020-0030 / DWG 527-6A Source Control BMPs Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. • "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. • "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 □ Yes □ No Iii N/A Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 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 □ Yes □ No ~ N/A Wind Dispersal 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 Aooendix E.1 of BMP Manual for quidance). ~ 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 parkinq lots ~ Yes □ No □ N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix E.1. Provide justification for "No" answers. On-site storm drain inlets: Provide storm drain signage/stenciling Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use: Use drought tolerant plants, minimize pesticide use Refuse areas: SD-32 Trash Storage Areas Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots: Litter control E-36 Page 2 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 I Applied? SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features I ~Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation I ~ Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area I ~ Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I □ Yes I □ No I~ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I ~ Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Requirement (continued) I Applied? SD-6 Runoff Collection I ~Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscapinq with Native or Drouqht Tolerant Species I ~ Yes I □ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvestinq and Usinq Precipitation I □ Yes I ~ No I □ N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: There is not sufficient demand for harvest and use. See worksheet 1-7 in Attachment 1. E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS PDP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual). Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP). Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. Six structural BMPs (BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3, BMP-4, BMP-5, & BMP-6) are proposed for the project to meet the pollutant control and hydromodification control requirements for four Drainage Management Areas (OMA-A, DMA-B, DMA-C, and DMA-D). Selection of the BMP types were performed using Figures 5-1 and 5-2 from the BMP Design Manual. Step 1 A -The project site does not have any areas that meet the criteria of De Minimis or Self-Mitigating DMAs. The project does not have any areas that meet the criteria to be Self-Retaining DMAs. Impervious Area Dispersion on the site can not satisfy the self-retaining requirement because the soil is considered to be type D. The project disturbed area in DMA-C includes 8,481 sf of hardscape and 202 sf of landscape between the existing buildings and concrete walkways in front of the school that are not tributary to the onsite stormwater system infrastructure, but surface flow offsite to the curb and gutter along Kelly Drive. (continued on next page) [Continued from previous page -This page is reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site.] There is also 3,874 sf (1,712 sf impervious+ 2,162 sf pervious) of disturbed untreated area in DMA-D in the kindergarten yard that flows to an offsite ditch south of the site. This area is at the lowest point of the property and therefore cannot gravity flow to the treatment structure. In lieu of treating these areas, additional undisturbed areas that are tributary to OMA-A and DMA-B have been included in the treatment capacity for pollutants. The proposed undisturbed treated areas include 45,226 sf of pervious area consisting of portions of the western grass field in OMA-A & DMA-B and 13,806 sf of impervious area consisting of a portion of the fire lane and the relocatable buildings along the south property line located within DMA-B. The total undisturbed treated area (pervious + impervious) equals 59,032 sf. The undisturbed treated impervious area of 13,806 sf exceeds the total disturbed area 12,557sf (8 ,683 sf of DMA-C and 3,874 sf of DMA-D) that is not being treated. See area summary on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1. Step 1 B -DCV and retention requirements were calculated using the San Diego County Automated Worksheets B.1 & B.2. See Attachment 1. Three proposed tree wells provide credit volume of 1,020 cf to satisfy the retention requirements of OMA-A that are not met using solely a proprietary biofiltration unit. The retention requirements of DMA-B are shown to be satisfied within the biofiltration unit. The County BMP Worksheets B.1, B.2, & B.3 were used to calculate the required retention and are shown in Attachment 1. Tree well credit volume was calculated using the San Diego County Automated Worksheet B.1 in accordance with the County Fact Sheet SD-A. Step 2B -Harvest and use is not feasible. Refer to worksheet 1-7 in Attachment 1. Step 3 -Infiltration is not feasible. Refer to feasibility worksheet in Attachment 1. Step 4 -Biofiltration BMPs were selected to treat 1.5 times the portion of the DCV not reliably retained onsite. Proprietary Biofiltration was selected in lieu of a larger footprint biofiltration basin based on existing site constraints and topography. The existing drainage pattern for the site flows from the northwest to the southeast corner of the school. The ideal location based on topography would be the southeast corner, but since the project site is an existing developed site it would not be feasible to put a basin within the playground area. Poor infiltration feasibility was also considered due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction cited by the project geotechnical investigation. BMPs were sized according to BMP Fact Sheet BF-3 for Proprietary Biofiltration Systems and worksheet B.6-1 : Flow-Thru Design Flows. See calculations in Attachment 1 . Hydromodification management is provided by implementing a treatment train with the proprietary biofiltration units upstream of an underground detention system. The detention system was designed using the San Diego Hydrology Model (SOHM 3.1) software. The analysis compared the pre-developed site to the post-project conditions to determine the required detention size to mitigate the increased runoff volume. See calculation results in Attachment 2. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-1 DWG 527-6A Sheet No. 8 16 Type of structural BMP: IJ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) IJ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) IJ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) ~ Biofiltration (BF-1) IJ 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) IJ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management IJ Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: ~ Pollutant control only IJ Hydromodification control only IJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control IJ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP IJ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): A compact biofiltration BMP, Modular Wetlands System (MWS-L-8-20-V) will be implemented to treat the DCV from OMA-A. The proposed biofiltration BMP has been sized based on a required treatment flow rate of 0.21 cfs (1 .5 x Qt). The proposed BMP is capable of providing a treatment flow rate of 0.33 cfs, thereby meeting the water quality requirements. Refer to Attachment 1 for a detail of the proposed MWS unit and sizing calculations. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-2 DWG 527-6A Sheet No. 8 16 Type of structural BMP: IJ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) IJ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) IJ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) ~ Biofiltration (BF-1) IJ 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) IJ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management IJ Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: ~ Pollutant control only IJ Hydromodification control only IJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control IJ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP IJ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): A compact biofiltration BMP, Modular Wetlands System (MWS-L-8-12-V) will be implemented to treat the DCV from DMA-B. The proposed biofiltration BMP has been sized based on a required treatment flow rate of 0.18 cfs (1 .5 x Qt). The proposed BMP is capable of providing a treatment flow rate of 0.22 cfs, thereby meeting the water quality requirements. Refer to Attachment 1 for a detail of the proposed MWS unit and sizing calculations. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-3 DWG 527-6A Sheet No. 8 17 Type of structural BMP: IJ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) IJ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) IJ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) IJ Biofiltration (BF-1) IJ 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 IJ Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: IJ Pollutant control only ~ Hydromodification control only IJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control IJ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP IJ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): An underground detention system, ACO StormBrixx, will be implemented to provide control of flow to prevent hydromodification effects due to runoff from the project site. The proposed detention BMP has been sized to capture a volume based on the disturbed project areas for the new multipurpose building, athletic court, playgrounds, and existing relocatable classrooms at the south edge of the property of 11 ,282 cf. The proposed BMP is capable of detaining a volume of 12,748 cf, thereby meeting the hydromodification volume requirements. Refer to Attachment 2 for proposed detention system sizing calculations. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-4 (Tree Well T-1) DWG 527-6A Sheet No. 5 Type of structural BMP: IJ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) IJ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) IJ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) IJ Biofiltration (BF-1) IJ 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) IJ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management ~ Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: IJ Pollutant control only IJ Hydromodification control only IJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control IJ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP ~ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): A tree well system, designed based on San Diego County BMP Fact Sheet SD-A, will be implemented to provide treatment of flow to mitigate retention deficit of proprietary biofiltration unit used downstream. The proposed retention BMP has been sized to capture a volume based on the tributary area that flows to the tree well. The proposed BMP is capable of treating a volume of 420 cf, thereby helping to mitigate the retention deficit of the proprietary biofiltration unit. Refer to Attachment 1 for proposed tree well sizing calculations. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-5 (Tree Well T-2) DWG 527-6A Sheet No. 6 Type of structural BMP: IJ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) IJ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) IJ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) IJ Biofiltration (BF-1) IJ 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) IJ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management ~ Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: IJ Pollutant control only IJ Hydromodification control only IJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control IJ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP ~ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): A tree well system, designed based on San Diego County BMP Fact Sheet SD-A, will be implemented to provide treatment of flow to mitigate retention deficit of proprietary biofiltration unit used downstream. The proposed retention BMP has been sized to capture a volume based on the tributary area that flows to the tree well. The proposed BMP is capable of treating a volume of 420 cf, thereby helping to mitigate the retention deficit of the proprietary biofiltration unit. Refer to Attachment 1 for proposed tree well sizing calculations. Structural BMP Summary Information [Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP] Structural BMP ID No. BMP-6 (Tree Well T-3) DWG 527-6A Sheet No. 5 Type of structural BMP: IJ Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) □Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1) IJ Retention by bioretention (INF-2) IJ Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) IJ Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) IJ Biofiltration (BF-1) IJ 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) IJ Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management ~ Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: IJ Pollutant control only IJ Hydromodification control only IJ Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control IJ Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP ~ Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): A tree well system, designed based on San Diego County BMP Fact Sheet SD-A, will be implemented to provide treatment of flow to mitigate retention deficit of proprietary biofiltration unit used downstream. The proposed retention BMP has been sized to capture a volume based on the tributary area that flows to the tree well. The proposed BMP is capable of treating a volume of 180 cf, thereby helping to mitigate the retention deficit of the proprietary biofiltration unit. Refer to Attachment 1 for proposed tree well sizing calculations. ATTACHMENT 1 BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1. Check which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Seauence Attachment 1 a OMA Exhibit (Required) Attachment 1 b Attachment 1 c Attachment 1 d See OMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing OMA ID matching OMA Exhibit, OMA Area, and OMA Type (Required)* *Provide table in this Attachment OR on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Checklist (Required unless the entire project will use infiltration BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Required unless the project will use harvest and use BMPs) Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. 121 Included ~ Included on OMA Exhibit in Attachment 1 a □ Included as Attachment 1 b, separate from OMA Exhibit ~ Included □ Not included because the entire project will use infiltration BMPs ~ Included El Not included because the entire project will use harvest and use BMPs Attachment 1 e Pollutant Control BMP Design 0 Included Worksheets / Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines OFSHEET JOB NO.KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 18283.101 DMA EXHIBIT Job. No. Checked by Scale 18283.10 05/11/2021 SA RR 1"=40' Date Drawn by © LPA, Inc. This document and all other project documents, ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are copyright protected, are the property of LPA, Inc. (LPA) and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as set forth in the contractual agreement between LPA and its Client. The unauthorized disclosure and/or use of the project documents (including the creation of derivative works), may give rise to liability for copyright infringement, unlawful disclosure, use or misappropriation of property rights held by LPA. The unauthorized use of the project documents will give rise to the recovery of monetary losses and damages including attorney fees and costs for which the unauthorized user will be held liable. Project documents describe the design intent of the work and are not a representation of as-built or existing conditions. LPA is not responsible for any discrepancies between the project documents and the existing conditions. 949-261-1001 Office 949-260-1190 Fax LPADesignStudios.com 5301 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 40200 80 1" = 40' 01NTSLARGE TREE WELL (BMP-4, BMP-5, BMP-6) PLAN VIEW SECTION A-A A A NOTE: 1. TREE SIZE & TYPE PER DESIGN PLANS. ADJACENT CONRETE PAVEMENT ADJACENT AC PAVING 48" TYP.4"MAX.ADJACENT CONRETE PAVEMENT ADJACENT AC PAVING 30 MIL PLASTIC LINER 30 MIL PLASTIC LINER ROOT CONTROL BARRIER PER SDRSD L-06 ROOT CONTROL BARRIER PER SDRSD L-06 ROOT CONTROL BARRIER PER SDRSD L-06 30 MIL PLASTIC LINER 30 MIL PLASTIC LINER ROOT CONTROL BARRIER PER SDRSD L-066" SAND FILTER LAYER, TYP. ROOT BALL ROOT BALL 12" MIN.#4 @ 18" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TYP. 9" LIMIT OF ROOTING SOIL 14' Ø PAVEMENT OPENING LIMIT OF ROOTING SOIL 14' Ø PLANTER OPENING 21' Ø S O I L L I M I T S 14' Ø SOIL LI MITS TREE WELLS T-1 & T-2 BMP-4, BMP-5 AMENDED SOIL, TYP. TREE WELL T-3 BMP-6 TREE WELLS T-1 & T-2 BMP-4, BMP-5 TREE WELL T-3 BMP-6 21' Ø PLA N T E R OPENING 21' Ø PAVEMENT OPENING 18"#4 @ 18" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TYP.12" MIN.8" CONCRETE MOW CURB CONCRETE MOW CURB 3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH LAYER1"DEEP ROOT TREE BUBBLER PER SDRSD I-04 ! I I ' .... , .... (E) RELOCATABLE BLDGS L....., ---- (E) RELOCATABLE BLDG / ¼ '/,0 JI '-..._ (E) CLASSROOM B DG (E) ELOCATAB BLDG (E) RELO, ATABLE BL GS (E) CLASSROOM BLDG (E) CLASSROOM BLDG -.. • ! '-..._ ~a =' "''"""""' .111111111-~;7, _ ' -~/' ;;,T,'TTTT\ "'""'"' 11= ',,r-7------~ 1ft I,-,_,,_,-✓ /== -_ \]\\\\/<'~\\\\\\~ \\, ~\\\\11111 - PREPARED BY OWNER BLOGG C (E) LIBRARY & CLASSROOM BLDG (E) ADMINISTRATION BLDG \ \, ~ "' . j / ' I 0 J/ / / / ~ a ~ • ) ~ /) ~ -: I -+---<I• I I I f / \ I I .tmES;, 1. HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP IS lYPE D PER "FIGURE C, 1 SOILS" OF THE CRY OF CARLSEW> BMP DESIGN MANUAL APPENDICES, 2, GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED IN BORINGS AT DEPTHS RANGING FROM APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 18 FEET PER THE PROJECT SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL E.VAI.UATION. 3. THERE ARE NO EXISTING WATERCOURSES, SEEPS, SPRINGS OR WEIIANOS LOCATED ONSITE. 4. THE SITE HAS NO ONSITE OR UPSJREAIA CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS (CCSYAs). TREATED AREA SUIAMARY DMA TOTAL AREA TOTAL AREA (SQ FT) (AC) Total Disturbed Impervious Area 75,807 1.74 Total Disturbed Pervious Area 21,128 0.49 Total Disturbed Area 96,935 2.23 Total Undisturbed Impervious Area 85,835 1.97 Total Undisturbed Pervious Areo 177,820 4.08 Total Undisturbed Areo 263,655 6.05 Total T realed Areo 135,157 3.10 PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE AREA WITH EFFECTIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES CJ PROPOSED BUILDING CJ EXISTING BUILDING ~ UNDISTURBED TREATED AREA ~ DISTURBED UNTREATED AREA @ DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (OMA) AREA (ACRES) xx (BMP-#) BMP ID DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (OMA) SUMMARY DMA OMA TOTAL AREA TOTAL AREA lYPE (SQ FT) (AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA (SQ FT) (SQ FT) AREA WEIGHTED :c RUNOFF FACTOR IMPERVIOUS C = 0.90 FLOWS TO BMP-1 93,737 2.2 52,690 C = 0.90 41,047 C=0.10 C = 0.55 56 DISTURBED TREATED 59,902 1.4 DMA A 33,835 UNDISTURBED TREATED 0.8 52,690 C = 0.90 7,212 C=0.10 0 C = 0.90 33,835 C=0.10 DISTURBED UNTREATED 0 0 FLOWS TO BMP-2 41,420 1.0 26,730 C = 0.90 14,690 C=0.10 C = 0.62 65 DISTURBED TREATED 16,223 0.4 DMA B 25,197 UNDISTURBED TREATED 0.6 12,924 C = 0.90 3,299 C=0.10 13,806 C = 0.90 11,391 C=0.10 DISTURBED UNTREATED 0 0 DMA C DISTURBED UNTREATED 8,683 0.2 8,481 C = 0.90 202 C=0.10 C = 0.88 98 DMA D DISTURBED UNTREATED 3,874 0.1 1,712 C = 0.90 2,162 C=0.10 C = 0.45 44 147,714 3.4 89,613 58,101 61 Total Undisturbed T reeled Areo 59,032 1.36 Total Disturbed Untreated Areo 12,557 0.29 BMP SUMMARY BMP BMP REQUIRED PROVIDED ID lYPE CAPACnY CAPACnY BMP-1 MODULAR WEllANDS BIOFILTRATION UNIT MWS-L-8-20-V 0.21 CFS 0.33 CFS BMP-2 MODULAR WEllANDS BIOFILTRATION UNIT MWS-L-8-12-V 0.18 CFS 0.22 CFS BMP-3 ACO STORMBRIXX DETENTION SYSTEM -SEE HYDROMODIFICATION EXHIBIT - - TREE CREDIT VOLUME SUMMARY BMP MATURE CANOPY TRIBUTARY TREE CREDIT TOTAL OMA TREE TREE SPECIES DIAMETER AREA VOLUME TCV ID (FT) (SQ FT) (CU FT) (CU FT) DMA A BMP-4 T-1 CHINESE ELM 40 (30 MAX) 1,815 420 BMP-5 T-2 CHINESE ELM 40 (30 1,490 420 1,020 BMP-6 T-3 CREPE-MYRTLE 20 480 180 REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1 FOR TREE WELL CREDIT CALCULATIONS • LEGEND --------DELINEATION BETWEEN Dt.W. ■■■-> PROPOSED STORM DRAIN I ■■-> EXISTING STORM DRAIN SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION m PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION BMP (MODULAR WETLANDS UNIT) @ PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN Ill TREE WELL T-1 TREE NUMBER / I ' I OFSHEET JOB NO.KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 18283.102 DMA EXHIBIT Job. No. Checked by Scale 18283.10 05/11/2021 SA RR 1"=40' Date Drawn by © LPA, Inc. This document and all other project documents, ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are copyright protected, are the property of LPA, Inc. (LPA) and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as set forth in the contractual agreement between LPA and its Client. The unauthorized disclosure and/or use of the project documents (including the creation of derivative works), may give rise to liability for copyright infringement, unlawful disclosure, use or misappropriation of property rights held by LPA. The unauthorized use of the project documents will give rise to the recovery of monetary losses and damages including attorney fees and costs for which the unauthorized user will be held liable. Project documents describe the design intent of the work and are not a representation of as-built or existing conditions. LPA is not responsible for any discrepancies between the project documents and the existing conditions. 949-261-1001 Office 949-260-1190 Fax LPADesignStudios.com 5301 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 40200 80 1" = 40' 02NTSBMP 2 01NTSBMP 1 SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER 10554 PROJECT NAME KELLY ELEMENTARY MODERN!ZA TION PROJECT LOCATION CARLSBAD, CA STRUCTURE ID UNIT B -BMP 2 TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED (CF) FLOW BASED (CFS) N/A 0.220 TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE (FT) N/K PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED (CFS) -IF APPLICABLE 6.0 PIPE DATA IE MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE I 23.05 PVC 12" WETLANDMEOIA BED PATENTED PERIMETER VOID ARD! C/L VERTICAL UNOERDRAIN MANIFOLD VEGETATION~_,,, PLANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA • MANHOLE ~ I !T • • '<'\" '? I - INLET PIP£ 2 N/A N/A N/A OUTLET PIPE 21.55 PVC 12" .. = = INLET PIPE J ~---------+----,-----_-_-_-_-_-_-_----'\ OUTLET PIPE JI '-t------1------+-' 5•-11~---B'-o"----1 I_JB. PRETREATMENT BIOFIL TR AT/ON DISCHARGE SE£ NOTES DRAIN DOWN LINE SE£ NOTES e,. ------9'-0"------· RIM ELEVATION 26.36 26.36 26.36 SURFACE LOAD PEDESTRIAN N/A PEDESTRIAN FRAME & COVER 2EA ¢30" OPEN PLANTER ¢JO" WETLANDMEO!A VOLUME (CY) 7. 19 ORIFICE SIZE (DIA. INCHES) 4EA ¢1.36" ORIFICE SPACING (FT.) 0.55 NOTES: INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS ANO INCIDENTALS REQUIRED TO OFFLOAD ANO INSTALL THE SYSTEM AND APPURTENANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DRAWING ANO THE MANUFACTURERS' SPECIFICATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S CONTRACT. ' ' "',, ' PEAK HGL I= 23.05 IE IN ~, ' ' PLAN VIEW C/l I 26.36 I I I I I I R!M/FG I ' ---------1---' ' ' ' I r i ' ~ "ciH I' ·q I ' ~ij ~ ~ ~-0 . .. , . ·" ' .,-... =YI--------21.55 I ~ IE 0 UT 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BASE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM 6" LEVEL ROCK BAS[ UNLESS SPECIFIED BY TH[ PROJECT [NG/NffR. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PROJECT ENG/NffR'S RECOMMENDED BAS[ SPECIFICATIONS. 6" I 6" 12·-o· ~----· -11'-o·-~~ 4. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY ANO INSTALL ALL EXTERNAL CONNECTING PIPES. ALL PIPES MUST BE FLUSH WITH INSIDE SURFACE OF CONCRETE (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF OUTFLOW PIP[ MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL PIPES, RISERS, MANHOLES, ANO HA TC HES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HA TC HES TO MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE 6. VEGETATION SUPPLIED ANO INSTALLED BY OTHERS. ALL UNITS WITH VEGETATION MUST /-/AVE DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION SUPPLIED ANO INSTALLED BY OTHERS. 7. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING 810 CLEAN FOR ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY IS VOID WITHOUT PROPER AGnVATION BY A BIO CLEAN REPRESENTATIVE. GENERAL NOTES 7. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIF/CATIONS ANO CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC ORA WINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, WEIGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEASE CONTACT BIO CLEAN. ELEVATION VIEW .ivETLAND5 THIS PRODUCT MAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 7,425,262; 7,470,362; 1,674,378; 8,303,876; RELATED FOREIGN PATENTS OR OTHER PATENTS PEND/NC PROPRIUARY AND CONFIDENT/AL: TH£ /NFORMA TION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT 15 TH£ SOL£ PROPERTY OF FORTERRA ANO ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, At4 Y 8£ USED, REPRODUCED OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER WITH OUT TH£ WRIT.TEN CONSENT OF FORT£RRA. INTERNAL BYPASS DISCLOSURE: THE DESIGN AND CAPACITY OF THE PEAK CONVEYANCE METHOD TO BE REVIEWED ANO APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. HGL(S) AT PEAK FLOW SHALL BE ASSESSED TO ENSURE NO UPSTREAM FLOODING. PEAK HGL AND BYPASS CAPACITY SHOWN ON DRAWING ARE USED FOR GUIDANCE ONLY. Bio 6-Clean PREPARED BY OWNER LEFT END VIEW RIGHT END VIEW TREATMENT FLOW (CFS) OPERA TING HEAD (FT) PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) T • 0, ,I ... WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE (GPM/SF} 0.220 2.2 I.J 1.0 MWS-L-8-12-4'-9"-V STORMWATER 8/0FILTRA TION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL SITE SPECIFIC DATA PROJECT NUMBER 10554 PROJECT NAME KELLY ELEMENTARY MODERN!ZA TION PROJECT LOCATION CARLSBAD, CA STRUCTURE ID UNIT A BMP1 TREATMENT REQUIRED VOLUME BASED (CF) FLOW BASED (CFS) N/A 0.330 TREATMENT HGL AVAILABLE (FT) 7.9 PEAK BYPASS REQUIRED (CFS) -IF APPLICABLE OFFUNE PIPE DATA IE MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE I 26.34 PVC 6" INLET PIPE 2 N/A N/A N/A OUTLET PIPE 25.34 PVC 6" PRETREATMENT BIOFILTRATION DISCHARGE RIM ELEVATION 29.25 29.25 29.25 SURFACE LOAD PEDESTRIAN N/A PEDESTRIAN FRAME & COVER JEA ¢JO" OPEN PLANTER ¢JO" WETLANDMEDIA VOLUME (CY) 9.7D ORIFICE SIZE (DIA. INCHES) ¢2.17 EA NOTES: INSTALLATION NOTES I. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR. EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS ANO 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. 2. UNIT MUST BE INSTALLED ON LEVEL BASE 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 WETLANDMEDIA BED ' L ________ _ PRE-FILTER CARTRIDGE 21.32 TREATMENT HGL/ UPSTREAM BYPASS PATENTED PERIMETER C/L VOID AREA VERTICAL UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD DRAIN INLET PIPE/ I SEE NOTES -1'-0" DOWN LINE OUTLET PIP[ SEE NOTES PLAN VIEW C/L 29.25 RIM/FG CONCRETE (PIPES CANNOT INTRUDE BEYOND FLUSH). INVERT OF 5•-20'-o" -6· OUTFLOW PIPE MUST BE FLUSH WITH DISCHARGE CHAMBER FLOOR. 1--------------21 ,_0.===========================-jl ALL PIPES SHALL BE SEALED WATERTIGHT PER MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD CONNECTION DETAIL. ELEVATION VIEW 5. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL PIPES, RISERS, h MANHOLES, AND HATCHES. CONTRACTOR TO GROUT ALL MANHOLES AND HATCHES To MATCH FINISHED SURFACE UNLEss SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. · .M 0ET0L"ALNAos" 6. VEGETATION SUPPLIED ANO INSTALLED BY OTHERS. ALL UNITS WITH VEGETATION MUST HAVE DRIP OR SPRAY IRRIGATION SUPPLIED AND THIS PRODUCT MAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MOR[ OF INSTALLED BY OTHERS. 7. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING BIO CLEAN FOR THE FOLLOWING US PATENTS: 7,425,262; 1,410,362; ACTIVATION OF UNIT. MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY 15 VOID WITHOUT 7,614,318; 8,303,816; RELATED FOR[IGN PATENTS OR PROPER ACTIVATION BY A 810 CLEAN REPRESENTATIVE. OTHER PATENTS PENDING GENERAL NOTES PROPR/UARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: VEGETATION~_.,, PLANT ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA • <::, t~ • • <o -,_ ;.._ ~I 'N rF=h-TTTTT RIGHT END VIEW TREATMENT FLOW (CFS) OPERA TING HEAD (FT) PRETREATMENT LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) 0.330 1.9 1.9 WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE (GPM/SF) 1.0 1. MANUFACTURER TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPACITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. FOR PROJECT SPECIFIC DRAWINGS DETAILING EXACT DIMENSIONS, W[IGHTS AND ACCESSORIES PLEAS[ CONTACT BIO CLEAN. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF FORTERRA AND ITS COMPANIES. THIS DOCUMENT, NOR ANY PART THEREOF, MAY BE USED, REPRODUCED OR MODIFIED IN ANY At4NNER WITH our TH[ WRITTEN CONSENT OF FORTERRA. Bio 6-Clean MWS-L-8-20-3'-10"-V STORMWATER 8/0FIL TRA TION SYSTEM STANDARD DETAIL 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 Toilet/Urinal Flushing demand assuming 2 school employees for new building: =[(6.7x6.4)+(3.5x6.4)]x0.5 = 33 cu ft per day --> 33cf/day x (36hr/24) = 49.5 cu ft per 36 hours =(49.5 x 2 employees) = 99 cu ft per 36 hours Irrigation Demand assuming Moderate Plant Water Use =2.7 (in./mo.) ((0.7 x 0.43 irrig. acres x 1,470 gal per irrig. acre per 36 hours)/(90%+0)x0.015=19.9 cu ft per 36 hours 2,824 X X X X □ □ □ c::> ~ ~ i ,(), Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-3 February 2016 Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form I-8 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 1 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: 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: Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. X X Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. Appendix C of the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual also states that infiltration may not be feasible when groundwater is within 10 feet of the base of the infiltration BMP. Refer to project Geotechnical Evaluation included in Attachment 5. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-4 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 2 of 4 Criteri a Screening Question Yes No 3 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: 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: 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 *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. X X Full Infiltration not feasible Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-5 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No 5 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: 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: 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. Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. X X Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. Appendix I: Forms and Checklists I-6 February 2016 Form I-8 Page 4 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: 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: Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Part 2 Result* If all answers from row 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. *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. X X It is not anticipated that downstream water rights would be violated. No Infiltration Infiltration at the project site is infeasible due to shallow groundwater and potential for liquefaction. 0 Final DRAFT- May 2015 Kelly Elementary School Soil Group D Legend Pac,, c Or.sen •-=====----Miles 0 2.5 5 10 Figure C.1 Soils San Diego County, California -Hydric Soils Hydrologic Soils Group 'A~-1'1 ~ ,,.T"f'•' T~.e-{t.ii ~"> ijj \ .... ,4 ~~~ }( ,.,,, • • -~.,.. • --.> • e5 llos-.t. T1~uan-a ,/a1.r.tr ., . of San Diego ... ~\ &orr~io Sprinc,s p~,n-C.,ny.a,, t, .. J,u11mb.i EJtdo Jt cume a t I l1ID ,a.cw,evol..i1on, ••-..,._ ,------1 I I I . : Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B-5 February 2016 Figure B.1-1: 85th Percentile 24-hour Isopluvial Map Kelly Elementary San Diego County 85 th Percentile lsopluvials Legend --85th PERCENTILE ISOPLUVIAL C~.~-J INCORPORATED CITY NOTE: The 85th percentile is a 24 hour rainfall total. It represetns a value such that 85% of the observed 24 hour rainfall totals will be less than that value. N + ~Mil .. 0 1 2 4 15 8 THIS IIIN'/MTA ISl'R0Vl0£01MTHOUT WAARANNOF AHY KH:1. EITH£A f.l'J'RESSCftlMPLIED,INQ.UONOMfiOTUMITEOlOTlEIMPLlfD ~IESOFr.lEflCfi,t,.Nl"811,JTVa.NOATNESSFORAPII.RTICUI.AR PVffl'05E NOii l,-.PIOdl,d....,.conl.,,,~IO'IIIQOft"'s,.ND,',G Reg--S.,.--be~~llle--OIS,ONCl,OG ,,_11,ocnJC:1.,.,_nWlll.......,,--a--g,_r,yRanlMc:Hallp'-ComP¥1',C110s.n01S. Tl'llflllllP• ~-IIY~lilct<l•lh'&~••un....i..lDCClll'Of-.. .,.....,. • .,.,_,, _...,,or.-vwor,... wlhout!M-......, --"'--·"''°""·~ ~s.iGISl1l1• AIIRigl,aReMrYeO l'Ulller10l ___ <31tlt -•-n~J-urq,o~-Mn ~4701, P'f'"-0:WW1:IINOAA_ATI.Alll_U'PCT~_FIEV1$1Tli:O_Jll1~ f'Cl&!i_OISPI.AV"'-"<I Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix xUnits1Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA-A DMA-Bunitless285th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.60 0.60inches3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 52,690 26,730sq-ft4 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) 41,047 14,690sq-ft6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10)sq-ft7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14)sq-ft8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23)sq-ft9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30)sq-ft10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? Yes No No No No No No No No No yes/no11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10)sq-ft15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14)sq-ft16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23)sq-ft17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30)sq-ft18Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A 3#19Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter 27ft20Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E#21Average Rain Barrel Sizegal22Total Tributary Area 93,737 41,420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.55 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless24 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 unitless25Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.55 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless26Initial Design Capture Volume 2,578 1,284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft28Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft29 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 ratio30 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 ratio31Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.55 0.62 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 2,578 1,284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet33Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 1,026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet34Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet35Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.33 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless36Final Effective Tributary Area 30,933 25,680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 1,026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,552 1,284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feetFalseFalseAutomated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0)Dispersion Area, Tree Well & Rain Barrel Inputs(Optional)Standard Drainage Basin InputsResultsTree & Barrel AdjustmentsInitial Runoff Factor CalculationDispersion Area AdjustmentsNo Warning Messages Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix xUnits1Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA-A DMA-B - - - - - - - - unitless285th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.60 0.60 - - - - - - - - inches3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location D Dunitless4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted Restrictedunitless5Nature of Restriction Groundwater Groundwaterunitless6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No Noyes/no8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? No Noyes/no9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineerin/hr10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 0.000 - - - - - - - - in/hr11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 4.5% 4.5% - - - - - - - - percentage12Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.02 0.02 - - - - - - - - ratio13Required Retention Volume 31 26 - - - - - - - - cubic-feetFalseFalseAutomated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0)Advanced AnalysisBasic AnalysisResultNo Warning Messages Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix xUnits1Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA-A DMA-B - - - - - - - - sq-ft2Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 0.000 - - - - - - - - in/hr3Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,552 1,284 - - - - - - - - cubic-feet4Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated Vegetatedunitless5Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined Linedunitless6Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain Underdrainunitless7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media?Specialized Specializedunitless8Provided Surface Area160 96sq-ft9Provided Surface Ponding Depth 0 0inches10Provided Soil Media Thickness 46 57inches11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) 0 0inches12Underdrain Offset 0 0inches13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 2.11 1.36inches14Specialized Soil Media Filtration Rate 100.00 100.00in/hr15 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retention 0.72 0.72unitless16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltration 0.72 0.72unitless17Specialized Gravel Media Pore Space 0.40 0.40unitless18Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet19Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.72 0.72 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless22 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 unitless23Effective Retention Depth 33.12 41.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches24 Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.28 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 120 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours26Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.29 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio27 Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 449 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 1,103 934 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.2263 0.1052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cfs30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 61.09 47.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr31Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 100.00 100.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 61.09 47.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr33Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 366.57 284.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.72 0.72 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless36 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 unitless37Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 33.12 41.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches38Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours40Total Depth Biofiltered 399.69 325.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 1,654 1,401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet42Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 1,654 1,401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet43Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 827 701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet44Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 442 328 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes Yes - - - - - - - - yes/no47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio48Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater0 0n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/acubic-feetBiofiltration CalculationsFalse- BMPs sized at <3% of the effective tributary areas must be accompanied by Reduced Size BMP Maintenance calculations (see last tab).FalseFalseResultFalse-Use of specialized or proprietary media requires submittal of supplemental information outlined in Appendix F of the BMPDM.Attention!Retention CalculationsAutomated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0)FalseFalseBMP Inputs Category # Descriptioni ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix xUnits1Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA-A DMA-B - - - - - - - - unitless2Final Effective Tributary Area 30,933 25,680 - - - - - - - - sq-ft3Provided BMP Surface Area 160 96 - - - - - - - - sq-ft4Average Annual Precipitation 11.8 11.8inches5Load to Clog (default =2.0) 2.0 2.0lb/sq-ft6TSS Pretreatment Efficacy 0.80 0.80yes/no7Percentage "Commercial"percentage8Percentage "Education" 88% 72%percentage9Percentage "Industrial"percentage10Percentage "Low Traffic Areas"percentage11Percentage "Multi-Family Residential"percentage12Percentage "Roof Areas" 12% 28%percentage13Percentage "Single Family Residential"percentage14Percentage "Transportation"percentage15Percentage "Vacant/Open Space"percentage16Percentage "Steep Hillslopes"percentage17Total Percentage of Above Land Uses 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% percentage18 Average TSS Concentration for Tributary After Pretreatment 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mg/L19Average Annual Runoff Volume 30,417 25,252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet20Average Annual TSS Load 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lb/yr21 Available Sediment Storage within BMP 320 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lb22 Anticipated Major Maintenance Frequency 14.0 12.2 - - - - - - - - yearsFalseFalseAutomated Worksheet B.4: Reduced Size BMP Maintenance Interval (V2.0)Drainage Basin InfoBiofiltration Clogging InputsNo Warning MessagesResultNOTE: SEE SWQMP ATTACHMENT 3 FOR BMP MAINTENANCE INTERVALS. Total Average Annual Precipitation = 11.84 inches ~ Climate Carlsbad -California an X + C i usclimatedata.com ~~=-U.S. Climate Data .._ Home United States California Monthly Da ily History Geo & Map Climate Carlsbad -California Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Average high in °F 64 64 64 66 67 70 Average low in °f 47 48 50 53 57 60 Av. precipitation in inch 2.51 2.44 1.68 1.02 0.18 0.11 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average high in °F 73 75 75 72 68 64 Average low in °f 63 65 63 58 51 47 Av. precipitation in inch 0.10 0.09 0.25 0.63 1.12 1.71 Carlsbad Climate Graph -California Climate Chart Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B-36 February 2016 B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs: Use for Sizing Proprietary Biofiltration BMP Flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to filter or treat the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of every storm event. The required flow-thru treatment rate should be adjusted for the portion of the DCV already retained or biofiltered onsite as described in Worksheet B.6-1. The following hydrologic method shall be used to calculate the flow rate to be filtered or treated: 𝑄=𝐶× 𝑖× 𝐴 Where: Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr. A = Tributary area (acres) which includes the total area draining to the BMP, including any offsite or onsite areas that comingle with project runoff and drain to the BMP. Refer to Section 3.3.3 for additional guidance. Street projects consult Section 1.4.2. Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows 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. Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B-36 February 2016 B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs: Use for Sizing Proprietary Biofiltration BMP Flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to filter or treat the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of every storm event. The required flow-thru treatment rate should be adjusted for the portion of the DCV already retained or biofiltered onsite as described in Worksheet B.6-1. The following hydrologic method shall be used to calculate the flow rate to be filtered or treated: 𝑄=𝐶× 𝑖× 𝐴 Where: Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr. A = Tributary area (acres) which includes the total area draining to the BMP, including any offsite or onsite areas that comingle with project runoff and drain to the BMP. Refer to Section 3.3.3 for additional guidance. Street projects consult Section 1.4.2. Worksheet B.6-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows 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. STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-8-20-3'-10"-V SITE SPECIFIC DATA PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW LEFT END VIEW GENERAL NOTES INSTALLATION NOTES STANDARD DETAIL STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM MWS-L-8-12-4'-9"-V SITE SPECIFIC DATA INTERNAL BYPASS DISCLOSURE: PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW LEFT END VIEW GENERAL NOTES INSTALLATION NOTES ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES [This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.] Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet: Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management ~ Included Exhibit (Required) See Hydromodification Management Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse ~ Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit boundaries marked on WMAA is required, additional analyses are Critical Coarse Sediment Yield optional) Area Map (Required) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Manual. Sediment Yield Area Determination □ 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite □ 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment □ 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving el Not performed Channels (Optional) □ Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and ~ Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Desion Manual CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO D D 1.8% 1.0% 1.0%1.8%3. 0% 1.6% 1.5%1.5%1.5%1.0%1.8%1.5% 2.5%3.5%1.5%1.5% 1.5% 7. 0% 7. 8% 0. 8%1.5% 1.5% 1.5%1.5%1.5%4.5%2.8%1.5% 3.1% 1.3% 1.8%1.5%1.0%2.3%1.5% 4.3% 2.2% 2. 7 % 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8 % 1.5% 1.5%1.4%1.8% 1.5% 1.5% 3.0%5.0%1.8%1.6%3. 2% 1.1%1.0%1.0%1.0%1.5%3.4% 4.1% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6%7.7%1.9%5.6%1.1%1.1%1.8%1.8%1.1%1.8%1.8% 1.5% 1.8%1.5%1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 1.5%1.8%4.8%1.5%1.5%1.8%1.9% 3.6% 1. 8%1.5%1.5%1.5%1.5%2.7%31.53232.533 1.5%1%1%1%8.0%3.0%26 25.5 25 24.5 0.5 % 1.8% HILLSI D E D R I V E KELLY DRIVEBMP-3 POC-1BMP-2 BMP-1 BLDG G (E) RELOCATABLE BLDGS (E) RELOCATABLE BLDGS LEGEND BMP-# POC-1 OWNER PREPARED BY OFSHEET JOB NO.KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 3CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 18283.101 Job. No. Checked by Scale 18283.10 04/23/2021 SA RR 1"=40' Date Drawn by © LPA, Inc. This document and all other project documents, ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are copyright protected, are the property of LPA, Inc. (LPA) and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as set forth in the contractual agreement between LPA and its Client. The unauthorized disclosure and/or use of the project documents (including the creation of derivative works), may give rise to liability for copyright infringement, unlawful disclosure, use or misappropriation of property rights held by LPA. The unauthorized use of the project documents will give rise to the recovery of monetary losses and damages including attorney fees and costs for which the unauthorized user will be held liable. Project documents describe the design intent of the work and are not a representation of as-built or existing conditions. LPA is not responsible for any discrepancies between the project documents and the existing conditions. 949-261-1001 Office 949-260-1190 Fax LPADesignStudios.com 5301 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 40200 80 1" = 40' HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT 10 15 20 25 30 35 (E) FENCE (E) P/L13.00'4.41'114.00'2'MIN.4.00'1.50'18" SD PIPE 18.58 INV. 12" SD PIPE 23.10 INV. MODULAR WETLANDS UNIT B 26.36 RIM PROPOSED GRADE BOTTOM OF ROCK = 17.50 TOP OF ROCK = 23.00 IMPEARMEABLE GEOMEMBRANE LINER AROUND ENTIRE PERIMETER OF TANK 377 MODULES STACKED 3 HIGH ACO STROMBRIXX SD 1.5 DETENTION SYSTEM 10 15 20 25 30 35 (E) FENCE(E) P/L 18" SD PIPE 18.58 INV. BOTTOM OF ROCK = 17.50 TOP OF ROCK = 23.00 377 MODULES STACKED 3 HIGH PROPOSED GRADE 12.72'36.00'2'MIN.(E) CONCRETE DITCH 1.50'2.00'IMPEARMEABLE GEOMEMBRANE LINER AROUND ENTIRE PERIMETER OF TANK ACO STROMBRIXX SD 1.5 DETENTION SYSTEM OWNER PREPARED BY OFSHEET JOB NO.KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 3CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 18283.102 Job. No. Checked by Scale 18283.10 04/23/2021 SA RR 1"=40' Date Drawn by © LPA, Inc. This document and all other project documents, ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are copyright protected, are the property of LPA, Inc. (LPA) and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as set forth in the contractual agreement between LPA and its Client. The unauthorized disclosure and/or use of the project documents (including the creation of derivative works), may give rise to liability for copyright infringement, unlawful disclosure, use or misappropriation of property rights held by LPA. The unauthorized use of the project documents will give rise to the recovery of monetary losses and damages including attorney fees and costs for which the unauthorized user will be held liable. Project documents describe the design intent of the work and are not a representation of as-built or existing conditions. LPA is not responsible for any discrepancies between the project documents and the existing conditions. 949-261-1001 Office 949-260-1190 Fax LPADesignStudios.com 5301 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 40200 80 1" = 40' HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT 01NTSBMP 3 DETAIL 02BMP 3 SECTION 03SCALEBMP 3 SECTION SCALE 1" = 10' 1" = 10' 02 -03-SEE EXHIBIT SHEET 3 FOR FLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURES AND ORIFICE DETAIL OWNER PREPARED BY OFSHEET JOB NO.KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 3CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 18283.103 Job. No. Checked by Scale 18283.10 04/23/2021 SA RR 1"=40' Date Drawn by © LPA, Inc. This document and all other project documents, ideas, aesthetics and designs incorporated therein are instruments of service. All project documents are copyright protected, are the property of LPA, Inc. (LPA) and cannot be lawfully used in whole or in part for any project or purpose except as set forth in the contractual agreement between LPA and its Client. The unauthorized disclosure and/or use of the project documents (including the creation of derivative works), may give rise to liability for copyright infringement, unlawful disclosure, use or misappropriation of property rights held by LPA. The unauthorized use of the project documents will give rise to the recovery of monetary losses and damages including attorney fees and costs for which the unauthorized user will be held liable. Project documents describe the design intent of the work and are not a representation of as-built or existing conditions. LPA is not responsible for any discrepancies between the project documents and the existing conditions. 949-261-1001 Office 949-260-1190 Fax LPADesignStudios.com 5301 California Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92617 40200 80 1" = 40' HYDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT EXHIBIT 01NTSDETAIL02NTSDETAIL CARLSBADCARLSBAD ENCINITASENCINITAS ESCONDIDOESCONDIDO OCEANSIDEOCEANSIDE POWAYPOWAY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY S.D.S.D.COUNTYCOUNTY SANSANDIEGODIEGO SANSANMARCOSMARCOS VISTAVISTA WINDMILLLAKE GUAJOMELAKE HUBBERTLAKE TURNERLAKE LAKEWOHLFORDCALAVERASLAKEBUENAVISTALAGOONDIXONRESERVOIRSQUIRESDAMAQUAHEDIONDALAGOON BATIQUITOSLAGOON SANDIEGUITORESERVOIR RESERVOIR LAKEPOWAY SAN DIEGUITOLAGOON LAKERAMONA LAKEHODGES SanDieguitoRiver San M a rcosC r eek SanMarcosC reek Escondid o C reekRattlesn a k e CreekBuenaVistaCreek Sa n Luis Rey RiverLusardi Cree kEn cinit a sCr e ek S a n taY s a belC reekSantaMargaritaRiverAguaHediondaCreekSanLuisReyRiver Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Exhibit Date: Sept. 8, 2014Carlsbad Watershed - HU 904.00, 211 mi2 Aerial Imagery Source: DigitalGlobe, 06/2012 0 50 100 15025Miles Legend Watershed Boundaries Municipal Boundaries Rivers & Streams Regional WMAA Streams Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas NORTH KELLY ELEMENTARY SDHM 3.1 PROJECT REPORT Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:00 AM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:Kelly-Single Basin Site Name:Kelly Elementary Site Address:4885 Kelly Dr City:Carlsbad Report Date:1/29/2021 Gage:OCEANSID Data Start:10/01/1959 Data End:09/30/2004 Timestep:Hourly Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2020/04/07 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:10 Year Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:00 AM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D,NatVeg,Flat 0.7 D,NatVeg,Moderate 1.5 Pervious Total 2.2 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 2.2 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:00 AM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre D,Urban,Flat 0.5 Pervious Total 0.5 Impervious Land Use acre IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1.7 Impervious Total 1.7 Basin Total 2.2 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Vault 1 Vault 1 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:00 AM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing • au t 1 "I,+-ga+-ea Facility Na.me Downstream Connection r Precipitation Applied to Facility r Evaporation Applied to Facility Facility Dimensions Length [ft] .-15_3._1 -- Width [ft] 153.1 F======: Effective Depth [ft] '-14_.5 __ __,J I nfi ltra.ti on !Vault 1 Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet 3 =1°=======1~1° ___ _.11 ° I _......_A_.ut_o_V_a._u_lt __ __.l Ou i ck V a.u It I Fixed Width For Auto V a.u It Fa.cilit,., Dimension Dia.gram 0 utl et Structure D a.ta. I Riser Height (ft] 14 ~ Riser Diameter (in] 154 ~ Riser Type IN otched -:-1 N otch Type IR ectangular -:-1 Notch Height [ft] 11 ~ Notch Width [ft] -10-_45-~ Orifice Number Dia.meter Height (in) (ft) 11 ~ lo ~ rh6~2'v\..- 2 3 lo ~-10-~ lo ~ lo -:-1 r Ve rti ca.I Orifice Vault Volume at Riser Head [ac-ft] Show Va.ult Table l □pen Table ~ Initial Volume 0 Required Storage = 0.259 ac-ft Tide Gate Time Series Dema.nd Determine Outlet With Tide Gate ---------------------= r Use Tide Gate Tide Gate Elevation (ft) Ove rf I ow EI evati on (ft) Jo 0 Downstream Connection Iterations 0 Mitigated Routing Vault 1 Width : Length : Depth: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Notch Type: Notch Width : Notch Height: Orifice 1 Diameter: Element Flows To : Required Storage Calculation 53.1 ft. / 53.1 'x53.1 'x4'(weir elevation) = 0.259 ac-ft 53.1 ft. 4.5 ft. 4 ft. 54 in. Rectangular 0.450 ft. 1 .000 ft. 1 in. Elevation :0 ft. Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Vault Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500 0.4000 0.4500 0.5000 0.5500 0.6000 0.6500 0.7000 0.7500 0.8000 0.8500 0.9000 0.9500 1.0000 1.0500 1.1000 1.1500 1.2000 1.2500 1.3000 1.3500 1.4000 1.4500 1.5000 1.5500 1.6000 1.6500 1.7000 1.7500 1.8000 Kelly-Single Basin Area(ac.) 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.008 0.000 0.009 0.010 0.000 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.016 0.013 0.000 0.019 0.014 0.000 0.022 0.016 0.000 0.025 0.017 0.000 0.029 0.018 0.000 0.032 0.019 0.000 0.035 0.020 0.000 0.038 0.021 0.000 0.042 0.021 0.000 0.045 0.022 0.000 0.048 0.023 0.000 0.051 0.024 0.000 0.055 0.025 0.000 0.058 0.025 0.000 0.061 0.026 0.000 0.064 0.027 0.000 0.068 0.027 0.000 0.071 0.028 0.000 0.074 0.029 0.000 0.077 0.029 0.000 0.080 0.030 0.000 0.084 0.030 0.000 0.087 0.031 0.000 0.090 0.032 0.000 0.093 0.032 0.000 0.097 0.033 0.000 0.100 0.033 0.000 0.103 0.034 0.000 0.106 0.034 0.000 0.110 0.035 0.000 0.113 0.035 0.000 0.116 0.036 0.000 1/29/2021 10:10:01 AM Page 6 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:01 AM Page 7 1.8500 0.064 0.119 0.036 0.000 1.9000 0.064 0.123 0.037 0.000 1.9500 0.064 0.126 0.037 0.000 2.0000 0.064 0.129 0.038 0.000 2.0500 0.064 0.132 0.038 0.000 2.1000 0.064 0.135 0.039 0.000 2.1500 0.064 0.139 0.039 0.000 2.2000 0.064 0.142 0.040 0.000 2.2500 0.064 0.145 0.040 0.000 2.3000 0.064 0.148 0.041 0.000 2.3500 0.064 0.152 0.041 0.000 2.4000 0.064 0.155 0.042 0.000 2.4500 0.064 0.158 0.042 0.000 2.5000 0.064 0.161 0.042 0.000 2.5500 0.064 0.165 0.043 0.000 2.6000 0.064 0.168 0.043 0.000 2.6500 0.064 0.171 0.044 0.000 2.7000 0.064 0.174 0.044 0.000 2.7500 0.064 0.178 0.045 0.000 2.8000 0.064 0.181 0.045 0.000 2.8500 0.064 0.184 0.045 0.000 2.9000 0.064 0.187 0.046 0.000 2.9500 0.064 0.191 0.046 0.000 3.0000 0.064 0.194 0.047 0.000 3.0500 0.064 0.197 0.064 0.000 3.1000 0.064 0.200 0.094 0.000 3.1500 0.064 0.203 0.132 0.000 3.2000 0.064 0.207 0.177 0.000 3.2500 0.064 0.210 0.226 0.000 3.3000 0.064 0.213 0.280 0.000 3.3500 0.064 0.216 0.338 0.000 3.4000 0.064 0.220 0.398 0.000 3.4500 0.064 0.223 0.462 0.000 3.5000 0.064 0.226 0.527 0.000 3.5500 0.064 0.229 0.595 0.000 3.6000 0.064 0.233 0.664 0.000 3.6500 0.064 0.236 0.735 0.000 3.7000 0.064 0.239 0.806 0.000 3.7500 0.064 0.242 0.879 0.000 3.8000 0.064 0.246 0.953 0.000 3.8500 0.064 0.249 1.027 0.000 3.9000 0.064 0.252 1.102 0.000 3.9500 0.064 0.255 1.177 0.000 4.0000 0.064 0.258 1.253 0.000 4.0500 0.064 0.262 1.787 0.000 4.1000 0.064 0.265 2.763 0.000 4.1500 0.064 0.268 4.026 0.000 4.2000 0.064 0.271 5.520 0.000 4.2500 0.064 0.275 7.214 0.000 4.3000 0.064 0.278 9.083 0.000 4.3500 0.064 0.281 11.11 0.000 4.4000 0.064 0.284 13.28 0.000 4.4500 0.064 0.288 15.58 0.000 4.5000 0.064 0.291 18.00 0.000 4.5500 0.064 0.294 20.52 0.000 4.6000 0.000 0.000 23.15 0.000 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:01 AM Page 8 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.2 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.5 Total Impervious Area:1.7 Flow Frequency Method:Cunnane Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.554076 5 year 0.968028 10 year 1.319817 25 year 1.549249 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.42543 5 year 0.737448 10 year 0.941282 25 year 1.210376 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:44 AM Page 9 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0554 585 434 74 Pass 0.0682 500 360 72 Pass 0.0810 452 332 73 Pass 0.0937 406 294 72 Pass 0.1065 352 264 75 Pass 0.1193 299 235 78 Pass 0.1320 247 218 88 Pass 0.1448 220 197 89 Pass 0.1576 200 182 91 Pass 0.1704 185 166 89 Pass 0.1831 175 158 90 Pass 0.1959 167 144 86 Pass 0.2087 162 136 83 Pass 0.2214 155 132 85 Pass 0.2342 149 126 84 Pass 0.2470 141 119 84 Pass 0.2598 137 114 83 Pass 0.2725 125 105 84 Pass 0.2853 112 98 87 Pass 0.2981 106 95 89 Pass 0.3108 98 90 91 Pass 0.3236 89 84 94 Pass 0.3364 83 80 96 Pass 0.3492 78 74 94 Pass 0.3619 75 72 96 Pass 0.3747 72 70 97 Pass 0.3875 70 64 91 Pass 0.4002 66 60 90 Pass 0.4130 65 52 80 Pass 0.4258 58 51 87 Pass 0.4386 55 49 89 Pass 0.4513 54 47 87 Pass 0.4641 51 45 88 Pass 0.4769 50 42 84 Pass 0.4896 46 38 82 Pass 0.5024 43 37 86 Pass 0.5152 39 32 82 Pass 0.5280 37 32 86 Pass 0.5407 37 32 86 Pass 0.5535 34 32 94 Pass 0.5663 31 30 96 Pass 0.5791 29 29 100 Pass 0.5918 28 28 100 Pass 0.6046 25 26 104 Pass 0.6174 23 24 104 Pass 0.6301 23 22 95 Pass 0.6429 22 21 95 Pass 0.6557 22 21 95 Pass 0.6685 22 20 90 Pass 0.6812 20 19 95 Pass 0.6940 20 17 85 Pass 0.7068 17 17 100 Pass 0.7195 16 16 100 Pass Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:44 AM Page 10 0.7323 16 15 93 Pass 0.7451 16 14 87 Pass 0.7579 16 13 81 Pass 0.7706 15 12 80 Pass 0.7834 15 12 80 Pass 0.7962 15 11 73 Pass 0.8089 15 11 73 Pass 0.8217 15 11 73 Pass 0.8345 15 11 73 Pass 0.8473 15 11 73 Pass 0.8600 14 11 78 Pass 0.8728 14 10 71 Pass 0.8856 14 10 71 Pass 0.8983 14 9 64 Pass 0.9111 13 9 69 Pass 0.9239 12 9 75 Pass 0.9367 11 9 81 Pass 0.9494 10 7 70 Pass 0.9622 9 7 77 Pass 0.9750 8 7 87 Pass 0.9877 8 7 87 Pass 1.0005 8 7 87 Pass 1.0133 8 7 87 Pass 1.0261 8 6 75 Pass 1.0388 8 6 75 Pass 1.0516 8 6 75 Pass 1.0644 8 6 75 Pass 1.0772 8 6 75 Pass 1.0899 7 5 71 Pass 1.1027 6 4 66 Pass 1.1155 6 4 66 Pass 1.1282 6 4 66 Pass 1.1410 6 3 50 Pass 1.1538 6 3 50 Pass 1.1666 6 3 50 Pass 1.1793 6 3 50 Pass 1.1921 6 3 50 Pass 1.2049 6 2 33 Pass 1.2176 6 2 33 Pass 1.2304 6 2 33 Pass 1.2432 5 2 40 Pass 1.2560 5 2 40 Pass 1.2687 5 2 40 Pass 1.2815 5 2 40 Pass 1.2943 5 1 20 Pass 1.3070 5 1 20 Pass 1.3198 4 1 25 Pass Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:45 AM Page 11 Water Quality Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:45 AM Page 12 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:10:45 AM Page 13 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:11:33 AM Page 14 Mitigated Schematic ault 1 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:25 AM Page 15 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1959 10 01 END 2004 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Kelly-Single Basin.wdm MESSU 25 PreKelly-Single Basin.MES 27 PreKelly-Single Basin.L61 28 PreKelly-Single Basin.L62 30 POCKelly-Single Basin1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 28 PERLND 29 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 28 D,NatVeg,Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 29 D,NatVeg,Moderate 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:25 AM Page 16 28 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 29 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 28 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 29 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 28 0 3.3 0.03 100 0.05 2.5 0.915 29 0 3 0.025 80 0.1 2.5 0.915 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 28 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.05 29 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.05 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 28 0 0.6 0.04 1 0.3 0 29 0 0.6 0.04 1 0.3 0 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 28 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 29 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 28 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1 29 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.1 END MON-INTERCEP PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 28 0 0 0.01 0 0.4 0.01 0 29 0 0 0.01 0 0.4 0.01 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:25 AM Page 17 IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 28 0.7 COPY 501 12 PERLND 28 0.7 COPY 501 13 PERLND 29 1.5 COPY 501 12 PERLND 29 1.5 COPY 501 13 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 18 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 END MASS-LINK END RUN Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 19 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1959 10 01 END 2004 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 Kelly-Single Basin.wdm MESSU 25 MitKelly-Single Basin.MES 27 MitKelly-Single Basin.L61 28 MitKelly-Single Basin.L62 30 POCKelly-Single Basin1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:60 PERLND 46 IMPLND 1 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Vault 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 46 D,Urban,Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 46 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 20 46 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 46 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 46 0 3.8 0.03 50 0.05 2.5 0.915 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 46 0 0 2 2 0 0.05 0.05 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 46 0 0.6 0.03 1 0.3 0 END PWAT-PARM4 MON-LZETPARM <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 46 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 END MON-LZETPARM MON-INTERCEP <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC *** 46 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 END MON-INTERCEP PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 46 0 0 0.15 0 1 0.05 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 IMPERVIOUS-FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 1 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 21 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 100 0.05 0.011 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 46 0.5 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 46 0.5 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 1.7 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 46 0.5 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 1.7 COPY 1 15 PERLND 46 0.5 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Vault 1 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 22 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 92 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.064729 0.000000 0.000000 0.050000 0.064729 0.003236 0.006068 0.100000 0.064729 0.006473 0.008581 0.150000 0.064729 0.009709 0.010510 0.200000 0.064729 0.012946 0.012136 0.250000 0.064729 0.016182 0.013568 0.300000 0.064729 0.019419 0.014863 0.350000 0.064729 0.022655 0.016054 0.400000 0.064729 0.025892 0.017163 0.450000 0.064729 0.029128 0.018204 0.500000 0.064729 0.032365 0.019189 0.550000 0.064729 0.035601 0.020125 0.600000 0.064729 0.038838 0.021020 0.650000 0.064729 0.042074 0.021878 0.700000 0.064729 0.045311 0.022704 0.750000 0.064729 0.048547 0.023501 0.800000 0.064729 0.051783 0.024272 0.850000 0.064729 0.055020 0.025019 0.900000 0.064729 0.058256 0.025744 0.950000 0.064729 0.061493 0.026450 1.000000 0.064729 0.064729 0.027137 1.050000 0.064729 0.067966 0.027807 1.100000 0.064729 0.071202 0.028461 1.150000 0.064729 0.074439 0.029101 1.200000 0.064729 0.077675 0.029727 1.250000 0.064729 0.080912 0.030340 1.300000 0.064729 0.084148 0.030941 1.350000 0.064729 0.087385 0.031530 1.400000 0.064729 0.090621 0.032109 1.450000 0.064729 0.093858 0.032677 1.500000 0.064729 0.097094 0.033236 1.550000 0.064729 0.100330 0.033785 1.600000 0.064729 0.103567 0.034326 1.650000 0.064729 0.106803 0.034858 1.700000 0.064729 0.110040 0.035382 1.750000 0.064729 0.113276 0.035899 1.800000 0.064729 0.116513 0.036408 1.850000 0.064729 0.119749 0.036910 1.900000 0.064729 0.122986 0.037406 1.950000 0.064729 0.126222 0.037894 2.000000 0.064729 0.129459 0.038377 2.050000 0.064729 0.132695 0.038854 Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 23 2.100000 0.064729 0.135932 0.039325 2.150000 0.064729 0.139168 0.039790 2.200000 0.064729 0.142405 0.040250 2.250000 0.064729 0.145641 0.040705 2.300000 0.064729 0.148877 0.041155 2.350000 0.064729 0.152114 0.041600 2.400000 0.064729 0.155350 0.042040 2.450000 0.064729 0.158587 0.042476 2.500000 0.064729 0.161823 0.042907 2.550000 0.064729 0.165060 0.043334 2.600000 0.064729 0.168296 0.043757 2.650000 0.064729 0.171533 0.044176 2.700000 0.064729 0.174769 0.044590 2.750000 0.064729 0.178006 0.045001 2.800000 0.064729 0.181242 0.045409 2.850000 0.064729 0.184479 0.045812 2.900000 0.064729 0.187715 0.046212 2.950000 0.064729 0.190952 0.046609 3.000000 0.064729 0.194188 0.047002 3.050000 0.064729 0.197424 0.063979 3.100000 0.064729 0.200661 0.094218 3.150000 0.064729 0.203897 0.132606 3.200000 0.064729 0.207134 0.177213 3.250000 0.064729 0.210370 0.226868 3.300000 0.064729 0.213607 0.280751 3.350000 0.064729 0.216843 0.338232 3.400000 0.064729 0.220080 0.398804 3.450000 0.064729 0.223316 0.462044 3.500000 0.064729 0.226553 0.527588 3.550000 0.064729 0.229789 0.595119 3.600000 0.064729 0.233026 0.664356 3.650000 0.064729 0.236262 0.735042 3.700000 0.064729 0.239499 0.806947 3.750000 0.064729 0.242735 0.879859 3.800000 0.064729 0.245971 0.953580 3.850000 0.064729 0.249208 1.027929 3.900000 0.064729 0.252444 1.102733 3.950000 0.064729 0.255681 1.177832 4.000000 0.064729 0.258917 1.253074 4.050000 0.064729 0.262154 1.787471 4.100000 0.064729 0.265390 2.763530 4.150000 0.064729 0.268627 4.026509 4.200000 0.064729 0.271863 5.520903 4.250000 0.064729 0.275100 7.214083 4.300000 0.064729 0.278336 9.083253 4.350000 0.064729 0.281573 11.11072 4.400000 0.064729 0.284809 13.28167 4.450000 0.064729 0.288046 15.58300 4.500000 0.064729 0.291282 18.00257 4.550000 0.064729 0.294518 20.52882 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 22 IRRG ENGL 0.7 SAME PERLND 46 EXTNL SURLI END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1001 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 24 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 12.1 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:26 AM Page 25 Predeveloped HSPF Message File Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:27 AM Page 26 Mitigated HSPF Message File Kelly-Single Basin 1/29/2021 10:12:27 AM Page 27 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2021; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com 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: El 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 El 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 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) 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. 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. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com 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 www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com 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 System 8 MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES It is important to note that failure to control and remove sediment build-up in SuDS is the single largest cause of system failure. To ensure the effective management of silt in an ACO StormBrixx® infiltration system, a sediment forebay can be incorporated. In an ACO StormBrixx® detention system, a sediment tunnel and/or draindown feature is recommended. The open design of ACO StormBrixx® allows the system to be inspected by remote CCTV either through the inlet connection, access chambers, inspection points, or pipes at the edges of the ACO StormBrixx® system. This allows the system to be inspected for sediment build-up. The collected sediment can be either removed via an infiltration system soakaway or flushed through a detention system. As sediment has the potential to carry high levels of pollutant, it is important that any sediment removed from the system is disposed of by a licensed contractor in accordance with local regulations. INFILTRATION SYSTEMS In order to periodically check the effectiveness of the ACO StormBrixx® infiltration system, a percolation test can be carried out on the system and compared with the original data. If there is a significant decrease in the infiltration rates, the infiltration system should be filled via the inspection chamber to the invert level of the inlet pipe. It should then be flushed through with water in order to remove sediment and unbind the geotextile. DETENTION SYSTEMS If a sediment draindown sump has not been incorporated, it will be necessary to block the outflow control device—but not the overflow pipe—before filling the detention system to the invert level of the vent pipe. The system should then be filled, then flushed, and the water effluent removed and disposed of by a pumped tanker. To remove sediment in a draindown facility, simply lift the access chamber cover, remove all water in the draindown sump with a gully sucker, and jet the sump channel clean. The frequency of the maintenance procedure for ACO StormBrixx® will be determined by the inspection team. ACO recommends inspections to be carried out at least twice a year, and during the first year after every significant storm event. In order to minimize silt build-up, ACO also recommends the use of pretreatment systems upstream of the detention device. inspection & maintenanceB2: StormBrixx Infiltration ChambersStormBrixx Detention ChambersACO StormBrixx Detention Vaults PART 1 – GENERAL 1.1 Related Documents A. Drawings, technical specification and general provisions of the Contract as modified herein apply to this section. 1.2 Description of Work Included A. Provide excavation and base preparation per Civil Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations, and/or as shown on design drawings, to provide adequate support for project design loads and safety from excavation sidewall collapse. Excavations shall be in accordance with owner’s and OSHA requirements. B. Provide and install ACO StormBrixx SD system, including approved fill materials, geotextiles, pipe connections, in accordance with manufacturer’s installation instructions. C. ACO StormBrixx SD system should be protected from construction traffic during installation and until project completion. D. Contractor must have manufacturer’s representative available for site review if requested by Owner. 1.4 Submittals A. ACO StormBrixx SD submittals should include typical section details, required base elevation of stone and system tanks, minimum cover requirements and system layout. B. Product Data: Include Manufacturer data sheets to include: 1. Preparation instructions. 2. Storage and handling requirements. 3. Installation methods. 1.5 Delivery, Storage, and Handling A. Protect ACO StormBrixxx SD and other materials from damage during delivery. B. If extended storage is expected, ACO StormBrixx SD units/parts should be protected from UV exposure. C. Use lifting equipment appropriate to size and site conditions, including, but not limited to, handcarts, forklifts, extension lifts and small cranes. Use care to prevent damage to pallets and ACO StormBrixx SD units. 1.6 Project Conditions A. Review installation procedures and coordinate work with preparation and adjacent work, including but not limited to grading, excavation, utilities, or erosion control. Do not permit construction traffic or loads greater than design loads over completed installation. B. Protect work against damage from construction traffic during installation and following completion of backfill. Protect using construction tape, fencing, or other means, until construction is complete. Protect adjacent work from damage during installation. 1.7 Pre-Construction Meeting A. Representatives from ACO StormBrixx SD installer, design team, general contractor, excavation contractor, and manufacturer representative should meet prior to installation. PART 2 – PRODUCTS 2.1 Manufacturers **NOTE TO SPECIFIER** Contact manufacturer for local representative. A. Manufacturer: ACO, Inc., 9470 Pinecone Dr, Mentor, OH 44060; (440) 639-7231; Web: www.acousa.com **NOTE TO SPECIFIER** Delete one of the following two paragraphs; coordinate with requirements of Division 1 section on product options and substitutions. B. Substitutions: Not permitted C. Requests for substitutions will be considered in accordance with provisions of Section 01 60 00 – Product Requirements. 2.2 Materials A. ACO StormBrixx SD: Geocellular water management units are installed in layers using a brickbonding and crossbonding design to form structural tanks that contain water. ACO StormBrixx Detention Vaults 1. ACO StormBrixx SD dimensions: a) Half Body unit: 47.20” L x 23.62” W x 19.45” H b) Assembled unit (Two ½ units assembled): 47.20” L x 23.62” W x 38.9” H c) Side Panel: 35.70” L x 23.30 W x 4.09 H d) Top Cover: 21.65” L x 21.65” W x 1.77” H 2. Void Ratio: 97% 3. Gross Storage Volume 23.23 ft3 / Net Storage Volume 22.53 ft3 4. Vertical Load Capacity uninstalled: 50.76 psi. This must be tested by an independent lab uninstalled and submitted with independent lab test report. 5. Lateral Load Capacity uninstalled: 10.00 psi. This must be tested by an independent lab uninstalled and submitted with independent lab test report. 6. System must provide for clear access to entirety of system with remote CCTV and jetting equipment. 7. System must provide for a 50 year design life in accordance with ‘C680 Testing of Geocellular Attenuation (detention) Cells’. Testing must be completed by an independent lab with lab test report documentation. B. Geosynthetics 1. Geotextile. A geotextile envelope is required to prevent backfill material from entering ACO StormBrixx SD system. 2. Attenuation (detention) systems shall use 8 oz per square yard, nonwoven geotextile appropriate for soil type. C. Infiltration systems shall use woven geotextile monofilament. D. Backfill: Provide structural fill. Shall be free from lumps and debris, or sharp materials. 1. Side Infill: Structural fill per civil engineering design details. Site soils can be used per Civil Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer approval. 2. Top Infill: Per civil engineering design details. PART 3: EXECUTION 3.1 Examination A. Prepared excavation and conditions shall be inspected for smoothness, compaction, and level. Installation should not proceed until subbase conditions are satisfactory. B. Water Table Elevation: Do not install if seasonal high water table will be above invert of ACO StormBrixx SD system. C. Verify installed ACO StormBrixx SD system will not interfere with new, or existing, underground structures, utility lines, and piping. 3.2 Preparation A. Base of excavation: Compact excavation base to minimum 90 percent density, or as required by Civil Engineer/Geotechnical Engineer. B. See manufacturer installation guide for fabric installation. C. Layout footprint of ACO StormBrixx SD system with chalk lines to ensure squareness during installation. 3.3 Installation A. Install per manufacturers installation guide. 3.4 Maintenance Requirements A. System must provide clear access for a remote CCTV to inspect entire system. B. Clean out cover must be located at each pipe connection point. C. Inspection ports must be placed in accordance with the construction documents. D. Routine maintenance is required to ensure long-term performance of ACO StormBrixx SD system. Maintain as required using acceptable practices, or following manufacturer’s guidelines (for proprietary systems). E. ACO StormBrixx SD system shall be inspected for sediment quarterly through first year of operation. Inspection should be completed yearly following first year of installation. END OF SECTION POST-CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT BMP OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE DETAILS BMP DESCRIPTION INSPECTION FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY MAINTENANCE METHOD QUANTITY STRUCTURAL BMP MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (POLLUTANT CONTROL BMP) BMP-1, BMP-2 ANNUALLY, ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH AS NEEDED BASED ON INSPECTION FINDINGS 1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO REMOVE THE ACCUMULATED MATERIALS IN THE SCREENING FILTER, SEPARATION CHAMBER, AND PERIMETER FILTER (BIOMEDIA GREEN) AND REPLACE FILTER MEDIA PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED SERVICE PROVIDER PER MANUFACTURER’S GUIDELINES AND CONDITIONS AND CONDITIONS DEFINED IN THE WASHINGTON ECOLOGY T.A.P.E. CERTIFICATION. 2. IF INSPECTION INDICATED INTERNAL COMPONENTS ARE DAMAGED, ADDITONAL NON-ROUTINE MAINENANCE WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIR OR REPLACE DAMAGED PARTS AS APPLICABLE. 2 ACO STORMBRIXX DETENTION SYSTEM (HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL BMP) BMP-3 AFTER EVERY SIGNIFICANT STORM EVENT DURING THE FIRST YEAR, THEN SEMI-ANNUALLY THEREAFTER AS NEEDED BASED ON INSPECTION FINDINGS 1. DETENTION SYSTEM TO BE FILLED, FLUSHED, AND THE WATER EFFLUENT REMOVED AND DISPOSED BY A PUMPED TANKER. 1 TREE WELLS BMP-4, BMP-5, BMP-6 MONTHLY (NOTE: INSPECTOR SHALL CHECK FOR THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE INDICATORS: EROSION IN THE FORM OF RILLS OR GULLIES, PONDING WATER, BARE AREAS, HOLES, AND TRASH) 1. AS DETERMINED BY INSPECTION AND 2. ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH. 3. ROUTINE TRIM VEGETATION AND REMOVE TRASH IN AND AROUND TREE WELL. 4. REAPPLICATION OF AMENDED SOILS IF SIGNS OF COMPACTION, WATERLOGGING, AND UNHEALTHY VEGETATION IS PRESENT. 3 Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed ATTACHMENT 4 City standard Single Sheet BMP (SSBMP) Exhibit 10 KELLY DRIVEHILLSID E D R I V E BLDG G (MPR) 12"SD 6"SD 8"SD6"SD8"SD4"SD8"SD CO 4"SD 4"SD8"SDCO CO CO CO CO4"SD6"SD 4"SD 4"SD4"SD4"SD10"SDCO CO 8"SDCO CO CO8"SD 8"SD 12"SD12"SD CO CO CO 18"SD 18"SD18"SD12" SD12"SD12"SD4"SDD D 3 1 2 29 30 31 32 33 35 37 38 41403436 242223 25 26 27 28 20 21 44 42 43 (E) RELOCATABLE BLDGS (E) RELOCATABLE BLDGS 50 51 52 39 45 46 47 BMP TYPEBMP ID #SYMBOL CASQA NO.DRAWING NO.SHEET NO.(S)MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY BMP TABLE INSPECTION FREQUENCYQUANTITY TREATMENT CONTROL SOURCE CONTROL HYDROMODIFICATION 10 TRASH ENCLOSURE SD-32 3 1 EA.SEMI-ANNUALLY AS NEEDED 2 ANNUALLY STENCILS20 SD-1347DRAINS TO LAGOONNO DUMPING ** AS NEEDED DETENTION SYSTEM 2 EA.BIOFILTRATION VAULT WEEKLY AS NEEDED ANNUALLY AS NEEDED 1 EA. 28 EA. 1 8, 17 8, 16 8 7, 8 WITH ROOF TREE WELLS5052 3 EA.MONTHLY AS NEEDED 527-6A 527-6A 527-6A 527-6A 527-6A 5, 6 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. BMP NOTES: PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. PLAN PREPARED BY: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. COMPANY SCALE : 1" = 40' 5. REFER TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT. 6. SEE PROJECT SWMP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SIGNATURE *CHOOSE FROM THE LIST BELOW FOR COMPLETING THE FIELDS IN THE INSPECTIONS & MAINTENANCE FRENQUENCY COLUMNS: ANNUAL 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 BMP CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION NOTES: THE EOW WILL VERIFY THAT PERMANENT BMPS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY THE EOW MUST PROVIDE: 1.PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT BMPS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND AT FINAL INSTALLATION. 2.A WET STAMPED LETTER VERIFYING THAT PERMANENT BMPS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATING PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVED PLANS. 3.PHOTOGRAPHS TO VERIFY THAT PERMANENT WATER QUALITY TREATMENT SIGNAGE HAS BEEN INSTALLED. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF SECURITIES, THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE PERMANENT BMPS HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED OR MODIFIED BY THE NEW HOMEOWNER OR HOA WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. REV. 1/2020 KATHEREEN SHINKAI, P.E. LPA, INC. 5301 CALIFORNIA AVE. SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92617 (949) 261-1001 CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (760) 331-5000 18 527-6A KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 18 ATTACHMENT 5 Project Geotechnical Evaluation for Reference Geotechnical Evaluation Kelly Elementary School Modernization 4885 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, California Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real | Carlsbad, California 92009 August 21, 2019 | Project No. 108741005 Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants Geotechnical Evaluation Kelly Elementary School Modernization 4885 Kelly Drive Carlsbad, California Ms. Kelly Fleming Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real I Carlsbad, California 92009 August 21, 2019 I Project No. 108741005 Christina A. Tretinjak, PG, CEG Senior Project Geologist ~f.U- Jeffrey T. Kent, PE, GE Principal Engineer ZH/CAT/KAV/JTK/gg Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) Kai Vedenoja, PE Senior Project Engineer 5710 Ruffin Road I San Diego, California 92123 I p. 858.576.1000 I www.ninyoandmoore.com CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION 2 5 LABORATORY TESTING 3 6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 6.1 Regional Geologic Setting 3 6.2 Site Geology 4 6.2.1 Encountered Pavement Sections 4 6.2.2 Fill 4 6.2.3 Alluvium 4 6.2.4 Santiago Formation 4 6.3 Groundwater 5 6.4 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards 5 6.5 Landsliding 5 6.6 Faulting and Seismicity 6 6.6.1 Strong Ground Motion 7 6.6.2 Ground Rupture 8 6.6.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 8 6.6.4 Lateral Spread 9 6.6.5 Tsunamis 9 7 CONCLUSIONS 9 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 8.1 Earthwork 11 8.1.1 Site Preparation 11 8.1.2 Ground Improvement 11 8.1.3 Excavation Characteristics 14 8.1.4 Excavation Bottom Stability 14 8.1.5 Temporary Excavations 14 8.1.6 Remedial Grading - Building Pad 15 8.1.7 Remedial Grading – Site and/or Retaining Walls 15 Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 i 8.1.8 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements 16 8.1.9 Remedial Grading – Exterior Flatwork 16 8.1.10 Materials for Fill 17 8.1.11 Compacted Fill 17 8.1.12 Utility Pipe Zone Backfill 18 8.1.13 Utility Trench Zone Backfill 19 8.1.14 Lateral Pressures for Thrust Blocks 19 8.1.15 Drainage 19 8.2 Seismic Design Considerations 20 8.3 Foundations 20 8.3.1 Shallow Foundations 21 8.4 Site and/or Retaining Walls 21 8.5 Interior Slabs-on-Grade 22 8.6 Concrete Flatwork 22 8.7 Light Pole and Canopy Foundations 23 8.8 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design 24 8.9 Corrosion 24 8.10 Concrete 25 9 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE 25 10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 25 11 LIMITATIONS 26 12 REFERENCES 28 TABLES 1 – Principal Active Faults 6 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site 7 3 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria 20 4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections 24 FIGURES 1 – Site Location 2 – Boring Locations 3 – Geology 4 – Geologic Cross Section A-A’ Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 ii 5 – Geologic Cross Section B-B’ 6 – Fault Locations 7 – Thrust Block Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram 8 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls 9 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Restrained Retaining Walls 10 – Retaining Wall Drainage Detail APPENDICES A – Boring Logs B – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 iii 1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 11, 2019, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed modernization improvements to Kelly Elementary School. The existing Kelly Elementary School campus is located at 4885 Kelly Drive in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). Our geotechnical evaluation was performed in general accordance with Chapter 18A of Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), and California Geological Survey (CGS) Note 48. This report presents the results of our field explorations and laboratory testing as well as our conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the site and our recommendations for the design and construction of this project. 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services included the following: • Reviewing readily available published and in-house geotechnical literature, previous geotechnical reports, topographic maps, geologic maps, fault maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. • Performing a field reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions and to mark the locations of our exploratory borings. • Coordinating with the Carlsbad Unified School District to gain access to the site. Additionally, we used a private utility locator service and notified Underground Service Alert (USA) to locate underground utilities near our exploratory borings. • Performing a subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling, logging, and sampling of seven exploratory borings using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers and manual techniques. Relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples were obtained at selected intervals from the borings. The collected samples were transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing. • Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on representative soil samples to evaluate design parameters and soil characteristics. • Compiling and performing an engineering analysis of the data obtained from our background review, field activities, and geotechnical laboratory testing. • Preparing this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 1 3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is situated within the existing campus of Kelly Elementary School in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). In general, the campus is located on a generally rectangular-shaped parcel that fronts on Kelly Drive to the east and is bounded by Hillside Drive to the north, the Keiller Neighborhood Park to the south, and an approximately 50 foot high slope that ascends to single-family residential properties to the west. The campus generally consists of school buildings, facilities, an asphalt concrete (AC) paved parking lot, AC athletic courts, and grass playfields (Figure 2). Elevations at the main part of the school campus generally range from approximately 22 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the southeastern portion to approximately 40 feet MSL in the western portion of the site with elevations up to approximately 80 feet MSL at the top of the western slope. The global coordinates of the project site are approximately 33.1474°N Latitude and -117.3121°W Longitude. Based on our discussions with you and a review of a provided site plan (LPA Design Studio, 2019), the modernization improvements at the site may include removal of existing relocatable buildings, construction of an approximately 7,800 square foot Multi-Purpose Room (MPR) building, new relocatable buildings, a shade structure, and new retaining walls. Ancillary improvements will include the addition of fire lanes, concrete flatwork, and associated underground utilities. Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of the proposed improvements. 4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION Our subsurface exploration was conducted on July 1 and July 2, 2019 and included the drilling, logging, and sampling of seven small-diameter borings (B-1 through B-7). Prior to commencing the subsurface exploration, Underground Service Alert was notified and a private utility locator was utilized to clear our work locations of underground utility conflicts. The purpose of the borings was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and to collect soil samples for laboratory testing. Borings B-1 through B-3, B-5, and B-6 were drilled to depths of up to approximately 71½ feet using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Borings B-4 and B-7 were manually excavated to depths up to approximately 5 feet using a 4-inch diameter hand auger. Ninyo & Moore personnel logged the borings in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 2488 by observing cuttings and drive samples. Representative bulk and in-place soil samples were collected at selected depths from within the exploratory borings and transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for analysis. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. The boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 2 5 LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples collected from our subsurface exploration. Testing included an evaluation of in-situ dry density and moisture content, gradation, gradation by 200 wash, Atterberg limits, shear strength, expansion index, soil corrosivity, and R-value. The results of the in-situ dry density and moisture content tests are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests that we performed and a description of the procedures used are presented in Appendix B. 6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our findings regarding regional and site geology at the project location are provided in the following sections. 6.1 Regional Geologic Setting The project site is situated in the coastal foothill section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990; Harden, 2004). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The portion of the province in western San Diego County that includes the project area consists generally of uplifted and dissected coastal plain underlain by Upper Cretaceous-, Tertiary-, and Quaternary-age sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub-parallel faults and fault zones trending roughly northwest (Jennings, 2010). Several of these faults are considered active. The Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located northeast of the project area and the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente faults are active faults located west of the project site. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within the regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right-lateral, strike-slip movement. Specifics of faulting are discussed in the following sections of this report. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 3 6.2 Site Geology Geologic units encountered during our subsurface exploration included fill soils and alluvium (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections. Additional descriptions of the subsurface units are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. The geology of the site is shown on Figure 3 and geologic cross sections are shown on Figures 4 and 5. 6.2.1 Encountered Pavement Sections AC pavements were encountered at the surface in our borings. The pavement sections generally included approximately 3½ to 6 inches of AC. The AC was underlain by approximately 4 to 10 inches of base materials in borings B-1 through B-6. Base materials were not encountered in boring B-7. As encountered, the base materials generally consisted of gray and brown, moist, medium dense, sandy gravel and silty sand. 6.2.2 Fill Fill material was encountered underlying the pavement sections and extended to depths up to approximately 12 feet below the ground surface. As encountered, the fill material generally consisted of various shades of brown, gray, and yellow, moist, very loose to medium dense, silty to clayey sand, and firm to stiff, lean clay. Documentation regarding placement of these fills was not available for review. 6.2.3 Alluvium Materials mapped as alluvium were encountered underlying the fill material in borings B-1 through B-3, B-5, and B-6, and extended to the total depths explored of up to approximately 71½ feet. The alluvium was not encountered in borings B-4 and B-6. As encountered, the alluvium was observed to consist of various shades of brown, gray, and yellow, moist to wet, very loose to very dense, sandy silt, silty to clayey sand, well graded sand with silt, well graded sand with clay, poorly graded sand, and poorly graded sand with clay, along with layers of firm to hard, lean clay. 6.2.4 Santiago Formation Although not encountered in our exploratory borings, materials of the Santiago Formation are mapped in the western portion of the campus (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 4 6.3 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in our borings B-1 through B-3, B-5, and B-6 at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 18 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in borings B-4 and B-7. Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, seasonal rainfall, irrigation, and other factors which may not have been evident at the time of our field evaluation. Additionally, perched water conditions may be present at the site due to the presence of trench backfill and bedding materials for underground utilities, as these materials tend to act as a conduit for perched water conditions. 6.4 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards Based on review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mapping Information Platform website (2019), the site is not located within mapped floodplains, flood zones, or active floodways. Our review of the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan (Carlsbad, 2015) indicates that the Kelly Elementary School Campus is not located with a mapped dam inundation zone. Based on our review, the potential for dam inundation and significant flooding at the site are not design considerations. 6.5 Landsliding Per Tan (1995), the majority of the site is mapped as “marginally susceptible” to landsliding. Based on our review of referenced geologic maps, literature, topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as our subsurface evaluation, no landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted underlying the project site. Graded slopes up to approximately 50 feet in height ascend from the north and east property line of the school campus. Our review of the original geotechnical report for the school campus (Woodward-Clyde-Sherrard, 1967) indicates that the slopes were constructed during earthwork associated with development of the school site in the late 1960s. Our recent observations of the slopes indicate that they are performing well and no signs of instability are evident. As such, the existing slopes are not expected to adversely affect or be affected by the proposed school improvements. Consequently, the potential for significant large-scale slope instability at the site is not a design consideration. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 5 6.6 Faulting and Seismicity Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as on our geologic review, the site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) (Hart and Bryant, 2007). However, like the majority of Southern California, the site is located in a seismically active area and the potential for strong ground motion is considered significant during the design life of the proposed structure. Figure 6 shows the approximate site location relative to the major faults in the region. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault, located approximately 5.7 miles west of the site. Table 1 lists selected principal known active faults that may affect the site and the maximum moment magnitude Mmax calculated from the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters website (USGS, 2008). Table 1 – Principal Active Faults Fault Approximate Fault-to-Site Distance miles (kilometers)1 Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mmax) Rose Canyon 5.7 (9.2) 6.9 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore Segment) 6.9 (11.0) 7.0 Coronado Bank 21.6 (34.8) 7.4 Elsinore (Temecula Segment) 22.0 (35.5) 7.1 Elsinore (Julian Segment) 22.0 (35.5) 7.4 Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) 33.1 (53.3) 6.9 Palos Verdes 36.3 (58.4) 7.3 San Joaquin Hills 37.4 (60.2) 7.1 Earthquake Valley 42.1 (67.8) 6.8 San Jacinto (Anza Segment) 46.5 (74.8) 7.3 San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley Segment) 48.1 (77.4) 7.0 Newport-Inglewood (LA Basin Segment) 48.2 (77.6) 7.2 Chino 48.9 (78.7) 6.8 Whittier 49.7 (79.9) 7.0 San Jacinto (Coyote Creek Segment) 49.7 (79.9) 7.0 San Jacinto (Clark Segment) 51.9 (83.4) 7.1 Elsinore (Coyote Mountain Segment) 57.8 (93.0) 6.9 San Jacinto (San Bernardino Valley Segment) 60.1 (96.7) 7.1 Puente Hills (Coyote Hills Segment) 60.9 (98.0) 6.9 Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 6 6.6.1 Strong Ground Motion Based on our review of background information, data pertaining to the historical seismicity of the San Diego County area are summarized in Table 2 below. This table presents historic earthquakes within a radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers) or the site with a magnitude 6.0 or greater. Table 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site Date Magnitude (M) Approximate Epicentral Distance miles (kilometers) November 22, 1800 6.3 33.0 (53.2) October 23, 1894 6.1 38.2 (61.4) May 15, 1910 6.0 38.5 (62.0) May 27, 1862 6.2 42.3 (68.1) April 21, 1918 6.8 45.4 (73.0) December 25, 1899 6.7 48.5 (78.1) March 11, 1933 6.4 55.1 (88.6) September 23, 1923 6.2 59.0 (95.0) February 9, 1890 6.8 61.0 (98.2) The 2016 CBC specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate seismic loads for design of buildings and other structures. The MCER ground motion response accelerations are based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent damping in the direction of maximum horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the MCER for the site was calculated as 0.47g using a web-based seismic design tool (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019). The 2016 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be evaluated, where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCEG peak ground acceleration is based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The MCEG peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects (PGAM) was calculated as 0.46g using a web-based seismic design tool (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019) that yielded a mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration of 0.43g for the site and a site coefficient (FPGA) of 1.069 for Site Class D. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 7 6.6.2 Ground Rupture Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconnaissance, active faults are not known to cross the project vicinity. Therefore, the potential for ground surface rupture due to faulting at the site is considered low. However, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible. 6.6.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils with silt and clay contents of less than approximately 35 percent and non-plastic silts located below the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength when subjected to strong earthquake-induced ground shaking. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure, and causes the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near-saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than about 50 feet below the ground surface. Factors known to influence liquefaction potential include composition and thickness of soil layers, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. According to the City of Carlsbad Liquefaction Hazards (Carlsbad, 2015), the proposed site is located within an area mapped as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction. As noted in the previous sections, the site is underlain by fill materials and alluvium and groundwater was encountered in our borings between approximately 10 to 18 feet. Accordingly, we have evaluated the liquefaction potential at the project site using an assumed groundwater depth of 10 feet, our laboratory test results, our evaluation of the site ground motion (described above), and our experience in the site vicinity. Deaggregation of the probabilistic ground motion at the site was performed using the USGS interactive webpage (web address https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive), which estimates the modal magnitude for a given probabilistic seismic ground motion. Results of our seismic hazard deaggregation yielded a modal magnitude of 6.7, which is the magnitude used in our analysis. As noted above, our analysis indicates a PGAM of 0.46g based on the design seismic event. The liquefaction analysis was based on the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) procedure (Youd, et al., 2001) using the computer program LiquefyPro (CivilTech Software, 2008). Our analysis indicates that the granular subsurface soils located below the design groundwater table are potentially liquefiable. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 8 In order to estimate the amount of post-earthquake settlement that is related to seismic shaking and/or liquefaction, the method proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) was used, in which the seismically induced cyclic stress ratios and corrected N-values are related to the volumetric strain of the soil. The amount of soil settlement during a strong seismic event depends on the thickness of the liquefiable layers and the density and/or consistency of the soils. Based on our evaluation, we estimate that total dynamic settlements on the order of ½ to 1 foot could result from a design seismic event at the site. Differential settlements approximately one-half of the total settlement over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected. 6.6.4 Lateral Spread Based on the relatively level topography of the Kelly Elementary School campus, along with the distance to any channel free faces, liquefaction related lateral spreading is not a design consideration. 6.6.5 Tsunamis Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth) generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on our review of a tsunami inundation map that includes the site (California EMA, 2009) and the inland location of the site, the potential for a tsunami to affect the site is not a design consideration. 7 CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the referenced background data, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. In general, the following conclusions were made: • The areas of the proposed improvements are underlain by varying thicknesses of fill soils overlying alluvium. • Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths ranging from approximately 10 to 18 feet below the ground surface. However, fluctuations in the depth to groundwater will occur due to flood events, seasonal precipitation, variations in ground elevations, subsurface stratification, irrigation, groundwater pumping, storm water infiltration, and other factors. Additionally, perched water conditions may be present at the site due to the presence of trench backfill and bedding materials for underground utilities, as these materials tend to act as a conduit for perched water conditions. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 9 •The existing fill soils and alluvium encountered onsite should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition. •Loose and wet materials were encountered in our borings. Therefore, sloughing materials and caving soils including flowing sands should be anticipated for excavations that extend near or below the groundwater table. Dewatering may also be needed in such excavations. The contractor should anticipate and be prepared to address these conditions. •Onsite materials are generally considered suitable for reuse onsite as engineered fill, provided they are processed to meet the recommendations provided herein. However, based on the groundwater encountered, drying back or aerating soils to near optimum moisture content prior to reuse should be anticipated. •Wet and clayey soils were encountered during our evaluation. Therefore, the contractor should anticipate soft and yielding subgrade conditions that may need stabilization efforts. Specific recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on evaluation in the field by Ninyo & Moore at the time of construction. •The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). The closest known major active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles west of the project. •Based on the results of our subsurface evaluation, the site is underlain by soils susceptible to liquefaction. Our analysis of the subsurface data indicates that total dynamic settlements on the order of ½ to 1 foot could occur at the site during a major seismic event. •Due to the potential for seismic related settlements and displacements from liquefaction (as described above), recommendations to perform ground improvement beneath the proposed MPR building and other structures for human occupancy are presented in the Recommendations section of this report. Additional measures will need to be employed to avoid damaging existing buildings and other existing appurtenances during performance of the ground improvement operations. •Based on the results of our geotechnical laboratory testing, the onsite soils exhibit a very low expansion potential. Clayey onsite materials that are expansive, if encountered, are not considered suitable for reuse as backfill materials within the limits of remedial grading as outlined in this report or behind retaining walls. •Based on the results of our limited geotechnical laboratory testing as compared to the Caltrans (2018) corrosion guidelines, the onsite soils are considered corrosive. 8 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the design and construction of the project. The proposed site improvements should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable governing agencies. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 10 8.1 Earthwork In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations or guidelines presented herein. 8.1.1 Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of flatwork, vegetation, utility lines, asphalt, concrete, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The debris and unsuitable material generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of at a legal dumpsite away from the project area. 8.1.2 Ground Improvement As described earlier, portions of the underlying alluvium are susceptible to liquefaction, with seismically-induced settlements up to approximately 1 foot as a result of a design seismic event. A method that can be employed to mitigate anticipated seismically-induced settlements, along with longer-term consolidation settlement of the proposed building at the site, involves performing ground improvement of the upper soil. The primary objectives of ground improvement at the site would be to provide improved support for the new site improvements during and immediately after an earthquake, and to reduce the potential for unacceptable damage due to liquefaction, thus facilitating the use of a shallow foundation system for support of the proposed structure. Ground improvement methods considered for this site included vibro-replacement (stone columns), compaction grouting, and deep soil mixing. Vibro-replacement (also known as stone columns) involves the insertion of a vibratory probe into the soil on a designated grid in order to densify the loose soil. As the probe is retracted at each location, gravel is placed as backfill into the void created by the probe. This procedure not only “pre-liquefies” and densifies the soil, but the grid of stone columns provides added rigidity/stiffness to the soil and also helps dissipate pore water pressures that would normally rise during an earthquake. The stone columns are typically installed on grids having a spacing of 6- to 10-foot centers to depths of 50 feet or less; however, vibro- replacement can be effectively performed to depths on the order of 100 feet below ground surface. Proper installation of stone columns can be expected to adequately reduce Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 11 potential consolidation and liquefaction-induced settlement to enable the use of a conventional foundation system for building support. Due to the proximity of the existing school buildings to the project site, the unknown aspects of other nearby buildings, and the nature of the upper soils within and adjacent to the site, vibrations associated with the installation of stone columns are anticipated to adversely affect the existing buildings and other site improvements. Therefore, we do not recommend the installation of stone columns at this site. Compaction grouting is generally employed to densify loose soils to the point where liquefaction potential is sufficiently reduced. This method typically involves the pumping of low slump, mortar type grout under pressure into the soil. This procedure is generally performed by drilling or driving steel pipes (usually 2-inches or greater in internal diameter) on a grid with spacings that range from 5 to 9 feet on center. The grout is then injected at pressures ranging from 100 to 300 pounds per square inch, until the soils are sufficiently densified as they are displaced by the grout. Where compaction grouting is properly performed, a conventional foundation system can be expected to provide adequate building support. Our experience with compaction grouting at similar locations, along with our review of "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" (Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999) indicates that when performing compaction grouting, inadequate compaction occurs when sufficient confinement (typically about 10 feet of overburden) is not present. Heaving of the ground surface also can occur when the grout column is installed at depths of less than 10 feet. However, lesser levels of compaction can be experienced if the grout column extends to depths between 5 and 10 feet, provided lower levels of grout pressure and other measures are employed within these depths to prevent heaving of the ground surface. Such heaving would affect existing improvements, including nearby underground utilities. Although compaction grouting is a viable option for ground improvement at this site, it is generally considered the most expensive and least economical method presented. Deep soil mixing involves the use of a hollow-stem auger and paddle arrangement to inject and mix cementitious grout into the potentially liquefiable subsurface materials. During advancement of the augers into the soil, the hollow stems serve as conduits for the grout, which is injected at the tip of the augers. Confining cells of soil cement which overlap to form walls within the subsurface to provide adequate bearing materials and reduce shear strains produced by the seismic event, thus mitigating liquefaction potential in the treated area. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 12 Based on our review of the ground improvement methods discussed above, we recommend that deep soil mixing be used to mitigate the liquefaction potential for new settlement sensitive structures to be built at the site. Deep soil mixing is anticipated to be a more economical method of ground improvement than compaction grouting and will result in lower levels of ground vibration during construction, thus reducing the potential for inducing settlement and/or damage to nearby buildings/improvements. Because ground improvement (including the installation of stone columns) is typically performed by a specialty contractor, we recommend that such a contractor be consulted to evaluate whether the buildings are situated far enough away from the site where they would not be affected by deep soil mixing operations. A specialty contractor should design the actual size, spacing, depth, and layout of the selected ground improvement method. However, for preliminary design purposes from a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend that the ground improvement extend to depths of approximately 10 to 60 feet from the existing ground surface (i.e., the lower end of improved soils will be located at a depth of approximately 60 feet below the surface, and the upper end will be located at a depth of approximately 10 feet below the surface). For deep soil mixing, the grouted cells should be situated beneath proposed foundations, including continuous and spread footings located within and outside the building footprint. During the ground improvement operations, we anticipate that the upper soils within the proposed building area will experience some disturbance. It has been our experience that this disturbed zone could extend to depths on the order of 5 feet or more. Section 8.1.7 provides recommendations for remedial earthwork to mitigate disturbance of this approximately 5-foot- thick zone of upper soils that may occur during ground improvement. We anticipate that existing, relatively recent improvements beyond the operation will not be adversely affected. However, monitoring and protection of the improvements should be a part of the contractor’s work. We recommend that a pre-construction survey be conducted of adjacent improvements to establish a baseline condition. Survey monuments should be established on the existing structures and other locations. The survey monuments should be monitored regularly during the ground improvement operations to evaluate whether ground deflections develop at the existing improvements. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 13 8.1.3 Excavation Characteristics The results of our field exploration program indicate that the project site, as presently pro- posed, is underlain by fill soils and alluvium. The fill soils should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition. Based on the groundwater encountered during our subsurface evaluation, caving and sloughing of excavation sidewall and unstable excavation bottom conditions should be anticipated. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill. 8.1.4 Excavation Bottom Stability Due to the unknown nature of the fill materials, we anticipate that the bottoms of the excavations may encounter unstable bottom conditions, particularly if perched water or zones of seepage are encountered. In order to provide a stable excavation bottom for structures and/or to facilitate the placement of compacted fill in areas where yielding/pumping conditions are encountered as a result of seepage or perched water, we recommend that the excavation be overexcavated to a depth of approximately 2 feet below the proposed subgrade elevation. The overexcavated material should then be replaced with gravel wrapped with a geosynthetic filter fabric. Additional recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms may be necessary, based on evaluation in the field by the project geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. 8.1.5 Temporary Excavations For temporary excavations, we recommend that the following Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) soil classifications be used: Fill and Alluvium Type C Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should be evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the OSHA regulations. Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA recommendations. For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met using appropriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by laying back the slopes to no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in fill and alluvium. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Onsite safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 14 8.1.6 Remedial Grading - Building Pad During the ground improvement operations, we anticipate that the upper soils within the proposed building area will be disturbed. It has been our experience that this disturbed zone could extend to depths on the order of 5 feet or more. In order to provide consistent bearing conditions for the proposed building, we recommend that the existing disturbed soils be removed to a depth of 5 feet or 2 feet below the bottom of footings in those areas where the building and other settlement-sensitive improvements are planned, whichever is deeper. It should be noted that the actual depth of remedial earthwork could be affected by the depth to groundwater at a particular location. The extent and depths of removals should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Based on our field representative’s observations, deeper or shallower removals in some areas may be recommended. The removed soils may be reused as compacted fill materials provided they meet the criteria for fill materials. The resulting removal surface should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by the ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 prior to placing new compacted fill. Once the resulting removal surface has been recompacted, the overexcavation should be backfilled with onsite soils that possess a very low to low potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] less than 50). These compacted fill soils should be placed at a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill. 8.1.7 Remedial Grading – Site and/or Retaining Walls If site and/or retaining walls not connected to buildings are planned, we recommend that the existing fill materials not removed during grading be removed down to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of footings. This over-excavation should extend to the horizontal limits of the retaining wall foundations plus a horizontal distance of 2 feet. The lateral extents of the overexcavation may be modified in the field based on site constraints such as existing structures and property lines. The extent and depths of removals and overexcavations should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 15 The resulting removal surface should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by the ASTM D 1557 prior to placing new compacted fill. Once the resulting removal surface has been recompacted, the overexcavation should be backfilled with onsite soils that possess a very low to low potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] less than 50). These compacted fill soils should be placed at a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill. 8.1.8 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements In the proposed vehicular pavement areas, we recommend that the on-site soils be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below the planned subgrade elevation for the pavement. The proposed overexcavations should extend outward horizontally 2 feet from the exterior limits of the pavement, where feasible. The extent and depth of removals should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the material exposed. The resulting surface should be scarified 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The removals should then be filled with onsite soils suitable for reuse as compacted fill. The upper 12 inches of the subgrade materials should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill. 8.1.9 Remedial Grading – Exterior Flatwork In the proposed exterior flatwork areas, we recommend that the on-site soils be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below the planned subgrade elevation for the flatwork. The proposed overexcavations should extend outward horizontally 2 feet from the exterior limits of the flatwork, where feasible. The extent and depth of removals should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the material exposed. The resulting surface should be scarified 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The removals should then be filled with onsite soils suitable for reuse as compacted fill. The upper 12 inches of the subgrade materials should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 16 8.1.10 Materials for Fill Granular materials (e.g., sand, silty sand, sandy silt, clayey sand) generated from onsite excavations are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they meet the following recommendations. Fill soils should possess an organic content of less than approximately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight). In general, fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches in diameter, and not more than approximately 30 percent larger than ¾ inch. Fill materials placed in accordance with the remedial grading recommendations presented herein should possess an expansion index (EI) of 50 or less. Imported fill material, if needed, should generally be granular soils with a very low to low expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index of 50 or less). Import fill material should be considered non-corrosive as defined by the Caltrans (2018) corrosion guidelines. Non- corrosive soils are soils that possess an electrical resistivity more than 1,100 ohm- centimeters (ohm-cm), a chloride content less than 500 parts per million (ppm), less than 0.15 percent sulfates, and a pH more than 5.5. Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative prior to filling or importing. To reduce the potential of importing contaminated materials to the site, prior to delivery, soil materials obtained from off-site sources should be sampled and tested in accordance with standard practice (DTSC, 2001). Soils that exhibit a known risk to human health, the environment, or both, should not be imported to the site. Additionally, concrete and AC materials generated from the demolition of the existing improvements may be crushed and reused within the fill materials, provided they are free of rebar and painted surfaces. These materials are considered suitable, provided they are processed and mixed with onsite soils to meet the gradation recommendations provided above. However, materials containing crushed AC should not be placed within building pads. In areas of landscaping, the landscape architect should be consulted regarding the use of recycled AC and concrete materials within the fill. 8.1.11 Compacted Fill Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents generally at or slightly above the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to a relative Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 17 compaction of 90 percent as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify this office and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally at or slightly above the laboratory optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent within the soil mass. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a moisture content generally at or slightly above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The upper 12 inches of the subgrade materials beneath vehicular pavements should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 8.1.12 Utility Pipe Zone Backfill The pipe zone backfill should be placed on top of the pipe bedding material and extend to 1 foot or more above the top of the pipe in accordance with the recent edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”). Pipe zone backfill should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or more, and be placed around the sides and top of the pipe. Silts and clays should not be used as pipe zone backfill. Special care should be taken not to allow voids beneath and around the pipe. Compaction of the pipe zone backfill should proceed up both sides of the pipe. It has been our experience that the voids within a crushed rock material are sufficiently large to allow fines to migrate into the voids, thereby creating the potential for sinkholes and depressions to develop at the ground surface. If open-graded gravel is utilized as pipe zone Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 18 backfill, this material should be separated from the adjacent trench sidewalls and overlying trench backfill with a geosynthetic filter fabric. 8.1.13 Utility Trench Zone Backfill Based on our subsurface evaluation, the on-site materials should be generally suitable for reuse as trench zone backfill provided they are free of organic material, clay lumps, debris, rocks more than approximately 3 inches in diameter and not more than approximately 30 percent larger than ¾ inch. Trench zone backfill should be moisture-conditioned to generally at or slightly above the laboratory optimum. Trench zone backfill should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557, except for the upper 12 inches of the backfill beneath vehicular pavements that should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Lift thickness for backfill will depend on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but fill should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Special care should be exercised to avoid damaging the pipe during compaction of the backfill. 8.1.14 Lateral Pressures for Thrust Blocks Thrust restraint for buried pipelines may be achieved by transferring the thrust force to the soil outside the pipe through a thrust block. Thrust blocks may be designed using the lateral passive earth pressures presented on Figure 7. Thrust blocks should be backfilled with granular backfill material and compacted in accordance with recommendations presented in this report. 8.1.15 Drainage Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be directed such that runoff water is diverted away from slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adjacent to structures should be established and maintained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more outside building perimeters, and further maintained by a graded swale leading to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and/or landscape architect. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 19 Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns should be established to divert and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets. Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained for the life of the project. The property owner and the maintenance personnel should be made aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to foundation performance. 8.2 Seismic Design Considerations Design of the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 3 presents the seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with the CBC (2016) guidelines and adjusted MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019). Table 3 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria Seismic Design Factors Value Site Class D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.059 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.576 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, Ss 1.103g Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S1 0.424g Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.168g Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.668g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 0.779g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 0.446g 8.3 Foundations As noted above, ground improvement of the soil that underlie the proposed building areas are recommended to mitigate the potential for liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement. Remedial earthwork of the upper 5 feet of soil is also recommended to address disturbance of these soils that could occur during ground improvement. The following sections present recommendations for shallow foundations that are bearing upon compacted fill soils, which are in turn underlain by improved ground. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 20 8.3.1 Shallow Foundations We anticipate that shallow foundations will be utilized to support the proposed MPR building. Shallow, spread or continuous footings supported on 2 feet or more of compacted fill over ground improved subsurface soils may be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. We recommend that shallow foundations be founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings should have a width of 18 inches and spread footings should be 24 inches in width. The footings should be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. 8.3.2 Lateral Resistance For resistance of footings to lateral loads, bearing on compacted fill, we recommend an allowable passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth be used with a value of up to 3,000 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is more. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.3 be used between soil and concrete. The passive resistance values may be increased by one- third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. 8.3.3 Static Settlement We estimate that the proposed structures, designed and constructed as recommended herein, and founded in compacted fill over ground improved subsurface soils will undergo total settlement on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected. 8.4 Site and/or Retaining Walls Site and/or retaining walls that are not a part of or are not connected to the buildings may be supported on continuous footings bearing 2 feet or more of compacted fill. The continuous footing should have a width of 24 inches or more and be embedded a depth of 18 inches or more. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be used for the design of site and/or Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 21 retaining wall foundations. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. For the design of a yielding retaining wall that is not restrained against movement by rigid corners or structural connections, the design lateral earth pressures are presented on Figure 8. Restrained walls (non-yielding) may be designed for the lateral earth pressures presented on Figure 9. These pressures assume low-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures should be taken to reduce the potential for build-up of moisture behind the retaining walls. A drain should be provided behind the retaining wall as shown on Figure 10. The drain should be connected to an appropriate outlet. 8.5 Interior Slabs-on-Grade We recommend that conventional, interior concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by compacted fill materials of generally very low to low expansion potential (i.e. an expansion index of 50 or less). The depth of the compacted fill beneath the slab-on-grade should be in accordance with the applicable remedial grading recommendations presented in this report. Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be 5 inches thick. If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder and capillary break system consisting of a 10-mil polyethylene (or equivalent) membrane placed over 4 inches of medium to coarse, clean sand or pea gravel. The slabs-on-grade should be reinforced with No. 4 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the middle of the slab. As a means to help reduce shrinkage cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with crack- control joints at intervals of approximately 12 feet each way. The slab reinforcement and expansion joint spacing should be designed by the project structural engineer. 8.6 Concrete Flatwork We recommend that exterior concrete flatwork underlain by 1 foot or more of compacted fill materials possessing generally very low to low expansion potential (i.e., an EI of 50 or less) be 4 inches in thickness and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on-center both ways. A vapor retarder is not needed for exterior flatwork. To reduce the potential manifestation of cracking in exterior concrete flatwork due to movement of the underlying soil, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the civil engineer. Before placement of concrete, remedial grading should be performed as recommended previously. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 22 8.7 Light Pole and Canopy Foundations We recommend that light pole and canopy structures be supported on cast-in-drilled- hole (CIDH) piles. Light pole and canopy structures typically impose relatively light axial loads on foundations. Although we anticipate that pile dimensions will be generally controlled by the lateral load demand, we recommend that such drilled foundations have a diameter of 18 inches or more. The pile dimensions (i.e., diameter and embedment) should be evaluated by the project structural engineer. The drilled pile construction should be observed by Ninyo & Moore during construction to evaluate if the piles have been extended to the design depths. It is the contractor's responsibility to (a) take appropriate measures for maintaining the integrity of the drilled holes, (b) see that the holes are cleaned and straight, and (c) see that sloughed loose soil is removed from the bottom of the hole prior to the placement of concrete. Drilled piles should be checked for alignment and plumbness during installation. The amount of acceptable misalignment of a pile is approximately 3 inches from the plan location. It is usually acceptable for a pile to be out of plumb by 1 percent of the depth of the pile. The center-to-center spacing of piles should be no less than three times the nominal diameter of the pile. If the CIDH piles extend into groundwater or seepage, the contractor should consider appropriate measures during construction to reduce the potential for caving of the drilled holes, including the use of steel casing and/or drilling mud. In addition, we recommend concrete be placed by tremie method, to see that the aggregate and cement do not segregate during concrete placement, on the same day the CIDH piles are drilled. For resistance of light pole and/or canopy footings to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth be used, with an upper bound value of up to 3,000 psf. This value assumes that the light poles are designed to tolerate ½ inch of deflection at the surface and that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.3 be used between soil and concrete. The allowable lateral resistance values may be increased by 1/3 during short term loading conditions, such as wind or seismic loading. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 23 8.8 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design We understand that the project will include the construction of new vehicular pavements. Our laboratory testing of a near surface soil sample at the project site indicated an R-value of 12. This R-value, along with estimated design Traffic Indices (TI) of 5, 6, and 7 has been the basis of our preliminary flexible pavement design. Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the grading operations. The preliminary recommended flexible pavement sections are presented in Table 6. Table 4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections Traffic Index (Pavement Usage) Design R-Value Asphalt Concrete Thickness (inches) Aggregate Base Thickness (inches) 5 (Parking Stalls) 12 3 9 6 (Drive Aisles) 12 3½ 11 7 (Fire Lanes and Bus Lanes) 12 4 14 As indicated, these values assume TIs of 7.0 or less for site pavements. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. We recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557. Additionally, aggregate base materials should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557. We suggest that consideration be given to using Portland cement concrete pavements in areas where dumpsters will be stored and where refuse trucks will stop and load. Experience indicates that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of AC sections. We recommend that in these areas, 7 inches of 600 pounds per square inch (psi) flexural strength Portland cement concrete reinforced with No. 4 bars, 18-inches on center, be placed over 6 inches or more of aggregate base materials compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent. 8.9 Corrosion Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the on-site earth materials to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with CT 643 and the sulfate and Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 24 chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated electrical resistivities of 780 and 870 ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm), soil pH of 7.4 and 7.5, chloride contents of 55 and 295 ppm, and sulfate contents between 0.011 and 0.058 percent (i.e., 110 and 580 ppm). Based on a comparison with the Caltrans corrosion (2018) criteria and our experience with similar soils, the on-site soils would be classified as corrosive. Corrosive soils are defined as soil with an electrical resistivity equal to or less than 1,100 ohm-cm, a chloride content more than 500 ppm, more than 0.15 percent sulfates (1,500 ppm), and/or a pH less than 5.5. 8.10 Concrete Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water-soluble sulfates that can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. As noted, the soil sample tested in this evaluation indicated water-soluble sulfate contents between 0.011 and 0.058 percent by weight (i.e., 110 and 580 ppm). Based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 criteria, the site soils would correspond to exposure class S0. For this exposure class, ACI 318 recommends that normal weight concrete in contact with soil possess a compressive strength of 2,500 pounds psi or more. Furthermore, due to the potential for variability of site soils, we also recommend that normal weight concrete in contact with soil use Type II, II/V, or V cement. 9 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading. The owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should attend to discuss the plans, the project, and the proposed construction schedule. 10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of observed conditions in widely spaced exploratory borings. If conditions are found to vary from those described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Ninyo & Moore should perform the needed observation and testing services during construction operations. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 25 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that it is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that the selected consultant provide the client and Ninyo & Moore with a Division of the State Architect (DSA) 109 form indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in this report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials. 11 LIMITATIONS The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials. This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per- form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 26 Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole risk. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 27 12 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10. Building News, 2018, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Publications. California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018, Corrosion Guidelines (Version 3.0), Division of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated March. California Emergency Management Agency (California EMA), 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Oceanside Quadrangle, San Luis Rey Quadrangle: dated June 1. California Geological Survey (CGS), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: dated February. California Geological Survey (CGS), 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California: Map Sheet 48. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Earthquake Shaking Potential for California (revised): Map Sheet 48. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2013, Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings: Note 48: dated October. City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad), 2015, Carlsbad General Plan, dated September. CivilTech Software, 2008, LiquefyPro (Version 5.5j), A Computer Program for Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2001, Information Advisory – Clean Import Fill Material, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/Schools/index.cfm: dated October. Geotracker website, 2019, www.geotracker.waterboards,ca.gov: accessed in July. Google Earth, 2019, https://www.google.com/earth/. Harden, D.R., 2004, California Geology, 2nd ed.: Prentice Hall, Inc. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2 added in 1999. Historic Aerials website, 2019, www.historicaerials.com: accessed in July. Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Geological Survey, California Geological Map Series, Map No. 6. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 28 Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, Scale 1:100,000. LPA Design Studio, 2019, Base Case Site Plan, Kelly Elementary School Modernization, Job Number 1828310. Ninyo & Moore, In-house Proprietary Data. Ninyo & Moore, 2019, Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, Kelly Elementary School Modernization and New Construction, 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California, Proposal No. 108741000: dated June 11. Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. SANGIS, 2009, Draft – Liquefaction County of San Diego Hazard Mitigation Planning Map. Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2019, U.S. Seismic Design Maps website, https://seismicmaps.org/: Accessed in July. Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. eds. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Plate A, Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles: California Geological Survey, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, Open-File Report 95-04. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, American Society of Civil Engineering Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861-878. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Aerial Photograph, Date April 11, 1953, Flight AXN-8M, Numbers 101 and 102, Scale 1:20,000. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual. United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2019, FEMA Mapping Information Platform, World Wide Web, https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/: accessed in July. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters, World Wide Web, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm/. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2018, San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000. Woodward-Clyde-Sherrard & Associates, 1967, Soil Investigation for the Proposed Elementary School at Kelly Drive and Hillside Drive, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 67-156, dated June 30. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 29 Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcusson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering: American Society of Civil Engineering 124(10), pp. 817-833. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 30 Appendix A Photograph hic Documentation FIGURES Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 1_108741005_SL.mxd 8/21/2019 JDLNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPO, 2019 SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1 !o 0 1,500 3,000 FEET SITE "!"^$ §¨¦8 §¨¦15§¨¦5 §¨¦805 MAP INDEX San Diego County"" 108741005 | 8/19 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA H illside D r %%%%@A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A @A B-1 TD=51.5 B-2 TD=71.5 B-3 TD=71.5 B-4 TD=5.5 B-5 TD=51.5 B-6 TD=20.0 B-7 TD=5.0 9 08 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3070207060808030302030 2_108741005_BL.mxd 8/21/2019 JDLNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: LPA DESIGN STUDIOS, UNDATED; TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION CONTOURS - NOAA, 2019 BORING LOCATIONS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 !o 0 100 200 FEET FIGURE 2 A A' B B' BORING TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET CROSS SECTION @A B-7 TD=5.0 %%B B' LEGEND INDEX ELEVATION CONTOUR INTERMEDIATE ELEVATION CONTOUR 90 3_108741005_G.mxd 7/16/2019 JDLTsa NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: KENNEDY, M.P., TAN,, 2007, GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30X60-MINUTE QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA SITE "GEOLOGY !o 0 1,500 3,000 FEET FIGURE 3 LEGEND Mzu 108741005 | 8/19 Qop2-4Qop6-7 Qop6-7 Qvop12 Qvop13 Qvop10-11 Qvop10 Qvop13 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 FEET FIGURE 4 20 400 4 108741005 CS A-A'.DWG AOBKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 I 8/19 40 20 A A'ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)40 20 0 -20 -40 0 -20 -40 TD=71.5' B-2 (PROJECTED 20' NORTH) B-3 (PROJECTED 32' NORTH) EXISTING LUNCH SHELTER PROPOSED MPR BUILDING Qaf Qa CROSS SECTION B-B' TD=71.5' ??????? LEGEND Qaf FILL Qa ALLUVIUM GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN? B-3 TD=71.5' BORING TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET GROUNDWATER ELEVATION GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0 FEET FIGURE 5 20 400 5 108741005 CS B-B'.DWG AOB40 20 B B'ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)40 20 0 -20 -40 0 -20 -40 B-3 TD=71.5' B-1 TD=51.5' CROSS SECTION A-A' Qaf Qa LEGEND Qaf FILL Qa ALLUVIUM GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN? B-3 TD=71.5' BORING TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET PROPOSED MPR BUILDING ??? ????? KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 I 8/19 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION M E X I C O U S A Pacific Ocean N E V A D A C A LIF O R NI A S A N J A C IN T O E L S I N O R E I MPERI AL WHITTIERNEWP O R T-I N G L E W O O D CORONADOBANKSANDI EGOTROUGHS AN CL E ME N T ESANTAC R UZ-S A NTACATALINARIDGEPALOSV E R DES O F F S H O R E Z O N E O F D E F O R MA TIO N G A R L O C K CLEARWATER SANG A BRIEL SIERRAMADRE BANNING MISSION CREEK B L ACKWATE RH A R PE R LOCKHART L EN WOODC A M P R OC KCA L I C OLUDLOWPI SGAHB U L LI O NMOUNT AI NJ O HNS ONVA L L E Y E ME RS ON PIN TO MOUNTAIN M A N IX MIR A G E V ALLE Y N O R T H H E L E N DA L E FRONTAL CH I N OSAN JO S ECUCAMON GA MALIBU COAST S A N TA MONICA SAN CAYETANO SANTA SUSANASANTA ROSA N O RTHR I DG E C HARN OCK SAWPIT C AN Y O N SUPERSTITIO N H I L L SROS ECANYONNTAIN W H IT E W O L F SAN ANDREAS FAULT ZONE E IT O R EK BLUE CUT SALTON CREEK S A N A N D R E A S F A U L T Z O N EC O Y O T E C R E E K CLARK G L E N IV Y E A R T H Q U A K E V A L L E Y ELMORERANCHL A G U N A S A L A D ABRAWLEY SEI SMICZONESan Bernardino County Kern County Riverside County San Diego County Imperial County Los Angeles County Inyo County Tulare County Ventura County Orange County HOLOCENE ACTIVE CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY HISTORICALLY ACTIVE LATE QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE) STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE) SITE LEGEND 6_108741005_FL.mxd 8/19/2019 JDLNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. FAULT LOCATIONS FIGURE 6 !o 0 30 60 MILES SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2006, QUATERNARY FAULT AND FOLD DATABASE FOR THE UNITED STATES. CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 !!"KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA NOTES: GROUNDWATER BELOW BLOCK GROUNDWATER ABOVE BLOCK2. 1. P = 150p (D -d )2 2 lb/ft THRUST BLOCK d (VARIES) P Pp p D (VARIES) 3.ASSUMES BACKFILL IS GRANULAR MATERIAL 4.ASSUMES THRUST BLOCK IS ADJACENT TO COMPETENT MATERIAL 1 Pp2 pP = 1.3 ( D - d )[124.8 h + 58 ( D+d )] GROUNDWATER TABLE6. D, d AND h ARE IN FEET5. h lb/ft THRUST BLOCK LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FIGURE 7 Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants7_108741005_D-TB.DWG108741005 | 8/19 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA H+ APPP D PASSIVE PRESSURE ACTIVE PRESSURE DYNAMIC PRESSURE RESULTANT H/3 RESULTANT D/3 RETAINING WALL EP RESULTANT H/3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR YIELDING RETAINING WALLS FIGURE 8 Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants8_108741005_D-LEPY.DWG1. 2. BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SHOULD BE INSTALLED DRAINS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RETAINING3. RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS Equivalent Fluid Pressure (lb/ft /ft) Lateral Earth Pressure Level Backfill with Granular Soils 2 (1) (2)with Granular Soils 2H:1V Sloping Backfill(2) aP pP 300 D 125 D 47 H 82 H Level Ground 2H:1V Descending Ground 22 H H AND D ARE IN FEET7. SETBACK SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBC8. SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES6. OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED NOTES: ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BUILD-UP BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL GRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED FOR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL EP DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE IS BASED ON4. A PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION OF 0.47g AND ATIK AND SITAR (2010). RECOMMENDATIONS OF MONONOBE AND MATSUO (1929), P IS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 5.E 108741005 I 8/19 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA H+ oPPP D PASSIVE PRESSURE AT-REST PRESSURE DYNAMIC PRESSURE H/3 RESULTANT D/3 RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS Equivalent Fluid Pressure (lb/ft /ft) Lateral Earth Pressure Level Backfill with Granular Soils 2 (1) (2)with Granular Soils 2H:1V Sloping Backfill (2) OP PP 300 D 125 D 69 H 100 H Level Ground 2H:1V Descending Ground SLAB RESULTANT RETAINING WALL EP H/3 RESULTANT NOTES: ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BUILD-UP BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL 1. 2. BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SHOULD BE INSTALLED DRAINS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RETAINING3. H AND D ARE IN FEET5. SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES4. OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR RESTRAINED RETAINING WALLS FIGURE 9 Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants9_108741005_D-RRW.DWGGRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED FOR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 I 8/19 SOIL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION * OUTLET 4-INCH-DIAMETER PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN; 1% GRADIENT OR MORE TO A SUITABLE 3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC. 3 INCHES WALL FOOTING FINISHED GRADE RETAINING WALL 12 INCHES 12 INCHES VARIESGEOFABRIC *BASED ON ASTM D1557 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL FIGURE 10 Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants10_108741005_D-RW.DWGKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 I 8/19 APPENDIX A Boring Logs Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1⅜ inches. The sampler was driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488 Primary Divisions Secondary Divisions Group Symbol Group Name COARSE- GRAINED SOILS more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve GRAVEL more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve CLEAN GRAVEL less than 5% fines GW well-graded GRAVEL GP poorly graded GRAVEL GRAVEL with DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with GRAVEL with FINES more than 12% fines GM silty GRAVEL GC clayey GRAVEL GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL SAND 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve CLEAN SAND less than 5% fines SW well-graded SAND SP poorly graded SAND SAND with DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay SAND with FINES more than 12% fines SM silty SAND SC clayey SAND SC-SM silty, clayey SAND FINE- GRAINED SOILS 50% or more passes No. 200 sieve SILT and CLAY liquid limit less than 50% INORGANIC CL lean CLAY ML SILT CL-ML silty CLAY ORGANIC OL (PI > 4)organic CLAY OL (PI < 4)organic SILT SILT and CLAY liquid limit 50% or more INORGANIC CH fat CLAY MH elastic SILT ORGANIC OH (plots on or above “A”-line)organic CLAY OH (plots below “A”-line)organic SILT Highly Organic Soils PT Peat USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION Apparent Density - Coarse-Grained Soil Apparent Density Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer SPT (blows/foot) Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot) SPT (blows/foot) Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot) Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5 Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14 Medium Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42 Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70 Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70 Consistency - Fine-Grained Soil Consis-tency Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer SPT (blows/foot) Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot) SPT (blows/foot) Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot) Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2 Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3 Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6 Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13 Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26 Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26 LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %0 10 107 4 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MH or OH ML or OLCL - ML Plasticity Chart Grain Size Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size Boulders > 12”> 12”Larger than basketball-sized Cobbles 3 - 12”3 - 12”Fist-sized to basketball-sized Gravel Coarse 3/4 - 3”3/4 - 3”Thumb-sized to fist-sized Fine #4 - 3/4”0.19 - 0.75”Pea-sized to thumb-sized Sand Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19”Rock-salt-sized to pea-sized Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079”Sugar-sized to rock-salt-sized Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017”Flour-sized to sugar-sized Fines Passing #200 < 0.0029”Flour-sized and smaller CH or OH CL or OL 0 5 10 15 20 XX/XX SM CL Bulk sample. Modified split-barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler. Sample retained by others. Standard Penetration Test (SPT). No recovery with a SPT. Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. Continuous Push Sample. Seepage. Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after drilling. MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL): Solid line denotes unit change. Dashed line denotes material change. Attitudes: Strike/Dipb: Bedding c: Contactj: Joint f: FractureF: Fault cs: Clay Seams: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surfacesf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zonesbs: Shear Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring. BORING LOG Explanation of Boring Log Symbols PROJECT NO.DATE FIGUREDEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET Updated Nov. 2011 BORING LOG 20 0 10 20 30 40 4 15 12 8 10 4 11 18.2 17.5 104.2 109.3 GP CL SC CL SC SM SC SC SP SM CL SM ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick. AGGREGATE BASE:Gray, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 10 inches thick. FILL:Yellowish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Gray, moist, very loose, silty SAND. Dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND. ALLUVIUM:Yellow, moist, loose, clayey SAND. @ 15': Groundwater encountered. Wet. Yellow, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND; medium to coarse sand. Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND; trace clay. Grayish brown, wet, firm, lean CLAY. Yellowish gray, wet, medium dense, silty SAND. FIGURE A- 1 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-1 GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 40 50 60 70 80 5 20 28 SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Yellow, wet, loose, silty SAND. Medium dense. Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 15 feet during drilling. Backfilled with approximately 17.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/12/19. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 2 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-1 GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 0 10 20 30 40 5 9 4 7 2 9 8 24.8 96.3 SM SM CL SC ML SM SP-SC SW-SM ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick. BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; approximately 6 inches thick. FILL:Light gray and yellowish brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND. ALLUVIUM:Grayish brown, moist, firm, lean CLAY. Yellow, moist, loose, clayey SAND. Yellow, moist, medium dense, sandy SILT. @ 14': Groundwater encountered.Yellow, wet, loose, silty SAND. Yellowish gray, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND with clay. Yellowish gray, wet, very loose, well graded SAND with silt. Medium dense. FIGURE A- 3 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-2 GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 40 50 60 70 80 26 5 9 27 32 37 22 SW-SM SM SC SM CL ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Light gray, wet, dense, well graded SAND with silt. Grayish brown, wet, loose, silty SAND. Yellowish gray, wet, medium dense, clayey SAND. Dense. Yellowish gray, wet, very dense, silty SAND. Yellowish gray and grayish brown, wet, hard, lean CLAY. Total Depth = 71.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 14 feet during drilling. Backfilled with approximately 24.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/01/19. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 4 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-2 GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 0 10 20 30 40 16 6 17 10 16 15 15 18.2 104.5 SM SM CL SC CL SC SM ML SP SM ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick. BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; approximately 8 inches thick. FILL:Gray, moist, loose, silty SAND.Gray, moist, firm, lean CLAY. ALLUVIUM:Grayish brown and dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Gray, moist, very stiff, lean CLAY. Dark gray, moist, loose, clayey SAND. @ 10': Groundwater encountered. Wet. Yellow; medium dense. Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND. Yellow, wet, medium dense, sandy SILT. Yellow, wet, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; medium sand. Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND; trace lenses of clayey sand. Medium to coarse sand. FIGURE A- 5 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-3 GROUND ELEVATION 28' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 40 50 60 70 80 31 30 18 24 9 6 24 SM SP ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Yellow, wet, dense, silty SAND. Medium dense. Trace clay. Light gray, wet, dense, poorly graded SAND. Medium dense. Loose; fine sand. Dense. Total Depth = 71.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet during drilling. Backfilled with approximately 24.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/01/19. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 6 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-3 GROUND ELEVATION 28' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 0 10 20 30 40 GP SC SM ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3-1/2 inches thick. AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 4 inches thick. FILL:Yellow, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND. Yellow, moist, medium dense, silty SAND. Total Depth = 5.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 7 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-4 GROUND ELEVATION 31' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 4" Diameter Hand Auger (Manual) DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 1 0 10 20 30 40 27 3 7 8 22 9 14 13.3 116.8 GP CL SC SC SM SP SM ML SM ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick. AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 6 inches thick. FILL:Grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Yellowish gray, moist, loose, clayey SAND.Grayish brown; medium dense. ALLUVIUM:Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND. Very loose. @ 15': Groundwater encountered. Wet.Yellow, wet, loose, silty SAND. Medium dense. Yellow, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND. Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND. Yellowish brown, wet, medium dense, sandy SILT. Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND. FIGURE A- 8 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-5 GROUND ELEVATION 30' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 40 50 60 70 80 17 22 12 SM CL SM SC ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND. Yellowish brown, wet, stiff, lean CLAY. Yellow, wet, dense, silty SAND. Yellow, wet, medium dense, clayey SAND. Total Depth = 51.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 15 feet during drilling. Backfilled with approximately 17.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 9 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-5 GROUND ELEVATION 30' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 2 0 10 20 30 40 8 19 7 2 14.4 116.8 GP CL SC CL SP ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 5-1/2 inches thick. AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 4 inches thick. FILL:Dark grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND. Dark gray. ALLUVIUM:Yellow, moist, stiff, lean CLAY. @ 18': Groundwater encountered.Yellow, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND. Total Depth = 20 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 18 feet during drilling. Backfilled with approximately 6.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 10 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-6 GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Manual) (Baja Exploration) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30" SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 1 0 10 20 30 40 SC SM SC CL ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3-1/2 inches thick. FILL:Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Gray, moist, loose, silty SAND.Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY. Total Depth = 5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents. FIGURE A- 11 KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 |8/19DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-7 GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF METHOD OF DRILLING 4" Diameter Hand Auger (Manual) DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT 1 APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 through B-9. The test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS. 200 Wash An evaluation of the percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve in selected soil samples was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results of the tests are presented on Figure B-10. Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure B-11. Direct Shear Test A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The sample was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figure B-12. Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of this testing are presented on Figure B-13. Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | August 21, 2019 2 Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with CT 643. The sulfate and chloride contents of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure B-14. R-Value The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils were evaluated in general accordance with CT 301. A sample was prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. The equilibrium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test results are shown on Figure B-15. Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 B-1 25.0-26.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 15 Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-1 108741005_SIEVE B-1 @ 25.0-26.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 B-1 40.0-41.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 15 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-2 108741005_SIEVE B-1 @ 40.0-41.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 B-2 20.0-21.5 -- -- -- 0.11 0.28 SP-SC0.58 5.2 1.2 7 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-3 108741005_SIEVE B-2 @ 20.0-21.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 B-2 25.0-26.5 -- -- -- 0.09 0.27 SW-SM0.59 6.9 1.5 9 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-4 108741005_SIEVE B-2 @ 25.0-26.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 B-3 15.0-16.5 -- -- -- -- -- SC-- -- -- 29 Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-5 108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 15.0-16.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 Passing No. 200 (%) GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Fine Sample Location CcCu 100 Depth (ft)D30D10 16 USCS B-3 20.0-21.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- D60 Liquid Limit -- 36 SM 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-6 108741005_SIEVE+HYDRO B-3 @ 20.0-21.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 B-3 30.0-31.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 16 Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-7 108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 30.0-31.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 B-3 35.0-36.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 14 Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-8 108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 35.0-36.5.xlsx Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY 3" 2"¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 B-3 50.0-51.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 25 Sample Location 100 D10 16 200 Passing No. 200 (percent) Cc GRAVEL SAND FINES Symbol Plasticity Index Plastic Limit Liquid Limit 1½" 1" Depth (ft)D30 Cu USCSD60 Fine 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-9 108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 50.0-51.5.xlsx PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140 Lean CLAY CL30.0-31.5B-1 USCSSAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 4 DESCRIPTION (TOTAL SAMPLE) 100 89 NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-10 108741005_200-WASH B-1 @ 30.0-31.5.xlsx NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318 USCS (Fraction Finer Than NP NPB-2 B-2 45.0-46.5 No. 40 Sieve) PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION 5.0-6.5 2040 USCS CL SM CL NP NP 20 SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT CH or OH CL or OL MH or OH ML or OLCL - ML 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 102030405060708090100110120PLASTICITY INDEX, PI LIQUID LIMIT, LL FIGURE B-11 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 108741005_ATTERBERG Page 1.xlsx PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080 Silty SAND X Ultimate5.0-6.5B-1 Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (degrees)Soil Type SM28 28 110 SM Description Symbol Sample Location 120 Depth (ft) Shear Strength 5.0-6.5Silty SAND B-1 Peak 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000SHEAR STRESS (PSF)NORMAL STRESS (PSF) FIGURE B-12 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 108741005_DIRECT SHEAR B-1 @ 5.0-6.5.xlsx PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH Very Low20.1 0.015 1510.5 107.4 B-5 B-6 1.0-1.5 POTENTIAL EXPANSION FINAL MOISTURE (percent) VOLUMETRIC SWELL (in) SAMPLE LOCATION B-1 SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) 3.0-5.0 INITIAL MOISTURE (percent) COMPACTED DRY DENSITY (pcf) EXPANSION INDEX 117.6 110.4 21.2 8.0 10.01.0-5.0 0.015 0.012 17.4 15 12 Very Low Very Low UBC STANDARD 18-2 ASTM D 4829 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-13 108741005_EXPANSION Page 1.xlsx 1 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643 2 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 3 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422 580 B-3 2.5-5.0 870B-5 CHLORIDE CONTENT 3 (ppm) pH 1SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE LOCATION RESISTIVITY 1 (ohm-cm) 7.4 55 295 780 110 0.011 0.0581.0-1.5 7.5 SULFATE CONTENT 2 (ppm) (%) CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-14 108741005_CORROSIVITY Page 1.xlsx PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2844/CT 301 12Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)1.5-3.0B-1 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (ft)SOIL TYPE R-VALUE R-VALUE TEST RESULTS KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION 4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 108741005 | 8/19 FIGURE B-15 108741005_RVTABLE1.xlsx Ninyo & Moore | Imperial Avenue Bikeway, San Diego, California | 108478004 | October 22, 2018 5710 Ruffin Road | San Diego, California 92123 | p. 858.576.1000 ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH www.ninyoandmoore.com